Women’s Studies – Make It Unbiased or Dump It!
I have been reading David Horowitz’s new book, Indoctrination U and have found many of the observations in parallel with my own experiences in taxpayer funded, American institutions of higher education - especially in the area of taxpayer funded, women’s studies programs.In My Opinion:
The prejudice and discrimination that is allowed to be preached and practiced in taxpayer funded, women’s studies programs across America is astounding.
Perhaps the demonstration in front of a California University with a taxpayer funded, women’s studies program (included at the end of this article) will add some graphic perspective to problems that exist today in taxpayer funded women’s studies programs.
The two photos at the very end are taken in front of a California Police Station, and a California City Hall.  Those two photos are meant to emphasize how the misandry, taught in taxpayer funded, women’s studies programs, has transformed into so much bad social policy and law.  Many taxpayer funded, women’s studies programs, in addition to teaching, also offer internships to students to train and lobby in Washington, D.C.  Therefore, if you don’t consider taxpayer funded, women’s studies programs a religion, then just consider them a taxpayer funded political party.  You know how it works in a Stalinist country’s politics, where all those lines are very blurred.  Well, that’s the model taxpayer funded, women’s studies programs in America aspire to.
There are approximately 52 taxpayer funded, women’s studies programs in California and none for men.  There are hundreds of classes taught in those programs, if not thousands.  How again, is that supposed to work under Title IX?  Somebody please explain that to me.
Patriarchy Theory (a foundation block of taxpayer funded, women’s studies):
# It can be shown that men are indeed oppressed in numerous ways and not all receipients of some vast Patriarchal network’s endless benevolence to all men.  Where then, is the universal “male privilege” that taxpayer funded, women’s studies advocates have been touting?
# It can be shown that the vast majority of men are not members of a Patriarchal conspiracy to oppress all women. Where then, is any justification for the vilification of all males that has been rampant in taxpayer funded, women’s studies programs?
# The concept of Patriarchy as taught in taxpayer funded, women’s studies programs is flawed to the core, and does not consider men as individual human beings as our United States Constitution intends.  Taxpayer funded, women’s studies programs blatantly violate the human rights of every individual American male.
Taxpayer funded, women’s studies programs are not content to exist just within the women’s studies discipline, or even the liberal arts dept.  Taxpayer funded, women’s studies activists are constantly lobbying academic administration to have their curriculums integrated into the curriculums of many disciplines, where it seems oddly out of place – Geography, Physics, Mathematics, etc., etc., etc. Where is the academic freedom of individual departments to ”choose,” what goes into their own disciplines, based on their own scholarly expertise?
Taxpayer funded women’s studies programs have justified teaching from the woman’s perspective, in the women’s studies discipline, because (in their words) ”women’s studies is about women.”  Yet when women’s studies advocates lobby academic administration to integrate (foist) taxpayer funded women’s studies curriculum into other disciplines, the taxpayer funded women’s studies curriculum does not change.  It does not include the oppression of men.   It does not show ways in which women have many privileges in our society that men do not enjoy. It does not talk honestly about domestic violence committed against men by women, or the absences of shelters and services for men. It does not talk about the horrendous number of child fatalities attributed to women by HHS, nor lobby for remedy, etc., etc., etc.
Taxpayer funded, women’s studies curriculum cannot withstand objective,  logical, methodical, analysis and remain valid.  Even though “women’s ways of knowing” professes to be a valid form of “knowing,” the contradictions and factual inaccuracies resultant from its “research” appear to me to be damning indictments of such a “fuzzy,” unsound methodology – so why is this apparent “taxpayer funded, hate movement,” (vilifying all men) still in existence anywhere in America’s college and university systems?
Taxpayer funded, gender feminist, women’s studies curriculum is not fit to be accredited for teaching in any college or university class anywhere in America, IMO!
Â
| More from Ray Blumhorst
Stumble It!
March 20th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
awesome…youve given me some creative ideas for our mens group..
March 20th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Psychologist Jennifer Morse is an anti-feminst too. She regularly gives speeches against the sistahood. Well worth a look at her blog.
http://jennifer-roback- morse.blogspot.com/
I could name at least half a dozen MRA psychs who rgularly speak out and write against feminism. Some here on this site! Maybe a get together?
Ray, your signs are bloody wonderful. What a lesson you give to us all.
March 20th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
“Women’s Studies – Make It Unbiased or Dump It!”?
How can one make something titled “womans studies” (or the like) unbiased?
How can anything labled Feminism be rendered neutral?
Just call them the amusing diversions of acadamia, disavow the currency of their accreditation, and cut the root, ‘fer cryin’ out loud.
I’m OK with these concepts, I simply ridicule the pretentious sophistry where merited, and regard their tempestuous practitioners and enablers befittingly.
March 20th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Well put Ray. Thank you for standing up and writing the truth. May you lead other men and women to do the same.
March 20th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
RB – “… so why is this apparent “taxpayer funded, hate movement,†(vilifying all men) still in existence anywhere in America’s college and university systems?â€
The brief answer is TENURE. The slightly longer answer is TENURE + ACADEMIC COWARDICE.
The barely adequate formula is TENURE + ACADEMIC COWARDICE + COLLUSIONS OF INTEREST = THE CORRUPTION OF HIGHER LEARNING.
Having spent twenty years in the feminist Ivory Jungle, I have too many tales to tell about the disastrous effects of the mainstreaming of feminist ideology in the academy.
The reasons why change and reform are difficult verging on the possible must begin with an analysis of tenure, by which it becomes impossible to terminate a professor. Originally a system designed to protect freedom of speech, tenure have become a corrupt system benefiting the last class of elite Brahmins on the planet, at least in the Western world.
Feminists have shown incredible creativity, persistence, and strategic long-sightedness in taking over the educational system. In K-6 approximately 90% of teachers are female. In 7-12 it’s now about 70%. Administrative positions at all levels of education have become primary career paths for feminists.
Witness the latest debacle at Harvard, having decided upon a path of academic self-immolation vis a vis accepting feminist tyranny.
Colleges and universities are essentially conservative in nature — in the sense that change is feared, and the preservation of the status quo is worshipped.
The ascendancy of feminism in the academy means that it will take decades to shift the levers of power.
David R. Usher has written insightfully about what happened at his alma mater, Knox College in Galesburg Illinois. Once ranked the 4th best private liberal arts college in the U.S., Knox a few years back adopted a radical feminist curriculum revision that mainstreamed feminist screed across the disciplines.
Last time I checked a few months ago, Knox was ranked 77th only five years into its new feminist-led quest for truth and virtue in the liberal arts.
Knox may be a harbinger of what’s to come at Harvard, at far greater cost since the inevitable fall starts from such a far greater altitude.
Love the excellent signage Ray! They are perfectly formatted to become giant highway billboards!
March 21st, 2007 at 2:11 am
Thanks everyone. I feel I’ve just scratched the surface about what goes on in taxpayer funded, women’s studies programs, that needs to be brought to public attention.
March 21st, 2007 at 8:27 am
Nice job Ray.
Uh… could ya paint some flowers or smiley faces on the signs? It would make the truth a little easier on the eyes. You know, a bit easier to see the ugly truth about taxpayer-funded, anti-male, misandrist, women’s studies.
March 21st, 2007 at 9:39 am
Rejecting women’s studies will not sit well with the dykes on campus, not to mention the genitally mutilated (ie transgendered), and the rest of the alliance.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:22 am
Very well done, Ray! While many talk the talk, you are one of the few individuals who have taken action against institutionalized feminism in our society…….. joining a precious select few such as Glenn Sacks through your work.
And by targeting feminism’s academic “cover”, you are going after some of the most insidious aspects of it – how they recruit new cult followers and where they take men’s hard-earned tax dollars to deprive those same men of more civil, social, legal, and reproductive rights (all the while building up the cult of the privilege-princesses).
March 21st, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Guys, this just in from the N.O.W. cows:
(It’s a little off topic-sorry Ray, hope you don’t mind. This is how the enemy thinks):
http://www.now.org/news/note/032107.html
Right Wing “Father”land
Below the Belt: A Biweekly Column by NOW President Kim Gandy
March 21, 2007
In late January, Japanese Health Minister Hakuo Yanagisawa was the subject of several news headlines around the world when he referred to women as “birth-giving machines” and urged them, in light of Japan’s declining birthrate, to “do their best per head” as a public service. Consequently, some have called for the minister’s removal, but Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has refused to do so.
Shocking? Not really. Feminists probably find this incident oddly familiar. That’s because our own Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is chock-full of Hakuos, and our administration doesn’t want for a Shinzo who ignores our protests—his name is George. The only difference is that the Hakuos of the West shy away from using such stark metaphors. Instead, people like HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt, HHS Assistant Secretary for Children and Families Wade Horn, and HHS Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs Eric Keroack choose the sneakier route of changing policy and funding allocations so that more women in the U.S., ready or not, become “birth-giving machines.”
In a country where you’re hard pressed to find a state legislature that doesn’t house a number of extreme conservatives opposed to abortion and birth control, and where already close to 90 percent of counties have no abortion provider, and where national policies (or the lack thereof) make it nearly impossible for most women to balance work and family, Leavitt, Keroack, Horn, & Co. were installed to keep machinations working in favor of birth-giving machines, but not for women and their multi-faceted lives.
Indeed, these men were appointed to these positions in part because it was never a secret that they’d be on board with the plan. Eric Keroack was the medical director of an anti-contraception, anti-abortion network of so-called pregnancy counseling centers that deliberately endanger women’s reproductive health in pursuit of an anti-abortion rights, anti-woman political agenda. Who puts that guy in charge of $283 million in grants designed to provide access to contraceptive supplies and information without some foresight that access to birth control probably won’t expand on his clock?
Likewise, we weren’t expecting any added security for women when Secretary Leavitt came to Washington. When he was Utah’s governor, he was not only bent on getting his state “the toughest abortion law” in the country, but also vetoed abstinence-only legislation because it would have permitted discussion of contraception. So were we surprised when he did his political best to keep Plan B emergency contraception bottled up at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), another agency under his purview? Not a bit.
Wade Horn’s past was just as scary. Opposing everything NOW stands for (from abortion rights to economic justice), Horn founded The National Organization of Fathers, and openly stated his belief that “the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church.” He even advocated that federal benefits, such as Head Start and subsidized housing, should only be available to children of married couples, not single parents. So of course the Bush administration put him in charge of all the welfare and public assistance programs that primarily serve those very same single mothers he so detests. And did he find a way to derail the funding away from single moms? You bet he did.
All three men were given positions with expansive power over women’s (and, well, everyone’s) reproductive, rights, health care and insurance in this country, and NOW, along with countless other organizations, protested their ascent, but to no avail.
Together, the three Hakuos of the HHS are funneling millions to misogynist, inaccurate, and harmful abstinence-only “education” programs, not only for kids, but for adults, too, as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars to similarly hazardous “crisis pregnancy centers” that mislead vulnerable women. Now Leavitt is funneling $5 million to Wade Horn’s own National Fatherhood Initiative—the right-wing organization Horn founded.
Horn’s National Fatherhood Initiative is just one organization thriving on funding from the Bush administration’s “Responsible Fatherhood” program, carried out by—guess who?—the Department of Health and Human Services. And herein lies how the men of the HHS—and the Bushies who hired them—are showing their anti-woman colors as vividly as Hakuo showed his.
Through this “Responsible Fatherhood” initiative, the administration has given over $80 million to men-only and fathers-only education programs. That’s right, while the HHS is actively ensuring that women’s access to contraception, abortion, and other reproductive healthcare is being stripped to nothing, it’s simultaneously pumping millions into job-training and other education programs explicitly and solely for men.
All of that is sexist, and the last part is completely illegal. Allocating federal funds to any education program or activity that discriminates on the basis of sex has been illegal since 1972, when NOW helped pass Title IX of the Education Amendments into law. NOW and Legal Momentum are preparing to file complaints against the Bush administration alleging sex discrimination in violation of Title IX.
Besides ignoring the law, by throwing money at men-only education and training programs the administration is also ignoring hard statistics that women need it too. It’s not confidential information that women hold the majority of minimum and low-wage jobs. According to the Economic Policy Institute, in 2005, 29.4 percent of women were paid poverty-level wages or less, compared to 19.9 percent of men, with women of color disproportionately represented. Nor is it insignificant that over 90 percent of the adult Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (welfare) clients are women, most of whom are single mothers.
There are a slew of statistics I could list as further evidence, but you already know that a bunch of guys of the woman-submit-to-husband, power-to-the-father(land) mindset probably don’t think women should be doing the kind of jobs they might need training for in the first place. No, no, birth-giving machines belong at home!
It’s kind of the same perverted reasoning behind abstinence-only “education”—the Bushies don’t think anyone who isn’t heterosexual and married should be having sex, so they won’t tell them how to protect themselves and make healthy decisions related to sex. Similarly, they don’t think women should be working, so they refuse to help them do so.
The reality that people aren’t going to stop having sex outside of marriage and that women can’t (or don’t want to) stop working outside the home doesn’t matter much to the right wing. Those who don’t fit into the all-faithful, all-American, men-rule, women-make-babies cookie cutter mold the Bushies envision as part of their “culture of life” get left behind (a kind of political judgment prior to your evangelical judgment day) and left out of policy and opportunity.
Which reminds me (again) why we need a feminist president in 2008—to restore genuine morality and good judgment to U.S. policies at home and abroad. And it won’t be a moment too soon
March 21st, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Denis, that is some informative stuff. She makes a couple of good points. More than a few men have offered the olive branch to Gandy. Believe me, I have tried. She continues to see no inconsistency in rejecting men from their families while falsely claiming men are somehow against intelligent women in workplace. I guess Bush hired women on his staff because he’s bigoted against women, and wants to limit them to reproductive roles somewhere at the White House.
Her Title IX stuff is as hypocritical as one can ever get, considering women-only is a standard funding-practice in many University programs (not just wymyns studies). Obviously, men want women to be the best they can, and to become accomplished in the marketplace based on actual work and not mandated handouts and fake gender-privileged credentials. Just try to find a modern-day feminist who advocates that position.
March 21st, 2007 at 4:57 pm
ray blumhorst..you will go down in mens rights history…….
March 21st, 2007 at 5:32 pm
I know looks ain’t everything but… does she look as decrepit as she sounds?
March 21st, 2007 at 9:47 pm
I would be willing to have my taxes raised just to have an in-depth interview with Kim Gandy’s husband streamed on the ‘Web.
That man is either a saint or psychotic.
Well, that’s usually not a contradiction is it?
Kim Gandy’s favorite feminist editorial tool is PhotoShop v 7.1.
The “blur/dipilatory” filter is an old girl’s best friend….