Women’s March on Washington

NATIONAL REVIEW notes the following: “The Women’s March on Washington has removed the pro-life group New Wave Feminists from its list of official event sponsors after backlash from feminists arguing that pro-life women are not welcome in the feminist movement. One of the most prominent of such responses”:

  • Intersectional feminism does not include a pro-life agenda. That’s not how it works! The right to choose is a fundamental part of feminism.

Christina Hoff Sommers (Camille Paglia) explains intersectional feminism is:

INDEPENDENT WOMEN’S FORUM goes further to note they exclude MANY women:

Alexandra DeSanctis wrote here yesterday that leaders of the “Women’s March on Washington” have disinvited the pro-life group that had sought to take part in the effort.   

It’s really no surprise that March organizers and hard left feminists like Jessica Valenti would reject support from a woman’s group that differs with them on an issue like this.  This March – like the progressive feminist movement – isn’t about supporting women, so much as it is supporting a specific, far-left progressive agenda.    

The March’s website claims to be inclusive – “recognizing that our vibrant and diverse communities are the strength of our country” – but they really aren’t interested in diversity of thought or belief.  As I wrote recently for Acculturated, the Left has long been able to get away with claiming to speak for “women” while ignoring any woman who has different views or beliefs: 

Just as the Women’s Centers on nearly every university campus in America provide an entirely liberal vision of women’s issues and marginalize any student with conservative leanings, these march organizers felt free to call it “The Women’s March on Washington,” not “progressive women” even though that’s what it is in fact, and leave out conservatives or anyone with different perspectives. They can rest safe in the knowledge that the sympathetic press would never challenge their presumption to speak for all women….

Professor Sommers continues on with some noted “cliches”

Gender scholar bell hooks* once complained that audiences laugh when she describes the United States an “imperialist white-supremacist capitalist patriarchy.” That laughter, she said, was a “weapon of patriarchal terrorism.” But that was 14 years ago. Today, at least on the college campus, the terrorizing laughter has subsided.

hooks is 23rd on TIME’s 2016 list of the “Hundred Most-Read Female Writers in College Classes.” And her assessment of the U.S. is foundational to “intersectional feminism.” This theory—now official doctrine in gender studies– portrays American society as a “matrix of domination and oppression.” And the list of oppressions keeps growing. Actress Laverne Cox, a frequent campus lecturer, expanded hooks’ formulation in a 2015 tweet: “Actually its cisnormative heteronormative imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy.” Others have added ageist, able-ist, lookist, pro-natalist, and size-ist to the matrix. At the risk of sounding like a weapon of patriarchal terrorism, I don’t see progress here. I see a descent into madness.

Proliferating “ists” and “isms” are turning many of our campuses into hostile environments for sanity. Students are organizing themselves into aggrieved little tribes that police and bully one another for imagined slights and micro-invalidations.

[….]

It’s hard to know how our institutions of higher learning will find their way back to truth, mutual understanding, and common humanity. But interrogating the founding principle of intersectionality––Professor hooks’ claim about the U.S. being an imperialist, white supremacist, capitalist patriarchy––is a good place to start.

First, “imperialist.” America is certainly an economic, military, and cultural superpower. Yet it wields this power—in the words of historian Niall Ferguson, “to spread free markets, to entrench the rule of law . . . and to pave the way for representative government.” This is in sharp contrast to empires from Persia to Rome to Napoleonic France, Imperial Japan, and the Soviet Union—who invaded, conquered, and plundered in order to enrich themselves. Even when the U.S. has invaded other countries, like Japan, Germany, Iraq, and Afghanistan, it has done so for a specific purpose, usually defensive—and it did not colonize them or plunder. When hostilities ceased, the U.S. always attempted, with varying levels of success, to create independent democracies, usually at great expense to the motherland. Our record is not spotless. But a menacing imperialist power, we are not.

