Harvard goes gender equality, unless you are male
-
https://heatst.com/culture-wars/all-clubs-at-harvard-have-to-be-gender-neutral-except-womens-clubs/
All Clubs at Harvard Have to Be Gender Neutral—Except Women’s Clubs
Before anyone says anything, note that this article is written by a woman. No claiming it's written by some butt hurt guy.
So, where are all the so-called "good feminists" to fight against this man-hating gender inequality? Yeah, that's what I thought.
-
Well, at least it shows that there are women who actually advocate for true equality. (And I'm refering to the author, since she actually pointed out stuff in the most neutral way possible)
So…male-only groups have to actually admit women, while women-only groups just need to accept applications and then throw them into the recycle bin without facing administrative consequences. And even got the permission to do that?!
Yeah because admitting males to female only groups would be akin to open the door of a barn full of lambs to big bad wolves. Is funny how supposed these women who claim are 'liberated' and 'empowered' call the 'weak, helpless victim' card whenever they see fit.
Gender-only groups already polarize the sexes (though there might be gender-specific groups that actually have a reason of being if their cause is related to issues pertaining one gender exclusively)
If college is teaching students how to move in the real world, I'm afraid they got it wrong when it comes to work and live with others.
-
So, where are all the so-called "good feminists" to fight against this man-hating gender inequality? Yeah, that's what I thought.
"The Harvard Crimson reports:
This fall, the all-female Seneca organization will formally adopt a gender neutral policy in response to administrative sanctions against single-gender social groups—but future memberships could remain all-women in practice without running afoul of the College’s penalties.
According to an email from the Seneca’s undergraduate officers to Seneca members obtained by The Crimson, Associate Dean of Student Life David R. Friedrich assured the Seneca at a May meeting that if the group removed gender requirements from its charter and bylaws, the club “could continue to operate as it always has.”
According to the Harvard’s administration, they are able to avoid the new policy because Seneca is a non-profit and serves more than being a social group.
Heat Street reports that it’s not just men’s groups, like the Fox club, who have spoken out against the new policy, but women’s groups as well. They “want the gender-inclusive policy enforced, just not against them. A group called the Crimson Women’s Coalition has demonstrated against the policy several times, claiming that women’s-only groups are “safe spaces” for female students, and that welcoming men opens those organizations to the possibility of sexual assault.”
"http://hypeline.org/does-harvards-gender-neutral-policy-only-affect-male-clubs/
There you go.
-
god you people are so fucking stupid
-
So, where are all the so-called "good feminists" to fight against this man-hating gender inequality? Yeah, that's what I thought.
"The Harvard Crimson reports:
This fall, the all-female Seneca organization will formally adopt a gender neutral policy in response to administrative sanctions against single-gender social groups—but future memberships could remain all-women in practice without running afoul of the College’s penalties.
According to an email from the Seneca’s undergraduate officers to Seneca members obtained by The Crimson, Associate Dean of Student Life David R. Friedrich assured the Seneca at a May meeting that if the group removed gender requirements from its charter and bylaws, the club “could continue to operate as it always has.”
According to the Harvard’s administration, they are able to avoid the new policy because Seneca is a non-profit and serves more than being a social group.
Heat Street reports that it’s not just men’s groups, like the Fox club, who have spoken out against the new policy, but women’s groups as well. They “want the gender-inclusive policy enforced, just not against them. A group called the Crimson Women’s Coalition has demonstrated against the policy several times, claiming that women’s-only groups are “safe spaces” for female students, and that welcoming men opens those organizations to the possibility of sexual assault.”
"http://hypeline.org/does-harvards-gender-neutral-policy-only-affect-male-clubs/
There you go.
If feminists want something, they always get it.
A group called the Crimson Women’s Coalition has demonstrated against the policy several times, claiming that women’s-only groups are “safe spaces” for female students, and that welcoming men opens those organizations to the possibility of sexual assault.”
Let's look at that again. It says that if there is gender equality in women's groups, then men will rape women.
-
So, where are all the so-called "good feminists" to fight against this man-hating gender inequality? Yeah, that's what I thought.
"The Harvard Crimson reports:
This fall, the all-female Seneca organization will formally adopt a gender neutral policy in response to administrative sanctions against single-gender social groups—but future memberships could remain all-women in practice without running afoul of the College’s penalties.
According to an email from the Seneca’s undergraduate officers to Seneca members obtained by The Crimson, Associate Dean of Student Life David R. Friedrich assured the Seneca at a May meeting that if the group removed gender requirements from its charter and bylaws, the club “could continue to operate as it always has.”
According to the Harvard’s administration, they are able to avoid the new policy because Seneca is a non-profit and serves more than being a social group.
Heat Street reports that it’s not just men’s groups, like the Fox club, who have spoken out against the new policy, but women’s groups as well. They “want the gender-inclusive policy enforced, just not against them. A group called the Crimson Women’s Coalition has demonstrated against the policy several times, claiming that women’s-only groups are “safe spaces” for female students, and that welcoming men opens those organizations to the possibility of sexual assault.”
"http://hypeline.org/does-harvards-gender-neutral-policy-only-affect-male-clubs/
There you go.
If feminists want something, they always get it.
A group called the Crimson Women’s Coalition has demonstrated against the policy several times, claiming that women’s-only groups are “safe spaces” for female students, and that welcoming men opens those organizations to the possibility of sexual assault.”
Let's look at that again. It says that if there is gender equality in women's groups, then men will rape women.
Fucking hell.
-
As I said, feminists always get what they want, including senior politicos to lie by spewing feminists "facts" that run completely opposite of official government stats.
So, if these mythical unnamed feminist women's groups actually wanted true gender equality, then it would happen.
Let's re-quote the only women's group the article mentions;
A group called the Crimson Women’s Coalition has demonstrated against the policy several times, claiming that women's only groups are “safe spaces” for female students, and that welcoming men opens those organizations to the possibility of sexual assault.”
In other words, if they let men into women's groups, all the women will get raped.
Now let's look at if from the other side. If they let women into men's groups, won't all the women get raped there too?
Yeah, I know, logic is too complicated for SJWs.
BTW, "fucking hell" doesn't refute anything I said.
NOTE: I corrected the formatting issue and some spelling mistakes. You can see the original unedited post quoted in the post below this.
-
As I said, feminists always get what they want, including senior politicos to lie by spewing feminists "facts" that run completely opposite of official government stats.
So, if these mythical unnamed feminist women's groups actually wanted true gender equality, then it would happen.
Let's requote the only women's group the article mentions;
**A group called the Crimson Women’s Coalition has demonstrated against the policy several times, claiming that women’s-only groups are “safe spaces” for female students, and that welcoming men opens those organizations to the possibility of sexual assault.” **
In other words, if they let men into women's groups, all the women will get raped.
Now let's look at if from the otherside. If they let women into men's groups, won't all the women get raped there too?
Yeah, I know, logic is too complicated for SJWs.
BTW, "fucking hell" doesn't refute anything I said.
It doesn't. I know that. I give up in trying to debate you.
If 2017 is full of more people like you then I've lost all faith in humanity. You won't change your mind on any of this so I'd rather spend my time talking to people who can change their mind.
You are obsessed and there's nothing I can do to help that. I hope you have fun jerking yourself red over crazy SJWs and Feminists for the rest of your life.
-
It's always men's only groups that have to let in women, never does it go the other way around.
This is an old story that says women's only golf clubs make up 50% of the single-sex golf clubs in the UK. Since then, new women's only golf clubs have been built and several men's only ones have gone co-ed.
This is what feminists and SJWs view as equality.
-
So this Seneca Club gets a free pass because it is 'non-profit and serves more than being a social group'.
So there's no male-only groups with the same characteristics? Also, they don't explain what makes the Seneca group 'more than a social group'.
Then the Crimson Women's Coalition states that welcoming men opens the chances for their female members to be sexually assaulted. Thus demonstrating that they view all males as potential rapists. (And implying themselves are useless to promote a healthy co-ed environment for their members…but of course, radical feminism doesn't want men and women experiencing healthy relationships with each other, they want men and women against each other)
-
It doesn't. I know that. I give up in trying to debate you.
If 2017 is full of more people like you then I've lost all faith in humanity. You won't change your mind on any of this so I'd rather spend my time talking to people who can change their mind.
You are obsessed and there's nothing I can do to help that. I hope you have fun jerking yourself red over crazy SJWs and Feminists for the rest of your life.
No matter how much evidence anti-SJWs show you guys, you still don't get ot or keep denying the problem.
Look at the recent threads where feminism was discussed. I got called all kinds of name for being anti-feminism, even though I'm an egalitarian. I showed many cases where feminists fought to extend vaginal privilege in all areas of life. The only response the feminists had was to name call. They couldn't respond with any feminist campaigns that proved me wrong. If feminism is so great and only about GENDER EQUALITY, then feminist should have a long list of campaigns to prove this. HOWEVER, the only proof we have is that anti-feminists are right, in that feminism is only about special rights for women.
-
It doesn't. I know that. I give up in trying to debate you.
If 2017 is full of more people like you then I've lost all faith in humanity. You won't change your mind on any of this so I'd rather spend my time talking to people who can change their mind.
You are obsessed and there's nothing I can do to help that. I hope you have fun jerking yourself red over crazy SJWs and Feminists for the rest of your life.
No matter how much evidence anti-SJWs show you guys, you still don't get ot or keep denying the problem.
Look at the recent threads where feminism was discussed. I got called all kinds of name for being anti-feminism, even though I'm an egalitarian. I showed many cases where feminists fought to extend vaginal privilege in all areas of life. The only response the feminists had was to name call. They couldn't respond with any feminist campaigns that proved me wrong. If feminism is so great and only about GENDER EQUALITY, then feminist should have a long list of campaigns to prove this. HOWEVER, the only proof we have is that anti-feminists are right, in that feminism is only about special rights for women.
Lets talk about the so called special rights for women. First women had to fight to be allowed to vote, then they had to fight to enable a woman to run for office. They fought for the right to make decisions about their own bodies to allow them to have an abortion if they so choose. They had to fight to be allowed to enter University as well as to study in the field of their choice such as Medicine or Engineering. For equal pay for equal work (I was there when male nurses were being paid as much as $5.00 an hour more than their female colleagues who were doing the same job). This is just a small list of the inequality that women faced and not one of them is about "special rights" for women, rather it's about equal rights.
-
Lets talk about the so called special rights for women. First women had to fight to be allowed to vote, then they had to fight to enable a woman to run for office. They fought for the right to make decisions about their own bodies to allow them to have an abortion if they so choose. They had to fight to be allowed to enter University as well as to study in the field of their choice such as Medicine or Engineering. For equal pay for equal work (I was there when male nurses were being paid as much as $5.00 an hour more than their female colleagues who were doing the same job). This is just a small list of the inequality that women faced and not one of them is about "special rights" for women, rather it's about equal rights.
Who's debating those rights? No one.
One thing is being able to get the same job as men do, other is to be chosen for a job just because you're woman.
One thing is fighting to be on the same level as men, other is getting special privileges just because you're a woman. The example is clear in that news: while male clubs are forced to accept women, female clubs don't. That's not equality, is receiving a special treatment.
You clearly haven't read all of raphjd's posts, he has given several examples of women getting special treatment in detriment to males. One thing is aiming for equal treatment, while other is pushing for privileges based on gender; feminism is not about equality, feminism is the exact mirror image of machismo/chauvinism.
And keep shielding your logic behind 'all the injustice women had to suffer', that's no excuse for trying to minimize males. Is the same rhetoric used by some black people here to justify mistreatment towards white people…and white people can use that same logic to mistreat black people, and it goes back and forth, back and forth....
Remember Gandhi's words: 'An eye for and eye, and all the world will end up blind'.
-
You really need to research the history of voting rights for both men and women in the west. It's not exactly what the feminists want you to believe.
If you look at the history of the draft in west, you will see that it was the mother of feminism, Emmeline Pankhurst and her lot, that we have to thank for that. We have the same nasty bitches to thank for the White Feather campaign.
Susan B Anthony was a massive man hater and racist.
Feminism/Suffragetism was born of extremely nasty, man hating, racist, elitists. They didn't want everyone to vote. They only cared about people in their socio-economic class being able to vote.
Feminists are sheep to their religion. They only know what their leaders tell them. AND, just like any religion, those outside it tend to know more about than it's worshipers.
-
Feminism is bullshit, and women are tedious to be around.
Why do any gay guys fall for the propaganda that we need to align ourselves with shrill man-hating harpies?
-
Feminism is bullshit, and women are tedious to be around.
Why do any gay guys fall for the propaganda that we need to align ourselves with shrill man-hating harpies?
Amongst the man-haters there are women who fight for true equality. The hard part is differenciating them from the others.
That's why I believe Egalitarism would be a better term.
I sometimes wonder how the man-haters actually see us, since we aren't interested in women.
-
The problem is, there are no campaigns by the "good" feminists. This is why I call them sofa feminists, because all they do is sit on their asses claiming to believe in true gender equality.
I'm an egalitarian.
-
The problem is, there are no campaigns by the "good" feminists. This is why I call them sofa feminists, because all they do is sit on their asses claiming to believe in true gender equality.
I'm an egalitarian.
In defense of egalitarian women with honest and educated "feminist concerns", AKA "good feminists", I'm sure you know how social mob justice via the Internet goes. Most "good feminists" would rather not be harassed by their peers and all the useful idiots that like to unquestioningly parrot what great sociopolitical wisdom they pick up from Buzzfeed and MTV and "this one zine I picked up while attending a workshop" for going against the grain. Even greater numbers of women simply reject the "feminist" label outright because of the term's negative connotations. But there are still plenty of rational women who are concerned about women's issues while refusing to drink the PoMo, critical theory-regurgitating, radfem, man-hating, social Marxist Kool-Aid. It's the "harpy" contingent keeping many women who might otherwise speak up or label themselves feminists from doing so.
The well-known/"controversial" feminists (controversial among radfem fruitcakes and/or third-wave feminists, that is) that do refuse to be intimidated by radfems and useful idiots incapable of critical/independent/objective thought face a lot of harassment, public shaming and protest at their speaking engagements. Very few people, away from their keyboards, have any desire to get mixed up in the the utter chaos and insanity that so many extremists (feminist or otherwise) exude. Sane, rational people simply do not want to put up with the vocal minority's hysterics, attempted character assassinations and general shitstorm-mongering. Who can blame them?
-
As much as I tend to agree with you, your post doesn't talk about "good feminists" doing things to further gender equality for men. They neither combat man hating campaign, nor do they support campaigns that help men.
#NotAllButMost
-
Well, at least it shows that there are women who actually advocate for true equality. (And I'm refering to the author, since she actually pointed out stuff in the most neutral way possible)
So…male-only groups have to actually admit women, while women-only groups just need to accept applications and then throw them into the recycle bin without facing administrative consequences. And even got the permission to do that?!
Yeah because admitting males to female only groups would be akin to open the door of a barn full of lambs to big bad wolves. Is funny how supposed these women who claim are 'liberated' and 'empowered' call the 'weak, helpless victim' card whenever they see fit.
Gender-only groups already polarize the sexes (though there might be gender-specific groups that actually have a reason of being if their cause is related to issues pertaining one gender exclusively)
If college is teaching students how to move in the real world, I'm afraid they got it wrong when it comes to work and live with others.
yep, and now they're saying that gays are misogynistic. the plot has been lost.
