|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like Naomi Wolf knows how to ring the bells of (brainwashed-mind conditioned women) to get attention for her new projects such as her article.
If not her timing is impecable.
Dan Lynch's Self-Defence (519) 774-2121
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:29 PM February 23rd, 2004 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
DAN!!
Where have you been?!?
I was thinking about putting your face on a milk carton, or something...!
Thundercloud.
'Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:07 PM February 22nd, 2004 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
"Ms. Wolf is reportedly accusing eminent, 73-year-old Shakespeare scholar Harold Bloom of sexual harassment--twenty years ago!" "Wolf, also approached Yale about filing a complaint but was told that the time to do so was within two years of the alleged incident, not when you have a book or an article coming out."
Wow! This make it sound just like she's being a shameless opportunist. Hummmmm.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Naomi recalls having Prof. Bloom "caress her inner thigh" twenty years ago!
Man, that old boy had quite a touch!
She's been recalling that non-event ever since as her ultimate lost sexual fantasy ...
Must be a cerebral "thang" ...
Faux-climax for her... media cruci-fiction for Prof. Bloom.
Oppression is increasingly expensive....
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:34 PM February 23rd, 2004 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
What I'm completely taken a-back by is, the fact that Yale actually had the back-bone to tell her to 'take a hike'! Not just ANY woman but one of the queens of feminism herself!
Maybe things CAN get better...,
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New York magazine on-line has published Naomi Wolf's entire piece - "The Silent Treatment."
http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/features/ n_9932/index.html
She uses numerous anecdotal stories from the 1980's and 90's and names a whole host of perverted perps and bureaucratic shills at Yale, alleging that they are part of an institutional conspiracy to silence females experiencing sexual harrassment.
While her personal grievance is with Professor Bloom, her broader argument is with Yale's failure to develop serious policies to address sexual predation of students by professors.
She makes a sympathetic case on this score; however, she makes no mention of the well-known predatory activities of lesbian professors towards their female students.
As for the "juicy bits" -- here's the pertinent excerpt:
"I hoped he was talking about my poetry. I moved back and took the manuscript and turned it around so he could read.
The next thing I knew, his heavy, boneless hand was hot on my thigh.
I lurched away. “This is not what I meant,” I stammered.
The whole thing had suddenly taken on the quality of a bad horror film. The floor spun.
By now my back was against the sink, which was as far away as I could get. He moved toward me. I turned away from him toward the sink and found myself vomiting. Bloom disappeared."
Naomi has never been more erotically cinematic!
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roy beat me to the punch.
That's one of the things that bothers me is the constant mentioning of male professors being "older predatory men" trying to use positions of power on "wide eyed young college women", but all these feminists never seem to take to task the lesbian professors who do the same.
On the MS boards one of their older "scholars" who SAYS she is a professor is always going on about male professors who do this, but in the SAME THREAD she tells of her OWN experience with a student. No one batted an eye, made a derogitory comment, or questioned it.
And if anyone remembers when Daphne Patai was on Glenn Sacks she mentioned this too. That lesbian "womyn's studies" "professors" (lol) often tried to "convert" students and that many hit on them. And this is seen by many feminists, the MSers, and lesbians as a gentle, loving, experimenting, opening-up experience that young women have with their "professors". It's a complete double standard. And the tell tale sign of how arrogant these predatory "professors" are is how they not only don't HIDE it, but how even on the MS boards, in articles, and by the professors own actions, these "professors" feel they can commit these acts with impunity. In other words they KNOW they probably won't be punished (because "that's different") and they become so blatant in their aggressive pursuits.
I don't know if what Wolfe says is true, but did you ever notice that when a "feminist" writer tells this kind of story it sounds just a LITTLE contrived? I mean, when you hear a story and it has little details of realism, bits of ambiguity, self-doubt, WITNESSES to patterns of behavior, and just little tid-bits that have reality. She has NONE of that in her "story" (and that is, in my opinion, just what it is). The problem is that some women are just better liars and then the professor being targeted is toast as far as their career goes.
But the good news is that with responses like this from a university like YALE that we can see the tide is STARTING to turn.
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The reality in academia today is that no intelligent male professor will even meet with a female student in his office unless the door is open and a department secretary has sightlines on the meeting.
