Intersectionality against “Man”
The time when Neil Armstrong uttered the exciting famous line, “That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind” has gone. Though it was intended for all human being without exclusion, the new Orwellian language manufactured by the Academia is winning. Once the bastion of free speech, universities have become intolerant, censorious and guilty of promoting groupthink. Speakers with mainstream views are facing violent protests and bans, with campus activists quick to label anything that deviates from their far Left view as “hate speech”. The days when universities were centers for excellence, critical thinking and robust discussions have passed away. Fakeness, artificial bizarre language and odd groupthink are on the lead. And Islam, the most horrible ideology, rides on the waves of this Western stupidity.
Before modern times, the term gender was used solely when referring to the grammar of some languages, in which nouns and pronouns are masculine, feminine or neuter and require words syntactically associated with them. However, today, gender has become completely disassociated with biological reasoning. For example, in the past when a person signed up for a Facebook account, “male” and “female” were the only options. However, under the current system craze, in 2014, Facebook introduced 50 gender options, including intersex, gender nonconforming, non-binary and androgynous (Telegraph).
Now, according to the new Orwellian language, Cardiff Metropolitan University issued a list of 34 taboo terms that it “encouraged” teachers and students to stop using, and replaced them with “gender-neutral” terms. It has suggested alternatives that are more “inclusive.” It banned the use of the word “man” and related phrases, to encourage the adoption of “gender neutral” language. These “gender-neutral” terms should be used, adding that students should not allow their “cultural background” to affect their choice of words. The university also advised words such as “homosexual and heterosexual” should be replaced for “same-sex” and “other-sex.” “Gentlemen’s agreement” for “unwritten agreement or agreement based on trust.” “Man-made” and “manpower” are out with replacements including “artificial, manufactured, synthetic” and “human resources, labor force, staff, personnel, workers, workforce; and “ancestors, forebears” instead of “forefathers.” The guidance also includes advice to deny the terms “sportsmanship,” “right-hand man” and all words that include “man.” ‘Humankind’ is replaced by ‘peoplekind;’and ‘fisherman’ is replaced by ‘fisherfolk.Even Princeton University has also expunged the word “man” in its various uses, in favor of supposedly more “inclusive” expressions. California State University replaced commercial terms such as “businessman”, “mailman”, “manpower” and “salesman” as being horrendous, and City University of New York decided to ban “Mr.”
Oh, dear Orwell, 70 years ago you have envisioned this language so precisely. You have showed us that even the most imaginary, impossible, unlikely reality can become real reality. You have predicted so accurately the gigantic destructive powers human being can reach. “Human-being”? Oh’ no. It is forbidden! God has never created “man” and “Woman, just “folks,” “peoplekind”). Yet, the craziness goes on and continue with uppermost revulsion.
A journal published by a New York University Gender Studies Department put out a paper meant to call attention to the “sexual exploitation” of dairy cows.“The outdated stereotype about women being caretakers and most importantly child bearers remains consistent in the dairy industry, especially when we take into account the means through which these animals are exploited. A few brief examples include rape or sexual assault, nonconsensual hormone treatments, and emotional trauma related to pregnancy. Dairy cows are forcibly impregnated, or raped, in order to constantly produce milk for humans to consume.” And what about its recommendation?
In the efforts to “embrace cultural diversity” through language, in favor of gender-neutral terms under its code of practice on inclusive language, students are told that stereotyping through language “denies people’s individuality”, and that instead, they should strive to “promote an atmosphere in which all students feel valued.” For that, the university has been accused by Joanna Williams, of the University of Kent and author of Academic Freedom in an Age of Conformity, of undermining free speech and ‘insulting’ students and academics by attempting to dictate their choice of words. “It is a very authoritarian attempt to control the way people think and the language people use. These words have evolved over a long period of time and they don’t have sexist associations.”
It is the latest in a series of attempts on university campuses across the country to implement “politically correct” policies. Prime Minister Theresa May has hit out at universities for implementing “safe space” policies amid concerns that self-censorship is curtailing freedom of speech on campuses. She said it was “quite extraordinary” for universities to ban the discussion of certain topics which could cause offence. She warned that stifling free speech could have a negative impact on Britain’s economic and social success. Patrick Healy of the Boston Globe lists anti-male US universities, among them, Brown University; Columbia University; Georgetown University; University of Michigan; California University; and Dartmouth University.
