Gender

Concordia University Disinvites Harvard Professor Harvey Mansfield Over His Conservative Gender Views

Administrator says they "were unable to reach consensus as to what we wanted to achieve with this event," which is pure doublespeak.

|

Concordia University in Canada had invited Harvard University Professor Harvey Mansfield to give the spring commencement address for its Liberal Arts College. The college's students study great books and Western thought, and Mansfield teaches these subjects, so one might think he was a good fit.

But then the university rescinded its invitation. Principal Mark Russell sent Mansfield a weaselly letter expressing regret that faculty and alumni "were unable to reach consensus as to what we wanted to achieve with this event." Russell lamented that the selection committee "acted in good faith but rather precipitously" when it invited him in the first place.

This is clearly doublespeak: Thankfully, Mansfield discovered the true explanation, which he relates in his Wall Street Journal op-ed:

What had taken place, I learned but not from him, was a faculty meeting prompted by a letter from 12 alumni that demanded a reversal of the committee's invitation because my "scholarly and public corpus … heavily traffics in damaging and discredited philosophies of gender and culture." Promoting "the primacy of masculinity," apparently a reference to my book "Manliness," attracted their ire. Though I was to speak on great books, not gender, this "trafficking"—as if in harmful drugs—disqualified me without any need to specify further. Such sloppy, inaccurate accusation was enough to move a covey of professors to flutter in alarm.

Mansfield is a political conservative, and his views on gender reflect his conservative outlook. No doubt many people would disagree with them—especially those on the hyper-woke left, whose gender-related opinions are not shared by the vast majority of the population. If this means that Mansfield should be denied a platform, then no one who has ever expressed a problematic opinion on any matter would be deemed fit to speak on campus.

Mansfield spends the rest of his op-ed theorizing about why his critics wanted him disinvited. He characterizes the new left as believing the following:

Speech is not an alternative to power but a form of power, political power, and political power is nothing but the power to oppress. A professor like me might trick gullible students and lure them to the wrong side. So it is quite acceptable to exclude speakers from the other side. Supremacy of the wrong side must be prevented by supremacy of the right side.

I don't think this is quite right. I researched the motivations of anti-speech campus actors for my forthcoming book, Panic Attack: Young Radicals in the Age of Trump (pre-order here), and generally found that their desire to shutdown conservative speakers mostly stemmed from the notion that offensive speech had the power to cause tangible emotional harm to vulnerable populations with which far-left activists sympathize. Their view would probably be that Mansfield's opinions are mentally taxing for female, queer, and transgender students—and that harming the students in this way is akin to physically harming them. Preventing Mansfield from speaking, then, is a matter of self-defense—a response to a threat of violence.

Obviously, this approach to speech is incredibly flawed, and would make it impossible to have all sorts of interesting conversations on campuses. Again, Mansfield is an incredibly intelligent and respectable scholar whose views are well within the mainstream. If Concordia's students are too timid to hear what he has to say, it's hard to imagine they are prepared to face the outside world.

NEXT: It’s Official: Bill Weld Announces Primary Challenge to Donald Trump

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

155 responses to “Concordia University Disinvites Harvard Professor Harvey Mansfield Over His Conservative Gender Views

  1. “Administrator says they “were unable to reach consensus as to what we wanted to achieve with this event,”

    Then the administration is incompetent, and should resign en masse.

  2. The best thing to do is listen to what he says from a logical and scientific perspective and then do the same for his opponents.

    Then use whatever capacity you have to discern which is true.

    The opposite of ignoring either or both sides of the argument.

    They are demonstrating the pinnacle of ignorance instead of knowledge.

    1. The best thing to do is listen to what he says from a logical and scientific perspective and then do the same for his opponents.

      ——

      Man, that’s old thinking. You have to occupy the Admin office and demand the speaker be disinvited. If that doesn’t work, when he comes to speak, shout him down.

      1. I get enough of that drivel from people who actually believe it.

        1. I tell them they’re uptight, need to ‘chill’ and smoke some weed. It leaves them speechless.

      2. Where is the ‘uptwinkle’ button?

        1. Ha ha…nice

    2. The problem is the idea of gender fluidity is neither logical nor scientific. It requires a belief in subjective “truths” to even exist.

      1. The best truth we can discern is that it’s either a choice or a disorder.

        As a choice, it may be an ideology, like a religion, and last time I checked we weren’t a theocracy.

        Belief cannot define truth without conflicting beliefs making truth meaningless.

  3. Hey man, get with the times. There are no longer two genders, dudes and chicks; but. let me link you to the deep thinkers and they’ll get you straight (no offense to the gays).
    ————-
    While the future is non-binary, you may be confused as to what words such as cishet, genderqueer, and gender-fluid actually mean. And what’s the difference between sex and gender, as well as sexual orientation and gender identity? For starters, keep in mind that such terms are often fluid in of themselves, and may change depending on who is using them.

    https://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/a20888315/genders-identity-list-definitions/

    1. Then have them join the genderqueer and trans whatever softball team, and tell them they can’t play for the girls or boys team. I don’t care what you think you are, but if you want to believe you don’t have a cock or a vagina, you get your own team.

      1. The Boy Scouts now take girls but a dude can’t join the Girl Scouts. That’s harsh.

        1. My uncles were all in the girl scouts because my grandmother ran a girl scout troop and it was just easier for her; she had 8 kids. But I guess that was back in the day before lawyers and parents ruined everything.

          1. My uncles were all in the girl scouts

            =====

            I envy them. I was in the boy scouts and had to endure farting contests in the tent.

    2. Yes, some words can have multiple meanings. For example, consider the word: “bitchy”.

      There is “bitchy” in the good way.

      There is “bitchy” in the bad way.

      And there is “bitchy” in the way that is so bad it is good.

  4. That approach to speech is not merely “flawed” even incredibly so. It is the negation of free speech as a principle. The idea that the expression of certain ideasvis the equivalent of violence and therefore cannot be expressed in public is an entirely subjective standard. Mansfield characterization is spot on. This is an Orwellian tactic designed to make certain ideas unthinkable.

    The fact that this is in Canada, where they have passed laws coercing speech (the issue that brought Jordan Peterson international notoriety) in the manner of speaking about the transgendered is not surprising.

  5. their desire to shutdown conservative speakers mostly stemmed from the notion that offensive speech had the power to cause tangible emotional harm to vulnerable populations with which far-left activists sympathize

    I’d agree that that is what the useful idiots believe. But the higher ups have a farther-reaching view, based on the critical studies they learned in the ’80s: that reason, logic, and empiricism are all stacked against the “disempowered” and that therefore to engage in rational debate at all is to surrender the field to the “privileged” from the get-go. Instead, the privileged must be met with Alinsky-ist opposing power.

    1. I don’t know that the “useful idiots” even truly believe that. I think it’s as simple as the personal rush that comes from the power of the mob.

      1. I think you over-estimate their cynicism in this regard. The “social justice” narrative has informed their political and philosophical ideology in various forms going back at least 50 years.

        It’s just more apparent now because the cumulative effects of those ideologies are now being more fully exercised outside academia by members of the bureaucratic and political class who were radicalized during their time in college. Within academia the pathology has grown more extreme, as the left-wing instinct to assume the mantle of the perpetually oppressed continues to seek out new marginalized groups to champion, to the point where they have to make them up as they go along.

        1. It’s just more apparent now because the cumulative effects of those ideologies are now being more fully exercised outside academia by members of the bureaucratic and political class who were radicalized during their time in college. Within academia the pathology has grown more extreme, as the left-wing instinct to assume the mantle of the perpetually oppressed continues to seek out new marginalized groups to champion, to the point where they have to make them up as they go along.

          Truer words….

    2. That they “believe” speech causes physical harm is no more genuine than a 5yr old complaining about eating spinach because it makes her gag. They make claims, but there’s no basis in fact. They are just excuses to get their own way and suppress something they think is awful.

      1. a 5yr old complaining about eating spinach because it makes her gag

        Well, I did gag on a particular pumpkin dish my mother was insisting on me eating.

    3. “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” I guess that’s old style thinking. Just seems a better way to prepare kids for the future than the alternative.

      1. The modern version of that bromide is “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can fuck me up permanently.”

        1. “Sticks and stones may be dodged when thrown, but words cut all the way through me.”

  6. This also goes to show that the LGBT rights movement, however laudable it may be in theory, has metastasized into a cancer on the intellectual and political world. Demanding not merely tolerance, but agreement, with dissent consigned to the outer darkness. It has become an inquisition.

    1. IOW, tolerance = complete destruction of anyone that doesn’t agree with you.

    2. That tends to be what happens when activists get their way. Gays, and to a large extent trans people, pretty much have their rights now. So the activists need a new target.

    3. Let me put it this way, someone with a penis inside a pair of panties is either a transgender woman or a transvestite. It is the difference between being on the DSM-V for an abnormal sex life or being off that list. It is better to simply ignore excentricity and be proud of who you are rather than demand national agreement.

      My ex-wife tricked me into buying my first pair of panties as we waited for our return flight from our honeymoon in Europe. (I thought it was simply the type of outfit the men on my mom’s old caledar had worn.) Once home, I tried it on for the first time and proudly assumed that it did not fit because the rumors about European gentiles were true.

      1. My ex-wife tricked me into buying my first pair of panties as we waited for our return flight from our honeymoon in Europe. (I thought it was simply the type of outfit the men on my mom’s old caledar had worn.) Once home, I tried it on for the first time and proudly assumed that it did not fit because the rumors about European gentiles were true.

        You need better bait

  7. Have there been any studies that show this gender fluid nonsense extending beyond small pockets of angry college leftists? Sure, these people are great at shouting at weak admins, but does any of this matter to the rest of the country?

    Seems to me this anger turns into nothing more than monthly gay pride parades and twitter rants

    1. Seems to me this anger turns into nothing more than monthly gay pride parades and twitter rants

      The problem is that these same people eventually become part of the political class that makes these extreme views mainstream. That’s why you have city council members saying that Chik-fil-a can’t have a booth at the San Antonio airport because they don’t celebrate LBQT causes, as opposed to the fact that they’re closed on Sundays and thus won’t bring in as much money to the airport. It’s the equivalent of a right-wing city council saying that a franchise that donates CAIR can’t have a food booth at the airport because of CAIR’s ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, rather than the actual monetary value that booth would bring to the airport itself.

      Milquetoast right-wingers, along with a large number of libertarians, are especially prone to under-estimating the left’s will to power, because they assume that the left shares the same basic moral philosophies. They don’t–the left only cares about those moral issues in the sense of how they can use them as a weapon against their political enemies. It’s been that way since Lenin, and is even more pronounced now that the intellectual spawn of the radical Boomers that entered academia in the 70s and 80s are now entering positions of real, actual power.

      1. Milquetoast right-wingers, along with a large number of libertarians, are especially prone to under-estimating the left’s will to power, because they assume that the left shares the same basic moral philosophies. They don’t–the left only cares about those moral issues in the sense of how they can use them as a weapon against their political enemies.

        This really hit me when I saw the video of Josh Blackman trying to give a talk on free speech at CUNY Law. One of these law students tells Blackman that the student “doesn’t believe in objectivity.”

        1. That’s their truth man. How can they fail if they can just redefine failure to be success?

      2. That’s why you have city council members saying that Chik-fil-a can’t have a booth at the San Antonio airport because they don’t celebrate LBQT causes, as opposed to the fact that they’re closed on Sundays and thus won’t bring in as much money to the airport. It’s the equivalent of a right-wing city council saying that a franchise that donates CAIR can’t have a food booth at the airport because of CAIR’s ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, rather than the actual monetary value that booth would bring to the airport itself.

        While I get what you’re saying, the externalities of the analogy, CAIR = Chik-fil-a and CAIR/Chik-fil-a =/= the 5th Chili’s location or the 7th McDs (8th if you count the one that’s been temporarily closed for >6 mo.) is pretty laughable.

        Still probably an accurate portrayal in a large number of minds.

    2. I’m not sure how one would study it.

      The “gender fluid” thing mostly seems to me like a new label that weird teenagers can latch onto. Where in my day you might just have been a punk or a freak or a weirdo or something, now you can be “gender fluid” and have a ready made identity.

      1. Gender fluid means you can’t get laid by your preferred sex so you seek out anything including animals. Anyone else notice the weird uptick in bestiality in the news?

  8. This isn’t about policy or any university, really. It’s just a reflection of the progressive mindset. The goal is to make things like racism, xenophobia, homophobia, and misogyny socially unacceptable. Policy, law, and free speech are beside the point. They don’t even believe in freedom of conscience. Making our conscience socially acceptable is the goal. By uninviting this speaker, they’re just trying to make his views seem socially unacceptable.

    Incidentally, this is why progressives are so upset with people like Donald Trump and why being generally supportive of Trump is a fundamentally libertarian thing to do. Trump’s behavior with women and his statements about immigrants are supposed to make him socially unacceptable. Those libertarians who don’t want to see freedom of conscience made subject to what progressives consider socially acceptable would do well to pay attention to that. We can’t have a free society with free individuals if we can’t have free minds.

    1. “being generally supportive of Trump is a fundamentally libertarian thing to do”
      ————-
      Trump derangement is strong with you if you actually believe that. Supporting Trump as opposed to any current Democrat contender may be a practical real-politik thing, but it sure ain’t libertarian.

      1. I point out why a libertarian might support Trump in this way, but you have nothing to say about that–other than to call me deranged?

        I suspect the reason you don’t have anything substantial to say about my reasoning is because you don’t have anything substantial to say.

        1. You did say “being generally supportive of Trump is a fundamentally libertarian thing to do”, which seems a bit strong.
          I’m having a hard time seeing how being generally supportive of any politician is a fundamentally libertarian thing to do.

          1. Without the freedom to think and speak freely, we cannot argue for all the other freedoms.

          2. So you think libertarians are anarchists? At some point when you have a political system, you have to contribute to the political system with your inference or you are at the behest of others.

    2. Those women, at the time thought that having their pussy’s grabbed was worth a few invites to swanky parties. It served their desires.

      Now skanky, literally in hindsight, they aren’t.

      Meetoo is created.

      1. “Those women, at the time thought that having their pussy’s grabbed was worth a few invites to swanky parties. It served their desires.”

        Get an education, clinger. Start with standard English.

        1. I you can’t think of a reason to disagree with him and that’s why you’re just criticizing his grammar, then he won and you lost.

