It's Official, and by Unanimous Consent: Faust is In!

Am I wrong in thinking, that at the beginning of the article, the writer is basically saying women in general are unfit for such positions? I wouldn't necessarily agree with that; it only matters if they are feminists or feminist sympathizers.

Anywhow, I did read in the paper today (from AP) that Faust was selected after others showed a lack of interest in the position, so maybe she was not the first choice desired. Hopefully she will get a high salary, and thus not be in the position too long - like Goethe's Faust, trading time for money ;-)
-axo

Now that women have taken over academia, from the preschool years to the presidency of the most "prestigious" universities, simply put, they won't want what they have because the men have moved along, and men certainly won't want educations from these bastions of misandry. Therefore, the "value" of education will plummet in the eyes of everyone but feminists, who will be left talking to themselves.

Men will find themselves new places to flourish that don't require formal education, much less the leadership thereof. Feminism is in fact causing a masculine renaissance.

The contributions of men to society always have been and always will be of greater value than those of women. Now that we're being excluded from academia and the professions that arise from it, the value of those things will fall quickly. We take the risks, do the fighting and the competing, we invent and we create, wherever we go. Therefore, our contribution to any field is more valuable, and any field which lacks a masculine influence will become less valuable to society. Men are the explorers and the soldiers. Women are the babysitters and the bureaucrats. Which services are more valuable? Why else would women be so desperate to emulate us if they didn't agree?

Back to Harvard's surrender to the vagina warriors who laid siege to it under Summers' reign: the "girls" are only interested in what the "boys" have. Like a spoiled child demanding whatever her brother has just received for herself, feminists will now shift gears and pursue whatever else men "have". They never go first, never take the initiative, never create, never take chances. It's much easier to simply take that which men have produced, all while blaming men for producing, all in an attempt to make women into men so society will "value" women as much as it values men. Unfortunately for them, riding men's coat-tails into men's shadows does not make a woman into a man. It simply devalues women AND the thing they are attempting to take from men.

Ironically, the renaissance of masculinity which feminism is inducing will lead men into areas where women dare not tread: work that involves actual risk, initiative, competition and so forth. Women cannot be men, and by trying to be men, they inadvertently devalue women.

All the feminists accomplished today was to make Harvard less relevant and valuable. The more feminized education becomes, the less valuable it becomes. This is not a result of men committing sexism against women as feminists will inevitably assert: it is a result of women devaluing anything which they already have, women chasing men out of academia into other areas and women devaluing femininity as they vainly pursue masculinity. Those "other areas" where the men have gone will now become more valuable and desirable as they become more masculine, both to the men therein and to the women who covet anything and everything men might have.

1. Stand by for an onslaught of bogus degree programs such as women's studies; and just what does a degree in women's studies qualify one for anyway?
2. A degradation in the hard science programs to increase female participation; give it a few years and the sciences will be grounded in subjective feelings versus objective facts.
3. Brain washing of students into believing widespread and epidemic racism and sexism exists on campus and must be eliminated at any costs. Remember Duke!
4. A drop in male enrollment.
5. Feminization of males who do attend Harvard.
6. Ever devaluing Harvard degrees.

And some others I’m sure!

Not to sound flippant but just why is it important to my life who the president of snobby, overrated Harvard is?
I just don't get it.

There's a price to be paid when you seek to subvert a $6 - billion dollar academy.

I predict that Harvard's alums, and especially the truly old rich ones, will express their displeasure by with-holding their monetary contributions.

Applications from men will decline. (Hey, the "Harvard of the Midwest", my alma mater, Northwestern U., just enjoyed a shocking 18% increase in applications from aspiring freshman for Fall '07. Maybe more than a few of these burgeoning apps are self-decided exiles from Harvard?)

I give the new fem-prez two years at best.

She has no idea what she is up against.

Only 17% of Harvard's tenured faculty are female.

Do the math on power politics in the ivory jungle...

It will be fun to watch how all these pampered scholars rediscover their gender loyalties ...

You can't fire a tenured professor. So, logically, it's very difficult to coerce them with feminist bullshit.

I hope all the indie screenplay writers out there are paying attention to this fertile narrative ....

"A degradation in the hard science programs to increase female participation; give it a few years and the sciences will be grounded in subjective feelings versus objective facts."....Bull

...And The U.S. wonders why we are woefully behind other nations in regards to math and science.