On this process of anti “man,” the Boys Scouts organization will change its name to reflect now that girls are allowed to join the formerly all-male organization. The Boy Scouts of America decided to eliminate its boys-only focus, and announced on May that starting in February, its flagship program will be called “Scouts BSA.” According to Chief Scout Executive Mike Surbaugh, “We’re trying to find the right way to say we’re here for both young men and young women” (Chicago Tribune). This marks an end to a 108-year tradition due to the destructive forces of political correctness.
Justine Trudeau, Kim Kardashian of political leaders, became a laughing stock for correcting a woman who used the term “mankind:” “We like to say ‘peoplekind’ not necessarily ‘mankind’, because it’s more inclusive.” For him and his puddle counterparts mankind is no longer to mean the human race. If “mankind” is no longer acceptable then “human” and “humanity” are also in peril for containing the word “man.” If we employ this logic then “person” is also gendered for it contains “son.”
The fear of language is also evident with an increasing list of words deemed offensive and topics needing a trigger warning. La Trobe University’s student union passed a motion in 2016 to use trigger warnings for a range of topics in student council meetings. Words requiring a trigger warning include vomit, Islamophobia, classism, queerphobia, transphobia, trans-misogyny, sex positive shaming, fat shaming and neuro-typical shaming. Monash University in Australia introduced “trigger warnings” last year to warn students about distressing content including eating disorders, pornography, abortion, hate speech and violence (Herald Sun).
The Left’s ongoing mantra is that everyone is a victim of the male white men. It is largely share by the feminists who embrace this chant. Something is deep bizarre with the combination of the left and feminist attack on masculinity. There is a war on masculinity, part of the widespread deep penetrated ideology of intersectionality. One of the theories is that of Salvatore DeGennaro. He believes because masculine men are harder to control under tyrannical socialism. This is why the left has branded masculinity as toxic: it stands as a roadblock to their endgame.
Sexual harassment is one reason. The problem with this argument is that the men who are typically being accused of such transgressions are anything but masculine. However, both liberal and conservative men are involved, yet for DeGennaro lack of masculinity is a contributing factor to sexual harassment. Are men who display a lack of masculinity less likely to victimize women? Obviously not. But the left does not let reason or rationality interfere with an opportunity to degrade social decency or further its collectivist agenda.
The feminist hatred for masculinity is only another tool in the toolbox of communism. Masculinity tends to make a man individualistic. Individualistic men are capitalists, not communists. They are men who cherish individual liberty, and they rely on themselves rather than on government. Self-reliance is a four-letter word for leftists, and masculine men are generally self-reliant. Modern men, devoid of any semblance of masculinity, are ideal for leftist indoctrination.The denigration of masculinity is high on the leftist agenda. The pushing of acceptance of the “transgender” movement is the latest machination in this crusade. This fosters further blurring of male masculinity. It is maligned as a trait of the bigot, not as a desirable trait among men, as it once was. The goal is to foster an entirely androgynous society that makes no distinction between male and female. This breeds a culture more easily shaped by the almighty state. The left’s war on masculinity should come as no surprise. The cultures in history that have resisted oppressive regimes in the past have celebrated masculinity rather than demeaned it.
The eradication of masculinity from our society will ultimately result in the elimination of all resistance to tyranny. Freedom-loving males know this, and women who believe in individual capability rather than dependence on the government also know it. Remember: subjugation of all to a collectivist regime is the ultimate goal, and branding masculinity as toxic is one of many pieces in the game (American Thinker).For the Bolshevik-anarchists the aim is clear, following Carl Marx: “Everything that exists deserves to perish.”
Accordingly, the British police investigate a Catholic Mother after she used the “wrong pronoun” for a transgender person, and she will face a recorded interview with police to determine whether she committed a “hate crime.” This is crazy; indeed, the world has turned upside down, with the lunatic leadership of the academia. There is a point where an obsession over political correctness can blind people from basic of facts. Why not also purge Christianity’s religious language? Some of the famous universities, such as Duke and Vanderbilt, invited professors and staff to use “inclusive” language even when they are referring to God, because the masculine pronouns are “a cornerstone of patriarchy”. Duke guidelines suggest gender specific pronounce when discussing Him and suggest using “God” and “Godself” instead. Divinity course catalogue at Vanderbilt tells professors to give “consistent attention to the use of inclusive language, especially in relation to the Divine.” The school “commits continuously and explicitly to include gender as an analyzed category to mitigate sexism” (Breitbart).
For that, on February 2019, Caroline C. Lewis, has published an open letter under the title: “Dear Feminists, Stop Ruining Life for the Rest of Us:” I realize that it comes from a good place: Empowerment. Confidence. Success. But your way of achieving this has caused some real problems. Take, for example, men. Can women only achieve “empowerment” by destroying men, masculinity, and male leadership? Gender is not a zero-sum game. Being pro-woman should not mean being anti-man. We both live on this planet and we need each other to make human race continue.
And what about the “toxic masculinity” thing? There are some terrible men, abusive chauvinist, cheaters, and oppressors. Was it due to their gender? There are also some terrible women in this world: abusive, manipulating, and vengeful. Was it due to their femininity? It is XX chromosomes for females and XY chromosomes for males. None of us had a choice. So to discriminate against all men based on something they couldn’t help is wrong. To accuse every man of being an abusive, misogynist, patriarchy-obsessed warlord is not fair, either. Shaming men for masculinity, attacks them for being strong, for being protectors and for being providers. Yet what does that accomplish? Do we really want a society with weak, passive men who won’t stand up for their families?
In the end, most women still prefer strong men who act as able leaders, protectors, and heroes. To the feminists who are destroying the last remaining vestiges of chivalry in this county, please stop the anti-man crusade. If you want to turn your guy into a passive man, do that on your own time. But stop ruining life for the rest of us (Patriot Post).
Intersectionality and Save Spaces
Consider the so-called new “culture” of university “safe spaces” ostensibly aim to be free of prejudices such as racism, anti-Semitism, and misogyny, but all too often, we have seen them filled with exactly these prejudices. Robbie Travers succinctly relates to it as dangerous fallacy: they do not exist in the real world. The argument is that they seek to safeguard the rights of those who face significant societal disadvantages, who, do not have the same access to the right of freedom of expression. However, at the British universities, the concept has morphed into something far remote places. Bizarre enough, to be coherent with the narratives they produce, the spaces should give all an equal right to express controversial ideas, however Jews are excluded from safe spaces, being on the evil side of the continuum. The same attitude concerns the US: it is evil by definition.
He brings the Student Association’s (USSA) of the University of Strathclyde decision to ban a pro-life student group from organising on campus and using their facilities. It argues that “allowing an anti-choice group to form would be a barrier to freedom and equality and also act against the interests of a large amount of the student population.” This is nonsense of the highest order. A university community devoid of controversy and debate is contradictory to the essence of scientific research. This idea that all individuals should have their beliefs protected, and yet other groups are simultaneously denied the same rights is troubling and irritating in the extreme.
To suggest that all groups of a political belief act in the same way due to actions of individuals is poor at best. So, why are the Islamic Society allowed to meet when some Muslims commit acts of violence while Jews are devoid of? As safe spaces continue to grow in popularity, we must consider whether their original purpose has given way to something rather more sinister. Do they facilitate free and open debate, or are they merely a new tool with which to replace democracy with dogmatism? Do they promote freedoms, or are they oppress and coerce the basics of free and modern society. A true analysis and scrutiny, the answer seems blindingly obvious (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/02/13/university-safe-spaces-dangerous-fallacy-do-not-exist-real/).
The academia has become the institutions that do not protect the exchange of ideas, do not promote pluralism, and do not adhere to free speech. It seems the academia is going back to pre-civilization period. The magazine Spiked found that 90% of British universities hold policies that support censorship and free speech. This situation resembles very much the late 1960th to the middle of 1970th students’ riots in Europe and the US, where violent furious students demanded to change the curriculum and to learn what they like. The Free University of Berlin was perhaps the best example, with the aim to create a new model of university. The result was of course anarchy and chaos. Students should learn and not dictate. Curriculum stands from scientific research and knowledge of the professors generated from analysis and research. Students come to study and not to impose what they should learn.
This era had disappeared. However, the situation today is different so Islam is now part of it, and take advantage of the vacuum created out of the anarchy. This is the uppermost nightmare humanity faces. Steps must be taken courageously to confront the disaster. Indeed, hypocrisy celebrates. At the same time, while the first thing ‘liberated’ Muslim women do is throw down their misogynistic hijabs, so-called ‘feminists’ in the West don them. So when actual women’s rights activists in Iran discard them to fight oppression, Western feminists remain silent.
There are new threats need to know. The left’s war against traditional values has been raging for years. Americans are forced to increasingly accept radical ideology. A shocking story demonstrates just how far the left will go: A woman who had requested a female nurse to conduct her cervical exam was shocked when a male nurse appeared instead who claimed to be “transsexual.” She decided not to go through with her exam, and later complained to the National Health Service. They released a statement of apology. But apologies are not enough. Because the left has so completely deteriorated the very idea of gender. An Activist Mommy reported: not only does the acceptance of this sort of behavior encourage mental illness, it puts others, particularly women and children, in danger of becoming victims of sexual assault. What is left is the tragic deterioration of the values our nation was founded on, and an uphill battle for everyday women and men to have the right to privacy, comfort, and self-respect (https://a4cgr.wordpress.com/2018/01/13/03-1780/).
It is crucial to study the issue of “offensive” by someone. In the pluralistic modern world anything that is “offensive to someone” is routine, acceptable, even satisfying to others. This is exactly the meaning of pluralism, living together, and culturally oriented. If not, it means we legitimize anyone’s right to be free of exposure to “offensive” ideas, we empower only authoritarianism, totalitarianism, and lack of basic freedoms. No one should be allowed to kill and butcher being offended. And if he does, he must be put into jail. Otherwise we would all still be mired in the Inquisition world, in a communist regime, or in a Muslim system of living. These totally contrasts freedoms and pluralism.
It is essential that the culture of victimhood, in which people think they can silence others on the grounds of “identity,” or “insult” is dismantled. Anyone should be able to question or criticize just about anyone. This is the essence of humanism and the cause and result of modernism. In today’s Europe, fighting “Islamophobia” is a higher priority than fighting terrorism and evil. Condemning even persecuting those who fight Islamic Jihad and propagation is more important to the Europeans than realizing that Christian Europe is in accelerated processes of vanishing. The circumstances are horrific.
On other place, Rubbie Travers testifies: “I found myself under investigation — without evidence — for some of my political views, posted on my Facebook wall: “Excellent news that the US administration and Trump ordered an accurate strike on an Isis network of tunnels in Afghanistan. I’m glad we could bring these barbarians a step closer to collecting their 72 virgins”. This note was then alleged to be ‘blatant Islamophobia’ and consequently a ‘hate crime.’ Under UK law, that would make being a member of ISIS a protected characteristic. Mocking ISIS apparently makes one guilty of having ‘incited hatred against religious groups and protected characteristics’ (Gatestone institute).
At the University of Edinburgh, a student has been accused of violating ‘safe space’ rules and faced being removed from a council meeting after she raised her hand during a debate. Imogen Wilson, a music student and vice-president of academic affairs at the Edinburgh University Students’ Association (EUSA), was one of hundreds of students to have attended a student council meeting to debate Boycotts, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel. EUSA’s safe space defined as “a space which is welcoming and safe and includes the prohibition of discriminatory language and actions.” Members should refrain from hand gestures which “denote disagreement” or “indicate disagreement with a point or points being made.” Imogen Wilson had another complaint made against her, after she shook her head against the BDS motion that passed with 249 votes for and 153 against. For her, the DBS “promotes anti-Semitism, and is harmful to Jewish students” (Independent).
The stifling of free speech at the UK’s universities is now “an epidemic.”A survey, the Free Speech University Rankings (FSUR) made by Spiked Magazine in 2017, ranking 115 UK universities, paints a grim picture. It found that that 63.5 per cent of universities now actively “severely restrict” free speech, and 30.5 per cent stifle speech through excessive regulation. This marks a steady rise in censorship over the past three years. Now only six per cent of UK universities are truly free, open places. Moreover, twenty one universities banned high profile speakers from attending lectures, debates or speeches because of their views, including Oxford, King’s College London and University College London. Students’ Unions are four times more likely to put bans in place on campus than the universities themselves (http://www.spiked-online.com/free-speech-university-rankings#.Wjqf-3lG2M9).
