Only a woman will do to comment on HC
One of the ghastly features of multiculturalism and cultural studies in general, is the domination of the addled notion that “any woman will do.” For instance, Carly Fiorina (who lost her bid to be Senator from California), and whose career at Hewlett Packard did not end in a blaze of glory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carly_Fiorina) is considered to be the appropriate person to take down Hillary Clinton, for “any woman will do.”
If a male were to point out Ms. Clinton’s deficiencies, he could be taken down as a sexist. So into the breach steps a Republican female, for any woman will do. This is the predictable outcome of collectivist ideologies spun by the liberal establishment. (A reminder that until the late 20th century, the communists I knew, unlike liberals, considered feminism to be a “bourgeois deviation,” and it should never displace class conflict as the relevant, pressing structural problem. This position seems to have been modified as the newly minted field of gender studies was obviously dominated by leftists and the most avid environmentalists. “Class” as a variable is important to both leftists and free-market capitalists. For the Left, class struggle will bring communism; for conservatives and Republicans, “class” is a consideration for measuring upward mobility.)
Forget that Ms. Fiorina has few, if any, qualifications to hold such an office as POTUS. It is true that she fits into the upward mobility-meritocracy theme beloved by politicians in either party, for as she bragged on Fox News Sunday, she started out as a secretary before her rise to the top.
When I was in graduate school pursuing a doctorate in US history (UCLA, 1983-1993), I suggested at a crowded conference that the concerns of women should not be shunted off into a corner, but should be integrated into the curriculum (obviously referring to the humanities curriculum). This prompted guffaws from the mostly male, liberal, audience. After the presentations, Hayden White (head of the History of Consciousness program at UC Santa Cruz) approached me, and asked if I was in the job market yet. He wasn’t offering me a position, but warning me to lay off.
Not long before that, I displeased two powerful feminist professors, Kathryn Kish Sklar and Ruth Bloch, who cornered me in Sklar’s office because I had brought up class differences in women and criticized a famous article for conflating all women into one big bag. One of them (Bloch) even suggested that I should have been thrown out of the doctoral program for my gaffe.
I got similar screams of rage when I complained about separatist ethnic studies programs at yet another international conference. And when I was appointed as representative of all University of California students in the Affirmative Action Committee, I introduced a motion that all professors in relevant fields should integrate the concerns of minorities and women into their classes, without depending on separate “studies” programs. The next year, no one told me about the yearly meeting, but the year after that I made sure to attend, and was informed that my resolution (unanimously passed in our committee) was never voted upon because it infringed upon “academic freedom.”
New PC Look
Now we can look forward to a campaign for president where only the “crazies” will oppose separatist cultural studies. And for their pains, they will be labeled by the “moderate” and “balanced” press, as I was, “racist” and “sexist.” And at the top of their lungs.
The Clare Spark Blog 
For someone who has seen this coming from a long way off and been shot down in similar ways, the coming liberal identity-political bloodbath will be entertaining to watch. I’ve long given up believing I could participate.
Comment by Terbreugghen — March 30, 2015 @ 7:33 pm |