When a college feminist decided, one cold night in 2014, to burn her personal copy of pseudofeminist Christina Hoff Sommers’ book The War Against Boys, the internet’s antifeminists responded as if Hitler himself had risen from the grave.
“Universities bring book-burning back, one page at a time,” declared a blogger at TheRebelMedia. After an extended comparison with the infamous book burning campaigns of the literal Nazis, he declared that “[t]he burning of Hoff Sommers’ book is a striking visual synecdoche for the malaise afflicting free expression across not only North American college campuses.” In a featured article, A Voice for Men described the burning as a “disturbing” example of “misandry in academia.”
On the Men’s Rights subreddit, meanwhile, one angry dude declared that
If you’re burning a book, you’re basically admitting to being not just a bigot, but one who doesn’t even have enough confidence in the strength of their own views to believe that they can stand up for themselves without needing to silence and censor those that oppose them.
If we set aside the fact that, unlike the Nazis, who confiscated the books they burned, a person burning their own copy of a book that is readily available to others is not actually censoring anything, he’s got a point.
So it’s interesting to see how many of the Internet’s antifeminsts and Anti-Social-Justice-Warrior-Warriors are embracing a proposal from one of their own to literally censor all academics who teach stuff they don’t like.
On Change.org, professional feminism-hater Carl Benjamin, known on YouTube as Sargon of Akkad, has started a petition demanding that “UNIVERSITIES” — presumably, every single one of them — immediately “Suspend Social Justice Courses” because he thinks that “social justice” professors are up to no good.
In vague but melodramatic language Benjamin proclaims that
Social justice has become scientifically illiterate, logically unsound, deeply bigoted and openly supremacist.
He doesn’t specify exactly what kind of supremacism he’s complaining about here; presumably not white.
Nor does he ever define exactly what courses count as “social justice courses.” There aren’t any departments of Social Justice that I’m aware of. [EDIT: Oops! Turns out there are.] Does Benjamin mean a tiny handful of, say, women’s studies courses taught by radical feminists? Or does he hope (at least in his wildest dreams) to take down the humanities and social sciences as a whole?
Social justice professors are indoctrinating young people into a pseudoscientific cult behind closed doors that is doing damage to their health, education and future.
Well, technically, I guess, virtually all college courses are taught “behind closed doors,” since the doors of lecture halls generally do get closed before class begins. Technically, I’m writing this post behind closed doors, because I don’t leave the doors of my apartment wide open. (People might wander in; the cats might wander out.) I suspect that Benjamin himself wrote up his petition behind closed doors!
Benjamin goes on to declare that
[s]ocial justice … has become another ideology fit only to pave the road to Hell, so it is time to turn around and choose another path that is concerned with reason, science and improving the lives of every human.
If only some evil Social Justice English professor has indoctrinated Benjamin in the devilish art of writing without resorting to hackneyed cliches.
But that’s pretty much all there is to Benjamin’s petition. Somehow, thought, the vagueness of Benjamin’s plan hasn’t stopped 9,878 people — so far — from signing the petition.
It is, however, possible that some of the signers are a little bit confused as to what exactly they’re signing.
Indeed, the top two most-liked comments on the petition, for example, were written by people who seem to think that Benjamin’s proposal to peremptorily censor all college courses that he thinks are excessively social-justicey is, somehow, a defense of free speech?
Benjamin has posted a video in which he explains his crusade in a little more detail. It’s possible that somewhere in it he answers the question of how exactly his plan to drive all professors he doesn’t like from all the college campuses in the world is actually a crusade for free speech.
Here’s the video in question:
Oops! Wrong video. Let me try again:
Huh. I don’t think that was it either.
No, that’s clearly not it.
Ok, ok. I found the real one here.
But it’s 40 minutes long. I sampled the first 2 seconds, and that was about all I could bring myself to watch. So I guess I’ll just have to resign myself to a life of servitude under the jackboots of the Social Justice warlords. Still, that’s a far better option than actually watching a Sargon of Akkad video all the way through.
