America: the Land of Opportunity

Calling America ‘Land of Opportunity’ Is a ‘Microaggression’ Says University of California

Well, if America is NOT the land of opportunity, why are all these illegals here, anyway? All universities have gone completely stupid? Or only in California?

The Damore vs Google Lawsuit

The Lawsuit of the year? Decade? Century? Whatever, we need more popcorn.

Silicon Valley Will Pay the Price for Its Lefty Leanings
A lawsuit alleges that Google discriminated against conservatives. It won't end well for Google.

Google, for its part, says that it is eager to defend the lawsuit. But lawyers always announce that they have a sterling case that is certain to prevail, even if they know they are doomed. And unless they can present strong evidence that there were legions of conservatives happily frolicking away on their internal message boards while enjoying the esteem of their colleagues and the adulation of their managers, there is no way that this suit ends well for Google. If the company and its lawyers think otherwise, they are guilty of a sin known to the media as “reading your own press releases,” and to drug policy experts as being “high on your own supply.”

There are expensive, time-consuming, exasperating lawsuits, and then there are radioactive lawsuits that poison everyone who comes within a mile of them. And this lawsuit almost certainly falls into the latter category.

And from Glenn Reynolds:

David Brooks is right. In the wake of his atrocious mishandling of the James Damore matter, Google CEO Sundar Pichai must go. Damore authored a moderate proposal, stressing that he supported diversity and thought that people should be treated as individuals, while offering some suggestions as to why Google’s efforts to recruit more women techies had failed. Various people (most of whom, as The Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf noted, seem not to have read Damore’s actual memo, but rather to have been responding to an imaginary document instead) demanded that Damore be fired. CEO Sundar Pichai complied and gave Damore the boot. For this egregious piece of mob-induced misjudgment, Pichai must go. But that’s the least of the problems for Google, and Silicon Valley.

The Damore firing, and Pichai’s disgraceful handling of it, represents colossal damage to Google’s brand. In essence, it’s an announcement — by a company that has access to everyone’s data — that it endorses the notion of thought-crime.

As Brooks says: “(Pichai) could have wrestled with the tension between population-level research and individual experience. He could have stood up for the free flow of information. Instead he joined the mob. He fired Damore and wrote, ‘To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK.’ That is a blatantly dishonest characterization of the memo. Damore wrote nothing like that about his Google colleagues. Either Pichai is unprepared to understand the research (unlikely), is not capable of handling complex data flows (a bad trait in a C.E.O.) or was simply too afraid to stand up to a mob.”

Or, worst of all, Pichai didn’t stand up to the mob because he agreed with the mob. But whatever, it’s a big problem for Google, and by extension for Silicon Valley in general.

Since its 1990s heyday, Silicon Valley has transformed from an unruly collection of aggressive upstarts disrupting existing industries to a flabby collection of near-monopolies, now busy enforcing gentry-liberal norms on their employees and customers. Whether it’s censoring right-leaning political figures, or firing employees who dare say something truthful but politically incorrect, there’s not much of the old startup spirit there. These are flabby overstaffed Big Business corporations, run by their HR departments. You might find more dynamism at General Motors, these days.

More: Congrats, Google, you found the worst way to build diversity

POLICING THE USA: A look at race, justice, media

But worse yet, they exercise tremendous power and require tremendous trust. When you use Facebook or Google (or Twitter, or Amazon, or Netflix) you’re sharing a lot of data with a company that you have to trust won’t abuse that. It’s much harder to trust a company that has decided to aggressively pursue thoughtcrime. And it doesn’t matter where you are on the political spectrum – Damore describes himself as a centrist. But it only takes one politically incorrect utterance, as so many in academia have learned, to achieve Enemy Of The People status. And then, apparently, you’re fair game.

Can you trust a self-driving car from Google, if some new company policy might reprogram it to avoid events Google doesn’t approve? Can you trust Google to prevent its (apparently many) “social-justice warrior” employees from trawling through your personal data looking for dirt, and then leaking it?

As Robert Tracinski writes, this is the big danger for Google: “The most dangerous part is that they are now beginning to be seen by the public (or revealed, depending on how you look at it) as politicized entities. Politicized entities to whom we are giving enormous amounts of data on our lives, thoughts and interests.”