A student magazine at Oxford University entitled No Offence has been banned from the institution’s Freshers’ Fair, over fears it may “cause offence.” The magazine aims to promote a discussion surrounding ideas people are afraid to discuss, according to the Versa News student website. However, after reviewing the material in the magazine, the Oxford University Students’ Union (OUSU) decided that it was “not suitable” for the Freshers’ Fair. “The offensive views exhibited in this magazine do not in any way represent the majority of Oxford students, we therefore are very comfortable with our decision not to allow the publication at our event” (Independent).
The Altrincham Grammar School for Girls in Manchester has officially banned its teachers from addressing its students as “girls” in case it offends transgender children. One of the country’s top-performing state schools has decided its staff will use ‘gender-neutral language’ when talking to or about children. In a letter to parents, Principal Stephanie Gill said the rethink came in response to ‘the challenges facing our students who are questioning their gender identity or who do not identify as girls’. Despite the fact the school does not admit boys, she added that parents ‘may have noticed that we have moved to using gender neutral language in all our communications with students and parents’… We are working to break ingrained habits in the way we speak to and about students, particularly referring to them collectively as ‘girls’… for many transgender students being misgendered can be very hurtful’ and undermines efforts to demonstrate that ‘everyone is welcome’ at the school’ (Daily mail).
As a proof how politics has become contaminated by bizarre ideas, the famous Jewish director, Steven Spielberg endorses Oprah Winfrey to challenge President Donald Trump in 2020 to Presidency. “I think Oprah Winfrey would make an absolutely brilliant president… If she declares, I will back her” (Breitbart).Here are the words of Lloyd Marcus, a black man if questioned, to take into most consideration: God Forbid the further Oprah-izing of America. The American left’s Oprah-mania about her running for president in 2020 is truly absurd. What on Earth qualifies Oprah to run our country? If Oprah qualifies, I am a far superior candidate. There is the phrase “the Oprah-izaton of America.” It seemed as though Oprah had seduced many Americans into placing feelings above facts and logic. Fake news media and most politicians have become Oprah-ized, behaving and acting with the emotional side of issues. God forbid we hurt the feelings or harm the self-esteem of illegals who do not give a rat’s derrière about our country or assimilating.
So now the American left is giddy over the thought of Oprah becoming our first queen. We’ve seen this horror movie before, titled Eight Years of Obama. Opposing or disagreeing with Oprah would be deemed racist and sexist. In 2008, over 90% of my fellow black voters were hypnotized by Obama’s skin color. I tried to warn black family and friends that Obama was not black in terms of being one of us. Obama was first and foremost a liberal Trojan Horse disguised in black skin, totally focused on furthering the liberal agenda rather than dealing with issues plaguing black Americans. Consequently, blacks moved economically and culturally backward during Obama’s reign. Yes, Trump has been economically “mo’ better” for us blacks than Obama.
Oprah’s presidency would be a continuation of Obama’s, with more touchy-feely, mindless, emotion-driven, stupid punish-America policies. Our ultra-Oprah-ized America would give away everything to everybody. Oprah no more belongs in our Oval Office than Donald Duck. The idea is totally absurd. We all know how fake news media would treat Democrat presidential candidate Oprah Winfrey. Every word out of her mouth would be deemed the height of brilliance, wisdom, fairness, and compassion. Fake news media would brand the Republican presidential nominee the secret head of the KKK, a white supremacist, and a sexual predator.
Make no mistake about this. Along with changing America by flooding it with a tsunami of illegals, leftists are obsessed with furthering their sexual revolution, making deviancy normal. Oprah would surely champion her fellow leftists’ government-mandated sexual transformation of America. A lot of American voters would once again be hypnotized, this time by Oprah’s skin color and fake news media hype (https://arkansasgopwing.blogspot.co.il/2018/01/god-forbid-further-oprah-izing-of.html).
