After a professor brilliantly put a man-hating feminist in her place, she immediately called the university and demanded that they fire him for arguing with her. However, her plan quickly backfired.
Despite claiming to stand for equality and equity, the third-wave feminist movement stops at nothing to target their male counterparts. Regurgitating leftist ideological talking points, these female radicals attempt to topple any structure they believe forms a patriarchal hierarchy. Of course what they deem as fighting systematic misogyny is rarely little more than personally pillorying anyone with a Y chromosome.
One such feminist hoping to “dismantle the patriarchy” one rancorous tweet at a time is Amy Siskind, a vociferous social justice warrior apparently determined to rid the world of male influence. Embittered over Democrats’ failure to produce a primary candidate that checks off enough of the intersectional boxes, Siskind took to social media to voice her rage at the whiteness and masculinity still plaguing the party, Breitbart reports.
“I will not support white male candidates in the Dem primary. Unless you slept thru midterms, women were our most successful candidate,” Siskind wrote. “Biggest Dem vote getters in history: Obama ‘08, Hillary ‘16. White male is not where our party is at, and is our LEAST safe option in 2020.”
Despite undoubtedly violating Twitter’s code on hateful speech, Siskind’s opposition allowed her to express her opinion, no matter how racist and sexist it is. Instead of attempting to censor Siskind, which the left unhesitantly does, critics engaged her in civil discourse. Pointing out her hypocritical logic, Boston College professor David Packman effortlessly shredded Siskind’s feminist dogma.
“Isn’t there something not progressive about pre-emptively dismissing a candidate based on their race and gender?” he said. “I feel like there’s a word to describe that…as a progressive, I won’t be jumping on board with that idea.”
Furious that someone would dare express a differing opinion, especially a white male, Siskind decided that, since she couldn’t debate, she’d have to fight dirty. According to Packman, Siskind called Boston College and asked that he be “fired” immediately for criticizing her refusal to “support white male candidates,” The College Fix reports. Unfortunately for her, her plot to punish Packman for challenging her perspective didn’t go quite as planned.
Much to Siskind’s outrage, Packman explained that he cannot be terminated by Boston College because he is an adjunct faculty member, which means that he works on a semester-to-semester basis. Realizing that she couldn’t get him fired, Siskind turned her attention back toward Packman, demanding that he apologize for daring to disagree with her.
“Mr. Pakman can publicly apologize and explain his misstatements. I understand he has been corrected,” she wrote. “People are watching how he conducts himself.”
Unsurprisingly, Packman not only laughed off her demand but also uploaded a video exposing her delusional sense of entitlement and inability to dispute ideas like a reasonable human being.
Packman says that Siskind didn’t handle the fact that he remains unapologetic in his contradiction. In fact, the feminist activist has blocked him on Twitter and continues to “smear me all over the internet.”
To top it all off, Packman isn’t even a conservative. In fact, he is just as much on the left as Siskind, though they disagree on certain social and political nuances. However, their political alliance hasn’t stopped them from showcasing exactly how the left has begun tearing itself apart.
The problem with the left’s hierarchy of oppression in its identity politics is that there is no limit to the number of ways a person can be categorized. This leaves its members endlessly vying to be considered the most oppressed, thus, attaining the highest victimhood status.
The further that the Democratic Party’s radicals swing left, the further that its interests divide liberals who are willing to hold a civil discussion from those who insist that anyone who disagrees with them must be silenced and punished.