read the link
Revealed during a week the progressive bias of Facebook’s top staff has come under intense scrutiny, the thesis suggests that the upper echelons of the company may be even more radically progressive than previously believed.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg indicated last week that he would be reaching out to influential conservativesafter it was revealed that the site was ignoring and deprioritising conservative news sources.
Breitbart executive chairman Stephen K. Bannon and editor-in-chief Alex Marlowresponded that they weren’t interested in a “photo op” but wanted “transparency and the truth” from the social network. Instead, Breitbart challenged Mark Zuckerberg to a public debate on camera with me.
Sheryl Sandberg’s senior thesis, overseen by former Clinton staffer Larry Summers, might suggest why Facebook has developed a problem with conservatives. It provides a rare insight into the psychology and politics of a senior executive at one of the most powerful tech companies in the world.
In the thesis, Sandberg uses bizarre, discredited statistics and fashionable but shaky arguments about the “pervasive influence of the patriarchy” to explain domestic violence. The full thesis can be read below.
The Facebook COO appears to have wholly bought in to feminist pseudo-statistics, making the extraordinary claim that 95 percent of domestic violence victims are female. The true ratio of male to female domestic violence victims is now known to be far more even, with meta-analyses of over 200 studies showing a rough gender symmetry in domestic violence.
Sandberg can’t be excused by the date of publication (1991). By then, researchers had long been aware that men and women abused each other on a roughly equal basis. By 1988, this research had already been published in mainstream journals.
At one point in the thesis, Sandberg does acknowledges male victims, noting that she does “not mean to imply that men are not also subjected to acts of violence by their partner,” but later goes on to approvingly cite an argument from two academics – without evidence – that “by and large” most women who attacked men did so “to defend themselves.”
In the thesis, provided to Breitbart News by journalist Charles Johnson, Sandberg makes it clear that men, “traditional attitudes” and “western society” are the driving forces behind domestic violence. “Intimate violence is not only fostered by traditional attitudes towards marriage, but by the hierarchical, male-dominant nature of Western society” writes Sandberg.
She does not find space to compare the state of women in the Islamic world with their peers in Europe and the United States.
“The pervasive influence of patriarchy in society has resulted in the widespread acceptance of the ideology of male dominance,” Sandberg writes.
With growing awareness about the hidden epidemic of male domestic violence victims, male users of Facebook – particularly those affected by domestic abuse themselves – may be concerned that such a high-ranking member of the company apparently believes them to be in such a tiny minority.
Those seeking to understand the achingly right-on progressive politics at Facebook will be reading Sandberg’s thesis today with keen interest.
We reached out to Facebook requesting a comment from Sheryl Sandberg. Facebook’s Director of Strategic Communications Anne Kornblut responded: “This was a college paper written over 25 years ago. It’s amusing — or maybe sad — that anyone would try to take lines and footnotes from this 90+-page paper and use them out of context.
“And it’s too bad that more people in 2016 aren’t concerned about domestic violence and its victims – women and well as men.”
Just like every other bastion of tradition and masculinity, the military is under attack by the forces of progressivism. The military is by its very nature masculine, hierarchical, and undemocratic, as it must be to succeed in its core business of engaging with and killing the enemy. This also makes it a target.
Of all our institutions, the military is the one which has best resisted progressivism, in large part because of the nature of the job. One does not simply turn up and demand equality in the military. Incoming does not discriminate.
However the military is ultimately a servant of the political classes, and this is where the pressure to bow to feminism originates. Everywhere they go women moan, demand special treatment, and undermine hierarchy. This has happened to the military and sadly there is not enough will remaining today to resist it, as we have seen with the recent humiliating sight of soldiers walking in high heels.
Unless there is some change in leadership this can only get worse.
“Why invite the potential headaches of teaching a lesbian graphic novel in a religious institution?” asks Professor Scott A. Dimowitz in an essay published in an academic anthology this month. “In the course of several iterations of a class on Literary Feminism that I teach at Regis University, a Jesuit school in Denver, Colorado, I have used Alison Bechdel’s Fun Home: A Family Tragicomic and selections from her long-running comic strip, Dykes to Watch Out For to explain postmodern life narratives that incorporate nontraditional matter and a nodding acquaintance with Roman Catholic Church doctrine.”
