what should be left to rest in peace is her ideology of prostitution, lesbianism, and other manifestations of the man-hatred infesting popular culture.
The New Mythology
by Christina Hoff Sommers
Christina Hoff Sommers
Professor Sommers teaches philosophy at Clark University. This article is adapted from her book Who Stole Feminism? Reprinted by
permission of Simon and Schuster. (Magazine: National Review)
Figuring Out Feminism
150,000 girls die of anorexia each year!
40% more women are battered on Super Bowl Sunday!
Women get paid 59 cents on the dollar!
When feminists quote statistics, reach for your common sense.
In Revolution from Within, Gloria Steinem informs her readers that "in this country alone...about 150,000 females die of anorexia each year." That is more than three times the number of annual fatalities from car accidents for the total population. Miss Steinem refers readers to Naomi Wolf's The Beauty Myth, where one again finds the statistic, along with the author's outrage. "How," she asks, "would America react to the mass self-immolation by hunger of its favorite sons?" Although nothing justifies comparison with the Holocaust," she cannot refrain from making one anyway. "When confronted with a vast number of emaciated bodies starved not by nature but by men, one must notice a certain resemblance."
Where did Miss Wolf get her figures? Her source is Fasting Girls: The Emergence of Anorexia Nervosa as a Modern Disease by Joan Brumberg, a Historian and former director of women's studies at Cornell University.
She, too, is fully aware of the political significance of the startling statistic. She points out that the women who study eating problems "seek to demonstrate that these disorders are an inevitable consequence of a misogynistic society that demeans women...by objectifying their bodies." Professor Brumberg, in turn, attributes the figure to the American Anorexia and Bulimia Association.
I called the American Anorexia and Bulimia Association and spoke to Dr. Diane Mickley, its president. "We were misquoted," she said. In a 1985 news letter the association had referred to 150,000 to 200,000 sufferer
(not fatalities) of anorexia nervosa.
What is the correct morbidity rate?
Most experts are reluctant to give exact figures. One clinician told me that of 1,400 patients she had treated in ten years, 4 had died - all through suicide. The National Center for Health Statistics reported 101 deaths from anorexia nervosa in 1983 and 67 deaths in 1988. Thomas Dunn of the Division of Vital Statistics at the National Center for Health Statistics reports that in 1991 there were 54 deaths from anorexia nervosa and no deaths from bulimia. The deaths of these three women are a travesty, certainly, but in a country of one hundred million adult females, such numbers are hardly evidence of a "holocaust."
Yet, now the false figure, supporting the view that our "sexist society" demeans women by objectifying their bodies, is widely accepted as true.
Anne Landers repeated it in her syndicated column in April 1992: "Every
year, 150,000 American women die from complications associated with
anorexia and bulimia."
Will Miss Steinem advise her readers of the egregious statistical error? Will Mrs. Landers? Will it even matter? By now, the 150,000 figure has made it into college text books. A recent women' studies text, aptly titled The Knowledge Explosion, contains the erroneous figure in its preface.
Next Crisis, Please
THE ANOREXIA "crisis" is only one example of the kind of provocative but inaccurate information being purveyed by women about "women's issues" these days. On November 4, 1992, Deborah Louis, president of the National Women's Studies Association, sent a message to the women's Studies Electronic Bulletin Board:
"According to the last March of Dimes report, domestic violence is now responsible for more birth defects than all other causes combined. Personally [this] strikes me as the most disgusting piece of data I've seen in a long while." This was, indeed, unsettling news. But it seemed implausible. I asked my neighbor, a pediatric neurologist at Boston's Children's Hospital, about the report. He told me that although severe battery may occasionally cause miscarriage, he had never heard of battery as a significant cause of birth defects.
I called the March of Dimes to get a copy of the report. Maureen Corry,
director of the March's Education and Health Promotion Program, denied any knowledge of it. "We have never seen this research before," she said. I did a search and found that - study or no study - journalists around the country were citing it.
Domestic violence is the leading cause of birth defects, more than all
other medical causes combined, according to a March of Dimes study. (Boston Globe, Sep. 2)
Especially grotesque is the brutality reserved for pregnant women: the
March of Dimes has concluded that the battering of women during pregnancy causes more birth defects than all the diseases put together for which children are usually immunized. (Time Magazine, Jan. 18, 1993)
The March of Dimes has concluded that the battering of women during
pregnancy causes more birth defects than all the diseases put together for which children are usually immunized. (Dallas Morning News, Feb. 7, 1993.)
I called the March of Dimes again. Andrea Ziltzer of their media-relations department told me that the rumor was spinning out of control. Governors' offices, state health departments, and Washington politicians had flooded the office with phone calls. Even the office of Senator Edward Kennedy had requested a copy of the "report."
When I finally reached Jeanne McDowell, who had written the Time article, the first thing she said was, "That was an error." She sounded genuinely sorry and embarrassed. She explained that she is always careful about checking sources, but this time, for some reason, she had not. Time has since called the March of Dimes to apologize.
An official retraction finally appeared in the magazine on December 6,
1993, under the heading "Inaccurate Information."
I asked Miss McDowell about her source. She had relied on information given her by the San Francisco Family VIolence Prevention Fund, which had obtained it from Sarah Buel, a founder of the domestic-violence advocacy project at Harvard Law School. She in turn had obtained it from Caroline Whitehead, a maternal nurse and child-care specialist in Raleigh, North Carolina. I called Miss Whitehead.
"It blows my mind. It is not true," she said. The whole thing began, she explained, when she introduced Sarah Buel as a speaker at a 1989 conference for nurses and social workers. In presenting her, Miss Whitehead mentioned that according to some March of Dimes research she has seen, more women are screened for birth defects than are ever screened for domestic battery.
Miss Whitehead had said nothing at all about battery causing birth defects.
"Sarah misunderstood me," she said. Miss Buel went on to put the erroneous information into a manuscript which was then circulated among
family-violence professionals. They saw no reason to doubt its
I called Sarah Buel and told her that it seemed she had misheard Caroline Whitehead. She was surprised. "Oh, I must have misunderstood her. I'll have to give her a call. She is my source." She thanked me for having informed her of the error, pointing out that she had been about to repeat it yet again in a new article.
Where Were the Skeptics?
WHY WAS everybody so credulous? Battery responsible for more birth defects than all other causes combined? More than genetic disorders such as spina bifida, Down syndrome, Tay-Sachs, sickle-cell anemia? More than all these things combined? Where were the fact-checkers, the editors, the skeptical journalists?
To that question we must add another: Why are certain feminists so eager to put men in a bad light? I shall try to answer both these questions.
American feminism is currently dominated by a group of women who seek to persuade the public that American women are not the free creatures we think we are. The leaders and theorists of the women's movement believe that our society is best described as a patriarchy, a "male hegemony," a "sex/gender system" in which the dominant gender works to keep women cowering and submissive. The feminists who hold this divisive view of our social and political reality believe that all our institutions, from the state to the family to the grade schools, perpetuate male dominance.
Believing that women are virtually under siege, the "gender feminists"
naturally seek recruits to their side of the gender war. They seek support.
They seek vindication. They seek ammunition.
Not everyone, including many women who consider themselves feminists, is convinced hat contemporary American women live in an oppressive
"male hegemony." To confound the skeptics and persuade the undecided, the gender feminists are constantly on the lookout for the smoking gun, the telling fact that will drive home how profoundly the system is rigged against women. It is not enough to remind us that many brutal and selfish men harm women. They must persuade us that the system itself sanctions male brutality. They must convince us that the oppression of women, sustained from generation to generation, is a structural feature of our society.
Thus gender-feminst ideology holds that physical menace toward women is the norm. Gloria Steinem's portrait of male-female intimacy under patriarchy is typical: "Patriarchy requires violence or the subliminal threat of violence in order to maintain itself...The most dangerous situation for a woman is not an unknown man in the street, or even the enemy in wartime, but a husband or lover in the isolation of their own home."
Miss Steinem's description of the dangers women face in their own home is reminiscent of the Super Bowl hoax of January 1993. Here is the chronology:
Thursday, January 27. A news conference was called in Pasadena, California, the site of the forthcoming Super Bowl game, by a coalition of women's groups. At the news conference, reporters were informed that Super Bowl Sunday is "the biggest day of the year for violence against women." Forty per cent more women would be battered on that day. In support of the 40 per cent figure, Sheila Kuehl of the California Women's Law Center cited a study done at Virginia's Old Dominion University three years before. The presence of Linda Mitchell, a representative of a media "watchdog" group called Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), lent credibility to the claim.
At about the same time a very large media mailing was sent by Dobisky Associates, FAIR's publicists, warning at-risk women: "Don't remain at home with him during the game." The idea that sports fans are prone to attack their wives or girlfriends on that climatic day persuaded many men as well:
Rober Lipsyte of the New York Times would soon be referring to the "Abuse Bowl."
