Anti-Racist Ally or Racist Approriator? Thea Lim Analyses the Case of James Cameron and Avatar

This is a cross-post from here @ Racialicious blog :

Stories that Ally vs Stories that Appropriate: a Yardstick

By Deputy Editor Thea Lim

How do you know when a story is allying, versus appropriating?

In other words, if someone of privilege writes a story about the political oppression of a group they do not belong to, what is the difference between:
a) a story that brings marginalised voices to a wider platform and advocates for their rights, versus

b) a story that simply appropriates a political conflict for a writer’s own end, taking advantage of the fact that communities who experience marginalisation are rarely ever allowed to speak for themselves?

Apart from the fact that a story that appropriates usually winds up grossly misrepresenting a marginalised group, this is my yardstick for telling friends from foes:  one of the central purposes of a story that acts as ally, is to use one’s own privilege to tell another’s story, in the hopes of ameliorating the others’ situation.  Meanwhile, a story that appropriates just wants to spin a good yarn, get some adulation, and uses another’s story in order to do so.  An ally story is giving, an appropriating story is taking.

Quit jabbering Thea, you may say.  It’s easy to tell the difference between stories that appropriate, and stories that ally! We don’t need a yardstick!

Not true.  At least within mainstream opinion, it is startling and depressing how many stories that appropriate get passed off as political progressive, as allies.  Like Not Without My Daughter.  Or the documentary Born into Brothels, which purported to tell the story of the children of sex workers in Calcutta, but really just seemed more interested in showcasing the magnanimity of the American photographer who worked with the children.* Or another documentary, Paris is Burning, about the black trans/gay vogueing community of New York City, which brought immense praise on the white outsider director, but painted the community as tragic and hopeless, while bringing little benefit to them.  I’m sure you can think of loads more films like this.

Including…(drumroll)…Avatar. Which I finally saw last week, in all its headsplitting 3D glory.  And it fulfilled all the negative press I had read over countless months, from anti-racist and anti-ableist camps among many others.  But seeing how my esteemed peers did a lot of the deconstructing work for me, I was left to ponder another question.  If Cameron is as leftist as claimed, why didn’t he tell the story of an actual conflict between big business (or colonialists) and an indigenous group? Why use blue allegory?

Hollywood films have a generally untapped power to sway how people think about political events.   Packaging a political story within the rhetoric of emotion (and also I guess, within face-blasting special effects) is often the best way to get people to swallow arguments they would otherwise reject.  Hence a movie that – at least at face value – is very anti-war, anti-military and anti-capitalist is demolishing box office records with hardly a peep from conservative viewers.

Can you imagine the impact that a movie like Avatar could have, if Cameron had used all the CGI to recreate (for example) any area of the Americas the way it looked before first contact with the Europeans, and instead told the real story of an indigenous group struggling to protect themselves from genocide?  Imagine the kind of support it could create for indigenous rights.

So why not go all the way Cameron, and tell a true story, instead of inventing a weird, azure copy of a familiar history?

Well, because Avatar ain’t allying. It’s appropriating.  Along with the fact that Cameron’s version of indigenous people is quite insulting (they are monochromatically spiritual but stupid, and would die without a cunning but smart “civilised man” to save them) the answers to my question make it clear that Avatar is an appropriator, not an ally.

And responses to this question include but are not limited to:
1) Because making a movie about a real indigenous group would require work and resources that Cameron preferred to devote to special effects.

2) Because it’s one thing to do as Avatar does and make an argument that has already gained mainstream popularity – i.e. the war in Iraq is bad, our rate of consumption is untenable, people should be concerned about the environment** – it’s another to go way out on a limb and make an argument that is considered childish leftist faffing: i.e. that some meaningful political action should be taken to improve the conditions under which many indigenous people live, conditions that are a direct result of colonisation.

I am hard pressed to find a card-carrying liberal who will say “The native genocide on which our country is based is an atrocity that we all continue to be benefit from,” without hedging statements like “but hey, what are we going to do, move back to England?”  That kind of zero-sum reasoning distracts away from the fact that many First Nations people in Canada, my own country, live under third world conditions in a first world country,*** meaning (among many other things) poor access to clean water and safe housing, with suicide rates 2 times and infant mortality rate that is 1.5 times the rest of the country.  Throw in the fact that communities are still reeling from the residential school system which only came to an end around 1996, and the horrifying numbers of indigenous women that go missing or are murdered yearly, while the justice system does very little about it.

Surely there is a political option to remedy this beyond shameful situation, between ignoring it and moving back to England.  (Speaking of political options of even the most lipservicey variety: in 2007 when the UN tried to pass the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People the US and Canada were among only four countries to refuse to sign.)

While Cameron is willing to dabble in native politics, he’s not willing to commit.

3) Because you might have to get permission from the native group you were representing to tell their story, if you wanted to do it in a way that still allowed you to look “progressive”.  You might even have to let them get involved in the filmmaking, God forbid! And this would mean that…

4) Because you wouldn’t be able to manipulate the story for your own purposes.   Though we should note that representing real life indigenous people and doing research into their plight did not stop Mel Gibson from grotesquely skewing the history of the Mayans in Apocalypto.

5) And most of all, because writing about real life indigenous people would prevent the kind of feel-good, Disneyfied ending that Cameron wanted for Avatar. While four hundred years later, First Nations people in the Americas continue to survive and resist the ongoing erosion of their cultures, it is a massive understatement to say that things did not  turn out for them the way they did for the Na’vi.

In other words, if Cameron had based Avatar on real people rather than blue ones, he would not have been able to use that story for his own purposes.  Again, for his own purposes.

While Avatar has more subtext than it knows what to do with, its biggest facade is that it is a political movie.  It most definitely is not, because it has zero interest in mobilising political action.  Its storyline is much too farfetched to be giving any kind of clear instruction on what the average viewer can do to stop environmental degradation, the war in Iraq or work for native rights.

It is a movie that hijacks the ongoing struggles of real people with far less privilege than Cameron, in order to hook as many audiences as possible.  But how is a story of native struggle an easy sell to worldwide audiences, you ask?  The tale of swarthy white man saving unenlightened savages is such an old cultural meme that it quickly hooks our brains.  That’s why Avatar has drawn countless comparisons (and multiple accusations of plagiarism): it’s a common story for our culture, a story we can’t get past because those of us who are settlers cannot reconcile ourselves to the horror of our history.  But don’t be fooled; that doesn’t mean Cameron is interested in that history.  He’s just capitalising on the story’s draw.

This is what theft is, in intellectual or artistic terms – rather than get someone’s permission to tell their story, tell a corrupted version of their story and then pass it off as original genius. Cue accolades.

In recent weeks we’ve heard stories of how indigenous people have begun using Avatar to talk about their own struggles.   Most famously, indigenous Bolivian president Evo Morales has shown unreserved praise for the film.  This article from Survival, an international organisation devoted to advocacy for tribal peoples, talks about how multiple Indigenous groups are trying to make clear the parallels between their own histories, and the fictional Na’vi:

A Penan man from Sarawak, in the Malaysian part of Borneo, told Survival, ‘The Penan people cannot live without the rainforest. The forest looks after us, and we look after it. We understand the plants and the animals because we have lived here for many, many years, since the time of our ancestors.
‘The Na’vi people in ‘Avatar’ cry because their forest is destroyed. It’s the same with the Penan. Logging companies are chopping down our big trees and polluting our rivers, and the animals we hunt are dying.’