Every male professor knows that female students have the entire feminazi apparatus on-call to ruin his career on the basis of a single false accusation.
Once result of this feminist tyranny is that female students are now routinely denied the benign and supportive mentorship they might once have enjoyed from male professors.
Because in our culture maleness itself has been criminalized in the public imagination, prudent male academics have adopted the only safe survival strategy available -- they restrict their interactions with female students and censor their speech and behaviors as a routine defensive necessity in a hostile, anti-male campus climate.
One more "success story" for radical feminism, and one more clear illustration of how feminism has sacrificed young women's futures on their altar of hatred and polemics.
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The reality in academia today is that no intelligent male professor will even meet with a female student in his office unless the door is open and a department secretary has sightlines on the meeting.
Amen to that. I never meet with any of my female students in my office. I meet with them in a conference room nearby, with the door open, so that everyone in the vicinity can hear what's going on. Shoot, I don't meet with any of my female *colleagues* in my office. It's not worth the danger to offer any privacy. And if they ask me why I do this, I tell them point blank that I'm uncomfortable with meeting with a female student or professor in a private office.
Of course, as those who have read Daphne Patai's book Heterophobia know, that does not ensure safety. You can also be accused of harrassment for not providing the required privacy for student consultations. So far, I've dodged that bullet.
Severin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:21 PM February 23rd, 2004 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Of course, as those who have read Daphne Patai's book Heterophobia know, that does not ensure safety. You can also be accused of harassment for not providing the required privacy for student consultations. So far, I've dodged that bullet.
The anti-male educational system is set up to "set up" male employees for all kinds of politically correct abuses. From my male perspective that's systematic prejudice in it's most blatant and hateful form.
I've said this before, but I recall a lecture being put on by our Title IX representative on sexual harassment. The second time she mentioned that "unwanted advances" could be construed to be sexual harassment I said, "That's ridiculous, because nobody knows if their advances are welcomed or unwelcomed until they make them. The only safe thing for a man to do would be to never make any in the first place." "Oh no," she replied, "We don't want to have an environment where people are afraid to interact with other people." "To late," I commented, "I'm terrified by the total liability you are placing on men to perform based on mind reading." I continued, "Only a fool would risk throwing his career away to know if his advances are welcomed or unwelcomed." I added, "You are being very irresponsible to suggest to men that is not the case, when clearly it is."
She went on to point out that if someone treated someone with undo caution, then that too could be construed as a form of harassment.
"Really," I thought, "what the heck do you call your whole sexual harassment training, if not targeted harassment of men?"
Right now, I wouldn't go out with someone from work if my life depended on it. In fact when I get invited to social activities outside of work that involve any females from work, I always refuse. Thanks to the misandrist prejudice in the educational workplace due to laws like Title IX that is the only wise way for a male to survive.
The tyranny of tolerance is alive and well and growing on college campuses across America. When administrators of colleges hold graduation ceremonies these days, they should stop wearing the mortar board and tassle with their long flowing robes. Instead, they should wear pointed hoods. Just make the color of the robes and hoods white to more honestly represent the true bigoted hearts and minds of the hate mongers who live under those robes, and so tyrannically wear them.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That scenario just seems, well, stupid and contrived - can we try this?
"I asked one of my students to go over the poetry assignment after class, and she leans on me and my hand fell down. I think it might have touched her leg. Next thing I know she's getting hysterical, running into the sink. I go over to explain and she turns and vomits! I ran out of the room."
Is her problem with the Yale system that it doesn't allow her to present grievances 20 years later? Perhaps actually requires some sort of evidence before firing a male professor?
Maybe I'm just unusualy callous because of having to defend one of my professors [we'll note, I was 16 at the time] once
mum: What did he say to you??
me: that, uh, he appreciated the work I was doing in class?
mum: He was hitting on you!!
and goes into a long speech about never being alone with him and blah and it was all crap and he's majorly lucky she was convinced, a little, at my word. If I'd been bitter about my chemistry grades at the time, eek.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crescentluna,
You need to be writing screenplays.
Your revision of the "Naomi vs. Bloom" encounter is worthy of any upcoming John Water's (maybe even Coen brother's) flick!
Would you please consider posting a newly interpreted retro-scenario of the scandalous "Bill and Monica" encounter?
As with your delightful Naomi-Bloom reconstruction, please consider writing from Mr. Willy's perspective....
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the link to the IWF. Perusing the site, I came across some comments on The Vagina Monologues which I found of interest:
Ensler’s play, fixated obsessively on female pudenda, tells women that they are first and foremost--and nothing more than--"sexual beings," that is, walking V’s, supersized reproductive organs. Interestingly enough, that’s more or less what the most mysogynistic ancient philosophers--I’m thinking Aristotle and the Neoplatonists--used to say about women. They held that women, by reason of their biological nature, had insatiable sexual appetites and were, in their natural state, ruled by their passions and emotions instead of their reason as men were. In order to lead the life of the mind, women had to transcend their natures, whereas men had merely to perfect theirs.
Funny, but this is just the conclusion I've come to -- couldn't have said it better myself. Born in the 1940s and brought up in liberal academia in southern California, I was a near-perfect mid-20th-century American femboy, hippie, draft-dodger (which I don't regret), etc., and believer in the whole feminist screed, until I grew old and tired enough to begin really looking at what was around me, and thinking about it. In the end, it's been the observed behavior of women themselves which has finally convinced me of the accuracy of the old, politically-incorrect traditional view.
Aristotle was right. There is a difference between the sexes, and this (woman!) writer has defined it perfectly. The one place where I'd disagree is with the word "merely": it may be somewhat less difficult for men to undertake the discipline of reason than for women, but that doesn't make it easy for anyone. It's hard work; the real difference is that men don't have an excuse not to try, while women do.
Certainly it is possible for women to "transcend" their natures and live by reason rather than passion -- it's just highly unlikely, not only because they are not naturally disposed to do so, but also because they simply don't have to. Dr. Johnson's famous quip comes to mind: "Sir, a woman's preaching [in a Quaker meeting] is like a dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all." Here, as always, where men are obliged -- a man may be ruled by passion rather than reason, but he and all men around him will know that he is thereby less than a man -- women have a "choice": a woman may choose to make the effort to apply the discipline of reason to her thinking, but she may also at any time "choose" to forgo such effort and exercise her "right" to change her mind, regardless of any reason. This is women's power, and it is fundamentally unchallengeable. Which is why, though thinking men have always respected women who make the effort to think, wise men have never counted on women to be consistent. They can't be held to it, and they hold the trump card.
I had thought that the feminist movement was supposed to get us past all that. The early feminists, along with their forerunners in ages past such as Christine de Pisan and Mary Wortley Montague, had to fight this sort of prejudice and argue that women’s minds were just as good as those of men. It was centuries before women got to go to college, become doctors and lawyers, and so forth.
That human societies have always had a large measure of corruption is undeniable, but it seems to me that American culture has changed much for the worse, in ways perhaps difficult to define and pinpoint but increasingly pervasive, since women have "become doctors and lawyers, and so forth." Never has respect for standards of truth or anything else that may represent the male tendency to think by discrimination (a.k.a. reason) been so low. Everything is up for grabs; the only criterion is how someone -- anyone -- happens to feel. This can be seen especially in the courts, increasingly populated by women lawyers and judges, who render "decisions" increasingly void of any shred of reason -- which nevertheless are regarded as "law" incumbent upon everyone.
And has no one but me noticed that our accelerating slide into universal totalitarian socialism has exactly paralleled the increasing participation of women in political life? Here in Santa Fe, New Mexico (a.k.a. "Fanta Say"), a major center of feminist "thought," "V-Day" brought a campaign to register women to vote, with newspaper ads: "It's a Man's World Unless Women Vote!" Apparently it has escaped their notice that for some time now significantly more women than men have been voting in elections? So what we have must, by the logic of democracy, be "what women want." No? Straighten me out here? If "women’s minds [are] just as good as those of men," why don't they use them?
I can only conclude: Because they don't have to. Throughout human history, the vast majority of women have gotten what they want (as much as any of us gets in this limited world) without subjecting themselves to the discipline of reason. After all, it's what men are for: to take care of chores which women cannot or would rather not do for themselves. It could be said that men have developed reason precisely because we do not have women's power. But it's also because we exist to please women, and it is reason alone that has elevated human life above the mute suffering of the beasts. Which is the real reason for "the patriarchy": because male dominance -- thus the elevation of reason over passion -- in the human species has been best for everyone. And why our current drifting fall into the sinkhole of unrestrained passion is regressive, not progressive. Human culture based on "patriarchy" was far from perfect, to be sure; but what we're heading toward now will be far worse.
