Loudon vs Trawick

July 8th, 2009 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

Around a month ago Trevor Loudon blogged on Margaret Trawick. Trawick is a Professor of Social Anthropology at Massey University, teaching The Cultural Construction of Gender and Sexuality amongst other papers.

I didn’t see the original post, but did see a later post by Loudon where he responds to an e-mail from Trawick demanding he remove his post, and issue an apology to “all Tamil people, most of all to New Zealand Tamils, to Massey University, and to me.”

Trawick objected to Loudon quoting her comments on a Marxist feminist mailing list, being:

>
> Women and girls do 2/3 of the world’s work for 5% of the income.
> So when women stop everything stops.
>

…. and everyone starves. Don’t you think women know that? This is why we cannot go on strike. Be glad we don’t kill every one of you fuckers.

All we need to perpetuate the species is your sperm.

Funny that Marx didn’t think about this.

MT

It seems this is taken out of context according to Trawick.  Well the quote is online here, and people can read the context for themselves.

I did exactly that and started reading the other e-mails in the discussion. I then found this e-mail from Professor Trawick:

I cannot bring myself to hate any category of human beings so much that I would want to kill them all – despite what I said last night.

Isn’t this supposed to be a good thing?

Not sure about others, but that to me sounds like you hate men (as a category of human beings), just not quite enough to advocate their extermination.

Anyway, it is not guys’ fault that they are guys.

Not that it matters whether it is their fault or not.

After all, it was not the smallpox virus’s fault that it was the smallpox virus.

So men are like the smallpox virus?

But it got eradicated anyway – nothing personal.

The Holocaust was based on this idea. Better not go there.

Okay – we are clear on that – the Holocaust was a step too far – even a male only Holocaust.

But even lesbians do not as a rule advocate male infanticide – while female infanticide is practiced all over the place. And it is the mothers who do this, of course.

“Right-to-life” advocates say abortion is like the Holocaust. We disagree with them. But in a way they have a point. Selective female feticide happens in China and India. We think it is wrong. Too close to infanticide. But abortion is not wrong – as long as it is not gender selective.

But would selective male infanticide be wrong?

Well I tend to think so. Of course you are not advocating such, just asking the question of course.

And then another e-mail:

If female human beings have been exploited and misused by males since time began, if the most fundamental class division is between female and male human beings, and if females can get along fine without males, except for basic reproductive purposes, then why do not females simply eliminate males, cull them as male calves or goats or sheep are culled by farmers and sold for meat. Because if males are allowed to reach adolescence, they only make trouble from then on out.

They fight and kill one another by nature. Better to cull them before they reach this stage.

Cull is a much nicer word than exterminate.

Please understand that I could not advocate such a program. My only children are two sons, and I love them more than I love anyone or anything else in this world, and after them comes my love for my partner, who is male. I would die for the sake of any one of them if I had to, no
questions asked.

Yep. You personally do not advocate the genocide of males, as you can’t hate “any category of human being” so much. But you are not sure if selective mail infanticide is wrong.

Now these are all e-mails from a publicly archived mailing list. Personally I have little interest in the ramblings of a Massey Professor. But demanding Loudon removes his post and apologises for quoting them is what got my interest in these – as universities are meant to be bastions of free speech.

Please note I will be deleting abusive comments on this post. Make your point without name calling.

Tags: ,

90 Responses to “Loudon vs Trawick”

  1. ophiuchus (84 comments) says:

    That deserves a facepalm. Her comments are so vitriolic and hate-filled its not funny.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. radar (318 comments) says:

    “Make your point without name calling.”

    At last, a whole thread without Redbaiter.

    Her emails are pretty loopy. She sounds dangerous. Why are so many academics Marxists? Where are all the Randian academics?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Manolo (14,169 comments) says:

    The tactics of an authoritarian leftie.

    You have to feel sorry for [deleted by DPF]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Grant Michael McKenna (1,110 comments) says:

    I would like to apologise on behalf of my genitalia. I am truly very, very sorry.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Pat (76 comments) says:

    It would make a good Sci-Fi movie. A group of teenage male rebels hiding out from the vast army of Amazonian women who are trying to track them down, extract their sperm from them before sending them to the extermination chambers.

    R18. Contains graphic violence, nudity and sex scenes. Based on the true teachings of a Massey University Professor.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. trout (954 comments) says:

    She could be put in the same box as the fat lady at Massey who promotes the right to be obese. I guess in New Zealand there are too many Universities for the population and, like provincial hospitals, with limited resources, attracting good staff is near impossible and we end up with wackos from the States and elsewhere teaching our kids.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Angus (536 comments) says:

    “It would make a good Sci-Fi movie”

    Very good, Pat !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. david (2,194 comments) says:

    trout at 2:23 “She could be put in the same box as …… ” just what are you suggesting here as a solution trout? surely not extermination of whacko professors!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Manolo (14,169 comments) says:

    “You have to feel sorry for [deleted by DPF]”

    I obviously incurred the wrath of DPF. Punishment accepted.

    I was trying to say I feel sorry for the poor students that receive this sort of tripe disguised as lectures. Can you imagine hiring a professional who has taken to heart the professor’s ideas? The mind boggles.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. reid (16,700 comments) says:

    Funny isn’t it, that while many people know the meaning of the word misogynist, much fewer know what a misandrist is.

    It’s not even in the spell-checker. How peculiar.

    I wonder if she’s going to be expelled and banished to Singapore like a certain someone who used to work at Auckland who committed a similar crime?

    Don’t hold your breath.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Brian Smaller (3,966 comments) says:

    A fine example of Whackademia. Actually can you imagine those comments quoted in this post being made by say, a BNP Babe from DPF’s other post? Change a few words – men to immigrants – and you see that there is really no difference. She says that she likes some men, her partner and kids are males. A bit like the old “some of my best friends are ….”

    Thank all the Gods my son wants to study engineering.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Rex Widerstrom (5,013 comments) says:

    The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Ross Miller (1,618 comments) says:

    all this in the name of academic freedom and expression … sigh

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,703 comments) says:

    It’s a new industry. The growing of Acadamia Nuts. High on fibre, short on flavour and only found in the uppermost branches of the Acadamia tree. Unfortunately have limited shelf life once they come down to earth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Ryan Sproull (7,360 comments) says:

    I got a bit lost there. Which of the things did she say more recently than nine years ago?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. MT_Tinman (3,317 comments) says:

    Pat (37) Vote: Add rating 7 Subtract rating 0 Says:
    July 8th, 2009 at 2:22 pm

    It would make a good Sci-Fi movie. A group of teenage male rebels hiding out from the vast army of Amazonian women who are trying to track them down, extract their sperm from them before sending them to the extermination chambers.

    Dunno ’bout the movie but the book’s already been published.

    Who Needs Men Edmund Cooper,

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. reid (16,700 comments) says:

    Seriously though, people like this are all over our universities, our schools and in politics. They rarely blow their cover as blatantly as this but this is what they think.

    They can’t operate without disguise and their role is to implant such thinking into the subconscious minds of their students or in the case of politicians, into the public.

    They disguise it by dressing up their message as a human rights thing but it’s anti-men and anti-family all the way and it has only one purpose – to shape society into their twisted warped vision.

    So far, the plan’s working very well. Hardly anyone ever notices.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Gooner (919 comments) says:

    Ryan, she is a Professor. She gets to be one because of things she has written over many, many years.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Ryan Sproull (7,360 comments) says:

    Ryan, she is a Professor. She gets to be one because of things she has written over many, many years.

    So Antony Flew is an atheist again?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Gosman (324 comments) says:

    @ Pat

    “It would make a good Sci-Fi movie. A group of teenage male rebels hiding out from the vast army of Amazonian women who are trying to track them down, extract their sperm from them before sending them to the extermination chambers.”

    Funnily enough there is a graphic novel called ‘Y – The last man’ which follows a very similar plot.

    While I am not surprised at her extreme leftist feminists views I am surprised she bothered to try and get Trevor Loudon to censor his own blog by removing his take on them.

    I can’t stand how leftists pretend they stand for freedom of expression but openly demand opposing views be suppressed. Kind of reminds me of The Standard and Mr Bradbury’s posts on Tumeke.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    This is why I hate feminists. They are far worse than their male counterparts.

    Seriously, can you imagine a man saying that as soon as we develop the embryonic chamber, women would be obselete and we could do away with their incessant blathering about shopping and chocolate?

    Men simply dont say things like that because we are more intelligent, better at maths and science, and we are more caring, which is the reason we are the ones who provide for our families.

    [deleted by DPF]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. unaha-closp (1,067 comments) says:

    If men are the cause of ALL violence and subjucation by sex, why don’t women violently kill and subjucate ALL men?

    Funny.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. reid (16,700 comments) says:

    Seriously, can you imagine a man saying that as soon as we develop the embryonic chamber, women would be obselete and we could do away with their incessant blathering about shopping and chocolate?

    No, but I can imagine a few of us saying that after we perfect the sex robot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. unaha-closp (1,067 comments) says:

    What reid said.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    “No, but I can imagine a few of us saying that after we perfect the sex robot.”

    Would it be the same thing though? I mean, according to Trawick most of the enjoyment men get from sex revolves around the subjucation and violent abuse towards a weak woman. If that woman could shoot you with laser eyes, most of the thrill would be gone, no?

    I am sure Trawick would agree that sex without the bullying would be like a woman with an ugly face. Whats the point?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. gd (1,780 comments) says:

    Isnt this just so typical of the screaming sisterhood And they and their supporters wonder why we laugh at them.

    What a pathetic creature the Professor is. Get over it love and get a life.

    You need to get outta that ivory tower of yours and see the real world.

    And stop your academic arrogance presuming to speak for every female because you dont.

    At best you are point one of one percent.

    You are a nutbar. You reflect Masseys Vice Chancellors nutbar mentality.

    Steve You are letting her bring your institution into disrepute

    But heh At least she and you provide some light relief allbeit costly relief

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Scott (1,807 comments) says:

    Very interesting post David. I think what Margaret Trawick shows is that it is very difficult to actually live the philosophy of radical feminism. Part of her hates men as a group — based on Marxist thinking of oppressors and the oppressed — of women needing to rise up and overthrow their oppressors — all that sort of thing. But she can’t live her philosophy. She is partnered (presumably not married to) a man and has two sons (I think by him). She loves all three men.

    Unfortunately her philosophical stance is very common at universities. Although Marxism has generally been discredited as a way of organising a country’s economy — Marxism still lives on in the way people think about social relationships — feminism, gay rights and race relations.

    Marxism in my view is essentially a philosophy of revolution and hate. The object of hate may differ — the middle class, white men, heterosexual men — but the principles remain the same.

    Hopefully the universities will see sense and stop employing Marxist radicals and cease teaching these radical and destructive philosophies. I think our younger generation deserves better.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. reid (16,700 comments) says:

    “If that woman could shoot you with laser eyes, most of the thrill would be gone, no?”

    Yeh well according to the Futurama episode, robot sex is like reefer-madness. Avoid at all cost.

    Perhaps they’re right but it’s the sort of thing I’d like to find out for myself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Gosman (324 comments) says:

    What I can’t understand is how an out of date and out of touch from reality theory such as those expoused by Freud in Psychiatry can be largely discredited yet people are still grasping on to Marx as if his political and economic ideas hold true in our day. Marx, like Freud, was a chump of the highest order.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. DRBASS (10 comments) says:

    I wonder what her relationship was like with her father….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Put it away (2,872 comments) says:

    “Make your point without name calling.”

    That’s not possible. There is no polite way of describing this person.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Jack5 (5,278 comments) says:

    Radar at 2.08 posted: “..Where are all the Randian academics?”

    If you meant randy academics there’s always Weatherston.

    If you meant Ayn Rand, I think her followers generically are more cultists than academics. Her books are almost the bibles of people like ZAP followers, but they are all too busy trying to be capitalists, though a large proportion seem to be either bankrupt, on their way to bankruptcy, or a former bankrupts.

    Interestingly, Loudon is or was a ZAP adherent.

    Psychiatrists and psychiatry are among the things that annoy those in ZAP, which is an offshoot of Scientology. Bet they pop up in some posts backing Loudon.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Will de Cleene (462 comments) says:

    If they culled all the males, who would take out the rubbish and recycling?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Gosman (324 comments) says:

    Why is Marx still taught in universities in any meaningful way? It would be like teaching Aristotelian science outside a history of philosophy class.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. reid (16,700 comments) says:

    Hopefully the universities will see sense and stop employing Marxist radicals and cease teaching these radical and destructive philosophies.

    Not a hope in hell, Scott. I quite agree with you though and one outcome of Marxist feminism you missed in your post is that of the sexual corruption it brings by teaching young women to think like men.

    Have a look at what young women are doing in England today. They have sex like we do – casual, multi-partner orgies, you name it – because they think like men. Meanwhile, confused young men are banished to a subservient role.

    This is happening precisely because the feminist perspective has been allowed to invade and in fact, dominate, our educational system. I read some weeks ago a Herald article saying that young women were doing similar things to what that article says.

    Some might say, so what?

    The point is, this breaks our human nature. Men and women think differently because we naturally are different. These days we’re not allowed to say that, but it’s true. Men actualise themselves by protecting and providing for a family. Women actualise themselves by sacrificing themselves for their family. Another way of saying it is that men hunt and women nest. People operate along a spectrum, some men have feminine traits and some women have masculine traits, so you find some women for example who are very happy to hunt (i.e. have a career). Most women who I’ve asked, tell me that if they could afford to, would be quite happy to stay at home.

    No doubt some feminists will be very angry at my temerity and call me a caveman but I don’t care. This is human nature and it’s fucking true.

