UCSB Police Department Releases Feminist Professor Incident Report

She could take the sign because she was stronger. She took it because she didn't like the graphic images and because she was pregnant, it so incensed her that she felt justified. In fact, she puts herself in the same category as conscientious objectors.

OK, to start: "conscientious objectors" as a status of person are people raised in communities or in strict religious settings wherein violence used to solve problems is *categorically* prohibited. This means no fighting or killing other people. It was initially created as a way to allow men raised in pacifist religious sects such as the Quakers and Amish to not be compelled to bear arms contrary to their upbringing. Mostly this was a practical matter for the gov't. Men raised never to fight or kill were pretty useless on a battlefield, esp. if they simply refused to pick up a rifle regardless of the consequences. Besides, they were good farmers; why take such men from the land when food was needed in war and peace? Also, there were (and still are) relatively few such men in the population.

This feminist prof doesn't fit that description, does she?

She's fine using force to do what *she* wants to, but can't stand it when someone is merely stating their opinion and showing evidence of why they hold it. So, she feels justified in trying to stop them with force. Reason? She's pregnant and the images of aborted fetuses caused her to lose her self-control.

I suppose I'd buy that if she didn't believe that abortion was permissible morally, etc., but I'm guessing she does. Hard to be a feminist prof at a university w/out being pro-choice. So I'm not really buying her story from that POV. And, I also imagine she's seen such images before.

As for saying they were off-campus ppl and should not have been there-- well, there's a property trespass issue that could be raised. However she isn't an administrator or campus security officer. I doubt faculty have been given authority to manage trespassers, etc. Most colleges in fact mandate that faculty contact security and not attempt to deal w/ the situation themselves in case the faculty member gets injured-- or does something like this.

No, I think she just didn't like what the protesters were about, and decided to claim her free speech rights and attempt to suppress theirs. Typical bully behavior, as is claiming that she is the victim.

*** Feminist Playbook ***
Rule 1: You're Always Right.
Rule 2. You're Always The Victim.
Rule 3. Given 1 and 2, Anything You Do Or Say Is Justifiable.

If these had been pro-choice protesters on a college campus and a male professor whose wife/gf just had an abortion against his wishes (or maybe she had just had a miscarriage) done the same thing, does anyone think he could get away with such behavior? Doubt it. My guess is that this prof will see no consequences but instead become a "Great Heroine Of Feminism And Progressive Thought", etc. Heck, bet she'll get a medal or something.

BTW, is it just me, or does anyone else think it's ironic she's using her pregnancy as at least part of her excuse/justification for her behavior when it's been a staple assertion of feminism that pregnancy is not a significant influence on female behavior, nor should a woman's treatment or status be considered based on that fact? Typical of feminists: fall back on ideas or traditions that give women a responsibilty pass when it's convenient for them but insist on "equal treatment" as well perks on top of that all other times. "Heads we win, tails we win!" Nice racket!

Matt, I think the term "conscientious objector" originated the way you described, but now days the term is associated with any type of ethical beliefs wether they form from religious culture or not. In the medical and science fields, a professional might have "conscientious objections" to many professional practices and would likely be protected by law from getting fired if he/she refused to participate. (examples: animal testing, creating fetuses for research, abortion, circumcision)

As a pro-life atheist I just feel it's important to get that point across.

And Miller-Young seems confused about what a "conscientious objector" is. Conscientious objectors simply don't participate in whatever act they are against. I don't know how she can describe herself as one. IMO, this is more evidence that she does not have the reasoning skills one would expect from a professor.

Anyway, Matt, you make some good points about the contradictions in Miller-Young's defense and her feminist belief system.

I'm starting to think that feminism is a lot like religion. They pick and choose what beliefs they are going to apply, when it benefits them.

Here is another thing about Miller-Young which may be worth noting.....

Miller-Young herself, posts questionable images without any warning to the public. Upon gathering background info on her I stumbled upon her web page. It opens with a very old black-and-white photo of two topless nearly-nude black girls. Their age is questionable as they look young. There is an older white man behind them. It looks as if the girls are slaves and the man is the slave-owner. It is the beginning of her video about the history of black women in the sex trade which is full of sexually graphic images. There is no NSFW warning and no age restrictions such as "must be over 18 to view"

Miller-Young writes that she had posted the videos on Youtube, but Youtube removed them. So if Miller-Young ever tries to use the defense that she was just policing what images are seen by the public or that the images were not suitable for the public...just remember that she publicly posts pornography.

Also, It is my understanding that the pro-life demostrators were NOT trespassing, as it was a designated area where outsiders frequently come to demonstrate political or social issues. Miller-Young just did not like their message, and only tolerates free speech if it is to her liking.

I'll admit up front that at one time I bought into the "choice" argument but no longer do. And I know MRAs can differ about this issue.

One reason I no longer support the "pro-choice" argument is that the right to abortion inevitably conflicts with other rights. It's easy to see this in a related issue: birth control. Under Obamacare, a group of local nuns who run a charitable organization is now required to provide BC for female employees. The female employees are not, of course, required to take them--but the nuns are required to provide them even though they believe the pill is morally wrong.

So, too, pro-choicers want all doctors to be required to perform abortions, which would conflict with the right to religious freedom. And many argue men should have no "say" in abortions. Exactly what they mean by that it not always clear, but interpreted broadly it could mean no male officer-holder could vote or rule on a law touching on abortion. That would end both the right to free speech and democracy as we know it.

The action by this feminist professor shows that the right to abortion and the right to free speech often come into conflict, as it also does in the case of abortion protesters. The "pro-choice" approach is to simply take away the free speech rights of those who oppose abortion. In their view, when the right to abortion conflicts with the right to free speech or freedom of religion, freedom of speech and religious freedom lose. The more they make that argument, the more convinced I am that the right to abortion cannot coexist with freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

"conscientious objector" is, like the phrase "begging the question" often is, simply being mis-applied by not just this prof but by others using it to refer to what you describe. The phrase "begging the question" means to assume the conclusion in the premises of an argument (e.g.: "Given A and given B, therefore B"). But many ppl today use it to say that a given idea or statement seems naturally to lead someone to ask some kind of related or follow-up question about it. These are two very different definitions for the same phrase.

Oh, I know English is a "living language" and all that. But to me, if people don't use words as they were created to apply to particular things, their meaning and power begins to wane to the point where, if it's bad enough, the word becomes effectively meaningless. For relatively trivial purposes, it's not such a big deal (like "begging the question": no big deal). However if a central point you're making or idea you're appealing to is being expressed by a word or phrase that really means something else, then to me, that's a problem. (Example: "rape". No need to elaborate on that.) The prof is in this case trying to claim a morally courageous high ground by invoking the imagery of actual conscientious objectors (who would all happen to be male, BTW) as a means of trying to duck responsibility for her criminal actions. For this reason alone, I think she's "blech", even with her being a feminist of the physically bullying variety aside.

I accept you and others may have a different take on this topic, even though I think the diffusion of a word's (or phrase's) meaning generally reduces its utility as a way to communicate an idea w/out confusion about the idea its user is expressing. Nonetheless, this argument has 2 sides (heck, maybe more), and I can see how you'd come to hold a different opinion.

And, thanks for mentioning the prof's web site "issues". Any inclination I may have developed in future to visit it can now be safely deleted from my brain.