All Episodes
June 29, 2018 - Tim Pool Daily Show
10:40
Title IX Complaint Filed Against Gender Studies Professor

An economics professor has filed a request for a Title IX investigation into a feminist gender studies professor who wrote an op-ed titled "why can't we hate men?" in which she argues that hating men "seems logical." Mark Perry argues that she shows clear prejudice and bigotry in her op-ed and that no male should expect fair treatment under or around her in the University. Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Participants
Main voices
t
tim pool
10:37
| Copy link to current segment

Speaker Time Text
tim pool
An economics professor from the University of Michigan has filed a request for a Title IX investigation into a feminist gender studies professor over her op-ed in the Washington Post titled, Why Can't We Hate Men?
In it, she says, quote, She goes on throughout the article talking about why it does seem logical.
Title IX is a federal civil rights law that guarantees a person in an education program will not face discrimination based on their sex.
So, if you have a professor who writes that it seems logical to hate men, writing an op-ed titled, Why Can't We Hate Men?, you can only assume that she does hold prejudicial views against people based on their sex.
In which case, it is not surprising in the least to see that someone is now filing a Title IX request against this person.
This teacher is at Northeastern University.
So, how did the university respond, and is it justified to have this investigation against her for this op-ed she wrote in the Washington Post?
Before we get started, please head over to patreon.com forward slash timcast to become a patron and help support my work.
This is what I do full time, so if you really do like these videos and want to see more of these and more on the ground reporting, please consider becoming a patron at any level you feel comfortable today.
First, let's take a look at this op-ed from the Washington Post, Why Can't We Hate Men, by Susanna DeNudo-Walters.
It starts by saying, Susanna DeNudo-Walters, a professor of sociology and director of the Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies program at Northeastern University, is the editor of the gender studies journal Signs.
She starts by saying, Seen in this indisputably true context, it seems logical to
hate men.
I can't lie.
I've always had a soft spot for the radical feminist smackdown, for naming the problem in no uncertain terms.
I've rankled at the, but we don't hate men, protestations of generations of would-be feminists
and found the men are not the problem, the system is obfuscation too precious by half.
But of course the criticisms of this blanket condemnation of men, from transnational feminists
who decry such glib universalism to US women.
women of color who demand an intersectional perspective, are mostly on the mark.
These critics rightly insist on an analysis of male power as institutional, not narrowly personal or individual or biologically based in male bodies.
Growing movements to challenge a masculinity built on domination and violence and to engage boys and men in feminism are both gratifying and necessary.
Please continue.
But this recognition of the complexity of male domination should not, must not, mean we forget some universal facts.
I'm sorry.
I genuinely can't read anymore.
And I want to give this article a fair shake, but there is some phenomenon among the far left.
We saw this with the SPLC article that was smearing me.
We're seeing it with this where it's overly verbose to the point where it's extremely difficult to understand what they're actually trying to say.
Right, there is a general colloquial English that we use in this country.
Some people have larger vocabularies than others.
But sometimes you see articles like this where, and I'm not trying to be overly disrespectful to the writer of this based on how they've structured this language, but this is something that's very common.
So let's get to the actual news.
Professor demands Title IX investigation after Northeastern professor calls for hatred of men.
Mark Perry, a professor of economics and finance at University of Michigan-Flint, submitted a request earlier this month to Northeastern's Title IX Department staff in response to sociology professor Susanna Walters' Washington Post op-ed titled, In the op-ed, Walters, who is also director of Northeastern's Women's Gender and Sexual Studies program, wrote that it is logical to hate men, implying that if women do not hate men, they are not real feminists.
She also suggested that in order for men to truly help push female equality, they must vote for feminist women only.
Don't run for office.
Don't be in charge of anything.
Step away from the power.
Quote, And please know that your crocodile tears won't be wiped away by us anymore.
We have every right to hate you," she added.
In an email to Northeastern, a copy of which was obtained by The College Fix, Perry argues that Walters violated the school's own policy on equal opportunity, which prohibits discrimination or harassment on the basis of race, color, religion, religious creed, genetic information, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, national origin, ancestry, veteran, or disability status.
She has not only publicly demonized and belittled all males at Northeastern University, she called out publicly for the universal hatred of all men, including all men at your university, he wrote.
That makes Ms.
Walters a confirmed sexist and bigot in violation of Title IX and your university's own stated policies that prohibit such discrimination.
