Why are men angry? College majors as illustrative

Kay Hymowitz has been in the news recently, bitching about men from a conservative-female mindset and trying to explain why men–especially middle class white and non-asian-minority men—are “man-children” refusing to grow up like they did as little as 40 years ago (which, as any Baby Boomer knows, is the most normal and well-known time in the galaxy).

Now, a lot of guys in the Man-o-sphere have gotten hot under the collar about this, such as the immortal Roissy (whom Hymowitz references by name in her work) and the iterant, irregular, but wonderful Whiskey . But I don’t take Hymowitz so personally, and I think she’s more fair to men.

Then again, I’m a regular City Journal reader, so Hymowitz’s work is old hat to me. She posted this same stuff nearly two years ago in her article Child-Man in the Promised Land. So I’m a bit immune to all the hubub right now. And Hymowtiz, unlike most women, is sympathetic to men on the issue. She sees and understands that men are angry and deliberately refusing to “grow up,” and wants to bring it to light.

Of course, Hymowitz being a woman, she is incapable of getting to the truth: the reason we are mad is because we are better than the people we are told to crawl before. Women, blacks, and gays (WBGs)—none of whom have created meaningful culture, science,art, war, religion, philosophy, or any lasting contribution to the human race in our 10,000 years of civilization—have been put in charge by nothing more than societal fiat. And this fiat also dictates that men must be shackled and chained in word, deed, and action, and regularly brought low to kiss the feet of broads, blacks, and butt-pirates.

Because queers, niggers, and chicks aren’t good enough to compete, false equivalencies are made up to somehow grant them their status; the most notable battle ground is in college.

Fake majors with grades based on professorial whims and not hard logic—ethnic studies, women’s studies, queer theory, sociology, social psychology—have been created, given prominence, and have been determined to be “equal or greater” than math, chemistry, etc. These are areas where WBGs can come out ahead, since the grading is subjective and the professor can grade essays on the idea of what “diversity” they add to the curriculum. Thumb firmly on the scale.

“Mixed” majors—majors like History or English, where there is an objective answer, but not always just one—have been infiltrated by theorists who push marxist/feminist/ethnic/fag interpretations of history and texts and play down male-centered readings that were the point of such writings.

As an example, how many of you were taught the martial campaigns of George Washington during the Revolutionary War? Or the extensive military actions that occur in Henry V? In most of history, such things would have been commonplace; people studying American history knew of the miraculous fog at the Battle of Long Island or how the English army used longbowmen pulled off a stunning victory at the Battle of Agincourt.

In my own workplace, people are ignorant of even the names of the opening battles of the American Revolution. And yet we’re taught crap like “Feminist and Gay and Black contributions to American History” and all about the poor oppression of the red man and black man (who did a bit of oppressing themselves that we’re never taught of). People read Henry V as anti-war, not pro-victory or pro-war; teachers teach the anti-war, pussy version of Henry V and not the glorious, English martial-spirit celebrating version of Henry V. As a former English major, you have no idea how many gasps and weird looks I got when I suggested that the violence in Shakespeare’s war plays was actually quite interesting and honorable and fully equal (or more so) to some “feminist” reading. The professors were much more interested in interpreting Shakespeare’s “strong” female characters and deploring weak female characters as “misogyny.”

And let’s not even begin on “climate change” and other other pseudo-sciences that are merely political hackery under the guise of a university grant. When an entire “science” has chosen as its voice a polarizing political figure—Al Gore—you know its not a “science;” just politics as usual.

Finally, in those hard sciences where you can’t give a left-wing theory to it to give a sop to WBGs, straight up quota systems, along with the attacking of anyone who suggests otherwise, is the cure. Dare to suggest that WBGs just aren’t smart enough to hack the hard sciences, and that we’re hurting our future by imposing quotas upon them, and you will be blackballed. Everyone knows its only racism/sexism/homophobia keeping WBGs from destroying non-WBGs in the hard sciences!

Kay, if you wonder why we’re mad, look at college majors. The left has gamed the system so that WBGs take over shit subjects and are forced into meaningful ones so much so that their incompetence hurts society. And then I’m supposed to feel bad when I do succeed over WBGs! This is current society in a nutshell. And fuck you for trying to make me feel bad about dropping out of it.

Why would I (or any non-WBG) want to support such a society, want to contribute to it, want to grow up? Society is a wasteland that punishes me for every achievement and makes me supplicate and apologize for every success, while holding up the stupid, the lame, the corrupt, and the incompetent as the heroic. Society denigrates everything I love and admire and laughs every time I fail and holds up as worthy anyone who knocks me down.

Society is shit, Kay. It ain’t worth growing up for.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: