Professor Suzanna Walters asks “Why can’t we hate men?”

Summary:  “Why can’t we hate men?” asks Professor Suzanna Walters in the WaPo. Learning the answer will be expensive for Walters’ students and for America. This is another bulletin about a nation looking for the highway to hell.Toxic Masculinity

Modern American liberalism passes an important milestone with this op-ed in Friday’s WaPo. It is hate speech, although coyly expressed.

Why can’t we hate men?” by Suzanna Danuta Walters.

She is a professor of sociology and director of the Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Program at Northeastern University, editor of the gender studies journal Signs., and author of four books – including The Tolerance Trap: How God, Genes, and Good Intentions are Sabotaging Gay Equality and All the Rage: The Story of Gay Visibility in America.

Her op-ed is rich with lessons and portents about America. It is a typical kind of rant by haters, one-sided and exaggerated. History overflows them them: Whites/Blacks are evil, men/women are evil, Catholics/Protestants/Jews/Muslims are evil, English/Germans/etc are evil. It is like geology. Over time, the fault lines change. Old hatreds cool and we forget them. New divisions ones rip open. Anyone interested in rebuttals to Walters screed should begin with Warren Farrell’s book: The Myth of Male Power: Why Men Are the Disposable Sex (1993).

There are more important aspects to this op-ed. that the WaPo published it. It shows the accepted targets for prejudice, even hatred, today in American liberalism. Do not expect to op-eds advocating hating women, gays, or Blacks. It shows the WaPo’s indifference to the consequences of stoking hatred in society. Expect their bemusement at the resulting fires. Hatred breeds hatred, as I suspect we will see again in the next decade or so. On a sufficient scale it has wrecked societies.

Walters and thousands like her are teaching generations of impressionable young women. Many of you have seen collections of “before and after” photos. Young women graduating from high school vs. the strange creatures they become after four years of expensive American college. Those only show the outside. Professor Walters op-ed tells what she does to their thinking and values. Gender studies departments have become centers of toxic leftist ideology, a far greater threat to America than communist academics ever were (inconvenient history that has gone down the memory hole, only the devastation remains in China and Russia from that Leftist experiment).

The bottom line for this latest leftist experiment – radical feminism – is its effect on marriage. The small decline in marriage rates has produced a flood of complaints about men refusing to “man up” and marry modern women. About their refusal to commit due to the “Peter Pan Syndrome.” How will men react to a generation of women raised on Walters toxic feminism? Tens of millions will absorb it to varying degrees, but like botulism only a trace of the toxin has awful effects. This and other factors will produce a drop, perhaps crash, in marriage rates for generation Z (born after 1996). See The coming crash of marriage: why, and what’s next.

Billions of tears will be shed. But those women’s disappointment probably is a feature, not a bug, to Walters. More frustrated shock troops, more recruits for lesbianism. We should know the script by now. The effect on their followers’ lives matters not at all to revolutionaries.

About Walters’ prescriptions

“Lean out so we can actually just stand up without being beaten down. Pledge to vote for feminist women only. Don’t run for office. Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power.”

Many nice white soyboys will take her advice. Especially those drugged by their parents in their teens into docile doorstops. They will Go Their Own Way, taking solace in drugs, booze, video games, and sports. But there is always a remnant that will fight back. For masculinity, it is with the alt-right (e.g., the Proud Boys), Blacks and Hispanics, Muslims, immigrants, and the military. Walters’ radicalism, magnified by the Left’s conquest of so many powerful institutions, means that the reasonable middle is being vaporized. The conflict will burn brightly, a clash of extremists.

Coming events might teach Walters’ and her ilk some history, about how Patriarchy was built and maintained. The answer to Walters’ question is “yes.” Women can hate men. But they might not like the results of their unleashed hatred.

For more information

Ideas! For shopping ideas see my recommended books and films at Amazon.

If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See all posts about society and gender issuesabout feminismabout marriage, and especially these …

  1. Men are going Galt. Marriage is dying. — A review of books from the cutting edge of the revolution.
  2. Men are abandoning the rat race, & changing American society. — See the data.
  3. Why men are avoiding work and marriage.
  4. Will young men break America’s family structure?
  5. Will today’s young men marry? America’s future depends which of these answers is right.
  6. The coming crash as men and women go their own way.
  7. The rising number of celibate men: it’s an alarm.
  8. The coming crash of marriage: why, and what’s next.

The other front to feminists’ crusade: wrecking boys

The Boy Crisis: Why Our Boys Are Struggling and What We Can Do About It
Available at Amazon.

The Boy Crisis:
Why Our Boys Are Struggling
and What We Can Do About It

Warren Farrell (The Myth of Male Power: Why Men Are the Disposable Sex)
John Grey (Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus.

I will be posting a review this week. Until then, from the publisher…

“What is the boy crisis?

  • It’s a crisis of education. Worldwide, boys are 50 percent less likely than girls to meet basic proficiency in reading, math, and science.
  • It’s a crisis of mental health. ADHD is on the rise. And as boys become young men, their suicide rates go from equal to girls to six times that of young women.
  • It’s a crisis of fathering. Boys are growing up with less-involved fathers and are more likely to drop out of school, drink, do drugs, become delinquent, and end up in prison.
  • It’s a crisis of purpose. Boys’ old sense of purpose – being a warrior, a leader, or a sole breadwinner – are fading. Many bright boys are experiencing a “purpose void,” feeling alienated, withdrawn, and addicted to immediate gratification.

“So, what is The Boy Crisis? A comprehensive blueprint for what parents, teachers, and policymakers can do to help our sons become happier, healthier men, and fathers and leaders worthy of our respect.”

23 thoughts on “Professor Suzanna Walters asks “Why can’t we hate men?””

  1. thetinfoilhatsociety

    “Young women graduating from college vs. the strange creatures they become after four years of expensive American college.” I think you meant young women graduating from high school?

  2. She and her ilk can hate me all they want because they are unimportant in my life. People are gonna get tired of this crap and the blow back will be glorious to see.

    1. Gute:

      That is exactly what i had thought about the PC culture: the assault on intelligence called micro- and macro-aggressions, the dreadlocks craze (now actually being diminished not by corporate america, but by the leftists’ victimhood police themselves-e.g.”cultural appropriation”) tattoos and piercings, etc.

      However as anyone with eyes can see the opposite has occurred. Self flagellation on the part of corporate america has become the norm, and diversity and inclusion police have now spread far and wide beyond what was once their eminent domain inside of educational institutions. Just ask James Damore, or anyone working at Starbucks. I fear for America. I even wonder what potential blowback could occur in future years merely because I wrote this here now.

      I would suggest that the blowback may not be “glorious” but rather may be overly explosive as mentioned in the blog. The Cultural Revolution was a type of response. Glorious, but perhaps only for a few…

      And i would reiterate the question “What is your plan B?”

      1. Larry Kummer, Editor


        Well said.

        “And i would reiterate the question ‘What is your plan B?’”

        I’m more interested in your Plan A. What are you doing now?

    2. Larry Kummer, Editor


      Feminists cheer your inaction! While you wait for the Great Day When the Masses Arise and Smite the feminists, they work hard to expand their influence over more institutions. The institutions that regulate the lives of you, your friends, your family, and descendants (if any).

    3. “Feminists cheer your inaction! While you wait for the Great Day When the Masses Arise and Smite the feminists, they work hard to expand their influence over more institutions. The institutions that regulate the lives of you, your friends, your family, and descendants (if any).”

      A bit harsh in my opinion: feminists and other “causes” trying to coalesce in the new “intersectional” religion that seems to take shape on campuses, in the media and other places, are decades ahead of anything else in terms of access, organization, resources, readiness of discourse and multi-generational networks. The ground has been long prepared and tenderized to give them effectiveness on the public stage and in proselytizing, whereas anything opposing them will need at least a bit of that kind of time to find the beginning of a general coherence and the embryo of an order of battle. Spontaneous initiatives on the web, via blogs and social medias are all over the place, but with nothing more than a growing audience and a few platforms where the long and ill-defined labor of networking and organizing can begin to take place. The so-called and already infamous “intellectual dark web” remains, though growing, more of a potential reality (with promise) as an alternative public scene (where very different people can actually debate, agree and disagree) than a really widespread one, at this point in time. And it is certainly not a weapon or a place where structured movements can get an immediate boost on the national or international stage.

      Women tend to congregate more naturally, and attract in such social circles an array of ideologized, submissive and/or concupiscent males (called “allies” nowadays, which in practice means the b-word). To form packs, males tend to need to see and feel a greater urgency to overcome their in-gender competitive instincts (the way in-group biases inside and between the genders work is quite clear on the matter). In short:, the danger, or threat, must be perceived as overwhelming and immediate on a very wide scale, and clearly articulated, to trigger the hoped for reaction. Not an easy feat to pull off when the media zeitgeist (news, fiction, talk shows, social commentary, opinion leaders at all levels….) is so widely tilted one way. Even more problematic when, on the left, the possible and hoped for change on economic topics (on the Sanders side of things) is unfortunately coupled with the very SJW mentality so decried here on societal matters.

      1. Larry Kummer, Editor


        “feminists …are decades ahead of anything else in terms of access, organization, resources, readiness of discourse and multi-generational networks.”

        So our response should be to sit on our butts and wait for the Great Day, like Gute. Feminists will cheer you. After all, that’s exactly what Professor Walters wants you to do.

      1. Larry Kummer, Editor


        I have said that many times, but never so well or so briefly.

  3. That last paragraph… it feels like Walters is saying: “Hurry up and die so that we may live as we wish.” I think she hasn’t thought this through. The Nazis were at least smart enough to have an endgame prepared for their enemies; Walters apparently doesn’t feel obligated to think that far ahead.

    Supporting FIRE seems like a good way to deal with this problem where it’s taken root, at the universities. Are there other organizations worth supporting to counter this kind of stupidity?

    1. Larry Kummer, Editor


      FIRE is useful, but several orders of magnitude smaller than microscopic. I’m not aware of anything even that size.

      Conservatives are too busy helping put plutocrats in power. Lowering taxes, deregulation, stacking the Court with plutocrat-friendly judges, crushing unions. Those of us in the middle are suffering the usual fate of proles – being crushed.

      When we decide no longer to be proles, then action will become possible. As the comments here show, so far most Americans are quite comfortable being proles. Engaging in the distinguishing characteristic of proles: whining while sitting on their butts.

    2. You’re right about the appeal of whining. I had a whole long comment ready, bemoaning the difficulties I’ve had in finding people who will actually discuss these things with me, until I realized that I was acting like a child and wasting everyone’s time with my complaints.

      I suppose that the thing to remember is that only incremental gains are possible in the short term, and that long-term victories are achieved by piling up all those short-term gains you got by working at it every damn day. The Glorious Revolution/Rebirth/Apocalypse is not going to happen (or if it does, it’s not going to happen in your favor) so stick to the boring stuff and don’t let up.

      I could probably up my game a lot just by doing what you do: publish something every day that makes people more aware of what life is really like and what they can do about it. Other people have done that for me; I should try to pay it forward.

      1. Larry Kummer, Editor


        I agree on all points.

        ” by doing what you do: publish something every day”

        Editing and writing the FM website, a dime store version or child’s copy of the Committees of Correspondence, is a secondary activity for me. My primary efforts for reform have been in local organizations. I have an awesome record of involvement – of near total failure. Incremental successes, as with the boys I worked with as a Scout leader. But nil effect as an agent for change in the now.

        But I’ve put in my hours — many, many hours — on the front lines. And will continue to do so. We only need win once.

  4. After reading your post I did a bit of research on the “professor”. Just as I suspected, she’s a lesbian.

    Of course she hates men! Well guess what, she disgusts me.

    In Bill Lind’s book Victoria, California has been taken over and ruled by the likes of Suzanna the Dyke. Great chapter, we retook California, saved who we could, rounded up the leadership and sold them to the Muslims as slaves.

    1. Larry Kummer, Editor


      I wonder if future generations will look at us as total fools, spending fortunes to send our children for indoctrination in values and idea both unlike ours and destructive to their lives.

      That’s what makes us proles.

  5. The esteemed Professor looks very similar to my last boss, a mega-corporation lifer lesbian who had a wife. I don’t miss them at all.

  6. Good analysis. Encountering this article stunned me as I was browsing the Post. I’ve always gone to the Post for a sane, center left perspective the same way that I go to the Wall Street Journal for a sane center right perspective. With Journal editorials getting barmier by the day, it just seems like the whole world has gone mad. Your comment about the center being obliterated by the ever growing fringes was quite on point.

    As for campus brainwashing, the tragedy here is that we NEED Universities to be the crucibles of new ideas. This is, after all, where the Enlightenment and democratic ideals were born to begin with. The problem is that Universities have become trade-training oriented now as well, and if you want to go to college for science or engineering, you invariably must suffer indoctrination attempts from the gender studies and sociology departments (who are, by the way, not even close to being the majority of faculty on campuses, just the most vocal and intimidating).

    Theoretically, I respect the gender studies academics for the exploration of gender that they do, the same way I respect philosophers. The PROBLEM is when they decide it is also their duty to not just teach about “what’s out there,” but to aggressively advocate it to the point of literally failing students if they don’t relent. Yours truly was failed in their first gender studies class for refusing to admit that the biology of Y chromosomes are not a social construct.

    1. Larry Kummer, Editor


      Nicely said. Now we must figure out how to dig out of this hole. Step one: get off our butts and again take the reins of America.

  7. A critical question deserving of serious research is how will we go about deprogramming 2 generations of American citizens from this complete and utter drivel? The future of our country is at stake. Will this be an organic phenomenon, in which current students come to naturally understand how anti-liberty, anti-American their views are? Or will more be required, and if so, how will this be administered? Clearly, by promulgating these Kafkaesque diktats outside Academia, they threaten the vary core of what makes the USA successful (e.g., open markets, democracy, free speech, free competition, and individual liberty)?

    it isn’t in our collective interest to simply have so many future citizens as unproductive members of society. Collectively, we need these 2 entire generations of Americans to become productive and contribute to economic growth, preferably motivated by their own self interest to improve their own quality of life.

    Surely, some worthy conservative institute can look at other cases of deprogramming, such as that from various cults, and apply these lessons and methods to deinculcate our current Lost Generation(s).

    1. Larry Kummer, Editor


      We are what we want to be. So I suggest (guessing) that a better phrasing is to get Americans to see themselves and want to change.

      I’ve written many posts holding a mirror to America so that we can see ourselves.

      I’ve written scores of posts about this: Reforming America: steps to new politics, discussing both strategy and tactics. But nothing can happen unless we want reform as the Founders wanted liberty. The price is a willingness to “mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.” So it was in the past. So it is always.

      These posts are the least popular on the FM website. Readers want to cheer the good folks and boo at the bad folks. They want simple morality tales, preferably ones showing us as oppressed children — with our foes irresistible, so that we are free of the burden of liberty.

      My conclusion — for lack of a better idea — is that the first step is to hold a mirror up so that we can clearly see ourselves. See some of those posts here.

      “Man will only become better when you make him see what he is like.”
      — Anton Chekhov (Russian doctor, playwright, author; 1860-1904), in his notebook.

      “Weber points us toward Nietzsche as the common source for serious thinkers of the twentieth century. …When he speaks of happiness and the last man, he does not mean that the last man is unhappy, but that his happiness is nauseating. An experience of profound contempt is necessary in order to grasp our situation, and our capacity for contempt is vanishing.”
      — From Allan Bloom’s Closing of the American Mind, chapter “Values”.

Leave a Reply

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

Scroll to Top