          1. The asshole rev loses pretty much every time he touches a keyboard.

          2. Rob Misek’s contribution was difficult to understand, in large part because it was illiterate (punctuation, spelling) because also because its point was hazy. Any point he was attempting to advance
            seems to have been steeped in misogyny and cranky, right-wing backwardness.

            If you figure he won, you are a dope.

            1. Rev!

              I was worried about you – heard you lost your house. Out of a job, too. Must be tough nowadays, with automatic bell ringers and everything. Is Desdamona OK?

      2. “those women”… Got any actual names?

        That rant was a hypothetical, like grabbing a new day by the balls. And factually correct. Grab a woman’s pleasure center, she’ll let you do what you like.

        1. It was specifically referring to womens’ reaction to powerful/wealthy men, and it was not untrue.

    3. The goal is to make things like racism, xenophobia, homophobia, and misogyny socially unacceptable.

      For now. Until the “targets” of the listed personality flaws become broadly accepted at all levels and people can’t be plied any further by their victimhood. Once the individual has been nullified and the concept of self obliterated, then the binge ends.

    4. Those things already are socially unacceptable. Reconciling libertarianism with a malignant narcissist who wants to rule a country with no accountability while trafficking in racial nationalism is your fool’s errand to deal with. Don’t be surprised if people point and laugh.

      1. You still say stupid shit even with the new comment system.

      2. The real thing is already socially unacceptable. The left’s goal here is to redefine all those things, so as to exploit that to render any disagreement with them just as unacceptable. That’s been one of the left’s tactics for decades: Trying to win arguments before they even start, by declaring not agreeing with them to be somehow impolite or scurrilous.

        It’s reached the point where it’s actually backfiring, with significant numbers of people deciding that if stuff that trivial or obviously reasonable is “racism”, maybe racism is a good thing.

    5. First off, I have to make clear that progressive thought control is absolutely a monstrous evil that must be opposed at every turn. That being said, in regards to “The goal is to make things like racism, xenophobia, homophobia, and misogyny socially unacceptable,”
      those things should be socially unacceptable. People have the right to be idiots but it is also right to call them idiots.

  9. This is the same crowd who got the vapors and stamped their feet when a lecturer tried to claim that men are not women.

    It’s bizarro world all the way down these days.

  10. Prof. Mansfield should have been permitted to speak. Bigots have rights, too, and that should include the right to have an invitation to speak honored.

    Concordia College should improve its invitation process. Surely it could have found a suitable speaker unaccompanied by a vivid record of bigotry and backwardness.

    The Republican Party — which directed high honors to Prof. Mansfield a decade or so ago, long after he had revealed himself to be a stale-thinking, ugly bigot (misogynist, gay-basher) — should improve, too. Particularly if it wishes to survive the improvement of America.

    1. Demonstrate how he’s a bigot.

      Projection coming from you.

      Explain or else fuck off. You’re fake-woke shtick bull shit is tiresome.

      1. your.

        All this fancy remake but no edit fairy.

        1. “Explain or fuck off?”

          Ask nicely and I will respond. Otherwise, I will leave you to perform your own basic research and to wonder why most people find you unpleasant.

          1. “Ask nicely and I will respond.”

            Please explain or fuck off, asshole.

          2. The just fuck off

            1. *Then

    2. “Prof. Mansfield should have been permitted to speak. Bigots have rights, too,”

      Which is the reason you’re here, asshole.

    3. And you should have your retarded face beaten repeatedly with a Louisville Slugger.

      1. Some people respond to their betters with anti-social belligerence. You appear to be among them, Jack.

        1. “Some people respond to their betters with anti-social belligerence.”
          We’ve noticed that every time you post, asshole.

    4. Arthur L. Hickbot’s programming couldn’t handle the reality of a right-winger having a long and distinguished academic career at an Ivy League institution that he fetishizes.

      1. It seems to me that by his typical formulation, Prof. Mansfield is one of the Rev’s “betters.”

      2. Stronger institutions tend to welcome debates on campus.

        This is a large part of what distinguishes them conservative-controlled campuses, which tend to be third- and fourth-tier, censorship-shackled, nonsense-teaching, dogma-enforcing, science-disdaining goober factories.

    5. You’re a sad little man, and worst of all a tedious ranting bore.

      1. And yet my preferences shape our society, and you must comply with them.

        No wonder you’re such a cranky jerk.

        1. Nice authoritarian comment, fascist.

  11. So if I go and announce myself to be a female, with sexual preference for females, thus being female lesbian, a score of TWO on the identitarian hierarchy, can I then join the sisterhood of a sorority? If then proclaim myself a Black just like Rachel Dolezal did, do I now score a THREE on the scale? Of course this is all nutty as squirrel poop, so I am also mentally disabled, and thus a score of FOUR on the identy totem pole. A disabled Black female lesbian. Do I win? Who would dare object?

    1. I support your right to do all of those things. My theory is just let everyone define their race, sex, etc. however they choose. Then those categories lose meaning and the activists don’t know who to hate anymore.

    2. It depends on your ability to navigate the orthodoxy tight rope over the chasm of twitter feed.

      You can have
      Grievance Class = New Grievance {

      Public Static Void String ()
      Lesbian.Grievance = Griev1
      Transgender.Grievance = Griev2

      But at any second someone could call the WhitePrivilege.Method and erase your grievance count

      1. It figures that SJWs use Java…

        1. At least until an inclusive, diverse programming language which caters to historically underrepresented programmers happens along

  12. INT: Concordia.

    Rufus (taps mic.): Ahem. There are only two genders.

    /kicks puppy off stage giving the middle finger.

    1. The funny thing is, I think most trans people agree completely. The idea that gender is whatever you want it to be is pretty contrary to the more settled idea that some people feel wrong living as the gender that goes with their biological sex.

  13. Accuses people of doublespeak. Proceeds to use the term “problematic opinion”.

    Welcome to Reason Magazine.

  14. “…If Concordia’s students are too timid to hear what he has to say, it’s hard to imagine they are prepared to face the outside world.”

    They’re not, and whoever is paying for their ‘education’ should demand a refund or sue.
    Hoping you never hear anything which is not agreeable to you is unrealistic in the extreme.

    1. You figure they’d be better off at a conservative-controlled campus, Sevo? Such as Regent, Biola, Hillsdale, Bob Jones, Wheaton, Liberty, Franciscan, or any of the other of the hundreds right-wing yahoo farms?

      I doubt educated Americans or strong schools will be in the market for pointers from right-wingers until conservatives demonstrate that they do not wreck every campus of which they get control.

      1. “You figure they’d be better off at a conservative-controlled campus, Sevo?”

        I figure we’d bee better off it you fuck off, asshole.

  15. No, their alleged justification is based on the claim that speech has the power to cause tangible harm. I see no evidence that they actually believe their own claim. If they did, they’d be a lot more circumspect in their own offensiveness.

    1. You don’t get it. They make no claim that their rules apply to themselves. Causing offense or harm to the Oppressor is a good thing. Only the Oppressed are worthy of protection from offensive and harmful speech.

  16. I’d like to interpose one caveat, in that inviting commencement speakers is part of a *university’s* free speech, so if they’re too timid or PC to invite someone like Mansfield, that’s their prerogative.

    A free-speech issue would only arise if Mansfield was barred from speaking at a private event, eg, at the invitation of the Canadian equivalent of the Republican Club.

  17. Gosh… maybe the college can devote more time to physics, chemistry and math and less to girl-bullying mystics and electricity-banning communists.

  18. There are few more interesting creatures than bespectacled pencil-necked geeks in professorships who talk with ejaculatory wonder of the art and history of masculinity. I had a particularly deformed professor who was a good writer but whose interests leaned toward naked Greek male glory. His scholarly specialty was pederasty, for what it’s worth. None of these guys could survive a minute in a bout with your average gangbanger, it goes without saying. What do we call celebrating manliness from behind cakes and teas and office hours? Pathetic irony?

    1. What do we call celebrating manliness from behind

      Pederasty?

      Seriously, Tony, I think some men see masculinity as being a much bigger tent than you do. Masculinity ≠ brutishness.

    2. The description from Amazon’s page for Harvey C. Mansfield’s book “Manliness”:

      This book invites―no, demands―a response from its readers. It is impossible not to be drawn in to the provocative (often contentious) discussion that Harvey Mansfield sets before us. This is the first comprehensive study of manliness, a quality both bad and good, mostly male, often intolerant, irrational, and ambitious. Our “gender-neutral society” does not like it but cannot get rid of it.
      Drawing from science, literature, and philosophy, Mansfield examines the layers of manliness, from vulgar aggression, to assertive manliness, to manliness as virtue, and to philosophical manliness. He shows that manliness seeks and welcomes drama, prefers times of war, conflict, and risk, and brings change or restores order at crucial moments. Manly men in their assertiveness raise issues, bring them to the fore, and make them public and political―as for example, the manliness of the women’s movement.
      After a wide-ranging tour from stereotypes to Hemingway and Achilles, to Nietzsche, to feminism, and to Plato, the author returns to today’s problem of “unemployed manliness.” Formulating a reasoned defense of a quality hardly obedient to reason, he urges men, and especially women, to understand and accept manliness, and to give it honest and honorable employment.

      Tony … sometimes a professor does not like you as an individual in that way. Did your other professors do more with you than talk? Most college students don’t expect a professor to demonstrate to a student what he can do in the bedroom.

      1. Anyway, judging from the description of Mansfield’s book, it is similar to that video from the left Reason posted about which urged men to protect women instead of assaulting them. I think the post was a few months ago. Both pieces of media assume that men are aggressive and suggest harnessing their aggressive nature to implement the author’s preferred law of the land. Tony’s quip about the gangbanger does the same thing.

        Personally, I think women should protect themselves through a combination of packing heat and calling the cops instead of needing a boyfriend. When women need a boyfriend to be safe, they are afraid to take themselves off the dating market to focus on things that concern them more. If they take safety for granted, young low-income women can stay single, find employment, set up a home, and then look for romantic love with men who also have jobs and homes.

        When laws do not prevent construction workers from building homes, the ratio of available jobs, the supply of homes, and the number of people who want both tends to even out. The alternative is a society where men fight over beds in the homeless shelter and women to impregnate, because they are afraid of what Tony might say about them if they don’t knock up a woman.

        1. “If they take safety for granted, young low-income women can stay single, find employment, set up a home, and then look for romantic love with men who also have jobs and homes.”

          Right. About the time that they’re out of fertile years, and with the prospect of a drastic loss of income if they actually DO have kids to discourage them from going ahead with it.

          Look, I know feminists of the modern sort hate it, but biology says women should have the children up front, and then go for a career after they’re old enough to be left alone occasionally.

          Pretending otherwise is why every 1st world country is facing a demographic implosion. Reality bites, but it’s still reality. Having kids is, biologically, priority 1.

          1. YUP.

            There’s nothing wrong with telling women they can have babies and a career… But the ORDER the world pushes right now is completely backwards. It’s mind blowing how many women don’t even know their fertility drops like a rock while they’re in the 30s, and almost no women can conceive naturally by the time they hit 40 or so. They literally don’t even know this shit about their own fucking biology!

            1. Try getting a well-paying job after 5 years of being a housewife. Looking at the stats, new college grad women have the highest probability of being paid similarly to men. After that the proportions go down. If you don’t start out at least average, you remain forever in lower pay grades. Women put of having kids because they know they won’t get a good start in the job market otherwise.
              If you expect to be supported by men your whole life and don’t care about lower pay or the risk of getting divorced then you’re fine with waiting to start a career. However, when he divorces you for a younger version you’ll be stuck with both the kids and a low end job.

  19. The “500 internal server error” windows are quite attractive, and VERY numerous.
    I hope Reason got a good deal on the ‘upgrade’, since it’s worth just about that.

    1. Don’t worry they bought those in bulk.

  20. Such sloppy, inaccurate accusation was enough to move a covey of professors to flutter in alarm.

    Sounds like some highly effective people.

  21. It’s an easy fix; he should just trick them into re-inviting him.

    1. “No, I’m his cousin Buford Mansfield, see? Unlike him, I have a moustache.”

  22. “…a covey of professors to flutter in alarm.”

    Great line that.

  23. How can a person contemplate such a sentence, never mind write it–

    No doubt many people would disagree with them—especially those on the hyper-woke left, whose gender-related opinions are not shared by the vast majority of the population.

    If the vast majority of people DO NOT agree with the opinions of the hyperwoke left, then some, a few disagree with the idea that a man isn’t a woman. Not “many”

    But we ACT as if there’s a ‘many’ involved.

    There isn’t. If one trebles the number of people diagnosed as being actual sufferers of a diagnosable gender dysphoric ailment, one does not even reach a full one percent of the population.

    The hyperwoke are attempting to dismantle all we know about human sexuality because they seek to pander to that ‘group’

    1. they seek to pander to that ‘group’

      It goes deeper than that. There is an old and strong strain of feminism that seeks to demolish the concept of sex and render it socially irrelevant. Such feminists believe women can be free and equal only to the extent that they become like men. They see womanhood as a handicap, so they want the very concept wiped out. This gives them a common cause with the Ts and Qs who want sex to be ignored in favor of “gender”.

      1. Well, that’s because in many objective ways women are in fact inferior to women… It’s a hard thing to admit, but basically men are better. Women have their finer points, but outside of having baby making machines in their abdomen, and being a LOT prettier than dudes… Men are better at almost every single other thing. Broads multitask a bit better, and are more flexible, but men outscore women on basically every other measure I’ve ever heard of.

        The thing is, women need to embrace the PROS they get from the old school status quo… Namely getting a free pass on a lot of the shittiest parts of life, like having to work outside the home, get shot in wars, etc. If they try to compete with men, which is what they’re doing now… They’ll only get more pissed off, because they realize they’re ultimately all just 2nd rate guys who usually can’t compete with the real thing.

        Such a sick/messed up world we live in where you can’t just say the above, which is all scientific fact, without being burned at the stake.

        1. You have to admit that women commit crime and start wars at a much lower rate than men. Your comment sounds like you don’t like women much unless you are fucking them. You should be brave and honest with them and tell them that you think they are inferior to men in almost all ways to their faces. After all, why hang around with 2nd rate men? You can always hire a woman to fuck, right?

  24. Liberal Arts college?

    More like Orthodox Arts college, amirite?

  25. “Administrator says they “were unable to reach consensus as to what we wanted to achieve with this event,” …

    TRANSLATION: I don’t like what you have to say, so we’re not going to allow you to engage in free speech at my place. So fuck off.

  26. If this means that Mansfield should be denied a platform […]

    “Should”? Nah.

    But by the same token, he isn’t entitled to a platform either.

    So seeing as there is no obligation or entitlement from anyone to anyone in this matter, it is not a matter of rights at all.

    1. “So seeing as there is no obligation or entitlement from anyone to anyone in this matter, it is not a matter of rights at all.”

      Agreed; there are no rights violation. This is simply a matter of a supposed school of ‘higher education’ denying same to the student body.
      It is fraudulent charges for tuition here, and the school needs to be sued.

  27. generally found that their desire to shutdown conservative speakers mostly stemmed from the notion that offensive speech had the power to cause tangible emotional harm to vulnerable populations with which far-left activists sympathize.

    This is just what the were trained to say by their allied administrators who can pretend this is a legitimate concern.

  28. Concordia University Disinvites Harvard Professor Harvey Mansfield Over His C̶o̶n̶s̶e̶r̶v̶a̶t̶i̶v̶e̶ Biologically Precise Gender Views

    1. “Conservative” seems like a good word choice. I don’t think we are really to the point where one’s mental/psychological image of one’s own sex/gender is something we understand with biological precision. Sex we have pretty well figured out, but the expression and perception thereof in social and personal contexts is a bit harder to nail down.

      In my experience (which is limited and biased), it seems like only the craziest activists are actually trying to deny biological fact and most trans people know they are biologically one sex and want to be/present as the other.

      1. So “conservative” is good because it describes the situation: we have a conventional way of thinking about sex and gender that works pretty well, so don’t mess with it unless you are really sure you can change things for the better.

      2. You’re making it too complicated. We’re all either male or female (with exceptions so rare they’re hardly worth mentioning). If your “mental/psychological image” of your sex is incorrect, you are delusional, and mental health professionals should try to cure you of that delusion. If you are not delusional about your sex, but wish to be perceived as a member of the opposite sex because you have thoughts or feelings that you feel are not tolerable in someone of your sex, then you are a sexist, and you should change your attitude.

  29. Robby must have gotten some the night before he wrote this because it’s entirely sensible.

  30. This article contains the phrase “tangible emotional harm.”

    This is self-contradictory.

    1. “problematic opinions”

      People thinking things is a problem for Robby.

      1. I’d be pretty happy if that use of “problematic” was stricken from the language. It always makes me think of the humorless women’s studies majors I’d occasionally encounter at college.

    2. Don’t be so literal.
      Or do. What do I care?
      But there is such a thing as figurative use of language. People use “tangible” to refer to things that you can’t literally, physically touch all the time.

  31. Soave’s seems to miss the obvious that defining speech as harm (violence) is itself an exercise of power.

    1. If it’s obvious, why should he say it?

  32. Robby, if you don’t want to look like a left-wing hack you need to do better to identify what people on the right do or say that you object to. All I gather from the article is that the professor has stated the obvious that of male and female are different. This isn’t a conservative view or controversial outside of far left activists. Your takes are garbage when one side does something bad and you go out of your way to say how much you dislike the other side and offer more criticism of them than the left-wing agitators

  33. Hey you guys I have found the perfect job as a full time student, it has changed my life around! If you are self motivated and social media savvy then this is ideal for you. The sky is the limit, you get exactly how much work you put into to it.
    Click on this link to get started.. http://www.Geosalary.com

  34. like Eleanor implied I am inspired that anybody can get paid $9852 in one month on the internet. have you read this web site… ….www.geosalary.com

  35. I think Harvey’s explanation is probably a little closer to the truth than Robby’s.
    While there are no doubt, very emotionally fragile members of the far left who may sincerely look out for what they feel is the safety of certain marginalized groups, the leaders who steer the direction of the new left are all about power. And they manipulate these protesters into believing they’re protesting to protect others, but that’s not really the case. It’s all about shutting down and punishing people who they fear will reveal the illiberal hypocrisy of their movement and gaining power over them.

  36. Would Liberty University invite a speak from the opposite side of the political spectrum? Let’s count how many private christian colleges regularly invite prominent atheists. All this pearl-clutching is absurd. Private colleges invite who their alumni staff and student bodies want to hear from and they have a right to. It’s always been this way.

    1. If a group at Liberty University invited an atheist speaker, I’m quite sure he would be treated politely, and there would be no fears for his safety.

      1. Points for Liberty.

  37. […] professor Harvey Mansfield can’t speak at some Canadian college because he’s too disgustingly retro for the […]

  38. There are only 2 sexes… As for the gender bullshit… Whatever bro. If you think you should have been a chick, whatever. But the ones who insist they ARE a chick can go fuck themselves. They’re not. They never will be.

    At best they’re people who are born with a mildly malfunctioning brain that makes them think they’re the opposite sex. This doesn’t HAVE to be a major deal, but they need to accept they’re weird, and that others don’t have to play into their delusion. It’s basically like how if somebody is deathly afraid of house flies it’s kind of weird, but not a HUGE deal… Provided they don’t demand every single fly in the world is exterminated on their behalf or something.

    Trans people just need to go back to realizing they’re the ones with a fucking problem, not the rest of the world.

  39. […] Soave, “Concordia University Disinvites Harvard Professor Harvey Mansfield Over His Conservative Gender View…,” Reason, April 16, […]

  40. […] Soave, “Concordia University Disinvites Harvard Professor Harvey Mansfield Over His Conservative Gender View…,” Reason, April 16, […]

  41. […] If you can believe it, Concordia University in Canada has disinvited one of the most distinguished scholars in North America, Harvard’s Harvey Mansfield, because he is unwoke. Robby Soave of Reason writes about the appalling act: […]

  42. Obviously, no doubt.

  43. […] Concordia University Disinvites Harvard Professor Harvey Mansfield Over His Conservative Gender View… (Université Concordia) […]

  44. “I don’t think this is quite right. I researched the motivations of anti-speech campus actors for my forthcoming book, Panic Attack: Young Radicals in the Age of Trump (pre-order here), and generally found that their desire to shutdown conservative speakers mostly stemmed from the notion that offensive speech had the power to cause tangible emotional harm to vulnerable populations with which far-left activists sympathize. Their view would probably be that Mansfield’s opinions are mentally taxing for female, queer, and transgender students—and that harming the students in this way is akin to physically harming them. Preventing Mansfield from speaking, then, is a matter of self-defense—a response to a threat of violence.”
    I believe the professor is right that this is about power. Arguing that a speech can be harmful is merely an excuse/tatic for the left to suppress opposing ideas.

  45. Bullshit. That guy nailed it.
    Speech is power. The denial of a platform denies him the chance to persuade to wrongthink.

    No one believe the tangible emotional harm bullshit, it is merely the canard of an excuse that is offered. Wake up.

    1. No one believe the tangible emotional harm bullshit

      That’s wishful thinking. Yes, there are snowflakes so fragile, who have lived such sheltered lives, that they really do believe it.

  46. These are the actions of unprincipled and cowardly cucks.

  47. Young American Fascisti for “Freedom” are strong in young Robby today! It is hard to fault Concordia for refusing a podium to national socialist, Army of God or race suicide exponents of prior restraint of pregnant women and coercing of physicians at gunpoint. The Libertarian party plank and votes were the brief for Roe v Wade. We need a platform calling for the repeal of all abortion laws. Abandon 1873 Comstock laws and enter 2019 alongside Canada. Ever since God’s Own Prohibitionists began aggression against women and doctors, looter politicians have exploited it for votes to enact the other kind of socialism.

  48. […] thinkers from prominent universities across the country, including recently such great minds as Harvey Mansfield, Camille Paglia, and Roger Scruton. If Trinity College does not stand up for the Churchill […]

  49. […] thinkers from prominent universities across the country, including recently such great minds as Harvey Mansfield, Camille Paglia, and Roger Scruton. If Trinity College does not stand up for the Churchill […]

  50. Thanks admin for giving such valuable information through your article . Your article is much more similar to https://www.hermesbagstmall.com/hermes-verrou-chaine-mini-bag-goatskin-palladium-hardware-in-black.html
    word unscramble tool because it also provides a lot of knowledge of vocabulary new words with its meanings.

  51. […] year we have been treated to a handful of fairly high-profile disinvitations. Concordia University rescinded its invitation to Harvard University government professor Harvey Mansfield to speak to […]

  52. […] year we have been treated to a handful of fairly high-profile disinvitations. Concordia University rescinded its invitation to Harvard University government professor Harvey Mansfield to speak to […]

  53. […] year we have been treated to a handful of fairly high-profile disinvitations. Concordia University rescinded its invitation to Harvard University government professor Harvey Mansfield to speak to […]

  54. […] year we have been treated to a handful of fairly high-profile disinvitations. Concordia University rescinded its invitation to Harvard University government professor Harvey Mansfield to speak to […]

  55. […] year we have been treated to a handful of fairly high-profile disinvitations. Concordia University rescinded its invitation to Harvard University government professor Harvey Mansfield to speak to […]

  56. […] year we have been treated to a handful of fairly high-profile disinvitations. Concordia University rescinded its invitation to Harvard University government professor Harvey Mansfield to speak to […]

  57. […] year we have been treated to a handful of fairly high-profile disinvitations. Concordia University rescinded its invitation to Harvard University government professor Harvey Mansfield to speak to […]

  58. I get enough of that drivel from people who actually believe it.https://www.jcsuitsoutlet.com/jewelry.html

  59. […] Ali, the forced resignation of Erika Christakis at Yale, Concordia University’s disinvitation of Harvard Professor Harvey Mansfield, and Cambridge’s cancellation of Jordan Peterson’s visiting fellowship. Students who receive […]

Comments are closed.