I'm sorry; I like women well enough, but I'm not willing to lie for them, to myself or to the world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:15 PM February 24th, 2004 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
I think the whole idea of "The Patriarchy" just shows how out of touch a lot of these feminists are. I admit that American society is patriarchal, probably moreso in the past than today, but there just isn't any sort of organized group trying to suppress women. At one time, you could argue that the Catholic Church plotted to keep women down, but this just isn't true these days.
"The Patriarchy" just seems like a convenient scapegoat for people's problems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NOW,NOW,NOW...Didn't you ever see the movie "the Stepford Wives"? As every feminazi knows and nobody would dare refute the Council of Wicked Patriarchs meets every Wednesday night and sits up late utterly obsessed with finding new ways of raining on the average woman's parade. If you do not know where your local chapter meets I will be glad to direct you...if there is no chapter in your locality perhaps you should seriously consider starting one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Excuse me gentlemen...I am new here after all...your on line chat does take place on Wednesday nights...silly me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I remember in the 80's defying Canada's elite feminists, Muriell Duckworth, Margaret "Maggie the matriarch"Fulton, Deb Poff, et al, at a Nurnburg Rally sized event on Women's Day I challanged
"I will make you a wager...If you can show me one page...even so much as one paragraph written by a feminist that has ANYTHING good to say about men I will kiss your a$$...upon failure to do so you can kiss mine...FEMINISTS ARE BIGGOTS AND I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO HAS NOTICED!!!"
...apparently the chain letter or gosip grape vine in that circle is fairly small because only a very few months later "In Praise of Men"was published. Naomi Wolf plunged from the top of the feminist best seller list to somebody who no publisher even wanted to know overnight. (As did all of the other feminist contributors to that book).
Now the big bad Wolf is hoping to milk the harrassment victim thing to regain old noteriety..
Sad truth is that when it is all said and done...nobody actually gives a damn who groped her butt when she was in her twenties...the time comes in any woman's life when no man desires to grope her butt anymore and NOBODY BUT NOBODY including the most erudite of feminist whiners throws a party when THAT day comes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That the picture of Wolf was a very flattering picture in her 20's, but the picture of the proffessor shows him looking like a overweight, slack jawed loser?
Can we be anymore obvious here?
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:37 PM February 25th, 2004 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
This is done for the same reason that when the media shows a picture of Rush Limbaugh, it is always that same shot of him, from below with the camera looking up his nose.
It is, of course, done to make whatever person the media doesn't like look silly, stupid, evil, sinister, or what ever.
They do it all the time. Even despite the fact that readers and viewers NOTICE it and many have complained of this type of bias. Including your's truly, even though I'm not a big fan of Rush Limbaugh. But bias is bias.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Where did you get the picture. Can you leave a link? Thank you !!
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/features/ n_9932/index.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Jen,
Appreciate the help
Steven
=)
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guys...this is something that has bothered me about the whole prof/student/power/harrassment thing right from the beginning. WHY IS IT WE PERMIT PROFESSORS TO MARK THEIR OWN STUDENT'S WORK IN THE FIRST PLACE? To me this is a fundamentally corrupt arrangement...we are permitting this person to write their own performance evaluation by so doing. Wouldn't THAT change the whole power over student thing altogether?
Frankly I have never fully bought into the feminist analysis that profs have a Svengali type hypnotic power over young women nor have I ever endorsed the idea that when it comes to men in positions of power, women are so gullible that they need to be chaparoned by a committee of lesbians.
Picture this scenario (girl talk between two young women) Ms. X "What do yo think of Mr Oldbat?"
Ms.Y "He's fat and frumpy and he talks like Elmer Fudd"
Ms.X "Yeah but he has a position of POWER!!!"
Ms.Y (bends over gripping at her crotch) "Position of POWER!!!Excuse me I have to go straight home and masturbate"
To me the assertion "Women are attracted to men in positions of power "(When stated as if it were sine quo non) is a shiboleth that marks the speaker as a Lesbian.
There is a subtle but meaningful difference between "lust of the flesh" and lust for power groupie gold digging. Why is there a need to protect the REAL predators?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A few random Google searches in the wake of last Monday's publication of Naomi Wolf's "The Silent Treatment" piece reveal that about 95% of responses are highly negative of Ms. Wolf.
Interestingly, several feminist writers have been the most damning, alleging that Naomi is stuck in a "Victimology 101" mindset.
Anne Applebaum of Newday.com writes -
"But in the end, what is most extraordinary about Wolf is the way in which she has voluntarily stripped herself of her achievements and her status and reduced herself to a victim, nothing more. The implication here is that women are psychologically weak: One hand on the thigh, and they never get over it."
http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpapp263686 185feb26,0,4432240.story?coll=ny-viewpoints-headli nes
Christine Odone, deputy editor of the U.K. New Statesman magazine observes -
"Wolf's most unforgivable disservice to feminism, though, lies in her constant portrayal of herself as a victim. Thus, we have had Naomi the victim of her youthful good looks (The Beauty Myth), Naomi the victim of her sexual allure (Promiscuities), Naomi the victim of motherhood (Misconceptions). The whining oeuvre has brought her international celebrity and not a few dollars. Can we soon expect Affluenza, in which Naomi describes herself as a victim of her wealth? I'm not sure that she can bank on our sympathy for much longer."
http://www.synaptic.bc.ca/Contact/viewtopic.php?t= 479
If these comments are at all representative of an emerging new feminism that is turning away from the past forty years of "victim power," one ponders what new feminist conspiracies may be on the horizon to ensure that true gender equality doesn't actually break out in our society.
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"If these comments are at all representative of an emerging new feminism that is turning away from the past forty years of "victim power," one ponders what new feminist conspiracies may be on the horizon to ensure that true gender equality doesn't actually break out in our society."
I mix socially with feminazis and remain a fly on the wall to get an insiders view on what might be comming down the pipe. The next big project in law reform will be a codification of who a man can and cannot have a relationship with based on some feminazi notion of "balance of power". A man in his forties for instance would not be permitted to have a relationship with a woman in her twenties...informed consent or not...YOU THINK I'M KIDDING DON'T YOU
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MAUS,
Makes eerily perfect logic, if you take into account the dearth of men willing to associate with aging Western females who've been schooled in feminist victimology.
And, feminists have always equated male sexuality with predatory behavior, so the "imbalance of power" angle is there to be milked.
But at some point don't they have to acknowledge the predators in skimpy female guise, i.e. the Christinas and Brittanys et. al., not to mention the fem carnivores on "The Apprentice?"
Of course, the feminists have already had some major victories in legally circumscribing relationships that discriminate against men.
They're called "visitation rights" for a divorced, non-custodial father.
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But I doubt it will be made into law. Or if it is it will be an addendum to the Sexual Harassment laws. See, men in their mid/late 30's to 50's are SICK TO DEATH of bitter feminazi entitlement junkies. And we can't have THAT, can we?
But, notice no mention of the predatory lesbian professors who want to taste co-ed sexuality juices are ever brought up. Gee, wonder why.
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was reading the stories about this and Wolfe has REALLy managed to stick her foot in her crotch on this one.
Link to story:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/02/20/10770728 47397.html
Here is a link to a thread of a baord I post on.
http://mensnewsdaily.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=104 8
And my response (bagging Wolfe for LYING):
I had a less then open mind to Wolfe's assertion's before, due to her story sounding contrived and subjective to the extreme. But now, with Wolf's latest "explanation", her waiting for **20** years, and the WAY it came out, I have no doubt. She's lying through her teeth. That's a pretty strong statement, so allow me to back it up with my observations.
Wolfe:
Quote:
"In a statement issued through New York Magazine, Wolf said she had been asked by Yale to help raise money and said "I felt I had to tell them why I was reluctant to do so". "
Is she honestly saying that she has been a Yale alum for YEARS, has gotten to be a well read public figure, a prominent feminist, and that in all that time this is the FIRST time that Yale has solicited her as an Alum for money. And, coincidentally, it coincides with her newest publication? Oh, and since she has apparently inspired wrath from within the feminazi ranks that she is not trying to go back to the fold.
Give me a break!
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
