Study: Everyone hates environmentalists and feminists

[Wilikon]

"White masculinity is THE problem for America's colleges..."

Regret: African-American studies and sociology professor Saida Grundy had tweeted that white male students were 'problem population' at American universities

A Boston University professor who called 'white college males' a 'problem population' has said she regrets making the remarks.
Incoming black sociology professor Saida Grundy, whose comments were criticized by university president Robert A. Brown, had declared on her now-private Twitter account that 'white masculinity is THE problem for America's colleges,' among other anti-white tweets.
Ms Grundy said events in the United States over the past year have made 'the inconvenient matter of race' an unavoidable topic, but she expressed remorse over what she had said.


Boston University continued to distance itself from Grundy's racially charged tweets on Tuesday as its president penned an open letter to the campus, saying the comments were 'hurtful.'
President Robert Brown acknowledged Grundy's right to hold and express her opinions but said her remarks unfairly 'typecast' certain groups of people. He stopped short, though, of acknowledging the comments were directed almost exclusively at whites.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3078860/Boston-University-criticizes-black-professors-racial-tweets.html

[1715157516]

1715157516

[1715157516]

1715157516

[1715157516]

1715157516

[1715157516]

1715157516

[1715157516]

1715157516

[Wilikon]

The Horror: Jessica Valenti Terrorized on Subway by ‘Passively Sexist’ Twitter Feed

If you take public transportation and use social media on a mobile device, beware of rubbernecking feminists.

Specifically, beware Guardian columnist Jessica Valenti. Some poor guy had the misfortune to be sitting next to her while checking his Twitter feed on the subway in New York yesterday. And just like that, average straphanger became “passive sexist.”

Valenti saw something, but she didn’t say something. At least not directly. She took to Twitter instead, like the truly courageous activists do.  The tweet brought her well-deserved Twitter scorn, with users calling it the “dumbest tweet of the year” and some recalling an earlier Valenti tweet in which she whined about “women on the subway” having no right to “privacy.”


You have to figure that our passively sexist subway schmo would feel his privacy had been violated – if he’d seen Valenti’s tweet, which he wouldn’t because of his passively sexist Twitter feed.

But hey, at least Valenti is consistent in her hypocrisy. After all, she’s the “slut walk” enthusiast who wouldn’t confirm to MSNBC whether she would let her own daughter dress provocatively to fight “slut shaming.”


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kristine-marsh/2015/05/13/horror-jessica-valenti-terrorized-subway-passively-sexist-twitter?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Either she must have super speed super feminist's eyes to see ALL the feeds on that dude's mobile that fast, or she was a very naughty spying commuter... Not sure which is it.

[coinits]

And if I follow a woman and she happens to be beautiful then I am still sexist.

I guess to not be sexist on Twitter I must only follow overweight and ugly Bull Dykes - hmmm maybe if I follow Billary Clinton I am good an all fronts!

[BlitzandBitz]

Protein World advert: Formal investigation launched into 'beach body ready' campaign

A formal investigation has been launched into an advertisement for Protein World after a campaign asking viewers if they were “beach body ready”.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) confirmed it had launched an investigation to establish whether the advert breaks harm and offense rules or is socially irresponsible.

The advert has also been banned from appearing again in its current form.

The ASA said: “We’ve met with Protein World to discuss its “Are you beach body ready?” ad campaign.

“It’s coming down in the next three days and, due to our concerns about a range of health and weight loss claims made in the ad, it can’t appear again in its current form.

“Although the ad won’t appear in the meantime, we’ve launched an investigation to establish if it breaks harm and offence rules or is socially irresponsible.

“We will now carefully and objectively explore the complaints that have prompted concerns around body confidence and promptly publish our findings.”

A mass demonstration in Hyde Park, London, was planned against the advert over claims that it was “body-shaming” and that it “aimed to make [individuals] feel physically inferior to the unrealistic image of the bronzed model”.