Fox News:

"Another trend is the growing number of patents granted to countries outside the United States. Augustine said in 2003, only three American companies ranked among the top ten recipients of patents granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. And while a decade ago American companies and engineers were granted 10,000 more U.S. patents than foreign entities, that margin is down to 4,000, according to reports."

Push more women in science?...Why not, apprently this nation is more concerned with political correctness and offering unqualified women special privilidges at the expense of men and technological advancement

But who suffers?...The pharmaceutical industry, the continued demise of U.S. car manufactures, NASA, fossil fuel and emission experts, and the advancement of all aspects of the medical community. What about forestry, astronomy, electronics...etc....etc...etc...???

anthony

Maybe she'll jump off the top of a building with all of the pressure, like the dyke department head in Santa Cruz did.

oregon dad

Harvard will be a girl's school, when lesbian pigs fly?

(Sorry. That was bad.... very, very bad.)

Ungentlemanly, to say the least.

If I had a wife, she would be unplugging my USB cable about now..... ;-)

Anthony, you just committed an unpardonable sin of the Summers variety: you quoted Fox News. You're hereby sentenced to Susan Faludi lecturing for three non-stop hours; be sure you're wearing a diaper when you arrive to do your time.

Believe me, they're incapable of thinking as far ahead as you are.

* MB

P.S.'s - brilliant post, RM.
- Matt, link to Lacaria's op-ed was great.
- Luek, it's important because them's the future bosses

RM,

Your insights as always are bang on correct!

If men who are sympathetic to the illusory notion that feminism is/was ever actually about gender equality... would look objectively at the rad-fem scorecard over the last 40 years ---

then it would be obvious that the only "equality" women seek requires the destruction and elimination of male rights, male spaces, maleness itself....

I could support feminism in a heartbeat if it was truly about gender equality.

But women only know one kind of contest....

they learned it in elementary/ high school when they were trying to steal each other's boyfriends, destroy each other's reputations, use third parties to do their dirty work. (Homage to Rachel Simmon's ODD GIRL OUT, a primer on female violence...)

Women understand that in order for them to be "equal," (because nature has decreed that they are not), they must use laws, media, social coercion ... to diminish men.

Women's equality depends upon LOWERING all standards of excellence.

Otherwise, they'd be insisting upon being on the front lines in Iraq, right?

Vampires and parasites.

A most excellent predatory species indeed.

"The contributions of men to society always have been and always will be of greater value than those of women."

Men are indeed more willing to take risks, but most of that "greater values" right now seems to come from the capitalist perspective. Who takes care of you if you are sick or once you are old? Most of the people who work in nursing homes for the elderly are women, and they are paid low wages because they don't sell some glitzy product.

Also, it's important to acknowledge that there are no absolutes, just tendencies. I know women who excel in technology and science just like I know men who have typical "female" attributes. It's important that these people can choose their place instead of being told where their place is. The latter will backfire for men too (e.g. see the draft or being ridiculed for being a DV victim).

I would like your writings much more if they were a bit more moderate and considerate. And I find it a bit disheartening seeing that nobody critizes your rather extreme point of view.
Not that I don't agree with some of what you say, but you don't try at all to see both sides of the coin, and that never works out to form an educated opinion. This proclamation of the "whole and undisputable truth" unfortunately keeps it all at normal internet message board level.

I knew I recognized that name from somewhere...

Here's where I first saw it:
Fried Green History

We have CNN, Fox and MSNBC.....I utilize all aspects of our national news agencies. It seems that "some" let our poltical affiliation detract from our univeral goal....Mens Activism... Stories, articles and statistics from Fox, CNN, MSNBC, ESPN, and even "Nick at Nite" are all potential providers for info used to express our (and my) opinions. Please tell me you have more to say about my posts than my source.

anthony

I almost forgot.........im just kidding

It really does matter a lot. Aside from producing future professors, administrators and managers, who are themselves in positions of great influence, Harvard leads the way in doing gender "studies" which affect the public's perception (one of the well-known people in this regard, is the feminist pig Carol Gilligan). There are probably too many reasons to list, why us MRA's should be concerned about the appointment of Faust.

-axo

These are colleges that are (were, anyway) world-class not in reputation but in QUALITY. Then they became more reputation- and $$-oriented, then they got invaded by feminists and other such wondrous persons, until now, what-- the former president was forced out of office for one sentence in a speech and in his place was put a woman whose personal and political agenda is arguably as anti-liberal ("liberal" used here in the classic, academic sense) a person as you can find to *run* a university that was once the epitome not just of liberal arts but of the sciences as well. Harvard is a standard that other colleges measure themselves against. If a wholly sub-standard, radicalized person such as Faust is its president, what "standard" is it setting for other universities that look to it for guidance?

Anyone the least bit interested in the quality of US education, esp. college-level, should be concerned. And certainly, MRAs should be concerned whenever a dedicated feminist like this one takes a helm that is as influential as Harvard's presidency is.

You can't fire a tenured professor. So, logically, it's very difficult to coerce them with feminist bullshit.

Wish it were, but not so. It is in fact very easy to coerce faculty with feminized BS, tenured or not. It's been going unabated now for decades and the fruits of it are apparent.

I said that women's contributions were viewed as less valuable, by both women AND men because of the tendency of men to take the risks and stick their necks out in ways that women generally won't. I said nothing about the "value" of men or women, which I believe to be equal. Feminists claim that this is evidence of sexism (i.e. men looking "down" on the female contribution/role), whereas I claim that women are just as likely to view their own contributions in this way (as demonstrated by their continuous pursuit of more "male" roles), and that this difference in the value we generally assign to men and women's contributions results from men's greater ability and willingness to tolerate risk and to compete, not sexism. If you disagree, please say so and why.

You claim that I didn't present the other side of the coin. Please, do enlighten us.

...the post you're criticizing was edited down from the several pages I originally wrote, which covered the subject more thoroughly, and which I'm sure you would have found much more "considerate" and "moderate". In the interests of "normal internet message board level" brevity, I eliminated much of my own discussion. Perhaps that's why you don't understand that I'm actually very moderate about my positions on the issues we discuss, and that I'm always willing to discuss opposing points of view.

If the new feminazi president starts to make aggressive moves on the faculty hiring and tenure committees, she will meet resistance.

Tenured faculty hate administrators. It's a badge of honor among the elite class of the unfireable. (Non-tenured assistant and associate professors are another story ... easily coerced and cowed during the six years of insecurity they face seeking to be awarded tenure.)

What I expect the Fem-Prez to attempt is some sort of finessed gender quota system for "achieving equality" in the ranks of the tenured faculty.

She can exert her influence to make sure that departmental hiring committees will be dominated by feminists. (Many of which will be male shills for her stealth campaign...)

That's the Holy Grail in this gambit- who gets hired for a tenure-track post?

Watch for simplistic gender/racial neo-quotas modelled after the same simplistic sexist math of Title IX, which has destroyed hundreds of male athletic programs.

This woman is no dummy; and she is quite obviously focused on disMANtling Harvard's traditions.

No one who reads this site would be surprised to learn that western, feminized nations are waking up to an interesting gender dilemma -- just this:

As women increasingly dominate higher education enrollments and receive the majority of financial support to obtain a professional degree/ career ...

it's becoming apparent that this may be a poor investment of scarce social resources.

Why?

Because all the surveys suggest that even highly subsidized university-graduated professional women intend to "stop out" of their careers for, oh, a mere 20 years... to breed and raise their spawn.

In England, where medical schools have aggressively sought to increase female enrollments, they are now starting to see a problem ---

female doctors want to have babies, reduce their workload, or even drop out of medical pratice altogether for a couple "mommy decades."

Then, after her kids are packed off to med school, she wants to come back to her former practice & professional role & wage.

Only, her skills are now 20 years out-of-date; which is to say --- obsolete.

This is just one example of what happens when feminism impacts the supply & demand of social talent on the basis of gender "equality."

A female medical student who plans to opt out of 1/3rd of her practicing career is a very expensive doctor indeed!

(Maybe it would be better to incentivize more Women's Studies majors? Cheaper in the long-run....)

..but in your original post, you didn't only say the contributions were viewed as less valuable but that they _are_ in fact less valuable. And there I suggest one should be less sure about this than you sound. I would call men's contributions more visible. They're also definitely easier to turn into money. But intrinsic value.. could be but I don't know.
I'm also not sure if women compete less. This might be a feminist excuse for sub-standard performance or an attempt to portrait women as more cooperative. I haven't seen any proof of this in my life whatsoever so far, except maybe in forums where men discuss about who's right about some silly technical detail :). This looks more like obsession than competition though.

About general typical male behavior, it can be good or bad (it was very bad for me when the stock bubble burst =). Taking a risk is not positive per se. It may have done as much damage as it has caused achievements.

Regarding the 'attempt to become men', because of natural variation there's more than just a few women who do work like typical men. Since I work in information technology, I know some of these. They need to have the same chances, and nowadays they do (or even better). Denying this is part of the stupid lies we're dealing with.

