Marquette Feminist Group: Don’t Call the Cops If You Are in Trouble

Marquette Empowerment, which posted this on their Facebook timeline, is the same group that vandalized an anti-abortion display on campus back in 2016.

In 2017, they demanded that conservative speaker Ben Shapiro be banned from campus.

They are, to be blunt, a rather nasty, intolerant bunch.

How Silly

But do they even begin to understand how silly this post is? Probably not. The meme claims “calling the police often leads to unnecessary escalation and may lead to the brutalizing and even killing of the victims themselves.”

So if somebody is trying to break into your house, the LGBTQ+ Resource Center are just the people to do something about it.

If you hear shots in your neighborhood, the Suicide Prevention Hotline absolutely needs to come out immediately.

Why Demonize the Police?

Which bring up the larger question: why does the left demonize the police?

They know perfectly well that crime is absurdly high in inner-city black neighborhoods. The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel Homicide Tracker tells the story:

Click on image to enlarge
Source: https://projects.jsonline.com/apps/Milwaukee-Homicide-Database/

So they are on the horns of a dilemma. Either they admit to a massive amount of dysfunction in the black community, or they pretend that the problem is all those racist cops.

Since they cannot and will not admit the former, they have to claim the cops are the problem.

Which means the real problems will not be addressed. Which they don’t particularly mind, since they care more about posing as social justice warriors than about black lives.

Serena Williams - Playing the Gender Card When You Can’t Win A Tennis Match

False Rape Accusations Are Common

From WTNH TV, the story of a woman who made a false rape accusation:

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) - A young woman accused of making up rape allegations against two college football players to gain the sympathy of another student she wanted to date is going on trial this week, and claims that she was pressured into confessing are expected to play a key role.

Jury selection in the case of Nikki Yovino, 19, of South Setauket, New York, is to begin Tuesday in Bridgeport Superior Court in Connecticut, and testimony is expected to start June 18. Prosecutors and defense lawyers will be in court Monday to argue over whether some evidence and testimony should be excluded from the trial.

Yovino was a student at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield when police say she reported being raped by two Sacred Heart football players at an off-campus party in Bridgeport in October 2016.

Authorities say she later admitted that she had consensual sex with the players and told them her motive. She was charged with evidence tampering, a felony, and falsely reporting an incident, a misdemeanor. The evidence tampering charge carries as many as five years in prison.

So her fake story fell apart, and she was charged. Justice was done, right? Not really. The story continues:

Yovino withdrew from Sacred Heart. The football players were never criminally charged, but both withdrew from the school as they faced possible disciplinary action based. One player lost a football scholarship, his lawyer said.

The football players’ names have not been released by police but are expected to be disclosed when they testify at the trial, their lawyer said.

“Her actions have seriously affected them,” attorney Frank Riccio II said. “They’re no longer in school. The loss of their education and the college experience has certainly affected them greatly. And this is all because of a very serious lie.”

One case, of course, doesn’t prove much of anything, but it does underline the problem with the feminist notion that women would never (well, they have to admit, hardly ever) lie about rape.

How Common are False Rape Accusations?

Quoting from Stuart Taylor, Jr. and KC Johnson, Until Proven Innocent, 2007, pp. 374-375.

The standard assertion by feminists that only 2 percent of rape claims are false, which traces to Susan Brownmiller’s 1975 book Against Our Will, is without empirical foundation and belied by a wealth of empirical data. These data suggest that at least 9 percent and probably closer to half of all rape claims are false:

1. FBI statistics say conservatively that about 9 percent of rape reports are “unfounded” in the sense of being dismissed without charges filed, usually because the accuser recants or because her account is contradicted by other evidence.
2. Forty-one percent of 109 rape complainants eventually admitted to police that no rape had occurred, according to a careful, highly regarded 1994 study of all rape reports in a midwestern town of about 70,000 between 1978 and 1987, by Purdue sociologist Eugene J. Kanin, Ph. D. The recantations made irrelevant the claims of many feminists that police often discount valid rape claims. And because there is no reason to suppose that all false accusers recanted, the total number of false reports probably exceeded 41 percent. The police in the study made serious efforts to polygraph both the accused and the accuser; it is now much more rare for police to polygraph rape accusers, due to pressure from feminist and victims’ rights groups more interested in convictions than in truth.
   
   Kanin also concluded that “these false charges were able to serve three major functions for the complainants: providing an alibi, a means of gaining revenge, and a platform for seeking attention/sympathy. This tripartite model resulted from the complainants’ own verbalizations during recantation and does not constitute conjecture.” Other experts note other motives for false rape claims; they include remorse after an impulsive sexual fling and escaping accountability when caught in an embarrassing consensual encounter.
3. Fifty percent (32) of accusers recanted their rape charges in a study by Kanin of campus police reports on sixty four rape claims at two large, unnamed Midwestern universities. In both universities, the taking of the complaint and the follow-up investigation were done by a ranking female officer. “Quite unexpectedly then” Kanin wrote, “we find that these university women, when filing a rape complaint, were as likely to file a false as a valid charge. Other reports from university police agencies support these findings.”
4. False rape accusations occur with scary frequency and “any honest veteran sex assault investigator will tell you that rape is one of the most falsely reported crimes,” Craig Silverman, a former Colorado prosecutor known for his zealous pursuit of alleged rapists, said in 2004 as a commentator on the Kobe Bryant case for Denver’s ABC affiliate. Silverman added that a Denver sex-assault unit commander had estimated that nearly 50 percent of reported rape claims are false.
5. Fraudulent rape complaints were perceived as a problem by 73 percent of the women and 72 percent of the men in a survey of students at the Air Force Academy, West Point, and the Naval Academy, according to a March 2005 Defense Department report.
6. One in four rape reports was unfounded in a 1990-1991 Washington Post investigation in seven Virginia and Maryland counties. When contacted by the Post, many of the alleged victims admitted that they had lied.

The presumption, driven by the political power of feminists on college campuses, that any accusation of rape must be true is a classic case of ideologically driven “justice.”

The campus leftists would loudly support the presumption of innocence, and full due process rights, for a black defendant accused of robbery, or a Muslim accused of conspiring with terrorists. But since the stereotypical campus rapist is a white male, these principles go out the window.

Goodbye Miss America

Jimmy Kimmel: Advocate for Women

Yes, this is a satire site. But this particular article is spot on about the facts (except, perhaps, for “crazed, drunken, slobbering”). Those are only slight exaggerations.

One can get a good idea about the show here, and here.

Politically Correct Math Education Comes to Springfield

Reebok’s Faux Feminism

So Donald Trump says something nice about the figure of a French woman, and an American corporation jumps on the politically correct bandwagon to condemn it.

Except the corporation (Adidas, who make Reebok) are happy to use images of scantily clad (and nude) women in their commercials.

[WARNING: PARTIAL NUDITY]

(But is that a warning, or an enticement?)

From the Conservative Treehouse.

Indoctrination on Wage Gap: Feminist Instructor Tells Student to Use Only Feminist Sources

The full story about this can be found on the Toronto Sun website. This might seem to be merely one example of intolerant feminist indoctrination. Unfortunately, it’s utterly typical.

Being Blunt About Being a Bigot

From (of course) The Huffington Post:

I don’t like white women.

Whenever I say that, white women look at me like I just decapitated Taylor Swift. If I’m being honest, their reaction is part of the reason I say it. But rest assured, it’s not the only reason.

I don’t like white women because I’m not particularly fond of the construct of whiteness or what it represents. I also don’t appreciate those who are complicit in my oppression and benefit from it. When I say I don’t like white women, it’s not in reference to any specific white woman (aside from maybe Taylor Swift). It’s a declaration that white women pose a very real threat to my existence, and I don’t have to embrace that threat with open arms. You have to earn my fondness. This goes for several other groups, obviously, but for some reason white women seem the most baffled by it. Whenever I meet a white woman who’s not baffled by it, we instantly become friends. Those are the white women I like.

We first were about to label this tirade “politically correct,” but it turns out it’s not.

It turns out the author rejects “intersectionality,” a term that means, roughly, you’ve got to make common cause with all the other politically correct victim groups.

That, of course, includes “women,” but not the women of the real world. In that real world, a majority of white women voted for Donald Trump in 2016. It only means feminists.

But even in the Trump-hating “Women’s March” this writer feels alienated.

There is a bit of wisdom here. The writer understands that the white feminists who claim to speak for all women don’t. But the wisdom is buried under a huge racial grudge.

Milo Yiannopoulos at Western Carolina University

This is the fellow the Social Justice Warriors hate. And they are willing to use fascist tactics to shut him down.

So you should see what he actually says, rather than believe thumbnail descriptions of what he believes from politically correct leftists (or liberals).

Warning: the video contains one distasteful image, and quite a bit of course language.

Historic Event

Campus Political Correctness: How Bad Can it Get?

From Front Page Magazine:

Scripps: The Most Racist College in America

Students urged to feel good about hating white people.

White people are worthy of hatred and no one should feel bad for hating them, incoming freshmen are told at the all-female, ultra-politically correct Scripps College in southern California, making it probably the worst and most racist undergraduate school in the United States.

“Anger is a legitimate response to oppression, as is sadness, fear, frustration, exhaustion, and a general distaste or hatred of white people,” write the student authors of the Unofficial Scripps College Survival Guide. The 217-page exercise in PC brainwashing is supposed to help new students adjust to Scripps College.

Scripps is one member of Claremont Colleges, a consortium of five undergraduate schools (known as the 5Cs) and two graduate schools located in Claremont, which is between Los Angeles and San Bernardino. The other four undergraduate member colleges are Pomona, Claremont McKenna, Harvey Mudd, and Pitzer. All five undergraduate colleges are afflicted by a group called The 5C Students of Color Alliance which wants racially segregated “safe spaces” off-limits to white students created.

Anti-white racism, anti-male sexism, and a catalog of ugly leftist, un-American ideas are all on display in the Scripps so-called survival guide. Rest assured that if the targets were anyone other than Caucasians and men, investigators from the Justice Department would be swarming Scripps College as you read this column.

And don’t let the weaselly word unofficial in the handbook’s title fool you. The campus administration unashamedly supports and promotes this radical vade mecum that is packed with politically correct drivel intended to poison the minds of impressionable youth and turn them against the American experiment. The college’s website contains an article describing the handbook in glowing terms. Officials appear to have chosen the descriptor unofficial only because they think it sounds cool.

The guidebook defines “White Privilege” as “the set of unearned benefits white people gain as a result of systematic racism and discrimination” that “benefits even those white people who are disadvantaged by other forms of institutionalized oppression like ableism, classism, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia.”

The writers add that “asking people of color to educate us about racism,” “asking people of color to absolve us of our guilt,” and “identifying the ways that we are engaging in the perpetuation of white supremacy” are all things that “we need to stop doing right now.”

In a “Dear white students” section, they explain that “[r]everse racism cannot exist because white people maintain power over people of color” and “because there are no institutions that were founded with the intention of discriminating against white people on the basis of their skin [color].”

A section focused on how to be a good “Trans Ally” urges new arrivals to ask for each of their peers’ gender pronouns to avoid unwittingly imposing the traditional male-female dichotomy on them. “Enacting a life of accountability and ownership over your own domination and privileges is the only way you can exhibit allyship,” the book states.

The guidebook also advocates the policing of language. It warns students to be careful about what they say in class and calls “capitalism and consumerism” concepts that “can lead to [the] dangerous promotion of certain ideals and widespread circulation of stigmatizing information.” The book scolds “those who oppose trigger warnings,” labeling such people as uncaring and “potentially sexist, ableist, homophobic, racist, classist, etc.”

And further:

Earlier this year the crazed leftists of the 5Cs drove the editor-in-chief of the conservative-leaning Claremont Independent out of his campus job as a writing coach. Steven Glick quit his job at Pomona College’s Writing Center, saying the constant harassment its progressive staff inflicted on him pushed him over the edge.

Glick wrote a column posted on the newspaper’s website that was titled, “I resign: The Writing Center’s mission is to teach writing, not ideology[.]” He explained that one of the center’s professors complained he wasn’t doing enough to make students feel welcome.

“To rectify that, she canceled my appointments that night and asked me to read three packets about identity politics instead,” Glick wrote. “One of the readings states that teaching English to non-native English speakers is an attack on free speech. Another criticizes ‘the hegemonic feminist theory produced by academic women, most of whom were white.’ The third, titled ‘Heteropatriarchy and the Three Pillars of White Supremacy,’ states that capitalism is racist.”

“I read all three packets, as I had been told to do. I did not agree with the opinions presented in any of them, nor did I see any connection between these readings and my work at the Writing Center,” Glick added.

Glick was then asked “what role identity politics should play in the Writing Center’s mission.” He said his answer was to provide “students with a community of experienced readers and writers, offering free, one-on-one consultations at any stage of the writing process—from generating a thesis and structuring an argument to fine-tuning a draft.”

Apparently that was the wrong answer because the next day Glick was placed on probation at the center. He quit even though he said he loved the job.

The newspaper, incidentally, has been attacked as “insensitive,” “racist, sexist, classist,” and for allegedly making some students “emotionally ill.”

After a photo of Glick and two of his editorial colleagues was posted online wearing promotional tank tops that read “Claremont Independent: Always Right,” one critic snarled, “Literally everything about it is a joke and honestly I wish I could shut them down but they would be so quick to spit their ‘constitutional rights,’ rights that only work for some.” Glick said a strange woman who saw the photo came up to him uninvited during dinner and ranted for 15 minutes about how the photo supposedly promoted racism, sexism, and other isms. “When she left, she said I was a bigot,” he added.

By all means, read the entire thing, if you can stomach it.

Most institutions aren’t this bad, but this kind of raw naked bigotry is found widely throughout academia, including at Marquette. Women’s colleges, of course, are among the worst, since they tend to attract virulently anti-male feminists.  There is, in fact, very little here that cannot be found at Marquette, although it does not so completely dominate the culture at Marquette.

Feminism and Donald Trump

A provocative and often insightful essay from Robert Oscar Lopez in The Federalist. One passage in particular is of current interest:

Trump Treats Women As Feminists Demand

Second-wave feminism created Trump. Feeding on the scraps of Hefner’s and Mailer’s sleazy sex liberation, second-wave feminism misconstrued women’s plight as the consequences of chastity and patriarchy, which were actually cultural ideals that limited male behavior and forced men to sublimate their libido into chivalry and other respectful gestures toward women.

The anti-rape “yes means yes” consent laws governing college campuses are clumsily trying to replace the consent-focused purpose of marriage—“Do you take this man…”—without admitting that marriage was actually good for women. In a Buzzfeed video featuring feminists challenging male chauvinism, some of the feminist challenges are:

Why do you think we’re obsessed with you when we hook up?

[When we hook up], I just want you to leave too, I’m busy, I got s*** to do.

Why can’t I sleep with as many people as I want to, without being judged?

This landscape of transient female lust is only possible if there are men left in the wake of all these callous one-time encounters. Fifty years of life after “Sex and the Single Girl” led to … Donald J. Trump. Told by feminists that he is damned for wanting a traditional commitment, and told by Christian conservatives that he is damned for giving women what feminists said they wanted, Trump plays to the middle ground, where misogyny blossoms. He is not an isolated phenomenon.

There’s much to criticize about divorce. But one divorce is necessary: It is time for “civil rights” and the “sexual revolution” (including feminism) to part ways. There is no intersectionality here, just poisonous cross-purposes. In the meantime, both feminists and social conservatives need to brace themselves for the possible words “President Donald J. Trump.” Karma.

Campus Rape: Scholars Accused of Misconduct for Politically Incorrect Findings

Of course, the claim of “misconduct” will eventually be found to be baseless. But until that happens, the authors will have to endure a tedious “investigation.” The process is the punishment.

Ironically, Mary Koss is one of the people responsible for the current hysteria about campus sexual assault. Her pioneering study in the 1980s, financed by Ms. Magazine, claimed that one in four college women have been victims of date rape. The number was entirely bogus.

Koss’s study had serious flaws. Her survey instrument was highly ambiguous, as University of California at Berkeley social-welfare professor Neil Gilbert has pointed out. But the most powerful refutation of Koss’s research came from her own subjects: 73 percent of the women whom she characterized as rape victims said that they hadn’t been raped. Further—though it is inconceivable that a raped woman would voluntarily have sex again with the fiend who attacked her—42 percent of Koss’s supposed victims had intercourse again with their alleged assailants.

So one could view her current troubles as poetic justice. We think this would be unfair, and credit her with being honest about the data in spite of the current politically correct dogmatism.

More Bogus Campus Date Rape Statistics

“Bluebloods” on Campus Social Justice Warriors

Not all network TV is liberal propaganda. Example: a recent episode of “Bluebloods” that has a campus feminist playing the victim. It starts with a campus leftist wanting some fellow student punished for unkind (but perfectly legal) messages posted on the campus message board.

Would campus leftists do this? Absolutely. As The Volokh Conspiracy records:

A large coalition of advocacy groups has asked the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights to pressure colleges to (1) punish students for their speech and (2) block student access to certain Web sites — especially sites such as Yik Yak, which allow students to anonymously post their views.

Now, some of the speech that the groups mention consists of true threats of violence, including threats of attack and even rape. Such speech is constitutionally unprotected. (Indeed, some of it — threats against people for speaking, for instance, in support of feminist causes — itself attempts to suppress speech.) It is rightly criminalized and can certainly be punished.

But the letter goes very far beyond just calling on universities to punish threats. Here are some other examples of speech that the coalition points to:

• “[S]uccessive invidious comments targeting African-Americans, such as ‘Their entire culture just isn’t conducive to a life of success. It just isn’t. The outfits. The attitudes. The behavior.’”
• “Another comment” that said “Slavery was the worst thing to happen to this country, bringing them over here . . . ugh.”
• A statement that “I would be completely ok with Clemson being an all white school. Except for football.”
• A statement that “The only thing niggers are good for is making Clemson better at football.”
• A statement that “Jesus I hate black people.”
• A comment saying, “Guys stop with all this hate. Let’s just be thankful we aren’t black.”
• Statements “target[ing] Indian students and East Asians, referred to as ‘chinks,’ in addition to LGBT students, Mormons, and women.” ”[S]tudents post[ing] dozens of demeaning, crude, and sexually explicit comments and imagery about three female professors.”

All of this speech, offensive as it may be, is protected by the First Amendment. (There is no “hate speech” exception to First Amendment protection.) But despite that, the coalition is arguing that the speech should be restricted precisely because of the viewpoints it expresses, and the offense and “hostile environment” that those viewpoints cause.

The first statement seems to us a perfectly reasonable comment about ghetto culture, and the penultimate one accepts the notion of white privilege and says “stop the hate.” Wanting Clemson to be segregated is certainly a racist comment, but is probably just hyperbole from students unhappy with being berated for being white and being told to “check your privilege.”

But as Volokh says, all are constitutionally protected.

A Bogus Hate Incident

“Bluebloods” then goes further by including in the plot something that frequently happens on college campuses.

Yes, campus activists have often staged racist incidents in order to provoke more “diversity” initiatives.

So what we have here is the reality of contemporary college life. Social Justice Warriors really believe that any expression of opinion they dislike should be made illegal and punished. And since they believe the end justifies the means, they will stage fake incidents to promote their cause.

Feminist Factoids

Yik Yak: Enemy of Campus Political Correctness

Given the stifling political correctness that prevails on most college campuses, and the fact that a dissenting opinion is likely to be met with bullying (if not actual official punishment), it’s not surprising if conservative students keep their heads down, and are afraid to speak up.

But one type of social media allows them to speak up anonymously. Yik Yak allows student in a particular geographic area or at a particular school (say: Marquette) to speak up and dissent from the intolerant orthodoxy.

Naturally, the politically correct leftists don’t like this. For example, they label posts that fail to show sufficient respect for their proclaimed grievances as “racist.” This has happened at Claremont College, and here at Marquette.

At both Marquette and Claremont, the the vast majority of “racist” tweets were not racist at all. They just disagree with the activists.

Not surprisingly, campus leftists and college administrations want to put an end to this. As an article in The College Fix explains, “Campuses ‘symbolically’ ban Yik Yak as battle over app rages.” Some colleges have blocked Yik Yak from their college Wi-Fi networks. Of course, this isn’t very effective, since students can connect via the cell phone infrastructure.

In this, college campuses resemble authoritarian nations, in which the party in power tries to censor and block communications that the regime dislikes, but technology keeps undermining the effort.

And yes, contemporary U.S. campuses are the nearest thing in American society to foreign authoritarian regimes.

Update

Students used Yik Yak to pan, and kill a required environmentalist indoctrination course at Eastern Michigan University. Interestingly, the faculty union demanded that students who posted nasty tweets about the course should be tracked down and punished. They were not.

Further Update

Of course, the politically correct want politically incorrect voices silenced, and nobody is more intolerant of politically incorrect speech than feminists. Thus we have the following from the The Chronicle of Higher Education:

Seventy-two women’s and civil-rights groups on Wednesday announced a campaign to enlist the federal government in pressuring colleges to protect students from harassment via anonymous social-media applications like Yik Yak.

The groups have sent the U.S. Education Department a letter calling for it to treat colleges’ failure to monitor anonymous social media and to pursue online harassers as a violation of federal civil-rights laws guaranteeing equal educational access.

What do they mean by “violation of federal civil-rights laws guaranteeing equal educational access?” They mean people are allowed to criticize feminists!

The article in the The Chronicle of Higher Education has some of the offending posts, and all of them clearly fall into the category of constitutionally protected speech, directed against the a campus Feminists United club. The list is below:



Calling feminists “feminazis” or “femicunts” is grossly uncivil, but it’s no worse than calling Republicans “Republithugs” which leftists do all over political discussion groups and comments sections on the Internet.

Likewise, suggesting sending the feminist women off to an all women’s college where there are no men and no non-feminist opinions to tolerate is a jib against feminists. But implying that feminists hate men and are intolerant of other opinions is no worse than claiming that Republicans hate the poor, which liberals do all the time. In fact, it’s closer to being factual.

The Yik Yak posts, in other words, are not threats, and not even hate speech directed toward women as a group, but political taunts directed at people with particular opinions.

But feminists think they represent women generally, and they think that criticizing them is hate speech directed against all women. In other words, feminists think their political opinions are privileged, and nobody should be allowed to criticize them.

And they want government to punish anybody who does.

Which is to say that they (or at least the campus activists among them) are nasty authoritarians.

Feminist Harpies at Oxford (and on Facebook)

Surfing around The Spectator (U.K.) we happened on any article titled “Oxford’s new feminist hit squad.” It’s a group of bullies on Facebook whose reach extends into the Oxford student body, having the ability to marginalize those with even mildly politically incorrect attitudes.

The Spectator euphemistically calls the group “Country Living,” and it can indeed be found on Facebook.

It’s a closed group, but one need not be able to see the posts to see how intolerant the people running it are. From the group description:

Welcome to the Facebook group loosely affiliated with the Oxford University-based feminist zine (also online here http://cuntrylivingmagazine.tumblr.com/)! smile emoticon Anyone is free to join and contribute, but please take some time to read the guidelines first.

This is intended to be an intersectional, sex positive online space in which we can challenge patriarchy and share our experiences of oppression.

When commenting please bear in mind that in this space the voices of those who are typically marginalised and oppressed in wider society are prioritised. New members of the group, especially cis men: please take some time to read the posts and conversations here before participating.

This group is intended to be as safe a space as possible. Healthy debate is welcomed, but we do not want members of the group to feel threatened and/or marginalised and/or shouted down by people who do not have an understanding of oppression. No one is under any obligation to educate anyone else, especially if their experiences are being attacked or questioned. Just taking some time to read the threads is an educational experience in itself.

Please listen to accounts of lived experiences, reassess your view in light of responses from oppressed and/or marginalised people, and apologise if you offend/upset people with your views. If you are ignoring/talking over individuals with first hand experience of oppression, you will be warned about it. If you ignore that warning, you will be removed from the group. Derailing threads with #notallmen and so on is counterproductive and will result in a warning. Hateful and oppressive language will result in immediate removal from the group. Because this is a safe space, it’s also important that members don’t question the validity of an account of abuse and/or harassment.

If anyone here feels unsafe or threatened on here, please tag one of the admins (Georgiana Jackson-Callen, Nicole Antoinette, Alyson Cruise or Shaina Yang) in the relevant post or message one of us — we will do everything we can to rectify the situation.

If you believe that material you are posting may be triggering, please use a trigger warning (you can find advice on how and when to use those here: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Trigger_warning) For sensitive material that is not triggering, please provide a brief content note (you can find advice on those here:

http://trigger-warning-guide.tumblr.com/triggers) If you’re not sure whether something needs a content/trigger warning, it’s best to err on the side of caution.

Helpful guides on privilege: http://blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2006-03-08_146, http://www.robot-hugs.com/privilege/, http://www.blackgirldangerous.org/2014/02/4-ways-push-back-privilege/

How to respond when you’re called out on something: http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/09/called-out-acknowledging-oppression/

Privilege list: http://privilege101.tumblr.com/post/5988512297/list-of-privileges-permanently-in-progress

The message to people who don’t agree with the extreme views here: shut up. This being a Facebook group, the administrators do have the power to shut up opinions they don’t like.  But they are working to extend that power over all of society.

Feminist Harpy Defends Censorship at Oxford Union

Of course, these sorts of attitudes are not limited to the U.K. This sort of attitude should remind one of some things that have happened at Marquette.


You can watch all the debaters, starting with the first, at this link.

[Update]

The speaker in this video, one Kate Brooks, has claimed that these comments don’t represent her real views. You can decide. We have to note that Brook’s expressed views are highly congruent with common politically correct attitudes in academia.