Via Darleen in the comments, a telling illustration of “social justice” psychology:

“This is what it’s like to be a black student at New York University,” Nia [Harris] wrote in her Facebook post. “You go to a dining hall during February and you see ‘Black History Month Meal’ plastered outside the entrance. You walk inside the dining hall only to find ribs, collard greens, and mac and cheese.”

And on a campus where grievance is currency, heads had to roll:  

Two Aramark employees have been fired by the food service after preparing a meal at NYU during Black History Month that was deemed racially “insensitive.” Reports suggest that the employees are African-American, though Aramark has not confirmed details about the ethnicity of the fired employees.

It’s hard to miss the class connotations of all this “woke” status-signalling. Someone who can spend around a quarter of a million dollars on attending a fashionable university feigns outrage over a menu option and then campaigns until two working-class employees are humiliated and left jobless for some sub-microscopic sin – i.e., failing to intuit the ever-changing fashions of campus “social justice” – all while the sophomore in question publicly gloats and declares her own victimhood.

Imagine the kind of utter bitch who would delight in doing that.

Mary Katharine Ham on woke scolds and public pushback: 

Here’s how the removal of the [painting, Hylas and the Nymphs] went down — in the most eye-rollingly woke, modern-art-professor way possible. A professor and five members of a “drag collective” walk into an art gallery to talk about viewing art in a non-binary way. Stop me if you’ve heard this one before.

Amy Wax on sinking standards and The New Unsayable: 

An open letter published in the Daily Pennsylvanian and signed by 33 of my colleagues… condemned and categorically rejected all of my views [on the importance of bourgeois values]. It then invited students, in effect, to monitor me and to report any “stereotyping and bias” they might experience or perceive. This letter contained no argument, no substance, no reasoning, no explanation whatsoever as to how our op-ed was in error… To students and citizens alike I say: Don’t follow their lead by condemning people for their views without providing a reasoned argument. Reject their example. Not only are they failing to teach you the practice of civil discourse —the sine qua non of liberal education and democracy— they are sending the message that civil discourse is unnecessary. 

This, remember, is the University of Pennsylvania Law School. For background, see the first items here and here. 

And Andy Ngo on the “social justice” Sturmabteilung: 

In The Baffler, Jessa Crispin writes: 

His desire for stockings and earrings and a flattering skirt did not change his critical stance against capitalism, but it did complicate his view of what socialism or communism could be. “Will there be lipstick under communism?” Yes, [sociology lecturer, Colin] Cremin writes in a new book, Man-Made Woman — but only if men are wearing it, too… A truly progressive man, then, would be one who rejects the social and economic advantages that come from hegemonic masculinity and patriarchal conformity. A “feminine flourish,” as Cremin puts it, of perfume or lipstick or a silk blouse, would undercut a man’s power immediately in both the workplace and on the sexual market. 

Via Ben Sixsmith, in a thread where it’s noted that when many men favoured stockings and beauty spots, this didn’t immediately result in communism or a toppling of “hegemonic masculinity.”

Dr Cremin, of course, has been noted here before. 

“Men are trash” is a “positive observation.” And full of hope. According to Laurie Penny.

Because modern masculinity – whether yours or mine, or your husband’s or brother’s – “wounds everyone” and is “grounded in sexual violence.”

Via Tim Newman, who adds some thoughts of his own. 

Speaking, as we were, of people for whom anger is a credential, a kind of emotional jewellery, this seems apposite:

My fury has been bottomless. I drink my morning coffee from a cup that says, “I hate to wake up when Donald Trump is President.” The constancy of my outrage has been exhausting, yet I have not yet found a way to quell it — nearly each day has brought a new reason to stoke the fire. But a day with my daughter, communing with the angry and the aggrieved, seemed a good way to try.

Ruth Mayer, a woman seemingly oblivious to the implication of her own words, recounts her pilgrimage to the ‘Women’s March’ in Washington DC. It’s a tale of cultivated umbrage, car trouble, and a moment of reflection, narrowly missed.

Via Darleen.