In today’s edition of ‘Modern Feminism is Awful’, we find a sociologist and director of the Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Program at Northeastern University repeating an alphabet soup of oppression terminology — from intersectionality to “male domination” to radical feminism to “toxic masculinity” — in a hateful Op/Ed effluvium of vitriol.
Many of her ‘indisputably true’ ‘facts’ are simply wrong, of course, or otherwise assume ‘systemic kyriarchal oppression’ as their cause rather than biology, but hey, science, mathematics and even free speech are tools of systemic oppression against women and minorities, right?
Contrary to what feminist professor Suzanna Danuta Walters would have you think, women own 65% of America’s wealth and make 85% of all consumer purchases. Plus, women age 50 and older control $19 trillion and own more than three-fourths of the nation’s financial wealth. And according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, women are 60% more likely to earn a post secondary degree than men.
Ans as Amy Alkon writes in response at her site: “[Walters] trots out some stats that don’t take into account things I’ve often emphasized here — based on actual research: How women tend to favor work-life-balance over career; how women tend to take jobs that are less physically risky; how much of the ‘wage gap’ is really a mothering gap.”
Perhaps the most hilarious footnote to this insane marxist-feminist jeremiad is that — as John Podhoretz notes — she allowed it to be published in Marty Baron’s Washington Post, which is owned by Jeff Bezos. After all, both of them possess Y-chromosomes.
Professor Walters, who suggests “maybe it’s time for us to go all Thelma and Louise and Foxy Brown on [men’s] collective butts”, represents proof that the academe has fallen.
It’s not that Eric Schneiderman (the now-former New York attorney general accused of abuse by multiple women) pushed me over the edge. My edge has been crossed for a long time, before President Trump, before Harvey Weinstein, before “mansplaining” and “incels.” Before live-streaming sexual assaults and red pill men’s groups and rape camps as a tool of war and the deadening banality of male prerogative.
Seen in this indisputably true context, it seems logical to hate men. I can’t lie, I’ve always had a soft spot for the radical feminist smackdown, for naming the problem in no uncertain terms. I’ve rankled at the “but we don’t hate men” protestations of generations of would-be feminists and found the “men are not the problem, this system is” obfuscation too precious by half.
But, of course, the criticisms of this blanket condemnation of men — from transnational feminists who decry such glib universalism to U.S. women of color who demand an intersectional perspective — are mostly on the mark. These critics rightly insist on an analysis of male power as institutional, not narrowly personal or individual or biologically based in male bodies. . . .
But this recognition of the complexity of male domination (how different it can be in different parts of the world, how racism shapes it) should not — must not — mean we forget some universal facts.
Pretty much everywhere in the world, this is true: Women experience sexual violence, and the threat of that violence permeates our choices big and small. In addition, male violence is not restricted to intimate-partner attacks or sexual assault but plagues us in the form of terrorism and mass gun violence. Women are underrepresented in higher-wage jobs, local and federal government, business, educational leadership, etc.; wage inequality continues to permeate every economy and almost every industry; women continue to provide far higher rates of unpaid labor in the home (e.g., child care, elder care, care for disabled individuals, housework and food provision); women have less access to education, particularly at the higher levels; women have lower rates of property ownership.
. . .
So, in this moment, here in the land of legislatively legitimated toxic masculinity, is it really so illogical to hate men?
You can read more at The Washington Post if you dare.
Would the Washington Post ever print anything that so convincingly qualifies as pure “hate speech” if it was directed against any other target except men?, asks Mark J. Perry at AEI.org.
Commentator Amy Alkon adds at her site:
[I]n Walters’ way of seeing the world, women are powerless victims, less than men, needing men to go all Harrison Bergeron — to handicap themselves so their lessers can get ahead (as in that Kurt Vonnegut short story).
As I said in my piece at Quillette about why I am not a feminist:
Count me the fuck out.
Here are a few comments from sane WaPo readers to give you a degree of hope for humanity.