The photo at the top of this article is from a protest by Palestinians against an Israeli separation barrier, where Palestinians dressed up as Na’vi to get their point across.

It just goes to show that when resistance is a way of life, you make the most of imperfect advocacy, of stories that are only pretending to be your ally.

Sympathy or even empathy that is not coupled with power-sharing is meaningless.  Any story that purports to show solidarity or uplift marginalised groups, but is not willing to let us tell our own stories in our own way, is not a friend.
____
Some notes:

* The reason why I say this is because I was troubled by the lack of context the film gave for the children’s situation. Rather than looking at the poverty and pressure their parents were under, it seemed to demonise the parents for not wanting their children to get an education, without looking at the reason’s for that behaviour.  It was willing to show the cute and loveable children, but their parents were apparently not photogenic enough for the camera.

After writing this paragraph I looked up the film on Wikipedia, and found more depressing news:

However, Partha Banerjee, who worked on the film as an interpreter, has disputed the claim that the children’s lives have been improved. In a February 2005 letter to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, he says that many of them ended up in worse circumstances than they had been in before their involvement in photography classes. Critics argued that the lives and family circumstances of these children were too complex to be revolutionized by educating one family member in photography, or even by sending them to boarding school.

**I’m not saying that all these precepts are beliefs everyone holds.  Lord knows there are countless people who continue to support the war and believe global warming is either a myth or a natural occurence that has nothing to do with how humans use resources.  However the cultural trend right now is that many more people oppose the war than when it first began, and that people should care about the environment; even if only in the most silly ways, like Walmart’s Sustainability Goals or buying a hybrid H3.  There is no cultural trend to support native land rights.

***We usually use the term “global south” at Racialicious in favour of “third world” – I used “third world” because it is the term that First Nations people themselves use to describe conditions on reserves.
____
Photo courtesy of the Huffington Post.

Queer Disabled Woman of Color Activist/Writer on Intersectionality (cross posted)

All that follows is from here, on the blog of Mia Mingus, called Leaving Evidence. Thank you, Mia, for all your work!

February 25, 2010

“Intersectionality” is a Big Fancy Word for My Life

(Excerpts from MBGLTACC 2010 Keynote Address)
We have to confront white supremacy within LGBT and Queer communities.  A queer politic MUST include solidarity with people of color; it MUST include fighting racism and white supremacy.  Because we aren’t queer OR people of color; queer OR white; queer OR able bodied; queer OR working class.  We can’t just decide to come together as queer people and expect that we are all going to be united and work together—or that we’ll even feel comfortable.

We must be willing to have hard conversations as queer people with each other about how we are different as queer people.  It helps us to expand what “queerness” is—to see that there are many different ways to be queer.  We can’t be afraid to do our own work at our own tables.  And yes, there is much work to be done out there, with folks who aren’t queer.  Yes, that is important too, but we are outsiders here as well.  Because really, there is no “out there.”

For those of us living with multiple oppressed identities, we know this well.  And as adoptees, we know this well—especially as transracial and transnational adoptees.  As people who straddle many different communities, so much of our work must be done with the people in our own communities.  And we do this work for our very survival, because often times, we do not have a choice not to.  There is literally no where else to go.  Our homes are rarely comfortable. (And I know as queer folks we know something about that too).

To the queer white folks in the audience and the folks who benefit from white privilege, I would ask you: how are you connecting your fight for queer liberation to challenging white supremacy?  How are you connecting your queerness to your white privilege?  How are you listening to queer people of color in your world, supporting them and practicing solidarity?  How are you actively noticing how whiteness, racism and white supremacy play out in queer communities, student groups, organizations, and movements?

Racism and white supremacy are so pervasive, that we don’t even have to be consciously or intentionally doing anything to participate in them.  It’s in the air we breathe; it’s how the machine rolls; it’s the default.  It’s backed by everything in our society.  That’s the thing about oppression, power and privilege: unless you are actively challenging it, you are colluding with it. We live in a heterosexist society, we live in an ableist society and we all have a responsibility to actively work against it. We can’t guarantee that things won’t be ableist or won’t be racist (that’s not the world we live in right now); but we CAN guarantee that when there is racism, when there is ableism, that we will do something about it.  We will LISTEN to those most impacted; we will listen to people of color, we will listen to disabled folks; we will listen to trans folks; we will listen to the queer disabled people of color—and hear them.  We can guarantee that we will act and communicate with each other.  And maybe we will make mistakes; and we will learn from them.

There is no such thing as neutrality.  If you have privilege, you can never be neutral, because you are constantly benefiting off of that privilege—even at the same time as you are also being oppressed. That is what “intersectionality” (for lack of a better word) is about.  It is about moving beyond single-issue politics; it’s about understanding the complexities of our lives.  It is understanding that fighting for racial justice IS queer; fighting for disability justice IS queer.

It is trying to understand the way our differences lie down inside of us, as Audre Lorde would say.  It is knowing that heterosexist and patriarchal modes of family and gender and sexuality were used in service of white supremacy as the building blocks used to colonize first nation communities and communities of color and their lands.  It is knowing that women of color’s sexualities and genders are policed everyday (in different ways), whether they identify as queer or not. It is being able to hold the trauma and exploitation of transracial and transnational adoptees, as queer people who often think that transracial and transnational adoption is a valid route to parenting.  It is holding the power of building queer family and new models of parenting AND also challenging compulsory child bearing in a heteronormative culture.  It is knowing that race gets used strategically to divide us all the time as queer people.  That ableism, capitalism and class get used to make us think that freedom and consumer choice is more important than justice and liberation.

“Intersectionality” is a big fancy word for my life; for your life, for our lives.  It encompasses so much more than I could ever talk about in one talk.

Intersectionality is not just talking about the places you’re oppressed, but also the places where you have privilege.  Intersectionality is disabled white folks enacting their white entitlement through their disability identity.  It’s me having to choose between the POC caucus, the disability caucus, the API women’s caucus, or the adoptee caucus at the Creating Change in Detroit.  It’s thousands of LGBT and queer folks coming out for pride and 150 people coming out for Transgender Day of Remembrance…

So I would say the same thing to the queer able-bodied folks in the audience and the folks who benefit from able-bodied privilege (in many different ways):  how are you connecting your fight for queer liberation to challenging able-bodied supremacy?  How are you connecting your queerness to your able-bodied privilege?  How are you listening to queer disabled folks in your world, supporting them and practicing solidarity?  How are you actively noticing how ability, ableism and able-bodied supremacy play out in queer communities, student groups, organizations, and movements?

Happy Birthday, George Harrison: born 12:10am, 25 February 1942 (died 29 November 2001)

[image is from here. video is from here]

I love you, George. (Lorde, he was a sweetie-pie.)

