Vive la République!

Gregory Lafarge, a French law professor, saw a veiled student in the classroom. Lafarge is one of the few remaining Frenchmen who don’t enjoy spectacles of female debasement, so he asked the student to remove the veil. The student refused because marking herself off as an inanimate object is of a greater value to her than acquiring education.

So the professor left the classroom and returned naked. I mean, if everybody should be allowed to wear whatever they want, so should the professor, right? We all totally run around wearing whatsoever all day long, irrespective of how offensive others might find it. 

Well, the management of the school where Lafarge works chose not to support him and supported the woman-hater instead. Lafarge has been fired. Because the right to treat women as cattle is absolutely sacrosanct.

Vive la République!

24 thoughts on “Vive la République!

  1. A thousand times yes, ma’am. I feel sometimes as though I’m the only person who hates seeing this shit. I get the urge to rip it off when I see it. This is a sign of a backwards mind, if whatever deity you worship demands you cover your head because it is “sinful” than you are an ignoramus. I am glad to be an unaffiliated pagan, I obey my rules and not anyone else, but of course people are going to cry racism. It is not feminist to support oppression

    Like

    1. That’s why they are students and he’s their professor. They have a lot to learn. But when they do, it might be too late.

      Like

      1. 1) A law professor should be able to use their words, no?
        2) You’d expect more approval from students in a country where wearing the veil is illegal in public schools as an ostentatious display of religion and niqabs and burqas are illegal to wear in public.

        Instead you have: ” Il s’est approché d’elle pour probablement lui demander d’enlever son voile, mais d’autres élèves l’ont empêché de terminer sa phrase. … La grande majorité” des étudiants ont défendu et applaudi la fille voilée, qui a pris la parole dans l’amphi à la suite de l’épisode fâcheux. “Il y a toujours eu des étudiantes voilées, mais jamais d’incidents”, précise [un autre étudiant]”

        He approached her probably to demand she remove her veil, but other students stopped him from completing his sentence. The great majority of students defended and applauded the veiled girl who spoke in the amphitheater following the unfortunate incident. “There are always veiled students, but never incidents said [another student.].

        Also:
        Speaking to AFP, a student who preferred to remain anonymous said that the professor “told us that he grew up in Sarcelles, and that he praised multiculturalism, but he could not bear displaying religious signs, which he did not expect after Charlie’s attack.”

        The same source added that four students defended their veiled classmate, “accusing the professor of taking an ideological position, which has nothing to do with the subject of the course.”

        Nobody involved is saying anything about feminism.

        3)Your example relates to actual course content. Unless the professor was starting a lecture on public decency laws, I’m not sure how his actions relate. 🙂

        Like

        1. I know that nobody said anything about feminism. And that’s precisely why feminism is in such a dead end. We have allowed our discourse to be trivialized and our achievements to be eroded. And now women are being grossly insulted in the country of Simone de Beauvoir, and nobody is even capable of formulating a feminist response. Feminism has degenerated into stupid chirping about choosing choicy choices while feminist achievements are being rolled back.

          Like

            1. There is nothing amusing about such ignorance. The achievements are: the right to vote, the right to work, the right to acquire education, the right to bodily integrity, the right to divorce, the right to own property. etc.

              What, you have never heard of any of this?

              Like

              1. LOL, actually I know just a little more about such things than you do ;-D

                The right to vote depended entirely upon location and time. Have a look at the pattern of suffrage, not just female but also male, within the entire Anglosphere. Feminism had little if anything to do with it. Interestingly, female suffrage generally occurred first in the rough and tough, generally redneck, regions in Australia, New Zealand, western Canada and the USA. Why do you suppose that might be ;-D

                Most males and females have always had to work. The most a working class woman could hope for was to be able to be home to look after her kids until they were school age. Most of the suffragettes, and even many second wave feminists like Friedan, were pampered upper class spoiled brats with servants.

                Education likewise varied by location and also class. For example, I am the first male in my family to attend senior matriculation, let alone university. Wars generally interfered. However, several of my aunts and a great aunt had been university educated because their families had decided that they were unlikely to be successfully married.

                Bodily integrity? Now I will give you that one, I have no patience with forced sex. But I know that you are married, and I am a widower that was married for almost 45 years, so we both understand that a wise spouse will almost always give what the other needs.

                But as for the right to own property: unless a woman was married, her property and earnings was entirely her own. Even after marriage she retained more legal advantages than her husband. Couverture was largely designed to protect females, and despite all the feminist pissing and moaning, women economically benifitted from those laws. A man had to fund a wife and children, while her money was her own. Meanwhile he was responsible for her debts, and could be jailed and even flogged for not paying it off.

                In short, don’t be so ignorant, I don’t expect you to have sufficient logic to understand science, but at least widen your humanities to include some goddamned history.

                Like

              2. BG, I’m getting tired of your hysteria. You keep having these childish outbursts that are getting tiresome. You are a very unintelligent, ignorant person with ridiculously poor manners. Everything you wrote in this comment is egregiously stupid. There is a great German saying: where you can do nothing, you should want nothing. You are intellectually impotent and ideologically barren. I’m not banning you out of compassion for your loneliness in your dotage. But you’ve got to keep very, very quiet and chew more while speaking much much less.

                “The right to vote depended entirely upon location and time. Have a look at the pattern of suffrage, not just female but also male, within the entire Anglosphere.”

                • The world is not limited to the “Anglosphere.” In my part of the world, women received the full rights to everything (including the right to vote) in 1917.

                “female suffrage generally occurred first in the rough and tough, generally redneck, regions in Australia, New Zealand, western Canada and the USA. Why do you suppose that might be”

                • The English-speakers always were and still are extremely behind in the area of women’s rights.

                “Most males and females have always had to work.”

                • When? Where? Can you tell me the percentage of women who worked for pay in Spain in, say, 1952? Or in Russia in 1825? No? Then keep your pie-hole tightly shut.

                “Most of the suffragettes, and even many second wave feminists like Friedan, were pampered upper class spoiled brats with servants.”

                • And today is Thursday.

                “Education likewise varied by location and also class. For example, I am the first male in my family to attend senior matriculation, let alone university. ”

                • Unless you are 150 (which, based on your worldview I’m inclined to believe), your personal experience is very irrelevant to the discussion of this issue. But I do believe that you come from a family of illiterates.

                “Bodily integrity? Now I will give you that one, I have no patience with forced sex.”

                • Can you name the year in which spousal rape was recognized as a crime? At least, in the English-speaking world which, it seems, is all you believe exists on this planet? Can you name the percentage of women who die of beatings and illegal abortions in Latin America before they reach the age of 25? No? I didn’t think so.

                “But as for the right to own property: unless a woman was married, her property and earnings was entirely her own. Even after marriage she retained more legal advantages than her husband.”

                “I don’t expect you to have sufficient logic to understand science, but at least widen your humanities to include some goddamned history”

                • And now, a homework assignment: please find dictionary definitions of the words “science” and “logic” and memorize them. The test is next week!

                Like

  2. In my opinion, that’s what most “people on the street” who support the professor think:

    French original and English translation:

    Si l’éducation nationale était vraiment laïque, il n’y aurait pas de foulard ou autres signes religieux dans les établissements quel qu’ils soient. Mais voilà que les enseignants et politiques voulant préserver l’enseignement public ont créé dans le passé la laïcité pour sortir l’enseignement privé…!!!! mais maintenant on laisse entre les signes des musulmans et juifs, les deux religions envahissantes et qui se font la guerre chez nous!!!!
    C”est le cirque mais certains ont des électeurs!
    En tous cas bravo pour ce prof et son courage!

    If National Education was really secular, there would be no scarf or other religious symbols in schools what they are. But now the teachers and political wanting to preserve public education have created in the past secularism out private education … !!!! but now is left between the signs of Muslims and Jews, both invasive and religions are at war with us !!!!
    C “is the circus but some voters!
    Anyway congratulations for this teacher and courage!

    Like

    1. I actually read French. 🙂 I’m a regular person and I support the professor because a) I always support colleagues on their decisions in the classroom and b) I believe women are not subhuman.

      A veil does not represent any religion, by the way. Any discussion of religion in this context simply distracts us from the woman-hater and her hate-mongering.

      Like

      1. \ I actually read French.

        I know, but may be some commentors don’t, like me.

        \ A veil does not represent any religion, by the way. Any discussion of religion in this context

        Other commentors mention kippas too. A religious male Jew must wear one. Only if it would endanger his life, he is permitted by religion not to. As for women, what about head scarves? Married religious Jewish women must cover their hair. I don’t think it’ll stop at burqas.

        Like

        1. There is no requirement for women to be treated like furniture or house pets in Islam. This student was grossly insulting women because she is a freak and hates women, period.

          Like

      2. Can’t I get religion status for my Secret Squirrel Ninja Club?

        [sneaks around wearing a black balaclava that says EVIL in bright red letters on it]

        Like

  3. There are some normal supporting comments too, thought you would be interested:

    J’ai enseigné à l’université et les dernières années de ma carrière été confronté au problème des étudiantes voilées. C’était vraiment très désagréable; On a affaire à de jeunes femmes qui connaissent parfaitement leurs droits et se comportent souvent de manière insidieusement provocantes par une indiscipline savamment dosée (par exemple en refusant de terminer un exposé alors que le temps imparti est largement dépassé. J’ai parfois dû couper d’autorité le courant du projecteur). Quant aux examens, il fallait veiller de manière de plus en plus approfondie à ce que l’anonymat ne puisse pas être remis en cause sous peine d’être accusé de racisme en cas de mauvais résultat. J’en ai moi-même fait plusieurs fois été victime. Alors qu’une mauvaise copie reste un mauvaise copie que l’on en connaisse l’auteur ou pas. Il ne s’agissait pas de concours qui se jouaient au quart de point près. O combien je comprends ce professeur de droit.

    I taught at the university and the last years of my career was faced with the problem of veiled students. It was very unpleasant; We are dealing with young women who know their rights and often behave insidiously provocative manner by a carefully dosed discipline (for example by refusing to finish a presentation so that the time is long past. Sometimes I had to cut d authority the projector’s current). As for examinations, care should be taken so more thorough that anonymity can not be challenged under penalty of being accused of racism for bad result. I myself have been a victim several times. While a bad copy remains a bad copy that we know the author or not. It was not contest that took place at the point nearest quarter. O how I understand the law professor.

    Like

  4. Reply to BG:

    BG, I’m getting tired of your hysteria. You keep having these childish outbursts that are getting tiresome. You are a very unintelligent, ignorant person with ridiculously poor manners. Everything you wrote in this comment is egregiously stupid. There is a great German saying: where you can do nothing, you should want nothing. You are intellectually impotent and ideologically barren. I’m not banning you out of compassion for your loneliness in your dotage. But you’ve got to keep very, very quiet and chew more while speaking much much less.

    “The right to vote depended entirely upon location and time. Have a look at the pattern of suffrage, not just female but also male, within the entire Anglosphere.”

    The world is not limited to the “Anglosphere.” In my part of the world, women received the full rights to everything (including the right to vote) in 1917.

    “female suffrage generally occurred first in the rough and tough, generally redneck, regions in Australia, New Zealand, western Canada and the USA. Why do you suppose that might be”

    The English-speakers always were and still are extremely behind in the area of women’s rights.

    “Most males and females have always had to work.”

    When? Where? Can you tell me the percentage of women who worked for pay in Spain in, say, 1952? Or in Russia in 1825? No? Then keep your pie-hole tightly shut.

    “Most of the suffragettes, and even many second wave feminists like Friedan, were pampered upper class spoiled brats with servants.”

    And today is Thursday.

    “Education likewise varied by location and also class. For example, I am the first male in my family to attend senior matriculation, let alone university. ”

    Unless you are 150 (which, based on your worldview I’m inclined to believe), your personal experience is very irrelevant to the discussion of this issue. But I do believe that you come from a family of illiterates.

    “Bodily integrity? Now I will give you that one, I have no patience with forced sex.”

    Can you name the year in which spousal rape was recognized as a crime? At least, in the English-speaking world which, it seems, is all you believe exists on this planet? Can you name the percentage of women who die of beatings and illegal abortions in Latin America before they reach the age of 25? No? I didn’t think so.

    “But as for the right to own property: unless a woman was married, her property and earnings was entirely her own. Even after marriage she retained more legal advantages than her husband.”

    It’s incredible that such intense ignorance still exists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Married_Women%27s_Property_Act_1882 Now, a little quiz. Can you name the year when women in Spain were granted the right to work, manage their property, travel, get education, etc. without the consent of their husbands?
    “I don’t expect you to have sufficient logic to understand science, but at least widen your humanities to include some goddamned history”

    And now, a homework assignment: please find dictionary definitions of the words “science” and “logic” and memorize them. The test is next week!

    Like

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 )

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.