A Change.org petition campaigning for the removal of the advert reached almost 50,000 signatures within just a few days and attracted condemnation from high profile figures such as TV presenter Susannah Reid.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/protein-world-advert-formal-investigation-launched-into-beach-body-ready-campaign-10213584.html

Everyone that fought that ad should be ashamed. Its called ignoring something and if that's offensive to you then you need to grow a pair.

[coinits]

Everyone that fought that ad should be ashamed. Its called ignoring something and if that's offensive to you then you need to grow a pair.

Be careful.

Telling women to grow a pair will get you labeled as sexist.

[Wilikon]

Diversity Officer May Lose Job For #KillAllWhiteMen Tweets

A diversity officer at a British university is back in hot water and may lose her job over tweets she made that appear to call for white men to be exterminated.

It’s the latest chapter in the saga of Bahar Mustafa, a student at Goldsmiths, University of London who works there as a welfare and diversity officer. In April, she drew attention for hosting an event about “diversifying” the school’s curriculum that banned whites and men from attending. A few weeks later, she attempted to defend herself by claiming that “I, an ethnic minority woman, cannot be racist or sexist towards white men.”

Now, students at Goldsmiths have taken action, launching a petition effort seeking to have her deprive of her post via a confidence vote. In the argument favoring a vote of no confidence, Mustafa is accused of repeatedly demeaning people from certain groups and engaging in hate speech, an approach that seems to sharply contradict her responsibility of promoting diversity.

“For example the consistent use of hash-tags such as #killallwhitemen and #misandry, and publically [sic] calling someone ‘white trash’ under the official GSU Welfare and Diversity Officer twitter account,” the argument says. “Any apologies given have been presented in a way that attempts to shift the blame and refuses to see genuine fault in her conduct, which has not changed. The response is still to attack or invalidate students who speak out.”

If three percent of Goldsmiths students sign the petition, a confidence vote will be held. If two-thirds of those voting express no confidence in Mustafa’s leadership, she will lose her position.

Meanwhile, a petition at Change.org is calling on London police to arrest Mustafa for “hate speech and calls for murder,” and has gathered close to ten thousand signatures. The UK has weaker free speech protections than the U.S., and the creators of the petition argue that Mustafa’s statements violate the country’s Racial Hatred Act.

Mustafa has defended her tweets (which appear to have been deleted), claiming her violent hashtags are an inside joke and a way of resisting white oppression.

“It’s a way of reclaiming the power from the trauma many of us experience as queers, women, people of colour, who are on the receiving end of racism, misogyny and homophobia daily,” she said, according to The Independent.



http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/19/diversity-officer-may-lose-job-for-killallwhitemen-tweets/



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US1ipNlsGYY

[Wilikon]

Turning sewage into drinking water gains appeal as drought lingers

It's a technology with the potential to ease California's colossal thirst and insulate millions from the parched whims of Mother Nature, experts say.

But there's just one problem — the "yuck factor."

As a fourth year of drought continues to drain aquifers and reservoirs, California water managers and environmentalists are urging adoption of a polarizing water recycling policy known as direct potable reuse.

Unlike nonpotable reuse — in which treated sewage is used to irrigate crops, parks or golf courses — direct potable reuse takes treated sewage effluent and purifies it so it can be used as drinking water.

It's a concept that might cause some consumers to wince, but it has been used for decades in Windhoek, Namibia — where evaporation rates exceed annual rainfall — and more recently in drought-stricken Texas cities, including Big Spring and Wichita Falls.

In California, however, similar plans have run into heavy opposition.

Los Angeles opponents coined the derisive phrase "toilet to tap" in 2000 before torpedoing a plan to filter purified sewage water into an underground reservoir — a technique called indirect potable reuse.

In 1994, a San Diego editorial cartoonist framed debate over a similar proposal by drawing a dog drinking from a toilet bowl while a man ordered the canine to "Move over..."

Despite those defeats, proponents say the time has finally arrived for Californians to accept direct potable reuse as a partial solution to their growing water insecurity. With Gov. Jerry Brown ordering an unprecedented 25% cut in urban water usage because of drought, the solution makes particular sense for large coastal cities such as Los Angeles, they say.

Instead of flushing hundreds of billions of gallons of treated sewage into the Pacific Ocean each year, as they do now, coastal cites can capture that effluent, clean it and convert it to drinking water.

"That water is discharged into the ocean and lost forever," said Tim Quinn, executive director of the Assn. of California Water Agencies. "Yet it's probably the single largest source of water supply for California over the next quarter-century."

The advocates' hunch that severe drought has changed long-held attitudes on potable reuse may be on the mark.

Recently, a leader in the effort to stop the Los Angeles project more than a decade ago said he still opposed it but might consider a new plan if officials made a solid case for it. He said one of the reasons he opposed the original plan was that "incompetent" officials failed to explain their rationale to residents in the first place.

"You know, toilet to tap might be the only answer at this point," said Van Nuys activist Donald Schultz. "I don't support it, but we're running out of options. In fact, we may have already run out of options."


http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-toilet-to-tap-20150525-story.html#page=1

[tvbcof]

Turning sewage into drinking water gains appeal as drought lingers
...
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-toilet-to-tap-20150525-story.html#page=1

LOL!  Here is a good illustration of the California Agenda-21 crowd and the typical sheep in that state:



Actually I personally would have no particular qualms about re-used waste water as long as there was transparency in the technology and the testing regimes.  And, of course, ALL state employees drank it every day.

It seems like a total no-brainer that Nestle bottling plant leads the way here since they have the industrial facilities and (presumably) extra testing regimes and more control over their product distribution.

edit: ad link

[Wilikon]

Feminists upset over statue of man and woman talking

Scene: You’re a woman, sitting on a bench reading a book. Your male friend sees you on the quad and comes over to say hello and talk. You put down your book, lean back against the bench and smile. He doesn’t sit next to you; instead, he puts his foot on the bench and leans over his knee.

So sexist, right?

That scene is depicted in a statue at the University of the Incarnate Word in San Antonio, Texas, and despite no sign of distress or physical assertion, some women have decided it is a statue of “mansplaining” — a term used to describe men condescendingly explaining something to a woman.


Seriously. Here’s the actual statue and the claim of misogyny:

https://twitter.com/SadDiego/status/601874324757282816/photo/1

…. For its part, the university also denied any notion that the statue depicts condescension toward a woman.

“The statue has long-symbolized the friendship and camaraderie that develops among students as they attend UIW,” school spokesman Carl Myers told WITW. “We are deeply saddened that this image of friendship has been misconstrued as a symbol of sexism on social media. Nothing could be further from the truth.”

But who cares what reasonable people would think the statue depicts, this is patriarchy we're talking about!

"I feel like we've all been guilty of [mansplaining], males and females alike," said Hernandez, the woman who took the original photo of the statue. "But it's just less palatable when a guy's up to it 'cause, well, he's still on the right side of oppression."

Note to future sculptors: When trying to show men and women talking as friends, don't. There's just no way you can do so without offending modern feminist sensibilities.





http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feminists-upset-over-statue-of-man-and-woman-talking/article/2565164

[Anon136]

Man: so what are you doing later?
Woman: finishing my book.

[Trifixion713]

"mansplaining"... Had to look that one up. ...groan...

[Wilikon]

‘Feminism Devouring Itself’: Professor Faces Title IX Charges After Criticizing Culture of Bringing Title IX Charges Willy-Nilly

Title IX was originally aimed at leveling the collegiate playing field between men’s and women’s athletic programs.

Now it’s expanding as a tool to silence professors for expressing ideas — even adamant feminist professors.



Laura Kipnis, a professor in the department of radio, television, and film at Northwestern University, detailed her experience with the bizarre, frightening world of Title IX legal challenges in a Friday Chronicle of Higher Education article titled, “My Title IX Inquisition.”

(The article has proven so popular that, while it was published openly on Friday, the Chronicle has since moved it behind a paywall.)

In the article, Kipnis lays out the reason Title IX charges were filed against her.

It wasn’t because she’d been accused of sexually harassing anybody personally.

It was because two female graduate students complained that an essay Kipnis had written was having a “chilling effect” on students’ ability to report sexual assault.

In the essay, Kipnis referenced the case of a different Northwestern professor who faced two sexual harassment investigations and who is now suing Northwestern and a student for defamation. Mentioning that lawsuit, according to the grad students, was Kipnis’ crime.

The grad students also complained about a tweet Kipnis had sent out

Kipnis’ “offensive” essay had addressed exactly the culture that was now targeting her.

“The new codes sweeping American campuses aren’t just a striking abridgment of everyone’s freedom, they’re also intellectually embarrassing,” Kipnis had written in that essay, skewering the modern academic culture that treats students as delicate objects incapable of handling tough thoughts or saying “No” to sexual advances. “Sexual paranoia reigns; students are trauma cases waiting to happen.”


But while Kipnis thought her university would stand behind her and reject the Title IX charges, she was wrong.

The investigation pressed ahead, and Kipnis hadn’t even  been informed of the specific charges against her.

Kipnis wrote:

I wrote back to the Title IX coordinator asking for clarification: When would I learn the specifics of these complaints, which, I pointed out, appeared to violate my academic freedom? And what about my rights — was I entitled to a lawyer? I received a polite response with a link to another website. No, I could not have an attorney present during the investigation, unless I’d been charged with sexual violence. I was, however, allowed to have a “support person” from the university community there, though that person couldn’t speak. I wouldn’t be informed about the substance of the complaints until I met with the investigators.

Ultimately, Kipnis met with the investigators — two out-of-town lawyers — but she was not allowed to record the meeting or even get her charges in writing.

Her “support person” was soon hit with Title IX charges of his own.

Kipnis wrote that she’s still waiting to hear the results of the investigation, and while she was willing and able to weather the storm as tenured faculty, she worries the growing ranks of adjunct professors nationwide will fare far worse if and when they’re hit with similar charges.

The end result: Academic freedom is on “life support” as students learn they can effectively censor professors for expressing ideas they don’t like, Kipnis wrote.

As Natasha Vargas-Cooper at the feminist blog Jezebel put it, “[Kipnis' case] is a stunning example of feminism devouring itself.”



http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/05/30/feminism-devouring-itself-professor-faces-title-ix-charges-after-criticizing-culture-of-bringing-title-ix-charges-willy-nilly/

[Wilikon]

EPIC FAIL: ‘CLIMATE CHANGE VOTERS’ ATTEMPT TO PROTEST SCOTT WALKER NH CRUISE WITH ‘FLOATING ICEBERG,’ PEOPLE DRESSED AS MOOSE


When Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, the 2016 GOP frontrunner who hasn’t declared his candidacy yet, visited New Hampshire this weekend for a fundraising cruise, the Institutional Left embarrassed itself when it tried to protest his opposition to the lefties’ position on global warming.

Before Walker went on a fundraising cruise on Lake Winnipesaukee, Americans United For Change (AUFC)—a liberal organization—announced it would be organizing a counter-protest to Walker’s cruise. A couple things made this different than any normal protest, however. First off, the people “protesting” Walker on global warming—who they called “climate change voters”—would be dressed as moose. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, they’d be on a “floating iceberg” behind Walker.

Take it away AUFC announcement:

On Friday, May 29th at 6pm, the Koch brothers’ favored candidate Scott Walker will attend a fundraising cruise around Lake Winnipesaukee and climate voters will be hot on his trail. With a floating iceberg in tow, climate voters will press Walker and his out-of-touch views on climate change. Participants will also be highlighting two University of New Hampshire reports this month showing how climate change will have detrimental impacts on Granite State residents.

The release went on to tout the “great visuals” reporters who dared to risk warm weather on the lake melting the “iceberg” would get if they came along.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/au4change/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/01/epic-fail-climate-change-voters-attempt-to-protest-scott-walker-nh-cruise-with-floating-iceberg-people-dressed-as-moose/

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not using a sailboat? Bad for the planet. Is that iceberg made of PVC? Bad for the planet? Were those moose costumes made in china? Bad for the planet... Only one lady? Bad for the err... planet.

 

[Wilikon]

Saying “You Guys” Is A Form Of “Creeping Sexism”…

The tech startup npm recently blogged about the unusual challenge some of its employees have agreed to participate in: they put a dollar in a glass jar every time they say “you guys.”

“We didn’t invent the idea, though I’m not sure where we first heard about it,” reads the company’s explanation on Tumblr. “But the idea is: if you believe that using the word ‘guys’ to describe a mixed-gender group of individuals is creeping sexism, and are trying to eliminate that word from your casual use, you put a dollar in the jar every time you do it accidentally.”

Yes, “creeping sexism.”

That sounds pretty intense. I’m a big user of “guys,” and when it was first brought to my attention that the phrase was frowned upon among leading feminist thinkers and people concerned with equality — especially in male-dominated workplaces — my reaction was “Oh, come on. It’s inaccurate, but it’s not actually hurting anyone.”

But I’ve changed my mind. As I read up on the issue, I realized that my kneejerk response (“but it doesn’t seem like that big a deal to me, personally, and changing would require effort on my part and that’s hard and tiring”) is nothing more than a very typical lazy excuse for avoiding the tiny tweaks to our lives that can, as a whole, make society more equal.

Now I’m convinced that “guys” — unless we are actually addressing a group of guys — has got to go.



http://www.vox.com/2015/6/11/8761227/you-guys-sexism-language

[tvbcof]

Saying “You Guys” Is A Form Of “Creeping Sexism”…
...
Now I’m convinced that “guys” — unless we are actually addressing a group of guys — has got to go.

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/11/8761227/you-guys-sexism-language

Just a note to any normal females reading this:  The hardcore Feminists (which I believe are a small sliver of the population) are doing a wonderful job of turning someone (male) who has been a life-long supporter of women's rights into someone who is pretty jaded about things and less inclined to take the instances of genuine problems which still exist seriously.  Choose your friends wisely and watch for the inflection point when they start doing more harm than good.

As a hard-core atheist I am starting to take an interest in what I always considered lunatic ravings about women found in the Christain bible (and probably in the texts of other religions.)  Not to adopt them of course, but as an interesting study of what are some probably real gender differences and how they manifest themselves statistically in social leadership roles.

---

In my state, our Governor was proven to be not a lot more than a doddering 'first dude' to a power-player women who parasitised the guy and the state.  They were both run out on a rail recently for what is one of the most blatant displays of influence peddling in modern times.  It even shocked our one-party state of Oregon!

This lady's name is Cylvia Hayes.  For one of her 'green jobs' positions of authority she wanted to install some person in a leadership role on the qualifications of her being 'smart, young-ish, and female."

I have always been a progressive when it comes to women's rights in the workplace and such.  This is, to me, exactly the opposite of 'progress'.  I never heard a word of complaint about Hayes' actions in this regard.  This silence is deafening and had someone said something about it it would have gone a long way toward helping me retain confidence in the project to ensure equal rights for all.

[cryptocoiner]

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/26/study_everyone_hates_environmentalists_and_feminists_partner/


Why don’t people behave in more environmentally friendly ways? New research presents one uncomfortable answer: They don’t want to be associated with environmentalists.

That’s the conclusion of troubling new research from Canada, which similarly finds support for feminist goals is hampered by a dislike of feminists.

Participants held strongly negative stereotypes about such activists, and those feelings reduced their willingness “to adopt the behaviors that these activities promoted,” reports a research team led by University of Toronto psychologist Nadia Bashir. This surprisingly cruel caricaturing, the researchers conclude, plays “a key role in creating resistance to social change.”

Writing in the European Journal of Social Psychology, Bashir and her colleagues describe a series of studies documenting this dynamic. They began with three pilot studies, which found people hold stereotyped views of environmentalists and feminists.

In one, the participants—228 Americans recruited via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk—described both varieties of activists in “overwhelmingly negative” terms. The most frequently mentioned traits describing “typical feminists” included “man-hating” and “unhygienic;” for “typical environmentalists,” they included “tree-hugger” and “hippie.”

Another study, featuring 17 male and 45 female undergraduates, confirmed the pervasiveness of those stereotypes.

http://youtu.be/G880gxjj9dI

This study doesn;t make any sence. U can say everyone hates communists, so what?

[AJMax]

People don't like mouthy btches (regardless of gender) or infatile children with arrested development issues.

No way. Really?


Don't waste more time talking about this. No one takes these feminists and environmentalists seriously.

[cryptocoiner]

i do

[Wilikon]

Video: Watch as college students struggle to define what “consent” means




LOS ANGELES — Many embrace “no means no.” They have grown familiar with another three-word standard, “yes means yes.” But America’s college students are deeply divided on how to read the unspoken language of sex.

What if someone undresses? Or gets a condom? Or nods in agreement?

In each of those scenarios, a Washington Post-Kaiser Family Foundation poll found, at least 40 percent of current and recent college students said the action established consent for more sexual activity. And at least 40 percent said it did not.

Conflict and confusion about consent pose enormous challenges for colleges scrambling to prevent sexual assault. Many have discovered they need a new curriculum just to teach incoming students about the do’s and don’ts of intimate communication.

One of the biggest problems: Men sometimes see a green light when women are signaling yellow or red.


Another: Alcohol muddies everything. Many students find it hard to tell when someone has drunk too much and is therefore incapacitated, when a gesture or murmur in the dark might not be what it seems.


“You don’t always hear a yes,” said Luis Garcia, 21, a student at the University of Southern California who participated in the Post-Kaiser poll. “It’s more like a physical affirmation. That’s hard to judge when either party might be intoxicated or impaired. It does become super hard to explicitly define what should be said and what should be done.”

The poll, conducted from January to March, obtained views on sexual assault and related issues from a national sample of 1,053 women and men ages 17 to 26. All are current students or had been undergraduates at four-year colleges within the past four years.

The findings, along with dozens of follow-up interviews, offer a rare window on student attitudes nationwide as colleges, states and the federal government focus on sexual violence.

More than 7 in 10 said their schools had sexual-assault-prevention programs. Of those, most said students took the programs seriously. Lessons about sexual consent are often taught during student orientation through live skits or online tutorials.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/americas-students-are-deeply-divided-on-the-meaning-of-consent-during-sex/2015/06/11/bbd303e0-04ba-11e5-a428-c984eb077d4e_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1



-----------------------------------------------------
We've finally reached the "future"...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urS8GmwmeWQ

[pureelite]

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/26/study_everyone_hates_environmentalists_and_feminists_partner/


Why don’t people behave in more environmentally friendly ways? New research presents one uncomfortable answer: They don’t want to be associated with environmentalists.

That’s the conclusion of troubling new research from Canada, which similarly finds support for feminist goals is hampered by a dislike of feminists.

Participants held strongly negative stereotypes about such activists, and those feelings reduced their willingness “to adopt the behaviors that these activities promoted,” reports a research team led by University of Toronto psychologist Nadia Bashir. This surprisingly cruel caricaturing, the researchers conclude, plays “a key role in creating resistance to social change.”

Writing in the European Journal of Social Psychology, Bashir and her colleagues describe a series of studies documenting this dynamic. They began with three pilot studies, which found people hold stereotyped views of environmentalists and feminists.

In one, the participants—228 Americans recruited via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk—described both varieties of activists in “overwhelmingly negative” terms. The most frequently mentioned traits describing “typical feminists” included “man-hating” and “unhygienic;” for “typical environmentalists,” they included “tree-hugger” and “hippie.”

Another study, featuring 17 male and 45 female undergraduates, confirmed the pervasiveness of those stereotypes.

http://youtu.be/G880gxjj9dI

Because both are doing what they are doing in a wrong way. People who care about enviroment want to stop other people from using petrol cars, instead of doing something regarding mass production plants, feminist don't care about equality, they want female superiority etc...