Your Failure to Agree Will Not Be Tolerated
Janice Fiamengo explains why she’s happy to be called an “anti-feminist”:
If further explanation is required, it may be worth revisiting this video here, which offers vivid illustrations of the behaviour Fiamengo describes, including harassment, thuggery, and the spectacle of supposedly empowered feminists getting quite literally hysterical. See also this related video, in which a feminist professor of philosophy, Alice McLachlan, tells us that she’s “warmed” by the sight of students – self-imagined intellectuals – congratulating themselves for making discussion impossible. Apparently Ms McLachlan, whose gift for dishonesty is something to behold, “cares a lot about free speech.” Just not for people who might dare to disagree with her. But then we mustn’t expect consistency and logic from a professor of philosophy.
the spectacle of supposedly empowered feminists getting quite literally hysterical.
Feminists have been embarrassing women for decades.
And embarrassing fathers. Who are mostly men.
For every Janice Fiamengo who speaks out how many others keep their heads down and just stay quiet?
For every Janice Fiamengo who speaks out how many others keep their heads down and just stay quiet?
Dr Fiamengo seems quite even-tempered and surprisingly calm under pressure, as you’ll see in the second video, but not everyone can cope so well with being screamed at and harassed, or with having their lectures and classes disrupted, or with being the object of campaigns by vindictive little shits. A lot of people, myself included, would rather not interact at all with dogmatic pinheads who are likely to explode with rage, or pretentious rage, at the tiniest possible excuse. I should imagine that quite a few people find airing disagreement simply not worth the hassle. And so it goes on.
We need to bring back the practice of unleashing firehoses on protesters. These entitled brats get away with this because there are never any consequences. A night in jail and an expulsion or two and you’d see this stuff calm right down.
Through all this you have to ask: What is the benefit to mankind? What does the (a-)feminist brigade hope to accomplish (if not the projection and transference of its own disorder? I know that’s what it is, but wouldn’t perfesserz of the mind, you know, eventually clue in?)
Meanwhile, given the obvious narcissistic denial, what do these harridans, in their minds, want to pull off? What is the goal, the benefit, the corrective, the solution, the new world? What is their articulate purpose?
These entitled brats get away with this because there are never any consequences.
As Tim Newman pointed out in the thread following this, “The [campus] security, police, and college authorities… stand idly by and allow these groups a monopoly on what is effectively physical violence.” For the “social justice” warriors, there are no negative consequences. It’s highly unlikely that any of the people threatening, obstructing and harassing other students – or blocking fire escapes, or sabotaging lectures, or goading the police – will be expelled or face any kind of sanction. And for them their thuggish behaviour is a credential.
Close all non-science uni courses and sack all teaching staff of same + the admin crew, all without a penny compensation. And confiscate their pensions. Let them sling their Marxist shite in the marketplace.
It the only way to be sure.
Another reason to be an anti-feminist is that feminism has destroyed the educational system. The push to give every woman a degree has created a web of laws and policies and even new graduate courses that have, in effect, changed a diploma into toilet paper. The oft-cited figure, 52% of all graduates are women, needs to be examined. How many of them have received a real education? How many are PhDs in Gender studies, or Queer Theory, two fields created to give women easy diplomas?
How many men have dropped out because school is now feminized?
Stacy McCain has been up to his eyeballs in radical feminism for awhile now.
@Dom
Purely STEM universities in the US are still generally immune, but the Humanities/Liberal Arts as I knew them thirty years ago when I pursued literature and philosophy degrees are dead. They’ve been killed by two things: first, the various “-isms” destroyed the canon. Second, they instituted rules against smoking during graduate seminars. How one is supposed to pontificate about Goethe’s Faust without a smoke in hand is not clear to me.
Apparently Ms McLachlan, whose gift for dishonesty is something to behold, “cares a lot about free speech.” Just not for people who might dare to disagree with her.
Oh, I don’t know — hating something is a form of caring about it.
“The [campus] security, police, and college authorities… stand idly by and allow these groups a monopoly on what is effectively physical violence.” For the “social justice” warriors, there are no negative consequences. It’s highly unlikely that any of the people threatening, obstructing and harassing other students – or blocking fire escapes, or sabotaging lectures, or goading the police – will be expelled or face any kind of sanction.
And yet remember, the whole of mainstream society — the society that lets them get away with their antics — is violently prejudiced and stacked against them.
Mr Ecks/R Sherman:
I’ve noticed that the humanities courses where you need to study a foreign language seem to have a much lower output of craziness. Possibly the intellectual rigour involved in actually learning another language puts off the worst poseurs. If so, maybe changing course requirements so that all humanities courses have a mandatory foreign language module would help lead them back to sanity?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33809178
LOL. Expecting those on extra benefits to do something useful for taxpayers makes you “far right”.
A secret: men do not like these raging feminists, so they will not be able to easily procreate. Normal women who like their bras get the best guys.
In other news:
The Oppression Club is terribly exclusive.
@ Original Mr. X
I don’t disagree. Unfortunately, most humanities programs have a mandatory foreign language component–usually four semesters, so the rigor passes quickly. I will say, however, once you get beyond the minimum, you’re busy with the canon of, say, German literature, that there’s really no time for a lot of the nonsense you find in English lit these days.
Expecting those on extra benefits to do something useful for taxpayers makes you “far right”.
I wonder if I could get an annual taxpayer subsidy of around £57,000 for making “unspecified contributions” to “cultural life.”
[ Waves glove puppet, looks hopeful. ]
“including harassment, thuggery”
In my experience, the older, more passive-aggressive feminists merely go in for making nasty jokes and then, when you object, saying “can’t you take a joke?” The joke’s on them, of course, as they age and find fewer and fewer men willing to every do anything on their behalf, not even if they are in grave need as they lose the ability to take care of themselves.
“not everyone can cope so well with being screamed at and harassed, or with having their lectures and classes disrupted…”
“We need to bring back the practice of unleashing firehoses on protesters.”
I agree with harsh policies of not tolerating such thuggery. Arrest them. Jail them. Prefer charges. If they are professors or administrators, fire them. If they are students, expel them.
And of course there is always the principle of “turnabout is fair play” for those who engage in such thuggery–and for those who encourage or excuse it.
I wonder if I could get an annual taxpayer subsidy of around £57,000 for making “unspecified contributions” to “cultural life.”
Easily done. Just film yourself smashing watermelons with an ice-pick, simultaneously shouting “capitalism sucks, down with wealth, Tories are scum, etc.” at the top of your lungs, whilst dressed in a rubber bondage suit. The grant money’ll come flowing in.
Easily done. Just film yourself smashing . . .
And don’t forget the rainbow colored fright wig, and occasionally pause to very obviously sip from a very obvious martini glass to show that you want everything to be seen as ironic . . .
But then we mustn’t expect consistency and logic from a professor of philosophy
I’ve known some professors of philosophy* to be exceptionally sharp and very knowledgeable. No doubt there are many with that title who are fools and charlatans. But not all – that’s just wrong.
One certainly can’t dismiss philosophy as subject. If you have any beliefs at all about what is right and what is wrong (and if we didn’t, I doubt we’d be here) you won’t have got them by only using the scientific method, or by mathematical proof.
(furthermore, it’s clear that our reliance on evidence & logic is a philosophical decision, not a scientific one)
Anyway shutting out opposing views is feminism’s main trick. You can count the posts “removed by a moderator” on the Guardian comment pages every day. Then they claim they are being silenced. The whole silly charade happens even more in real life.
* quite well
what do these harridans, in their minds, want to pull off?
Domination, domination, domination, extra domination, with a few side-orders of domination.
I love the other vid, with the beta male “intimidating” a would-be lecture attendee while a “legal observer” does a vulture act in case anybody should be tempted to push their way through.
Whereupon, presumably, they would be loudly charged with assault.
Assault? You want assault? Because I can SHOW you assault…
Step 1: Spray pepper spray in observer’s eyes – he can’t see a thing.
Step 2: Ditto for Tough Guy, followed by stiff rabbit punch to solar plexus.
Step 3: Take his wallet, pull ID. Show it to him. “You don’t know me, but I know you.”
Step 4: Leave, un-hurridly, taking any phones pointed your way. No one will object.
Ok, technically it’s Battery. Semantics.
One certainly can’t dismiss philosophy as subject.
Henry, you’re taking my quip a little too literally. My point being that one should expect consistency and logic from a professor of philosophy, at least more of it than Ms McLachlan seems able to muster.
Whereupon, presumably, they would be loudly charged with assault.
It’s a non-reciprocal dynamic, one that’s practically a default at leftist ‘protests’. Many of the participants imagine themselves as the victims of the ongoing drama in their heads, irrespective of who does what to whom and who intends to go on doing it, given half a chance.
And so, as seen here, a masked mob can lay siege to someone else’s property, causing disruption and damage, barricading fire escapes and terrorising staff by trapping them in their offices, while chanting “fuck the police” – and then Laurie Penny (or someone very much like her) will describe the scuffles and thuggery as “a peaceful occupation.” And while the participants exult in their own use of force and mob coercion, any kind of physical retaliation or attempt to enforce the law will be denounced as both outrageous and – get this – fascism.
As I’ve said before, it is, I think, instructive that so many voices of the left should profess great empathy with the mob dynamic, in which personal responsibility can be dispersed and obscured, allowing participants to indulge more freely in emotional crescendos and some physical emphasis. Mob psychology tends to energise participants precisely because of the sense of physical power and promise of moral anonymity, and the implicit threat that violence may ensue should their wishes be frustrated. And while these so-called “collective protests” may be effective in rousing emotion and inflating egos, they aren’t an ideal forum for mental clarity.
Which is presumably the appeal for the rote radicals of the left.
I love the fact that Feminists and other Leftists can get away with so much violence and bullshit precisely because they are not oppressed. Their targets are ordinary, decent people: the citizens and governments of civilised nations. If they were really fighting an oppressive system, as they seem to believe, they’d be dead or in a concentration camp by now.
I was just watching a livestreamed debate on GamerGate and media bias. It’s the first time I’ve seen a bomb threat announced live.
[ Added: ]
More here and here.
PS: The Grauniad in delirium: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahaha!
@ mojo
Have you seen this piece by Jon Sopel about Joe Biden?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33912456
Via biased BBC.
Sorry, link doesn’t seem to work!
Sorry, link doesn’t seem to work!
Numbers got switched.
Thanks Hal!
Much appreciated.
It’s the first time I’ve seen a bomb threat announced live.
Those GamerGaters probably had it coming to them, after all they disagree with feminists and SJWs. Anyway, I’m sure it’ll be front page news in the MSM /sarc.
Anyway, I’m sure it’ll be front page news in the MSM /sarc.
Bomb threats aside, it was a strange thing to watch. The moderator Mike Koretzky asked the GamerGate panel what “we” – i.e., the mainstream media – could do to be less biased and irresponsible when covering such issues. But whenever any of panellists began to answer with an example of egregious bias or credulity, Koretzky immediately tried to shut them down. Which rather left the discussion hamstrung. It’s difficult to offer much in the way of useful advice if you aren’t allowed to illustrate the specifics of the problem you’re trying to address.
Hell, we don’t need to elect Joey, just impeach and convict Obama.
Bing, bang, boom, a year of hilarity ensues…
I have to wonder if the Grauniad has considered just why it is that we have fossils like Al Gore oozing out of the woodwork?
And Kerry? Seriously, after his latest dismal performance? The mind reels.
Bomb threats aside, it was a strange thing to watch.
I haven’t been able to find any video of the debate but I’ve read a couple of reviews: neither thought that Koretzky was a neutral umpire. Without seeing it though, I wouldn’t like to judge. Oh and evidently Anti-GG didn’t send anyone – probably because they knew they’d make themselves look bad.
neither thought that Koretzky was a neutral umpire.
I only saw maybe 35-40 minutes of the debate before it was cut short, but no, based on what I saw he was pretty awful. Whenever one of the panellists tried to explain the role of doctrinaire activists and the unquestioning acceptance of their claims and gender politics, he’d interrupt and say, “We’re not talking about gender,” or something to that effect, i.e., that it wasn’t a permissible topic.
Hell, we don’t need to elect Joey, just impeach and convict Obama.
I loathe conspiracy theories, but I have a conspiracy that I’ll probably get prosecuted for expressing should it ever come to pass…but wth…If Biden formally gets into this race, it would not surprise me the least that Putin or some other significant adversary were to knock off Obama to put Biden in the driver’s seat. And given Hillarys potential to uninevitable herself, I’ve lately taken to think this is even more likely.
I haven’t been able to find any video of the debate
Here’s an abridged video of the GamerGate debate.
Update:
Others may be interested so I’ve thrown together a post.
Slightly O/T, but I was browsing a Vodafone company culture page today and read that they have signed up to the ‘UN Women’s Empowerment Principles’
Here’s a very short look into the world of bureaucratic Feminism – from the section on Equal Opportunity, Inclusion and Nondiscrimination:
– Ensure that workplace policies and practices are free from gender-based discrimination
– Implement gender-sensitive recruitment and retention practices and proactively recruit and appoint women to managerial and executive positions and to the corporate board of directors
Feminism encapsulated within two bullet points. Feminism.txt!