“Feminists” Destroy University’s Philosophy Department Because Gender Equity Or Something
As our loyal readers know, ‘Puter’s earned an artium baccalaureus degree in Philosophy. ‘Puter loved learning philosophy, turning over complex ideas that have confounded humans for ages. Is God falsifiable? How (and why) do we think? What is knowledge? From Plato to Aristotle to Augustine to Aquinas to Hume to Hegel to Kant to Derrida, ‘Puter’s enjoyed his own search for truth through poring over others’ work.
‘Puter’s grounding in philosophy has served him well in life, as well as in his legal career. Philosophy’s focus on logic and reason, as well as forcing students to think, analyze and argue using different systems, may be the best course of study for anyone considering studying law.
Man, does ‘Puter love philosophy. And so too, apparently, do many other men, since men comprise a large majority of undergraduate majors and 80% of professors. So, of course, “feminists” have swooped in to ensure equality within the discipline by destroying it.
At the University of Colorado Boulder (of course), feminists have set out to “other” the male dominated philosophy department through a smear campaign smacking of McCarthyism. Here’s guest blogger Charlotte Allen’s account on the L.A. Times website.
Let’s take a quick gander, shall we?
College philosophy departments have been under attack from feminists for years. Philosophy is one of the few humanities fields left in which men actually outnumber women. At the University of Georgia, for example, only 33% of undergraduate philosophy majors are women, according to a National Public Radio report. Nationwide, only 20% of philosophy professors are women.
Feminist philosophy professors don’t like that, even though a study at Georgia State University found that female students who took an introductory philosophy course simply deemed “the course less enjoyable and the material less interesting and relevant to their lives than male students.”
Philosophy is the most abstract of all the humanities disciplines, and it’s likely that it appeals more to men, with their generally greater facility for abstract, math-like reasoning, whereas women’s brains seem more strongly adapted to social skills and memory.
Feminist philosophers are having none of that, however. They’ve insisted that their profession is institutionally biased against women. They’ve urged such supposedly corrective measures as shunning professional conferences whose panels don’t include female speakers and discontinuing the philosophy “smoker,” a traditional part of the faculty hiring process in which job candidates and professors have discussions over drinks — an institution that feminists claim encourages suspicious male bonding (feminist philosophers don’t seem to like booze).
Got it? Women generally don’t enjoy philosophy because they’re not wired to enjoy it. Rather than accept biological reality and permit men and women to enjoy different fields of study to which they naturally gravitate, Boulder’s Greek chorus of bitchy broads decided that philosophy must change to accommodate women rather than women changing to accommodate philosophy.
A “women’s committee” composed seemingly of vengeful, humorless harridans alleged in a report (conveniently never made public) that the philosophy department created a hostile environment for women by, of all things, socializing with graduate students, male and female, while alcohol was present. The report alleges there had been instances of “excessive drinking.” Further, professors are alleged to have ogled female undergraduate students.
‘Puter doesn’t know what college is like today, but when he attended college in the late 1980s, nearly everyone drank at least three days of each week. Many students, ‘Puter included, drank to excess more frequently than they ought have.* It was not unusual in ‘Puter’s philosophy department to have beers with your professors on Friday afternoons, or to go to their homes for a meal where alcohol was served. ‘Puter learned more about philosophy and life in these encounters with his professors than in many courses he took.
And when ‘Puter was in college, some professors – male and female – not only ogled their students but actually had sex with them.** In ‘Puter’s day, his fellow female students rarely wore anything more revealing than jeans and a baggy sweater or sweatshirt, as was the fashion then. Today’s high school students routinely wear clothing that would’ve made a hooker blush in the late 1980s. ‘Puter can only imagine how revealing women undergrads dress these days.
Of course men are going to look at women wearing skin tight leggings, revealing tops and little or no undergarments. It’s the way we’re wired. Hell, ‘Puter gets self conscious when he visits his wife at the high school where she teaches. He’s adopted a “head down, eyes forward” approach to walking through the halls. It can be the dead of Upstate winter, 15 degrees and snowing sideways, and the young ladies are wearing booty shorts, clingy see-through tank tops and little else. It’s like unwittingly walking into an unmarked strip joint. Lord only knows how the male teachers survive the day.
Look, sexual harassment is sexual harassment, and if professors engaged in it, they should be punished. But it doesn’t appear there was any sexual harassment here, just overblown allegations of usual college behavior in which all participants were willing and none were harmed.
The real motive behind the “women’s committee’s” attack is to destroy a good and valuable discipline by removing everything that makes it great (mathematical logic and reasoning, which women (generally) hate) in the name of furthering women’s equality. In other words, feminists are going to destroy the philosophy department in order to save it.
‘Puter imagines University of Colorado Boulder’s administration will cave to the bitter feminist harpies’ demands, dumbing down course offerings and adding bullshit touchy-feely courses so women don’t feel uncomfortable. Look for offerings such as “Transgendered Lesbian Philosophers of Color” taught by sociology professors who are dumber than a bag of hammers or “The Philosophical Origins of Feminist Snuff Porn” taught by an exotic dancer and part-time blogger from town. Maybe they’ll even teach “It’s Not How You Think, It’s What You Think, And I’ll Tell You What To Think.” At least that would be refreshingly honest.
Gone will be offerings such as “Symbolic Logic,” “Seminar: Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason,” and “Medieval Philosophy’s 3 As: Augustine, Anselm and Aquinas.” Those are not affirming enough of women’s greatness. After all, they’re all dead white guys, not to mention intellectually demanding. The destruction of Western civilization’s great academies and American minds will continue apace.
That’s the real takeaway from ‘Puter’s ramblings on philosophy, college, drinking and sex. Liberals generally and “feminists” specifically will destroy any institution or structure they cannot control, even if so doing leaves liberals (and the world) worse off.
And a world without philosophy is a bleak world indeed.
* If medical advice is never to drink to excess, ‘Puter exceeded that recommended limit approximately eleventy gajillion times.
** In one particularly notorious episode at ‘Puter’s college, a Jesuit priest and English professor was caught having sex with a male student who was currently in that professor’s class. The professor was widely known to have engaged in this sort of noncompliant with the priesthood behavior for years, this just happened to be the time he was caught in flagrante delicto by someone who went public. The professor never seemed to have been disciplined, though he did leave the priesthood shortly after the incident.
Always right, unless he isn’t, the infallible Ghettoputer F. X. Gormogons claims to be an in-law of the Volgi, although no one really believes this.
’Puter carefully follows economic and financial trends, legal affairs, and serves as the Gormogons’ financial and legal advisor. He successfully defended us against a lawsuit from a liquor distributor worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid deliveries of bootleg shandies.
The Geep has an IQ so high it is untestable and attempts to measure it have resulted in dangerously unstable results as well as injuries to researchers. Coincidentally, he publishes intelligence tests as a side gig.
His sarcasm is so highly developed it borders on the psychic, and he is often able to insult a person even before meeting them. ’Puter enjoys hunting small game with 000 slugs and punt guns, correcting homilies in real time at Mass, and undermining unions. ’Puter likes to wear a hockey mask and carry an axe into public campgrounds, where he bursts into people’s tents and screams. As you might expect, he has been shot several times but remains completely undeterred.
He assures us that his obsessive fawning over news stories involving women teachers sleeping with young students is not Freudian in any way, although he admits something similar once happened to him. Uniquely, ’Puter is unable to speak, read, or write Russian, but he is able to sing it fluently.
Geep joined the order in the mid-1980s. He arrived at the Castle door with dozens of steamer trunks and an inarticulate hissing creature of astonishingly low intelligence he calls “Sleestak.” Ghettoputer appears to make his wishes known to Sleestak, although no one is sure whether this is the result of complex sign language, expert body posture reading, or simply beating Sleestak with a rubber mallet.
‘Puter suggests the Czar suck it.