In a statement to the College Fix, Perry said, While various topics related to feminism, women's issues,
and the MeToo movement are open to demate among thoughtful people,
and while opinions on those topics span a very wide range, the extreme position of hatred towards all men espoused by
Walters crossed a certain accepted line of civility into vile hate
speech.
And that type of hate speech targeted towards an entire group
should not be tolerated on a college campus, or should at least have some sanctions,
and really should never have appeared in WAPO, in my opinion.
I'm waiting to see what happens, and I'm anxious to see how Northeastern University
reconciles a self-declared hate-mongering professor on its campus
with its commitment to an inclusive campus environment that is free from hostility towards male students and
faculty, Perry added.
Long story short, A gender studies feminist professor wrote in the Washington Post about how it seems logical to hate men.
Now, the college fic said she wrote it was logical, but she said it seems logical.
She did say, though, that we have every right to hate you.
You have done us wrong.
Hashtag because patriarchy.
It is long past time to play hard for team feminism and win.
Imagine that she wrote about a national origin, which is a protected class.
Maybe the op-ed would be titled, Why Can't We Hate Germany?
In which case, she says, Germany has done us wrong in this way and this way.
And yes, historically, Germany has done a lot of things wrong.
And they've come about and maybe are still doing things wrong in certain countries.
Everyone has a grievance with somebody else at some point.
Is that accepted?
No, it's not.
These are protected classes, and she wrote an op-ed in a major publication about how she feels she has every right to hate men.
Though I do think, obviously, everyone's going to be biased in this fight because everyone's vying for personal power, the logic is perfectly clear.
You cannot discriminate against someone based on their sex, according to Title IX.
And this is a professor who wrote an op-ed where she said it seems logical and she has every right to hate men, in which case I do believe a Title IX investigation is warranted.
This is not to say that she has actually discriminated against people, but if she's expressed hate and her justification for hate, it seems likely that no one who is Male is going to get a fair chance from her when it comes to the university, as stated by Mark Perry.
There is a problem of double standards when it comes to social justice.
There are people who believe that another group is more powerful than them, and therefore that group is not deserving of justice.
There's a reason why we have a constitution, and the Supreme Court has ruled slowly over the past several hundred years to grant more rights to more people.
It's a work in progress, and it's improving.
It could possibly improve faster.
However, regardless of your race, gender, national origin, religion, etc., you have human rights, and you are deserving of the same rights as everyone else.
And that is what the Constitution needs to guarantee.
That you have a right to due process if you're accused.
You have a right to free speech.
You have a right to confront your accuser.
In many of these Title IX investigations, people are deprived of that right.
Well, a lot of these universities are publicly funded and, in my opinion, probably should follow constitutional guidelines.
There's an argument that because it's not a governmental action and it's not a criminal court, they don't need to provide you with due process.
But I think the Constitution enshrines basic rights that we agree upon and protects you from the government.
That doesn't mean we should ignore these same rights when we're acting outside the scope of government.
We should grant everyone equal rights.
So it becomes worrying to me, no matter who you are, when you start advocating that one group is not deserving of justice, because we all know how that goes.
There are people who claim that one specific race controls all the banks, starts all the wars, and I'm not referring to a specific group of people, because there are various political factions that try to place a certain race above all others.
There are certain political factions that try to place ideologies above all others, and in doing that, All they really claim to want is to deprive the rights to that group of people because they have privilege, and this is dangerous.
Privilege exists.
It really does.
There are certain people who have more access than others, and there's, you know, growing up wealthy, there is privilege in being a dominant racial demographic in a certain country.
There are a lot of different forms of privilege.
That doesn't mean you have the right to take away someone else's rights or that someone should be deprived of their human rights and due process.
That should not be the case.
We shouldn't justify someone violating our laws simply because they're perceived to be in the underprivileged category.
And we shouldn't accept open discrimination in our news publications from professors.
In which case, I look forward to seeing what Northwestern University does, though I'm not really confident they will do anything.
This would be very interesting.
If they do take action against this professor, no doubt there will be protests, and possibly dangerous ones, because we see what happens when protesters come out on college campuses.
Often there's fire, there's vandalism, and there's destruction.
Maybe nothing will happen, maybe something will, but it's something I'll keep my eyes on.
So, let me know what you think in the comments below, and we'll keep the conversation going.
How do you feel about the idea of double standards?
How do you feel about this professor?
Would you call her a man-hater, or is that a derogatory term?
I mean, she actively wrote an article about how she is justified in hating men.
So, comment below.
We'll keep the conversation going.
You can follow me on Twitter at TimCast.
Stay tuned, new videos every day at 4pm.
Export Selection