Featured Comment

Featured Comment 46 Comments

Me No Dhimmi;

… I had a chat with my daughter who went to Queens in the early 90s. She told me that one of the best essays she ever wrote came back with every single ‘he’ circled in red ink. Every single one. She was scolded by the marxist-feminist prof and told to use the gender-neutral, but ugly and unprounceable, s/he.
Fair enough, I supposes, except …. the essay was about Gulliver’s Travels.

46 Replies to “Featured Comment”

  1. Maybe if your daughter had read Guenevere’s Travels as assigned, she wouldn’t have flunked. No sympathy from me…

  3. I know another socialist-leftist, also deeply entrenched in the fictional world of the elitist authoritarians, who insisted that her students not use the word ‘history’. It had to be changed to ‘herstory’.
    The fact that this ignorant bigot doesn’t know that the word ‘history’ is from the greek ‘historia’ which means ‘narrative, tale’ – ah well.
    And a further fact that she was, with her insistence that history was gender specific, discriminating against ah..the other gender, the men. ah all.
    I’ve found that the most militant, malicious and bigoted individuals are the feminists. And I speak as a woman – their hostility to anyone doubting, questioning, dissenting from their views is remarkable.
    Again, they are elitists. Sanctimonious smug people, insisting on their superiority. Insisting that the world consists of the Wise and the Unwise. They require such a two-class world to ensure their own superiority because this image isn’t derived from their own work or value.
    Absolutely not; it’s derived from maintaining a victimized class – and I mean maintaining that set of victims. Their agenda is to keep this two-class society and its lower class ‘robust and in place’. Then, they can function as the Wise People who ‘work’ to ‘help’ these victims. Most of the money, taxpayer money, of course goes to their own salaries, offices, travels, secretaries and so on. Only about 20% and less, goes to any so-called ‘victims’.
    I recall one time at a department meeting with some of them; they were talking about ‘exercise’; I laughed and said my only exercise was lugging the vacuum around. Silence. Hostile silence.
    I learned later that all these ‘ladies of the Wise Class’ most certainly never cleaned their own homes. Heck no, they had members of the lower class, their ‘girls’ as they are termed, come in to do that.
    When I also inadvertently mentioned that I shovelled the snow and cut the grass – well, that was finished. I wasn’t playing my role as a member of a pre-defined Set – that Set of the Upper Class. I was doing Lower Class work. Not allowed. Never. You can see this in their rage, their blind rage, against Sarah Palin who didn’t acknowledge this Class Structure.

  4. DC, what sex was Gulliver, not Guenevere – to you HE must be an eunic. I suggest you read Gulliver’s Travels and send us a report without using he, him, mam etc…
    First you must learn the differance – she was assigned to read Gulliver’s Travels, I have never heard of Guenevere’s Travels – enlighten us.
    She should have been given an A+ for reading the correct material, reporting on it and the insights.
    The daughter has my sympathy.

  5. Next they will be after Mother’s/Father’s Day.I don’t know about MND,but my mum would be awfully PO’d at being called the Other Half!!

  8. One Professor’s diatribe started with a lecture on how “boorish” her father-in-law was in the presentation to a first year class of students. Many if not most of the male students, fresh from high school, had already learned to never speak first. Wait until several young women had spoken then make a non-political commentwas the acceptable approach. Speaking out during a discussion was necessary to reach a better mark. Speaking your mind for a young male was not the appropriate approach, however. Interestingly human nature starts to reveal itself by the time one participates in the second and third year level courses and younger male participation increased significantly. Another observation was that bright, attractive young women did not approach the discussion period with men in the same aggresive manner as the women who do not necessarily meet today’s standards of bright, attractive women. I guess the standard is in the eye of the beholder, but you know, fifty years ago, the standard was the same. One significant difference, fifty years ago, a young married man and woman’s stature in society was judged to a degree by the fact “she does not have to work to support the family”. Women with careers were respected, but more so if the family were able to provide care for the children while she was employed. Women who had to work, such as my Mother, relied on relatives; friends; and the nice lady down the street who helped raise neighbourhood children with their own, such as my Wife did when our family started. My Wife who helped start several small businesses; raised three children; (post secondary educated and graduate school) worked at home or outside the home as she saw her role in our partnership. This usually dependent on the specific age and home life she decided was appropriate. Sometimes this was arranging with the nice lady down the street to include raising our children with her children. My counsel was always sought and consensus reached for the timing in the change of her approach to employment. I still feel a bit of pride that even being raised in the hard working poor tradition, “my wife did not have to work”. (outside the home) Cheers; Mike Sr.

  9. I recall another incident at my university, where one of the feminists wanted to introduce a special course, for all incoming MALE students, about ‘harassment, discrimination’ and all the usual blather.
    It was, fortunately, an anniversary of the end of WWII in Europe, and I was able to ask: “How many thousands and thousands of young men died to ensure all your freedom – and here you are suggesting that there is something genetically wrong with their gender and that you must ‘educate’ them out of this basic fault’.
    Needless to say, based on that – and my own gender – the Motion didn’t pass. But I’m sure it would have, for the feminist and leftist mode is that no questions, no dissent, no other viewpoints are allowed. There is only Their Way.

  10. The big problem in the universities is the requirements to take humanities and social sciences. I know the intent is to create a well-rounded student and I agree with the intent. The problem is that the infiltration of political correctness and progressive politics has ruined the experience. Allow students to significantly reduce or completely bypass these credits. Then reduce liberal arts funding and the number of graduates(similar to what happened to medical departments).
    This would go a long way to stopping the nonsense in the liberal departments. Students would graduate sooner and with less debt. Taxpayers/government would have to contribute less if universities were smaller and more efficient. The other benefit is that it might slow down the phenomenon of credential creep. It may even stem the flood of humanities graduates infiltrating into ever expanding HR departments. All they do is clog up private businesses and worker productivity by requiring a mountain of paperwork to be filled out, meetings, training, surveys etc.

  11. The problem I have with these self-defined elitists, is they don’t seek to meet societal challenges, to solve problems, but to “define” us, to tell what we already know – who we are and how we got here.
    Elitists task themselves with doing what is unnecessary, and unwanted – lecturing others about what societal standards should be, within their snapshot of today, which ignores our history, except for a hostile view of oppression, and their decidely revisionist viewpoint. (ie-whites responsible for black slavery, and my personal favourite, white guys get all the breaks).
    Less radicalized perhaps, but firmly in this mindset is Michael Ignatieff, who, like those described above, spends all of his time and intellectual effort trying to determine who we are and thus, determining what we want, which miraculously coincides exactly with the needs of the Liberal Party of Canada.
    Their problem is people, in a macro sense, are too smart to be awed or intimidated by these intellectuals seeking to redefine us (the “Just Society” for example). They want to raise their families, without the monkey of interventionist government on their backs. So, they refuse to vote for these sneering top downers.
    They never ask us what we want; they tell us how we should feel. I see this attitude everywhere, in business, in entertainement, in politics. The truly ironic part is, while they look down on us and laugh at our insignificant little lives, they are absolutely dependent on “us” for their income, their prestige and their power.

  12. Ya great, just cut off the funding to liberal arts.
    Please realise that for every politically motivated prof in liberal arts there is a prof who is motivated purely by the education of their own students.
    Although I would agree that the liberals arts are in a state of disarray generally, the solution is not to remove liberal arts from our education. Reading ‘The closing of the American Mind’ it is clear we need GOOD liberal arts education more than ever.

  14. james – the problem is that the leftist professor doesn’t see himself as politically motivated by as providing ‘truth’. And the ratio of these leftist fiction-dwellers is the majority in the social sciences and humanities.
    Reducing the number of required social science and humanities courses isn’t easy. That’s because the reason for their inclusion isn’t just the ‘well-rounded educational goal’. It’s to ensure that these classes are filled. The professors need students or their own reason for employment becomes fragile.
    There are a certain proportion of students who take the social sciences and humanities courses deliberately because they are intelligent and eager to learn about such things as political development, societal structures and so on. These are a small, small proportion and they have to be very selective in their courses for a lot of the courses are leftist propaganda.
    A larger proportion of students go to the university because our economy puts off gainful employment, more and more, to the later years. Jobs which were, years ago, open to those with a high school graduation now require, for some odd reason, a university degree – despite the fact that the job itself requires nothing learned within the university.
    Many of these students aren’t interested in any specific job, they take the social sciences and humanities because these courses are so general and require so little effort.
    Then, there are the students from the hard sciences, who are required to take a ‘bird course’ as it’s called in the social sciences and humanities. Naturally, since they aren’t interested in these subjects they take the most mundane and easiest. So, you’ll find them flocking to the first year or other general courses.
    These three sets comprise the class structure. As noted, the ratio of students really interested in the issues – is low.

  16. I find it hard to sympathize with people who intentionally enroll in ‘humanities’ courses. The best way to stop this kind of nonsense is to eschew the courses taught by the Koolaid drinkers. Without a supply of suckers to fill the classrooms they will eventually go away. If one is enrolled in a program for which such courses are a requirement, then change programs. Go into engineering or commerce instead of womens studies. Don’t provide a market for the moonbats.

  17. Here’s a repeat of my comment:
    Hi Me No Dhimmi,
    Haven’t you ever seen a he-she? Or a she-he, Shiite, or she-it? Merde!

  18. In English Canada: The Canadians…
    In French Canada: Les canadiens et les canadiennes…
    In France outside of Paris: Les canadiens…
    In Paris: Quoi?

  19. I didn’t know that Gulliver was a hermaphrodite or a tranny… what a stupid professor!
    But the Leftists/feminimarxists probably want to rewrite the classic tale to be politically correct and inclusive. What next, will they rewrite the classic to make the Lilliputians into “GLBT” Muslim Communists?
    If they can rewrite the Constitution and rewrite history, why not the classic books? Not really a stretch for them!

  20. Migwawd is there anything drearier on earth than militant feminism.
    yeah, et’s interminable posts, tho’ if one has the fortitude to wade thru, they can be good for a bit of unintended hilarity.

  21. This “professor” must be on guard not to fall into a manhole (sorry forgot personhole) when out walking.

  22. Haven’t you ever seen a he-she? Or a she-he, Shiite, or she-it? Merde!
    Posted by: Major Mac at December 21, 2008 2:16 PM
    Yeah, Major Mac, but you mispelled the last word, which is “shite”.
    In that same conversation my daughter mentioned that the prof was quite forthright about her Marxist approach to literature and that they would be studying, for example, Emily Bronte from a Marxist perspective. I said that the disclosure was to be commended but that I’d still prefer an ideologically neutral approach. She agreed. BTW, she dropped English as her major after this experience.
    Finally, I mentioned Barbara Kay’s hopeful piece about the Great Books programmes on offer at Brock and Concordia. She said, “Well, it depends on how the Great Books are taught … whether or not they’re taught from a Marxist perspective”.

  23. If it were me, I would have taken that one straight to the Dean.
    “Haven’t you ever seen a he-she? Or a she-he, Shiite, or she-it? Merde!”
    Yep…David St in Vancouver.

  24. Teaching from a “Marxist” perspective by a bunch of dweebs who would not be able to survive a true Marxist society. My experience as an adjunct professor taught me that most of the people teaching humanities and social sciences had no clue about how the world really works. Their goal, it seems,is not to advance their field of study in any way but to cozy up to the trough, research trivial questions and spend the rest of their years re-writing their sorry dissertations!