White-supremacist? The U.S. has a shameful history of racism. But we also have a long and honorable history of fighting it, from abolishing slavery to trying to overcome its legacy. A recent study of racial tolerance by two Swedish economists found the U.S. to be among the world’s “most tolerant” societies. (India and Jordan were among the least tolerant.) Intersectional feminists claim that even if most Americans are tolerant, the white population still maintains supremacy through a rigid set of political, economic, and cultural structures. If so, it doesn’t seem to be succeeding. Latino girls are now more likely to go to college than white boys. And the most successful demographic group in the US in terms of income, education, and life-expectancy is not whites but Asians. Racism remains a problem, but anyone who calls the U.S. a white supremacist society is distorting reality.

What about “Capitalist”? True as charged. The United States is a capitalist country—in other words, it is a country with economic liberty. And economic liberty is essential to human well-being. Without it, societies are miserable, poor, and oppressive. Look at Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea. Compare life in Eastern Europe before and after free enterprise. Economic freedom, like all freedoms, can be abused. In the U.S., we are constantly looking for ways to prevent that. We don’t always succeed. But the free enterprise system has alleviated more human poverty and misery, and broken down more systems of oppression, than any other force in history.

Finally, patriarchy. A patriarchy is a system in which men hold the power and women do not. Women do hold power in the United States—they lead major universities, giant corporations, and the nation’s powerful central bank. A woman almost won the presidency. (Of course, a Slate intersectionalists quickly declared Electoral College to be Is an Instrument of White Supremacy and Sexism.” In fact, the Electoral College is an instrument of our federal, representative democracy American women, especially college women, are among the freest and most self-determining human beings in human history. Are things perfect for women? No. But they are not perfect for men, either. To refer to the U.S. as a patriarchy is absurd. It’s 2017, not 1950.

With all due respect to Professor hooks, Ms. Cox, and intersectional feminists everywhere, the United States is not a matrix of oppression. It’s a matrix of freedom, opportunity, and happiness. The country has many flaws—few will dispute that. But it is also one of the most successful, diverse, tolerant, and open societies the world has ever seen. Why pretend otherwise?….

Here is an example of the type of radical speeches at the women’s march in Washington:

No Ma’am – Misogyny vs. Objectifying

Here is a portion of Prager’s article:

…So why do so many women — and men — call Trump a misogynist?

Because he has so often described women in sexual terms. Because, as the charge goes, he “objectifies” women.

Now, before responding to that, it is worth noting that this clearly disturbs college-educated women and men far more than it does those who did not attend college, which either means the college-educated are wiser on this matter, or the non-college-educated are wiser.

As in most matters, my position is that college makes most people less wise. You have to go to college to think that men who see women they find attractive as sex objects hate women. Throughout history, women understood that men sexually objectify women, that this is male nature and has nothing — repeat, nothing — to do with hatred. Only the well-educated equate sexual objectification with hatred.

If sexually objectifying women makes men haters of women, then gay men hate men, because gay men sexually objectify men exactly the same way heterosexual men objectify women.

If you have a problem with this — and I can understand why people do — you need to take it up with God or Charles Darwin. But this is how male sexual nature works: It objectifies the object of its sexual attraction — male or female.

The good news is that every healthy male is capable of both respecting women and sexually objectifying them. Even Donald Trump.

Hegemonic Gender Roles and Girl Scout Cookies

  • …Institutions of supposedly higher education are awash with hysteria, authoritarianism, obscurantism, philistinism and charlatanry…

GEORGE WILL’S Washington Post article that is being read and commentated on above is below:

…The morning after the election, normal people rose — some elated, some despondent — and went off to actual work. But at Yale University, that incubator of late-adolescent infants, a professor responded to “heartfelt notes” from students “in shock” by making that day’s exam optional.

Academia should consider how it contributed to, and reflects Americans’ judgments pertinent to, Donald Trump’s election. The compound of childishness and condescension radiating from campuses is a reminder to normal Americans of the decay of protected classes — in this case, tenured faculty and cosseted students.

As “bias-response teams” fanned out across campuses, an incident report was filed about a University of Northern Colorado student who wrote “free speech matters” on one of 680 “#languagematters” posters that cautioned against politically incorrect speech. Catholic DePaul University denounced as “bigotry” a poster proclaiming “Unborn Lives Matter.” Bowdoin College provided counseling to students traumatized by the cultural appropriation committed by a sombrero-and-tequila party. Oberlin College students said they were suffering breakdowns because schoolwork was interfering with their political activism. California State University at Los Angeles established “healing” spaces for students to cope with the pain caused by a political speech delivered three months earlier . Indiana University experienced social-media panic (“Please PLEASE PLEASE be careful out there tonight”) because a Catholic priest in a white robe, with a rope-like belt and rosary beads, was identified as someone “in a KKK outfit holding a whip.”

A doctoral dissertation at the University of California at Santa Barbara uses “feminist methodologies” to understand how Girl Scout cookie sales “reproduce hegemonic gender roles.” The journal GeoHumanities explores how pumpkins reveal “racial and class coding of rural versus urban places.” Another journal’s article analyzes “the relationships among gender, science, and glaciers.” A Vassar College lecture “theorizes oscillating relations between disciplinary, pre-emptive and increasingly prehensive forms of power that shape human and non-human materialities in Palestine.”

[….]

An American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) study — “No U.S. History? How College History Departments Leave the United States out of the Major,” based on requirements and course offerings at 75 leading colleges and universities — found that “the overwhelming majority of America’s most prestigious institutions do not require even the students who major in history to take a single course on United States history or government.” Often “microhistories” are offered to history majors at schools that require these majors to take no U.S. history course: “Modern Addiction: Cigarette Smoking in the 20th Century” (Swarthmore College), “Lawn Boy Meets Valley Girl” (Bowdoin College), “Witchcraft and Possession” (University of Pennsylvania).

At some schools that require history majors to take at least one U.S. history course, the requirement can be fulfilled with courses like “Mad Men and Mad Women” (Middlebury College), “Hip-Hop, Politics and Youth Culture in America” (University of Connecticut) and “Jews in American Entertainment” (University of Texas at Austin). Constitutional history is an afterthought.

Small wonder, then, that a recent ACTA-commissioned survey found that less than half of college graduates knew that George Washington was the commanding general at Yorktown; that nearly half did not know that Theodore Roosevelt was important to the construction of the Panama Canal; that more than one-third could not place the Civil War in a correct 20-year span or identify Franklin Roosevelt as the architect of the New Deal; that 58 percent did not know that the Battle of the Bulge occurred in World War II; and that nearly half did not know the lengths of the terms of U.S. senators and representatives….

Hugh Mungus “Aggresses” a BLM Feminist

Becuase the video is so unbelievable, I want to intro it with a couple comments from across the WWW:

Obnoxious protester, Zarna Joshi, had been getting in people’s faces and demanded to know their names. Joshi then saw a police supporter being interviewed by a news reporter, and she decided to harass him. When Joshi confronted the supporter, he identified himself to her as “Hugh Mongous.” And that’s when the world fell apart. The crazy really starts about two minutes in.

[….]

Rather than arrest Zarna Joshi for creating a disturbance and refusing to leave, the responding officers left her to run free and create more of a disturbance because: Seattle.

These are the sort of self-entitled obnoxious people that police officers are forced to deal with every day. When you think that you’ve had a bad day at work, just remember that you aren’t putting up with this kind of crazy.

(BLUE LIVES MATTER)

This has a little of everything. It’s got social justice warriors. It’s got Black Lives Matter. It’s got PC culture. And it has a guy who called himself ‘Hugh Mungus.’ The nerve on the patriarchist!

Picture it: Seattle, 2016. SJWs and BLM are upset that the city wants to build a new police station. Because, naturally. The media chose to interview a guy – and a WHITE guy at that – whose daughter was a heroin addict instead of anyone from BLM. You know, someone whose opinion might be relevant.

And that’s where the antics ensue. Particularly at the 1:00 minute mark…

[….]

This is yet more proof that today’s SJW left is beyond parody. If I were to have created a sketch of a feminist freaking out and calling the cops over someone using the name “Hugh Mungus,” the comments sectionwould have excoriated me for creating such a straw man straw woman non-binary straw-person. If I then created a scenario in which she called the cops over “rape culture” but refused to cooperate with the cops because of “police brutality culture,” people would have accused me of debasing the argument to lazy parody. Yet here we are, 2016….

(STEVEN CROWDER)

Why Don’t Feminists Fight for Muslim Women? Culture Counts

Are women oppressed in Muslim countries? What about in Islamic enclaves in the West? Are these places violating or fulfilling the Quran and Islamic law? Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an author and activist who was raised a devout Muslim, describes the human rights crisis of our time, asks why feminists in the West don’t seem to care, and explains why immigration to the West from the Middle East means this issue matters more than ever.

Milo vs Muhammad (Plus, Muslim Feminists)

VERY STRONG Language Warning!

In Sahih Bukhari, Muhammad is quoted as saying “Listen and obey your leader, even if he is an Ethiopian with a head like a raisin.”

Islamic scholar Ibn Qutaybah described black people as “ugly and misshapen because they live in a hot country where the heat overcooks them in the womb and curls their hair.”

Muslim scholar Nasir al-Din Tusi once said:

  • “The ape is more capable of being trained than the Negro.”

Female leaders:

  • In Sahih Bukhari, when Muhammad learned that the Persians had instated a female monarch, he said “Never will succeed such a nation as makes a woman their ruler.”

BONUS

Author Laura Bates Interviewed by Dennis Prager

Dennis Prager interviews author and columnist, Laura Bates, author of “Everyday Sexism.” This is where Prager doesn’t necessarily debate a guest, but uses the Aristotelian approach of asking questions so the listener can pick up on the inherent inconsistencies of the guests positions. Good interview.

My PAGE on the “Gender Wage Gap Myth” can be found here.
_________________________________________
For more clear thinking like this from Dennis Prager… I invite you to visit: http://www.dennisprager.com/ ~ see also: http://www.prageruniversity.com/

Appropriate This! ~ Firewall

See my previous post on the example of dreadlocks, here: Cultural Appropriation Alert: Honkeys Cannot Have Dreadlocks

The Social Justice Warriors — the first warriors to faint at the sight of a penknife — have a new weapon to show off their unearned moral superiority: CULTURAL APPROPRIATION, where mainstream culture steals from minorities without being “authentic.” Surprisingly Bill Whittle agrees with this, and has a list of grievances all his own.

Clapping and Raising Hands are “Triggering”

The Washington Times has a story on how clapping “triggers” anxiety in women:

A U.K. student feminism conference is asking attendees to refrain from clapping and use “jazz hands” instead so as to not trigger anxiety in others.

The National Union of Students (NUS) Women’s Campaign announced the clapping “ban” at the West Midlands conference on Twitter Tuesday, shortly after receiving a request from the Oxford University Women’s Campaign.

  • “@nuswomcam please can we ask people to stop clapping but do feminist jazz hands? it’s triggering some peoples’ anxiety. thank you!” Oxford representatives wrote.

Within five minutes, NUS tweeted: “Some delegates are requesting that we move to jazz hands rather than clapping, as it’s triggering anxiety. Please be mindful! #nuswomen15.”

The tweets received a wave of criticism and mockery by people who argued political correctness has run amok, Twitchy first reported….

Geeez. Talk about pansies! This is almost as bad as the sexist glacier study. Now, even raising one’s hand is deemed “triggering,” via Reason:

If you think that the sex and speech climate at U.S. universities has gone awry, U.K. college campuses are becoming downright dystopian. Remember last year, when British student leaders declared clapping too triggering and requested that students show approval with jazz hands instead? Now students have moved on to tackling another menacing movement: the raised hand.

Granted, raising one’s hand has long been the universal symbol of “I have a question,” especially in educational environments. But sometimes hand-raising can denote disagreement with a speakers’ position, or even exasperation, and that’s where we get into dangerous territory, say University of Edinburgh students. The move could be viewed as disrepsectful—and thus a violation of the school’s “safe space” policy.

Last week Imogen Wilson, vice president for academic affairs with the student association, was threatened with removal from her position after she “raised [her] arms in disagreement” during a council debate and shook her head disapprovingly.

Basically this is making people’s ideas and feeling “rights,” …an expression of their infantile emotive state that they express and expect others to accept.

This movement was forecast many years ago in such books as: