Hello again. This is the third installment in my series (parts I and II) on the decline of feminism and you’re still hanging in there. You’re still reading every word, I guess. I’m asking because you didn’t speak to me again in the parking lot yesterday morning. When I passed, you took a sudden interest in the cracks in the sidewalk.
It reminded me of our conversation in 2004. You said my columns were too caustic, too inflammatory. But now it’s 2006 and you’re still reading them, even though they make you angry. That brings me to my next point about feminism.
9. Feminists have been angry for so long that they no longer feel comfortable being happy.
You know exactly what I’m talking about. Like the time you got mad at me for opening the door for you. You thought it was a “patriarchal” gesture. So now I just let the door slam shut in your face. I’m trying to make you happy but it — the joy, the happiness, the peace of mind – just won’t take hold.
Of course, there is a simple solution to your problem. You could just stop reading my columns, couldn’t you? Some nasty Texas woman named Molly made me mad with a column one time. So I just stopped reading her columns. Now, I can’t even remember her last name. It was Ivans the Terrible or something like that.
But, of course, you can’t stop reading my columns. You’ll run off copies and take them with you to The Vagina Monologues in early February. You’ll lace up your boots and march across the stage chanting the various names for your genitals. And while you’re there, I’ll be wearing boots, too – hunting boots, that is. I’ll be shooting quail 150 miles from here with some buddies from Charlotte. I’ll have my new Browning 20 gauge in hand.
I earned the money for the new shotgun from speeches and columns criticizing feminism. That’ll give you something to be mad about. And, of course, later I’ll offer you some free meat from the hunt. And that’ll make you mad, too. But, I promise, I won’t hold the door for you again. I know the threshold of your tolerance.
10. Feminists care more about sex than sexual harassment.
At first it was just annoying. The older feminist started asking him over to her apartment to drink wine and listen to classical music. But after he politely declined she kept trying. Just a couple of more requests and a couple of more excuses and she stopped. But that’s not the annoying part.
The year was 1994. He was an untenured professor. The juicy part of the story begins with the revelation that she was on a committee reviewing a proposal he had written. Sounds like a conflict of interest, doesn’t it? Now, let’s make the Office of Campus Diversity happy and give the players sex changes. Here goes:
A young woman is finishing her first year as a professor. She has submitted a proposal to a committee. One of the committee members approaches her with an offer to come over to his apartment. He has some wine and some classical CDs. She declines, but he asks again. If she makes him mad, she fears her proposal will get buried. What does she do?
The feminists would call the hypothetical scenario “sexual harassment.” They would call the real one a “polite invitation.” And the double standard speaks volumes about their own subconscious sexism.
But that isn’t the point of the story. The real fun began a couple of years later — around 1996 – when a professor took one of his student employees to a conference. They slept in the same hotel room and all hell broke loose (as it should have).
So committees were convened on every campus in the university system to decide how to limit improper relationships between professors and students (or student/employees in this case). And that’s where our wine-sipping, Mozart-loving friend re-enters the story.
She led the charge for a ban on relationships between employees where there was a clear conflict of interest. An employee should not be making decisions about another employee if the two are romantically involved — perhaps sipping wine and listening to CDs – she boldly proclaimed. And her very sensible argument won. It became official policy.
But then she got greedy. She pushed for an absolute ban on student/professor relationships — even where no conflict of interest was present. When it was revealed that some professors had spouses enrolled in courses, she lost. After all, it was reasoned (by non-feminists) that a business professor shouldn’t have to resign his job or divorce his wife because she decided to seek a teaching certificate in the School of Education.
If you are trying to synthesize the feminist professor’s stance on those two issues, let me offer some help. She wanted to create a policy to ensure that the male employees were more likely to have sex with her – even though she had violated the parameters of her “ideal” policy in the past.
It wasn’t about ethics. It was about sex. With feminists, it usually is. I’ll pursue that point in more detail in Part IV.