Submitted by James Mayhall, Jan 24, 2007 09:34

The regime that you faced at NYU seems mild when compared to the regime that I discovered when beginning graduate school at an elite midwestern university in 1971. At that school, males were permitted to attend classes offered by the Women's Studies Department only if invited by one female member of the class and accepted by a majority vote of the entire class. In other words, the classes were run as private clubs. In addition, some professors strived to seduce their female students. Such seduction was considered a revolutionary act designed to save students from servitude in the male world. I will not bore you with reams of details. To the best of my knowledge, such practices continue to this day at elite universities. Why Women's Studies professors are permitted to engage openly in activities that are clearly illegal and immoral is one of many questions that cannot be asked even today in the university community.

Thanks very much for the good quotations that you provide. Why haven't Marilyn French, Susan Brownmiller, and their ilk been charged under the Hate Crimes Act. Clearly, they hate all males and they wish to do harm to males and what they call "maleness." Given the powerful positions occuppied by such sisters, they do cause harm to males. I read Brownmiller's book when it appeared in the 1970's. She said, in so many words, that all males benefit from rape. I was astounded and perplexed. Given the core meaning of "feminist," I am a hard core feminist. I support complete equality of opportunity between males and females, and I do so instinctively. However, by French's standards, I am a victim of maleness and a threat to the well-being of all females. Why? Because, for French and her ilk, my political stance is belied by my biology. "Maleness" is the root cause of all evil in the world, the new Satan. All of this leads me to ask: why is it that Women's Studies Departments are permitted to teach statements that are (1) radically unsupported by scientific evidence or any other kind and (d) no less extreme than the statements of a Louis Farrakhan who is almost universally reviled by thoughtful commentators.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.