Human Needs and Feelings: A Humane Inventory

 

[this book cover and content may be found here]

Much of what follows is from NVC.org.

In considering why we do what we do, there is a theory that we are all trying to get very human needs met, humane needs, in fact, but that civilisation is organised in such a way that "our" needs are seen to be perpetually in conflict with the needs of "others". NVC, Non-Violent Communication, offers these lists of human needs and human feelings, so that when, for example, we are in dysfunctional situations, or oppressive ones, we might assess what needs we have that aren't getting met, or that are getting met in dysfunctional ways. Similarly, by taking an inventory of our feelings, we can know better whether our needs are getting met in healthy/non-oppressive ways. If we're feeling irritable, anxious, and depressed, it may be that our needs are not getting met at all, or are getting met in destructive ways.

This could all be very individualistic and liberal. So I prefer to ask another set of questions as these exercises of done (of identifying needs and feelings). These other questions include:
1. Who am I? Where do I begin and end?
2. Who do I assume "we" are? And who are "they"?
3. What does capitalism tell us about what we need, that, in fact, we don't need at all but functions to make profits for the few at the expense of the many?
4. What does patriarchy tell us we need that we don't need, and that is, in fact, destructive?
5. What does a white supremacist and heterosexist system/society offer "us" in the way of healthy/non-oppressive ways to express our feelings and meet our needs.
6. Assuming the Earth and all sentient being, and all creatures are part of "us", how do we assess what we need differently? If something is good for me but horrible for the Earth, what needs is it meeting, long term?

Non-violent Communication Key Concepts:

Nonviolent Communication (NVC) is sometimes referred to as compassionate communication. Its purpose is to:

• German
• French
• Spanish

1. create human connections that empower compassionate giving and receiving
2. create governmental and corporate structures that support compassionate giving and receiving.

NVC involves both communication skills that foster compassionate relating and consciousness of the interdependence of our well being and using power with others to work together to meet the needs of all concerned.

This approach to communication emphasizes compassion as the motivation for action rather than fear, guilt, shame, blame, coercion, threat or justification for punishment. In other words, it is about getting what you want for reasons you will not regret later. NVC is NOT about getting people to do what we want. It is about creating a quality of connection that gets everyone’s needs met through compassionate giving.

The process of NVC encourages us to focus on what we and others are observing separate from our interpretations and judgments, to connect our thoughts and feelings to underlying human needs/values (e.g. protection, support, love), and to be clear about what we would like towards meeting those needs. These skills give the ability to translate from a language of criticism, blame, and demand into a language of human needs -- a language of life that consciously connects us to the universal qualities “alive in us” that sustain and enrich our well being, and focuses our attention on what actions we could take to manifest these qualities.

Nonviolent Communication skills will assist you in dealing with major blocks to communication such as demands, diagnoses and blaming. In CNVC trainings you will learn to express yourself honestly without attacking. This will help minimize the likelihood of facing defensive reactions in others. The skills will help you make clear requests. They will help you receive critical and hostile messages without taking them personally, giving in, or losing self-esteem. These skills are useful with family, friends, students, subordinates, supervisors, co-workers and clients, as well as with your own internal dialogues.

Nonviolent Communication Skills

NVC offers practical, concrete skills for manifesting the purpose of creating connections of compassionate giving and receiving based in a consciousness of interdependence and power with others. These skills include:

1. Differentiating observation from evaluation, being able to carefully observe what is happening free of evaluation, and to specify behaviors and conditions that are affecting us;
2. Differentiating feeling from thinking, being able to identify and express internal feeling states in a way that does not imply judgment, criticism, or blame/punishment;
3. Connecting with the universal human needs/values (e.g. sustenance, trust, understanding) in us that are being met or not met in relation to what is happening and how we are feeling; and
4. Requesting what we would like in a way that clearly and specifically states what we do want (rather than what we don’t want), and that is truly a request and not a demand (i.e. attempting to motivate, however subtly, out of fear, guilt, shame, obligation, etc. rather than out of willingness and compassionate giving).

These skills emphasize personal responsibility for our actions and the choices we make when we respond to others, as well as how to contribute to relationships based in cooperation and collaboration.

With NVC we learn to hear our own deeper needs and those of others, and to identify and clearly articulate what “is alive in us”. When we focus on clarifying what is being observed, felt, needed, and wanted, rather than on diagnosing and judging, we discover the depth of our own compassion. Through its emphasis on deep listening—to ourselves as well as others—NVC fosters respect, attentiveness and empathy, and engenders a mutual desire to give from the heart. The form is simple, yet powerfully transformative.

Founded on consciousness, language, communication skills, and use of power that enable us to remain human, even under trying conditions, Nonviolent Communication contains nothing new: all that has been integrated into NVC has been known for centuries. The intent is to remind us about what we already know—about how we humans were meant to relate to one another—and to assist us in living in a way that concretely manifests this knowledge.

The use of NVC does not require that the persons with whom we are communicating be literate in NVC or even motivated to relate to us compassionately. If we stay with the principles of NVC, with the sole intention to give and receive compassionately, and do everything we can to let others know this is our only motive, they will join us in the process and eventually we will be able to respond compassionately to one another. While this may not happen quickly, it is our experience that compassion inevitably blossoms when we stay true to the principles and process of Nonviolent Communication.
NVC is a clear and effective model for communicating in a way that is cooperative conscious, and compassionate.
 
adapted from:
Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life
by Marshall B. Rosenberg, Ph.D.
Published by PuddleDancer Press, available from CNVC
See also:
The Spiritual Basis of Nonviolent Communication English or Las Bases Espirituales de la Comunicación No Violenta español

Source URL for Needs List: http://nvctraining.com/classroom/mod/resource/view.php?id=18

Human Needs

Autonomy Choosing Dreams, Goals, Values

• Choosing plans for fulfilling one?s dreams, goals, values
• Liberty
• Freedom
• Independence
• Choice
• Individuality
• Self empowerment
• Solitude

Celebration of Life

• Celebrate the creation of life and dreams fulfilled
• Celebrate losses: loved ones, dreams (mourning)
• Aliveness
• Intensity
• Stimulation
• Excitement
• Passion
• Pleasure
• Delight
• Humor
• Mourning
• Communion

Integrity

• Authenticity
• Creativity
• Dreams
• Growth
• Meaning
• Purpose
• Self respect
• Self worth
• Values
• Vision

Interdependence

• Acceptance
• Affection
• Appreciation
• Being heard / seen
• Belonging
• Closeness / Intimacy
• Communication
• Community / Sharing
• Cooperation
• Connection
• Consideration
• Contribution to Life
• Emotional safety / freedom
• Empathy
• Equality / Fairness
• Friendship / Companionship
• Honesty
• Love
• Predictability / Consistency
• Reassurance
• Respect
• Stability / Reliability
• Support
• Trust
• Understanding

Physical Nurturance

• Air
• Bonding
• Comfort
• Nourisment
• Movement, Exercise
• Physical affection
• Rest
• Safety
• Sexual Expression
• Shelter
• Sunlight
• Tenderness
• Touch
• Water

Play

• Fun
• Laughter
• Relaxation

Mental

• Stimulation
• Clarity
• To understand
• Comprehension
• Information
• Consciousness
• Thinking
• Reflection
• Discrimination

Spiritual Communion

• Awareness / Being
• Beauty
• Giving
• Grace
• Gratitude
• Harmony
• Inspiration
• Mastery
• Order
• Peace
• Serving

Source URL: http://nvctraining.com/classroom/mod/resource/view.php?id=20

Basic Human Feelings When Our Needs are Fulfilled: Adventurous Affectionate Alert Alive Amorous Appreciative Amazed Amused Aroused Astonished Astounded Awake Awed Blissful Buoyant Calm Cheerful Comfortable Confident Content Curious Dazzled Delighted Eager Ecstatic Ebullient Elated Enchanted Encouraged Energetic Engrossed Enlivened Enthralled Enthusiastic Excited Exhilarated Expansive Exuberant Fascinated Fondness Fulfilled Giddy Glad Gleeful Glorious Grateful Grief Happy Hopeful Humbled Inspired Intrigued Invigorated Joyous Jubilant Liberated Moved Optimistic Overwhelmed Passionate Peaceful Perky Pleased Proud Puzzled Quiet Radiant Rapturous Rejuvenated Relaxed Relieved Refreshed Rested Restored Safe Satisfied Secure Serene Shocked Spacious Spellbound Startled Stimulated Stunned Surprised Tender Thankful Thrilled Tranquil Touched Upbeat Uplifted Warm  Zestful

Basic Human Feelings When Our Needs are Not Fulfilled: Afraid Aggravated Agitation Aloof Angry Animosity Annoyance Anxious Apathetic Appalled Apprehensive Aroused Ashamed Awful Bad Bewildered Bitter Blah Blue Bored Chagrined Cold Concerned Confused Cool Contrite Cross Depressed Despair Despondent Detached Disappointed Disconnected Discouraged Disenchanted Disgruntled Disgusted Disheartened Disinterested Dismayed Displeased Distressed Disturbed Dread Dull Edgy Embarrassed Enraged Envious Exasperated Exhausted Fatigued Fearful Forlorn Frightened Frustrated Furious Gloomy Guilty Hate Heavy Horrified Horrible Hot Humdrum Hurt Impatient Incensed Indifferent Infuriated Inquisitive Insecure Intense Irate Irked Irritated Jealous Jittery Lazy Lethargic Listless Lonely Mad Mean Melancholy Miserable Mopey Morose Nervous Overwhelmed Pain Panicky Passive Perplexed Puzzled Rancorous Regretful Reluctant Remorseful Repelled Resentful Restless Sad Scared Shocked Skeptical Sleepy Sorrowful Spent Spiritless Startled Surprised Suspicious Terrified Tired Troubled Uncomfortable Uneasy Unglued Unhappy Unsteady Upset Uptight Vengeful Vexed Weary Woeful Worried

Stoopid White Het Men

 

[image is from here]

Or not so slightly...

***TRIGGER WARNING FOR GRAPHIC IMAGES OF WHITE HET MALE VIOLENCE AGAINST HUMANITY*** (Oh, and there's also a feminist's book cover, so be prepared for that too.)

"Femi-Nazi" is a term for the deranged fringe of the feminist movement (Andrea Dworkin, for example), which I have heard used in talk radio by everyone from Russ Limbaugh to Bill Maher. It is certainly a common expression among men of all persuasions. I suspect the label is popular among quite a few women who are not man-haters and still have a sense of humor, even as they insist on governing the world. No one is (or should be) in charge of policing the American language. [source: here]

It is a marvel of "logical, rational" white het male reasoning. This use of the term "Feminazi" and the belief that feminist women in patriarchal societies somehow carry the power to oppress men of their own socio-economic bracket. These STOOPID het whiteboys, such as Rush Limbaugh and Bill Maher, routinely use this term to describe--gasp--women who believe sexism is a bad thing and might just try and remedy the situation through human rights activism. Scaaaaarrrryyyyyyyyyyyy. Scary like Nazis, right? Uh, wrong.

This is what feminists produce--witness the terrifying nature of it...

 

[image of book cover is from here]

Now, witness what fascists--white het male fascists who want institutionalised white and male power to rule--produce:

 

[image of systematic and socially supported white het male generated atrocity, not supported by radical feminists, is from here]

and

 

[image of systemic and socially supported white het male led atrocity, not supported by radical feminists, is from here]

I'm not sure what sort of mind contorts human rights activism into a form of fascism. Clearly not a rational or logical one. And yet, antifeminist white het men proclaim themselves the Master Race when it comes to being logical. Oh, and white het men do comprise the population best known for committing atrocities like rape and genocide, and for supporting fascist regimes. Funny that they project their own evil-doings onto feminist women, eh?

For white het men, "assault" is disagreement with an institutionalised ideology that privileges males over and against females. To disagree is to commit an assault, you see? And to maintain this critique for years is to become "a fascist". I hope it is readily evident what level of privilege one has to have to think in this contorted, distorted, and unfortunately not aborted way. I'm speaking now of the abortion of illogical ideas, these men's illogical ideas, that would be better off left undeveloped, let alone birthed into the world. Oh, wait. They are birthed into the world, and are undeveloped. Never mind. And leave it to the stoopids to call this paragraph  of mine a form of misandrist fascism. Oh what fools these white het male mortals be. May the Goddess breathe rationality into their pea brains sometime soon.

Witness this stoopidity from a dork named Snark, from his ramblings at a blog called something that is pro-rapism: "Remasculation":

Those who tarnish the notions of objective truth and objective logic are those who tend to fare badly when subject to its enquiries.

Quite coincidental, I am sure.

If you have time, it's worth reading this article: Feminists are Intellectual Rapists. [see below]

Other links elsewhere on the web, which escape me for the moment, describe how students of "Women's Studies" have disputed simple logical and mathematical propositions; e.g. arguing that '4' is only a subjective answer to the problem of '2 + 2', and that in another context, the answer could be 6. [Wow. Really? And the sources escape you? Are you sure it's not your rational mind that escapes you?]

How can one possibly hope to hold a conversation with such people? Not that you'd want to. [As opposed to the likes of this stoopid-ass.]

But how can they expect anyone to listen to or take seriously their arguments - especially those statistics which show that a certain percentage of women are victimised in some or other way. [Yes. Women are raped in numbers--that's actual numbers that add up to a sum total--that are an actual percentage of the female population. Like one in three--that's one third, for white het men who don't do math--of all Indigenous U.S. Americans will be raped in their lifetime, and approximately 80% of the rapists will be white het men. The spoken truth apparently repels and hurts men; the reality from which truth statements derive hurts and kills women.]

Perhaps in 'another context', then, that percentage is much lower? [In another context, such as the delusional land of this asshole's mind?]

It’s always useful to step back from the argument itself, and to look at the meta-logic through which the argument is being conducted. [Ohhh. Did you see that? He used a term "meta-logic"!!! Wow. He must be sma...    naaah.]

I had promised to myself that I would never blog about one Denise Romano, MA, EdM, but since then she has come to symbolise something much greater than herself. See here and here. [Antifeminist white het men GAZZ over the opportunity to use a single example, anecdotal though it may be, as proof of their fucked up illogical conclusions about how society works, for them, while claiming it is run and ruled by radical feminists.]

Think of her like the Guy that we burn every November 5th, in commemoration of Guy Fawkes, who tried to blow up Parliament in 1605. [Hmmm. Comparing a WOMAN to a MAN?! Isn't that against the rules of antifeminist doods--aren't WOMEN the worst kind of human there is?! lol]

Firstly, the letters after her name are not mere narcissism. [No, the word "Snark" is a synonym for a form narcissism also characterised by hostility towards feminists, however.] They serve the purpose of an instant appeal to authority. [Unlike Snark's race, sexual orientation, and gender, which carry no status and authority? Right.] You shall know, whenever reading a Denise Romano post, that this argument has been personally authored by an academic. [An academic? You mean one of those people who was, until a few decades ago, only allowed to be white and male???] She knows more than you, so you should simply acquiesce to her enlightened way of thinking. [Ah, yes. White het men acquiescing. And when will they acquiesce their political, legal, police, military, medical, and religious, economic, and academic power?]

Except none of this is true. I happen to know, for instance, that one of the more well-known UK MRAs holds a PhD in Psychology.

(That's a higher qualification than your mere Master's degree, Denise.) [Oooh. Wow. Really? Wait, so a "PhD means you're SMARTER that someone with a MASTERS?? Hmmm. And they call it that, don't they: a Bachelors Degree, a Masters Degree... no linguistic indication of which gender is considered to be the definition of "intelligent" there, is there?]

Indeed, your good friend Tom Snark himself could, if he so chose, quite sincerely attach a bunch of letters after his name. [Don't tell me. Let me guess: Tom Snark, P.R.I.C.K. Is that right?]

But I don't, and other MRAs don't, because we prefer to let our arguments speak for themselves. And also, we're not that socially awkward.

[Ah, but you don't just argue, do you. You also do CRAP like this--and this is the work of only one such group of het whiteboys working diligently to preserve white and male supremacist power over and against all women, and men of color:]

Accomplishments

Fathers & Families has the best record of legislative success, the largest membership base, the highest media profile, the most funding, and the most successful legislative representatives of any family court reform organization. Fathers & Families’ accomplishments include:

• Helped lead successful campaigns in 2004 and 2006 to defeat California “move-away” bills which would have made it too easy for custodial parents to move children to other states without regard for children’s best interests.
• Reduced excessive child support by over $1 billion from 2001 through 2008 in Massachusetts. Won seat on the Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines Task Force in 2007-2008.
• Helped pass California SB 1082 to protect military parents’ rights in family court.
• Worked with legislators and staffers in other states on military parent legislation, leading the following states to pass bills modeled in part on California—Florida, North Carolina, Arizona, Ohio, Michigan, Oklahoma, Utah, Mississippi, Alaska, Missouri, and others.
• Enlisted over one-quarter of the Massachusetts Legislature as co-sponsors of our shared parenting bill.
• Gathered thousands of signatures to place shared parenting on the 2004 Massachusetts ballot; led successful campaign for its passage, winning 86% of the vote.
• Worked on the 2009 National Defense Reauthorization Act (HR 2647) to include a mandate that the U.S. Secretary of Defense produce a report on child custody litigation involving members of the Armed Forces, as well as international intrafamilial abductions of servicemembers’ children.
• Helped pass paternity fraud legislation (AB 252 and SB 1333) which allows California child support obligors to use DNA evidence to set aside false paternity judgments and the concomitant child support orders.
• Pushed “shared parenting” to the number one issue on the Massachusetts Governor’s website for citizen input.
• Persuaded the Boston Globe to become first major newspaper in country to endorse shared parenting in principle in editorial (Feb 23, 2008).
• Wrote amicus brief which helped win precedent-setting Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court case protecting children in joint physical custody from being moved out of state, away from one parent.
• Instrumental in passing law opening up access to report cards and school records to non-custodial parents in Massachusetts.
• Led 2008 campaign which stopped FOX from airing the anti-father reality TV show Bad Dads.
• Led 2009 campaign which stopped Lifetime Television from airing the anti-father realty show Deadbeat Dads.
• Helped create California’s COAP program, which allows parents who are unfairly saddled with inflated, unpayable child support arrearages to settle them for modest cash payments.
• Worked with Texas Senator Jane Nelson to pass SB 279, a bill to protect military parents’ custody rights, which was signed by Texas Governor Rick Perry in 2009.
• Helped spearhead massive nationwide grassroots protest campaign against anti-father PBS show on child custody, successfully forcing production of even-handed documentary.
• Helped spearhead successful national protest campaign against Florida’s refusal to reunite a fit and loving Cuban dad with his daughter.
• Helped lead successful campaign to free Brian Gegner, a father jailed because his adult daughter didn’t get her GED.
• Helped beat back repeated California legislative attempts to prevent target parents of Parental Alienation from raising PA as an issue in their family law cases.
• Helped pass California SB 285 to protect disabled veterans. The bill prohibits courts from illegally garnishing disability compensation for child support. It also prohibits courts from calculating veterans’ disability compensation into divorce settlements as income or as a divisible asset.
• Helped defeat an amendment to California AB 164 which would have prevented fit noncustodial parents from gaining access to school and other records.
• Built the only organization of its kind to achieve financial stability through broad-based individual financial support.
• Developed the largest website, blog and E-newsletter in the world devoted to family law reform. Our subscriber list of 50,000 readers is the largest in the world on our issues.
• Established presence in major broadcast and print media, including the O’Reilly Factor, PBS, NPR’s The Connection, NPR’s Justice Talking, CNN Prime News, ABC’s World News Tonight, Geraldo at Large, CNN’s TalkBack Live, the CBS Early Show, Fox News’ Big Story with John Gibson, the Fox Morning Show with Mike and Juliet, CBS Sunday Morning, and others; major magazines, including Newsweek, Time, the New York Times Sunday Magazine, Forbes, U.S. News and World Report, People magazine, Best Life Magazine, and many others; and hundreds of newspapers, including the New York Times, USA Today, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, the Houston Chronicle, the San Francisco Chronicle, the New York Daily News, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the Chicago Tribune, MSN.com, and others.

Moving onto Denise's actual views. She basically adheres to the Andrea Dworkin school of thought [does Snark mean the school whereby you think actual legitimate, valid thoughts, reasoned, well-argued, logical, backed by comprehensive research, well-written, cogent, clear, and yet irrationally threatening to white het men? That kind of thought?], and has been working vehemently to convince MRAs that the definition of 'rape' should be widened so that it covers adultery and the use of Game. [As opposed to the antifeminist definition of rape, which doesn't exist, because men never commit it. "Rape" is a feminist conspiracy, you see. I'll tell ya what IS a significant social problem though. No, not rape. Forget rape. Rape schmape. THE PROBLEM, SOCIALLY AND POLITICALLY is false allegations by women who rule men. Yup, that's antifeminist "logic", alright.]

What?!

Yes, she believes that Tiger Woods "raped" Elin by cheating on her, and should thus be punished as a rapist.  She also claims that the use of Game is a form of psychological coercion, which can be equated to rape. [Why don't we live in those good ol' days, when all Black men had to do was look at a white woman to be accused of being a rapist... by U.S. white het men? And then those Black men who looked at white women were lynched for doing so. What happened to that time? Ah, memories. So now Snark wishes us to believe it is women who have the history of distorting reality, as to who rapes and who gets to decide what is "lynch-worthy". We can note that no white woman ever lyuched a Black man. White women watched it happen, yes. By white men who beat the shit out of them for looking too longingly at a Black man.]

So you can see why I say that she symbolises something larger than herself - she has come to symbolise the feminist drive to extend the definition of rape and imprison more and more men for engaging in consensual sex. [As opposed to, say, the masculinist drive to extend their phallocracy by minimising the reality of the rape of women by men; by grossly distorting the definition of consent to include what men do to passed-out drunk women; by pretending that most white het men are even truthfully accused of the rapes that men do commit; more irrationally, by pretending that those men find their sorry rapist asses in court; and more irrationally yet, believing that white het rapists are confined to something called  "prison".]
She practices a degree of rhetorical discipline, however, and claims that she is all about "equality." [The way Snark and his snaky sharks do?] It is a funny equality which she preaches, [as opposed to the hilarious while irrational kind of "equality" promoted by antifeminist men] one which seems to blame men for all the world's ills [Hmmm. Does he mean the ills committed by men? Well of course men didn't do commit those ills. Those were committed by... who does Snark think did commit those ills? Like, say, spreading the "illness" of small pox as part of a genocidal practice in North America by white het men. Was it women who did that "ill"? He just doesn't want ALL ills to be blamed on men. Never mind the ills men do commit. (Shhhh. Let's ignore those. If we don't discuss them they might disappear, like they do in the illogical minds of antifeminist activist men)] , and which explicitly does not seek to apply the same standards to women - although she will pay lip service to such an idea. [Ah, because we all know that white het men are FAMOUS for applying equal standards to humanity. Let's see: Aryans? Human perfection. Jews? Not so much. Men? Synonymous with the term "human". Women? Not so much. (Women bleed out of their crotches, after all. I mean how "human" is that?!!) Whites? Human. People of color? Those allegedly lesser humans that white het men study to discern just how human they are. Non-indigenous white people? Civilised. Indigenous people? Savages.]

As I say, symbolic of the wider feminist movement. [Of which he knows little to nothing at all. Has he even read a feminist book, I wonder? Which ones? Can he name eleven? Can he finger-count to eleven without taking out his dick to get to that number after ten?]

And so, my fellow MRAs, and others who are sympathetic to the Men's Movement [also known as irrational jerks and those who love them], or whatever you want to call it and yourselves, listen up! Because this essay isn't really about Denise Romano, LOL, STD, whatsoever [wait? Was that humor? Getting backWow. How witty. NOT.]; it's about how feminists argue. [No, it's about how Snark argues and what he thinks is important.  The rape atrocity? Not important. Genocide? Nope. Anti-lesbian and anti-gay violence? Naaah. How white het men are so, so unfairly persecuted and lied about?? Bingo.]

I have been watching these people very closely for a long time. [Creeeeeepyyyyy.]

And I have become convinced that feminists do not hold logical argument in the same regard as do the majority of men. [There's "logic" at work for ya!]

Rather, they argue on a whim [or is that Snark??], picking and choosing what they shall respond to [such as picking about a dozen or so quotes by women--some never said or written by the feminist women--that antifeminists publish over and over and over again ad nauseam? Like that?], picking and choosing different justifications [isn't that precisely what Snark is doing here?] for consecutive points [I'm not sure I could go so far as to say Snark is presenting consecutive points]: an appeal to authority one minute [the way Snark appeals to those with race, class, and gender privilege who support antifeminist activism?], an appeal to equality the next [it's called a mirror, Snark: look in it and see how you and your uber-white brethren do precisely this], an appeal AGAINST authority (labelled 'patriarchy') [patriarchy? Snark says it like it isn't real? Hmmm. Delusional. Yup. That's what he is.] the next, etc. [Snark is a privileged whiteboy going on and on about the abusive power of women one minute, and how they care about equality the next.]

If you were to attempt to apply a feminist's current justification to her previous argument, you would reach a quite different conclusion from the one that she reached. [Note: one feminist's thoughts, one article = all feminists' writings throughout time across culture. Logical? Nope.]
E.g., she may point you to the "legal and medical definition" of rape, to argue rather flakily that Game therefore constitutes rape. This is an appeal to authority. But the next minute, she may be raging against some legal definition, because it is "patriarchal," and demanding that it be changed. [Wow. She argues some definitions are patriarchal and pro-male supremacy and others are not? But how could that be? Some things are oppressive and others are not oppressive? What a lunatic she is to think LIKE THAT! Did I say "she"? I mean Snark.]

So you see, in the first instance, she took the legal definition to be as legitimate as a priori knowledge - as if that's objective fact, end of story. [Watch out, folks. He's bringing out the Latin phrases!! (That means he thinks that he's smart!)]

But then, she quite clearly spelled out her view that legal definitions are not necessarily okay, and perhaps should even be changed. Casts doubt on her resort to the sanctity of authority, doesn't it, when she challenges it the next minute? [Is it me, or is this guy boring?]

A feminist's conclusion is written in stone before she argues her way to it. This is important to realise: feminists argue backwards from a conclusion. This is what necessitates the inconsistency of justification. [This is important to reiterate: Snark believes what one feminists writes, in one article--that he doesn't even understand, is representative for what every feminist writes across culture and era.]

Such people respond only to those points which they can comfortably make counter-points against [unlike Snark?], and disregard the inconsistency of their own positions. [Unlike Snark?]

Then they typically make some slur or allegation - shaming tactics - against their opponents, placing their (more consistent and sincere) opponents on the defensive once again. [Which is never done by antifeminist jerks. Ever. Well, except daily. But other than daily, NEVER!]

When we step back from the argument itself, and look at the argument's meta-logic [there's that term again that makes Snark think he understands 'logic'], we shall find dishonesty. [As if misquoting feminists, publishing things they don't say is "honest".] The feminist [note: "the feminist": there is a template, and all of them think the same way. Isn't that called sexism?] is unable to stick to a straight argument [and we know how Snark LOVES them straight arguments]; one which goes back and forth, point by point. She cherry-picks her positions [as opposed to publishing inaccurate and highly selective quotes by white radical feminists], which are inconsistent with each other, but all consistent with her foregone conclusion: female supremacy. [Ah! His delusion is revealed! And if she WAS promoting a female supremacist argument? What does that mean in a rigidly male supremacist society? The term "spitting in the wind" comes to mind. How is one article a threat to very well established male supremacy, anyway? Answer: because Snark thinks his misread of her article is what ALL feminists say! (He's playing hockey with a warped puck.) And if she's not even promoting female supremacy? He can't read feminist writings without thinking they are ALL calling for female supremacy. When stoopid men--not all men, not even all pro-male supremacist men, but men like Snark--see a woman challenging patriarchy, or male supremacist laws, the only thing they can imagine is that those women must be wanting matriarchy, and female supremacy, because political equality just doesn't occur to them. Their minds are so warped that if it's not men ruling women, it's women ruling men. Silly fools.]

In sum: there is no use arguing with feminists, who are not capable or not willing to engage in rational argument at an adult level. [In sum--adding one of his ideas with others... Snark demonstrates significant and unyielding ignorance about feminism thought. Perhaps he ought to read Patricia Hill Collins' book Black Feminist Thought or Marimba Ani's book Yurugu--the section on white het men's "logic". But since Collins and Ani are not among the white radical feminists he and others of his ilk misquote, I'd be surprised if he's even heard of either woman.]

And I would add, that most of the time, it is a case of not being willing rather than not being capable. [Is he referring to misogynist men reading feminist writings? I question whether they are capable. I know they aren't willing.]

"Sin against the infrastructure itself!" said the late radical feminist Mary Daly. [As if he's EVER read a Mary Daly book! Haha.]

The patriarchal "infrastructure" consists of all those throwbacks such as a regard for truth, justice, logic, etc. It is these things that radical feminists exhorted their underlings to "sin against." [Stoopid, self-serving white het male definitions of those things? You bet! Sin away, people!]

What this means in practice is that feminists [all of them, even Collins and Ani, who he's never read and never heard of] feel entitled to be utterly inconsistent: to confound their opponents with illogical arguments, faulty premises, emotional appeals, etc. [Isn't that what battering husbands do? Beat the shit out of a spouse and then beg her to forgive him, telling her that he really loves her so very much?] Because their opponents shall be handicapped by their need to follow a rational argument, feminists can dance circles around them, by intentionally discarding the use of logic. [It might help his argument if he critiqued more than one feminist article!]

Logic, however, is not just one "tool" through which knowledge can be ascertained; it is the entire toolbox. [And there's the most stoopid thing he's said yet!] Arguing against logic is impossible [stoooopid], because arguments themselves must necessarily be (or attempt to be) logical. [Says Snark, the "logician".] If you make a series of points against the use of logic, for instance, then you have failed, because in making your points you have made use of logic. [His ignorance of what constitutes knowledge and how knowledge is gathered and demonstrated, is extraordinary. He SOOOO needs to read and comprehend Yurugu. But he won't. He doesn't read feminist books. He just critiques all feminists' logic.]

It is simply not possible to argue that logic is subjective. [Um, yes, it is. His stoopid idea of logic is an idea rooted in a very particular cultural mindset and worldview. Ani points this out brilliantly. So surprise! Snark is wrong again!]

And I believe that feminists like Mary Daly knew this. [Again with what he believes as demonstrative of his perfectly objective logic. What a dork.]

They knew that they could not win through logical argument, and so they advocated that they should engage in illogical appeals, inconsistent justifications, and all those other tactics which men like myself, who hold philosophy in high regard, find so very frustrating. [That is hilarious. He demonstrates no understanding even of white het male philosophy! And he assumes that's the only philosophy there is, because he's so fucking anglo- and euro-centric. But for Snark and other snarky men, there is only what white het men have named and called "valuable". There is nothing else of worth. There are no other tools; no other toolboxes. I wonder if he has read any books by MacKinnon--someone who often employs white het men's logic systems to show up snarky white het men's stoopidity?]

When you strip all the superficiality of arguments away, what we have is a naked power grab by people who know that their amibitons cannot be defended in any consistent or honest way. [That's THE definition of what white het men have done over the last five hundred years. Broken treaties? Laws that hold a sexist double standard? A constitution that forgets to afford civil rights to the majority of people?]

A feminist may argue against an MRA on the grounds of sexual justice; but all she really believes in is female victory. [Right. Because all around us all we see is "female victory". According to snarky men like Snark, "white het male victory" is oxymoronic.] She simply uses "justice," the "patriarchal" concept, against its own guardians [men? Guardians? Doesn't that imply the guardians have more power than the non-guardians?], in order to keep them on the defensive while she moves on to new argumentative grounds. The inconsistency is intentional, because it confounds those of us who argue logically, point by point. [He is delusional, or stoned out of his mind. There's no other plausible explanation.]

Feminist argument is an assault on logic, [even the logical ones?] which is conflated (dishonestly) with "patriarchal oppression". [White het male supremacist argumentation is an assault not only on logic, not only on knowledge, but on human beings called women. The argumentation is not always verbal. Sometimes white het male logic take the form of the penis forced into the body of the person he is trying to impress with his "logic tool". Sometimes white het male logic is the fist in the woman's face. Sometimes it is leaving pornography on the desk of the female co-worker, to degrade and intimidate her. Sometimes it is murdering women who speak out against men's power over women. Sometimes it is men sticking their dicks in children. White het men have many ways of expressing their ideas.]

That is why it is best to simply ignore them. [As Snark apparently cannot do.] Only argue with them if you have an audience, to whom you can uncover their trickery! [Doesn't he mean his own dickery?] Otherwise, do not get dragged down into this game. [And getting dragged down into a linguistic game is, according to the likes of Snark, as evil as rape and genocide.] Your opponents have no honour, and they will cheat to win. [Ha! That's precisely what white het men have done to conquer so much of the world which they delusionally think they "discovered". Because of course this land mass must be India. And of course people with dark skin are not people--logically.]

- Snark [one of the snarkiest antifeminists of them all]

Moving on. We have this, a ridiculously inane piece of writing by a fool (not the good kind) named Mike Adams. I have only put in a few comments below.

Intellectual Rapists
by Mike Adams

During his first year at Humboldt State University (HSU) - as a tenure-track professor in the Psychology Department - faculty and students tried to silence Mark Harwood on a number of occasions. He was hired primarily to teach Human Sexuality—a class he had taught in a variety of settings including a doctoral program in the UC-system, a psychology program in the second highest ranked City College in the nation, and at a private university.

Mark Harwood received excellent reviews from most students; however, with a class as personal as human sexuality, some found a way to be offended. His teaching evaluations were well above average and, in some instances, stellar. His first experience teaching human sexuality at HSU proved to be different. The students in the Master’s program simply couldn’t wrap their minds around the idea that males and females are different. They objected to his emphasis on techniques for treating sexual dysfunction [as defined by a few white het men, who take their own fucked up sexuality to be normative and natural]– although this was the primary purpose of the class.

Professor Harwood’s second semester was even more distressing and he almost left HSU to take a position elsewhere. During the spring semester, he taught the undergraduate course in human sexuality. The course was cross-listed with Women’s Studies. Before the semester began, a student from the Women’s Studies department asked if he would allow her to be the T/A for the course. He agreed.

About four weeks into the course, the T/A indicated that she would like Dr. Harwood to cover domestic violence. He replied that because domestic violence isn’t directly related to human sexuality, he had not included it on the syllabus; however, he said that if they covered all the material in the syllabus and had time at the end of class, he would be happy to address this issue. As it turned out, he had the time.

Dr. Harwood sees domestic violence as a complex problem. Overall, he sees it as a relationship problem with both partners contributing to the dysfunctional relationship [of course!] and one or both of them playing a role in the initiation and maintenance of the violence. [Read: the b*tch asked for it!] This is recognized by virtually all experts [um, no, it's not] in the field of family therapy [only those propagandistically trained in family systems theory]. But to the Women’s Studies students, domestic violence is always entirely the fault of the male. [Well not if it's battery in a lesbian relationship.]

During class one day, Dr. Harwood handed out two peer-reviewed articles. The major findings of the articles were:

1. Women are more likely than men to initiate domestic violence. [Bone-breaking domestic violence?]

2. Women are more likely than men to maintain domestic violence. [As a form of physical terrorism against women and children in the home?]

3. Women are more likely than men to report that they were victims of domestic violence. [I can't imagine why.]

4. Women suffer more serious physical injury than men when involved in domestic violence. [Duh.]

5. Women do not fear retaliation for physically abusing their male partner. [Huh?]

Before all the empirically supported findings had been presented, the class erupted with outbursts, primarily from the Women’s Studies students. One actually yelled that Dr. Harwood was a “privileged, rich, white male.” [Which, as it turns out, was true. Empirically true.]
The Women’s Studies students continued to disrupt class so it was generally unproductive [as if teaching CRAP is irrefutably productive]—they simply didn’t want to hear what the researchers had discovered. [Or this doofus's biased teachings.] What angered them the most was the applause Dr. Harwood received at the end of class by a large number of students who appreciated that he presented material most professors would shy away from. [Right. Institutionalised violence is generally not taught. It's silently enacted and enforced.]

A day or two after the class, Dr. Harwood received a call from the Chair of the Women’s Studies department, Kim Berry. She wanted to meet with him and the department Chair to discuss the complaints she received from some of her students.

Based on the complaints from some students, she decided that the way Harwood presented the research was improper. Berry did not bother to get feedback from the students who applauded after the lecture. Mark Harwood replied to Kim Berry saying that his time was limited. A meeting never took place. Instead, she called his department chair and insisted that he never be allowed to teach the class again. She threatened that she would not allow her Women’s Studies students to take the class if he taught it.

Dr. Harwood’s department capitulated to her demands. [And were those in that department  men? Profeminist and conspiratorial men?]

I wish I could say that the story ends here. [Me too. It's stoopid.] But HSU is a relatively small institution and rumors can be spread quickly [like about how some "girls" are sl*ts and wh*res? THAT quickly?], especially among the radical feminist students who constitute a large percentage of the student body. [What percent, exactly. Do the fucking math, Mike.] It was soon evident that a concerted effort to have Harwood dismissed was underway. [Have you even heard of victimisation as grievous and egregious, as horrible and horrid as this? Why, it's worse than gang rape! It's worse than genocide! Get out the violins. The "White-Man-as-theVictim-of-Feminist-Women" song is about to be sung and needs some accompaniment.]

Near the end of his time at HSU, before he received tenure, Dr. Harwood was asked to attend a thesis proposal meeting for a student who was doing research on domestic violence. He had been asked to be on her committee almost two years earlier and, upon accepting, gave her copies of the aforementioned articles and instructed her to make sure these seminal studies were included in her literature review. [Of course: white het male supremacist that he was.]

He was appalled to find that they were not mentioned anywhere in the literature review or thesis. [Horror! Close your eyes!!! A white man's ego has been bruised. Call 9-1-1!!!] Instead, junk research, “studies” from non-scientific organizations, and propaganda permeated the literature review.

Dr. Harwood was confident that the Chair for the thesis committee, Bettye Elmore, a full professor, would recognize the importance of including an unbiased [!!] treatment of the literature; however, he was wrong. The student and the professor became angry when he stated that these studies must be included in the literature review and the non-peer reviewed garbage that comprised the bulk of the review should be removed. [He got abusive, in other words.]

Elmore refused to read the research articles Harwood handed to her, and denied that they could be true. She went on to state that her ex-husband had depleted her savings and run off.

An hour later, the third committee member, a sociology professor arrived. The Chair then announced that Dr. Harwood had said women are more physically violent than men in domestic relationships. Harwood was surprised when he said, “Of course they are—we have known this for years”. [They don't break bones, do they?]

In Seattle, domestic violence calls were so frequent that a policy was instituted that stated when an officer arrives on the scene of a domestic violence call, someone must be arrested. It turned out, that in the very first year that the policy was in place, women were arrested for domestic violence 51% of the time. Upon hearing this, Elmore was visibly embarrassed and the student was angry. Harwood was later asked to relinquish his position as part of the thesis committee.

Once, when teaching a graduate class, Dr. Harwood used the symbol for male and female to designate the two groups and provide information under the categories. A female student became angered at the male symbol and erased the “arrow” that had an upward trajectory. She replaced it with an arrow that pointed down. Dr. Harwood asked if she was intimidated by male genitalia. He also asked if the Penis Monologues would offend her. Finally, he asked whether it would matter to her if all the males in the class began chanting “penis.” She filed a complaint with her department Chair. [Um, he was being a big dick.]

Mark Harwood eventually left HSU because he realized he was in a dysfunctional intellectual relationship. [He was abusive and a sexual harasser.] And he knows feminists don’t fear retaliation for abusing their intellectual superiors. [No. Men just beat, rape, and kill women for leaving them. Or for not leaving them. For planning to leave them. Or for just stating that they might do so.] He now teaches at Wheaton College. [source: here] [I'm awaiting the news of him being abusive and harassing there. Any time now.]

Slavery: Present, not Passed

 

[image is from here]

This is a list of documentaries and news programs identifying that sexual (and other forms of) slavery is not a thing of the past, at all. It was prepared by Rabbis for Human Rights, North America. See also this Amazon.com page listing dozens on books on the subject.


Slavery today Suggested documentaries and news programshttp://www.docstoc.com/docs/26160413/Slavery-today-Suggested-documentaries-and-news-programs -

The URL for the above is here:
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/26160413/Slavery-today-Suggested-documentaries-and-news-programs

Breaking Free: Sisters Helping Sisters Break Free. More Great Work by Vednita Carter

All that follows, including the photograph, is from *here*.

Vednita Carter - Breaking Free Founder and Executive Director

Mission:
To educate and provide services to women and girls who have been victims of commerical sexual exploitation (prostitution/sex-trafficking) and need assistance escaping the violence in their lives.

Philosophy Statement:
We understand prostitution/sex- trafficking as a vicious cycle of violence, abuse, incarceration, and addiction.  We understand that repeated experiences of violence undermines women and girls capacities to avoid further victimization. Sexual exploitation distorts the lives of women and girls, destroys families, and communities.
Organizational Goals:

•To expose sex-trafficking/prostitution as violence against women
•To educate the community about the effects of commercial sexual exploitation on women and girls
•To provide supportive services to sex-trafficked/prostituted women and girls to help them escape violence and exploitation
•To operate within a culturally appropriate,  age and gender-specific context
•To provide transitional and/or permanent housing and rental assistance to our target population