This is terrible. It’s a truly awful speech. As the Daily Beast reports:
A political-science professor at one of Idaho’s top universities has sparked outrage after openly calling for women to be kept out of engineering, medical school, and law so that they can instead focus on “feminine goals” such as “homemaking and having children.”
Boise State University professor Scott Yenor, who previously served on far-right Lt. Gov. Janice McGeachin’s task force investigating right-wing claims of “indoctrination” in schools, made the bizarre declaration during the National Conservatism Conference in Orlando in late October, the Idaho Statesman reports.
After his comments went viral on social media this week, female students and female lawmakers alike in Idaho said they are utterly freaked out.
“He has power. He has power to issue a grade. It’s disgusting. He needs to come into the current century, but it doesn’t sound like he will,” Boise State MBA student Emily Walton told the Statesman.
Yenor’s comments at the Oct. 31 event went well beyond sexist stereotypes, with the professor suggesting a nation could only be “great” if men and women were kept apart in their respective spheres.
“Young men must be respectable and responsible to inspire young women to be secure with feminine goals of homemaking and having children,” he told the crowd. “Every effort must be made not to recruit women into engineering, but rather to recruit and demand more of men who become engineers. Ditto for med school, and the law, and every trade,” he said.
Oh very dear. Feminism and sexual liberation (and their “evils”) are destroying America and American family life. Listen to the absolute cesspool of fetid nonsense in this speech:
The worst of what he said, arguably, is in terms of women being meddlesome, which, in case you missed it in his speech, he reiterated on Twitter:
Professional and “strong, independent women” are “more medicated, meddlesome, and quarrelsome than need to be”.
Just listen to the whole speech. It could easily be a Poe:
“Our independent women seek their purpose in life in mid-level bureaucratic jobs like human resource management, environmental protection, and marketing. They are more medicated, meddlesome, and quarrelsome than need to be…. And if our ideal woman is a childless media scold or a barren bureaucratic apparatchik, there is no question of whether we can have a future. We can’t. There is a question of whether we deserve one.”
Wow. How to shoehorn in conservative talking points. Gotta mention the environment, because nothing says the left-wing more than trying to make our planet habitable for our children. I suppose concern for others isn’t a right-wing thing, right?
The idea here is that men should control everything so that women can only be seen in terms of “meddling” with that project. Men, I doubt for Yenor, would never be called meddlesome. He comes close in attacking “Soy boys”:
“Male achievement in our country is not celebrated, though males continue to be among the highest achievers. In fact, we go out of our way to stop celebrating it. Our feminist culture leads us to want less male achievement. Their excellence, after all, creates inequities. That’s a shame. That denial of reality has to stop. Every effort must be made not to recruit women into engineering, but rather to recruit and demand more of men who become engineers. Ditto for med school, and the law, and every trade. Efforts should be redoubled to encourage more men to enter the medical field, space exploration, mining endeavors, and every other high-end and even low-end profession. If every Nobel Prize winner is a man, that’s not a failure, it’s kind of a cause for celebration. Why can’t our celebration of male excellence in sports be translated into all facets of life? More successful men will mean more happy citizenry and a stronger nation.”
It’s like he’s asked a ten-year-old from the 70s what jobs men do. But w|ait for it, we get into the Soy boy culture that would surely be eradicated if we shot more guns and did more wrestling:
“Perhaps mandatory gun training should come – I’m from Idaho so I’m required to way that! – the promotion of wrestling and other acts of physical courage are necessary in our age of Soy boys. Our celebration of diversit is jst the opposite of what we need as a country.”
TYT do a good job of analysing the speech:
Of course, such conservatives are what I call faux-libertarians; they are really authoritarian. “Yey, I love freedom, so much so that I want to constrain women from exercising their liberty and keeping them adhering to the idea that I have of them, of some kind of biological/gender essentialism”.
This is what he actually says:
“We need a sexual counter-revolution. Instead of painting an androgynous picture of our future, the future of our great nation needs to be thoroughly sexed when it comes to family policy. Part of our education project is preparing young men and young women for different destinies. Not careers, not parenthood – another one of these androgynous words. Our educational project as a people is to expect young men to become fathers (and all that implies and young women to become mothers (with all that implies). We need to stop looking at every boy and girl as a future worker or future achiever and start thinking of them as future husbands and fathers and future wives and mothers. And this will need encouragement. It will need intention, since ignoring it leads to less of it. If we want a great nation, we should be preparing young women to become mothers, not finding every reason to delay motherhood, until they are established in a career or sufficiently independent.”
H-o-l-y s-h-i-t. I just didn’t think any human – a professor of politics no less – could espouse such ridiculous and reprehensible views.
And, on top of everything, they show real authoritarian proclivities, which should raise the eyebrows of many of those conservatives. Yehor is saying:
- Women should not be independent.
- We should act to stop them becoming independent.
- Women and men should be solely focused on sexed parental roles.
- So that there appears to be no other purpose to life for any human.
You know what, I’m not going to summarise his views anymore. He’s streamlining human purpose into his understanding of biological roles, and not allowing humans to be anything else. I shouldn’t be writing here, you shouldn’t be reading. No, you should be doing only those things that promote your skills as a father, which inturn is about promoting fatherhood skills in your children in some kind of circle-jerkery.
Should he be sacked? I’d sack him if I was chancellor of the university since he is clearly going to be pissing off and prejudicing 50% of the consumers – the students – and will no doubt be producing biased grades against half of the student body. He seeks to “de-emphasize our colleges and universities”, which are “indoctrination camps” and “citadels of our gynacocracy” that “complicate the male-female dance”. So on and so forth. Is that cancel culture? No, it’s sacking a dick.
Seriously, what year is this? Americ, stop sliding backwards. You’ll only take us with you.
Stay in touch! Like A Tippling Philosopher on Facebook: