College Student Alert: Beware of One-Party Classrooms

...I'm definitely leaning 'less far' to the left. Over the last three decades or so, the Democratic party has done everything in its power to alienate white men. Although what is being addressed here is 'extreme liberals'.

Sometimes though, it seems like Schlafly and others take advantage of the issues surrounding radical feminism to push an anti-left/conservative agenda. Also note that the article is somewhat p.c. in that it doesn't go into any depth about the 'black' or 'peace' classes. Not that I personally give a sh**.

Did anyone besides me watch the "Indoctrinate U." dvd? Also, did anyone read Steve Moxon's account of the origin of P.C. in "The Woman Racket"? Regarding the latter, what do you guys think of it - how tenable is it?

Tom? Others?

-ax

axolotl wrote:

Also note that the article is somewhat p.c. in that it doesn't go into any depth about the 'black' or 'peace' classes.

I don't know about "peace" classes, but lumping black studies classes with the hateful women studies classes, and generally putting the serious discrimination African Americans face in the same category as the faux-problems of women is an execrable practice that the right often engages in. Even conservative MRAs tend to do this...so much for unity.

I was especially impressed by how YouTube's The Editorialist ran it down.

Universities were originally formed as seminaries for the purpose of unifying Christian religious dogma and preventing heresy. They are obviously getting back to their roots by promoting and codifying the "new" religious dogma of rad-feminist social Marxism with misandry as its core foundation. It is no longer just getting a degree in some damned thing or another so you can get a good job with DuPont.

No need to get up in arms. Certainly blacks have been oppressed, whereas women have not (at any point in history).
-ax

Hi Ax - As you know I am a big fan of the Moxon book and when it comes to PC he doesn't dissappoint. He thinks that PC is underlying all of the feminist BS. For those of you who haven't read it yet, and you really should read it, here is my version (YMMV) of a summary of his ideas on PC:

Moxon sees liberals as basically utopians. They traditionally have something labelled as evil that is blocking their version of utopia being able to manifest. During the 1960's it was the "SYSTEM" that was seen as evil and needed to be taken down. BIG GOVT was the problem. Within this idea they had strong ideas about those who were victimized and those in POWER were the biggest problem. The idea that fueled this was marxism where the assumption was that once things got bad enough the workers would unite and revolt against the evil system. Well, the late 20th century came along and the marxist systems started failing and falling apart (USSR) and the workers never seemed to unite and revolt. This left the marxists with the nagging question of why the workers didn't revolt and what they came up with was that Capialism must be extraordinarily evil and a more difficult nut to crack than was first expected. At this point Moxon feels that the emphasis changed from holding the SYSTEM responsible to a model that held the individuals within the SYSTEM responsible and of course those who had power and the life of luxury were the most responsible for the lack of workers uniting and the resulting lack of UTOPIA and that hierarchy of evil doers was topped by the white males. Anyone who was victimized was of course willing to revolt and needed to get very special treatment. So a system of rights developed where those who were disadvantaged automatically got special treatment, more rights and benefits than those who were preventing utopia. In other words the enemy and its power, became more personal and could be seen in social interactions. Here's a quote from page 9:

"The shift of ideological conflict from economic to social issues is an extension of the Marxist conception of all power being economic -- itself a fundamental mistake -- to the even more mistaken idea that all social interactions are invariably about "power" and are therefore economic."

In other words and a bit exagerated to make a point, the social interactions of the white males are about power and this is intimately connected with the absence of utopia.

We have all seen the weaving of "power and control" into the PC agenda and Moxon sees this as fundamental.

Basically, the rights and liberties of individuals are guaged by their resistance to the marxist message.....

My apologies to Moxon for the far to brief summary. Read the book to get the whole story. It is well worth it.

page 12

The idea behind political correctness (PC) and the "speech codes" which are a principal embodiment of it, is that even-handedness merely preferences the powerful, so that when there are competing claims between questions of liberty and social equality, there needs to be a re-balancing in favor or social equality. Enter the idea of dismissing the individual and championing the supposed disadvantaged group.

I think he's got a little more proving to do, with respect to going all the way back to the 1930's or so, bringing up the Frankfurt School, and events prior to its formation, etc. I'm not in any way much knowledgeable on the issue, i.e. my forte is not history, political science, or etc; it just seems to me that Moxon makes it all sound like one big historical thread over which some master 'P.C. God' presides.

He's trying to weave together several seemingly disparate strands, if I remember correctly; thus he may be going too far, or it may just be the limited space of the book which prevents him from going into enough detail to satisfy the skeptic. Then again, the topic of the book is debunking feminism through science. It's not 'history of ideas' or something.

-ax

I don't know about "peace" classes, but lumping black studies classes with the hateful women studies classes, and generally putting the serious discrimination African Americans face in the same category as the faux-problems of women is an execrable practice that the right often engages in. Even conservative MRAs tend to do this...so much for unity.

I agree. Black (African-American) studies and Women's studies aren't similar. "Women's and Gender" studies is a vehicle for teaching misandrist feminism, but hatred against white people or black supremacy is not the focus of African-American studies.

Misandrists seek to demonize men, not just men of just one color or race. "Men's rights" proponents are already slight in number compared to feminists. It's self-defeating, and even hypocritical, to try to alienate some men from our efforts against misandry based on skin color.

I have a question for you Hunchback. Do you know of any "men's rights" websites where race, religion etc. isn't an issue? Many years ago I first heard of a men's rights organization. The head of that group was being interviewed one Sunday morning on a local radio station by a female interviewer. She couldn't repress her angry feelings towards the concept of a men's group during the interview. About ten years ago I searched for that organization on the internet and found their website. I was disappointed to read their anti-minority feelings on that website.

Daringest asked

I have a question for you Hunchback. Do you know of any "men's rights" websites where race, religion etc. isn't an issue?

The men's informational sites are usually fair, but the forums are like talk radio, dominated by folks with their own agenda. Posters rarely challenge the p.c. from the right. Glenn Sacks' forum is best in this regard but the topics are limited to commentary on the articles. The American Union of Men forum is okay, too, but the forum is lame. Don't know if this helped.

Thank you Hunchback