Professor Makes a Case for “Why Can’t We Hate Men?” She’s Serious!

3

There was a column in the Washington Post over the weekend called, “Why Can’t We Hate Men?” It’s by Suzanna Danuta Walters. The author is a Professor of Sociology and director of the women’s gender and sexuality studies program at Northeastern University. She edits a prestigious gender studies journal.

You might think the title is facetious, but, no, she’s serious. She actually makes — or tries to make the case — for hating men. Men are god-awful according to her and we can assume this is what she is teaching her students. She seems to think all men are Harvey Weinstein.

How do these numbskulls get jobs in prestigious universities and keep them?

The fact that WaPo would even publish this is a testament to how insane the left has gotten. Everything they ask for they get and it’s still not enough. There is no end to the demands or the hate.

Each paragraph of this essay is crazier than the next.

As a woman, I peronally have this bizarre notion that men and women are equal but different. I would never pass her class. She writes:

“It’s not that Eric Schneiderman (the now-former New York attorney general accused of abuse by multiple women) pushed me over the edge. My edge has been crossed for a long time, before President Trump, before Harvey Weinstein, before “mansplaining” and “incels.” Before live-streaming sexual assaults and red pill men’s groups and rape camps as a tool of war and the deadening banality of male prerogative.

Seen in this indisputably true context, it seems logical to hate men. I can’t lie, I’ve always had a soft spot for the radical feminist smackdown, for naming the problem in no uncertain terms. I’ve rankled at the “but we don’t hate men” protestations of generations of would-be feminists and found the “men are not the problem, this system is” obfuscation too precious by half.”

She must be under the delusion that it’s natural to hate men. She rejects all things masculine and sees it as “violent”, “institutional”, and not biological. She likes to challenge all things masculine:

“…Growing movements to challenge a masculinity built on domination and violence and to engage boys and men in feminism are both gratifying and necessary. Please continue.

But this recognition of the complexity of male domination (how different it can be in different parts of the world, how racism shapes it) should not — must not — mean we forget some universal facts.”

Women everywhere in the world are experiencing “sexual violence’ and “male violence”, she says. It is a plague in her mind. She thinks women do everything and they do it without getting paid, and so on. It’s a worldwide disaster in her mind.

Her conclusions include this statement:

“So, in this moment, here in the land of legislatively legitimated toxic masculinity, is it really so illogical to hate men? For all the power of #MeToo and #TimesUp and the women’s marches, only a relatively few men have been called to task, and I’ve yet to see a mass wave of prosecutions or even serious recognition of wrongdoing. On the contrary, cries of “witch hunt” and the plotted resurrection of celebrity offenders came quick on the heels of the outcry over endemic sexual harassment and violence…”

Ms. Walters suggests women could get violent but believes there is “little place for feminist anger”. We are told, she says, “he’s with us”, but according to her, the men never are.

If men want women to believe they are with us, they must “pledge to vote for feminist women only” and not “run for office,” Walters says. They must not take the jobs. She doesn’t want to see their “crocodile tears” and believes women “have every right to hate you. You have done us wrong. #BecausePatriarchy. It is long past time to play hard for Team Feminism. And win.”

Nothing like stereotyping.

This woman is literally going insane before our eyes. She teaches youth and The Washington Post publishes her work. This is nuts! Beyond nuts!

3 COMMENTS

  1. A book detailing “The Loss of Virtue–Moral Confusion & Social Disorder in Britain & America”, edited by Digby Anderson 1992. Chapter 2 Manliness and Civility; Sources of Self-Restraint and Self Cohesion, has great insight into mindset of radical feminism. “Manly aggressiveness and bourgeois formalism seem, on the surface of things, to have little more in common with each other than their general undesirability to the fully emancipated sensibility. However, educated opinion and the emancipated sensibility are unimpressed by the mere surface of things. In this way, the psychoanalytical perspective links the two. Then radical social theory–cultural Marxism, feminism, post-modernism–triggers the link into a common cause. Violence and repression are traced to what has been called patriarchal possessiveness: the peculiarly masculine, rational, ruthless and narrow-minded urge to control and then even (in extremis) to do away with it, an urge which has, so the argument goes, malignantly distorted and cruelly repressed our true human nature, and the real possibilities of human freedom, solidarity and creativity.” The entire book is a must read.

  2. This is reminiscent of the 70s and the era of Andrea Dworkin. Her writings were used in colleges in the 80s to teach young women that all heterosexual sex was rape. Much damage was done. Eventually Andrea, a lesbian, married a homosexual man in SF.

Comments are closed.