Women-only parking at the University of Fraser Valley-- what if it were whites-only?

Submitted by TCM on Sat, 2013-11-16 01:51

Article here. Excerpt:

'The University of Fraser Valley [link added] has a problem. Not with violence, since records show that UFV is a rather safe campus. No, the problem is in deciding who, in those brief and isolated punctuations of time when violence occurs, should be safe from violence. Should UFV adopt an approach that does not exclude its students on the basis of sex, race, and so forth? Or should it adopt the position that some groups are more worthy of safety than others?

They have chosen the latter. According to an interview by local radio station Star FM:
...
Leonard says security patrols the campuses in Abbotsford and Chilliwack 24/7 and you can call them to walk you to your vehicle. He also says at the Abbotsford campus the lots closest to the main doors of building A are reserved for women only in the evening.

Director of Security Brian Leonard’s email address is brian.leonard-at-ufv.ca. Please direct your dissent toward him.
...
A quick trip to the parking page on the university’s website (which I have screenshotted in case they take it down) shows the same same diamond-shaped red and yellow signs, and explicitly states that it has a section for women-only parking:
...
I don’t care what anyone’s rationalization is for the University of Fraser Valley’s treatment of its male students. It’s unacceptably sexist, regardless as to who is doing it. If their argument is that women deserve special treatment because men are more likely to engage in street crime, would they also accept the rationalization that whites are deserving of special treatment since most recorded gang activity is by persons of color?
...
In further research at UFV, I noted that the ratio of men to women on the UFV campus is 36% male and 64% female, according to a university publication:
...
I’m curious as to whether UFV has ever engaged in a public discussion of the issue of male educational attainment. Admittedly, I have not been able to find any evidence of this. And it would defy all logic for UFV to assert that it must actively discriminate against male students despite violence not being a big problem, while totally ignoring the issue of male educational underachievement – which is a big problem.
...
This isn’t the first time we have seen something like this. Last year, after a woman reported she had been raped at the University of Waterloo, the school declared that female students have priority for rides on the university bus system. It later turned out that the rape accusation was false.

We are setting a dangerous precedent in our educational institutions. We need to continue to call out these universities and, in no uncertain terms, publicly declare that what they are doing is unacceptable.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

... is to get males out of higher ed. That is what feminists want and they'll use whatever means they can to do so. False accusations, gov't-sponsored coercion, creating rules that second-class-ify male students, spreading fear among female students by preaching their bizarre ideas in mandatory WST classes-- anything. The key is ruthlessness. A ruthless individual stops at nothing in pursuit of their goals. Sometimes, ruthlessness may be called for, such as seeking a means to get off some desert island you're stranded alone on. But to spread an ideology of hate? Not so good.

Some may think to suggest that feminists' goal for higher ed is the elimination of males in colleges is far-fetched/paranoid/hyperbole/etc. It isn't. People's motives and goals are best evaluated by observing their actions. Stated intentions are fine and I recognize people can just plain blunder or fail at something they fully intended to do, but got an undesired result. But feminists? I wouldn't call them prone to blundering. It's pretty obvious what they're up to. Just watch as "the plan" unfolds.

But one possible side-effect of feminist persecution of college men is an increase in men's colleges, or it will encourage men to get degrees on-line. Or, not at all-- which is their actual desired goal (but darn it, that there new-fangled on-line thing is messing with The Plan!). But if they can get a co-ed college to become hostile enough to males that they succeed in discouraging the majority of would-be male students to enroll, the net result is the creation of a women's college despite the fact that the web site says it's co-ed. After all, if 90% of the undergrad population is female, just how co-ed is it? As long as there's a single male student on a campus, feminists will be trying to get rid of him.

So let's say for some college, they largely succeed. The college is, say, 85-90% female. Next of course will be the male staff and faculty. The argument will be that as long as the student body is majority female, the staff and faculty should be, too, in the same ratio. They won't sack people perhaps because they're male (or will they?), but when the men retire, they'll be replaced by women. Over 30 years, their goal of creating a nearly-entirely female campus-- at an ostensibly co-ed college-- will be met.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Sat, 2013-11-16 03:26

I notice that this university is located in British Columbia, east of Vancouver, which is a province noted for being liberal. Could it be what goes along with liberal regional politics?

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by mens_issues on Sat, 2013-11-16 16:27