Friday January 28. Lenore Walker, a Denver psychologist and author of The Battered Woman, appeared on Good Morning America claiming to have compiled a ten-year report showing a sharp increase in violent incidents against women on Super Bowl Sundays.
Here, again, a representative from FAIR, Laura Flanders, was present to
lend credibility to the claim.
Saturday, January 29. A story in the Boston Globe written by Lynda Gorov reported that wome n's shelters and hotlines are "flooded with more calls from victims [on Super Bowl Sunday] than on any other day of the year." Miss Gorov cited "one study of women's shelters out West" that "showed a 40 per cent climb in calls, a pattern advocates said is repeated nationwide, including Massachusetts."
In this rolling sea of media credulity was a lone island of professional integrity. Ken Ringle, a Washington Post staff writer, took the time to call around. When he asked Janet Katz - a professor of sociology and criminal justice at Old Dominion, and one of the principal authors of the study cited by Miss Kuehl - about the connection between violence and football games, she said: "That's not what we found at all." Instead, she told him, they they had found that an increase in emergency-room admissions "was not associated with the occurrence of football games in general."
Mr. Ringle checked with Lynda Gorov, who told him she had never seen the study she cited but had been told of it by FAIR. Linda Mitchell of FAIR told Mr. Ringle that the authority for the 40 per cent figure was Lenore Walker. Miss Walker's office, in turn, referred calls on the subject to Michael Lindsey, a Denver psychologist and an
authority on battered women. Pressed by Mr. Ringle, Mr. Lindsey admitted he could find no basis for the report. "I haven't been any more successful than you in tracking down any of this," he said. "You think maybe we have on of these myth things here?"
Later, other reporters pressed Miss Walker to detail her findings. She said they were not available. "We don't use them for public consumption," she explained, "we used them to guide us in advocacy projects."
It would have been more honest for the feminists who initiated the campaign to admit that there was no basis for saying that football fans are more brutal to women than are chess players or Democrats nor any basis for saying that there was a significant rise in domestic violence on Super Bowl on Super Bowl Sunday.
Ken Ringle's unraveling of the "myth thing" was published on the front page of the Washington Post on January 31. On February 2, Boston Globe staff writer Bob Hohler published what amounted to a retraction of Miss Gorov's story. Mr. Hohler had done some more digging and had gotten support of the claim. "It should not have
gone out in FAIR's materials," said Mr. Rendell.
Linda Mitchell would later acknowledge that she was aware during the
original news conference that Miss Kuehl was misrepresenting the Old
Dominion study. Mr. Ringle asked her whether she did not feel obligated to challenge her colleague. "I wouldn't do that in front of the media," Miss Mitchell said. "She has a right to report it as she wants."
The shelters and hot lines, which monitored the Sunday of the 27th Super Bowl with special care, reported no variation in the number of calls for help that day, not even in Buffalo, whose team (and fans) had suffered a crushing defeat.
But despite Ken Ringle's expose, the Super Bowl "statistic" will be with us for a while, doing its divisive work of generating fear and resentment. In the book How to Make a Better Place for Women in Five Minutes a Day, a comment under the heading "Did You Know?" informs readers that "Super Bowl Sunday is the most violent day of the year, with the highest reported number of domestic battering cases." How a belief in that misandrist canard can make the world a better place for women is not explained.
Female Gains or Male Backlash?
HOW a feminist reacts to data about gender gaps in salaries and economic opportunities is an excellent indication of the kind of feminist she is. In general, the equity feminist points with pride to the many gains women have made toward achieving parity in the workplace. By contrast, the gender feminist makes it a point to disparage these gains and to speak of backlash. it disturbs her that the public may be lulled into thinking that women are doing well and that men are allowing it. The gender feminist insists that any so-called progress is illusory.
By most measures, the Eighties were a a time of rather spectacular gains by American women - in education, in wages, and in such traditionally male professions as business, law and medicine. The gender feminist will have none of this. According to Susan Faludi, in her much ballyhooed book, the Eighties were the backlash decade, in which men successfully retracted many of the gains wrested from them in preceding decades. And since any criticism of Miss Faludi's claim is apt to be construed as just more backlashing, one must be grateful to the editors of the New York Times business section for braving the wrath of feminist ideologues by presenting an objective account of the economic picture as it affects women.