People were already agitating for stricter antitrust scrutiny of Google, Facebook and other Internet giants. One of the main protections those companies enjoyed against such scrutiny was their general image as benign and – aside from a vague sort of libertarianism – nonpolitical. Pichai’s handling of the Damore matter destroyed that image. Now Silicon Valley looks political, partisan and maybe even a bit sinister. It’s not a good look.

I think James Damore will wind up in the history books, if the books are honestly written (not guaranteed).

Professor: Academic Rigor = Bad.

Prof: Academic rigor reinforces 'power and privilege'

Suggested Subtitle: I'm too lazy and stupid for actual academic rigor, so I don't reap the rewards that those who actually are rigorous get, so they must stop being rigorous, amirite? And BTW I don't do math or empiricism, I do feminist, Foucaultian destructive criticism which gets me published in non-engineering feminist journals.

The leader of Purdue University’s School of Engineering Education recently declared that academic “rigor” reinforces “white male heterosexual privilege.”

Donna Riley, who previously taught engineering at Smith College for 13 years, published an article in the most recent issue of the journal Engineering Education, arguing that academic rigor is a “dirty deed” that upholds “white male heterosexual privilege.”

"Scientific knowledge itself is gendered, raced, and colonizing."

Defining rigor as “the aspirational quality academics apply to disciplinary standards of quality,” Riley asserts that “rigor is used to maintain disciplinary boundaries, with exclusionary implications for marginalized groups and marginalized ways of knowing.”

Engineering Education is a discipline??? No freaking wonder she can't do engineering, and finds it threatening: quality in engineering is too hard for her and "genders, races" and thus it succeeds over those, which appears colonizing.

This is a blatant admission of technical inability cum SJW totalitarianism, focused on destruction of something they cannot understand much less dominate.

Again, what the hell is "engineering education" anyway? And don't forget this wonderful diktat:

"Scientific knowledge itself is gendered, raced, and colonizing."

This is a marker for ideological insanity. In fact, take a look at Prof. Riley's published papers (I've bolded the pertinent info):

Selected Publications

Riley, D., Pawley, A., Tucker, J., and Catalano, G.D. "Feminisms in Engineering Education: Transformative Possibilities." National Women's Studies Association Journal, (August 2009).

Riley, D. Engineering and Social Justice. San Rafael, CA: Morgan and Claypool (2008).

Riley, D. and Sciarra, G.L. "'You're all a bunch of fucking feminists': Addressing the Perceived Conflict Between Gender and Professional Identities Using the Montreal Massacre." Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference, October 28–31, San Diego, CA (2006).

Riley, D. M., and Claris, L. "Power/Knowledge: Using Foucault to promote critical understandings of content and pedagogy in engineering thermodynamics." ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, June 18 - 21, Chicago, IL (2006).

Riley, D. and Armstrong, E. "Common Ground: How a course collaboration between engineering and women's studies produced fine art." ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, June 12-15, Portland, OR (2005).

Chesler, N. and Riley, D. "The Art of Engineering: Using fine arts to discuss the lives of women faculty in engineering." ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, June 20-23, Salt Lake City, Utah (2004).

Riley, D. "Employing Liberative Pedagogies in Engineering Education." Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 9(2): 137-158 (2003).

Riley, D. "Sex, Fear and Condescension on Campus: Cybercensorship at Carnegie Mellon University." Wired_Women: Gender and new realities in cyberspace. L. Cherney and E.R. Weise, eds. Seattle: Seal Press, 1996.

This illuminates and explains her approach to "engineering education":

She claims that rigor can “reinforce gender, race, and class hierarchies in engineering, and maintain invisibility of queer, disabled, low-income, and other marginalized engineering students,” adding that “decades of ethnographic research document a climate of microaggressions and cultures of whiteness and masculinity in engineering.”

She evens contends that “scientific knowledge itself is gendered, raced, and colonizing,” asserting that in the field of engineering, there is an “inherent masculinist, white, and global North bias...all under a guise of neutrality.”

[RELATED: Prof: Algebra, geometry perpetuate white privilege]

To fight this, Riley calls for engineering programs to “do away with” the notion of academic rigor completely, saying, “This is not about reinventing rigor for everyone, it is about doing away with the concept altogether so we can welcome other ways of knowing. Other ways of being. It is about criticality and reflexivity.”

“We need these other ways of knowing to critique rigor, and to find a place to start to build a community for inclusive and holistic engineering education,” she concludes.

Google Censors More Content, This Time For Islam Skewing

Google Manipulates Search Results to Conceal Criticism of Islam and Jihad

Despite his success, Suleiman still isn’t satisfied:

One leading activist in favor of Google modifying its results told Anadolu Agency he noticed the updated search results and thanked the company for its efforts but said “much still needs to be done.” He claimed that Google has a responsibility to “combat ‘hate-filled Islamophobia’ similar to how they work to suppress extremist propaganda from groups like Daesh and al-Qaeda."

This should have made Google executives stop and think.

The Islamic State (Daesh) and al-Qaeda slaughter people gleefully and call openly for more mass murders. Yet there is no firm evidence that anyone has ever been killed by a “hate-filled Islamophobe.” And the claim that the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the SPLC make in this article -- that this supposed “Islamophobic” rhetoric has led to a rise in hate crimes against Muslims -- is supported by not a scintilla of evidence.

This is purely about money, with no ethics or morals or principles applied. Google did the same thing for China, so that it wouldn't be banned from a kazillion chinese advertising targets. Google will do virtually anything for money. It would be "evil" not to.

Besides, all cultures are equal in all respects, right? Except for the obviously evil Christians and Right Wingers and maybe whites. Do you doubt that your skin tone can be used to bar you from certain search permissions? It would be easy to do.

Hegel and the SJW

SJWs are NEVER content

Until all cis-normals are purged from the universe, SJWs will continue to converge every entity they touch. The antithesis must be achieved; no synthesis is satisfactory. They march toward appropriation of all of culture, which they will destroy by re-assembling it into permanent Marxist/communist three class war. And the weak SJW will be purged along with the Oppressor Class just as has always happened in class war countries around the world.

But But But... Sputter... NRA... gag/phhhttt... Social Justice... sputter... RunAway!

A Perfect Win

Charles Glasser, at Instapundit:

SLANTING AN OPINION IN FAVOR OF FREE SPEECH: The Supreme Court ruled Monday that federal trademarks can be registered in most cases even if they are considered derogatory. The case involved an Asian rock band who tried to register the name “The Slants.” SJW’s lost their minds, but Justice Alito wrote for a unanimous Court that “It offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend.” This bodes well for the Washington Redskins.

Too funny! Asians want to call themselves "The Slants"; SJWs won't have it, but have stepped into cultural appropriation by trying to dictate what another culture wants to do.

Answer: Yes, Because...

...they are primarily Leftist/communists, not gay rights activists (unless it is convenient). Even Muslims who hate and kill gays get higher ranking than gays in the Messiah-allocated Victimhood hierarchy. All candidates for Victimhood status should understand that when their usefulness evaporates, it's "under the bus" for you.

Can Charlotte Pride parade exclude Gays for Trump float?

Brietbart Goes Full CUCK

Breitbart Editor Katie McHugh: I Was Fired for Anti-Muslim Tweets

Memo to: Breitbart Cucks
Re: Muslims/Islam and the New Breitbart Crap-Weaselism.

1. "Muslim" is not a race. Therefore, it is not racist to criticize Islam.

2. Muslims are not violent, until s/he/they are violent. Then they are very violent.

3. The real Breitbart would go crazy on all you PC-addled, Leftist-SJW virtue-signalling crap-weasels.

4. You are dead to me, traitors.

Please Rot,
Stan

And Floors, And Doors, And Windows, And Ceilings, And... What're Those Things Again?... Oh Yeah, Books, And...

UMich Student Says Minorities Are Oppressed by Wood Paneling

Converging Into Nothingness

Don't Clap 'Cause the Deaf Can't Hear It: Use Jazz Hands Only

Whooping should be banned beause it excludes deaf people, Nation Union of Students say

As always, the SJW steps into a pile of its own effluent: Jazz hands excludes the blind. The more they try to be Messiahs, the more stupid is their position.

Speaks For Itself:

March for Science Organizers Don’t Want Bill Nye as Leader Because He’s a ‘White Male’

Necessary Due Solely to Narrative

The pre-born may be sacrificed for convenience, of course.

Thinking With Their Glands

Fred Reed, anthropologist of the week:

(7) This in turn brings us to immigration, which amounts to the importation of people so they can hate each other.

