OH TEH NOES, IT'S WOMEN'S STUDIES!
Jan. 31st, 2010 11:10 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sabotabby![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
outcastspice found this bit of hilarity from the National Socialist Post,* along with Jezebel's response. And because I can never pass up an opportunity to mock the National Socialist Post, let's take a closer look!If the reports are to be believed, Women's Studies programs are disappearing at many Canadian universities. Forgive us for being skeptical. We would wave good-bye without shedding a tear, but we are pretty sure these angry, divisive and dubious programs are simply being renamed to make them appear less controversial.
Well, it turns out that our friends here don't actually support capitalism as much as they claim to. Because, as a general rule, universities don't really offer programs that no one takes, so presumably, there are students who wish to take Women's Studies courses and are paying for that privilege, and hence the universities offer them, and this sort of concession to supply and demand cannot be tolerated.
Who has an anti-feminist bingo card on them? Tick off "angry," and wait until you see the next paragraph.
The radical feminism behind these courses has done untold damage to families, our court systems, labour laws, constitutional freedoms and even the ordinary relations between men and women.
There it is. Depending on your card, you may have already won.
Their professors have argued, with some success, that rights should be granted not to individuals alone, but to whole classes of people, too.
Imagine that! People oppressed as a class should be granted rights as a class. What is this nonsense? Next, the common rabble will be clamoring for the vote or some such nonsense.
This has led to employment equity -- hiring quotas based on one's gender or race rather than on an objective assessment of individual talents.
Does anyone still think this is how employment equity works? The National Socialist Post does!
Executives, judges and university students must now sit through mandatory diversity training.
Really? I've never been an executive or a judge, but I've had six years or so of university education, and the closest I've ever come to mandatory diversity training was a little bit of anti-oppression training in teachers' college. But anyway I think it's a good idea as long as it's not done by total fucking morons.
Divorcing men find they lose their homes and access to their children, and must pay much of their income to their former spouses (then pay tax on the income they no longer have) largely because Women's Studies activists convinced politicians that family law was too forgiving of men. So now a man entering court against a woman finds the deck stacked against him, thanks mostly to the radical feminist jurisprudence that found it roots and nurture in Women's Studies.
Those...radical feminist family law judges! Wait, what? I'm not going to get into my family's story in great detail because this is an unlocked post, but if you want to dodge child support payments, apparently all you need to do is move to a different province. Also, you can have visitation rights even if you're an abusive shitbag. Clearly, the radfems are in control of family law.
The equality protection before and under the law, granted to all Canadians regardless of race, sex, creed or origin, has been eroded because feminist legal scholars convinced the Supreme Court to permit preferential treatment for "traditionally disadvantaged groups," chief among whom, they contend, are women.
This does not even make sense. Gender is also one of the protected legal groups. What they call "preferential" treatment is actually, in theory, "equal treatment."
Over the years, Women's Studies scholars have argued all heterosexual sex is oppression because its "penetrative nature" amounts to "occupation."
At this point, I'm starting to fear for the sex lives of National Socialist Post editors. Do they actually think heterosexual sex = exclusively penetrative sex? Clearly, they are unhappy because they're, shall we say, unsatisfied. Someone sic Sue Johanson on their asses, stat.
They have insisted that no male author had any business writing novels from women's perspectives; although, interestingly, they have not often argued the converse -- that female writers must avoid telling men's stories.
The cause of Bechdel Fail is actually radical feminist university professors.
They have pushed for universal daycare and mandatory government-run kindergarten, advocated higher taxes to pay for vast new social entitlements
Universal daycare? Kindergarten! What is this balderdash? Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?
even put forward the notion that the only differences between males and females are "relatively insignificant, external features." All other differences are said to be the result of patriarchal brainwashing.
Now, now, let's not start bringing science into this.
So the only way to ensure gender equality is to turn over all education to the state, where professionals can ensure only unbiased instruction.
We call it "public education." The National Socialist Post doesn't like the sound of it.
And it goes on to conclude that Women's Studies are *handwringing* still with us. *HEAVY SIGH* Feminism 1, Hack Journalism 0.
* Yeah, I know that's a Godwin violation. I'll stop calling them that when they stop being Nazis.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-01-31 04:30 pm (UTC)has my vote for best line of the post. errr..this post, not the Nazi Post.
no subject
Date: 2010-02-01 03:09 am (UTC)Unfortunately I have nothing more to add that's constructive. The article had me in hysterics. Does that mean I've been brainwashed by the radical feminists too, to the point where I've apparently grown a uterus?
no subject
Date: 2010-02-01 03:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-31 05:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-31 05:30 pm (UTC)Clearly their reputation precedes them.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-31 05:41 pm (UTC)Otherwise, yes!
no subject
Date: 2010-01-31 05:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-31 06:34 pm (UTC)Feminism these days seems to dive deeper and deeper into some sort of inept bitterness - that of women who feel they didn't make it despite the fact that there was nothing obvious stopping them.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-31 09:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-31 09:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-31 10:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-31 11:37 pm (UTC)Somewhat related image 2 (http://rule34-images.paheal.net/3aa20dad0e7146b6a020210e96af0b46/281984%20-%20Ben_Newman%20Cowardly_Lion%20Dorothy_Gale%20Scarecrow%20Tin_Man%20Toto%20Wizard_of_Oz.jpg)
no subject
Date: 2010-01-31 11:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-01 12:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-01 01:06 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-01 09:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-02 01:53 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-31 07:53 pm (UTC)Kinda weird and awkward for the journalist to be talking about his personal sex life in a serious journalistic article. And something tells me, that's not really the reason women at bars don't want to go home with him.
Perhaps someone should tell him about strap-ons so he could make a clever come-back ala "it's not oppression if you're occupying my patriarchal ass!" Maybe he'll get lucky.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-31 08:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-01 05:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-31 11:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-01 02:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-05 02:31 pm (UTC)