..even people with a solid academic background can be smacked over the head with a "Harvard study that suggests...".

ax -- "Am I wrong in thinking, that at the beginning of the article, the writer is basically saying women in general are unfit for such positions?"

Well, maybe the writer didn't say that, but I will -- without equivocation -- and base it on actual credible philosophy:

Women lack a sense of justice, as is true of all predators.... even those schooled to be deceitful in faux-patriarchial colonialism. (Victimology Ph.D's --- every one upon birth.)

Just because men once dominated (and worshipped) women does not mean that women get a pass now that they dominate (and worship) men.

It is, after all --- real Gender Wars now!

Good reading on inherent female nature at -

http://www.heretical.com/miscella/onwomen.html

There may be some sense in which women do not in general have the same definition of 'justice' as most men do,..that is, men consider justice in an ultimate sense of what is fair 'universally', objectively, whereas women..for whatever reason(s), may weave more emotion into the issue. I do think men have a better ability to separate emotion from objectivity. Does this make women ufit to serve on,say, the Supreme Court? I think not, if a given woman has a lengthy track record of making objective decisions. Of course no woman will ever be officially examined on this basis in light of her gender itself, because that would be declared sexist..and I agree: ALL justices or others of this type standing should be examined for objectivity, period. Unfortunately they did not adequately examine Bader-Ginsberg, she is a biased feminist.

Can women be the heads of public universities? Universities are supposed to be forum for open discussion and freedom of ideas, but anyone is delusional if they think that is actually the way it is on our campuses. For example I took a 'Psychology of Women' class at Univ. of So. Carolina (it is a junior-level course worth 3 credits!), and the class consisted of 95% women who did not want to hear my views on "date rape"..I could not get two words out before they silenced me. The professor did nothing to stop this sexual harassment toward me. So women can be as abusive as men. But I don't think a candidate to be the head of any university, corporation etc., should be disqualified solely because she is a woman. That is not fair, even in the male sense..it is not completely objective. Faust appears to have distorted and unethical views on gender issues, so she is not a valid candidate in my opinion..she is too biased. But as politics including gender politics is a central issued for these type appointments, it does not surprise me that she was selected.

I think it is nonsense to suggest that, for example, a female president having her period would start a war. There is Congress to balance her. But then again, I suspect some decisions of female politicians have been affected by menopause, etc. This is entwined with the issue of emotion. I can't really be sure, I know of no objective research that has even been done on this. It would not be P.C. to even ask that kind of question. But don't you think some men's decisions have also been due to 'personal' factors?

How much of any difference between the sexes, with regards to what we are discussing, is due to socialization and how much to biology? I don't think anyone knows for sure..but even if there is a 'gene' which causes men to protect women and women to seek protection, that is no longer functional in modern industrialized societies so there must be resocialization. That take a long time, many decades..perhaps one hundred years. But the fact is there is at least some of it due to socialization (as opposed to genetics), or I guess you could say the socialization reinforced the genetic heritage. It is unfair to blame either sex for this..as Farell says, prior to the 70's both men and women were filling 'roles', as opposed to the view of men as oppressor and women as oppressed.
One thing is certain..even women who are non-feminists will have a female perspective on things, just as men will have a male perspective. What I find useful sometime is to place myself in the woman's position to understand why she feels the way she does, for example about workplace sexual harassment.

We live in a time when gender politics is a one-party system. It need to be balanced, 50-50, not biased either way. Oh well, maybe I am an idealist:)

-axo

The Good Wife's Guide

LOL

RandT: nice find there. I used to read Per's MANifesto also, but had totally forgotten that episode.

Besides the reports from the South of women pressuring men to go to war with shame and ridicule, there are similar reports from WWII Britain, where there were organized groups of 'ladies' to make sure the men 'did their duty'.

And yet, the myth of gentle, loving, nurturing, non-violent, war-hating womanhood endures...

* MB

...instead of just picking my words apart and making straw-man arguments without addressing the subject directly.

(All uses of "men" or "women" are assumed to include the idea of "most", rather than "all", just so you don't make another fuss about that.)

