Coffee House

Yale students have exercised their right to be treated like children

9 November 2015

3:01 PM

9 November 2015

3:01 PM

Shrieking girl. There it is. I’ve been trying to think of a less gendered, less belittling phrase for the subject of a video that went viral this weekend, a black female student at my alma mater, Yale University, letting rip her frustrations at a mobbed college master. But shrieking she is, and not like an adult. ‘It is not about creating an intellectual space! It is not! Do you understand that? It’s about creating a home here!’ (that’s one of the less expletive-laden sections). The trigger for this was Halloween, the subject at hand the question of who gets to judge potentially offensive costumes, and how. But how did we get to the point where students are brought to tears at the suggestion a leading university ‘should be an intellectual space’?

You can’t understand Yale today without understanding the Black Lives Matter movement. New Haven, one of the north’s poorest, densely African-American cities, spreads around a single island of privilege, Yale University. Last December, while I was back on campus to research my PhD, America learned that no officer would face charges in the death of Eric Garner, the black man killed in New York during an arrest for selling tax-free cigarettes (a libertarian cause if ever there was one). So each night I listened to angry protests spill out onto the streets – angry, but essentially peaceful. During trips to nearby New York, I hovered with the other awkward white liberals on the fringes of the perma-protest encamped at Grand Central Station, unwilling to walk past without a thumbs up or a few limp handclaps of support, but not sure if we were wanted in an African-American space and really quite keen to get on with our shopping.

This matters at Yale, perhaps more than any other Ivy League college. Europeans have always visited America and come back in shock at the implicit racial segregation visible on every street. (Americans, on the other hand, can never quite believe that Britain’s problems look different). But I’d never felt it in my marrow until I lived in New Haven. For the first time, I lived in a city where every single person on the margins was black, each one so much easier for the average white student to dismiss due to the darkness of their skin. For the first time I heard, with sudden realisation, a protestor declare: ‘we came to this country in chains, and they complain we don’t love America.’ No wonder Ta-Nehisi Coates’ bleakly pessimistic book Between the World and Me has taken America by storm this year  – Coates’ vision of slavery as the original American sin undermines the myth of the great American melting-pot, the beacon for enthusiastic immigrants. Not everyone’s ancestors wanted to be here.

So, what does any of this have to do with Stepford Students weeping over offensive Halloween costumes on campus? Or in this case, weeping over the possibility of offensive Halloween costumes on campus. Or, to be even more specific, weeping over the detailed and careful suggestion, by the wife of a college master, that the wearers of offensive costumes should be confronted in discussion by other students, rather than banned by college authorities?

Because like every cultural crisis, there are two competing narratives for what’s going on at Yale this week, sprung at the intersection of two different political fault-lines. The first is that today’s students can’t cope with the world as adults, and remain on a rampage to censor the last vestiges of independent thought. The second is that Yale is a bastion of American racism, and the next frontier of the Black Lives Matter movement.

But what actually happened? Shortly before Halloween, a bureaucratic body, The Intercultural Affairs Council, sent out an email signed by several official Yale apparatchiks, listing in detail, type of costumes people might find offensive. In response to complaints, Erika Christakis, the new Associate Master of one of Yale’s residential colleges, sent out a two-page, thoughtful email drawing immediately from her academic work as a child psychologist, in which she suggested that Halloween should be a time for young people to break the rules a little. Her email considers questions of cultural appropriation and costuming from every angle, and is worth reading in full here, but sums up by suggesting that it should be students, not committees who start discussions about costumes which offend them. As an official, Christakis writes, ‘I don’t actually trust myself to foist my Halloweenish standards and motives on others.’ Welcome liberality from any university functionary. Yet Yale’s progressive brigade are now gunning for her resignation.

I never thought I’d be defending American Halloween traditions at all. When I was young, my mother banned us from celebrating a ghost-day on Protestant grounds – and what’s fun about a feast that seems based on extortion? (‘Trick or treat? Kinder Egg in our basket or broken egg on your door?’) So when I arrived at Yale, a lost, cold foreigner recovering from a nervous breakdown at Oxford, I found the entire concept of a university-sponsored Halloween culturally alien – some might say, offensive.

But in a new community, you muck in, and pretty soon I discovered a carnival so far divorced from ghoulish paganism as to have abandoned it entirely. Instead, emerging from the Mexican Día de Muertos, and the 1970s drag fests of San Fransisco, adult Halloween became a Latin-style Mardi Gras, a day when any thing goes. It seemed the only day in the year when the pains and pressures of late adolescence were abandoned in favour of something like community: in my second year, deep in nasty student politics, a bunch of us at each other’s throats suddenly dropped the malice and banded together as a beaming Henry VIII and his six wives. (Five years after graduation, Henry and Kathryn Howard are happily expecting their second child). Who ever heard of a carnivale with rules?

It’s this spirit of Halloween – and with it, the balance between adulthood and childhood – that Christakis defends in her email, as she has consistently done in her previous writing. She’s doing exactly what an academic is supposed to do – drawing from her immediate research to inform university debate. ‘Pretend-play is the foundation of most imaginative tasks,’ she writes – in other words, our culture may be obsessed with authentic identity, but dressing-up still requires us to try out false identities instead.

That’s not to say that everything I encountered at Halloween was comfortable, though there are already university directives for dealing with clear-cut racial mockery, like blackface. But it was complicated: take my fellow international student, a black man from Africa, who dressed as a tribal demon from his homeland, only to be confronted by African Americans for looking too much like a racial stereotype.  Or drag: the Halloween drag of straight frat boys was mincing misogyny on display; the carefree, joyous cross-dress of queer students experimenting was a liberal celebration. Do we ban both?

There’s a deep irony in any student asking a university to censor them more, not less. These are students who crib Foucalt between classes, when they actually go to them (one student wrote that in response to Christakis’ email, ‘friends are not going to class, are not doing their homework, are losing sleep, are skipping meals, and are having breakdowns.’) But have they never discussed the institutionalisation of power?

The truth is that Yale has always encouraged students to talk back. In Britain, the student who screeched ‘F-you’ to a professor would be suspended: here, she’ll probably end up on a senior committee. It was this licensed rebelliousness that I loved when I first arrived, a refugee from stuffy, hierarchical Oxford. They really didn’t know how good they had it. At Oxford, it was hard to find a tutor who gave a toss for guidelines on sexual harassment – but at Yale, members of the Women’s Centre, with its safe rooms and empowerment seminars all funded by the university, felt strong enough to sue… the university, alleging that Yale failed to deal adequately with sexual harassment complaints. It is a liberalism to be celebrated, but a liberalism dependent on a lot of money. And a liberalism that reaches stalemate when students ask, according to their rights as adults, to be infantilised, again, like the masochist who demands to be beaten. I used to think Yale was the great example to which all British universities should look. Now, I’m not so sure.

Show comments
  • DJEB

    “I used to think Yale was the great example to which all British universities should look. Now, I’m not so sure.”

    I’m sure it shouldn’t.

  • Vanitas

    This is what you get for importing millions of non-Whites from the third world in the delusional assumption that all races are the same.

  • Shane Devries

    These students are immature and have no place at a university if they are triggered and offended by halloween costumes. Shrieking girl is not at a ‘home’ she is at a university and the sooner she and the other students realise this the better. If they cannot cope with being offended by halloween costumes they will no doubt be triggered by Shakespeare, poetry, rape/murder law and provocative art. How can they be productive and useful contributors to society if they are emotionally paralysed by things that ‘offend’ and demand others give in to their sense of entitlement. Calling for their teachers to resign after they defended the students right to free expression? These students should be ashamed of their behaviour!

  • TeaParty1776

    Ayn Rand discussed this in “Cashing In: Student Rebellion.”

  • Eric Zombrow

    This is what complete and total injection of your the best, everyone gets a ribbon, and no one should have hurt feelings gets you.
    This walking shrieking “student” and I use that term loosely is going to never really be happy in her lifep. Because in a nation where free speech is supposed to exist, there will always be speech that completely offends people like this poor victim, emotional moron.
    And the Doctor is correct, Halloween is about letting go a little and digressing. What is wrong with dressing up for a party or going out with your kids in costume. Why on Earth is everyone offended by everything and anything.
    This girl will be praised and the Teacher and his wife fired. Its sad really sad, and Yale looks even more cowardly if they cave to these bully tactics, like Mizzou.

  • RIconservative

    This is the obvious result of years of Liberalism. The Modern Liberal is the 21st century Book-Burner. By claiming a non-existent right to not be offended in any way, ever, Liberals are able to silence any opinion that is not consistent with the one sided, completely liberal opinions they and their friends have been sharing since grade school. Trigger, micro-aggression, safe space, are all term used to protect the modern liberal from having to hear or see anything that makes them think about an issue, rather than simply know that they are 100% correct in their radical belief.

    U.S campuses, in fact U.S. grade schools need to stop this trend of teaching children to be little hothouse flowers who wilt at an angry word. Rather than concentrating solely on superficial diversity, they need real diversity. Diversity of thoughts and ideas. If not we will have campuses with massive bon-fired of Ayn Rand books, and millionaire children who believe that they are oppressed. Oh wait, we already have that.

  • 1Gandydancer

    “In Britain, the student who screeched ‘F-you’ to a professor would be suspended: here, she’ll probably end up on a senior committee. It was this licensed rebelliousness that I loved when I first arrived…”

    Then you were an idiot.

  • ThomasER916

    Whites need to ask themselves: Why do Whites need non-Whites? How is flooding White countries with non-Whites good for Whites?

    Racism hoax after racism hoax, Ferguson, Philly, Detroit, America is already dead. Donald Trump can deport 11 million non-White invaders but that’s just part of the problem. The problem is the 1965 Immigration Act turned America from a 90% non-Hispanic White country into a 61% non-Hispanic White country and dropping. Every year there are less Whites, more poverty, and more misery.

    In 1940 America was 90% non-Hispanic White and unicultural.
    In 2015 America is 61% non-Hispanic White and nothing.

    Fifty years ago we were heading to the moon, exploring the stars, and taking on the entire universe. After the Civil Wrongs Act, Immigration Act of 1965, and decades of mass non-White immigration, America is a grounded, exploring hoaxes, and taking on the debt of the entire universe. We were building a future brighter than anything ever imagined, and we were White. Now we’re pressing ‘1’ for English and irrelevant.

  • Dean Jackson

    The coordinated ‘protests’ at the University of Missouri and other universities are being directed by Marxist professors/administration officials, not students, as the USA Today article reveals, where a Marxist University of Missouri professor (Melissa Click) directs “muscle” (that’s what the University of Missouri professor calls the ‘students’ at the ‘protest’ camp site) to expel a university journalism major from the ‘protest’ camp site…

    In fact, the black University of Missouri student that went on a hunger strike claiming oppression, his family is worth $20 million…

    But there’s more…the Missouri Students Association President, Payton Head, is black(!)…

    The hyperbole of the Marxist Payton Head is astounding. The article reads, “Head questioned the threat to his existence and called for action.” Huh? What threat to his existence? Name-calling is a threat to one’s existence? This protest is wholly made up.

    For those scratching their heads, wondering where all the racial acrimony has come from the last several years, including police ‘killings’ of black citizens, at my blog scroll down to the Friday, July 31, 2015 posting titled:


    It’s like watching one of those Keystone Cops movies from 1915!

    The traffic stop video captures University of Cincinnati police officer Ray Tensing running after a fleeing speeding car instead of getting back into his police car and pursuing(!) because police officer Ray Tensing knew the fleeing car would come to rest around the corner at the end of the block, but if Officer Tensing had gotten back into his police car and gave chase he would have arrived at the staging area too early, his camera picking up the replacing of DuBose’s car with another duplicate car with bumper damage, including the camera capturing the planting of the bumper debris on the road!

    The following is a discovery I made in April regarding the fake collapse of the USSR, and what that fraudulent collapse proves about the institutions of the West…

    When Soviet citizens were liberated from up to 74 years of horrific Marxist oppression on December 26, 1991 there were ZERO celebrations throughout the USSR, proving (1) the ‘collapse’ of the USSR is a strategic ruse; and (2) the political parties of the West were already co-opted by Marxists,* otherwise the USSR (and East Bloc nations) couldn’t have gotten away with the ruse.

    ZERO celebrations, as the The Atlantic article inadvertently informs us…

    Notice, however, the Kremlin staged anti-government demonstrations that took place in Russia (and other Soviet republics) in the years immediately preceding the ‘collapse’, yet ZERO celebrations after the ‘collapse’!

    For more on this discovery see my blog…

    The above means that the so-called ‘War on Terror’ is an operation being carried out by the Marxist co-opted governments of the West in alliance with the USSR and other Communist nations, the purpose being to (1) destroy the prominence of the West in the eyes of the world, where the West is seen (i) invading nations without cause; (ii) causing chaos around the globe; and (iii) killing over one-million civilians and boasting of torture; (2) close off non-Russian supplies of oil for export, thereby increasing the price of oil, the higher price allowing oil exporting Russia to maintain economic stability while she modernizes and increases her military forces; (3) destroy the United States Armed Forces via the never-ending ‘War on Terror’; the ultimate purpose of the aforementioned to (4) bring about the demise of the United States in the world, opening up a political void to be filled by a new pan-national entity composed of Europe and Russia (replacing the European Union), a union ‘From the Atlantic to Vladivostok’; which will (5) see the end of NATO.

    Now you know how Bolshevik Russia survived in 1917; how the West ‘lost’ China to the Communists in 1949; why the Eisenhower administration turned a deaf ear to the anti-Communist Hungarian uprising in 1956; why the Eisenhower administration in 1959 was indifferent to the Castro brothers’ Communist fidelity, actually used the CIA to overthrow the Batista government; why the Nixon administration abandoned Taiwan for Communist China, and signed treaties/provided economic aid to the USSR; why the Nixon administration refused to tell the American People that over 50% of North Vietnamese NVA regiments were actually Chinese People’s Liberation Army soldiers (attired in NVA uniforms, and proving that the Sino/Soviet Split was a ruse, as KGB defector Major Anatoliy Golitsyn told the West back in 1962), thereby (1) ensuring the Vietnam War would be lost; (2) destroying the prominence of the United States abroad and at home; (3) breeding distrust between the American people and their government; and (4) securing Communist victories in Southeast Asia. Working in the background within the political parties of the United States and Great Britain were Marxist agents doing their best to (1) ensure the survival of Communist nations when they popped up; and (2) sabotage any policies that would bring down a Communist nation. That’s why after the fake collapses of the East Bloc nations and USSR there was no mandatory Western verification process to ensure the Communists weren’t still in control.

    Now you know why not one political party in the West requested verification of the collapse of the USSR, and the media failed to alert your attention to this fact, including the ‘alternative’ media. When determining whether the ‘former’ USSR is complying with arms control treaties, what does the United States do to confirm compliance? Right, the United States sends into the ‘former’ USSR investigative teams to VERIFY compliance, yet when it’s the fate of the West that’s at stake should the collapse of the USSR be a ruse, what does the United States do to confirm the collapse? Nothing!

    The fraudulent ‘collapse’ of the USSR (and East Bloc) couldn’t have been pulled off until both political parties in the United States (and political parties elsewhere in the West) were co-opted by Marxists, which explains why verification of the ‘collapse’ was never undertaken by the West, such verification being (1) a natural administrative procedure (since the USSR wasn’t occupied by Western military forces); and (2) necessary for the survival of the West. Recall President Reagan’s favorite phrase, “Trust, but verify”.

    It gets worse–the ‘freed’ Soviets and West also never (1) de-Communized the Soviet Armed Forces of its Communist Party officer corps, which was 90% officered by Communist Party members; and (2) arrested/de-mobilized the 6-million vigilantes that assisted the Soviet Union’s Ministry of the Interior and police control the populations of the larger cities during the period of ‘Perestroika’ (1986-1991)!

    There can be no collapse of the USSR (or East Bloc nations) without…

    Verification, De-Communization and De-mobilization.

    The West never verified the collapse of the USSR because no collapse occurred, since if a real collapse had occurred the West would have verified it, since the survival of the West depends on verification. Conversely, this proves that the political parties of the West were co-opted by Marxists long before the fraudulent collapse of the USSR, since the survival of the West depends on verification.


    The West will form new political parties where candidates are vetted for Marxist ideology, the use of the polygraph to be an important tool for such vetting. Then the West can finally liberate the globe of vanguard Communism.


    * The failed socialist inspired and controlled pan-European revolutions that swept the continent in 1848(1) taught Marxists and socialists a powerful lesson, that lesson being they couldn’t win overtly,(2) so they adopted the tactic of infiltration of the West’s political parties/institutions. In the case of the United States…(continue reading at DNotice)…

  • Mark

    “We came to this country in chains, and they complain that we don’t love America”

    No friend, you were born into America and thanks to affirmative action, a feature of white liberal generosity, have privileged access to great universities, jobs, careers and an enviable lifestyle and cultural life.

    You also have the right to a passport which enables you to leave America and try your luck in Liberia, Nigeria or any other African state if you so desire.

    Why can these simple facts not be repeated to the whiners at every opportunity.

    • kitten

      “White liberal generosity”?
      What utter crap you’ve posted.

      There’s nothing enviably about having to live with arrogant, condescending supremacists.

      • doctorseraphicus

        Then choose the other option – ” try your luck in Liberia, Nigeria or any other African state if you so desire”.

  • Odrade

    expectation of coddling seems to me to be present from the white people who –
    for the first time in a long time – face opposition. The people they are
    criticising has merely yelled at a professor – totally within the bounds of
    free speech. The kids doing the yelling has been met with threats of rape and
    murder. To demand a resignation is totally
    within the bounds of free speech – as well as “you should not sleep at night” “you’re
    disgusting” etc. – when you do it face to face, as an accountable person – that
    is totally within the bounds of freedom of speech. If you think that it is not –
    what on earth do you imagine freedom of speech of speech to be but a coddling
    of those in power?

    To threaten
    rape and murder is not. The actual score here as pertains to opposing the
    freedom of speech is in reality against the students. Thousands of threats
    against the woman on the video of rape and against her life. We are all so sanitised
    against the routine threats of rape and murder of black women that it does not
    even register – it is counted as nothing compared to a white professor being
    disrespected on camera. A black woman should expect to face threats of rape and
    murder for speaking up at all – does she not know where she lives – while a
    white professor should not meet anything but the utmost respect – these black
    women has not gotten the memo from society. To frame them as being “coddled” is the most
    absurd insult of all. As far as I can see they – as opposed to the fragile,
    fragile white men everywhere – have no opportunity of being coddled at all.

    • doctorseraphicus

      What are you actually going on about?

  • Sue Smith

    This short film SAYS IT ALL!!

  • MC73

    This evening I was having an argument with a Chinese man, making the point that American hegemony is far from over. Sorry, I was wrong, or very soon will be. The US is dying from the inside, like a rotten tree. The abject, utter stupidity of these people (all these people) is staggering.

  • GoJebus

    Kate – you really need to grow bigger bollocks. Your limp hand claps are part of the problem and certainly racial equality is not going to be solved by you crying into your milk. The maniac in this piece should be sanctioned and put in the bloody stocks.

  • Fabian_Solutions

    Most of the comments below are by reactionaries who simply can’t come to terms with the 21st Century.

    Look, times have changed. Your views are dying out. I almost feel sorry for you, harking back to a golden age that never was, and unable to adapt to the modern, diverse, vibrant Britain of today. History is on our side, the side of the progressives. We have won. Britain belongs to us now. And so does the United States, under Presidents Obama and Hillary Clinton.

    Those who refuse to march in time to the beat of History will be trampled under the feet of Progress.

    • plasmacutter

      Most of the comments below are by reactionaries who simply can’t come to terms with the 21st Century.

      De-humanization and othering. Aren’t you, as an “enlightened progressive” supposed to be against that?

      Look, times have changed. Your views are dying out. …. History is on our side, the side of the progressives. We have won.
      Britain belongs to us now. And so does the United States, under
      Presidents Obama and Hillary Clinton.

      Appeal to fraudulent consensus. This sentiment takes a very dark connotation when you consider the new articles out every month detailing McCarthyist “purges” for “wrongthink” as typified by Tim Hunt and MissoU’s president.

      When your faction has to resort to censorship, silencing, and black-balling to “get your way”, you know you’re on the “wrong side of history”.

      Those who refuse to march in time to the beat of History will be trampled under the feet of Progress

      This doesn’t sound totalitarian and fasicst at all!

      • Fabian_Solutions

        I’m not being totalitarian, but simply stating the facts.

        In less than 50 years, we progressives have successfully overturned a thousand years of traditional Christian morality – across the entire Western world.

        The old Establishment – backed up by the might of the Catholic Church – was ultimately powerless to stop us.

        The ease with which gay marriage was passed is proof of how powerful we progressives have become and how completely we now dominate every institution.

        We have even taken control of the Daily Telegraph, the courts and the military – once bastions of conservatism.

        Our military is now a feminist and gay institution, with women soon to be serving on the front lines and openly gay, lesbian and transgender people in the military.

        • plasmacutter

          In case you haven’t noticed, in less than 50 years you’ve also overturned 1,000 years of ascendant western standard of living, plunged the US and UK into third-world status, caused the misery index among women and crime and poverty index among children to skyrocket, and are now welcoming an invasion of isis fighters to the EU who will, if not stopped, usher in a dark age in which women will once again be enslaved, science persecuted, and infidels beheaded.

          I for one will be happy to see the chorus of “i told you so” ring out as you meet your fate.

          I, on the other hand, own weapons and will defend myself, not you.

          • Fabian_Solutions

            Isil are a hardline social-conservative organisation.

            They reject feminism, LGBT rights, sexual liberation, abortion, equal marriage, working mothers, single mothers, diversity and tolerance. They support the death penalty.

            So why aren’t you more sympathetic towards them?

            • E.I.Cronin

              Err… thats mainstream Muslims you’re describing above. And the alleged progressives imported 3 million. Smart move!

        • Precambrian

          “The ease with which gay marriage was passed is proof of how powerful
          we progressives have become and how completely we now dominate every

          It’s certainly proof that the Long March has resulted in progressive dominance of governent, media, education and the arts, yes. By which they censor the counter-argument on same-sex marriage (and homosexuality in general) so that people have an uneven idea on what it is.

        • dwarfpoo

          Thats fab, would you like to also take control into the investigations of the systematic abuse of young white girls by certain “sections” of society. Just curious.

        • vieuxceps2

          Ah, that explains the failures in Basra and Helmand,not to mention the naval heroes captured in the Gulf.
          However full marks for your honesty in detailing the organisations which have fallen to your campaigns all of which are in decline. What about Education and the Police? Not mentioned, but then they are both so feeble,inept and/or corrupt that you hardly need to bother I suppose. Civil service? CPS? Border Agency? Surely you have already infiltrated those?
          Then there’s the law you know, ripe for feminist ande homophic “critiques” as you no doubt put it. Still, you’ve already had some success there. You seem to have gone quiet on Race Relations, is it because of the muslims and their women/gays? Do tell.

    • FriendlyFire

      Jez rules! Yes, the British are sooo progressive – just look at the election result.

    • Clive

      Society becomes more open with technological changes to communication over time – post; telephone; email; internet. The more exposed these social trends – as long as they are harmless – the more acceptable they become. Grudgingly or not. These are not the achievements of ‘progressives’, they are merely the exposure of obscure human traits to the light.

      It has also become clear that paedophilia is widespread. Is that a ‘progressive’ achievement ? Certainly some Labour politicians started to embrace it then jumped back like guilty children when the media saw them Yet paedophiles are human beings as are gays – has the ‘beat of history’ left them behind ?

      The claim of ‘progressives’ like Jeremy Corbyn and Nicola Sturgeon is simply that they will spend more money on the poor. Not only that, all of this spending will be done by the state using state employees. This is simple politics. There is no grand philosophy behind it, it is mucky, dirty politics.

      They are really statists. That works politically for them. Jeremy Corbyn is an old style union man. The public sector is about 54% unionised, the private sector is about 14% unionised If there are more public sector employees, Labour gets more money. There is also a more sinister edge to increasing state power but that’s another thing.

      As for Nicola Sturgeon – she can pledge to spend whatever she likes then blame the UK government for not giving her the money to do it – despite the Barnett formula The Scottish people appear too daft to realise that the SNP has never used its tax raising powers to pay for these promises. In the meantime, education and the NHS in Scotland slide down the toilet and poor people’s access to education is better in England than in Scotland

      So the claims that these people who designate themselves ‘progressives’ have achieved social progress is like starting a ‘gravity’ party and claiming that you made things roll downhill.

      In fact, they are merely trying to go back to statism – which has failed wherever it has been tried.

    • vieuxceps2

      No, there never was a golden age and neither will there be. Your modern ,diverse,vibrant (!) Britain does not exist and is unlikely to progress in the way you dream. You call yourselves progressives, but you have only destroyed the past ,you have but the Gramsci present and there will be no Marxist future as you have imported an alien ,anti-marxist cult which will pevent “progressiveness” from succeding.You giggle as you saw of the bough you sit on,but if you look around you will see that your corner is surrounded by paint, religious paint. Still, you stuffed it to the Tories, didn’t you?

    • Fred Yang

      If Fabian “progressives” (i.e regressives) like you have their way, it certainly won’t be the Feet of Progress trampling over Europe’s peoples, but some force entirely more antithetical to their well-being.

    • Frank Marker

      ‘Those who refuse to march in time blah blah blah’. Sounds exactly like some slogan thought up by the Ministry of Truth.

  • FriendlyFire

    ‘we came to this country in chains, and they complain we don’t love America.’

    Err, surely they mean that their *ancestors* came to the country in chains, many, many generations ago. Whereas they, now, the descendents, have the amazing opportunities and privilege of living in one of the richest countries in the world. Or do they really wish they’d grown up in Africa instead?

    • Fabian_Solutions

      Slaves built america – and the british empire, come to that. The slave trade was one of the greatest crimes ever committed, and trillions of dollars in reparations to Africa will not even begin to atone for the barbarism of our ancestors.

      • Randal

        We are under no duty, moral or otherwise, to “atone” for anything our ancestors might or might not have done. Your attempt to impose trans-generational guilt for your own ulterior political purposes is all the more hypocritical because I doubt you’ll give us any credit for the great things our ancestors also did.

        • Fabian_Solutions

          “We are under no duty, moral or otherwise, to “atone” for anything our ancestors might or might not have done.”

          Trust me, the people of India and Africa think the opposite. They have not forgiven, nor have they forgotten. And the time will come when will we pay them back, whether voluntarily – or not.

          • Randal

            If there are enough traitors like yourself to kowtow to them, doubtless that will prove to be the case. Most likely, though, your attitudes just represent a particularly noxious and passing gust of the winds of political fashion.

            • Fabian_Solutions

              I’m not a traitor. Please take that back. I love my country. You’re the one who hates the new Britain.

              • Randal

                I think it’s clear from your post that you support an attempt by foreign powers to impose a non-existent guilt for ancestors’ activities selectively on the British nation (ignoring, for instance, the responsibility of Mongolian and Turkic peoples for all their historical crimes against the peoples of Asia, the Middle East and Eastern Europe), and to wrongfully extract a guilt payment from us.

                That walks like a traitor, and quacks like a traitor, as far as I can see.

                • Fabian_Solutions

                  “That walks like a traitor, and quacks like a traitor, as far as I can see.”

                  No, you’re wrong there.

                • Randal

                  Siding with foreigners in order to extract a payment from the people of your own country by force, for a crime committed by other people?
                  I think I’m on pretty firm ground here.

                • Fabian_Solutions

                  I don’t have a “country”. I don’t believe in borders or nations, you see. I have no nationality. My flag is red; my country is the future. I don’t consider myself English or British. Therefore I cannot be a traitor to a country I do not belong to.

                  Nationhood simply means the particular lump of rock on which you happened to be born simply because your parents happened to sh*g each other here. That’s all.

                • Randal

                  I don’t have a “country”. I don’t believe in borders or nations, you see. I have no nationality. My flag is red; my country is the future. I don’t consider myself English or British.

                  That’s a confession, I think, at least as far as intent is concerned.

                  Your position is one able to be held only by virtue of the luxury of living in a nation that can protect you and yours from the threat of foreign nations (and ironically one where generations of your forebears fought and died to create that situation). One day you might be confronted with the hard realities of the outside world you side with against your own nation, and if you survive the encounter perhaps you will understand better how the world works.

                  Check your privilege.

                • FriendlyFire

                  I think Fabian Solutions is enjoying her vision of utopia. Bit of a shame that utopia doesn’t exist, and attempts to create it always lead to totalitarianism and economic disaster. I wonder if she’ll live long enough to come to this realisation? I know I didn’t see it when I was also a naive teenager.

                • Randal

                  A zealot who thinks her ideology trumps reality. Nothing unusual for the young, as you say. They mostly grow out of it.
                  Sometimes they even come to understand some of the harm they’ve done in their attempts to impose their ideology on reality.

                • FriendlyFire

                  I did. I used to think (a bit) like that. I had many friends who thought similarly. So I understand the mentality and the assumptions (e.g. borders are bad, profit is bad, competition is bad, reality is bad). My mind was open enough to be expandable through real life experience. Maybe hers is too, albeit it may be a while.

                • Randal

                  Your charitable approach does you credit.
                  But I nevertheless maintain that these kinds of issues support a minimum voting age of 25 or 30, at least.

                • FriendlyFire

                  Yes, the human brain doesn’t fully develop until age 25 – before then we are extra impulsive and poor at seeing the consequences of our actions. Ask any neuroscientist. Of course this means Labour and the Greens want to lower the voting age to 16, because they actively need people to be impulsive and not mindful of consequences so that they vote for their utopian short-termism. Whereas really the voting age should be raised to 21 or, ideally, 25. It’s funny, I’d even entertain the (obviously impractical) idea of linking voting to property and business ownership, because that way at least people would be used to thinking things through and understanding that there’s no magical money tree.

                • Randal

                  I agree entirely.
                  As far as the limiting of the franchise to property ownership is concerned, perhaps a more practical approach for the modern world would be just to bar those in receipt of welfare benefits from voting.

                • Fabian_Solutions

                  Please don’t try and patronise me. I am a graduate of Oxford University. I know it must be galling that I, a young woman, am better educated than you. Why are some men so stubborn about losing an argument to a woman? You lost to a girl – deal with it 😉

                • FriendlyFire

                  Gee, it’s true that my university is precisely one place below Oxford in the global rankings. I feel so intimidated.

                  You do get special dispensation, by virtue of your use of the word “young”. It explains a lot. Seriously, here’s a black economist saying some things about race and slavery which you will find illuminating (and you won’t read in the Guardian)

                • dwarfpoo

                  He lost nothing. Are you on meds?

      • FriendlyFire

        Slavery was one factor. There were many others. Reparations not necessary.

        You do realise, don’t you, that slavery was common across the world at that time and had NOTHING to do with race?

        You do also that perhaps a million white, European slaves were taken to north Africa by Muslim slave traders in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, including from raids on villages in Devon and Dorset

        You do realise that slavery was endemic within Africa at that time

        You do also realise that most slaves who were in the following centuries taken to America were first enslaved by other Africans and then sold on

        You do therefore realise, on reflection, that if sub-Saharan Africa had had the power at that time to enslave Europeans in huge numbers, they would have done so. It’s the way the world was.

        Oh, and if we’re having reparations about all of the above, well, it’s gonna get a bit complicated, innit. Maybe better to move on, be glad none of us suffered it personally and make the most of being wealthy enough to have access to the internet, central heating, health care, washing machines, etc.

        • dwarfpoo

          Sorry, the facts do not fit “her” narrative. All lessons in state schools have a somewhat limited view on slavery.

      • Fred Yang

        Why not take your tiny brainwashed mind over to the Guardian?

      • E.I.Cronin

        You can wind it in pet – the blame game doesn’t work. African tribal societies were enslaving each other centuries before the arrival of Europeans. The Arab and British slavers bought slaves FROM Africans. Slavery was ubiquitous in the ancient world and your nation put an end to it in the 19thC.

        Are these kind of potted revisionisms all that they teach in universities?

  • airish

    What all this brings to mind for me is the Victorian era, in which it was deemed appropriate and very desirable for well-bred young women to faint at the slightest provocation.

    In the modern era, of course, a woman (or appropriately sensitive, well-indoctrinated young man) wouldn’t faint at seeing an ankle (unless that constituted some sort of micro-aggression), but would certainly manifest analogous behaviors at any exposure to politically banned words or concepts, such as hearing the N word (which, or course, is completely situational, since it wouldn’t trigger the same reaction if uttered by Chris Rock or Snoop Dogg.) This is the generation in which whole books, like Huckleberry Finn, were expunged from libraries by local contingents of Red Guards, and the kids certainly took note of that, and are themselves enthusiastic young Maoists.

    Higher education has completely lost its way and the whole edifice needs to come down.

    • Fabian_Solutions

      “Higher education has completely lost its way and the whole edifice needs to come down.”

      No, you’re wrong there.

    • Randal

      What is needed is to establish new higher education bodies in a country where freedom of speech and thought is actually valued and properly protected, and where discipline and due respect for authority where it is appropriate can be instilled without fear of abusive and disruptive lawsuits.

      Does such a country even exist any more?

      • Fabian_Solutions

        There wasn’t much freedom of speech when social conservatives were in charge, before the 1960s. Ever heard of the Chatterley ban?

        • Randal

          I did type a reply to this some time ago, but it’s held as “pending”, which usually means it has tripped some kind of moronic auto-censorship system (though I confess I’m at a loss to see how – it’s not as though I write “at the f ag end of” or any of the similar phrases that tend to be misinterpreted by such).

        • vieuxceps2

          Still less when the socialists were in charge. Ever heard of the Gulags and the Red Guards? Makes Chatterley look a bit trivial, don’t you think?

      • vieuxceps2

        Russia? China? That’s what’s taught nowasys isn’t it?

    • Randal

      The point you imply about behaviour responding to cultural cues, and the profoundly unhealthy nature of our modern victim-worshipping, offence-mongering culture is a very apt one.

      Some good points on that score were made in an Atlantic article linked by Pioneer further down in these comments:

      The Coddling of the American Mind

      • Fabian_Solutions

        Before victims were taken seriously, when it was OK to be offensive, we had Jim Crow laws and rampant sexism and misogyny. It was illegal to be gay. And trans people were excluded from society.

        Do you really want to go back to the 1950s?

        • Randal

          Before victims were taken seriously

          When adults were expected to get on with their lives rather than obsess endlessly about whatever hurt they claim they’ve suffered, and when real evidence was required in order to convict someone of an offence, yes.

          when it was OK to be offensive

          When “sticks and stones could break my bones but words could never hurt me”, yes.

          we had Jim Crow laws

          Speak for yourself, if you’re a Yank. I’m not.

          and rampant sexism and misogyny

          And actual families.

          It was illegal to be gay.

          It was illegal to engage in homosexual activity, never to “be gay”, whatever you mean by that. The evidence is clear now that those who warned that legalising homosexual activity would put us on a slippery slope were absolutely right, and if you could go back and tell people in 1967 what the law would say now as a result of legalisation (and if they actually believed you and didn’t just laugh you out of the house) there would have been a landslide of opposition to legalisation and it would never have passed.

          And trans people were excluded from society.

          Not even really sure what “trans people” are, nor do I care, but I doubt there were many about in the 1960s.

          Do you really want to go back to the 1950s?

          Certainly not. The C18th or C19th when the cultural attitudes that built this country’s subsequent power and prosperity, squandered by your ilk, were still strong.

        • vieuxceps2

          The 1950s ,ah the bad old days .Now, there are victims amongst all groups except white men. It is only offensive if it’s not against white men. Jim Crow’s dead and white man are discriminated against in favour of black people. Sexism’s victims can only be female. Special laws hapve been made to give privilege to gay people which do not apply to heterosexuals. Trans people have become the latest minority group demanding special treatment . Yes, I do want to go back to some of the 1950s.

    • Fabian_Solutions

      When all else fails, slander your opponents as “Commies” or “Maoists”. Insults are all you’re got. I am a social democrat, not a communist.

      • vieuxceps2

        Social democrat? We all are. Ask Cameron, Sturgeon, Corbyn.. Think of Mao, Stalin, Hitler, PolPot, good social democrats all.

  • Randal

    But how did we get to the point where students are brought to tears at the suggestion a leading university ‘should be an intellectual space’?

    To understand how we got here, Maltby only needs to read her own piece with open eyes.

    The conflation of offence with harm, the apologetic, guilt-ridden demeanour. It all merely invites further aggression from those who see that it can be exploited, and encourages the immature worship of victimhood and absence of respect for rugged, thickskinned adulthood.

    • Fabian_Solutions

      You’re only saying that because you don’t know what it’s like to be the victim of misogynistic abuse or racist hate-speech. You are (I assume) a white male, and you have grown up in a culture where almost all power is still concentrated in the hands of people who are white males just like you. Have you ever considered how privileged that makes you?

      • Randal

        You’re only saying that because [load of ideologically based twaddle]

        I’m not interested in your ideology. I prefer to deal with reality.

        • Fabian_Solutions

          Here’s some reality for you. OK?

          How about the FACT that 1 in 4 women will be beaten up by a male partner during their lifetimes.

          Or the FACT that women are still paid only 78% as much as men – for the SAME work.

          • Randal

            Here’s some more for you. OK?

            The sky generally appears blue. Cars drive on the left in Britain. The Suez Canal is 120 miles long.