Perhaps the disclosure of Professor Dimowitz’s curriculum is shocking to some alumni of Regis University and to Catholics who don’t realize how “postmodern life narratives,” including feminist gender theory, now pervade academia. As I previously explained (“Introduction to Feminist Theory”), “there are very good reasons why the proceedings in Women’s Studies courses are generally not discussed outside the classroom.” If parents and alumni were aware of what was being taught in these programs, and if voters understood how taxpayer subsidies to higher education are helping fund such ideological indoctrination on campus, we might expect a political firestorm to erupt. One can easily imagine a congressional committee hearing on what Professor Glenn Reynolds has called The Higher Education Bubble, where the “Your Tax Dollars At Work” aspect of this nonsense could be exposed to public scrutiny.
There are now Women’s Studies programs at some 700 U.S. colleges and universities, enrolling more than 90,000 students annually, and these programs are the intellectual command centers of the Feminist-Industrial Complex. Many thousands of professors are employed to teach courses in this interdisciplinary field. Carmen Rios, the self-described “raging lesbian feminist” who is Communications Coordinator at the Feminist Majority Foundation, has explained:
Is it Gender Studies? Women’s Studies? Women’s And Gender Studies? Sexuality Studies? Gender and Sexuality Studies? LGBT Studies? Queer Studies? Feminist Studies? . . . Women’s Studies remains an interdisciplinary field, making its name all the more difficult to decide on. Is it Women’s History and Theory, or is the program really Lesbo Recruitment 101?
She said that, not me. Regis University describes its program:
Women’s and Gender Studies examines the intersections of gender, race, and class, and also considers how gender roles are constructed in different global cultures and historical periods. Women have made important contributions in traditionally defined “male pursuits” (politics, science, art, etc.) Although traditionally understudied, women’s experiences and participation have led to the reexamination of long-held interpretations and conventional wisdoms in a wide variety of academic fields. Uniting all women and gender studies inquiries is the effort to understand and explain inequality between men and women, and to envision the possibility of new social practices that could bring about greater equality, mutual understanding, and human flourishing.
And also, lesbian comic books. Professor Dimowitz explains that he teaches Bechdel’s cartoons because this helps “defamiliarize traditional linguistic life narratives and form a uniquely productive site of tension and destabilization of students’ assumptions about gender, sexuality, and the very nature of what constitutes aesthetic merit, which few of the other traditional texts were able to achieve to the same extent.”
Exactly how does all this relate to the aims of a Catholic university?Professor Dimowitz is eager to explain:
To be clear about my own position . . . I was raised in a particularly strict form of Pennsylvanian, Croatian-immigrant Roman Catholicisim. . . . Years later I find myself teaching Catholic students, although Regis is a Jesuit university and Jesuits have always been more of a distinctly unconventional form of Catholicism. . . . As a specialist in postmodern literature and gender studies, I have an investment in engaging students in open discussions about representations of gender and sexuality in contemporary literature and culture.
Hmmm. So now the professor talks about his Literary Feminism class:
The course is offered as part of Regis University’s Integrative Core Curriculum, which was established in 2009, seeking to integrate juniors’ and seniors’ understanding of four key areas: (1) Diversity and Cultural Tradition, (2) Global Environmental Awareness, (3) Justice and the Common Good, and (4) The Search for Meaning. As a Diversity and Cultural Tradition course, Literary Feminism has two pragmatic goals, among others: (1) to introduce students to the idea of gender as a performative act, and (2) to understand the complexities and varieties of human sexual expression and representation. These goals reflect an overall tolerant approach to the study of gender and sexuality. . . .
So here we find the postmodern “idea of gender as a performative act,”i.e., the social construction of the gender binary within the heterosexual matrix. One wonders what would be the reaction to Professor Dimowitz’s recitation of all this academic jargon, if you could present it to the devout priests who established this university, originally called Sacred Heart College, in the 19th century? One wonders, indeed, what the Pope must think of this, considering how he has twice in recent months condemned gender theory. In an interview with Italian journalists Andrea Tornielli and Giacomo Galeazzi, Pope Francis compared gender theory to the doctrines of the Hitler Youth and, on April 15, Pope Francis described “so-called gender theory” as “an expression of frustration and resignation that aims to erase sexual differentiation because it no longer knows how to come to terms with it.” Anyone who expects Catholic institutions of higher education to heed the Pope and fight against the nihilistic doctrine of gender theory, however, will be disappointed to discover what Professor Dimowitz is teaching at Regis University:
This graphic nature of the form is clear throughout Bechdel’s 2006Fun Home: A Family Tragicomic, a darkly humorous coming-of-age memoir of Bechdel’s childhood growing up in a funeral home run by her father, a closeted homsexual who was also a high school English teacher with a penchant for seducing some of his male students.