Open borders are supported by vaguely warm-hearted appeals to those who think with their glands. There are probably 500 million Indians, as many Chinese, hundreds of millions of Africans, more Muslims, and several hundred million Latin Americans who would like to emigrate to the United States. The question for Social Justice Warriors is how many of these should be admitted–none, all, or a specific figure between?

Anyone who makes noises in favor of immigration should answer this question as otherwise he will be engaging in mere moral posing. But to choose one number is to exclude another number. Not inclusive, that.

So. Moral posing vs. not inclusive. The SJW must choose correctly according to SJW narrative, or be subjected to mass revulsion and expulsion. Moral posing is so much easier to pull off. And easier on the glands, too.

Queering Engineering

Doomed. Just Doomed.

A Lesbian SJW has been put in charge of the Engineering Education Department at Purdue. Step into the alternate universe of Lesbian Messiahism in Engineering, if you dare:

Queering Engineering At Purdue

Possibly holding the record for highest number of Marxist Class War buzz words in the most compact form, meet Donna Riley:

Having all but ruined humanities education, the Social Justice Warriors now turn to the STEM fields. Purdue University has hired Donna Riley as its new head of its School of Engineering Education. Here’s an excerpt from Prof. Riley’s biography page at Smith College, where she taught for 13 years:

My scholarship currently focuses on applying liberative pedagogies in engineering education, leveraging best practices from women’s studies and ethnic studies to engage students in creating a democratic classroom that encourages all voices. In 2005 I received a CAREER award from the National Science Foundation to support this work, which includes developing, implementing, and assessing curricular and pedagogical innovations based on liberative pedagogies and student input at Smith, and understanding how students at Smith conceptualize their identities as engineers. I seek as an engineering educator to be part of a paradigm shift that these pedagogies demand, repositioning concerns about diversity in science and engineering from superficial measures of equity as headcounts, to addressing justice and the genuine engagement of all students as core educational challenges.

I currently teach traditional courses in the areas of chemical and environmental engineering, as well as elective courses on engineering and global development, science, technology, and ethics (cross-listed with SWG) and technological risk assessment and communication. I seek to revise engineering curricula to be relevant to a fuller range of student experiences and career destinations, integrating concerns related to public policy, professional ethics and social responsibility; de-centering Western civilization; and uncovering contributions of women and other underrepresented groups.

In EGR 330 (Engineering and Global Development), we critically evaluate past and current trends in appropriate and sustainable technology. We examine how technology influences and is influenced by globalization, capitalism and colonialism, and the role technology plays in movements that counter these forces. Gender is a key thread running through the course in examining issues of water supply and quality, food production and energy.

In EGR 205 (Science, Technology and Ethics), we consider questions such as who decides how science and engineering are done, who can participate in the scientific enterprise and what problems are legitimately addressed within these disciplines and professions. We take up racist and colonialist projects in science, as well as the role of technology, culture and economic systems in the drive toward bigger, faster, cheaper and more automated production of goods. A course theme around technology and control provides for exploration of military, information, reproductive and environmental applications. Using readings from philosophy, science and technology studies, and feminist and postcolonial science studies, we explore these topics and encounter new models of science and engineering that are responsive to ethical concerns.

She will come to Purdue from Virginia Tech. This is an excerpt from her faculty page there:

Riley’s research interests include engineering and social justice; engineering ethics; social inequality in engineering education; and the liberal education of engineers. In 2005 she received a National Science Foundation CAREER award on implementing and assessing critical and feminist pedagogies in engineering classrooms. Students in Riley’s research group are pursuing interests including culturally inclusive pedagogies; understanding faculty motivations and approaches to teaching engineering ethics; connections between critical thinking and engineering ethics pedagogies; engineering education policy; and public participation in engineering projects impacting communities.

And there you were, thinking that the hard sciences and engineering were immune to this kind of thing, because they are about numbers.

Anybody object to bringing cultural politics into the engineering classroom? Anybody think there’s something … off about using engineering courses to “de-center” Western civilization? Go ahead, I dare you to object. You and your white male science privilege!