            Fully as relevant as yours.

            • Fabian_Solutions

              You are trivializing inequality and violence against women by your facetious, puerile remark.

              You are an unreconstructed, complacent reactionary.

              • Randal

                Thank you. Those are my best features.

                It’s a lot better than being an ideology-obsessed zealot like yourself.

                • Fabian_Solutions

                  No, you’re wrong there.

                • GoJebus

                  No Randal is right. It radiates from every censorious line you write.

          • FriendlyFire

            Oh my word. I post the following not as a reply to Fabian Solutions, for clearly she has no interest in reason, but for the benefit of anyone who may be reading what she has said and thinking there might be some truth in it.

            1. Domestic violence is not actually a gender issue. Yes, I’m serious. There is almost as much violence – and yes, deaths – from women against men as there is from men against women. Here’s Erin Pizzey, the woman who *founded* the women’s refuge movement in the UK, explaining this in 3 minutes on Sky News

            2. There is no gender wage gap, it is purely and 100% an artefact of the FACT that women make different choices as to the work they wish to do, the hours they wish to work, the career breaks they wish to take, etc., etc., all of which naturally affect pay. If women were genuinely 22% cheaper to employ for the same output, than men then every profit-orientated, evil capitalist firm would be actively recruiting them by the bucketload. But they’re not doing so. Here’s a woman explaining this in 4 mins or so

            But hey, if you want to play the victim and get attention and feel sorry for yourself, who needs facts?

            • plasmacutter

              In case Fabian attacks AEI as “conservative”, even that bane of liberals the huffington post has busted this wage gap myth

              • FriendlyFire

                Ah but that’s still Christina Hoff Sommers. And as we all know, she’s not actually a woman. Or something. In fact, isn’t Bruce Jenner’s lived experience more authentically female than the harridan Christina’s? I’m dazed and confused.

              • Quest for Liberty

                They are far from being liberals: don’t honour close-minded authoritarianism with such a title

            • Fabian_Solutions

              “There is almost as much violence – and yes, deaths – from women against men as there is from men against women. ”

              Evidence please.

              • FriendlyFire

                This took me 2 seconds to google.

                Domestic abuse:
                Will affect 1 in 4 women and 1 in 6 men in their lifetime
                Leads to, on average, two women being murdered each week and 30 men per year

                Erin PIzzey, in the video if you watch it, says 1 guy per week, rather than 30 per year. OK. So there’s a degree of difference, but same order of magnitude. Hence Pizzey saying it’s *not* a gender issue. For which she received multiple death threats from feminists. And she’s the founder of the first women’s refuge ever in the UK. Watch the last 2 minutes of the clip, listen to what she says.

          • plasmacutter

            Your “facts” are fiction.

            The 1 in 4 myth (also the 1 in 5 myth and the 1 in 6 myth) is a result of deliberate abuse of statistical methods or straight-up woozling.

            All women do make 78% of what All men make, primarily because they choose low-pay humanities while men choose high-pay STEM fields, and don’t pretend STEM is “hostile”, as a STEM grad I watched the few women, who were given a wide berth or outright worshipped, drop out as they didn’t make the grade.

            By the 300’s level there was only one in my entire year!

            • Fabian_Solutions

              “women are twice as likely to be hired in stem with the same qualifications!”


              My heart bleeds for you poor oppressed white males. ROTFLMAO!

              • plasmacutter

                Thaks for confirming yourself a sexist bigot. Actually, given how few women there are in STEM, I don’t think this is a problem until the number doubles.. I need a girlfriend after all (one who is NOT like you).

                Enjoy your cats!

                • Fabian_Solutions

                  I have a boyfriend, thank you very much. He is a feminist ally. And no cats.

                  P.S. Sexism equals prejudice plus power. Therefore men cannot be victims of sexism, as they are the privileged group with power. And white people cannot be victims of racism, as they are the privileged group with power. I won’t charge for the lesson.

                • plasmacutter

                  Thank you for doubling down on your bigotry by spouting spurious orwellian re-definitions designed specifically to absolve you of blatant bigotry.

                  I have a boyfriend

                  I have a pony.

                • Fabian_Solutions

                  Did you know that Orwell was a socialist?

                • plasmacutter

                  It doesn’t matter what political camp Orwell was in, the modern progressive approach reads like a bullet list compiled from 1984 to animal farm, right down to your cutsie little “some animals are more equal than others” definition of sexism and racism.

                • Fabian_Solutions

                  Sorry, but men don’t get to define what sexism is.

                • plasmacutter

                  Sorry, but as a woman you’re not allowed to dictate what men are and are not allowed to do.

                • vieuxceps2

                  “men don’t get to define sexism is”- Bigoted disempowerment of half the human race. How dare you curtail the freedom of others?

                • dwarfpoo

                  Really. Well as a woman I would disagree with you. Do you get paid to troll on this site. Is it you Bahar?.

                • vieuxceps2

                  Yes,but have you read Animal Farm or 1984?

                • E.I.Cronin

                  He was also a rare kind of socialist in being a patriot as well, clear eyed and unsentimental, but a patriot nonetheless.

                  His comments about his fellow socialists were less than complimentary too.

                • KilowattTyler

                  So were Pol Pot, Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin

                • FriendlyFire

                  I know it’s tempting to live in a very simple universe, but what do you call it when yellow people are prejudiced against black people, or black people are prejudiced against indian people? Do you have a set of quadratic equations? Or do you finally realise that, oh, anyone can be prejudiced/racist/sexist against any other group? If you’ve travelled in and lived in continents other than Europe, and/or married into such a culture, as I have, you’d realise all this goes on all over the infinitely complex world. Well, if you had an open mind you’d see it.

                  By the way, how are things with your boyfriend? Talking to women it’s clear that most of them derive a certain very deep satisfaction and fulfilment from being with a man who is willing to take the lead when it counts. Heavens, it’s almost as if we’ve got the biological heritage of being the, err, animals we are! So if you’re feeling unfulfilled in your intimate relationship (and all the signs are there), you might want to reflect on why that might be. Are you wearing the trousers too much, him wearing the skirt too much or, as I suspect, a bit of both?
                  Here’s a woman explaining in 90 secs

                • E.I.Cronin

                  That’s a perverse lie. I’ve been subjected to a racist attack. I narrowly escaped being murdered by a gang of ethnic youth. Why racist? Being called ‘White Cnut” while BME are trying to mutilate your face and throat with broken beer bottles is a racially motivated crime. And tread carefully because if you try to evade, justify or excuse this disgusting behaviour you show just how dishonest and hypocritical the bogus anti-racism movement is.

                  Ethnic leaders such as Noel Perason referring to white women and men as ‘White Cnuts’ is racism. Richard Everitt, Kriss Donald, Gavin Hopley, Ross Parker, Charlene Downes were victims of racism.

                  Is an angry, uneducated, unemployed male with literacy issues an example of white privilege and power? Is a father of 3 commuting 4 hours a day to a low paid job an example of white privilege and power? Are my working class grandparents who walked 5km to a cannery where they shelled peas 5.5 days a week for a subsistence wage and 1 week holiday a year examples of colonial oppression and imperialism?

                  Like so many clichés this jargon is simplistic to the point of absurdity. It’s kitsch. Leftist kitsch.

                • dwarfpoo

                  So sorry you have been attacked as well. I have been called a “White whroe” and punched in the face at 2pm in London, physical and verbal abuse is rife. To ignore the rise of misandry and racist abuse is disingenuous. Equality my asre.

                • E.I.Cronin

                  That’s disgusting!! I’m sorry to hear it – attacks like that can shake you to the core. Hopefully you can eventually move to a safer, and much happier town. Yes it’s grotesque dishonesty on the part of identity politics fanatics like Fabian Solutions. They won’t understand the hatred and division they’ve caused until it bites the hand that fed it. Take care and keep safe.

                • dwarfpoo

                  Keep safe as well. Your attack sounded dreadful and I am truly sorry you had to endure it. Best wishes.

                • vieuxceps2

                  That’s a good idea. You define your own terms and we all accept them.
                  Sexism is not “prejudice plus power” and racism is not restricted to whites with power or there’d be no racist white women, by your own definition. Try to forget the self-assertion classes and think logically for yourself. Does it not strike you that your stand is itself both sexist and racist?

                • KilowattTyler

                  I think we should redefine social ‘sciences’ as ‘a load of partial, badly-argued garbage’. I think we should also redefine the abolition of government funding to university social science departments as ‘helping universities to improve standards’.

                • dwarfpoo

                  Bahar, is that you?

                • KilowattTyler

                  “Therefore men cannot be victims of sexism, as they are the privileged group with power…And white people cannot be victims of racism, as they are the privileged group with power”

                  The ‘logic’ behind this is runs something like this:

                  The rich and powerful in Western societies tend to have white skins and also tend to be male. Ergo, if you are white and male you must be rich and powerful.

                  Using this same ‘logic’:

                  People who are monks are all male. Ergo, if you are male you must be a monk.

                  The logical error in both cases is to assume that because one a few properties of a subset of a population apply to the rest of that population, *all* the properties of the *whole* population must be identical to the characteristics of the subset.
                  So in the population of men, the fact that a subset of this population (monks) have XY chromosomes and pen1ses doesn’t mean that all men want to spend their lives in a cold and draughty building getting up at 04:00 am every day to pray.

                  It is rather obvious that a white,male tramp in London’s Pimlico does not hold power over Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II in her palace nearby. The tramp has no political or economic power whatsoever. The fact that Prince Philip or Bill Gates or Richard Branson are, like the tramp, white and male does not imply that the tramp is part of a privileged powerful elite. It could well be that the tramp is abused (or worse) by women, or people who are not white, or indeed non-white women.

              • vieuxceps2

                ROTFLMAO? Would you like a hand to get up or can you manage on your own luv? NO VAT ON TAMPONS! Ah, Diddums.
                Or we could of course have a reasoned discussion. You are not far removed from the shrieking girl,are you?

          • Quest for Liberty

            “Or the [*]FACT[*] that women are still paid only 78% as much as men – for the SAME work.”


            Christ give me strength:

            et cetera et cetera ad nauseam

            Moreover, It is my belief that more men are physically assaulted each year than women. (I apologise that I am currently to busy to give you a source for this information but I’m happy to do it later if you prompt me on it.)

            • Fred Yang

              Leave the child be…

      • plasmacutter

        Oh look! Kafkatrapping!

        “you deny it because you’re guilty!”

        • Fabian_Solutions

          No, you’re wrong there, I’m afraid.

      • vieuxceps2

        I’ve been a white male all my life, strange to say in these cis-sy times, but I have never felt privileged or powerful. Is it ‘cos I’s normal?

  • owenmagoo

    I saw the video.
    The girl was pathetic. Offering that she was pathetic due to race relations does not change the fact she was pathetic.

    To reward the behavior with anything other than scorn and derision belittles reasonable arguments about racial discrimination.
    Stop enabling the addled minded.

  • Fabian_Solutions

    Check your privilege.

    • Snipkokken Balsov

      Yep. It’s still there.

      How’s your privilege checking out as a white, middle class, well educated woman living in an affluent area of one of the wealthiest nations on earth?

      • Fabian_Solutions

        Haven’t you heard of intersectionality? It’s a Feminist theory involving “the study of overlapping or intersecting social identities and related systems of oppression, domination or discrimination.”

        Intersectionality helps us understand how privilege works in many different ways. I admit I am privileged by being white and cis, but I also experience homophobia and misogyny by virtue of being a bisexual female.

        Please read a bit about Intersectionality; it will help you understand this better.

        • Quest for Liberty

          If this isn’t outstanding parodying, please enlighten us on whence you learnt this post-modern pseudo-oppression bullshit [moderators: let’s not be childish and pretend that innocent word is some sort of blasphemy when it’s in fact apt]

          • Fabian_Solutions

            Have you really not heard of Intersectionality before today? It’s been around for years.

        • vieuxceps2

          Box box, tick tick.

        • Frank Marker

          Has it appeared in Pseuds Corner? Beyond parody.

          I always found cis cleaned up my toilet immaculately.

    • Frank Marker

      Mine is ok, but I think yours may be showing.

    • Randal


      • Fabian_Solutions

        Do you deny that you possess privilege?

        • Randal

          I refuse to pander to your pretence that it is relevant.

          • Fabian_Solutions

            Here are just some of the privileges you enjoy as a man:

            1. Your odds of being hired for a job, when competing against female applicants, are probably skewed in your favour. The more prestigious the job, the larger the odds are skewed.

            2. You can be confident that your co-workers won’t think you got my job because of your gender – even though that might be true.

            3. If you are never promoted, it’s not because of your gender.

            4. If you fail in your job or career, you can feel sure this won’t be seen as a black mark against your entire gender’s capabilities.

            5. You are far less likely to face sexual harassment at work than your female co-workers are.

            6. If you do the same task as a woman, and if the measurement is at all subjective, chances are people will think you did a better job.

            7. If you’re a teen or adult, and if you can stay out of prison, your odds of being raped are relatively low.

            8. On average, you are taught to fear walking alone after dark in average public spaces much less than your female counterparts are.

            9. If you choose not to have children, your masculinity will not be called into question.

            10. If you have children but do not provide primary care for them, your masculinity will not be called into question.

            11. If you have children and provide primary care for them, you’ll be praised for
            extraordinary parenting if you’re even marginally competent.

            12. If you have children and a career, no one will think you’re selfish for not staying at home.

            13. If you seek political office, your relationship with your children, or who you hire to take care of them, will probably not be scrutinized by the press.

            14. Your elected representatives are mostly people of your own gender. The more prestigious and powerful the elected position, the more this is true.

            15. When you ask to see “the person in charge,” odds are you will face a person of your own gender. The higher-up in the organization the person is, the surer you can be.

            16. As a child, chances are you were encouraged to be more active and outgoing than your sisters.

            17. As a child, you could choose from an almost infinite variety of children’s media featuring positive, active, non-stereotyped heroes of your own gender. You never had to look for it; male protagonists were (and are) the default.

            18. As a child, chances are you got more teacher attention than girls who raised their hands just as often.

            19. If your day, week or year is going badly, you need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether or not it has sexist overtones.

            20. You can turn on the television or glance at the front page of the newspaper and see people of your own gender widely represented.

            • Randal

              Not interested in your ideologically based twaddle.
              This is an anonymous comment board and your and my words stand or fall on their own merits, or absence thereof. Any alleged “privilege” is no more relevant than any claimed special knowledge or position.

              • Fred Yang

                Why even bother engaging in discussion with an infant?
                It’s like pi55ing in the wind.

            • vieuxceps2

              Imagine if your dreams had been fulfilled and women were in charge. Dyou suppose that your lunatic list would be any different? Except of course that it would be females who’d be privileged. That ‘d be ok though, wouldn’t it?

    • Snipkokken Balsov

      Why has my comment politely inquiring about the status of Fabian Solution’s own privilege been removed?

      • Fabian_Solutions

        It hasn’t.

        • Snipkokken Balsov

          It hasn’t, has it? Oh dear, I must lay off the grog.(Expensive grog as you can imagine, me being so privileged).

    • vieuxceps2

      Box ticked! Well done,comrade.

  • Stevie Nichts

    “For the first time I heard, with sudden realisation, a protestor declare: ‘we came to this country in chains, and they complain we don’t love America.’ ”

    I wasn’t aware there were 300-year-old slaves living amongst us.

  • Wolfgang Amadeus

    This, sadly, appears to have become something of an international demographic – hysterical moralising youths who become outraged whenever reality is not like an iPad commercial.

  • Maureen Fisher

    By the way, I wonder why heterosexual women are so lamely accepting being redefined as “cisgender” by these campus morons? Any betting that this moronic title will soon make its way onto official forms.

  • licjjs

    I have no idea what the answer is to the omni-present black bitterness, but I’ll tell you one thing: I am finished with all the angst, synthetic emotion and faux-guilt that it is forever intent on putting on my shoulders. My Catholic ancestors in Ireland were put off their own land by the plantation of Ulster, treated as pariahs in their own land until more or less now, suffered a famine which was worse than the Ethiopian famine and from which the numbers in Ireland have never recovered and which Queen Victoria’s government did little, if anything to alleviate (these were British citizens remember). Journalists from the USA said that the plight of the Irish people was worse than that of the black people in the USA. They were deported or forced to emigrate to lands they did not want to go to and many were indentured slaves in the Caribbean treated worse than the black slaves. This is my story. Do I want Universities to become places of fear because of it in case I am hurt by allusions some people might make in their ignorance? No I don’t. I want to live life at its glorious fulness.

    • Pioneer

      Not much complaining from the Irish descendants of slaves in the US.

      They weren’t herded onto the Democrat plantation by “progressives” like black folk have been. Progressives have continued to make their lives miserable ever since.

  • Shelley Powers

    Oh, and by the way? College students are adults. We would expect them to be beyond “pretend play”.

    I mean if we’re going to be talking about treating the students like adults.

  • Shelley Powers

    The footage starts at a specific point, but I noticed few people questioning what had happened previously to that point.

    The Professor is a man who teaches about social media, and has decades of experience. A sociologist.

    So what did he say that triggered the young woman to be so upset. Because she was genuinely upset.

    Oh, but that doesn’t suit your narrative does it? That perhaps this video is little different than the Planned Parenthood video–edited to tell one side of a story.

    • Pete

      I believe he disagreed with her.

      • Shelley Powers

        You saw the exchange before the video? Or are you just hypothesizing.

        I noticed that few people mentioned that he also screamed back at the young woman. Considering his greater age, and background, I wonder why that wasn’t noted.

        • Pete

          I am certainly not hypothesising, the entire situation was caused by him disagreeing with her, this is known factor. Can you prove he screamed at her? I am not calling you a liar but his respectful demeanour doesn’t suggest this. Her behaviour on the other hand…

        • Snipkokken Balsov

          The full video is on Milo Yiannopoulos’s article on Breitbart. Even you would have a hard time excusing the cry-bully if you watched it.

          • Shelley Powers

            Breitbart hasn’t provided a truthful representation in its entire history.

            If you want to be treated with credibility, I wouldn’t reference Brietbart.

            • Snipkokken Balsov

              Shelley, please read my comment again.
              I stated that the full video could be viewed. It shows the events leading up to the shriek.
              Pretend it’s posted on CIF if it makes it more palatable.

              • Shelley Powers

                I did see a video, composed of multiple video cuts, spliced together.

                I saw an older male professor being incredibly condescending to the people he was talking with. I saw the young woman exhibit signs of distress and agitation, probably because the older professor was so incredibly dismissive.

                The entire video also demonstrates that the rest of the protesters had a sense of humor and were talking reasonably and without emotion–something I noticed was cut out of the shorter video displayed elsewhere.

                It’s another hacked hit piece, focusing in on the one student who was upset, and ignoring all the others–and then trying to extrapolate from that to “all” of the protesters. It was contrived. But that’s what I expect from FIRE.

                • Snipkokken Balsov

                  The older male professor was surrounded by finger clicking, teeth sucking protesters and was trying to answer their inane, passive aggressive posturing with reasoned answers that did not result in abasing himself and begging them for forgiveness.
                  See as he tries to negotiate an “appropriate” volume for his voice, that will enable him to be heard, but not trigger offence or panic in the little victim aggressors.
                  See how he needs to explain to the hard of thinking that if they surround him he will by necessity have his back turned to most of them.
                  He was interrupted by, and spoken over by these spoilt children as they set out the terms of his “offence” (that he dared to dispute) and what he MUST therefor apologise for, publicly, in front of the whole mob, in order to satisfy their demands.
                  Are you aware that LaQueefa, the girl who shrieked “Who the f*** hired you?”, was part of student board of representatives who were part responsible for his being hired. Goldfish?

    • Trofim

      I’ve got a feeling he might have done something really violent – and racist to boot: I think he might have struck her with a white cotton wool ball. So her anger is fully understandable. Or then he might have struck her with a piece of pink marshmallo, which isn’t quite so traumatic.

    • nicnac

      Read Badger Pundit’s post further down this thread. All is explained. It seems the cry-bully took exception to the professor’s defence of free expression for students. Her response to this outrageous assertion was, of course, to throw a wobbly.

  • mickey667

    I notice that most of the other black students actually move away when she starts shouting, so to imply this kind of view and approach is widespread seems thankfully fanciful

  • Rupert

    It seems that racism, like climate change, is now a banned subject where you have to accept what you are told and cannot argue. A good example is how the journalist stats as fact that the police killed the illegal cigarette seller as thats what black lives matter says. The reality is that he was resisting arrest and only died later in hospital, having had a heart attack due to being obese. But even this so called conservative journalist cannot say that and has to say how racist america is.

  • mickey667

    This article rambles.

    What is the point of mentioning Black Lives Matter – a vita movement to stop black people being murdered by the police – and then claim in a roundabout sort of way they;re whining or infantile?

    You clam Yale is racist but then say Black people are being childish?

    I;m still unclear what your position is

    • Rupert

      She can’t have one or she’d be called racist. Black Lives Matter seems to be trying to kill cops. They don’t educate criminals to stop resisting arrest, or shooting at police, so how are they stopping black people being murdered by cops??

      • mickey667

        Just the latest evidecen that black person has hands up while shot.

        You think only criminals are shot and killed and only those resisting arrest or shooting at police?

        Do you genuinely believe that to be the case? Even the most rapid police apologists concede there is a problem, You don;t?

        • Rupert

          That boy is white, it was black cops who shot him. All the cases of police shooting blacks hyped in the media so far have been criminals resisting arrest or attacking cops. Whats so hard to understand that if you attack a cop you’ll get shot?

          • mickey667

            er, you obviously just looked at the picture. Yes, he was sitting in the passenger seat unseen. The body cam footage show the shooting his (black) dad and they fired so many times through his body they also killed the little boy.

            This effects us all. Black people are killed at a rate far behind white people in circumstances that white people would not be killed, i.e. with hands up and unarmed.

            You can be wilfully blind to this if you like, but you’re on the wrong and lonely side of history

            • Rupert

              Which black person has been shot with his hands up? That Ferguson case was shown that he was killed while fighting the cop. 2 reasons why blacks are killed at a higher rate than white people. 1: They resist more. 2: They are usually being sought under for drug dealing charges that have mandatory long sentences, as such more incentive for the guy to try and fight the cops to escape.

      • mickey667

        “Black lives matter seems to be trying to kill cops”?

        Ok Rupert.

        • Rupert

          Look at their rallies. They just chant that pigs should die. Tarantino is in trouble as he joined along with the chants and the police unions are organising boycotts of his latest film.

      • djkm

        What on earth are you talking about?