Ladies First
Keili Bartlett reports from the cutting edge of Canadian academia:
Women should be heard first in the classroom, a forum on misogyny at Dalhousie University heard on Thursday. “Men should not be allowed to monopolise these forums,” management professor Judy Haiven said.
Readers are invited to see if they can spot any male persons on the non-monopolistic panel in question.
Her idea that women should always speak first in classroom discussions and at public events was brought up several times during the forum. Haiven said she already tries to apply this idea in her own classroom… “In the management department, women get to speak first.”
How chivalrous. Though of course the professor means male students aren’t allowed to speak first. Because gender condescension is the path to utopia.
Haiven’s idea was met by a round of applause,
Of course it was.
but not everyone agreed with her suggestion.
Oh, calamity. Do I hear a rumble of dissent?
“I think that women of colour should speak first in class,” [gender and sexual resource centre outreach co-ordinator, Jude] Ashburn said.
Whew. That was close.
Sadly, however, Total Ideological Correction™ remains just out of reach. Perhaps more panel discussions are needed. Panels in which stern and pious ladies confuse gender with temperament and depict women as timid, delicate creatures who struggle to raise their hands and can’t quite master speech. In a cosseting environment where women are a majority.
Update, via the comments:
Dogmatic mediocrities are hardly uncommon in the field of Women’s Studies and the subject isn’t exactly known for its factual reliability or intellectual rigour. So it’s entirely possible the applause for Professor Haiven is sincere, albeit bewildering, and it’s possible some of the panellists believe the bollocks they mouth, even the supposed need for women to always speak before men. However, it may conceivably be the case that the panellists are desperate to find excuses for their own rather disreputable academic positions, their own status and salaries, and for being on a panel in front of credulous teenagers while pretending to be more clever and essential than they actually are.
Even with standards as low as those found in Women’s Studies programmes, you do have to wonder how a supposed intellectual – a professional thinker – can insist on the following, apparently in earnest:
On television interviews, on platforms and political meetings, at any presentations — if there’s no woman speaker, then the event does not take place.
By which, again, the professor means such gatherings should not be permitted. She’s quite emphatic on this point.
Unsurprisingly, Professor Haiven is keen on banning things and on punishing people who say things of which she doesn’t approve, and which she casually conflates with acts of violence. And this professional thinker, this intellectual titan, can denounce the evils of an alleged male “monopoly” in an environment where women generally outnumber men by quite some margin, and while sitting on a panel with no male participants, and with no-one willing to argue a substantively different view. Apparently, if a panel of any size, on any subject, doesn’t include a female speaker then the outcome is “foregone” and therefore invalid. Yet strangely, this doesn’t apply when a panel is exclusively female and wildly question-begging.
Such is the Clown Quarter of modern academia.
Those with an appetite for self-harm can watch the ladies’ entire three-and-a-half-hour discussion.
Via The College Fix.
Goodness, a button. I wonder what it does.
Those with an appetite for self-harm – thanks, but I’ll stick to my bad diet and excessive time on the computer.
Insane. Next thing you know, feminists will demand they always enter the room first, while a man holds the door.
I thought we weren’t allowed to hold doors open any more…you know because we would be oppressing them with our superior door holding skills or something.
My mother, a fellow academic in Halifax, (where Dalhousie University is located), emailed me: “Judy Haiven is a very vocal anti-Israeli Jew. A year or so ago, she chased me down a street downtown because she observed me making a face at an apparition in a body bag (ie – a niqab). Scolded the hell out of me.”
it’s possible some of panellists believe the bollocks they mouth, even the supposed need for women to always speak first in a female-majority environment. But it may just be the case that the panellists are desperate to find excuses for their own rather disreputable academic positions, their own status and salaries, and for being on a panel in front of credulous teenagers while pretending to be more clever and essential than they actually are.
That.
That.
Well, even with standards as low as those found in Women’s Studies programmes, you do have to wonder how a supposed intellectual – a professional thinker – can insist on the following, apparently in earnest:
By which the professor means, such gatherings should not be permitted.
As you can see in the video, she’s quite emphatic on this point. Unsurprisingly, Professor Haivan is keen on banning things and on punishing people who say things of which she doesn’t approve, and which she casually conflates with acts of violence.
And this professional thinker, this intellectual titan, can denounce the evils of an alleged male “monopoly” in an environment where women generally outnumber men by quite some margin, and while sitting on a panel with no male participants, and with no-one willing to argue a substantively different view. Apparently, if a panel of any size, on any subject, doesn’t include a female speaker then the outcome is “foregone” and therefore invalid. Yet strangely, this doesn’t apply when a panel is exclusively female and wildly question-begging.
Such is the Clown Quarter of modern academia.
Good to have you back, Mr T. Also I found out what the button does. 🙂
and while sitting on a panel with no male participants,
I think when some people use the word ‘equality’ they actually mean ‘retribution’.
Men should be quiet during sessions of restorative justice, while they pay penance for the wrongs done by unrelated people in far distant times and places.
As you can see in the video, …
Oh my word but there’s some stupid right there. She says of any group at the university:
where one or more of the members has sexually assaulted, verbally assaulted, sent out Tweets, anything misogynistic at all, these people get banned from the university … for 6 months.
So a Tweet is as serious a threat as an actual sexual assault? And the punishment for a sexual assault is a six month an from the university, but not a referral to the police?
The most unnerving part of this is that you know somewhere she understands that a Tweet is a form of sexual assault.
Good God, can you imagine what her Teddy bear
picnicsshow trials were like when she was a little girl? They must have been terrifying.“a six month ban” even
Good God, can you imagine what her Teddy bear
picnicsshow trials were like when she was a little girl? They must have been terrifying.Among the women I know who find feminism unappealing, a common explanation is that, aside from its irrelevance to their lives, it seems to attract an extraordinary number of people who are dogmatic and obnoxious.
Re: Hal
Well, actually HR isn’t even related to management, HR is merely standing in the same building and announcing Errrrrrrr, Ahhh . . . Yeah, you can hire that one if you want . . . . —and then collecting a paycheck for saying that.
Erm….that isn’t HR.
It was explained to me thus:
Employees assume HR exists to help people like them. No! HR exists to protect the company from the employees: to make sure there are no possible avenues for an employee to sue the employer.
I’m just glad the first comment on the post was by a woman, otherwise I couldn’t have read the rest.
Judy Haiven is a very vocal anti-Israeli Jew.
You cannot imagine my surprise.
TDK
HR was explained to me as “You know that purchasing’s job is to screw the best possible deal out of suppliers? HR’s job is to do that to you.”
Also I found out what the button does.
Thanks, Em. Appreciated.
In a cosseting environment where women are a majority
Evidently not cosseting enough. Nor a big enough majority
You cannot imagine my surprise.
Isn’t it strange how ‘radical’ so often means ‘hackneyed’, ‘predictable’ and ‘utterly conformist’?
For people who are supposedly strong, confident and free, feminists do spend an awful lot of time whinging about fuck all.
feminists do spend an awful lot of time whinging about fuck all.
Stops them having to deal with actual misogyny in actually dangerous parts of the world.
If they gave half a rip about women qua women, they’d be leading the largest anti-sex-slavery crusade on the planet, including stings, rescue ops, stringent legislation, and awareness out the wazoo.
Instead, such endeavors are left to a bunch of Mormon men with special-ops training who go to Colombia, Dominican Republic, and other dark places in the Americas to bust American and European businessmen who attend exotic parties with pre-pubescent brown girls and boys, some of whom were sold into slavery by their own parents.
But the kids are various shades of BROWN, so it’s not like they’re REAL kids, amirite?
For people who are supposedly strong, confident and free, feminists do spend an awful lot of time whinging about fuck all.
As Kristian Niemietz pointed out a while ago, dogmatic feminists and other “social justice” warriors tend to be ideologically insatiable – impossible to please – because, despite their egalitarian pretensions, they’re fixated by social status and a need to be superior:
And so the goalposts of oppression have to be moved continually and ever-rarer forms of injustice have to be conjured into being. Hyperbole and distortion are inevitable. It’s not exactly a recipe for realism, or moral proportion, or honesty, or happiness, but that isn’t typically what drives such people. They require perpetual drama, with themselves in the spotlight.
it seems to attract an extraordinary number of people who are dogmatic and obnoxious.
Except for noted troll Shanley, who’s been exposed by her former mentor as charming and discreet.
Her mentor being a gentle, modest White Supremacist, so we know he’s trustworthy.
Moral superiority is a prime example of someone applying the positional good [ … ] how do you differentiate yourself from others now? You need new things to be outraged about, new ways of asserting your imagined moral superiority.
That.
That with bells on.
Also this, which must be an outstanding example of the positional good. While it may not be new, it is nevertheless suddenly re-orienting the map, as it were, so that certain people can appear to have always been on the highest peaks of moral goodness, pitying the poor shlubs below.
Of course no one wants to see small children suffering or being maimed or killed; but my complaint is about the unbearable smugness of those who would consider it acceptable to decry the visceral responses of others to the Charlie Hebdo killings as somehow superficial and ersatz, a here today gone tomorrow media-inspired hysteria while they know what it means to truly feel.
Very aggravating.
So a Tweet is as serious a threat as an actual sexual assault? And the punishment for a sexual assault is a six month ban from the university, but not a referral to the police?
I’m reminded of this, possibly apocryphal exchange:
Gentlemen, what is the penalty for rebellion?
Death.
And what is the penalty for being late to the muster?
Death.
Gentlemen, we’re already late…
“Such is the Clown Quarter of modern academia.”
Would that it were only a quarter.
Jason: While the specific exchange may be apocryphal, the event definitely happened. It was the Dazexiang Uprising during the Qin Dynasty of China, in which a pair of army officers decided they might as well defect with their army and try fighting for freedom rather than meekly show up late and be executed for lateness.
I don’t see the problem. A man can’t correct a woman’s errors of fact and logic unless she speaks first.