Surveying several reports by women economists on women's gains in the
1980's, New York Times business writer Sylvia Nasar rejected Susan Faludi's thesis. She pointed to masses of empirical data showing that "Far from losing ground, women gained more in the 1980's than in the entire postwar era before that. And almost as much as between 1890 and 1980."
The Times report that the proportion women earn of each dollar of men's
wages rose to a record 72 cents by 1990. But the Times points out that even this figure is misleadingly pessimistic, because it includes older women who are only marginally in the work force, such as "the mother who graduated from high school, left the work force at twenty, and returned to a minimum wage at a local store." Younger women, says the Times "now earn 80 cents for every dollar earned by men of the same age, up from 69 cents in 1980."
None of these facts has made the slightest impression on the
backlash-mongers. For years, feminist activists have been wearing buttons claiming women earn "59 cents to a man's dollar." Some journalists have questioned this figure. Miss Faludi calls them "spokesman" for the backlash and says: "By 1988, women with a college diploma could still wear the famous 59 cent buttons. They were still making 59 cents to their male counterparts' dollar. In fact, the pay gap for them was now a bit worse than five years earlier."
The sources Miss Faludi cites do not sustain her figure. The actual figure for 1988 is 68 cents, both for all women and for women with a a college diploma. This is substantially higher, not lower, than it was five years earlier. This most recent figures, for 1992, are considerably higher yet:
71 cents for all women and 73 cents for women with a college diploma.
Economists differ on exactly how much, if any, of the remaining gap is
discrimination. Most economists agree that much of it simply represents the fact that, on average, women have accrued less workplace experience than men of the same age. One recent scholarly estimate shows that as of 1987, females who were currently working full-time and year-round had, on average, one-quarter year less of work experience than comparable males.
These data are important in understanding the oft-cited claim of a "glass ceiling" for women. Promotion in high-powered professional jobs often goes to those who have put in long hours in evenings and on weekends. Husbands may be more likely to do so than wives, for a variety of reasons, including unequal division of responsibilities at home, in which case the source of the difficulty is at home, not in the marketplace.
Obviously, the experience gap also reflects the fact that many women choose to move into and out of the work force during child-bearing and
child-rearing years. This reduces the amount of experience they acquire in the workplace and naturally results in lower earnings, quite apart from any possible discrimination. Some evidence
of this is provided by data on childless workers, for whom the experience gap should be much narrower, resulting in a narrower earnings gap. This, in fact, is the case: as of 1987, among childless white workers aged 20 to 44, females' hourly earnings were between 86 to 91 per cent of males' hourly earnings.
Robert Reich, the U.S. secretary of labour, wrote a blurb for Backlash
describing it as "spellbinding and frightening...a wake-up call to the men as well as the women who are struggling to build a gender-respectful society." One can only hope that Mr. Reich was too spellbound to have read Backlash with a discriminating mind. What is more alarming than anything Miss Faludi has to say about an undeclared war against American women is the credulity it has met in high public officials on whose judgment we ought to be able to rely.
The Report Newsmagazine ( www.report.ca
September 25, 2000
When it comes to dissenters against feminism in a Canadian college, one is too many
by Colby Cosh
At the age of 57, Jeffrey Asher is out of work. "I certainly don't have any false expectations about being successful at finding another teaching job",he
says from his home in Montreal. "My credentials arent the best. I am not a published author, I do not have a PhD. It would have to be a school that would be interested in offering a course about men". He lets out a sigh."I would be pleased to hear of one."
For nearly 30 years, Professor Asher was a humanities instructor at Dawson College, a Montreal CEGEP with over 10,000 students. (Quebecs distinctive network of colleges denseignement gralet professionel offers two-year general courses in the arts and sciences for university-bound students.
In 1994, bewildered by the 50-plus courses in the college calendar devoted to women, he began to teach mens studies courses. He rapidly became famous in some circles, and notorious in others, for courses such as
Mens Lives, in which the students attempt to understand the male worldview...'We will examine the cultural meanings for men of courage, duty, fidelity, success, family protection, career, and sexuality.'
On May 31 of this year, about three months before his 2000-2001 classes were to begin, Prof. Asher was summarily informed by the Dawson College curriculum committee that he would no longer be allowed to teach on the subject of men. Attempting to accommodate him, the school reassigned him to courses on science and critical thinking. Mortified, Prof. Asher chose to
retire instead, working with the teachers union on a settlement which is now his sole source of income.
Prof. Asher charges that he was the victim of a feminist putsch in the academy. I was warned repeatedly along the way by friendly colleagues,he says. They would ask me, "Are you sure your job is secure? Do you really want to do this?" The school has so far chosen not to comment on the dispute, but one of the members of the four-person curriculum committee is a feminist colleague who was caught on a security videotape in 1997 papering over notices on Prof. Ashers bulletin board.
Prof. Ashers path of thorns began in the early 1990s when he was perusing AIDS mortality statistics and noticed something startling. "It was not generally known then, but I found that 94% of all deaths from AIDS were males", he says. "I got interested in the subject of male epidemiology and I found that in Canada women live, on average, six years longer than men. It is typical for such a gap to exist, but the gap is far greater here han in western European countries. In Britain it is three-and-a-half years."
He asked Statistics Canada whether they had ever researched the causes of the disparity. The demographers he spoke to reacted as if he had asked them about the population of Mars.
Today Prof. Asher is a veritable fountain of such facts. In a fairly brief conversation, he mentions that men suffer from heart disease twice as often as women; that men represent 80% of all suicides and 97% of all deaths on the job; that the male suicide rate trebled in Canada from 1960 to 1990. He noticed that boys were falling behind girls in primary-school academic
performance years before the subject found its way onto the cover of nearly every North American magazine.
In the 1970s, Prof. Asher had been an early convert to the cause of equal rights for women; it seemed to him that there was now an obvious case to be made for the other side, and he set to it with a vigour that he now admits may have been naive.
Prof. Asher says his mens studies courses brought him three death threats, and a large sheaf of positive evaluations from male and female students-evaluations he is not slow to show the media, since the committee
which switched courses on him accused him of belittling and marginalizing his students. Even if the accusation has any validity, it is hard to understand why he was given no chance to defend himself before being ordered to change his courses. The Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship is currently conducting an inquiry into the colleges handling of the affair.
Although he regards his retirement as a setback for the cause of true equal rights, Prof. Asher retains some optimism. "I cant be the last one to raise these issues", he says. "If I thought I would be, I really would give up. But I am committed to progress. I remember a time of anti-female prejudice in the academy, and that went away. Now we have to get beyond
this artificially caused sex antagonism.
The Gazette (Montreal)
6 October 2001, Page B5
The matriarchy rules
Termination of CEGEP course on Men's Lives eliminated a challenge to feminist domination
By Jeffrey Asher, The Ottawa Citizen
In autumn 1994, I offered students at Dawson College the only course in Canada on Men's Lives. One young woman asked me, "Is this another man-hating
course?" I assured her that we would examine men's and women's lives objectively and treat them with equal respect. She smiled and chirped, "I'm in."
Father taught me to respect ladies and that human rights were indivisible.
In the 1970s, I lectured on sexual equality of opportunity and equality before the law. Like most men, my naivete about feminist politics was sustained by raging hormones.
By 1980, the women's movement was increasingly co-opted by the lunatic fringe. Germaine Greer pontificated, "Women have very little idea of how much men hate them ... men do not themselves know the depth of their hatred." Further incitements to anti-male hatred and violence exuded from Dworkin, McKinnon and others. They remain required reading in feminist courses, which exclude male faculty or authors, brainwash young women and ostracize young men. This paranoia remains unchallenged by human-rights commissions and is financed by governments. Sunera Thobani's recent "hate speech" is protected by her University of British Columbia women's-studies professorship.
Critics of their approach pay for their dissent with their careers.
I proposed Men's Lives because the three largest departments (humanities, English and the social sciences) offered more than 83 courses with feminist
titles and content, but nothing objective about men. The sisterhood attempted to neuter the contents and then stalled registration for Men's Lives. I threatened to appeal to the Ministry of Education and the media.
The few colleagues who still dared to speak to me (off campus) warned me that my career was in peril. I responded with righteous indignation about equality, fairness and academic freedom. Such naivete.
Two-thirds of Men's Lives students were women and, like the men, typically open-minded, morally brave and delightfully quick-witted. They welcomed my
course as deliverance from years of classroom male-bashing. In feminist courses, young men were condemned before their classmates as stupid,
patriarchal exploiters, batterers and rapists.
From my course outline: "We will examine men's values and experiences, and the cultural meanings for men of courage, duty, fidelity, success, family protection, career and sexuality. The intellectual, political, scientific and cultural achievements of men will be surveyed throughout history.
Reasoned and compassionate analysis will be used to search for reconciliation away from sexual confrontation, so that men, women and
families may live in harmony." Four universities regularly welcomed me as a guest lecturer. The matriarchy went apoplectic.
Students warned me about agent provocateurs incited by teachers to disrupt my classes. One accused me of being paid by Playboy magazine (I wish) and my answering machine recorded anonymous accusations of sexual abuse and death threats. One night, the chairman of women's studies vandalized my bulletin board, in front of a surveillance camera. On the front page of The Gazette, she and my department chair defended her bullying. I requested management terminate her supervision over my courses. A year later, she ordered that my course outline exclude the term "anti-male hysteria."
Management suspended me from teaching until I removed the politically incorrect insight. I appealed and lost.
A Men's Lives assignment on sex bias in the media required students to search the periodical indexes for article titles with the word "men" and "women." They were astounded to discover that the ratio of female to male articles is 10:1, and often 20:1. Students scoured StatsCan data; they learned that men comprise 68 per cent of homicide victims, 80 per cent of suicides, 92 per cent of AIDS deaths, 97 per cent of deaths on the job, double the female rate of heart diseases and die six years prematurely.
They learned about sex differences in the brain, hormones, abilities, perception and behaviour. My students delighted in the power of statistical
The sisterhood denounced scientific methodology and slandered my reputation. Every semester, management incited the worst of students to complain they "felt uncomfortable" and failed my excessively high
standards. They even passed a confessed cheater. Truthfully, I was not demanding enough. Students failed who should never have graduated from high school. To management complaints of excessive dropouts, I requested their retention requirements. They indignantly denied quotas, and reprimanded me
yet again. According to union grievance officers and lawyers, never before had a teacher been so relentlessly persecuted.
Feminist courses impel polarization and "dumbing down" of the curriculum, to maintain their enrolment. Evidence is plentiful in their course outlines, typically ungrammatical, illogical, filled with jargon and often incoherent. Since the mid-1990s, female students and competent professors increasingly abandoned the sisterhood for the search for useful knowledge and successful careers.
In May 2000, the head of women's studies, in collaboration with management, convened a committee that announced "a significant number of students" in
my classes felt "belittled and marginalized if they voiced their opinions or try to substantiate any interpretation of data that may be different."
(sic) They again refused to show me the complaints. They canceled Men's Lives and ordered me to prepare - within 12 days - three new courses on "critical thinking," technology and business ethics, for which they knew I had no training. I protested and demanded that Men's Lives be reinstated. They threatened to fire me.
Their timing was shrewd. My students were dispersed and unavailable for protest. Of all colleagues who postured in their classes on freedom of speech, only the president of the union rallied to my defence. I refused to capitulate and retired early.
In six years of evaluations, students praised Men's Lives as among the best courses in the college. More than 85 per cent reported that I treated them
fairly, with content and teaching that was "superior" and "outstanding."
One hundred per cent agreed I treated them with "courtesy and respect." For 30 years of evaluations, I ranked as one of the most popular, fair and
interesting teachers. I rated highest in "enthusiasm, approachability, tolerance, responsibility, availability, treating students with courtesy
and respect and in a fair and non-discriminatory manner" and "motivating students to do their best." How I miss my students' intellectual energy and curiosity. Teaching was my life.
The termination of Men's Lives eliminated the only rational opposition to political correctness and feminist domination at Dawson College.
Half of the human race remains unexamined, except for condemnation. In 2000, Canadian universities listed two courses on men, neither taught that year, and more than 1,617 feminist courses, offered in programs from
undergraduate to PhD degrees.
Throughout higher education, the matriarchy rules.
Radical feminists continue to win their government-subsidized war against
men, heterosexuality, the family, religion, merit, objectivity, justice and reality. Long after the defeat of totalitarianism, radical feminism indoctrinates students to discriminate by sex and race and enforces
censorship and repression on what is acceptable to think and feel.
Citizens must demand reconstruction of the foundations of objective education and liberty. Freedom of speech is essential to maintain the ability to search for the truth. Students' minds must be trained to challenge dogmas if democracy is to survive. The time is long overdue for universities and colleges to eradicate feminist intolerance and return to reason and objectivity. Dedicated teachers are eager to reconstruct an educated and tolerant society. Give us the call.
Jeffrey Asher, formerly of Dawson College, taught on the statistical merits of sexual politics.