Adjunct Senior Lecturer quits over colleague’s ‘extreme feminism’

An Australian daily newspaper reports that Men’s Rights Activist (MRA) Dr. Greg Canning has resigned his post as Adjunct Senior Lecturer at James Cook University School of Medicine after he complained to the university that his colleague Dr. Betty McLellan had been “practicing the sexual vilification of men.”

According to Canning’s complaint, this was accomplished by Dr. McLellan stringing truthful words together in a coherent manner and publishing them on a radical feminist blog.  What a harmful cultural practice indeed.

Back in June of 2011, Dr. McLellan — a prominent feminist ethicist, author, psychotherapist and activist — wrote a guest post for the radical feminist group blog Radfem HUB titled “The Question on Nobody’s Lips” in which she addressed, from her perspective as a professional, an academic and an activist, the global epidemic of male violence including sexualized violence.  “The question” she addressed, and noted that not many others are addressing it besides radical feminists, was “what is it about men” that causes them to engage in extreme violence and brutality on a global scale, transcending both time and place?

Indeed, seeing as how we apparently have yet to examine the problem of egregious, global male violence closely and rigorously enough to solve it, “what is it about men” that causes them to perpetrate it does seem to be a legitimate question; intellectual honesty and the pursuit of truth apparently not being interests shared by McLellan’s colleague, he attempted to get her censured by the university for going ahead and indulging her interests anyway, without his permission.

“The fact people like this are teaching students really bothers me,”

Canning said.

Taking measures to quell his unfortunate state of being “bothered” by a woman stringing truthful words together in a coherent manner and publishing them on a radical feminist blog,

Dr Canning made an official complaint to JCU, accusing Dr McLellan through her activities and writings of breaching the university’s guidelines for ethical conduct and bringing JCU into disrepute.

JCU, however, reviewed his concerns and found there was no evidence Dr McLellan had breached the university’s code of conduct, nor brought it into dispute.

Dr Canning handed his letter of resignation into the School of Medicine last month. He said while university management did not overtly condone the sexual vilification of men, failing to even caution Dr McLellan was a “reprehensible moral and ethical shortcoming”.

Yes, in the midst of a global economic recession (privileged much?) the man quit his teaching job after the university refused to give him his way, declining to punish an esteemed academic and activist for asking a simple question and instead siding with McLellan — and happily, considering that it is an institution of learning and all, with intellectual honesty and the pursuit of truth.  And doing so no matter how much the MRAs hate it.

Whether the door struck Dr. Canning in the buttocks on his way out has not been reported.

News of this development has also been reported at Radfem HUB.


Men literally ‘front and center’ at Columbia University’s Take Back the Night

Because if men aren’t front and center, that means it’s not important.

Yesterday, the editorial board of Columbia University’s student newspaper announced that it supports the “gender-neutral approach” being implemented this year at Columbia’s annual Take Back the Night march.  Previously, the march organizers had a policy of allowing only women at the front of the march, acknowledging that women-only space for rape victims was important because of the traumatic nature of rape and the fact that almost all rapes are perpetrated by men on female victims.  TBTN organizers had previously stated that

[t]he women’s space was created to ensure that female survivors, co-survivors, and allies could participate without feeling afraid, intimidated, or triggered in a co-gendered environment.

And indeed, the editorial board of the Spectator acknowledges that this reasoning is sound:

the presence of men at the front could possibly be traumatic and be a barrier in creating a safe space for the rape survivors.

We understand the reasoning behind this approach. As TBTN’s recent press release stated, a significantly higher percentage of perpetrators of sexual assault are male. Having women at the front of the march can be a visual symbol for rape’s gendered status. Moreover, while we cannot claim to fully grasp the psychology of rape, we understand that the trauma of some female rape survivors with male perpetrators—who constitute the majority of rape victims—can lead them to feeling threatened and emotionally unsafe in the presence of men.

Could they be more patronizing at the end there?  I don’t think so.  As academented, overly educated babies, none of which have apparently been raped themselves, they cannot fully grasp the psychology of rape — psychology is important, you see.  As a patriarchal, pseudo-medical academic field, psychology is key to our understanding of the world, and key to our understanding of rape — not listening to rape survivors, who say that having men at the front of the march is triggering and intimidating.  The editorial board at the Spectator might easily avail themselves of some learning on the issue however, if they wanted to, being at a major university and all.  Lots of books there, although who knows what those books would actually say.  About the psychology.  Of rape.

And while the editorial board of the Spectator understand why female rape victims might feel threatened and emotionally unsafe in the presence of men, they simply don’t care.


Because gender.  Yes!  The editorial board at the Spectator apparently cannot tell the difference between sex and gender:

sexual assault is not just a women’s issue. Gender identity does not define who rapes or is raped. Men can be rape survivors, women can be perpetrators—and wherever oppression exists, sexual or otherwise, it is everyone’s issue. Having men at the front of the march can help illustrate that this issue transcends gender. Additionally, when some of the students who will be a valuable part of the march identify as transgender or reject gender identifications, it can become problematic to enforce a rule among gender lines. A gender-neutral approach is the only way for the march to be all-inclusive. By including more than just women at the front, TBTN is showing the many faces of rape survivors and allies in the community. As a show of inclusivity and solidarity, it can only strengthen the cause.

Rape is an issue that transcends gender alright: trans men are in danger of being raped and impregnated by men, and this is due entirely to their sex — they are female — and nothing to do with their gender at all.  So opening up the front of the march to all FAABs including trans men would indeed show that rape transcends gender — but of course, this is not what the Columbia Spectator or the organizers of this year’s TBTN have in mind.

No, the Columbia Spectator and the organizers of TBTN are trying to tell us that rape — and specifically stranger rape —  transcends sex, but of course that is not true.  In fact, TBTN was specifically created to address the problem of male-on-female stranger rape, and women’s reasonable fear of that, where women were and are not free to walk the streets at night without fearing for their safety and their lives.

From the TBTN history page:

Why Take Back the Night?

A woman walks alone down a dark, deserted street. With every shadow she sees, and every sound she hears, her pounding heart flutters and skips a beat. She hurries her pace as she sees her destination become closer. She is almost there. She reaches the front door, goes inside, collects herself, and moves on forgetting, at least for tonight, the gripping fear that momentarily enveloped her life. This scene could have occurred anywhere last night, last year, or even 100 years ago. Historically, women faced the anxiety of walking alone at night and that is why Take Back the Night began.

That is the history of TBTN.  TBTN was never meant to address the problem of “unwanted sex” as such, it was specifically designed to combat rape, that overtly political, interpersonal, biological and social oppression that male-bodied persons routinely visit on female-bodied persons cross-culturally and around the globe.  Rape, where the victim often feels — and is given every reason in the world to believe — that she will be killed after her rapist penetrates her with his penis and ejaculates into her vagina.  That she will never see her family again.  That her children will be left without a mother, because she was raped and murdered by a man.

And where female rape victims are left to agonize for weeks — if they survive — whether they have been impregnated against their wills; and where they must live with the knowing that it could happen again.  Because women are members of the rapeable class, and being raped once does not mean that it won’t happen again, and again, and again.

Men never have to deal with these consequences in their own lives, no matter what has happened to them, or who did it and why.  No.  These are the realities of rape, for female-bodied persons.  And men deliver these consequences onto women by raping us.

Placing men and men’s concerns literally front and center at TBTN is ahistorical, acontextual, and the organizers know it will be damaging to women — and the editorial board of the Spectator and the organizers of this year’s TBTN are demonstrating that they do not care.  That it will be damaging to women alone should be reason enough to not do it, but the truth is that there are other options that are apparently not even being explored; damaging women and disrupting women-only space is the first resort here, when it could be made the last resort — it could, if anyone cared even that much.  But they don’t.

Whoever believes there is a need, could encourage male crime victims to start their own movement, instead of leaching off of the women who started and continued TBTN for themselves and for other women because men can’t seem to stop raping us.  Let male victims start their own movement if it’s so important to them: let them amass their numbers in public and demand the kinds of change they want and need.

But do not let men — overwhelmingly the perpetrators of rape against both male and female victims — march in the front of, or take over, Take Back the Night.  And definitely don’t do it because gender.  That argument simply and obviously doesn’t hold any water at all.

Rape does not transcend sex.  Rape is the use of sex and its attendant reproductive consequences as a tool of political oppression by men against women.  Putting men literally front and center at this year’s TBTN is wrong.

Coverage of One Goh Murders Invisibilizes Male Violence Against Females – Again

How many women does a man have to kill to “target” them?  It seems the answer is “more than six.”

In early April, news outlets reported that One Goh, a former student at Oikos University, a small Christian college near Oakland, California, killed seven “people” at the school, which recently expelled him.

Early reports indicated that Goh walked into the single-story building housing the university, took a (female) receptionist hostage and went looking for a particular (female) administrator.  When Goh could not find his (female) target, Goh took the (female) receptionist  into a classroom, shot her  and ordered the (mostly female) students to line up against the wall, where he executed them.

Of those killed, six were women, but Oakland Police Chief Howard Jordan said “investigators do not know whether Goh was targeting women.”

So, Goh went to the school to look for a female administrator, and then shot six females, but the police do not know whether Goh targeted women? And the media accepts this?

Days after the murders, another news outlet addressed the “targeting of women” by Goh. That report noted that Goh, fueled by anger at the school and a particular (female) official, may have killed six females as proxy victims for the intended (female) target.  Countering the meme put forth by the MSM immediately after the killings that Goh murdered six women because of teasing over his poor English, Oikos nursing professor Romie John Delariman reported that Goh spoke perfect English but “had a problem working with females.”

“He can’t stand women,” Delariman told the Associated Press . “He said he never used to work with women, or deal with women in a work setting or a school setting.”  The husband of one of the victims confirmed that his wife feared Goh and predicted that Goh would do something like go on a murderous rampage – against females.

Hey, this looks like Goh targeted his victims based on sex.

We already know that males commit most violent crimes, with males committing 87% of all homicides. With rampage killings in particular, might it be helpful to know what motivates rampage killers? Say, in order to PREVENT it?

MSM’s failure to name the problem of male violence against females is not new.  A 2000 New York Times account of rampage killers noted that although “rampage killers were overwhelmingly male,” the presence of six females out of 102 cases examined led the Time to conclude that mental illness, not male violence, was the “problem.”  The Times study also did not bother to examine the sex of the four hundred twenty-five people killed and 510 people injured in these 102 cases, thus further avoiding the question of male violence against females in rampage killings in particular.  Another article that catalogs the “top” rampage killers suggests rather obliquely suggests that “problems with women” may have motivated some of the (male) killers, including Luby’s restaurant killer George Hennard and Virginia Tech killer Cho Seung-hui.

Another notorious rampage killer – George Sodini – killed three women in an aerobics class in 2009 and even stated that he had “(n)o sex since July 1990,” but, apparently, that was proof of intent to murder based on class warfare, not hatred of females (or male entitlement to female bodies backed up with the threat of male violence).  Apparently, the only time the MSM will allow that a male targets females is when the killer himself indicates that motivation, as seen in the Montréal Massacre of 1989.  In that rampage, an anti-feminist, female-hating man murdered 14 women at the École Polytechnique after telling them “you’re women, you’re going to be engineers. You’re all a bunch of feminists. I hate feminists.”

And in a post-secondary setting, where there are often more female students enrolled than male, it would seem reasonable to ask in every case whether targeting of specifically female victims was the intent, and an analogy made between “school shootings” in a university setting and a white man going into a predominantly black establishment and shooting the place up.  In the latter case, the discriminatory overtones would be easily recognizable — but in the case of university shootings, which are often predominantly female establishments, apparently, not so much.

See this chart demonstrating the “gender gap” in post-secondary enrollment in California showing that as of 2004, female enrollment outshines male, sometimes drastically so (depending on other factors such as ethnicity).  And Okios University specifically appears to have been well-known for its troubled nursing program, as well as offering degrees in Music, Theology and Asian Medicine.  Shooter One Goh himself had been enrolled in the nursing program before he dropped out (or was expelled) — a man with known “problems with women” who left the school perhaps feeling humiliated over his failure, while other (female?) students continued with their educations.

Were the students at Okios University predominantly female?  Was the nursing program in particular dominated by female students?  These are questions that immediately arise, yet statistics on enrollment by sex at Okios University following this mass woman-murder are not forthcoming, and a quick internet search does not reveal them.  Why not?

Six women shot dead in a university setting.  Male former nursing student did it.  Nursing program.  Nursing program.  Questions linger, and so far have yet to be satisfactorily addressed, but this is always the case when women are gunned down by men, including by men who are known to hate women and where only or predominantly women are targeted, or where the violence occurs at a predominantly female or female-only space.

The first question reporters should ask when they hear “he’s got a gun” is “how many women did he kill?,” “was it a female-only or female-dominated space?” and “how were his ‘issues with women’ manifesting before he targeted them for violence?”

Memorial service for victims from Okios University’s website.

Limbaugh implies that recreational PIV is unnecessary and consumerist; liberal and corporate America respond

Rush Limbaugh’s crass misogyny and sexist name-calling against female law student Sandra Fluke for her pro-contraceptive activism has caused some 19 corporate sponsors to fall back, reports the Christian Science Monitor.  Last week, Limbaugh called the 30-year old woman a “slut” and a “prostitute” after she testified before Congress that her school’s health plan should cover contraception.  (Transcript here).

A known woman-hating misogynist, facing consequences for his woman-hating misogyny?  Really?

Call me a cynic, but something just doesn’t smell right, where Limbaugh has been a woman-hating asshole for decades, spewing misogyny and direct attacks against women and feminists for as long as he’s been on the air.  If Limbaugh has finally crossed some kind of line, I have a couple of questions about that.  Like, what line?  And, huh?

From the CSM article:

Limbaugh got the controversy started last Wednesday when he impugned Georgetown University’s Sandra Fluke on the air, calling her a “slut” and a “prostitute” after she appeared before a congressional committee arguing that her school’s health coverage should include birth control. Limbaugh later in the week insisted that the public should have access to video of her sexual encounters in exchange for the alleged funding of her birth control.

The comments struck many as extraordinarily crass, even for Limbaugh, who frequently makes derisive ad hominem attacks against those he disagrees with. A boycott movement quickly took root, spreading across online communities on sites like Reddit and Facebook, and the strong reaction against Limbaugh inspired seven sponsors to pull ads.

Carbonite CEO David Friend wrote on his company’s blog: “No one with daughters the age of Sandra Fluke, and I have two, could possibly abide the insult and abuse heaped upon this courageous and well-intentioned young lady. Mr. Limbaugh, with his highly personal attacks on Ms. Fluke, overstepped any reasonable bounds of decency. Even though Mr. Limbaugh has now issued an apology, we have nonetheless decided to withdraw our advertising from his show.”

Extraordinarily crass?  Maybe, but not only has Limbaugh always been crass, he’s also been constantly outdoing himself for years.

There is plenty of reporting out there right now, outlining the attributes of online feminist activating, and making parallels between the Limbaugh boycott, the Komen/Planned Parenthood debacle, and even Slutwalk.  People are saying hopeful and generally positive things about feminists coming together and utilizing social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter to get their message across, and quickly, and that they are getting results.  (In the case of the alleged “results” of Slutwalk, a couple of footnotes would be nice?  Komen reversing its idiotic decision to de-fund breast cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood, on the other hand, is well-documented).

Luckily, there’s no need to repeat any of that here, so I won’t.

But what I would suggest is happening here, perhaps in addition to the other stuff being reported elsewhere, (successful reformism?) is that somewhere along the road in his misogynistic rant, Limbaugh has communicated that recreational PIV is unnecessary, thereby challenging the sexual entitlement of liberal men.  And it’s predictable that there would be some blowback from that, and this is in fact what we are seeing.

Specifically, Limbaugh has challenged liberal men’s entitlement to unrestrained sexual access to empowerfulized liberal women — women who are willing to acquiesce to liberal men’s brand of rape-culture, which requires sexual access to all females, all the time, so long as liberal women have ready access to contraception and abortion.  And (and!) so long as liberal women don’t feel so shitty about experiencing unwanted pregnancies, and using these services, that they refuse to have recreational PIV at all.

And Limbaugh’s attempted slut-shaming, like all slut-shaming, has potentially affected both.

And from women’s perspective, they are rightly enraged, but about what exactly?  Surely it’s not that one woman — even a woman similarly-situated to themselves — being called a “slut” by some misogynistic blowhard that obviously hates all women as a sexual class, and supports male supremacy with every breath, stings, even though it does sting.  How many times does that happen every day?

It’s that liberal women in particular have literally everything to lose if their access to contraception and abortion is denied, or made more difficult: if contraception and abortion were suddenly (more) difficult to come by, would their good-guy liberal men agree to keep their dicks in their pants out of care and concern for liberal women’s health and wellbeing?  Of course they wouldn’t.

And liberal women are going to be rightly pissed when someone — anyone — calls attention to the ugly details of the sexual deal they have struck with liberal men, perhaps especially when it’s done without acknowledging the big picture, or when unfairly calling women “prostitutes” when the same thing could just as easily be said about men who engage in recreational PIV, an activity with obvious financial consequences, where someone (usually the woman!) is footing the bill.  The fact that recreational PIV is unnecessary, is one of those details perhaps better left in the fine print.

Hilariously, in addition to shitting on all women and tweaking liberal men’s sexual entitlement, Limbaugh has probably also pissed off corporate America by suggesting that PIV for pleasure’s sake — you know, the kind that requires the purchase of products, devices and procedures to stave off unwanted reproductive consequences — is consumerist, and wasteful “luxury spending”.

Is corporate America going to stand for Rush Limbaugh blowing the lid off of this or any consumerist racket?  Doubtful; he may as well have told his listeners that they shouldn’t be spending money on dumb trinkets to make themselves feel better, when spending money itself is so stressful and creates financial and emotional insecurity.  Corporate America hates that in general, as it is antithetical to its own interests, and at obvious odds with the idea of corporate media sponsorship; media figures are supposed to be pushing consumerism, not deriding it.  Even if that seems like a reach, and it may well be, are we really supposed to believe that corporate sponsors are that offended by this instance of Limbaugh’s misogyny, and that it has anything to do with some of these corporate bigwigs having daughters about Sandra Fluke’s age?  Like that’s not a reach?  Please.

And for what it’s worth, I actually think that Obama calling attention to Jessica Simpson’s weight gain in order to bond with fellow liberal doodbro Matt Lauer was worse than what Limbaugh said about Sandra Fluke.  I saw that one live, baby, and it was obscene, and heartbreaking…but these things are a dime a dozen, and offense is at least partly subjective.  Examples of misogynistic, political footballing with women’s lives abound, so what, objectively, makes this latest thing with Limbaugh SO MUCH WORSE than anything else, or even worse than something that happened that day, or any day?

In short, call me crazy, or just plain wrong if you want, but if Rush goes down over this, and he well might, it probably won’t be because he is a misogynistic blowhard who hates women, (but surely uses them himself, sexually and in every other way) and supports male supremacy with every breath.  And it won’t be because he crossed some kind of unacceptable woman-hating threshold, because that line simply does not exist, and we see evidence of that every day.  So *either* there is a line, *or* it has to be something else.  And so far, there is simply no evidence that I can see of the existence of a line in the sand, when it comes to misogyny and woman-hatred in the media.

Rush potentially going down because he tweaked liberal men’s sexual entitlement, or failed to properly sell consumerism on behalf of his corporate sponsors, makes much more sense than the suggestion that he is going down because he is a misogynist, and because he deserves it for the way he treated Sandra Fluke, or any woman, or all women, Facebook and Twitter campaigns notwithstanding.  That just doesn’t make any kind of rational sense at all.

UPDATE:  @thinkprogress tweets that the dropped-sponsor count now stands at 43.  See also @StopRush.

CNN contributor names the agent: males reponsible for school shootings

Today, one Dr. Frank Ochberg, Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at Michigan State University and former Associate Director of the National Institute of Mental Health, reports for CNN that boys and men are responsible for almost all school shootings, consistently, around the world.

For some reason, Dr. Ochberg explores several possible reasons for all this violence, focusing on American schools and trying to figure out why it’s apparently unusually difficult for American boys and men to go to school without opening fire and killing people, but ultimately concludes that each one of these alleged “factors” is irrelevant, wasting the readers’ time in the process and leaving us seriously wanting.  What is the point of positing irrelevant “factors” and wasting precious words and punctuation — and space — exploring the irrelevant?  This is a serious question, as there is most certainly a point to it.  There is always, always a point.

For example, he asks himself, “Self?  Are detection of warning signs, bullying and revenge fantasies, major mental illness, violent role models, drug culture, and extremism responsible for all this despicable male violence?”

And he answers “no” every time.

In the section exploring how mental illness is irrelevant, he names the agent of harm in these violent rampages — in a parenthetical — as follows:

[…]But America is really no worse than other nations when it comes to the numbers of seriously mentally ill, of violently mentally ill, of insufficiently treated violent mentally ill school-age boys. (Yes, we are talking about boys and young men; by far, they are the school shooters).

Okay!  Yes, indeed we are talking almost exclusively about boys and men.  But what he really wants to know, apparently, is not why boys and men around the world are going on violent, bloody rampages, in schools, with guns; he wants to know why American boys and men are doing this more than non-American boys and men.

After wasting lines and lines of prose exploring what’s not relevant, at the very end, he concludes that the availability of guns is the problem, and is why there are so many more deadly school shootings in America than anywhere else in the world.  (Drug-culture, to the extent that it overlaps with gun-culture, plays an indirect part only).

From the article:

Access to guns is a significant factor in American school shootings. If kids could not and did not bring guns to school, we wouldn’t have Columbine, Virginia Tech or Chardon, Ohio. There have been crimes with knives and bats and fists. But school shootings are gun crimes. Kids with guns kill kids at school.

I do not think America is an extremist nation, compared to other nations with bloody histories and despotic leaders. True, we have polarized political speech, and some of that speech is about access to guns. But the reason we have an American school shooting problem that exceeds other nations has to do with access to loaded weapons by kids who should not have that access.

I’m not offering a gun control solution. But any serious attempt to prevent school shooting will have to attack the problem by determining who should not be armed, and preventing dangerous boys from bringing guns to school.

Oh dear!  He slips into gender-neutral language there in the beginning, saying “kids” a bunch of times, but corrects himself at the end.  It’s not “kids” doing this.  It’s men, and male-bodied children.

Without exactly coming out and saying it, this expert’s bottom line deals a devastating blow to male- and male-violence apologists, and appears to be this: American boys and men kill people with guns, because they can.

Now, because he is making a comparison here, while he is asking why American rates of school shootings are relatively high, he is also implicitly asking why non-American rates of school-shootings are comparatively low.  And again, while he doesn’t come right out and say it, he may also be implying that the only reason non-American boys and men don’t shoot up their schools MOAR, is because — and is only to the extent that — someone had the foresight to make guns hard(er) for them to get.

And that Americans, to date, haven’t made guns harder for boys and men to get, even though it’s completely foreseeable that boys and men globally, and in America, do and will continue to use guns to hurt and kill people.  And that, the world over, boys and men do this, and will continue to do it because — and to whatever extent — they can.

And that this is a shared experience among men, cross-culturally.  And…there’s probably a reason for that.

It’s buried beneath a lot of nonsense, but *that* appears to be the crux of this article.  An indictment of men, globally, who, with numerous other factors being equal, will use guns to hurt and kill people, to whatever extent they can.  Not exactly a ringing endorsement for boys and men around the world, is it?