Here’s the kind of thing Purdue engineering students can expect henceforth. It’s from the blog of one of Dr. Riley’s students at Smith, who writes approvingly:

Critical pedagogy is the education movement aimed developing students into socially and politically aware individuals, helping them recognize authoritarian tendencies, empowering them to act against injustice, and employing democratic and inclusive classroom practices. The term “critical pedagogy” has been used by educators to refer to a broad range of pedagogies that employ critical theory, feminist theory, queer theory, anti-racist theory, multicultural education, and inclusive pedagogies. In this post, I will discuss some of the critical pedagogy practices employed by Dr. Donna Riley (currently a professor at Virginia Tech) while teaching a class called “Engineering Thermodynamics” as Smit College, an all women college, during Spring and Fall semesters of 2002. It should be noted that Riley uses liberative pedagogy as an inclusive term for critical pedagogy, feminist pedagogy, and radical pedagogy. Some of the classroom practices employed by Riley included:

Connecting learning to students’ experiences. Students learn the most from examples which they can relate to, based on their social and cultural backgrounds. Hence, Riley used a wide variety of thermodynamic systems in class as examples. Also, the textbook for the class was chosen such that it contained a wide variety of examples of thermodynamic systems.

Democratic classroom practices. Students were assigned teaching roles to teach parts of the course to the entire class. They were not only asked to develop modules to teach the class but also encouraged to relate them to their own lives. Also, the seating arrangement reflected the democratic classroom practices. Instead of sitting in rows facing the instructor, students were asked to sit in circles with each student facing and talking to the entire class instead of just the instructor.

Taking responsibility for one’s own learning. Students were required to take responsibility for their learning in that they were asked to do metacognitive reflections on what was working or not working for them in the class. They were also asked to do assignments in which they reflected on their learning of various aspects of the course.

Ethics discussions. In order for students to be develop as ethically responsible individuals, they need to learn the impact which an engineer’s work has on the society. To develop such an ethical awareness, Riley and her class watched and critiqued videos on “energy in society”, critiqued the textbook used for the class by analyzing the aspects (e.g. alternate energy, environmental applications of thermodynamics, energy system in developing countries) which were missing from the textbook. Also, students were assigned ethics problems to reflect on.

Breaking the Western hegemony. In order to decenter the male hegemony of the Western civilization, Riley discussed examples of thermodynamic inventions done by non-Western and non-male inventors. Also, some of the assignments required students to make interracial and intercultural connections in thermodynamics.

Normalizing mistakes. By normalizing mistakes in the process of learning, Riley fostered a classroom environment in which students were comfortable attempting problems (sometimes even on the black board) in class and learning from their mistakes. Another strategy used by her for normalizing mistakes was acknowledging when she herself did not know something.

Discussion of history and philosophy. Riley discussed the history and philosophy of the development of thermodynamic laws to demonstrate to the students that the process of discovery does not lead one to an absolute truth. Instead, making mistakes is acceptable in the process of discovery. Students were also required to reflect on how the knowledge of history and philosophy of thermodynamics helped their learning.

Assessment techniques. The assessment of students put a greater emphasis on participation. Moreover, a flexible grading system was adopted. Students were asked to work in pairs on some exams. In the second offering of the course, problems were given to the students only as a learning exercise and not as an assessment tool. Moreover, continual course feedback was taken from students to improve their learning experience.

One of the critiques of critical pedagogy is that it does not provide specific classroom practices. It just suggests that teaching and learning should be contextual and aim at raising critical awareness among students. A lot of times educators do not know how to apply critical pedagogy in their classes, especially in hard and applied sciences, due to a lack of knowledge about how to apply it. I hope the practices noted above can be adopted to and adapted for any classroom and any discipline.

Here’s an interview with Dr. Riley as part of a “Queered Science” series. Riley is a lesbian, and uses gender-neutral pronouns. Excerpt:

While overt sexism and homophobia are less common than historically, they still play out in ways that are subtle and, therefore, insidious and hard to combat. How do you see this happening in the sciences, and how do you deal with it?

One of the biggest sources of sexism and homophobia is lodged in the epistemology of science. How we think, and what we think, matter in determining what we know and don’t know, and affects our workplace interactions in very negative ways. We think that we eliminate bias by keeping our “personal lives” – some aspects of ourselves – out of the lab, classroom, or office. But actually this is how we allow implicit bias to seep in and saturate everything we do, because that which is male, straight, white, able-bodied, monied, is not left behind in the practice of science and engineering – it is just so normative that lots of us don’t notice.

I have learned that talking about these issues and building solidarity with like-minded others is the only way we can ever address them. Ultimately scientists and engineers have to be able to think outside the epistemological boxes we’ve been trained into to understand diversity and social justice. Cultural change takes a lot of hard work, it takes talking to people and organizing — skills typically not in our wheelhouses as scientists and engineers.

Congratulations, Purdue. This is going to be interesting. I wonder where the undergraduates who just want to get an engineering education without being harangued by a critical-studies commissar will go to school now?

My favorite part is that "sexism and homophobia is lodged in the epistemology of science". The epistemology of science is the search for valid and true thinking regarding the cause and effect relationships of material objects. Nothing more. One has to fabricate completely new meanings to these concept-containing words in order to shoe-horn in Marxist Victimhood claims. Obviously this Lesbian SJW is up to the task, and focuses entirely on anti-that which is male, straight, white, able-bodied, monied. Sane males will go elsewhere to become engineers. Females who wish to destroy engineering will sign up; whether they ever get jobs remains to be seen.

Yer Already There, Sweetie

Death Knell: Merriam-Webster Flops to the Left

Going SJW is always the precursor to loss of respect followed by loss of viability. Never go full SJW.

Why Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary is Trolling Trump

That’s because conservatives and liberals alike will reject as too Orwellian a dictionary perceived as politically charged. It will simply be too hard to convince people that cultural or political bias hasn’t seeped into and soiled the dictionary’s definitions. When it comes to lexicography, credibility depends on impartiality.

Regardless of their political opinions, Americans still expect the dictionary to be objective and neutral, even more than they expect that from the media. So at a time when trust and confidence in America’s mainstream media is practically nonexistent, why would Merriam-Webster even flirt with the appearance of partisanship?

If even the dictionary loses its objectivity, it means politics in America has become entirely inescapable. That’s not just dangerous, it’s sad. It’s unhealthy. It’s not good for a society to be so permeated with politics that there is nowhere to hide.

I still have my five pound unabridged Webster's from 1979. The dust cover says, "2,347 pages, 320,000 defintions, 19 encyclopedic supplements, 3,000 illustrations, Full Color maps of the world." Price:$69.95, which was a pretty good bundle in the day.

What Happens When You Go FULL SJW

Big Layoffs Coming to Financially Struggling ESPN

As sports cable network ESPN continues to bleed cash, another round of layoffs is about to hit that will reportedly take out some well-known reporters and on-air faces.

Reports say that ESPN management is being tasked with cutting “tens of millions” of dollars of staff salary from its payroll, meaning that on-air personalities are on the chopping block, according to Sports Illustrated.

“Today’s fans consume content in many different ways, and we are in a continuous process of adapting to change and improving what we do. Inevitably, that has consequences for how we utilize our talent,” ESPN said in a statement. “We are confident that ESPN will continue to have a roster of talent that is unequaled in sports.”

The network is reportedly set to buyout some contracts, and fire writers and behind the camera staffers. The slashing of staff will likely be completed by June, insiders say.

The news of the massive cuts comes on the heels of reports that ESPN is losing millions per year.

Once a sports powerhouse, ESPN has gone from must-see-TV for millions of sports fans to a financial boondoggle for owner Disney with the network losing up to 10,000 subscribers a day, reports said last month.

“A floundering ESPN, with rising costs and declining viewership, continued to sink Disney’s DIS, +0.24% financial results during its fiscal first quarter,” MarketWatch.com reported.

With ESPN dragging on the company, Disney’s revenue fell 3 percent, and its profits sank 14 percent, the financial site reported.

Guys -- Wanna be a Girl?

Here's your chance to learn how to be a snowflake girly boy:

Schools offer ‘safe spaces’ to combat ‘toxic masculinity’

Universities across the country are committing to fight "toxic masculinity" this year with conferences and events exploring the allegedly violent tendencies inherent to "manhood."

Ithaca College is hosting a workshop on "masculinity and violence" as part of its MLK Day festivities, while Duke University is hosting a nine-week discussion series to explore "how masculinity exists on our campus—often in toxic ways."

Masculinity is definitely toxic to Lesbian Feminazis. Perhaps it's time to show up at these "safe spaces" and flex your muscles and strut your personal identity for them. That's their approach to, say, MIlO, that Toxic Gay. I say bring it back to them. And try to have great hair, OK?