Just when you think the neo-communist left has reached their pinnacle in brainwashing at secular institutions, along comes a professor at University of Connecticut to challenge that faulty notion.
Christina Mogro-Wilson, who teaches social work, was taken aback after surveying 118 of her students, finding that “[Masters of Social Work] MSW students tend to endorse feminist principles but are hesitant to identify themselves as feminists.”
Well, that feminist dog just won’t howl for Mogro-Wilson.
And she has the solution: Oppress female students to help them recognize what they’ve been missing all along.
Isn’t that the wrong direction for feminism? Aren’t they supposed to “roar” instead of being beaten into believing they are not equal? Weird.
What Set Her Off
Mogro-Wilson must have had an inkling that one or (gasp) even two of her students were happy-go-lucky and had never experienced oppression – which may have prompted her to conduct the poll.
What was returned must have worried Mogro-Wilson. Out of the 118 students polled, 111 (women) do not believe that “discrimination and subordination” are “salient issues in women’s lives.” And she has called for an intervention.
Fretting about the lack of oppressed female students, Mogro-Wilson is planning to add heap loads of “intersectionality” into her already oppressive curricula.
What is this “intersectionality”?
First off, the world can lay accolades at the sensible shoe clad Kimberlé Crenshaw, full-time professor at the UCLA School of Law and Columbia Law School, who coined the phrase. And here is the originator’s definition:
“Intersectionality is a lens through which you can see where power comes and collides, where it interlocks and intersects. It’s not simply that there’s a race problem here, a gender problem here, and a class or LBGTQ problem there. Many times that framework erases what happens to people who are subject to all of these things.”
So, in simplified terms, various forms of social classes, such as race, sexual orientation, age, and gender, do not exist separately from each other but are interwoven together.
Yes! That’s what we need in this country, more identity politics in secular institutions.
How It Works
Here is the plan: instruct and inform students of every possible micro-aggression against their sex (unless they are trans-neutral), religious beliefs, skin color, and socio-economic status until they understand the need for a safe place. That should turn out some happy-ass social workers or have them transferring to another university. How depressing – and necessary — according to Mogro-Wilson.
And although I jest at the expense of the good professor, how else is this “intersectionality” immersion training likely to be accomplished? How do you convince women, who don’t feel or have not experienced discrimination due to their sex, that they are in fact, discriminated against?
Frankly, I wonder if Mogro-Wilson knows how to accomplish this training via university curricula either, as she explains:
“It is essential that students learn to nuance their understandings around oppression, so that when considering foundational social work issues, like poverty, mental health status, and oppression, that to the extent possible all areas of social identity are explored in combination.”
To What End?
Apparently only the oppressed-educated student can enrich, understand, and empathize with a needy client. But aren’t MSW students already studying clients’ socio-economics? And are there any greedy, xenophobic, homophobic, you-name-it-o-phobic students fighting for the chance to be a fabulously low-paid professional in a never-ending unglamorous job? I’d lay odds these students polled are not the unsensitive, unsympathetic sort to begin with and that Mogro-Wilson’s hammering of “intersectional feminism” and depressing and ad nauseum syllabus may drive them out of the vocation.
Now that would be cause for a good feminist howling.