Questions for Intelligent Hoyas (2/4)

Asking questions is a rhetorical device to get people thinking.  They are an easy way to make a point with having to actually make the point. 

Here are a few we have for your consideration. 

We doubt anyone on the left will bother to answer them either in The VoiceThe Hoya, much less our comments section, though we won’t be surprised if they accuse those asking or discussing these questions of being all the -ists and -ics and -obics they can muster.

All this week we’ll be asking questions.  We’ll have a special announcement on Friday.

Feel free to ask more questions in the comments.

Feminism

  1. Why do feminists lie so much?  And why do feminists seem absolutely idiotic when it comes to understanding statistics?  Are they actually that bad at basic math? 
  2. Why do feminists insist on constantly crying that they’re victims and lying to promote the narrative that women are oppressed when the truth is women actually do pretty well when compared to men?  For instance, women outlive men by an average of five years, are more likely to go to college, are more likely to have higher grades in both high school and college, are more likely to graduate from college, are more likely to go to graduate school, are less likely to die of suicide or homicide (79% of all suicides in the U.S. are men and 77.4% of homicide victims are male), are less likely to be homeless (75% of the homeless are men), are less likely to die on the job (92% of which are men), are less likely go to prison (93.4% of prisoners are men), experience a lower incidence of rape ("The Justice Department now seems to be saying that prison rape accounted for the majority of all rapes committed in the US in 2008, likely making the United States the first country in the history of the world to count more rapes for men than for women," also, see here, here and here), and are more likely to earn a higher salary in their post-graduation years than men until they opt out starting around their late 20s or early 30s in order to have a family or achieve a better work-life balance by working less hours or choosing less demanding careers.  Do feminist leaders and organizations lie so much because if they actually told the truth about things they would be unable to extract more resources in the form of money and political power?  Or is it because they're just bitter, angry people who hate men and have some defect inside them that causes them to immune to facts and logic and constantly focused inward?  Or do feminists just think today’s women are stupid and incapable of realizing and appreciating how much privilege they actually have in America?
  3. The Womyn’s Center regularly puts on let-wing feminist programming that is misandrist, anti-Catholic, and in many instances hostile to women who aren’t mentally-deranged feminists.  Why not just rename it The Georgetown Center for Radical Feminist Advocacy and Thought?  Wouldn’t that be a more honest description?

Free Speech

  1. If Georgetown’s administration believes in free speech, why do we even need a speech code? (Note: Threats and harassment are not covered under free speech, so to say we need a speech code to combat threats and harassment is not valid because those two things are already prohibited under other long-standing University policies, unless you're a liberal LGBTQ professor who likes to joke about raping Catholics and inappropriately solicit sex from others).
  2. If Georgetown cares so much about free speech, why is it rated the fourth worst university in the nation when it comes to speech issues by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education?
  3. If free speech is a virtue as University administrators and GUSA say it is, why didn’t the administration or GUSA speak out and stand up for free speech when a SJW hate mob went after Dylan Cutler and The Voice over the cartoon, or when the Center for Student Engagement threatened the CRs for the Christina Hoff Sommers speech
  4. Georgetown’s Speech and Expression Policy states the following: “Moreover, expression that is indecent or is grossly obscene or grossly offensive on matters such as race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexual orientation is inappropriate in a university community and the University will act as it deems appropriate to educate students violating this principle.”  Earlier this month Philosophy Professor Rebecca Kukla slung at Catholics, Christians, Muslims, Jews, and others, the following obscene, offensive, and sexually harassing comments: “Those douche tankards can suck my giant queer cock!”  Kukla's hate was directed primarily at those who attended a Society for Christian Philosophers conference and who agreed with a keynote speaker who spoke soberly and dispassionately about Christian moral teaching in relation to homosexuality.  At the same time Professor Kukla also participated in an actual rape joke, (you read that correctly, a Georgetown professor publicly made an actual rape joke, though apparently that’s cool because religious people were the targets).  Despite repeated inquiries to University administrators requesting comment and whether or not Kukla’s words consisted of appropriate behavior for a tenured professor at a Catholic university, the President of Georgetown, the University Press Office, the Dean of the College, the Rector of the Jesuit Community, and the Chair of the Philosophy Department all chose to remain silent.  Contrast this with when Rush Limbaugh made inappropriate comments over the Sandra Fluke controversy a few years ago.  When that happened there were University-wide condemnatory responses, including a public statement from President DeGioia himself in which he lambasted Limbaugh, defended Fluke, and called upon people to engage in “civil discourse” in order to “work towards resolutions that balance deeply held and different perspectives.”  In the past Kukla has also 1) publicly called Ronald Reagan a Nazi and accused him of being responsible for a Gay Holocaust; 2) advocated for the firing of a “white dude” philosopher who wrote a piece on the universality of logic which was published in a prestigious philosophical journal, but the contents of which she didn’t like; 3) wrote about all the different types of people she hates, which seem to only include Republicans, religious people, Israelis, and people who live in suburbs or rural areas; and 4) publicly told a university president whose policies she didn’t like that she hates him and that: “We just think you are disgusting and incompetent and hope that you lie awake at night feeling inadequate and hating yourself as much as we hate you.”  Now, considering the fact administrators spoke out against The Voice cartoon saying it shouldn’t have been published and also stood in protest in Red Square over it, and considering how the Center for Student Engagement threatened the CRs over the Christina Hoff Sommers speech, not to mention the regularity with which CSE censors GUSA emails, is it fair to say that the Georgetown administration doesn’t even follow their own speech and expression policy?  Or should we think that the administration is being hypocritical and choosing to selectively follow and enforce the policy, but only when it comes to speech and expression they disagree with?  In light of the University’s inconsistent actions, should we now consider the policy invalid and no longer legitimate?  If students are expected to follow the speech and expression policy, shouldn’t University employees be held to the same standard?