Why not just make your argument here and make is succinctly instead of trying to get us to waste three hours of our lives listening to a manospherian ramble on and on and on and on and on.
One of the drive by trolls named himself jackoff?
http://new2.fjcdn.com/comments/5406512+_da4162e95c874b18a3cc3c5530cdb2df.png
Real cool fanboys you got there, Sargon.
Because that’s not how the wage gap, or corporate hiring, works.
The wage gap doesn’t start right out of the gate. Instead, it accumulates over time, for a variety of reasons:
1. Networking.
At every corporate firm I’ve ever worked for, the better, higher-paying jobs don’t get advertised on job boards. Instead, the executives, HR, and management put out the word to various professionals who they think might know someone, as well as contractors, former employees, and friends. Men tend to prefer networking with, and mentoring, other men. Some of it takes place at private, invitation-only clubs (which tend to be heavily, or exclusively, men). Sometimes they tap former fraternity brothers, or teammates. Women have a much harder time breaking into these types of networks, where power accrues and perpetuates itself.
2. Company culture.
Sexism is still firmly entrenched in a lot of corporations. Many organizations (wrongly) assume women aren’t as good at managing others, might not use their authority as effectively, and might “rock the boat” (ie, object to having the quarterly sales meeting at Hooters). These companies would much rather hire a slightly more expensive employee that they think has a better chance of fitting in, vs. a more “risky”, cheaper employee. I say “risky” in quotes because it’s a chicken-and-egg problem. Until we get more women in positions of leadership, corporate culture is still going to favor men, because by amd large it’s set up by men, for men. That’s why they aren’t going out of their way to hire women, even if they have to pay a little extra. Salary is only a small part of what goes into a hiring decision.
3. Differences in salary negotiation and rate of promotion.
Women who try to negotiate a higher salary are viewed more negatively than men who do the same. Similarly, character attributes that result in promotions for men are viewed negatively in women. Women also are expected to be caretakers and put in the emotional labor for their families, so they aren’t as readily able to put in the 60 hour weeks as their male counterparts. Over time, they get bypassed for plum assignments, recognition, and promotions. Women also face more pressure to be the one to stay home with the kids – a decision often made easier by the uphill battle they have to fight at work. But is this really because they “prefer” to leave the workforce to be with their children, or is it just a manifestation of societal discrimination that made their work less valuable to begin with?
And that’s really what the wage gap is about. Over time, a woman with equal qualifications will fall farther and farther behind her male counterparts. By age 25, on average, she will have made $5,000 less. Over a lifetime, that translates into a disparity of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Even when you control for the various other factors, such as hours worked, the wage gap still exists. Though there may be disagreement about the size of the gap, it hasn’t been debunked. (The CONSAD study was faulty because it included part-time workers, who skew female, so in effect it was comparing part-time female workers to full-time male workers and using the difference in hours to explain the gap).
“Sargon of Akkad launches petition to save free speech by censoring SJW professors”
Incorrect. Sargon of Akkad cannot possibly censor professors. Asking for an audit of the courses is not censorship.
He didn’t even bother to come up with a halfway plausible last name. Why not “Hoff”?
As far as edge goes, that doesn’t even come up to the level of a plastic picnic knife.
Take a look at the examples of inside social justice courses here. The information given in these examples is not factual. Due to these courses being given inside academic institutions and being taught by people who call themselves professors, it is quite reasonable to assume that students just suck it up and don’t think critically. Because logically, the professor knows more about it than you do. The same way as if you were in a course about neurology for example.
And TheLaughingMan’s comment has done the rest for me already, thanks mate.
I actually said what the argument boils down to, but I would recommend hearing it from the source. So that if I may not represent his argument correctly, you can call me out on that. If you don’t want to watch him discuss it with others but do want to hear his argument, I’d say watch the video of 14 mins. Why not watch that video to hear what he is actually trying to do with the petition and why?
I am not making you try to waste time, but if you read this article, at least listen to what he is saying. Because this article does raise valid points toward the description of the petition but not toward the actual goal (which isn’t censorship as the article makes it seems).
Oh, and the “men work more hours” argument doesn’t hold water. If the studies added in all of women’s unpaid labor (not just the hours spent at the job, but the hours spent cleaning, cooking, and caring for others), the wage gap would widen even further. It’s not like women are using all that free time to laze around, but of course society expects women to perform those tasks and doesn’t count it as real work.
@Dog
Where the hell do you get off calling yourself “Dog”?
The dogs I know are smart, loyal, and have much better manners than you. They certainly wouldn’t do anything as slimy as dropping the “n” word into a discussion.
I’m convinced that you’re not a dog.
I especially appreciate this given your screen name 😀
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-ways-oversensitive-people-are-ruining-america/
Anyways, since less than 1% of American students have even encountered TWs I’ll just ask…
Is this an audit or whatever it is he seeks?
Does he intend to take action or is the petition more of a jumped up opinion poll?
Anyways, there are academic spats a plenty abound to get your teeth sunken into.
I honestly ought to check back on the essay I did on the debacle with the Australian history wars. Innocent times man.
@ dog
There might be some merit in listening to lecturers in hard sciences (although even there challenging the received wisdom is pretty common. Just look at the ‘steady state’ v ‘big bang’ controversy in the 60s) but in social sciences it’s positively encouraged.
One of my law professors made his name with a paper called “Dworkin not Dworkin” and one of our course assignments was to rip his conclusions to shreds. You got extra marks for coming up with a new criticism that nobody had pointed out before (There was plenty to work with).
Sigh. The same arguments, over and over.
http://pinkie.mylittlefacewhen.com/media/f/img/mlfw3308-1330695772582.png
I’m dreadfully sick right now so won’t be long, and won’t be talking about everything that’s being brought up. Just the main thing.
Why would you think that these courses aren’t audited? Go talk to a professor about how often their courses get revised and reviewed.
Why would you think that the literature of gender studies and the like aren’t critically examined? Go talk to some authors and ask them about the process they go through to get their white papers published.
Sargon comes across like a young earth creationist, demanding that geology/earth science courses be put under “examination” because they’re clearly biased.
As example, the wage gap thing. We’ve all heard many times about how it’s been “debunked”, believe me. We’ve had more than enough people come through these doors claiming it.
Every one of these “debunkings” ends up begging the question, however. By claiming that the wage gap is exaggerated because it includes things like “fewer hours (due to maternal leave, pregnancy, etc)”, and “individual choice” is wrong, because these things are factors involved in sexist bias. Dropping them from the calculation is wrong.
Learn experimental design and statistics before you criticize experimental design and statistics. Learn gender studies before you criticize gender studies. Why is that so hard?
The ramblings of Sargon and an opinion piece from a blog don’t really constitute sources. It’s not like this is the first time we’ve heard of colleges supposedly brainwashing students into liberalism. It’s a common right wing theory and it boils down to nothing more than them being upset that facts and history don’t line up with right wing propaganda.
Calling college course material brainwashing, indoctrination, propaganda, etc. is nothing more than pure projection.
It is not against liberalism but against teaching non-facts as facts(that is sargons objection if you would have heard what he is advocating, but I guess you couldn’t be bothered to look at the video).
I would call myself a liberal, an egalitarian and more on the left leaning side and sargon makes valid points. He is objecting to the courses being unfactual or plain ridiculous(such as this). There is no problem with relaying facts, there is a problem with relaying non-facts and there is a problem with advocating something as a professor. It is the equivalent of teaching creationism as if it is science and calling it ‘creation science’.
In classes (wether they be philosophical or a social science (which often uses studies which are not reproducable and therefore not confirmable)) the professor must be entirely unbiased, and only relay the confirmed facts and methods we know. Not the interpretation of the facts. For example saying that Freud said this and Aristotle said that, is perfectly fine. Advocating what Freud said is not okay. That comes closer to indoctrination and that is exactly what is happening in universities right now.
A quick question to you as an experiment.
Do you think that affirmative action is racist?
Although to be fair, maybe I was givrn a ‘trigger warning’ at least once.
We were looking at the psychologicsl research behind child testimony with respect to child molestation allegations so naturally very graphic things were alleged. Lecturer told us to brace ourselves a bit in advance, the bloody communist.
Wow. Interesting “experiment”, Polyliker. I wonder: Do you believe that anyone who disagrees with you regarding affirmative action must have been “indoctrinated”, and that there is only one correct stance that can be taken on the subject?
You keep linking to that “LaughingAtLiberals” video and playlist, and you claim you are a liberal and an “egalitarian”?
What the hell is your objection to students being taught to think more critically about race and not just declare that they “are colorblind”, “don’t see color”, and so couldn’t possibly be racist?
Why do trolls as of late want us to watch YouTube videos so badly?
I don’t know about others here, but I have no desire to spend what free time I have listening to people bloviate.
Polyliker,
If you want me to argue something, argue it. If you don’t want to link to a reputable source, fine. At least state what it is you’re objecting to in college courses
No professor is completely unbiased. No human is completely unbiased. Besides, if education was about no more than memorizing facts, there wouldn’t even be a need for college. You could just spend a few hours a day reading Wikipedia articles and you’d be good to go! You have to learn to think critically about the information you’re taking in and you have to learn to put the information in context. That’s what college did for me. It wasn’t indoctrination. Just the opposite. It gave me the tools to keep me from being vulnerable to propaganda or purposely bad or incomplete information. I left college far more skeptical than I entered it.
That’s why I’m suspicious whenever anyone claims that colleges and universities are indoctrinating people.
What I think they really mean is “I’m mad that they’re not being fed my preferred propaganda and are now less likely to believe my bullshit.”
How is asking me my opinion of affirmative action an experiment?
Your sad little attempt at a gotcha is not an experiment.
@ polyliker
I’ll field that one if I may; no.
Let me explain why. I subscribe to the everyday meaning of racism; i.e. animus based on hostility towards people of a different ethnicity.
So, to me, affirmative action (or ‘positive discrimination’ as it’s called here in the UK) would only be racist if the motive was some form of dislike or hatred towards a particular ethnic group. However AA is based on giving a helping hand to people at a disadvantage already. It’s not aimed at putting any particular group down. It’s aimed at levelling the playing field.
It’s why I don’t get annoyed that the lifeguards concentrate on the drowning people rather than me eating my ice-cream on the beach.
The edit button is not showing up for me again.
I just wanted to add that Polyliker is setting up a false dichotomy. Either a professor is completely unbiased or they are indoctrinating students. That’s not reality.
I also wanted to add that privileged people are fine with affirmative action when it benefits them. They want strict meritocracy. Until they’re told Asians score better on tests and get better grades.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/08/13/white-definitions-merit-and-admissions-change-when-they-think-about-asian-americans
Now that more women are going to college, admissions departments are favoring men. I see no outcry from the right over this.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/men-far-more-likely-to-benefit-from-affirmative-action-in-college-admissions/
Affirmative action is a boogey man because so many people hate the idea of losing their privilege. Not because it’s unfair.
@Alan Robertshaw
Well, I don’t agree with that definition of racism (and don’t see that as the everyday definition of racism), I think that racism simply means ‘discrimination based on race’ or ‘different treatment of people based on race’.
As with your definition I could say that different preferential treatment of white people is not racist because there is no hostility towards people of color. This is racist according to me, but it wouldn’t be according to your definition.
That is why I’d say that racism is discrimination based on race and sexism is discrimination based on sex.
But to you say it is to level the playing field, how does it do that exactly?
Based on race and gender instead of basing it on income. What happens now is that poor people of color get to benefit from affirmative action but poor white people don’t, shouldn’t we equally level the playing field for them?
I also do not for one second believe that there is a stigma against most ethnical minorities or women in education in this day and age.
What I do see is that the entire education system in the US must be reformed, as it now stands the educational system makes the poor poorer and the rich richer(as schools have to get money from the parents which in turn determines the level of education).
What affirmative action basically says (especially to women as they don’t have a lesser financial capacity on average) is ‘you aren’t good enough to do this on your own, and white men are’. Don’t get me wrong, I do want these people to get help, but I also see that it is unfair to give specific ethnic groups or genders preferential treatment because of the color of your skin or what is between your legs. I’d say, do it based on financial status as financial status has a direct impact on the education of a person and reform the educational system.
Okay guys, trolly troll has decided racism and sexism are over. Case closed.
@ polyliker
I see your point but I don’t agree. For one thing not all different treatment is necessarily bad. There may be legitimate reasons. Before we had a better understanding of genetics for example, some medical treatments were based on race (malaria, sickle cell etc). The idea that there are distinct races (but without saying any one race was ‘better’ than the other) was called ‘racialism’. Like I say, that’s outdated now, but a doctor dealing with, say, vitamin D deficiency may have been a ‘racialist’ but that didn’t make him a bad person.
But to talk about societal things, there again may be perfectly valid reasons for treating people differently. That one group suffers an unfair disadvantage compared to another group would be a legitimate reason in my book and therefore not racist (or sexist or ‘anti-straight’ or whatever).
Discrimination isn’t necessarily bad either (we discriminate between food and poison when deciding what to eat). It can be a loaded term because of the history of discriminating against disadvantaged people, but it can be a valid action. Exam grades and university acceptance are based on discriminating against those with poorer test scores. It’s just a word for choice or selection. It does have negative connotations which is why we preface it with “positive” over here when it’s trying to remedy a problem rather than cause it.
It would all depend on why you were giving preferential treatment to the white people. If you identified a particular class of white people that were disadvantaged in some way then that wouldn’t be racist. But if you are giving preferential treatment to white people who are already ‘preferred’ then that would be racist. I personally can’t think of any situation in which people are disadvantaged merely by being white though as opposed to actually being disadvantaged because of some other factor (poverty, lack of educational opportunities etc)
So to give preferential treatment to an already privileged group, by it’s nature is hostile to other groups. Preferring people just because of their membership of a group, with no other factors in play, means you are expressing animus to the other excluded group(s)
Perhaps you’ll forgive an analogy.
Someone brings ice-cream. There would be enough to give everyone two scoops but I take three scoops so Fred misses out on one. If everyone says ‘Oi, let Fred have one of those scoops!” am I being discriminated against? I would say no.
But let’s say everyone says ‘Not only should Alan have one of Fred’s scoops, he should get Fred’s other scoop too”. Is that just giving me preferential treatment but being neutral in regard to Fred, or are we really saying ‘Fuck Fred’ and being horrible to him.
@littleknown
Don’t you see the mental gymnastics going on there? What is said is ‘if you say you’re not racist and don’t care about race, you’re just denying that you’re racist’ It is said that you’re denying “the consequences of difference”, and this makes you a racist, while you do not believe that racism is a good thing and are not letting race play a part in your judgement. If I say ‘I am no racist’ or ‘I am colorblind to race’, that means that I am not a racist and not that I am “denying the consequences of difference” because I can both not be racist and see the consequences of difference.
(Ergo this kind of mental gymnastics is indeed non-factual and I would say that this is indoctrination that everyone is racist, even if they say they aren’t)
And yes, I am more on the liberal/left side of the spectrum and an egalitarian. These videos I link to stand and fall on their own merits, not on the one who uploads them and I do see that, do you?
Once again with the false dichotomies. There’s no reason why we can only deal with sexism and racism at the expense of poor people. There’s no reason helping poor people means you can’t help women or people of color.
He also seems to be one of those people that think we can only solve one problem at a time. Affirmative action in college admissions is a separate issue from income based achievement gaps in K-12 schools. It’s not necessary to get rid of affirmative action to deal with poor students having a less quality education.
Of course, Polyliker is having an intersectionality fail. White men are less likely to be poor than any other demographic. You can’t talk about economic justice without bringing feminist and racial justice issues into the mix. Comprehensive sex ed and access to abortion and contraception are crucial to poverty reduction. The mass incarceration of black men keeps not just them, but their whole families in poverty. Etc.