(Feminist Literature is so wholesome and inspiring!)
The book cycles its meditations around the event of Bechdel’s father’s death, which she believes may have been a suicide. Juxtaposing her own coming out story as a lesbian against her father’s inability to lead an authentic existence. Bechdel in Fun Homemetanarratively meditates on the nature of life writing. . . . The book is frank about sexuality and blunt about her father’s statutory rapes of high school boys, and the text even includes several panels in which Bechdel recreated imagined scenes of seduction of these students. Bechdel struggles to understand her ambivalent responses to her father’s death while trying to unify a life narrative out of the fractured collage of documents and memories.
Again: Why is this being taught in a Catholic university? Do the parents who are paying $33,060 a year to send their children to Regis University have any clue what is being taught there? Does anyone even care?Professor Dimowitz says 70 percent of freshmen at Regis “self-identify as Roman Catholic.” However:
Many incoming students . . . have a rather cavalier attitude toward Church orthodoxy, which is part of an overall movement in contemporary attitudes. In America, especially, belief in strict Vatican law is clearly trending away from dogma. . . . According to a 2011 Pew survey of Americans, clear majorities “across most demographic groups say homosexuality should be accepted by society” and not discouraged or ignored (which are the two other categories). Interestingly, Catholics, in general, favor acceptance at 64 percent, which compares positively to the overall population’s acceptance, which is only 58 percent.
Here it should be pointed out that the choices Pew offered — whether homosexuality should be “accepted,” “ignored” or “discouraged” — omit other alternatives, particularly “tolerated,” i.e., an attitude somewhere in the range of “live and let live” or ‘who the hell cares?” This kind oftoleration of homosexuality has in fact been widespread in America for decades, even while gay activists have hyped up claims that America is gripped by “homophobia.” So, sure, given the three choices the Pew poll offered, most people would say “accepted,” particular because they know that’s the answer they’re supposed to choose. We return to Professor Dimowitz’s discussion:
This general trending toward acceptance [of homosexuality], especially among millennials, opens up a fertile space for dialogue with students of a traditional college age.
(Professor Dimowitz gets paid to have a “dialogue” about gayness with college kids, and he seems quite eager to do so.)
When asked in a survey, “How did you feel about our openly discussing homosexuality in a Catholic school?” the Regis students were overwhelmingly positive. . . . Of course, part of this positivity is perhaps a function of Regis University’s generally progressive Jesuit orientation, and the question might receive a different response from a far more conservative school.
The bottom line, then, is that Professor Dimowitz and the administration at Regis University are comfortable with the idea that moral issues should be determine by (a) public opinion polls, or (b) “progressive Jesuit orientation,” and certainly not by (c) that old-fashioned “Thou shalt not” stuff in the Bible. Any institutional resistance we might have expected Catholic educators to make against society’s drift toward nihilism has been swept away. A progressive devotion to radical egalitarianism (the heretical “liberation theology” that embraced Marxist revolutionary movements in Latin America during the 1980s) steadily replaces devotion to God at institutions like Regis University.
Until I started studying radical feminism, I never thought of “normal” as an achievement. “If you want to understand feminism, begin by studying abnormal psychology,” as I explain on page 18 of Sex Trouble: Essays on Radical Feminism and the War Against Human Nature. Perhaps no entirely sane person would ever sign up for a university Women’s Studies class, but if she did, it might permanently warp her mind.
Consider, for example, “Introduction to Feminist Theory” (GGS 228), a sophomore-level course in the Global Gender Studies program at the University of Buffalo. This is one of the “Core Curriculum” classesrequired of every student who wishes to major or minor in this subject, and here is the official course catalog description of what the 19-year-old sophomore will be taught in GGS 228:
Introduction To Feminist Theory
Introduces to the complexity of feminist thought and theorizing through a discussion of many of the major schools of feminist thought and past and present debates within feminist theorizing as it has developed both within the United States, and abroad. A solid grasp of the core theories, their fundamental approaches, their insights into social phenomenon and the key criticisms of each, will allow the student to enter into and participate in the ongoing conversations that characterizes feminist thought. Feminist theory has always developed in tandem with feminist movements and activism. Thus, throughout the course, students will not only learn about feminist theories, but also apply the tenets of different theories to current issues and modern problems. Theories are not meant to be passive ideas unrelated to our everyday reality, but are meant to be used as tools to analyze the world around us. As a critical theory, feminist theory aims not only to produce knowledge, but also to provide a base for action. Feminist theories ask us to rethink what we mean by sex and gender, how we understand our sexuality, the roles, status, and ideals assigned to men and women in our societies and how we reward and punish individuals that question, challenge or deviate from these roles. Feminist theory engages with issues of social inequality, oppression, and sexism, and invites us to imagine strategies for creating a world where there is more equality and liberation.
You see that feminist theory is not “passive ideas unrelated to our everyday reality,” and therefore what students learn in GGS 288 cannot be separated from “feminist movements and activism,” so that students are expected to “apply the tenets of different theories to current issues and modern problems.” Notice also that students are required “to rethink what we mean by sex and gender.” The professors in charge of these feminist indoctrination programs are invariably of a type Eric Hoffer called The True Believer, because only a devoted ideologue would get a Ph.D. in this stuff. So, which lunatic is in charge of this particular asylum? During the Spring 2015 semester at the University of Buffalo, GGS 288 was taught by Assistant Professor Christine Varnado:
Dr. Varnado teaches courses in sexuality and gender theory, literature and the humanities, and qualitative methodologies. She received her Ph.D. from Columbia’s department of English and Comparative Literature, combining a specialization in the drama and prose of the English Renaissance with focuses on queer theory and the histories of sexuality and gender. She is at work on a book project, The Shapes of Fancy: Queer Circulations of Desire in Early Modern Literature, which expands the category of what can be called queer desire beyond historical evidence of same-sex sexual practices, to modes of feeling and desiring (such as longing for impossible transformation, or being used) that have often been overlooked in the period, thereby exploring the queer potential of readerly identification and recognition for studying desire in other historical moments. An essay on what offstage and un-staged sex looks like, “Invisible Sex!” will appear in the upcoming collection Sex Before Sex: Figuring the Act in Early Modern Literature. She has been active in the Shakespeare Association of America, the Modern Languages Association, and the American Comparative Literature Association. Varnado’s other teaching and research interests include witchcraft and witch persecutions, performance theory, bodily sex and reproduction, ethnography and ritual in the trans-Atlantic sphere, death and memorialization, literary theory, and cultural studies.
To summarize, then, Professor Varnado is interested in queer theory, queer desire, queer potential and also witchcraft.
You know that Women’s Studies courses are taught to more than 90,000 students annually in programs at some 700 U.S. colleges and universities. You know this because those numbers are cited on page 29 of Sex Trouble, and you have read my book, haven’t you?
Knowing how many Women’s Studies programs exist, therefore, the reader may ask, “Stacy, what drew your attention to this particular course, taught by this particular professor, at this particular university?” Behold, the GGS228 Tumblr.com account:
The reader who clicks that link (and keeps scrolling) will discover that there are very good reasons why the proceedings in Women’s Studies courses are generally not discussed outside the classroom. There is a vast gulf between the esoteric doctrine and the exoteric discourse of feminism. What the True Believer must believe — e.g., the social construction of thegender binary within the heterosexual matrix — is not subject to debate within academia. Yet these ideas are so seldom discussed outsideacademia that whenever I attempt to explain feminist gender theory to people, the reaction is invariably the same: “They don’t really believe that stuff, do they?”
Oh, believe it they most certainly do! And if anyone at the University of Buffalo (or any other institution of higher education in America) does notbelieve feminist gender theory, they’re being awfully damned quiet about their dissent. Why? Because disagreeing with feminism makes you a sexist; any expression of dissent from feminist ideology could be used as “evidence” of discrimination under Title IX; therefore, no university administration can tolerate opposition to feminism on campus without risking a federal civil rights lawsuit.
By defining disagreement as hate, you see, feminists have effectively prohibited criticism within academia and banished opponents from campus. This is why students go berserk when someone like Christina Hoff Sommers appears at Oberlin College. Because criticizing feminism is quite nearly illegal in 21st-century academia, students have never encountered an articulate exposition of opposing viewpoints. Indoctrinated to consider feminist ideology as synonymous with Truth, Enlightenment and Virtue, students believe that only ignorant bigots can possibly disagree with them. Feminist consciousness makes them intellectually superior to others, as Professor Sandra Lee Bartky explained: “Feminist consciousness is consciousness of victimization . . . to come to see oneself as a victim.” Disagreeing with a feminist means you are supporting oppression by denying her victimhood.
Crazy? Sure, it’s crazy, but if every college-educated person is required to believe it, “insanity” becomes a synonym for “education.”
Please, go to the GGS 228 Tumblr.com account and keep scrolling. See what these students have to say about “patriarchy” and “heterosexuality”which, as readers of Sex Trouble know, are two ways to say the same thing: Women are oppressed because they are heterosexual (pp. 12-13), and women are heterosexual because they oppressed (p. 105). In feminist theory, males are only ever discussed as oppressors and rapists. No man is deserving of respect or admiration, nor can any man be trusted. What you find these University of Buffalo students saying on their Tumblr.com blog is exactly what feminists say in the quotes found on pp. 48-53 of Sex Trouble: Heterosexuality is imposed on women through “institutionalized force” (Kate Millett, 1970), “programming” (Andrea Dworkin, 1974), a “patriarchal system” of “sexual repression” (Ann Jones, 1990) and “male power” (Dianne Richardson, 2000). There is no reason, according to feminist theory, that any woman should ever find a man attractive or desirable as a romantic partner.
As she obtains feminist consciousness of her victimization, the student understands that, as Professor Joyce Trebilcot explained, patriarchy “depends on the ability of men to control women through heterosexuality” (quoted on p. 100 of Sex Trouble) and, oh, look, what is this? “Smash the Patriarchy,” says the GGS 228 Tumblr.
There is an old saying that if someone says “it’s not about the money,” you know it is about the money. Feminist theory’s substitution of the word “gender” for “sex,” by the same token, tells us: “It’s about the sex.” And what do you think students in GGS 288 learn about that?
The other day in class, discussing heterosexuality as dependent on romantic love ideals and how it fails to address many of the evils behind it (i.e. rape, domestic violence, possession, etc.), made me wonder about all the hopeless romantic movies I have fallen in love with over the course of my 19 years and really reevaluate why I actually liked this certain genre. I do believe that it is because at a very young age, we are socially conditioned to admire those types of movies, and the reoccuring idea of heterosexual love, that of a strong aggressive man sweeping the damsel in distress off her feet in order to save her from whatever she is “distressed” about, without a second thought about any other types of love, such as lesbian , gay, bi, etc.
I can’t help but wonder that if at, lets say the age of 4, instead of Pocahontas falling in love with John Smith, she finds herself deeply in love with her best friend Nakoma, or a spin off The Lion King revolving around Timon and Pumbaa’s love affair, we would certainly think nothing of it, similar to the way we view heterosexuality and all the movies that portray it. If we had in fact, grew up with this type of cinema as the norm, then I do believe many of us would reevaluate why we are heterosexual, or why we thinkwe are.
Thus said a University of Buffalo sophomore in September 2014,, andanother student in the same class was even more explicit:
Walking out of Feminist Theory on Wednesday I heard someone whisper to a classmate something along the lines, “… every time I walk out of this class I just become more sexually confused!” Evidently, what she said was meant to be humorous, but I couldn’t agree more with what she was really trying to say.
By taking Gender Studies classes, we are all very fortunate to see the world from a different, gendered lens. Sure, learning about different types of feminism and how gender effects our daily lives are incredibly important and relevant subjects, but the more I seem to learn, the more I question how the person I am today seems to be merely product of socialization.
Although I don’t agree entirely with radical feminist thought, it undoubtedly transmits revolutionary ideas that lead us to engage in introspection. This week I have definitely been looking back on instances or practices that could have possibly socialized me to be who I am today – which has proven to be very unsuccessful.
I am, and will always be, a feminist… but how are we supposed to get anywhere successfully if we can’t even agree [or in my case even understand] the roots of the problem(s) we face?
Both of these students were quoted verbatim, typos and all, with the emphases in the original. Students complain they “become more sexually confused,” as they are taught that their sexual identity and orientation are “socially conditioned” by “romantic love ideals.” Remember that, as the course description for GGS 228 explains, “feminist theory aims not only to produce knowledge, but also to provide a base for action.”
What kind of “base for action” is provided when teenagers are taught thatheterosexuality is synonymous with “rape, domestic violence, possession, etc.”? What feminist action might be inspired by teaching college sophomores an ideology that never speaks of males except as dangerous, untrustworthy, violent oppressors? Gosh, I just don’t know.
Within academia, no one can criticize these radical ideas because campus feminists use terroristic tactics to silence dissent. If you dare contradict their totalitarian anti-male hate propaganda, they will accuse you by name of “perpetuating rape culture.”
What is the connection between Schwyzer and Sarkeesian you ask? Let’s just take a look at this blog post from Schwyzer’s blog in mid-2012.
“If you like the look of this blog, thank Anita Sarkeesian, who designed it and helped me launch this made-over site last summer. Anita is far more than a web designer, however; she runs the indispensable Feminist Frequency, which provides intelligent, thoughtful progressive commentary on popular culture. But in the past month, Anita has been under relentless attack online[…] Both she and I have found ourselves at the center of controversy this year, albeit for different reasons. Yet the real difference is in how each of us has been treated by those who despise us most…” (Emphasis my own) His blog post here should shine a light on their professional connection
So, as a person labeled as a “shit-slinger,” I’d at least like to go down as a factual shit-slinger. Therefore, I’d like to bring up some prior associations in regards to Anita Sarkeesian. To those unaware of the other name next to Anita’s in the title, let me introduce you Jezebel’s own Hugo Schwyzer. Professor and ex-writer for Jezebel, Hugo Schwyzer is a name we’re not too familiar with nowadays. Well, that’s because Mr. Schwyzer had a little (large) fall from grace in the last year or so.
For those unaware, “Schwyzer became the subject of controversy when he admitted to sleeping with his female students, having sex with men and women, and ongoing problems with substance addiction including attempting to kill himself and his ex-girlfriend while under the influence of narcotics in 1998”. Ouch. Sleeping with students, silencing people of color (look up his involvement in the hashtag SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen), crashing into and injuring a young woman. man this guy sounds like a real class act. Indeed, hubris seems to be a common trait among those that claim moral authority over us. Whether it be televangelists or social justice bloggers, this seems to be a unifying trait among the morally just. Websites such as Feministe, Jezebel, and Pandagon, who once praised and openly associated with Schwyzer quickly distanced themselves from him. His writing was taken off ofScarleteen, a resource on teen sexual health, and he left Healthy is the New Skinny, an organization co-founded and directed by Schwyzer. Why am I talking about this now-nobody? This “shit-slinger” from the other side of the fence? Well, it is important to remember him as the divisive figure he was in feminism.
I’d like to take an excerpt from “Why do some feminist spaces tolerate male abusers?,” a post on the Globalcomment.com to give some context of the environment of Schwyzer’s position in the feminist community.
“What role, if any, should men with a history of abuse of women have in feminism? This question is at the heart of ongoing debates in the feminist blogosphere over Hugo Schwyzer, a professor of gender studies and male feminist personality. A close examination of Schwyzer’s record calls into serious question both his narrative of personal transformation and his current credibility as a feminist leader. This raises the question of why Schwyzer was allowed access to feminist leadership roles at all, much less for so long, but also points to broader, entrenched issues around male allies, racism and white privilege, and safe spaces for abuse survivors in the feminist movement.”
One part that spoke to me was this part though,
“The narrative of personal redemption that Schwyzer sells is one that’s uniquely available to him as white man. A man of color with years of illegal drug use and the attempted murder of a woman on his record would quite possibly be in jail, and certainly not as feted as Schwyzer is by certain white feminists.”
Please, feel free to read more, it is very enlightening. Though I don’t agree with many of the views espoused by the post, it’s an interesting read nonetheless. However, my point being is that he was quite a divisive figure within the feminist community.
Now, I’m well aware of the association fallacy, strawman, and ad hominem attacks, because we’ve had this flung at us for a couple of weeks now. We’ve been lumped together with harassers, misogynists, bigots, and right-wingers. Furthermore, we’ve been demeaned and outright shunned, compared to birthers, ISIS, the Klan etc. However, media and anti-GG crowd have proven that all is fair in war (though, they seem to have forgotten “love,” which is off limits when it involves one of their own). However, I’d like to ask Anita Sarkeesian, why would you work with and actively enable a self-confessed attempted-murderer and abuser of both people and authority? Not to merely associate with, but to actively improve the pulpit on which this man stood. Why would you work with this true shit-slinger, Hugo Schwyzer. Well, I’ll wager it’s because he had something to give you. A word that I have come to loathe in the past few years, those devilish two words we know as “signal boost.”
In addition to sleeping with his students – occasionally in his office on campus – as recently as 2011, Schwyzer was also exchanging sexts with a 27-year-old porn star. He also acknowledged that he used his class as an means to have sex with porn stars — tweeting that he had fantasized about having public sex with Deen in his classroom — and wrote that he was a hypocrite for writing an Atlantic article condemning age-disparate relationships while sleeping with a woman fourteen years his junior at the same time.
Perhaps yesterday’s discussion of academic feminism — “The Feminist-Industrial Complex: Academia and the Means of Production” — was one of those “TL:DR” experiences for you. Certainly, when I stretch it out to 3,600 words, with lengthy quotations from Queer Theory scholars, I understand that many readers will skip out after a few paragraphs.
The reader’s irritated impatience (“What’s the point here?”) got an unexpectedly quick answer from the latest headlines:
A students’ union has been accused of racism and sexism afterbanning white people and men from an event to promote equality.
Those studying at Goldsmiths, University of London, were invited to the students’ union meeting to discuss ‘diversifying the curriculum’.
But they were shocked when an organiser told white people and men ‘not to come’ as it was only open to BME [black and minority ethnic] women.
The union eventually backed down after a backlash from students, one of whom described the exclusive policy as ‘patronising beyond belief’.
The event, held on Wednesday, was organised by welfare and diversity officer Bahar Mustafa, who said she hoped to persuade academics to broaden courses to include more material relating to minority groups.
The Centre for Feminist Research (CFR) provides a coordinating hub for feminist work at Goldsmiths. In addition to organising seminars and conferences, the CFR offers a symbolic and intellectual home for the MA in Gender, Media and Culture, co-convened by the Departments of Media & Communications and Sociology. . . .
By ‘feminist research’ we include any work that is informed by an active engagement with feminist intellectual debates, and any research that investigates questions of power, inequality and difference including race, class, disability as well as gender and sexuality. . . .
Ideas Have Consequences, as Richard Weaver warned, and Cultural Marxism is an idea whose influence pervades academia. When the primary object of intellectual endeavor is “research that investigates questions of power, inequality and difference,” you can be sure that no one will be permitted to express skepticism and dissent about this unmistakably political agenda. Once doubt and opposition have been excluded, so that only True Believers are permitted to participate in the discussion, the university is no longer engaged in education, but rather indoctrination. The employment of intellectual totalitarians like Sara Ahmed in positions of authority is a signifier — a sort of dye marker — advertising the University of London’s hostility to freedom of thought.
Is anyone therefore surprised to discover that “diversity officer” Bahar Mustafa is a crypto-fascist thug?
Translation: “Disagreement is hate!”
The Feminist-Industrial Complex is based in academia where it is protected by “anti-discrimination” policies that have the effect of prohibiting dissent from feminist ideology. Inside the campus cocoon, particularly within Women’s Studies programs, students and faculty alike never have to encounter articulate disagreement with the fanatical certainty of their belief system:
Whether they are speaking of “male supremacy” or “sexism,” whether the immediate object of their indignation is “rape culture,” “harassment” or the “objectification” of women in media, always the fundamental premise of the feminist argument is this systemic, historical and universal oppression of women. What we might call the Patriarchal Thesis is really an extraordinary assertion, requiring us to believe that there are no natural differences between men and women. Rather, everything we consider to be “natural” in terms of human traits and behavior — the masculinity of males and the femininity of females — is socially constructed by the gender binaryof the heterosexual matrix.
From her podium in Dye Lecture Hall, Christina Hoff Sommers, an author, former philosophy professor and self-proclaimed “freedom feminist,” attempted, amid protesters and dissenting audience members, to persuade Oberlin students that feminism has become too radicalized. She was invited to campus on Monday night by the Oberlin College Republicans and Libertarians . . .
Before Sommers arrived at Dye Lecture Hall, protesters covered the venue with signs criticizing her beliefs and the event. One sign read “Support Survivors,” referring to survivors of sexualized violence. Another sign read “Rape Culture Hall of Fame” with the names of past and present members of OCRL listed below. . . .
Protesters and other students who opposed the event could not be reached for comment, but they described their opposition in a letter published in the Review last week.
“By bringing her to a college campus laden with trauma and sexualized violence and full of victims/survivors, OCRL is choosing to reinforce this climate of denial/ blame/shame that ultimately has real life consequences on the wellbeing of people who have experienced sexualized violence,” they wrote. “We could spend all of our time and energy explaining all of the ways she’s harmful. But why should we?”
What madness takes hold in the minds of overprivileged young people who expect to convince us that Oberlin College (annual tuition $48,682) is a “campus laden with trauma and sexualized violence”? Do they actuallybelieve this or, as we might instead suspect, has the Feminist-Industrial Complex fostered a climate in which it is forbidden to contradict these deliberate lies? Banishing opposition allows feminism’s anti-male/anti-heterosexual paranoia (“Fear and Loathing of the Penis”) to rage unchecked like a viral pandemic. Nick Mascari at Third Base Politics reported Sommers’ April 20 Oberlin lecture:
At the end, Sommers took questions. All but one were obviously hostile to her presence, and she took questions from an equal number of male and female attendees. A female student behind me exclaimed “Oh look! She called on a boy!” every single time she took a question from a male student, even though every one of the male questions she received was equally as hostile to her as the female questions.
After taking questions from three women in a row, she took the final question from a man. The student behind me again remarked “Oh look another question from a boy!”.
I politely asked her, “But weren’t the last three girls?”
She glared at me and said, “This is an event about FEMINISM!”
After her discussion with the male student was finished, the same student said to me, “It’s offensive that you said to me ‘Should she only call on pretty girls?’”
“That’s not what I said. I asked weren’t the last three questions from girls? You misunderstood, miss.”
She continued to accuse me. I didn’t bother to inform her that I was recording the speech and had our words on tape. It wouldn’t have mattered.
In 2015, “feminism” is a subject about which only women are allowed to speak. Feminism can never permit women to speak favorably of males, and the only thing males can contribute to feminism is silence.
Such is the totalitarian message of feminism, as it has been for more than four decades. “Women’s way of knowing” is rooted in what the 1969Redstockings Manifesto called women’s “personal experience, and our feelings about that experience,” which feminists insist is the only possible basis for analysis. There are no objective facts beyond women’s subjective feelings about their experiences, and therefore no feminist should listen to anything any man has to say about anything.
Universities now teach feminism as Science with a capital “S” and Truth with a capital “T.” No one can be allowed to deny Scientific Truth, which is whatever women say it is. Women have a monopoly on intelligence, knowledge and virtue because, feminists believe, everything men do is wrong and everything men say is false. (See “‘There Is No Spoon’: Radical Feminism and the Paranoid Matrix of Patriarchy.”)
These are the totalitarian conclusions to which feminism’s hateful logic leads, and nowhere is this more evident than at elite university campuses. Emma Sulkowicz became the most feminist at Columbia University (annual tuition $51,008) by accusing her former friend Paul Nungesser of rape. Once the facts were made public in Nungesser’s federal lawsuit against Columbia, however, it seemed otherwise: Sulkowicz is simply a spiteful liar motivated by a selfish desire for revenge. Nungesser didn’t want to date Sulkowicz, so she evidently plotted to get him expelled from Columbia. When that failed — every investigation cleared Nungesser of wrongdoing — Sulkowicz decided to make herself famous by ruining his reputation.
Sulkowicz spoke at an April 16 “Sexual Assault Awareness Month” event at Brown University, and quotes from her speech reveal her to be a young woman with some very strange ideas about truth:
“There does not exist a scientific way to prove non-consent. . . . When it comes to sexual violence, scientific proof is impossible. . . . If we use proof in rape cases, we fall into the patterns of rape deniers. . . . When a person claims that their theory is a science, they disqualify other types of knowledge. . . . Let’s change the question from ‘Did she consent that night?’ to ‘Did she have the power to consent that night?’ . . . This is not about physical strength. . . . This is about historical power. . . . Seeing is the origin of interpretation. Interpretation is the origin of knowing. . . . If truth is scientific, then art cannot access truth. But perhaps there is something beyond the truth. . . . When people assume I’m bringing the truth to light, they project their own idea of truth onto me. . . . When people engage in believing in me, they objectify me.”
There is no truth, there is only power — this is what feminism teaches. This is how feminism empowers liars. Unless we recover our concern for truth, unless we reject the hateful totalitarian ideology that can justify any lie if the lie serves the cause of “progress,” our society is utterly and irretrievably doomed. Deprived of our freedom to speak truth, we shall be enslaved by liars whose unscrupulous appetite for power is exceeded only by their cruelty and dishonesty.
“Truth is great and will prevail if left to herself . . . she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.”
— Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, 1786
Be afraid, America. Be very afraid.