A Feminist Voting Strategy

I simply had to steal the following passage from Spanish Prof because she explains it much more succinctly than I ever could:

Latin American Feminist: somebody who doesn’t necessarily believe that Josefina Vazquez Mota is the best candidate in the upcoming Mexican elections. Somebody who doesn’t believe that if Josefina Vazquez Mota doesn’t win, it is due to Mexican “machismo”. A Latin American feminist would never link to this stupid article, where not only are basic facts wrong (Andres Lopez Obrador was the 2006 presidential candidate by the PRD, not the PRI), but it doesn’t even bother to explain what are the political leanings of the three major political parties in Mexico (PAN, PRI, PRD). Because, as we all know, political ideas are not important. Electing a women president, on the other side, would be a great victory. Even if she comes from the conservative and right-wing PAN.

I can only add that if Vazquez Mota

has said that her gender will help bring the war on drugs to a peaceful end, and that male politicians are responsible for its escalation and the growing power of drug cartels,

then she is a blabbering fool who is not fit to run a lemonade stand, let alone a country.

Feminism is not about electing people with vaginas irrespective of their political beliefs. You need to invest a little bit more effort than figuring out the candidate’s gender and, at least, look at their election platform.

A certain university I know (khm, khm) is considering hiring for the top administrative position a person who is known for destroying entire departments because they are not profitable enough. I am sick and tired of hearing people drawl, “But at least she is a woman,” whenever this candidate is discussed. I don’t care if she is a woman, a man, or an iguana. If she is in the habit of destroying programs in the Humanities, I don’t want her anywhere near my campus.

Advertisements

Why Do We Put Up With Administrators?

Of course, as it usually happens, on the day when I’ve been fuming since early morning because of the hypocrisy, general stupidity and vapid uselessness of overpaid and corrupt college administrators, the universe is sending me one piece of proof after another of how horrible they are .

An idiot du jour who is also a college administrator published an article titled “Do College Professors Work Hard Enough?” in a conservative rag that loves to bash education and promote stupidity. I’m not going to address the completely bizarre text of the illiterate piece of garbage that this nasty administrator calls an article. I just want to mention the staggering hypocrisy of this arrant fool who at no point questions how much useful work overpaid and spoiled administrators like himself actually perform.

Once again, I have to point out that we, the academics, are to blame. We put up with atrocious treatment at the hands of these useless clowns. After the vile article like this one, the quack who dared to write it should become a pariah in the academic community. No self-respecting person should remain in the room when he enters it. Nobody should greet him or acknowledge him in any way. By participating in this willful and obviously completely corrupt effort to destroy the American system of higher education, this David C. Levy individual has lost his right to be respected by normal, honest, hard-working people.

Employers Wish to Dictate One’s Personality

Whenever a single officious, plodding and completely brainless administrator who is enamored of pseudo-psychological buzzwords culled directly from the Dr. Phil Show appears on campus, the following stupid policies begin to proliferate:

ACADEMICS at RMIT University have rebelled against new behavioural requirements on staff to be “positive” and “optimistic” and team-focused, claiming it undermines free academic inquiry.

The new “behavioural capability framework” is included in new staff work plans and performance appraisals. It includes such exhortations that a staffer “promotes the positive rather than the negative and remains committed and effective in the face of setbacks and adversity”. It asks staff to be “resolute” and “passionate”.

We all have seen eager administrators try to enforce citizenship, community spirit, kindness, enthusiasm, good mood, etc. It does not even occur to these simple creatures that you cannot make people feel positive or experience passion by force. Academics usually treat such earnest fools with the compassion normally reserved for the brain-dead.

In the meanwhile, the promoters of positive thinking and the collectors of silly buzzwords take all the power on campus in their own hands. While we try to hide our sarcastic smiles during meetings for fear of offending their non-existent sensibilities, these idiots pass regulations that are nothing short of humiliating. Soon, we will not be allowed to show up on campus without a huge, idiotic grin on our faces.

I suggest we stop being nice towards them and subject them to loud and vicious ridicule whenever these plodders come out with their ridiculous initiatives. Let’s greet every suggestion of “enforcing citizenship, promoting sustainability and requiring positivity” with loud laughter. Let’s make these unintelligent, uneducated creatures remember that their job is to see that the toilets are well stocked with toilet paper and to ensure that they keep very quiet on matters that they are not capable of understanding due to their limited brain power.

P.S. Yes, I have special reason to be extremely annoyed with such stupid administrators today.