Along these lines, Columbia University’s Lenfest Center for the Arts bears the message “GOD HATES GUNS, LOVES GAY PORN” prominently blazoned on the exterior of the building. The University bills its Center for the Arts as “a dynamic new hub for cultural and civic exchange.” According to the Dean, Carol Becker, the goal of the center is “to create a welcoming venue where every space can be activated… opening our doors to new collaborations both across the University and our community”(Breitbart).
Perhaps the best answer comes from Thomas Sowell, a well-known black American, an expert of economy and social theory, currently a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. Few of his remarks worth quotation: “It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.” Indeed, those who adhere to such kind of thinking who turns the world upside down, who manipulate and twist reality – they are not only dangerous but the civilization’s enemy. Therefore, Sowell is so right when he say: “The next time some academics tell you how important diversity is ask how many conservatives there are in their sociology department.” And that “too much of what is called ‘education’ is little more than an expensive isolation from reality.” Consider also, “Much of the social history of the Western world over the past three decades, has been a history of replacing what worked with what sounded good.” Indeed, “One of the consequences of such notions as ‘entitlement’ is that people who have contributed nothing to society feel that society owes them something, apparently just for being nice enough to grace us with their presence.” “I have never understood why it is ‘greed’ to want to keep the money you have earned, but not greed to want to take somebody else’s money.” Therefore, “The welfare state is the oldest con game in the world. First, you take people’s money away quietly and then you give some of it back to them flamboyantly.”
Intersectionality and Feminism
Black scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw argues that Black women are discriminated against as a combination of both racism and sexism. They are discriminated against bothas women and as Blacks. At the same time the legal system frequently renders Black women “invisible” and without legal recourse. She argues that “because intersectional experience is greater than the sum of racism and sexism, any analysis that does not take intersectionality into account cannot sufficiently address the particular manner in which Black women are subordinated.” For feminists racism is a feminist issue that easily explained by the inherent definition of feminism. Feminism is the political theory and practice to free all kinds of women. Anything less than this is not feminism, but merely female self-aggrandizement.
Black women see Black feminism as the logical political movement to combat the manifold and simultaneous oppressions that all women of color face e.g., the history of rape of Black women by white men as a weapon of political repression. Susan Brown miller describes the root of women’s oppression in biological terms, based on men’s physical ability to rape: men use rape to enforce their power over women in a state of fear. Rape is “a weapon of domination, a weapon of repression, whose covert goal was to extinguish slave women’s will to resist and, in the process, to demoralize their men” (Angela Davis).
Black feminist Patricia Hill Collins extends the issue to Black feminist thought as critical social theory. She claims that in the absence of a viable Black feminism that investigates how intersecting oppressions of race, gender, and class foster these contradictions. Like Crenshaw, Collins uses the concept of intersectionality to analyze how “oppressions such as ‘race and gender’ or ‘sexuality and nation’ work together in producing injustice.” But she adds the concept “matrix of dominations” to this formulation: the crucial component of social class among Black women in shaping political perceptions.
One of the key weaknesses of the predominantly white US feminist movement has been its lack of attention to racism. Failure to confront racism ends up reproducing the racist status quo. Decades before the rise of the modern women’s liberation movement, Black women were organizing against their systematic rape at the hands of white racist men. Black women subject to racist sexual assaults in an intersection of oppression unique to Black women historically in the United States (Danielle McGuire).
According to Gina Florio, there are seven things feminists of color want white feminists to know. All talk about white feminism that blatantly leaves out the concerns and issues of women of color. They have historically been disregarded in the fight for gender equality. Celebrity and mainstream feminists’ icons remain myopic on race. They are privileged. Yet, 1) there is a lot of racism in the history of feminism. 2) White feminism marginalizes women of color. It fails to give them a platform how racial inequality relates to gender inequality. 3) White women of privilege do not even realize that they are excluding other marginalized groups. Yet, all are responsible for making feminism more inclusive. That is why 4) some women of color don’t feel comfortable calling themselves feminists. 5) The struggle of women of color is different than white feminism. The plight of a middle-class, straight, white, American woman is not the same as that of an uneducated, gay, American woman of color. Feminists are concerned with equality, while feminists of color are battling injustice. 6) Woman of color want to be heard. They are disproportionately poor and receive very little public aid and volume. 7) Woman of color don’t want to be spoken for. The overwhelming majority of activists and celebrities representing feminism are white women of privilege. This situation has to be changed (bustle.com).
However, David Solway puts the question succinctly, which will collapse first: a grand civilization or a dismal academy? When the walls of education are breached, the decline of the nation is inevitable. What are called “social justice” movements they purport to correct all the supposed evils of Western capitalism and its so-called patriarchal underpinnings. However, they have done irrevocable damage to the conduct of daily life; to the meritocratic basis of national success; and to the education establishment on which cultural, political, and economic flourishing is predicated.
The feminist dogma is among the most sinister influences in modern education, a major cornerstone of the “social justice” obsession, which has penetrated our universities via indoctrination and threat. Young boys in elementary and middle school are taught to distrust their masculinity, and young men at university are in constant jeopardy of summons and expulsion for approaching the fair sex. Even textbooks have been infected with the feminist bacillus from elementary school to graduate school. These are examples that attest to the nature and extent of the US education cataclysm.
It appears in fiction. Consider the Cambridge School’s Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Under “Male dominance,” we are instructed to “[g]o through the play so far, finding any images, similes and metaphors that imply male dominance – for example – ‘your father should be as a god.’ Read the images about males, then those about females, and say which you find acceptable and which you find offensive – and why.” The major theme to be studied is “Gender and power.”
It appears in economics. A new California-based Feminist Business School is launching a program “founded upon the theory of ‘feminine entrepreneurship’ and ‘body-loving business practices’.” Its formative nucleus, calling itself Feminine Economics Department, is undertaking to oppose the “masculine economy,” and gratitude for hated masculine features such as individualism, profit-worship, competition, and hierarchy.
It appears in mathematics. Sara Hottinger, in Inventing the Mathematician, claim that the ability to reason mathematically “is constructed within Western culture as masculine.” Thus, “normative, white, masculine subjectivity” must be replaced by a purified female subjectivity and practice. We simply cannot reconcile the cultural construction of femininity with the construction of mathematical subjectivity.”
The farce continues with English grammar requirements. Megan Fox warns that children at schools are exposed to a “social justice” syllabus focusing on the dynamics of power and privilege, gender politics, gender-neutral pronouns, and the pressing need to eliminate masculine endings from words. “Since male endings are so pervasive… it is OK to invent new words by replacing the endings of existing words with something non-gendered.”Solway sums up by the declaration: the reward of desexualizing the vocabulary in order to diminish the status of men is presumably evident. The only question left is whether or not it is too late to reverse the feminist-driven national decline.
In another post David Solway relates to Toxic Feminism. The damage that radical feminism has done to the US education system is incalculable. Yet the movement continues to grow exponentially, and gender studies faculties, which promote female empowerment at the expense of what is called “toxic masculinity,” continue to multiply.Feminism has patently skewed the syllabus in the direction of gender asymmetry. In the name of diversity, equity, and inclusion, women have progressively come to dominate campus life regardless of aptitude and competency. Qualified male candidates need to make alternative arrangements. Male students, already in declining numbers, are under threat of allegations of sexual assault or harassment and arbitrary expulsion. They learn they should ‘step aside’ to give more space and power to females.Unfortunately, too many careers have been built on gender studies and feminist theory to allow surrender.
Leftist government bureaucrats, university administrators, “diversity and inclusion” officers, and faculty across the entire academic landscape are dependent on preserving perhaps the greatest scam in the systemic apparatus we call education. Departments of Gender Studies – as well as the myriad other faux “identity studies” programs like queer studies, race theory, critical theory, fat studies, sexuality studies, whiteness studies, are all centers of radical indoctrination. Bruce Bawer’s The Victim’s Revolution, claims that under the rubric of “social justice,” identity studies programs largely explain why our universities are well on the way to becoming third-world institutions. Feminism is the mother of the “social justice” obsession that is devastating the culture and destroying education.
For Solway, the academy cannot be reformed. It must be abolished or gradually phased out and replaced by schools and universities founded on the traditional mandate of moral accountability, exacting scholarship, discipline-specific authority, open debate, and responsible instruction. Feminism must have no part in it. With its reliance on false assumptions, feminism is the most potent carcinogen attacking both the body social and the health of the education system. It is toxic and it needs to go (American Thinker).
