Christa
Hoddap (Professor of philosophy at University of Massachusetts, Lowell) has
published a distorted description of the aims of The Unknown History of Misandry.
Here
is an excerpt from her 2007 book, Men’s
Rights, Gender, and Social Media:
Here
are links to the articles Prof. Hoddap references:
(11)
St. Estephe, Robert, “Alimony Unlimited (and the emergence of a Men’s Rights
Movement),” A Voice for Men, Nov. 24,
2013
(12)
St. Estephe, Robert, “The Lethal Paternity Fraud Racket,” A Voice for Men, Feb.
24, 2014
(13)
St. Estephe, Robert, “Alimony Slaves Can Do It!” A Voice for Men, Aug. 7, 2013
I
have never argued that males are an “oppressed” class of persons. Why? Because
I reject the dialectical materialist ideology that interprets social relations
reductively as an endless of oppressor class vs. oppressed class. Certainly
there are MRA’s who believe that “history works logically” (Hegelian
“science”-of-history influence), holding forth that “social construction”
ideology provides an adequate explanation for the existence of gynocentrism,
such as the notion that medieval chivalry is its source, ignoring evolutionary
reproductive strategies that shape biological reality and thus biology-shaped
behavioral patterns.
It is
notable that Hoddap employs the pretense of objective examination in referring
to the scandal of what came to be called “the alimony racket” in the mid-1920s
onward. She avoids mentioning that the term was universally known in the US
for decades and does not use that term in her text. Rather, she refers to
“alleged alimony scams,” implying that the evidence for actual wide spread
alimony fraud social problem was widespread and was continuously described and
attacked by prominent female journalists, particularly in the 1920s-1930s.
Hoddap
tendentiously imputes a standard oppressor/oppressed (Marxist) ideology to my
writings despite that terminology is the Marxist oppressor/oppressed Marxist
model never used nor it is subscribed to. In other words Hoddap restricts
herself to orthodox dogma, the “history as science” approach derived from Hegel
and unjustifiably projects her orthodox beliefs onto arguments made by
heterodox writers where such beliefs have no place. In short, she deploys the
straw-man fallacy.
In
reality I leave the historical facts open to interpretation. My project is to
put forth unknown, forgotten, unexamined and misinterpreted facts. Facts
matter. But for Hoddap theories matter (even when incorrectly attributed to
others) far more than facts and the open and detailed examination of facts.
Lest
one might suppose my objections indicate a hostility towards the sex of the
author, I must say that my objections indicate my continued acceptance that the
university has devolved into a faith-based Marxist training center devoted to
perpetuation of orthodox dogma and has rejected the mission of objective and
fearless pursuit of truth. There are just as many Priests as there are
Priestesses in this Orthodox Church of Dialectical Materialism, and not a few
believers are critics (albeit confused ones) of feminism who imagine the
problem just a matter of gynocentrism, rather than a complex mix of biology,
culturally constructed customs and the Neo-Marxist faith (“critical theory,”
deconstruction, post-modernist ideations, the “science” of historical
inevitability (a pseudoscience)).
The
strawman deception goes like this: Feminism
shows that it is the female “gender” (sex) that is the oppressed “gender,” but
anti-feminists assert that it is the male “gender” that is the oppressed
“gender.”
This
formula representing anti-feminist thinking may well apply for the small number
of critics of feminism who are foolish enough to pretend that modern feminist
ideology is not characterized by specious Neo-Marxist beliefs, or who similarly
that they can rescue the “progressive”/”social justice”/Hegel-Marx model of
reality from gynocentric influences so that their preferred version of
“historical inevitability” can be preserved and implemented by social
engineering in a progress towards utopia.
The
application of the simple binary opposition of oppressor/oppressed to the
complex and multivalent materials dealt with in anti-feminist and Men’s Rights
discourses is ridiculously simpleminded. But it is, we can be assured, the orthodox
approach.
Haddop
is not an authentic and serious critic of the Men’s Rights Movement; she is
merely just another pedestrian formula-repeater, like so many less-credentialed
ones using the same tactic: “Marxsplaining,” if you will.
Such
shoddy and and dishonest scholarship just what we should expect from
Indoctrinate U. These captured institutions promote not liberal education and
free thinking but rather authoritarianism and constant misery based on fake
philosophy.
Tenured
Priests and Priestesses:
Check your orthodox Neo-Marxist ivory tower privilege,
please.
--
Robert St. Estephe, March 21, 2018
***
***
SEE: The
Alimony Racket: Quotations
***
***
***
[735-3/5/22]
***
Have you ever actually stepped foot on a UMass Lowell campus? Have you ever been present for a lecture there? Nope. You haven’t. Every single “liberal propaganda” professor I met there is a thousand times more intelligent than you. Keep stacking big words on top of big words though because you just can’t accept feminism as a legitimate civil rights movement. Poor little man.
ReplyDeleteA fan of Hoddap's brand of scholarship writes, on Jan. 8, 2020:
ReplyDelete1) "Lmao dumbass incel." - and - 2) "Have you ever actually stepped foot on a UMass Lowell campus? Have you ever been present for a lecture there? Nope. You haven’t. Every single “liberal propaganda” professor I met there is a thousand times more intelligent than you. Keep stacking big words on top of big words though because you just can’t accept feminism as a legitimate civil rights movement. Poor little man." -- BigBoiTylerOk