  25. philboyd – the way to deal with your problem with my posts is to scroll up from the bottom; then, when you see my name, you can ‘whoosh’ right past.
    Otherwise, you’ll have to read my comment that I’ve noticed that elitists (aka left/socialists) frequently assert their elite superiority by claiming that posts from people whom they don’t like ‘make them laugh’. Ahh, such mirth at the behaviour of the peasantry, that does indeed show their superiority to all the world. Heh to you too.

  26. Shiite, she-it, merde, shite: same thing.
    Don’t take me to the Dean. I wouldn’t want himer/herim to spank me.

  27. In the 60’s, we didn’t have two cars in the family, and Mom took us kids to our cottage in rural Quebec for the entire summer. There were no nearby stores, and Dad only came up on weekends. But, at the time, there was still milk delivery service, a baker delivery, and one very curious vegetable truck.
    It’s not that the truck itself was strange; it was the two people who operated it. No one could figure out if they were men or women! They looked pretty manly, but they had very high pitched voices, and as they were both quite stout, it was impossible to tell if they did or didn’t have breasts.
    So a lady down the street gave them a name: shims. It was a mixture of “she” and “him”. I always thought that was a good choice for a gender-neutral pronoun, though grammarians might quibble about the subject/object conflation. It’s certainly easier to pronounce than s/he.

  28. Reading the comments, I’m dismayed by how often the terms “elite” and “elitist” are used. Referring to mediocrities in this way confers an undeserved status upon them. Can’t we find another word?

  29. How did the fem egghead bowdlerize this: “and urinates into the royal chambers.” “Within three minutes Gulliver saves the palace.” Three minutes?
    …-
    “When he’s awakened by a crowd at his door telling him the royal apartment is on fire, he rushes over, and urinates into the royal chambers. Within three minutes Gulliver saves the palace. The empress, however, refuses to set foot in her apartment and vows revenge against Gulliver.”
    (pinkmonkey)
    (*H/T Dr. Bowdler)

  34. Makes one wonder how many of our society’s ills would be negated simply with the elimination of university.

  35. 1991
    Sociology 110 U of S professor Mah***
    Term paper due: How have post world war two changes in technology affected Canadian family life and women’s domestic labour.
    I guess stating that the microwave made it easier for women to get supper on the table easier was not conducive to a passing grade nor was swanson TV dinners and for good measure I mentioned the pill.
    Hey, thats how I grew up.
    After that experience University was not for me and I went back to power line construction.

  37. I really don’t think eliminating university would be a good idea. Where are we going to train the doctors, engineers, and scientists? Of course, since these jobs have to work in the real world, left wing dogma is non-existent.
    The problem is with the liberal arts. The faculties have been effectively taken over, as the tenure committees won’t hire anyone without politically correct views. And that’s a real tragedy, in my view. The purpose of studying liberal arts is to sharpen your critical thinking – to come up with new ideas, and support them with reasoned argument. But Marxist dogma prevents people from accepting obvious facts, such as centrally planned economies don’t work. (Deng Xiao Ping may have been an autocratic tyrant, but at least he recognized that, and raised the real living standards of hundreds of millions of people; somehow, Marxists ignore that little bit of evidence.)
    I feel sorry for kids who are told that white is black, up is down, and more social programs will solve all our problems. When they have to regurgitate it for four years, it’s not surprising some of them come to believe it; the miracle is that some are able to resist.
    One of my daughters wants to be an engineer; the other, a doctor. I would have a heart attack if either one told me she was going to take “women’s studies”. They’re still a few years from university, so they might change their minds, but at least I can live until then!

  38. political correctness re: gender neutrality alive and well on university campuses: Gender neutral
    “The Arts Student Union (ASU) implemented a policy on Wednesday, November 26 that requires all departmental societies under their banner strive to implement gender-neutral terminology in policies, bylaws, and constitutions. The decision is a follow-up to a policy implemented earlier this term that saw all of the ASU’s policies, constitution, and bylaws revised under the same standards.
    …This may run contrary to conventional grammar, but with our current vocabulary it seemed to be the only option. Kelly explained some online communities have started using “ze” as a gender-neutral singular pronoun…”
    What a joke.

  39. A quote I may have seen on this site, but applicable. Any relationship between education and intelligence is purely coincidental.

  40. Kevin, one of the most horrifying parts of university is that if they go to the wrong university, they will be required to sit in a women’s studies class and listen to that PMSing drivel. By the end of the class I was required to take, I was convinced that feminists are nothing more than angry chicks on their periods, and I speak from personal experience (Anger + PMS = Feminism, its a logical formula if you think about it). I had to write 11 essays about how men were evil just because of a completely uncontrollable biological difference, and basic biology should be changed to force men to see what its like to suffer under male oppression (make sure your daughters take a course in B.S. in their first semester, my B.S. course, psych, came in SO handy when I was dealing with Women’s Studies cause all it is is learning to lie through ones teeth).
    Remember there’s always a light at the end of the tunnel though, the most satisfying part of that class was watching all 11 of those essays burn and then tossing our photocopies of “Dialectics”, “Vag Monologues” and all that other trash onto the fire with my sorority sisters cheering!

  41. “After all, when all is said and done, most college graduates aren’t really smarter than other people. They just think they are.”
    …-
    “The Dumbing Down of Academe
    Townhall.com ^ | December 22, 2008 | Burt Prelutsky
    Just when you think the folks on the left can’t get any goofier, they go and surpass themselves. If silliness were an Olympic event, these lunkheads could be counted on to bring home the gold. The fool’s gold, that is.”
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2152576/posts

  43. Joe,
    The difference between a trade school and a university is the professors actually do some research and discover interesting ways to make shiny new things. At trade schools, they don’t do research; they teach all day, and at 5:00 they go home.
    As a diabetic, I’m glad that the University of Toronto allowed Banting and Best to do the research that led to insulin. The amount of medical research that comes from universities is staggering, as well as basic research in physics, chemistry, and materials. This wonderful Interweb we’re using was developed at a research institute.
    Of course, corporations do a lot of research as well. Bell Labs, IBM, Xerox’s PARC were all legendary sources of research, but that was when they had quasi-monopolies and could afford to have guys on the payroll who were just asked to think. Now, there’s increasing pressure to productize (ugly word, I know) their discoveries quickly, before their competitors do. So, less “blue sky” research, more application work. The blue sky stuff takes much longer to turn into products – look at DNA, discovered over 50 years ago, but only turning into practical treatments in the last few years. Yet it holds vast potential to affect millions of lives.
    Nope, we still need universities. But their liberal arts programs could use a kick in the rear.

  44. Supposedly, the liberal arts departments do research as well, though I see little use for much of what they do.
    I have met a number of people doing PhDs in English and it always amazes me that most of them seem to be taking as much as ten years to complete work that an engineering PhD normally completes in three years.
    Imagine taking ten years to prove that Jane Austen was a lesbian, while at the same time another PhD candidate has taken the same ten years to prove the opposite, and in three years an engineering PhD candidate has managed to create a solution to a previously intractable boundary value problem that advances nuclear fusion technology by a decade.

  45. Kevin you are confusing research with training. The two are for the most part separate. A doctor or engineer can be trained in a trade school and can then go on to do research at a properly funded research facility. However university in and of itself has degenerated from a place of higher learning to a disseminater of sophist argument and as such has become a cancer that is eating into the very foundations of our society.

  46. In general I do believe that the University system is rotting and cancerous. However, there are a minority of good people involved throughout the University system who really do stand for reason and enlightenment.
    I think it would be a grave mistake that conservatism abandons the intellectual battle in the Universities. I am a second year Philosophy student and it is my ambition to fight this corrupted system from within. I want to win back higher education from the people who have perverted it, but conservatives in the universities need the support of the public in order to ultimately achieve this victory.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation