“Such a miserable class. You have to take her viewpoint to be viewed as correct.”
“Literally the worst class ever. She’s not funny and she thinks she is.”
From Fox News: A university in Boston is distancing itself from a feminist professor who wrote a controversial column earlier this month that some are calling “hate speech.”
In an op-ed for the Washington Post, Suzanna Danuta Walters, sociology professor and women’s, gender, and sexuality studies program director at Northeastern University, said women have every right to “hate men.”
“You have done us wrong. #BecausePatriarchy,” she wrote. The university in Boston immediately distanced itself from the oped, saying “hate has no place” at the university.
“The university has more than 1,000 faculty members whose viewpoints span the entire political spectrum,” university spokesperson Shannon Nargi told Fox News in a statement. “Consistent with our unwavering commitment to academic freedom, the opinions of an individual professor do not reflect the views of the university or its leadership. Northeastern is committed to fostering an environment in which controversial ideas can be discussed, debated and challenged.” Walters wrote that men should just cede their power and responsibility to women. “So men,” the feminist activist writes, “If you…would like us to not hate you…pledge to vote for feminist women only. Don’t run for office. Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power.”
Walters admits even before President Trump, her edge had been crossed, and urges feminists, instead of taking the high road, “maybe it’s time for us to go all Thelma and Louise and Foxy Brown on their collective butts.”
In a response to Walters’ column, Conor Friedersdorf wrote in The Atlantic that her argument is a “perversion” of feminism, but he believes that even her “most bigoted ideological commitments don’t affect how she treats her students.”
“Group hate,” Friedersdorf writes, “tends to make those who harbor it less able to see clearly, less likely to acknowledge nuance, and less able to improve the world, even as their wrongheaded ideas risk leading others into destructive errors.”
This wasn’t the first time Walters has attacked a group of people based on their identity.
The College Fix pointed out that, while Walters demands people elect women for public office, she told the campus newspaper it shouldn’t endorse a Republican woman.
“Having a Carly Fiorina or a, heaven forbid, Sarah Palin in the White House would set all women back of course, because their agendas are firmly and unequivocally anti-feminist,” she said.
Nikkita Oliver, a community organizer and BLM supporter, ran for mayor in Seattle this year. She came in third in the primaries and didn’t make it to the general election ballot.
Since she’s not going to be in the public life, I guess she’s somehow got to stay in the public eye.
From MyNorthwest.com: Former Seattle mayoral candidate Nikkita Oliver says video she took inside a grocery store of a security guard following two black teens is further proof of racism in modern America.
“While I’m walking through the aisle … I see two young black people walk by me,” Oliver said in a Facebook video.
“Asa youth worker here in the neighborhood, I noticed them. I see them. I gave a little head nod,” she said. “Then I also see a security guard walk by me very swiftly. It wasn’t my desire to get into anything at the Safeway … I turn and I’m thinking ‘Is this security guard following these young people?’ And I see he is following them. He’s following them very quickly.”
The incident happened at the Rainier Beach* Safeway in Seattle. Oliver confronted the security guard and started recording her interaction with him. In the four days since the video was posted on Nov. 12, it has been shared 2,150 times, and has been viewed nearly 333,000 times. The only insight into the video is from a second video Oliver posted two days later. In the second video, she explains how she eventually confronted the guard about his behavior. According to her, he said “I’ve been doing this job for a while now and I know how to spot when someone is going to do something.” (*In 2015, Rainier Beach had a population that was 31.4% black compared to 29.6% Asian and 22.7% white.)
Oliver said that the young men noticed her confronting the guard and told her that they knew they were being followed.
At this point, Oliver’s Facebook Live video takes over, recording her interaction with the guard who leads her to store management. Those officials explain that they hire an outside company to provide security and then gave Oliver the company’s phone number.
In response to Oliver’s video at the Rainier Beach grocery store, Safeway issued the following statement: Discrimination is contrary to who we are as a company and how we serve our customers and communities. We take the allegations seriously and are conducting a thorough investigation. The security individual featured in the video is employed by a third party security service, and he is no longer assigned to a Safeway store.
Oliver did not respond to requests for comment from KIRO Radio, or any other media, following the video inside the Safeway store. Instead, she posted a second video in response. Oliver explains that from her recent experiences with media, “stories get spun and get used for click bait, and get used to make us look like we are in the wrong.” “People are always questioning whether or not people of color are truly being followed through stores; whether or not the stories we are telling about microaggressions and how white supremacy impacts us in our daily lives are true,” she said. “And I wanted to make sure people could see that. I also wanted to actively challenge that because we live in a society; right now are seeing white supremacy and the problems with it and the problems with patriarchy.”
Oliver said she has called the security company and Safeway’s corporate office. She did not have any contact with either company at the time of the recording.
“This stuff really happens to our young people, day in and day out,” Oliver said in her video response. “Stores don’t want to take responsibility for it. Security doesn’t want to take responsibility for it. But it’s racist, it’s white supremacist, and it’s wrong.”
Do you remember our DCG’s postof October 30, on how HORRIBLE, just HORRIBLE! it is to be a woman in the oppressive U.S. patriarchy where women can’t walk down a public street without being ogled and harassed by men?
Here’s a quote from the slutty Cosmopolitan, a women’s magazine that promotes promiscuity, vanity, and features scantily-clad models on its cover:
No matter where you live, if you’ve ever walked around your neighborhood as a woman (or queer person) for any lengthy amount of time, you’ve been subjected to catcalls, whistles, stares, you name it.
As proof, the feminists produced this video of a not-particularly-attractive pear-shaped brunette, dressed in a black t-shirt and leggings, being harassed and catcalled by men as she walks the streets of New York City.
So it is curious, to say the least, that we now have another video of a woman — a blonde — walking the streets of the same New York City naked from her waist down, without anyone taking notice. The woman appears to be wearing a pair of very tight blue jeans that’s really body paint. Still, those “jeans” are much more revealing and suggestive than the black leggings worn by the brunette in the “harassment” video. And yet NO ONE ogled at or harassed the blonde.
P.S. If you had watched the video closely, you’d see that she wasn’t really naked, but was wearing a G-string that was camouflaged by all the body paint.
So which video do you believe? ~Eowyn
The late Andrea Dworkin (1946-2005) is a Jewish radical feminist (radfem), lesbian, anti-pornography activist and author.
Though a public lesbian, Dworkin was married twice — to men. Her second husband, John Stoltenberg, “considers himself gay” and also a radfem. Please note that Stoltenberg is the former managing editor of the AARP’s magazine.
In her 1987 book, Intercourse, Dworkin argues that in our patriarchal (male-dominated) society, all heterosexual sex is really rape and not that different from pornography in that it’s coercive and degrading to women. Sexual penetration of vagina by penis may by its very nature doom women to inferiority and submission, and “may be immune to reform.”
Nearly 9 years after Dworkin had died, nothing has changed in radical feminists’ view of sexual intercourse or PIV (Penis In Vagina).
On a radfem blog called radical wind (note the lack of capital letters), blogger witchwind writes in her post of Dec. 15, 2013 that “a basic fact” is that “Intercourse/PIV is always rape, plain and simple.” Here are some excerpts (my editorial comments are colored teal):
Intercourse is the very means through which men oppress us, from which we are not allowed to escape […]
First, well intercourse is NEVER sex for women. […] Sex for men is the unilateral penetration of their penis into a woman (or anything else replacing and symbolising the female orifice) whether she thinks she wants it or not – which is the definition of rape: that he will to do it anyway and that he uses her and treats her as a receptacle, in all circumstances […] men use women as useful objects and instruments for penetration, and women are dehumanised by this act. It is an act of violence.
[…] intercourse is inherently harmful to women and intentionally so, because it causes pregnancy in women. [Now we know why feminists are pro-aborts and regard the unborn baby in the womb as a tumor. Of course, this means that witchwind and other radfems themselves were once “tumors” in their mothers’ wombs.] The purpose of men enforcing intercourse regularly (as in, more than once a month) onto women is because it’s the surest way to cause pregnancy and force childbearing against our will, and thereby gain control over our reproductive powers.[What “reproductive powers”? Aren’t babies mere cancerous tumors?] There is no way to eliminate the pregnancy risk entirely off PIV and the mitigating and harm-reduction practices such as contraception and abortion are inherently harmful, too. Reproductive harms of PIV range from pregnancy to abortion, having to take invasive, or toxic contraception, giving birth, forced child bearing and rearing and all the complications that go with them which may lead up to severe physical and emotional damage, disability, destitution, illness, or death […] If we compare this to even the crappiest online definition of violence: “behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something”. Bingo. It fits: Pregnancy = may hurt, damage or kill. Intercourse = a man using his physical force to penetrate a woman. Intention / purpose of the act of intercourse = to cause pregnancy. PIV is therefore intentional harm / violence. Intentional sexual harm of a man against a woman through penile penetration = RAPE.
[…] PIV is a man mounting on a woman to thrust a large member of himself into her most intimate parts, often forcing her to be entirely naked, banging himself against her with the whole weight of his body and hips, shaking her like he would stuff a corpse, then using her insides as a receptacle for his penile dejection. How is this a normal civilised, respectful way to treat anyone? Sorry for the explicit picture, but this is what it is and it’s absolutely revolting and violating.
The term “fuck you” is not an insult for nothing, men know why – it’s the worst thing you can do to a human being.It […] causes all sorts of tears, bruises, swelling, discomfort, STDs, vaginal infections, urinary infections, genital warts, HIV and death. […]
The fact intercourse causes so many infections and tears and warts attests to the unnaturalness of intercourse, that it’s not meant to be. The vagina’s primary function isn’t to be penetrated by a penis but to eject a baby for birth. […] Penetration of the penis into the vagina is completely unnecessary for conception. [Uh? Before modern science, artificial insemination and test-tube babies, how did the human species reproduce ourselves?]
[…] Through an all-pervasive and powerful male propaganda, they stuff our minds from infancy with the idea that PIV is normal, desirable and erotic […] The fact we may not immediately feel raped doesn’t mean it’s not rape, objectively speaking. […] our subjective feelings or thoughts may be colonised by men’s perspectives […]
Here are the 10 bloggers who clicked the “like” button on witchwind’s “PIV is always rape, ok?”:
Ann Tagonist [get it?]
On the blog’s effective “About” page, which witchwind pretentiously calls “On Writing and Creativity,” she says that her blog’s purpose is to write about her “insights” on “maledom” which are “relevant to radical feminism, to our liberation”.
On the blog’s “Comments” page, witchwind declares that only “women interested in forwarding radical feminist discussion and thought are invited to comment. Men, don’t even try commenting on my blog, because I’m not going to publish it.”
Here are some more brilliant [sarc] man-hating insights from witchwind:
1. Science is male, dead, boring, and full of lies:
Men have made science to be full of endnotes, dead-talk, lies and boredom. I will never thank Mary Daly enough for coining the word “academentia”. They are not interested in the truth, but interested in concocting fake evidence to support their lies and propaganda against women, to legitimise their totalitarian regime and political agenda of destroying the universe. In particular, Male science, as everything male, is modelled on the male ideal relationship to the world: men as god, who position themselves as external observers of life from the top, separate from life itself: life is viewed as underneath, as an object, a dead object, ripped from its environment and from the life that surrounds and sustains it. To be studied it is imprisoned, held captive, fragmented, cut up, penetrated, prodded, tortured in the most unimaginable ways. From this murder and torture they deduce “objective laws”.
Their science is as objective as pornography, that is, it couldn’t be a worse perversion of truth.[…]So-called “modern western science” is simply Male Religion re-branded as science, with the only difference being that men replaced the omniscient (omni-science) god with themselves – religious paradigm and the male god’s overpowering/towering relationship to the world became the scientific paradigm, ontology and methodology.
2. witchwind blames the problems she experienced with writing when she was a university student to “male writing”:
[…] One thing I’ve noticed is that one reason why writing felt so much like a chore is that the process was separated from the ends. Men focus everything on an end product, which is a dead object, a finished object, a square frame. It is very much based on ejaculation, or perhaps male notion of extinction. […] It’s not living work. University essay-writing was all about deadlines, dead ends. This is deeply alienating. […] What made writing so joy-killing and draining was that I wasn’t focused on the process itself and what it did to me, but on the end-product idea I wanted to express. […] It was basically a chore.
3. Everything male is dead, oppressive, and stultifying:
In contrast, “Joy and serenity are fundamental to feminism.”
On one thing, I do agree with witchwind. In her post “intercourse and manufactured female pleasure: politics of love part III,” on Jan. 2, 2014, she rails against the women’s liberation movement as being “the great scam of the 20th century” which is not in the best interests of women. But I would phrase it differently. LOL
As witchwind puts it, instead of liberty, “women’s liberation” is really about:
“being free to be fucked by any man
having orgasms in being fucked by men
achieving equality to men with the pill, so we can now be fucked by men without consequences, that is dissociate PIV from reproduction.”