Wellesley College, located 12 miles west of Boston, recently appointed a new president: Paula A. Johnson. She blazes a trail by being the first black to head the school. She continues tradition by being female.
Should men care? I think so, if only to note the breath-taking double-think on display.
One of John’s goals is to strengthen the college’s much-vaunted diversity. She wants “to not only strengthen and deepen that diversity, but also ensure that our residential experience is taking full advantage of that diversity, that our young women are really experiencing all the richness that diversity brings our campus.” Since she mentioned diversity (the latest liberal buzzword) 3 times in 37 words, you’d think she meant it. Alas, she will command an elite enclave that denies admission to half the world.
Wellesley, you see, still sexistly excludes men. Of Johnson’s 2400 scholars, not one bears a johnson.
Does “diverse” Wellesley offer a degree in Military Studies or discuss how men feel fighting wars? Or does it champion the military lowering standards to create the illusion that men and women are equal…while maintaining sex-segregated showers and Olympic events? Does it teach that the main reason women survived the Titanic’s sinking was their possessing vaginas? Is the mention of male honor, sacrifice, consistency, and fairness verboten at the school?
How diverse is the College, really? How many conservatives matriculate? How many Christian fundamentalist? Men’s rights activists? Heterosexuals? Amish? NRA members?
Its student body is 42% Asian-biracial-black-Hispanic with 12% “international” students. That is, while giving lip-service to inclusion, the college remains 95% non-black.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for a confession of hypocrisy, though. Wellesley is a feminist redoubt, after all. It boasts alums like Lady Macbubba (Hillary Clinton) and Madeleine “Me Likey Dead Iraqi Babies” Albright. Maybe deceit and double-standards pollute Wellesley’s wells.
The new president brayed that the college provides an “outstanding liberal arts education.” That’s usually code for inculcating a leftist, liberal agenda. It also raises questions, like:
Can a so-called “institute of higher learning” claim in 2016 to be enlightened while discriminating based on gender?
Can the learned doctor not see the bias in her founding a female-only medical center? Would she support a whites-only hospital?
As a physician, does she support level-funding for both breast and prostate cancer research?
As a parent, does she endorse affirmative action awarding divorced fathers custody until such time as dads attain post-marital equality?
Will she fight to make cab drivers get paid the same as brain surgeons in the name of pay equity…like telling women with degrees in Queer Studies they deserve as much as men in STEM fields?
Does she endorse the creation of an all-female regiment like the all-black Massachusetts 54th so women can prove their martial mettle? Since the brave warriorette-wannabes at Wellesley were spooked by a statue of an inferior male human, will the fierce amazons charge North Koreans with “jazz hands”?
The piece also stated that “Johnson’s work has focused in part on biological differences between women and men.” Impossible! Doesn’t she know that men and women are equal?
She also seeks to “correct a longstanding imbalance in medical research that looked only at men.” Hmmm. Was that because men volunteered to be guinea pigs to tests drugs, vaccines, and medical procedures to benefit everyone?
Why is male generosity downplayed, even demonized? Why is chivalry retroactively damned for excluding women? Why no mention of good males protecting even bad females, sparing them pain? Why is the military excoriated for denying women the chance to be wounded, tortured, and killed equally?
Sgt Paula and her Howling Harridans are something else. They assert that the “mission of Wellesley is to educate women who will make a difference in the world” (like Hitler did?). Is that why they’re now admitting “different” caitlynites?
That’s right: the bastion of Gynothought will now accept un-men. Trannies. The message? If you’re willing to lop off your willy, removing all taint and trace of manhood, riot grrrls will welcome you. Like, I suppose, apartheid South Africa welcomed blacks who flayed their skin.
What new freakishness will feminism normalize? Will Wellesley one day confer PhDs in Gnocchi-ism on pierogi-loving dumplingkins? Such sexist shenanigans make Caligula’s treating a horse like a Roman senator seem tame.
How strange, too, to hear cowardly women— who can’t find the grit to ask men on dates— brag about female leadership. Does any man packing a pair think “leaning in” makes you a leader? Did Patton lead by body posture or putting his body in harm’s way? Yet all we hear these days is how fierce and feisty women are as they blame men for all female failings, pout like children, and demand more-more-more help from Big Government (aka The Patriarchy). Their leadership seems to consist mainly of nagging men to change the world.
Why do guys put up with it? Why do men tolerate insults to their gender and institutions? Is it because, raised by mothers (upon whom their very survival once depended), they feel a primal fear when opposing females? Is it because they’ve been lied to all their lives…shamed and drugged in schools for being imperfect females? Is it because they were told they run things and thus cause all worldly problems? Is it because they fear being attacked by ms.-guided white-knights?
Who knows. The fact remains that they haven’t defended manhood. Harvard and Williams went coed, not Smith and Simmons. The Citadel was forced to admit females based on it being state-funded. Douglass College (at Rutgers-The-State-University) remains female-only.
So…is Wellesley really just a reeducation camp teaching Femthink? You know:
women good, men bad;
because women are responsible for nothing they deserve to run everything (like letting 5-year olds fly jumbo-jets);
men are just drones in a matriarchy, doing dirty, dangerous jobs to make the world safe for Big Sister;
“critical thinking” means agreeing with liberal progressives holding anti-male stances;
“diversity” means “no whites;”
“inclusion” means both Harvard and Radcliffe focusing on women;
“gender” means “everyone but straight white males.”
How did we get here?
For eons few humans enjoyed formal education. First, there were few universities during the Stone Age. Second, it was a rich man’s game, requiring intelligence, leisure, and money. Students had to travel in sometimes inclement weather to cities often dirty and dangerous. Few women qualified. Over time, technologies developed by men allowed more men to attend college (often experiencing hazing, class conflict, and corporal punishment). When modern times arrived (with safer transportation, better-policed cities, and booming economies), women, too, began to obtain degrees.
Early colleges were sex-segregated for many of the reasons feminists hold dear: like men being deemed sexual beasts who prey on pure, precious females in need of pedestal’d protection. Yet in reality, Radcliffe often rival’d Harvard in terms of excellence. And carnal couplings were not infrequent. The movie Love Story captures the vibe as does Wellesley infamous “fuck truck.”
There were more choices then. You could go to all-male, all-black, all-female, or all-Catholic schools. You could also go to coed colleges. There was respect for both tradition and change.
Recent decades reversed that with a full frontal assault on all-things-male. The Boys’ Club, Cornell, and Rotarians were forced to admit women. At the same time, Wellesley and other schools remained all-female. Plus anti-male entities proliferated, creating women-only health clubs, road races, DV shelters, and college centers on coed campuses.
It’s a womanifestation of Femthink: “What’s hers is hers. What’s his is hers, too.”
Does Wellesley exist to make up for past “sexism”? If so, will its graduates finally do their fair share by driving long-haul trucks, mining coal, and drilling oil?
I doubt it.
IMHO, Wellesley should go the way of the USSR and dodo bird. It’s sexism is both arrogant and antiquated, a relic of benighted times. It seems a gendered institution of alchemical unlearning, the patriarchy supplanting phlogiston.
Finally, one chippy senior chirped that Ms. Johnson understands the importance of “equity, inclusion, and well-being”…oblivious to her college excluding males and ignoring men’s issues. Feminists like her should be forced to fund the erection of (!) a Women’s Ingratitude Memorial on the national mall. And told to consider carefully what they ask for. A world where men become indifferent to females will not be pleasant for steinemites. Especially since reality doesn’t mesh with Wellesley’s motto: “Not to be ministered unto but to minister!” In truth, women demand that men minister to, cater to, and take care of females…who swear they are really-really-really equal and independent.