Feminists outraged

Well, they ought to be, anyway.

Oxford University extends time for maths and computer science exams in bid to help women get better grades
Because Patriarchy, I guess; and the need for equality of outcome.

An alternate headline could have been, “Most Oxford females 17% slower than most males in math” Sub-head: “Women who can compete equally shortchanged.”

It is not clear from the article if males were also given extra time. If males were given equal opportunity, it would be interesting to know if there was any change in males’ scores. And, if males improved, and if the grades are on a curve; did male scores improve enough to negate the females’ increased scores.

A document obtained by the Times, under Freedom of Information laws, showed that faculty at the university believed the changes could: ‘mitigate the… gender gap that has arisen in recent years, and in any case the exam should be a demonstration of mathematical understanding and not a time trial.’

Well, maybe, but time has value in the real world. Say, in how much you get paid. Maybe these women will just have to work 17% more hours.

Finally, what’s with “gender gap that has arisen in recent years?” I thought it was the result of centuries of patriarchal oppression.

What is "woke?"

“Woke” is when Feminists suddenly realize that the clear message they sent in 1998: “If a powerful Progressive man sexually assaults you – you’re on your own,” was a less than optimal choice.

I would be happy to give him [Bill Clinton] a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their Presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.
Nina Burleigh, 1998
It sucks to be someone promoting Monica Lewinsky envy.

If all the sexual allegations now swirling around the White House turn out to be true, President Clinton may be a candidate for sex addiction therapy. But feminists will still have been right to resist pressure by the right wing and the media to call for his resignation or impeachment.
Gloria Steinem, 1998
Part of the ‘swirling’ was a allegation of rape. Steinem couldn’t distinguish the fish of convenience from the bicycles of feminist betrayal.

Skipping forward a decade, Feminism still was not woke…

Polanski was not guilty of ‘rape-rape’, says Whoopi Goldberg – 2009
Whoopi had a point. Polanksi was guilty of rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape.

Actress defends Weiner, says ‘everyone lies about sex’ – 2011
Maybe that’s why Janeane Garofalo also thinks, “Sex is the quickest way to ruin a friendship.

Skipping forward another decade (just this week), Feminism may be woking…

Liberals ‘move on’ from defending Bill Clinton’s sexual conduct – 2017

Chelsea Handler apologizes to Bill Clinton accuser Juanita Broaddrick: ‘I believe you’ – 2017

Feminist Wokeness to its own principles only took two decades and the political necessity to purge the Clintons from public life before the next Presidential election. But they’re starting to pretend to get it (“get it” is the phrase “woke” is replacing).

So. When can we expect an apology from Hillary? She can’t possibly run in 2020 without one.

That’s not funny!

Bill Clinton: A Reckoning by Caitlin Flanagan
&nbsp&nbsp”Feminists saved the 42nd president of the United States in the 1990s. They
&nbsp&nbspwere on the wrong side of history; is it finally time to make things right?”

Now, Caitlin Flanagan is despised by “Real Feminists,” see here and here, so she cannot exemplify a sea-change in the Feminist Industrial Complex hypocrisy quotient.

Her lack of “Real Feminist” credentials may be why she can see that driving Bill Clinton’s getaway car was a Feminist mistake women are still paying for today.

While it would have been too late to deter Roy Moore, maybe a more principled “Real Feminist” reaction to the Clintons’ abuse of women would have given Harvey Weinstein pause, or caused Al Franken to act differently:
Senator Al Franken Kissed and Groped Me Without My Consent, And There’s Nothing Funny About It

There was never anything humorous about Al Franken, but it’s still hard to believe he allowed someone to take a picture of him grinning while committing sexual assault.

It’s just sex

Hillary stood by her man when he was dallying with Gennifer Flowers, and she ranted about vast right-wing conspiracies after he played hide-the-cigar with Monica Lewinsky. The Feminist Industrial Complex stood by them both. Throwing Monica, Kathleen, Juanita and Paula under the bus wasn’t about sex, it was about power.

Rationalizing this massive betrayal of fundamental principle would cause most people to experience some severe cognitive dissonance. Not the Feminists.

If you wonder “Why are so many Progressive men now being exposed as long time sexual predators?,” it’s significantly because the Church of Feminism long gave indulgences to anyone who supports abortion on demand – exemplified by Nina Burleigh, who said she’d be “happy to give [Bill Clinton] a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal.” Monica Lewinsky was just collateral damage. As are the women who were molested by Harvey Weinstein. They knew Feminism didn’t have their backs, so how could they possibly stand up to Weinstein’s power?

Possibly excepting the DNC, what other group could be such effective allies in promoting the defilement of women? Whatever happened to their Clinton defense that “it’s just sex?” That shouldn’t have excused Bill Clinton any more that it could excuse Roy Moore. Now, some Feminists are starting to turn their gimlet gaze in Slick Willie’s direction. Time for an accounting? Of whom, Slick or his enablers?

I don’t think I’ve ever linked to Politico before, but this is worth a read, though the fact that the headline mentions Roy Moore rather than Harvey Weinstein (or Anthony Weiner, or a dozen other Progressive scions) is an indication the Left isn’t quite self-aware even yet:

How Roy Moore’s Misdeeds Are Forcing an Awakening on the Left

Too late. Way too late.

Lysenko’s handmaid

Sara Giordano, mentioned in an earlier post, is a Women’s Studies professor at UC-Davis, and recent author of Those who can’t, teach: critical science literacy as a queer science of failure, in which she argues that science, as and because it is defined by Western civilization, is a tool of racism and sexism. Along the way, she displays a Women’s Studies professor’s nebulous grasp of philosophy and economics by insisting capitalism is an economic system enabled by “Western science,” as opposed to some handwavingly defined “feminist science,” which apparently would favor Marxism.

Capitalism, to Giordano, is a colonialist tool; part of a conspiracy to define some people as “non-human.” She takes a long winded path to recast the standard Marxist complaints about worker exploitation as oppression of women and minorities:

“At the root of the justification for social inequality then is Western science (together with philosophy and other modern disciplines). By producing the categories of human/nonhuman as forms of natural (yet flexible) racial difference, capitalism becomes justified as a natural (yet flexible) economic system (Melamed, 2015).”

The suggestion that colonialism was not purely evil will attract death threats. I mention this not to contend colonialism wasn’t very often rapacious and immoral, but to demonstrate its invocative power. This is why Professor Giordano feels the need to make colonialism morally equivalent to science and capitalism: Untrue.

And even if it were true, it would not justify rejection of 21st century science, nor dismissal of the precept of individual liberty inherent in Western ideals.

Professor Giordano is convinced that by encouraging scientific illiteracy (and nowhere does she qualify this call for willful blindness with the word ‘Western’) we can initiate a better world:

“…not knowing science may lead to a more just world,…” ““A transfeminist technology will value illiteracy for its improductiveness for industry, as a way of finding paths unimagined by speed and productivity.””

The fact is, we don’t have to imagine it. Stalin, Mao, Castro, Kim Jong-un, Pol Pot, Chavez, et. al. have already shown us the outcome.

Ms. Giordano’s identity politics have blinded her to what capitalism actually is. Dr. Richard M. Ebeling provides a view of capitalism she would likely embrace, if it didn’t preclude her prerogative to remake society as a feminist autarchy. What Is “Capitalism” Anyway? Read the whole thing, but here’s a salient bit.

The bedrock concept behind an explanation of “capitalism” is private property. That is, the idea that an individual has a right of ownership and exclusive use of something. For the classical liberal, the most fundamental property right possessed by an individual is his own person. In other words, an individual owns himself. He may not legally or informally be treated as the slave of another person. The individual has ownership over his mind and his body. Neither may be controlled or commanded by another through the use of force or its threat.

Now, I’m sure Professor Giordano would reply that even if that is the ideal, it isn’t how it’s worked in practice. This is true, but since she is arguing in favor of a utopian solution demonstrated to be the deadliest, most oppressive set of social experiments ever performed, it is also irrelevant. At best.

From Evergreen College to Google

We should not be surprised that Google can’t bear to discuss their HR policies: From College Indoctrination to Corporate Intolerance

Moreover, students are taught that political speech with which they disagree is “violence” that should be shut down at all costs. They avoid uncomfortable topics by retreating to “safe spaces” on campus and shout down speakers who do not toe the far left line. Too many administrators and faculty promote such behavior. Those who dare to disagree—like Allison Stanger and Bret Weinstein—are run off campus.

It is no surprise, then, that corporations are increasingly populated with young adults who do not know how to handle political views or scientific claims they have been taught are out of bounds of public discussion. When Google’s diversity officer replied to James Damore’s email, it was an incoherent affirmation of the company’s diversity policy, coupled with an accusation of sexism. It didn’t even attempt to cite reasons why the science Damore mentioned was wrong, or why his political views about diversity policy were misguided. It just asserted they were, and then used that assertion the next day as a pretext to fire him. This is what we get when university professors abuse their power and attempt to turn students into pawns in their political game, rather than autonomous agents with the capacity (but not yet ability) to think for themselves.

The linked article mentions Steven Pinker’s The Blank Slate, which I recommend. I’d suggest that reading Alan Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind first would repay the reader. It speaks practically to the question of how we got here.

I’ll note that The Other Club has extensively spoken to the issue (note: there’s a lot of link rot). A very partial (not even anything on the “wage gap”) list:

2005
Larry Summers in the fall
Feminism’s self-inflicted wounds
Monkey business
My Mistake…

2006
There are some ideas so idiotic, it takes an intellectual to believe them
People hearing without listening
The Snatch Soliloquy
Orthodoxy prevails

2008
There are 3 kinds of women
Sex, math, and a feminist poll
Math and sex update

2009
Why not Harriet Miers?
Hey big spender…

2011
On the utter humourlessness of Canadian feminist fellow travellers

2015
‘No, no!’ said the Queen. ‘Sentence first – verdict afterwards.’
Title IX as our conscience
Safe-space creation gap?

Rocky and Bullsh*t

Teresa Lloro-Bidart is an Assistant Professor in the Liberal Studies Department at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona: “As a feminist political ecologist and multispecies ethnographer, I work in the fields of environmental education, animal studies, and food studies.”

So, naturally, she published When ‘Angelino’ Squirrels Don’t Eat Nuts: A Feminist Posthumanist Politics of Consumption Across Southern California. No, it’s not advice to Californians that they needn’t worry about squirrels gnawing their brains.

The abstract:

Eastern fox squirrels (Sciurus niger), reddish-brown tree squirrels native to the eastern and southeastern United States, were introduced to and now thrive in suburban/urban California. As a result, many residents in the greater Los Angeles region are grappling with living amongst tree squirrels, particularly because the state’s native western gray squirrel (Sciurus griseus) is less tolerant of human beings and, as a result, has historically been absent from most sections of the greater Los Angeles area. ‘Easties,’ as they are colloquially referred to in the popular press, are willing to feed on trash and have an ‘appetite for everything.’ Given that the shift in tree squirrel demographics is a relatively recent phenomenon, this case presents a unique opportunity to question and re-theorize the ontological given of ‘otherness’ that manifests, in part, through a politics whereby animal food choices ‘[come] to stand in for both compliance and resistance to the dominant forces in [human] culture’. I, therefore, juxtapose feminist posthumanist theories and feminist food studies scholarship to demonstrate how eastern fox squirrels are subjected to gendered, racialized, and speciesist thinking in the popular news media as a result of their feeding/eating practices, their unique and unfixed spatial arrangements in the greater Los Angeles region, and the western, modernist human frame through which humans interpret these actions. I conclude by drawing out the implications of this research for the fields of animal geography and feminist geography.

Who knew animal geography and feminist geography were different? Isn’t that either speciesist or an insult to squirrel geography? Or both?

Who knew feminist food studies were a thing? I mean, you could probably guess it was, but it sounds like studying whether or not you’re ingesting enough estrogen.

You could probably wrap the words “feminist,” and “studies” around any noun, or a random bit of Marxist jargon, and some SJW coddling University has a course in it.

Maybe Feminist Rodent Gormandization Studies:
This course is an intersectional investigation of nutritional consumption patterning of the single largest order of Mammalia. Because of the order Rodentia’s size we know quantitative instances of sexual harassment, rape and transmission of Yersinia pestis far exceed other mammalian orders. Anyone who has observed squirrels chasing each other has witnessed this behavior. Utilizing Martin Heidegger’s original post-modernist contributions to the Third Reich, we will re-theorize the ontological givens of the later ideas of Derrida and Foucault. The course includes lessons in field preparation and recipes for a wide variety of male rodents.

I don’t have any problem with vilification of tree rats, and I don’t even care what color they are, but it would be far kinder just to shoot the buck-toothed vermin than to appropriate them into a new feminist victim cadre.

My problem is that red, gray or black, all of them eat my birdseed – when not scrabbling on the skylights seeking entry to my attic where they plot to chew on my electrical wiring. I have gone to considerable, and non-lethal, time and expense to dissuade them from these activities, but for those who persist, the western, “modernist human frame through which I interpret these actions” is a 3×9 Tasco. If they insist on suicide by bird feeder, it’s within their reach.

And don’t get me started on chipmunks.

It takes an extremely wealthy and decadent society to provide gainful employment for such persons as Ms. Lloro-Bidart. There are many other things you could say about such a society based on her example. None of them good.