felltoearth wrote:If there is “excellence” there they buried the lede. I don’t waste my time on vapid, racist, sexist crap. YMMV.
I know that leftists don't like to confront anything that challenges their preconceived notions of correct and noble and lovely. But if you'd managed to steel yourself to read past the first few sentences, you'd perhaps have seen that the article contains nothing that could reasonably described as "racist" or "sexist". (For instance, nowhere in the article is race even alluded to.) Then again, leftists cry "Racism!" and "Sexism!" in response to anything and everything that momentarily creases their brows.
As for "vapid"... well there I'll concede that, yes, YMMV.
______________________________________purplerat wrote:Well golly-gee-willikers, color me surprised that Mike would think anti-gay sources are excellent.
Or maybe this is just another red herring
The article mentions the on-campus presence of the Anscombe Society. If you follow the link to the Society's webpage, you'll discover that they espouse standard conservative views on sexuality, opposition to same-sex marriage, etc. So yes, they're right-wing and homophobic. At a stretch, you might say that the Shannon Watkins article is anti-gay merely because it links to the Anscombe website (only one of
many links, BTW), but anti-gay talking-points are not contained in the article itself.
What makes the article "excellent", IMO, is its profile on modern feminism as it appears on university campuses.
...
In fact, modern feminism is increasingly growing unhinged and irrational. At times, feminists even refuse to acknowledge basic biological reality. When former Evergreen State College Biology Professor Heather E. Heying spoke about the biological differences between men and women at an event at Portland State University, a group of protestors—mostly female—got up shouting and sabotaged the sound system as they exited in protest.
The self-evident perception that men and women, in general, have unique tendencies and strengths that, when combined, yield results that neither of the sexes could have achieved independently, contradicts the current feminist narrative that announces that the “Future is Female.”
Indeed, according to this most recent iteration of feminism, men are seen as a contradictory force that must be overcome, or at least held at bay, and not as a cooperative partner whose unique qualities complement one’s own and contribute to the good of society. This deep distrust of men makes women feel the need to assert themselves over men at any cost—whether it means holding men in contempt, outcompeting them professionally, scorning traditional marriage, or engaging in just as many or more casual hookups as men do.
...
...
Feminism today has positioned men in the cultural cross-hairs. Wade, a feminist academic at Occidental College, goes so far as to say that it is “masculinity itself that has become the problem.” Another feminist writer, Jennifer Wright, argues that women are afraid that “men will murder them” if they do not give into their sexual advances.
Such demonization of men has led college administrators to police male behavior in Draconian fashion. They can be forced to comply with “affirmative consent” codes (in which they must explicitly ask for permission each step in the seduction) or can be denied due process rights when accused of sexual misconduct.
Meanwhile, women are encouraged to view themselves as perpetual victims and are discouraged from taking common-sense precautions and learning how to defend themselves when necessary. It seems that at the same time feminists are promoting licentiousness, they are finding ways to absolve women from their own poor choices.
Contrary to the mainstream feminist narrative, such cavalier attitudes toward men and sex have not actually benefited the majority of women. According to a study entitled “The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness” conducted by the National Bureau of Economic Research, women have become increasingly unhappy since the 1970s.
Furthermore, research conducted by the Austin Institute for the Study of Family and Culture indicates that sex has different psychological effects on women, who generally associate it with romance more than men do—suggesting that uncommitted sexual encounters will have uniquely adverse effects on them.
And while many college-educated women clearly value professional success, a study by the Pew Research Center suggests that they do not want it to come at the expense of raising a family. According to research from the American Economic Association, for college-educated women, “the biggest premium to life satisfaction is associated with having a family.”
Yet, declining birth rates among millennial women indicate that many are missing out on that very central component to life satisfaction. According to a recent New York Times article, America’s fertility is in “precipitous decline”—with an unsettling gap between the family size women wish to have and what they actually will have.
If mainstream feminism were a movement that truly fought for the well-being and freedom of women, then it is confounding that the social and cultural “wins” it has achieved over the last several decades has not resulted in greater overall female satisfaction and happiness.
...
https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2018/03/campus-feminism-real-war-women/[That's about as much as can be quoted without violating the FUA restrictions on copyright.]
The essay is not even anti-feminism. It favors the views of people such as
Christina Hoff Sommers, host of the video blog
The Factual Feminist, and only criticises what it sees as extremist feminism.
It also contains in-text links (not copied over in my quotes) to articles, studies, etc. that support the claims made.
I have little doubt that the majority of members on this forum will be opposed to the main points. But to dismiss it as "racist", "sexist", "anti-gay" etc. without even having read the bulk of the content, is plain lazy, IMO.
by 