    Our whole society however has been changed since the 60’s by two influences. One is Marxist feminism and the other is consumerism. Consumerism requires us to have two incomes simply to survive because we’re taught we need all those things that companies advertise. These two influences have one objective: to break up the family unit because it’s an individual’s strongest support structure and if an individual doesn’t have a reliable support structure then where are they going to turn? To the Government. This is Marxist theory and we’ve been seeing it as it plays out before our very eyes right across the Western world. Consumerism is not so bad but Marxist-Feminism with the completely destructive anti-human objectives it has is fucking appalling.

    You can see the results in the marriage stats, the divorce rates, the lack of ethics in society, the lack of sexual morals in our young women, the obsession with pornography.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Ryan Sproull (7,360 comments) says:

    Why is Marx still taught in universities in any meaningful way? It would be like teaching Aristotelian science outside a history of philosophy class.

    I don’t know of any NZ universities teaching Marx as anything but history.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Paul Williams (880 comments) says:

    Wow, a thread on kiwiblog where a radical feminist is criticised, now I’ve really seen everything. David, why didn’t you just yell out “c’mon boys, Helen’s left the country, but my mate’s trawlled the net to find another woman saying stuff we don’t like… she’s a femo and a commie…”

    [DPF: What I did not like was her demands to another blog to remove what they had said. If she had not done that, I wouldn’t have even bothered. But are you advocating because she is a woman she can not be criticised for her comments?]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. side show bob (3,410 comments) says:

    If this woman is a professor thank God I’m an uneducated ill informed country bum.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Gosman (324 comments) says:

    @ Ryan Sproull

    “I don’t know of any NZ universities teaching Marx as anything but history.”

    Funny but I know of someone teaching Marx at Auckland Uni who incorporates his ideas into film theory.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Ryan Sproull (7,360 comments) says:

    Funny but I know of someone teaching Marx at Auckland Uni who incorporates his ideas into film theory.

    Ah yep. I’ve never studied any film theory. Does he advocate Marxist ideology today?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. radvad (736 comments) says:

    Oh good. So women can get by without men.

    Does that mean I can now stop paying all that tax that gets handed out to all those solo mums. Not to mention wacky female academics. After all, apparently they don’t need me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Paul Williams (880 comments) says:

    side show, I’d not conclude anything about Professor Trawick’s ability from this thread; she’s been cast in a particular roll by Loudon and Farrar and the regulars know what to do next.

    I remember once being counselled by a retiring VC against my criticisms of an academic, Grant Scobie, who’d made comments I didn’t agree with (about funding higher education). The VC told me at the time that despite the validity of my perspective, Professor Scobie had every right to his considered views.

    I’m not saying academics are beyond reproach, just that there’s something important about respecting diverse views, even strongly held and radical ones, even ones you think wrong.

    [DPF: You fail to understand the difference between respecting the right for someone to hold views you disagree with, and respecting the right to still be critical of those views]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Gosman (324 comments) says:

    “Does he advocate Marxist ideology today?” Not entirely sure although why a Marxist interpretation of society is appropriate for understanding the meaning behind various films is beyond me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Jack5 (5,278 comments) says:

    Re Gosman at 4.33:”…Funny but I know of someone teaching Marx at Auckland Uni who incorporates his ideas into film theory.”

    Isn’t another Marxist (Trotskyist variety) training would-be journalists at AUT? I hear that Loudon’s blog did an entertaining outing of this person.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. unaha-closp (1,067 comments) says:

    Hopefully the universities will see sense and stop employing Marxist radicals and cease teaching these radical and destructive philosophies.

    As long as there are teenagers forced to attend university by tradition and overly doting parents then there will be significant market for courses teaching that all the worlds ills can be remedied by revolution against tradition and existing power structures.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Angus (536 comments) says:

    “just that there’s something important about respecting diverse views, even strongly held and radical ones, even ones you think wrong”

    True, but feel free to chortle over Guy Rundle’s snide, personal attack on Palin and her views. Hypocrite.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. reid (16,700 comments) says:

    I’m not saying academics are beyond reproach, just that there’s something important about respecting diverse views, even strongly held and radical ones, even ones you think wrong.

    So how come people condemn people like the Nazi’s, Paul?

    My point is, recognise destruction and call it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. unaha-closp (1,067 comments) says:

    I’m not saying academics are beyond reproach, just that there’s something important about respecting diverse views, even strongly held and radical ones, even ones you think wrong.

    Really?

    So for you going to a site with a set of strongly held veiws and inferring that the particpants are a side show of dog-whistled noise would be wrong?

    side show, I’d not conclude anything about Professor Trawick’s ability from this thread; she’s been cast in a particular roll by Loudon and Farrar and the regulars know what to do next.

    Or perhaps you really are just a hypocritical waste of space troll ferret.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Jack5 (5,278 comments) says:

    The 47th post in the threat, reid at 4.55, again proves Godwin’s Law (aka Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Paul Williams (880 comments) says:

    True, but feel free to chortle over Guy Rundle’s snide, personal attack on Palin and her views. Hypocrite.

    I don’t know that that’s fair comment Angus but I’ll give it some more though since I do have a very low opinion of Palin. Is Rundle’s review of Palin’s resignation the same as Loudon’s mockery of Trawick…?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Paul Williams (880 comments) says:

    So for you going to a site with a set of strongly held veiws and inferring that the particpants are a side show of dog-whistled noise would be wrong?

    unaha, I’ve not problem suggesting lots of the commenters here are totally pavlovian, none at all. As I said, Trawick’s comments seem very odd, but yeah, I think Farrar/Loudon are dog-whistling sure.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. reid (16,700 comments) says:

    The 47th post in the threat, reid at 4.55, again proves Godwin’s Law (aka Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies).

    Yeah you’re right, Jack5. I guess I should have referred to the Abidemi people in Western Yoruba who committed a massacre in 1827 against the Akuchi, but I didn’t think it would have quite the same ring.

    What d’ya think I should have used?

    “unaha, I’ve not problem suggesting lots of the commenters here are totally pavlovian, none at all. As I said, Trawick’s comments seem very odd, but yeah, I think Farrar/Loudon are dog-whistling sure.”

    Quite right Paul. Nothing to see here, at all. This is ferpectly normal thinking for a Marxist-Feminist, isn’t it? Surprised anyone’s made any comment at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. unaha-closp (1,067 comments) says:

    Jack5,

    You didn’t read the post did you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Gosman (324 comments) says:

    What you have failed to address Mr Williams is Trawick’s attempts to try and get Loudon to remove his criticism of her AND apologise.

    Whether or not people jump up and down about her views on the status of men in society and how Marxist theory can explain the evils of society even you must agree that it is rather hypocritical for an academic like her to try and squash negative views that have been expressed about her.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Chuck Bird (4,896 comments) says:

    I’m not saying academics are beyond reproach, just that there’s something important about respecting diverse views, even strongly held and radical ones, even ones you think wrong.

    Yeah right

    How long would an academic last if expressed the view that homosexuals disproportionately sexually offend against adolescents?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Ryan Sproull (7,360 comments) says:

    She can reasonably ask for him to quote her in context and a right of reply to explain herself and/or that her views have changed in the last nine years.

    [DPF: And if she had, I would not have blogged.]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. reid (16,700 comments) says:

    Jack5 and Paul have clearly looked up the Junior Marxist Guide to Marxist Propaganda for on page 873 on the copy I stole from Nicky Hagar it says:

    At all costs when Radical Marxist Feminism is discussed anywhere at anytime, leap in ASAP and try really really hard to distract the masses from finding out how it really works. For if anyone ever discovers how disgusting it is, we’re all completely fucked. The following Junior Marxist Guide to Marxist Propaganda references will help:
    page 20: Dis-assembling for young marxists.
    page 29: How to dis-assemble
    page 594: Advanced dis-assembling for really clever young marxists
    page 623: What is a “political blog” and why they are very very dangerous
    page 752: What is “trolling” and how to become one
    page 2: How to be a complete and utter wanker and a good Junior Marxist all at the same time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. trout (954 comments) says:

    I am sure academics have a right to ‘their considered views’ no matter how wacky, but when they use a kind of ‘expert’ status (inferred by virtue of being a University teacher) to promote these opinions then they should not go unchallenged. I am reminded of Susan St. John being described as an Economics Professor when she was promoting a social engineering agenda which fit with her personal philosophy. Debate is healthy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. reid (16,700 comments) says:

    Debate is healthy, trout.

    It’s just that social engineers neither tolerate nor enter into it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. PaulL (5,449 comments) says:

    I think that is what some are missing. The problem isn’t necessarily that she holds or held these views – although I think it is quite right and proper to mock her for those views being weird. The problem that DPF is highlighting is that she doesn’t like anyone knowing about those views, and is trying to shut down debate at the same time she’s claiming her right to free speech and to hold those views.

    Leaving aside that DPF probably could guess what some of the regulars will do (and to be fair he has moderated reasonably heavily on this thread), surely one of the functions of a blog is to ridicule those with stupid views – how would we have fun otherwise?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    A woman to counter Marxist Massey University extremist feminist academics:

    Ann Coulter quotes:
    “It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950—except Goldwater in ‘64—the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted.”

    Ann Coulter: “Take away women’s votes because “women are voting so stupidly”

    Again, in an October 2007 interview with the New York Observer, Coulter said: “If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president. It’s kind of a pipe dream, it’s a personal fantasy of mine, but I don’t think it’s going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women.”

    If we replace ‘Democrat’ with ‘Liarbour’, and ‘Republican’ with ‘National’ I think we may have seen a similar trend in NZ Political History.
    Certainly, very few men I quizzed during Labour’s previous 9 year tenure actually voted Labour.

    Maybe we should have a referendum on removing the rights of women to vote? I even know a few women who would support such a move.

    But seriously, how much of this sort of feminist agenda crap really does influence the way ‘some’ women vote in NZ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Steve (4,537 comments) says:

    This may seem a strange question but,
    Who is paying this Professor Margaret Trawick’s salary?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Chuck Bird (4,896 comments) says:

    Why all the fuss? Are her views that much different than Helen Clark’s?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    ophiuchus said: Her comments are so vitriolic and hate-filled its not funny.

    As are Trevor Louden’s usually. I didn’t think there could be anyone more paranoid than “reds under the bed” Trev, but, hey, it seems there just might be.

    Anyway, I don’t feel particularly threatened by her comments (or Trevors frequent ramblings for that matter) so I don’t see why you guys have all got your scrotums/scrota? (shit, what is the plural) all strangled over this.

    [DPF: I’m not threatened by them. I think it is hilarious that she debated whether male infanticide is justified or not. The entire Marxist feminist thread was hilarious]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    Kris K, no matter how hyperbolic Ann Coulter gets (and what you quoted was obviously deliberate hyperbole) there is no way she can counterbalance the lunacy of Mags the Mad Marxist. We just dont have a lever that big.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. ophiuchus (84 comments) says:

    Coulter versus Trawick, imagine the bitchy cat fights and mud hurling.

    Toad, I would’ve said exactly the same thing if it was a man doing the rant. Just because she’s a radical commie feminist doesn’t mean we should dismiss her dangerous views. [deleted by DPF]

    On the other hand Coulter is, quite frankly, as bad. Given the chance she would also scream for non-believers, jews, gays (and their supporters) and even black people’s right to vote. The only reason we listen to her is because she’s so darn attractive for a 47 year old.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Kimble 6:19 pm,
    It wasn’t too deliberate.
    I actually think a lot of what Coulter says is pretty much on the money.
    The fact that NZ was the first to give women the vote, though, is unlikely to translate to us being the first to revoke that right [and I’m not proposing that]. But it is interesting, nonetheless, to consider exactly what does push the buttons for many women voters. I personally believe that for many the feminst mindset over-rules almost ALL other considerations.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Barnsley Bill (848 comments) says:

    The truly startling thing about this is the fact that they allowed massey to expand beyond its traditional role as a higher education holding pen for the ginga offspring of farmers.
    Ridiculous woman polluting the minds of our young with ridiculous notions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Paul Williams (880 comments) says:

    Quite right Paul. Nothing to see here, at all. This is ferpectly normal thinking for a Marxist-Feminist, isn’t it? Surprised anyone’s made any comment at all.

    The selection of comments is very odd, no doubt, but I’m not surprised that there’s people who hold such views, no more so that the regular parade of mysogny that populates this blog.

    What you have failed to address Mr Williams is Trawick’s attempts to try and get Loudon to remove his criticism of her AND apologise.

    I’ve eschewed comment on the substance almost entirely. It was the dog-whistling I commented on.

    I does look like little more than a gotcha, which I’m bored of, trawlling the net looking for outlandish comments to mock… what fun Trevor has in his spare time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Steve (4,537 comments) says:

    This could be interesting:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Steve (4,537 comments) says:

    And the Acadamia Nuts can have lemons for breakfast again tomorrow.
    Thanks Adolf, Im still laughing.
    They walk amongst us

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. ophiuchus (84 comments) says:

    With all due respect Kris. Feminism was a bit of a wake-up call to all those who considered women as objects to be pushed around and controlled. Why should a woman lose the right to vote (or earn money) just because she’s got no penis? If Coulter wants women kept out of politics then maybe she could shut her trap regarding the current political situation and retreat to the kitchen.

    BTW I also seethe at the thought of radical feminism too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. LUCY (359 comments) says:

    It is really scary that this woman and others like her TEACH in our ‘learning establishments’. Shudder!

    In the late 60’s and early 70’s I was a (very) young feminist.I was a feminist when it meant equal rights under the law for example I was married at 18 my then husband was in the army in Vietnam (another story) and I could not take out HP without his consent even though I was earning more than him. I didn’t think that was fair.

    However in the mid to late 70’s everything changed. The feminists movement was no longer run by those women who wanted equal rights under the law (while still embracing ‘viva la difference’) but was hijacked (our fault I guess) by men hating, bitter, vile women who wanted to alienate men totally and who were so angry that it was quite frankly scary. I never could understand why they were that way until I learnt that they hated men socially, sexually and every other way you could think of.

    I left the ‘womanhood’ then never to return. I was successful in my career, I competed with men on an equal business footing and I enjoyed every minute of it. Thank god I got away and didn’t end up as bitter and twisted as this woman and her ilk.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. ophiuchus (84 comments) says:

    LUCY, I agree whole-heartedly with your views

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Shunda barunda (2,986 comments) says:

    “The feminists movement was no longer run by those women who wanted equal rights under the law (while still embracing ‘viva la difference’) but was hijacked (our fault I guess) by men hating, bitter, vile women who wanted to alienate men totally and who were so angry that it was quite frankly scary.”

    And the NZ female has suffered greatly for it.
    I find it interesting that with the NZ girls new found freedom and equality they:

    *Dress more provocatively
    *like binge drinking and going home with men they have just met.
    *have on average between 4 and 5 times as many sexual partners than Kiwi Men.

    Yes the feminists have really stuck it to all those kiwi males that objectify women.
    :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. reid (16,700 comments) says:

    However in the mid to late 70’s everything changed. The feminists movement was no longer run by those women who wanted equal rights under the law (while still embracing ‘viva la difference’) but was hijacked (our fault I guess) by men hating, bitter, vile women who wanted to alienate men totally and who were so angry that it was quite frankly scary.

    Yes Lucy, if they’d embraced ‘viva la difference’ then of course there would have been no problem and we’d be living in a different and better world.

    Unfortunately, they declined to do that and I think your use of the adjectives “hate” and “bitter” sum it up nicely. Of course their objective is alienation and the link on my 3:59 nicely states how that’s coming along.

    Regrettable that even today, some useful idiots apparently have trouble understanding their destructive influence and even pretend that to expose and criticise them is some sort of misogyny. That’s after all the very reason why the phrase was coined, but sad to see it in action, here in NZ, today.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. reid (16,700 comments) says:

    Yes the feminists have really stuck it to all those kiwi males that objectify women.

    See that’s the insidious evil nature of these people, Shunda. Would you want your daughters behaving in the way that you allege? Do you think your daughters would want to behave like that when they were too young to know what they were going to be doing? Is that the pinnacle of female achievement?

    That’s the evil of the agenda. It destroys both men and women. Insidiously. By pretending that it’s about women asserting themselves. When it’s nothing of the sort.

    And it’s pervasive. All over. 24/7. GL if you have any daughters, teaching them to resist their peers, in order to prevent them from behaving like what we used to call sluts.

    Isn’t it sad? And who’s to blame? Is it people like me, who blow the whistle?

    Yeh, right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Angus (536 comments) says:

    Paul Williams said – Is Rundle’s review of Palin’s resignation the same as Loudon’s mockery of Trawick…?

    No it’s not, and you know that. Try not to be so pharisaical in future.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Shunda barunda (2,986 comments) says:

    “That’s the evil of the agenda. It destroys both men and women. Insidiously. By pretending that it’s about women asserting themselves. When it’s nothing of the sort.”

    Kiwi women are well known to be stroppy and almost male like in their attitudes compared to the international stage.
    In fact Kiwi’s in general behave like spoiled brats when over seas. We are fast becoming a rival for the title of the most larikin country on the planet, only the aussies are ahead of us.
    If you want to enjoy yourself over seas STAY AWAY FROM THE KIWIS.
    It is sad but what do we expect? Men don’t know what the hell our place is anymore and Kiwi women seem hell bent on replacing men for just about everything.
    Even the allblacks have to put on their makeup before a big game!! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Jack5 (5,278 comments) says:

    Reid at 5.27 posted:”…Jack5 and … have clearly looked up the Junior Marxist Guide to Marxist Propaganda…”

    It’s possible to be anti-Marxist AND think ZAP is a nutty cult AND regard Ayn Rand as the narcissistic, ultra-materialistic, over-rated, long-winded and undeservedly venerated founder of a me-first, get-out-of-my-way, fuck-everyone-else cult.

    If ACT supporters were required to both revere Ayn Rand and respect ZAP, which has heavily infiltrated ACT in Christchurch, then the ACT Party would get about 0.001 per cent of the national vote at elections.

    And Reid, thanks for helping the thread bounce back from the N*** dead end of discussion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Angus (536 comments) says:

    Trev has posted further evidence of this stuff:

    Tratwick –

    “It is just an interesting question, why. If female human beings have been
    exploited and misused by males since time began, if the most fundamental
    class division is between female and male human beings, and if females can
    get along fine without males, except for basic reproductive purposes, then
    why do not females simply eliminate males, cull them as male calves or
    goats or sheep are culled by farmers and sold for meat. Because if males
    are allowed to reach adolescence, they only make trouble from then on out.
    They fight and kill one another by nature. Better to cull them before they
    reach this stage.”

    It would be hilarious, just maybe, if it wasn’t so heart achingly tragic that we as taxpayers, actually pay for this stuff.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Banana Llama (1,043 comments) says:

    It is hilarious, i can’t work out whether this was an A grade troll or she would actually be stupid enough to try and exterminate the most aggressive male species on this planet, either way it makes me laugh.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Danyl Mclauchlan (941 comments) says:

    “I don’t know of any NZ universities teaching Marx as anything but history.”

    Funny but I know of someone teaching Marx at Auckland Uni who incorporates his ideas into film theory.

    A lot of the most important film makers of the 20th century were marxists, or reacting or commenting on marxism, so it’d be pretty hard to teach a class on, say Eisenstein without teaching Marxism.

    Marx’s great insight was that history has economic causes. That might not always be true, but it’s an incredibly powerful, effective way of looking at history and understanding why things happened the way they did.

    At any rate, reading through the excerpts I’d say that Trawick’s comments have nothing to do with Marxist Feminist theory – she seems more like a radical feminist who believes that gender issues are seperate from class/economic issues.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. cha (4,139 comments) says:

    umm….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. James (1,299 comments) says:

    “It’s possible to be anti-Marxist AND think ZAP is a nutty cult AND regard Ayn Rand as the narcissistic, ultra-materialistic, over-rated, long-winded and undeservedly venerated founder of a me-first, get-out-of-my-way, fuck-everyone-else cult.’

    Posted by an idiot who hasn’t read and doesn’t understand Rand

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Jack5 (5,278 comments) says:

    Re James’ post at 10.30.

    Not as idiotic as those who swallow the idiotic materialism of Rand, and nowhere near as idiotic as those who swallow the nuttiness of ZAP.

    Not everyone who wades through Rand’s verbose tract/novel is blind to where she heads, James.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Paul Williams (880 comments) says:

    No it’s not, and you know that. Try not to be so pharisaical in future.

    Angus, I came to the conclusion they weren’t comparable too, I guess that means neither of your criticisms are valid (the latter’s little more than a reflexive/wank anyway).

    [DPF: You fail to understand the difference between respecting the right for someone to hold views you disagree with, and respecting the right to still be critical of those views]

    No David, I don’t fail to understand the difference. Perhaps Loudon’s stupid mockery and diminution of Professor Trawick’s name/title made me think his wasn’t a substantive criticism, rather an ad hominem attack? Certainly, most of the rest of the commentary has been of the latter catergory.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. JacquesCronje (43 comments) says:

    Conclusive proof that a PhD has nothing to do with IQ or EQ.

    On the other hand, where do I sign up for being put out to stud?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Reid [July 8th 3:59 pm],
    Your link to “Have a look at what young women are doing in England today.” is truly scary!
    Part of the article stated:
    “The few men in attendance shuffle about, forming feeble packs – safety in numbers, one imagines, for this is a place where they constitute the submissive gender, and they know it. Men can’t even attend these events without a female chaperone, and once there, they are forbidden from making any kind of advance. So until they get an invite to “come and play” from a “kitten”, they have to stand on the sidelines and watch the action unfolding.”

    If we combine this with the article Cha [July 8th 11:15 pm] linked to “Ethical storm flares as British scientists create artificial sperm from human stem cells”, and a link from that article; “Are we on the brink of a society without any need for men?” then the future for both men and indeed the human race doesn’t look very bright.

    Some choice quotes from these last two articles:
    “But the researcher also acknowledged that the technique could potentially be applied to skin cells taken from men who have been dead for many years, allowing them to ‘father’ children.”
    “But, in time, it may be possible to create eggs from a woman’s stem cells, raising the possibility of artificial eggs and sperm being combined to create children through entirely artificial means.”
    “Put at its crudest, we now face the possibility of a world where women do not need men to make babies – with all of the immense moral, ethical and philosophical questions that raises.”
    “For example, the cells of a gay woman could be used to create sperm with which to fertilise her partner’s egg.
    In an even more extreme scenario, a woman could, in theory, one day be both mother and father to her own child. The possibilities are mind-boggling.”
    “His technique only worked using stem cells taken from male embryos. That alone would appear to rule out, for the time being, the science-fiction scenario of a world where men become reproductively redundant and women would be the supreme biological beings.”
    And finally,
    “But if – and it is still a big if – scientists could one day use cells from female embryos to produce sperm, or perhaps even DNA extracted from an adult’s skin or cheek-lining cells, then we truly would be living in a terrifying new era.”

    Combine the above with the thinking of radical feminists like Professor Trawick and one does get the sense that indeed “the end is nigh”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Alan Wilkinson (1,933 comments) says:

    Hilarious. Obviously Tradwick and the Mad Mullahs are made for each other. All we need is a Colosseum. Perhaps Massey will build one?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote