American Association of University Women: The Pop-feminist Agenda
By Rod Van Mechelen
When I exposed the bigotry of a local official of the American Association of University Women, the thug threatened to call the police if I did not leave.
Anti-Male Agenda of the AAUW
1992 Bellevue, Wash. - "We are here to inform you how we are going to help girls," she snapped. "Are you opposed to helping girls?"
This transpired just prior to an American Association of University Women (AAUW) "roundtable" at North Seattle Community College. It was there I discovered that, where education is concerned, pop-feminists have only one objective: making the system work for women. If men suffer as a result, that's just too bad.
At the close of 1991, the AAUW released the now thoroughly discredited conclusions of their study, Shortchanging Girls, Shortchanging America, proving the female-dominated public school system is failing to provide an adequate education for girls. In the March 10, 1992, Seattle Times, Dr. Cecile Andrews, Director of Continuing Education at North Seattle Community College and Executive Director of the local chapter of the AAUW, announced they would be meeting to discuss this, and invited the public to attend: "The next roundtable will be held on from 4 to 6:30 p.m. March 23 at North Seattle Community College."
"After viewing the film "Shortchanging Girls, Shortchanging America," a panel of experts will be available to discuss the survey findings and ramifications in further depth, as well as respond to questions and comments from participants. (Emphasis added) Among the panelists will be Dr Nancy Cook, Washington MESA Coordinator, and Dr. Cecile Andrews, Director of Continuing Education, North Seattle Community College." -- from the brochure mailed out by the Totem Council Girl Scouts of Seattle to all parties interested in attending the "roundtable."
For years, I've worried about our public school system. Who hasn't? It is not working. It needs to be fixed. So when I read about the AAUW's report, I wanted to know more.
I do not doubt girls are poorly served by our public school system, and I want to see them get a good education. But boys need help, too, so I was eager to participate in this "roundtable."
According to my Random House College Dictionary, a "roundtable" is an adjective "noting or pertaining to a conference, discussion, or deliberation in which each participant has equal status." I like that. It agrees with my personal philosophy. Unfortunately, the author of the aforementioned article misrepresented her true intentions. Equality is not on the AAUW's agenda. Here's what happened at this "roundtable."
An Education to Serve All Children
A friend was already discussing his point of view on education with one of the women, there, when I arrived. So I sat nearby and listened in while examining some of the material placed on the tables for us to read.
As they talked, however, I noticed how the woman seemed less concerned with how public education is not working for either gender, than with making it work better only for girls. So when they were done, I asked her, "Is it not true more boys drop out of high school than girls?"
She said "Yes."
"Is it not true more women earn B.A. and Masters degrees than men?"
"Yes," she replied.
"So, doesn't it seem the public school system oppresses boys more than it does girls?"
At that point, she came over to where I was sitting, glared down at me and grated that it wasn't on their agenda to discuss this, that the agenda called for them to inform us about how they are going to help girls. Then she demanded to know if I was opposed to helping girls.
Schools should help girls. This seems obvious. But she had already admitted the system is even worse for boys. Her attitude indicated that, as long as they helped girls, she really didn't care what happened to the boys.
With these thoughts in mind, I quietly answered, "I cannot support a program that continues the oppression of boys."
"You're disrupting the class!" She pronounced. ("Class?" The "roundtable" wasn't scheduled to begin for another 15 minutes, and only a few others were there.) "I'm going to get security!"
"You're attacking me," I realized out loud. "She's attacking me!" I said to my friend. "Why are you attacking me?" I asked her. With that, she stormed out of the room.
I commented on her sexist attitude to my friend, and some of the women standing over by the door chuckled gleefully. "It's called separatism," one said, referring to the man-hating pop-feminist clique dedicated to "the construction of a separate women's society, culture, and economy." (Passions of Men, Mark Hunter, p 203)
Somebody Call Security!
Shortly, the campus security chief entered, and told my friend and I to follow him. Once in his office, he explained the woman who attacked me was Dr. Cecile Andrews, herself, and that she said we were disrupting her "class."
My friend gave his word of honor he was not there to disrupt the "class," and asked what they needed from us so that we could stay.
The security chief said she might allow us back into the "class" if we promised to sit quietly and keep our mouths shut. So he took us back to ask if we might stay. Again, my friend gave his word of honor he would not disrupt the "class." (When did it stop being a "roundtable"?)
At this point, I asked if women would be allowed to speak, but not men. She answered, "yes." "That would be discrimination," I pointed out, and again asked why she had attacked me. In response, she ordered the security chief to force me to leave. If I attempted to stay she would have him call the police.
Confronted with the prospect of staring down the barrels of police pistols for the crime of asking questions, I left.
The Fanatical Misandry of the AAUW Agenda
The facts cry out for an equalitarian solution. A program to help all children. Their anti-male bias prohibited admitting this.
Like all fanatics, they require a devil. Someone to blame for the emptiness they feel in their own lives. Someone to hate, fear, and villify in their search for meaning.
Man is the pop-feminist devil. All men are his minions. Anything illuminating men in other than this unholy light exposes their belief as bigotry. Like all supremacists, they have but one response to what violates their carefully constructed conceit: violence.
Consequently, if they hurt boys and young men in the process of making public education work for women, that's just too bad.
Rod Van Mechelen