Four days ago, The Harvard Crimson published a rant by its staff writer Miss Nian Hu,
Needless to say, I don't find it existentially important to defend these male feminists for their own sake – I despise these spineless and despicable parodies of men about as much as I despise their female counterparts if not more so. However, what you can actually extract from Miss Hu's rant is primarily a snapshot of her views about the sexes and the character of the movement she considers her own. And maybe the spineless shameful opportunists could use Miss Hu's rant to figure out that their immoral strategy could ultimately be suicidal, too.
I am not urging you to waste your time with this whole worthless "essay" by an intellectually worthless author but it's obviously desirable to pick a few quotes to be sure that we know what we're discussing here:
...What these male feminists fail to realize is that, as men, they will always be oppressors...The rest is pretty much repeating the same hateful remarks. To those who say that feminism is something that should be allowed in polite society, I must say: Please, ladies and gentlemen, give me a break.
Feminism does not need men. This simple statement alone will, no doubt, spark cries of misandry and male genocide. After all, in a world that caters exclusively to men, it is revolutionary to claim a space or a movement where men are not considered integral.
On the contrary, feminism is a radical and revolutionary movement that will upheave the status quo and remove men as the monopolizers of power. In general, people don’t like to lose power, especially when they’ve had it for so long. Feminism is not supposed to be palatable to men; it is supposed to be threatening.
What's shocking is that these insane calls to liquidate men aren't just a hobby of Miss Hu – who believes that she will be able to graduate in 2018. Her page reveals that her concentration is in Government and the secondary in Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies. So she doesn't want to graduate just despite these absolutely unacceptable rants. She wants to graduate largely because of them.
Clearly, there has been no adult in the room at Harvard so far – otherwise this female would have been removed from Harvard for quite some time.
In principle, women can do most things that men can do. However, it was probably a net negative for Harvard to allow female students. There were several moments at which the feminization of the famous all-male Harvard College began. In 1872, Women's Education Association was founded outside Harvard, the 1879 "Harvard Annex" allowed women to study Harvard as appendices, the Radcliffe College was chartered in 1894, and classroom instruction was merged in 1943.
The female counterpart of this, for much time, all-male school was the Radcliffe College. Most people outside Massachusetts have never heard of it. The relative fame of Harvard and Radcliffe honestly reflected the relative importance of men and women for human activities that depend on the education and scholarship. In 1963, Radcliffe students received Harvard diplomas for the first time, a non-merger merger agreement was signed in 1977, and the unification was completed in 1999. I've already known the Radcliffe buildings merely as the home of the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study. The similarity of its name to IAS Princeton surely overstates the importance of Radcliffe.
Another video about the true face of feminism – mostly about men somewhere in the Latin America who enable feminists i.e. nude female savages to paint the men by feces and throw the urine and excrements to a cathedral that the feminists need to desecrate. I am sure that every decent enough human being – male or female – is disgusted by these feminists and agrees that any similar kind of a "war between sexes" that these loons are trying to ignite is terribly wrong.
One question is what is the average contribution that a female member of a scholarly community – that contains as many females as males – may actually contribute to the scholarship. Those who think that this number is (or ever was) close to 50% of the total scholarship are absolutely detached from reality and have abandoned the last traces of their common sense. But with a constructive approach, the efficiency of the institution would only decrease at most by a factor of two.
However, the situation may be much worse. As the video embedded above exemplifies, a wrong sub-community may make truly negative – and hugely negative – contributions to an institution such as a cathedral or a university or anything of the sort.
Let me return to Miss Hu's tirade against the male feminists. These people are ludicrous relatively to full-blown men but what Miss Hu fails to see is that these pathetic opportunists are still key for feminism, including the Nazi-style feminism preferred by Miss Hu. Men have created most of the valuable things in the history – including science, technology, culture, architecture – but they have been responsible for most of the bad things as well – which includes wars and harmful ideologies.
Whether you like this fact or not, feminism is only relevant because of the "work" done by some men, too. The feminist whining and constant and neverending claims to victimhood don't represent any actual power in isolation. A pathetic bitch who whines and claims to be oppressed all the time – even though everything she has ever achieved was purely because of affirmative action – isn't innately strong. She's only strong because some other people who actually control things, and they're overwhelmingly male, choose to pay lip service to the feminist junk.
So, dear feminists, the male feminists are pathetic but you're even more petty. You're just tiny little appendices attached to the petite penises of the male feminists. You can't make any revolution by yourself. You can at most annoy a man persistently enough so that he will prefer to turn himself into a tool that enables this inhuman ideology. But at the end, it's his decision, not yours, that matters.
When I make this comment, it's hard not to think about the Polish cult movie "The Sexmission" from the 1980s about an all-female totalitarian society that lives underground. Two males accidentally get there after a hibernation experiment takes longer than expected. There are lots of fun – and serious questions – addressed in the movie which was partly a satire about the communist regime. But one of the shocking developments is the finding that Her Excellency – the women's dictator – turns out to be male, the last male who survived a crisis. That clarification is applicable to the contemporary real-world feminism, too.
Pamela Geller chose the same title as I did in 2014. She discussed the fact that we know feminists who denounce video games but none of them would ever dare to do anything against the raping of thousands of girls in the U.K. by Muslims, among other things. This comparison shows the feminists' sickly twisted priorities or hypocrisy. But from another perspective, it also shows that they're not an actual political or physical power that would have to be considered in isolation. They can only fight very weak "enemies" – and only if these "enemies" largely allow them to do so.
Even though John Harvard is turning in his grave, the current Harvard University enables Miss Hu to perform her hateful crusade against men – and that's the main reason why she is still doing so. If at least someone who matters at Harvard had the decency, such things would stop happening almost instantly.