How do YOU explain the fact that women appear to want only what men have, and then lose interest in the object of their desire as soon as they have it? I firmly believe, based on our experiences to date with women constantly pursuing previously "male" roles and immediately rejecting any "female" or "feminine" roles in society (even if the currently "female" role was once a "male" role), that as soon as men are perfectly comfortable letting their wives do the working for money outside the house while THEY rock the cradle, women will want THAT again, and men "taking" the role of caregiver "away" from women will be yet another ridiculously self-contradictory way for feminists to claim that all men are sexist monsters in order to shame us into giving them whatever they want this week. As soon as women are in a large number of combat roles in the military, there will be a huge cry about what sexist assholes men are for "not doing their duty" and "forcing women to fight".

Why is this, if not because of women under-valuing themselves and erroneously believing that to be more masculine is to be more "valuable"? Of course, doing something that men did first does not make a woman more "masculine" OR more valuable, either in her eyes or in men's, because as soon as she takes over a previously "male" role, it becomes a "female" role, to which she assigns less value. As a result of this continuous cycle of self-loathing and struggling to constantly change her roles in a vain attempt to improve her own self-worth, a woman doing so becomes even MORE insecure and neurotic than she was when her own failure to value herself compelled her to pursue a more "valuable" role in the first place! And who does she blame? Why, MEN of course, just like everyone else does. I believe that much of the misandry we experience today originates directly from this cycle of women hating themselves, women pursuing men's roles, women failing to value themselves in ANY role, and women blaming men for all of the above!

Naturally, there are exceptions to this. And giving little girls sociopathic levels of "self esteem" and assassinating the character of little boys is not the answer to this largely female problem.

Men aren't making women feel less valuable, WOMEN are doing it to themselves by mistakenly assigning more value to "male" roles. Then they hate us because the roles they've taken on are no longer "male", and therefore no more valuable than whatever "female" role the woman left in the first place.

The perception of men's contributions and roles as being more valuable appears to be a generalized phenomenon among BOTH sexes. And don't give me the feminist nonsense about how this is a result of the patriarchal conspiracy and sexism - if it is, it's primarily sexism committed by women against both women AND men, mostly to the detriment of women. Men have traditionally and generally taken on the roles that society attaches more value to. But if, as you and I agree, both men's and women's roles now and in the past are/were equally valuable, because both men and women are equally valuable as human beings, why is this? I suggest that the problem here is that women (and men) do not assign adequate value to "feminine" roles and contributions, not out of sexism, but because we're naturally inclined to assign more value to "masculine" roles. I've offered my explanation repeatedly - we tend to reward and value self-sacrifice, risk-taking and competitive behaviour, which is more likely to be exhibited by men. Again, instead of throwing another straw man at me, I'd like to hear you explain this phenomenon another way.

Before you say so, "sexism" is not a valid answer: BOTH men and women have assigned these relative values to "male" roles and contributions. Therefore, suggesting that it must be due to sexism is simply ridiculous. Clearly there is an evolutionary advantage to this meme whereby we value masculine roles more than we value feminine roles.

So. There are two phenomena here (women pursuing only that which men have, and BOTH men and women valuing male roles over female roles), which I have explained in detail as a result of both female and male psychology (i.e. human "nature"), evolution and behaviour. Let's hear your explanations, but I won't be responding to any more straw men or criticisms which do not address the argument at hand (i.e. "you're being inconsiderate of other viewpoints", "you're claiming women are less valuable", "your writing is too sure of itself", etc. etc.) Just make a case already, n.j.!

ax said -- "I don't think anyone knows for sure.. but even if there is a 'gene' which causes men to protect women and women to seek protection, that is no longer functional in modern industrialized societies so there must be resocialization."

This is where is have to get back on the neo-marxist bus and shout ---

"Class war proceeds gender war!"

2% of the American elite now own approximately 76% of all economic assets. CEO's salaries and perks are obscene ... you can make millions by destroying an American company and outsourcing jobs.

Globalization is just a fancy word for impoverishing the American middle class; i.e. bring an "equality" of family incomes worldwide --- so that a husband and wife in Kansas City will earn about the same as a couple in Saigon.

When women flooded the labor force, this was not because all the stay-at-home moms wanted to abandon their kids to latchkey status, daycare, or worse ... life on the streets.

It was mandated by the global economic forces that ruthlessly drive down the cost of labor.

Just wait until 2 billion Chinese people want a car.

Actually, they already do.

In order for this to happen, a car must cost $600 to produce.

That is why U.S. auto companies are laying off tens of thousands of workers.

They know that, eventually, they will have to produce a $100 automobile.

Recall when a personal desktop computer cost $3,000? (I bought one....)

Now, they are vastly more powerful and available for $250?

Capitalism must destroy in order to create.

Jobs, cultures, gender roles, families ...

mere fodder for the "free" market.

One might occasionally ponder ---

"free, for who, to do what, to whom?"

Feminism is, and has always been, a sideshow.

A distraction.

A scapegoat for what is really happening to men worldwide...

I thought I would make it 30!

Well, you surely entered the 30th comment.

NOW ... what do you THINK?

- for me, at least.

Steve Sailer: Dr. Faust At Harvard.

You might wonder: how Harvard can risk its reputation by dumping a social scientist for telling the truth and appointing a self-serving feminist apparatchik in his place?

I'll let you read it yourself for the answer.

And sorry to drag things back on topic, but even Northwestern gets positive mention...

BTW - If Northwestern is "the Harvard of the Midwest", and the Univ. of Washington is "the Harvard of the Northwest", well, just how many Harvards are there out there?

* MB

Alright, I'm 95% of the way there. I checked out the link below, and it leads to another article which shows the relationship between feminist ideology and that of liberals. If I see ONE more item of convincing evidence such as this, or even anything that reminds me of it, I WILL vote Republican, as opposed to how I usually vote (Democrat or independant candidate). I know there are probably liberals who post on this site, who are pissed off when I say that..but don't worry, I'm still pro-choice, against capital punishment and think Bush fucked up big time when he invaded Iraq. But look at the issue thusly: if we had a female draft, there would not be so many MEN dying in Iraq. And the first step toward getting away from a male-only draft, is to keep nuts like H. Clinton out of office..liberals such as herself have incredibly distorted views on gender issues and we need to seek them out and destroy them. The fact is that the Democratic party is in the process of increasingly alienating men..it says so in "Legalizing Mysandry", and it is true..they are extremeley damaging to society with their anti-male bias. It is KILLING millions of men of all ages, fucking up a whole generation of boys, driving a wedge between the sexes, fostering extreme political correctness and sabotaging whatever is left of scholarship in our institutions. Although I severely doubt that any of the
Republican candidates are prepared to require conscription of women, we must take the first step (actually the second - getting the media to stop spreading bias is the first)..the second step is to get rid of asshole politicians. As long as neither party is in COMPLETE control, as oppose to how it was before the recent elections, the White House and Congress will balance each other to a large degree. It would probably be better if the president was a Democrat and the House was controlled by Republicans, but it is too late for that and we don't need Clinton or some honorary woman in the White House whose anti-male policies will get rubber-stamp approval.

Does anyone know the stance of Edwards, is he a prostitute to the feminists? I would even be suspicious of Rice if she runs.

-axo

Oh yeah, I did say in a recent post we shouldn't have women in combat (not many anyway, only the well-proven ones). But we should have a female draft and put the women in other positions near the front lines, such as medical personnel; even if it robs some guys of opportunities within the military. The lesser of two evils.

Neither extreme of politics is a good thing, because nobody on either fringe thinks anymore.

The far right has "talking points". You can present them with any amount of data, any statistics and research, and no matter what the conclusion is, no matter how obvious, they will just politicize it and spew politically incorrect rhetoric to justify whatever they believed in the first place.

(The far right believes women are helpless victims, endorses chivalry, etc. etc.)

The far left has "political correctness". You can present them with any amount of data, any statistics and research, and no matter what the conclusion is, no matter how obvious, they will just politicize it and spew politically correct rhetoric to justify whatever they believed in the first place.

(The far left believes women are helpless yet somehow "empowered" and "entitled" victims, and that all men are violent rapists who should pay out of some sort of collective guilt, etc. etc.)

In both cases, nobody debates or thinks about anything except how to defend their preconceptions. Regardless of which extreme we're talking about, men get screwed.

Independent thinking is a lost art in both extremes, and politics have replaced policy almost everywhere in American politics, regardless of which extreme you're talking about. The left is marginally more likely to be open to debating an issue instead of just politicizing it, but that "advantage" is more than neutralized by their absolute loathing of all things male.

And from what I hear, Edwards hired an arch-feminist to blog for him. I'm sure glad I don't have to vote in the US these days...

Unfortunately, he has blood on his hands, so I probably wouldn't vote for him (like I didn't in 2000). If he had not taken away votes from Gore, we might not have had Bush and Iraq. Apparently Nader is more interested in making a point, than in the welfare of the nation.
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that he would make a shitty president too.
-axo

They are big-time prostitutes for the ideological feminists:

McElroy's column here

-axo

Sacks quotes Obama

It sounds to me like he is targeting Black women voters.

-axo