Letitia's Inanities are in Italics. (Why did an Asian girl 'appropriate' a Western -- or it is black -- name? Is she ashamed to be known or called by an Asian name?) The quotes were taken from her Facebook post:
https://www.facebook.com/letitiachai/posts/10215615379035965
Please help me by wearing your favorite underwear on Saturday. And SHARE if this speaks to you.
Wow, for a strong, independent girl(or womyn), Chai sure can't stand on her own two feet. She needs backup and huggy-wuggies from her friends(who are apparently just as stuckup, shallow, crass, and self-righteous as she is). Chai is so tough and assertive that she pleads her 'facebook friends' to SHARE her spoiled brat tantrums. It's pure peer-clique behavior. When you feel small or hurt, lean on your friends to back you up because you have no spine of your own. "PLEASE HELP ME", Chai bleats. And her idea of empowerment? Come dressed in 'your favorite underwear'. What is this, a pajammy party? Hey, I have a great idea. Come in your UNDEROOS.
*First things first: I do not resent people struggling with internalized oppression. I empathize. However, I stand against oppressive beliefs and discrimination.*
'Struggling with internalized oppression'? Chai must be an expert because she seems to be struggling with internalized childishness and stupidity that are oppressing her feeble intellect. But seriously, I suppose terms like 'internalized oppression', like 'micro-aggression', are useful to over-privileged, spoiled, and bratty elite college students like Chai who've only known wealth and favors all her life. She lives privilege, she reeks of privilege, and she is surrounded by privilege. Despite her pretensions of humanitarianism, she chose to spend her youth at an elite college hanging with equally privileged brats playing at being 'oppressed'. Since they are not really oppressed, they have to cook up games of imagined oppression. And 'internalized oppression' must be one of those fashionable concepts. Oh my, Chai sure is a clever one. Give her an A, please.
This morning, I experienced my deepest disappointment in Cornell. I was supposed to perform a draft of my College Scholar thesis presentation in my Acting in Public class. I’ve worked very hard on researching refugee rehabilitation this year and I couldn’t wait to share my findings with the class. When I got up to start, my professor said: “Is that really what you would wear?” I was wearing a long-sleeve blue button-down shirt and denim cut-offs. She, a white woman, continued: “Your shorts are too short.”
OH MY!!! That tragic morning, Chai experienced her DEEPEST DISAPPOINTMENT!! What happened? Were her parents killed in an auto accident? Was her best friend murdered? Did a terrorist attack kill innocents in front her eyes in NY? Did a fire burn down her residence? Did her doctor tell her that she is stricken with a terrible disease? Did her favorite dog that she'd known since childhood pass away?
Oh no, it was much more grievous than that. She was slated to give a serious speech on a very important topic, but she came dressed like a vapid tart, and her professor noticed! My Golly, it was the end of the world!! Call the police!! Call the ambulance!! Call the fire department!! Call the FBI!! How could such a thing happen? Why didn't the evil WHITE professor understand that it is currently EMPOWERING AND LIBERATING for a student to give a lecture on a serious matter dressed like Katy Perry or a K-Pop dolt? Sheesh, what is this world coming to? The professor is so unhip and so 'unwoke'. What a fuddy-dud. What a prig. What's wrong with mixing academics with a bit of tits-n-ass? Hasn't the professor seen ANIMAL HOUSE?
And she was no ordinary professor but a WHITE WOMAN!! Well, well, we know how 'raciiiiiist' those white people are. Sure, being a female professor, I suppose she can score some Pokemon victim-points of her own, but still, she is WHITE. Ewwwwww! Whitey whitey white. How dare a WHITE WOMAN tell a YELLOW GIRL what is what!
Of course, if the professor were black or brown(or lesbian?), maybe Chai's response would have been different because, after all, Asians fall short of other non-white races on the Victimhood totem pole. In the US, the three main holy victim groups are Jews, blacks, and homosexuals. So, if a big black professor had shouted to Chai, "Giiiiiirl, why you dressed like some ho? Yo mammy and daddy raised you wrong. How dare you insult my class by coming dressed like this be your dormitory or shit? How dare you not show me no respeck??!!" I'm guessing, had that been the case, Chai would have profusely apologized and cleaned up her act. After all, in our culture, pop or otherwise, we presume that black folks are possessed of nobler souls, innate wisdom, and higher spiritual power. Consider how Oprah, a silly fat talkshow host, was praised like Mama Wisdom. And how Obama was greeted like the messiah or The One. He even got a Nobel Prize before he did anything. And look at Conservatives falling all over themselves because Kanye the Rapper said he likes Trump. Well, Sheeeeeeeiiiit, aint dat the bomb?
But it wasn't a black professor who admonished Chai. It was a WHITE -- ewwwwwww -- professor. As Asians are hungry for victimhood points(as they're graded below blacks, homosexuals, Jews, and even Hispanics, though some of them are actually white and of Conquistador descent), this was surely a golden opportunity for Chai to rip into her WHITE -- ewwwwww -- professor. Chai could beat on her chest and make herself out to be a victim of a Whitey -- ewwwwww! Also, she ain't no Model Minority that Asians like her are tagged with. Oh no, she is a BAD GIRL, a LIBERATED BAD NASTY SEXY WHOREY EMANCIPATED BIATCH who will do like she feels like. Her emotions run like Ashley Judd's at the Mall. Ooh ooh, we are soooo impressed! ROTFL
Now the MOTHER of all nasty woman, Madeleine Albright. Genocidal too. She now goes around claiming to oppose 'fascism'. LOL
The professor proceeded to tell me, in front of my whole class, that I was inviting the male gaze away from the content of my presentation and onto my body. She said I was making a statement by wearing my outfit. I told her that I sure as hell wouldn’t change my statement to make her or anyone else feel more comfortable.
Ohhhhh, I was wrong! The professor wasn't being a traditional prig. She was being a feminist!! She wanted to shield the poor girl Chai from the MALE GAZE. If Chai's shtick is she was wronged by an evil WHITE -- ewwwww -- professor, it seems the Professor Rebekah Maggor's shtick was BEWARE OF EVIL PATRIARCHY. (To be sure, patriarchy is more about older men controlling younger men than about men controlling women. When patriarchy fails, younger men are free of constraints by older males, and the result is something like the black community where young males grow up without male guidance and control. Result is Thugarchy and Bitcharchy, what with rappers yapping about 'bitchass hos' and biatches 'twerking' or 'fuc*dancing' all night long.)
Also, even though Maggor herself isn't very old, it seems she subscribes to an older mode of feminism that vilifies the Male Gaze for seeing women as 'sex objects'. It seems Chai embodies the newer feminism of slut pride and skank power. If old-school feminists see Male Gaze as a threat, new-school feminists see it as flattery. Having grown up on pornography and pornified mainstream culture where even little girls are raised in Ariana Grande and Miley Cyrus(and the Zero-Cum game of Jungle Fever where big-donged black guys are supposed to win all the ho's while, at the opposite end, Asian males are the biggest losers rejected even by women of their own race), the younger generation of girls emulate pornified celebrities and other idols of manufactured vanity. They have no agency or individuality as they'd been programmed by whore culture from a young age. There used to be a time, prior to the internet, when ONLY adults could access porn. But today, even young children grow up to porn and share porn images on smartphones. Also, even non-porn culture has been pornified, as explained by Black Pigeon Speaks:
It could be that Asian girls like Chai are being especially 'Me So Horny' in their style because of the huge discrepancy in the sexual market value between Asian males and Asian females. Among whites, white men and white women have about equal sexual market value, i.e. other races are attracted to them. But among Asians, while Asian women have high sexual market value -- men of all races want to have sex with them --, Asian males have the lowest sexual market values -- women of all races, even Asian, tend to shun them as short, scrawny, geeky, weak-voiced, and dorky.
Could this be the reason why so many Asian boys are so shy, timid, and withdrawn while so many Asian women are so slutty, skanky, and assertive in the West? It's just a theory, but maybe. Generally, Asian boys tend to act more respectable in all spheres of life whereas Asian women tend to be slutty and horny-porny. Asian men get no sexual attention from women, but Asian women get lots of attention. So, Asian women want to show it off in 'Me So Horny' fashion.
Chai says she has 'agency', but she just seems to be conforming to the stereotype of 'me so horny, me so horny' Western Imagination of the Asian whore. When Asian women move to the West, the impact must be profoundly psycho-sexual. In Asian history, Asian women only knew and married Asian men. But in a globalized world, Asian women, especially those who moved to the West, can choose from a much bigger sexual marketplace. They realize they don't have to be like their mothers who ended up with 'loser' Asian males. They can go with superior white men who are taller and more handsome or with black men who are more muscular and have bigger penises.
Consider the following scene from FULL METAL JACKET. An Asian geek pimp brings an Asian woman to a bunch of white guys and black guys. Compare the big American guys with the small geeky Asian guy. And the Asian girl is excited by the attention of the superior men. In a way, Asian fathers who bring their daughters to the West are like that pimp. They look up to whites and blacks as the superior race, and it is their wish to give their daughters to superior men. Asians must believe whites and blacks are superior. Why else would they reject their own nation, race, and culture and come to permanently settle in a new country where Asians are outnumbered by a huge margin by whites and blacks? It's all so confused.
Chai has no real agency. She acts like she really wants to work in the fashion industry, and her attitude, her views, and her rhetoric are dime-a-dozen in the Age of Miley Cyrus, Lena Dunham, Emma Sulkowicz, and etc. Every porn personalty claims to be 'empowered'. It's now cliched talking point.
Chai is a spoiled brat, a princess, a vain narcissist who attends an elite university surrounded by rich kids. But social status vanity isn't enough for her. She wants 'victimhood' vanity too, and she sure found an opportunity to play precious victim with this bogus hype about how she was soooooooo oppressed. Riiiiiight, because people around the world in Africa, Middle East, Latin America, and Rust Belt America don't face the kind of challenges that Chai has to face everyday... like being told by her professor to dress with a bit more dignity in classroom. I mean, how dare a professor tell Chai that the classroom is not her living room or bedroom. It's a gathering place for learning and exchange of ideas, right?
Apparently not. In Chai's precious princess-and-the-pea universe, a classroom is a place where she can strut around in me-so-horny fashion to garner attention from her classmates. (After all, there is a REASON for dressing sexy. It is to be noticed. A woman dressing sexily is like a man holding a meat before a dog. A dog can't help but notice the meat dangled in front of it. Likewise, a man can't help but notice a woman dressed sexily... unless he is blind. It seems people like Chai are trying to have it both ways. They want to draw attention to their sex appeal while, at the same time, pretending it's all about issues of 'empowerment' that won't interfere with their serious work as academics. A woman who flaunts her sexuality is like a man teasing a dog with fresh meat. When you arouse animals passions in man or beast, things can go wrong. Working class girls grow up understanding this. But precious princesses who grew up in pampered protective bubbles seem to think there are no consequences to flirtation. This is something Camille Paglia covered many times.)
What are the larger implications of Chai's classroom logic? So, if a guy wants to give a lecture about the Holocaust, he can arrive dressed in Spring-Break style with a Hawaiian shirt and swimming shorts. Or, if some guy wants to give a speech about the tragedy of the Civil War, he can come dressed in clown suit if he so wishes. Why not mix business with pleasure, right? Or if you want to give a speech about what happened on 9/11, come dressed like you're jamming at a House Party to hip hop and dope. Or, if you want to discuss the Nanking Massacre, Korean War, or the Cambodian genocide, just dress like you're at a nightclub looking for someone to have sex with. Why? Because, while those subjects are important, even more important is calling attention to the SEX appeal of the speaker. So, if Chai were to give a lecture about how the Korean War led to millions of deaths, the lecture itself must take a backseat to the audience ogling at her bare legs or maybe her cleavage. Just like Fox News that features sexy news readers so that the Look matters more than the News. The Idiocratic Future:
Now, more old-fashioned people might argue that it is essentially a matter of respect. Respect for the classroom, respect for the subject, respect for the teacher, and... self-respect. After all, a classroom is NOT one's own private space. It is shared space where the purpose is to learn and to share ideas. So, the old-fashioned idea is that people should come dressed properly. Also, there is respect for the subject. After all, college is not about fun and trivia. People come to learn serious things, and human suffering is a serious business. Think of all the lives ruined by wars, invasions, famine, genocide, poverty, disease, natural disasters. Given the tragic nature of history and human condition, a person giving a lecture or speech on such matters should do utmost to draw attention to the subject matter than to oneself. Imagine if some student decided to give a lecture on the Atlantic Slave Trade but arrived in class dressed like Jeff Spicoli. Is that showing respect for the subject and the suffering of the people involved?
But actually, Chai is far worse than Jeff Spicoli. While Spicoli the California teenager is slack and lazy, he has the virtue of honesty. He's a bum and knows it. He doesn't pretend to care about anything but himself, and on that level, he is sort of endearing as a pop icon.
In contrast, Chai is a conceited, self-centered, narcissistic, and vain princess with pretensions. Everything is all about her. But she masks her vanity with this BS about caring about Refugees. But if she cared so much about human suffering, why would she come to class dressed like a hussy, thus making the boys(and lesbians) pay more attention to how she looks than what she says? She has all the hallmarks of celebrity do-gooders who make a big show of how much they care, but it's all just a publicity stunt to stoke their own egos. It's like all those rock star dancing, prancing, and throwing a wild party to... uh... oh yeah, 'save starving people in Africa'.
Besides, if Chai really cares about the wretched and the poor, what is she doing in an elite college? Why is she talking about refugees when she could join the Red Cross and really devote her life to them?
And if her main concern is for other people, why make a mountain out of a molehill and ridiculously hype herself as a tragic victim simply because her professor told her to dress like an adult than some bimbo going to a high school house party? It seems Chai was raised as a spoiled brat all her life. She sounds like the kind of brat who was showered with everything she wanted. As a status-obsessed princess, she seems to understand the value of 'virtue-signaling' and victimology as means to rise up the social ranks. Indeed, it's amusing that the ones who are most obsessed with attending elitist schools are also the ones who bleat most about 'victimhood'. It's like what Wesley Yang wrote in his piece on Jordan Peterson:
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a19834137/jordan-peterson-interview/
Yang: “Some of these Ivy League kids want to have it both ways,” Peterson, who spent five years teaching at Harvard, told me. “They want to be baby members of the 1 percent, which they most certainly are, and yet still portray themselves as the oppressed.” I nodded, thinking of all the people I knew to whom those words applied.
There is also the matter of respect for the teacher. An Asian virtue, apparently Chai the spoiled brat lost all vestiges of it having grown up with trash culture in the West. A student who respects the teacher arrives in class in a proper and presentable manner. The classroom does belong to the professor, and students do arrive to learn. So, respect is crucial in the teacher-student relationship. It doesn't have to be in the old school manner of total obeisance to the teacher as all-knowing sage, but the teacher does have the superior position because it is he or she who passes knowledge to the students. Also, classroom isn't only about learning ideas but proper conduct. Apparently, spoiled brat Chai wasn't taught any manners at home. But maybe this is the result of typical Korean parenting. There was the International scandal of the Nut Rage. Apparently, Korean parents dote on their kids too much, and some of these brats grow up thinking the world is their oyster.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/13/world/asia/nut-rage-sister-korean-air.html
Chai seems to think that virtue is about signaling about compassion, i.e. she must be such a goody-good person because she spouts off so much about how she CARES SO MUCH ABOUT 'MUH REFUGEES', but that is the easiest kind of virtue, indeed a fake virtue. Anyone can hold up a newspaper about starving children in India or Bolivia and shed crocodile tears and make a big scene, like all those virtue-vanity phonies on Oprah... or that terrible Somaly Mam.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/30/sex-trafficking-activist-somaly-mam-quits
Nothing is easier than saying, "Look, those people are suffering. I care sooooo much, boo hoo hoo."
The real sign of virtue comes from how one carries oneself in real life, and Chai's own Nut Rage shows she is a total failure as a human being. She has no respect for the classroom. No respect for the teacher. No respect for her own family. The world now knows that her parents did a poor job and raised a bratty princess. She has no respect for her subject. If the purpose of her speech was to emphasize the plight of refugees, why would she come dressed like a strumpet? Why would she call attention to herself than to her subject matter? And she has no self-respect. She is self-centered and self-important but lacks genuine self-respect because anyone with self-respect would not act like a child throwing a tantrum over sound advice.
Worse, as if making a fool out herself isn't enough, she got her idiot friends to go along and make fools of themselves too. Just like the demented Emma Sulkowicz who got others involved in her bogus controversy.
And one wonders what Chai really learned in her class about refugees and human plight. After all, if Chai is truly cognizant of the scale of human suffering around the world, why should she think a mere teacherly advice for her to dress a bit more appropriately is worth all the outrage and hysteria on her part?
The funny thing is the professor seems to have more respect for Chai than she has of herself. The professor's remark implied that Chai could be better than she's letting on as some slut-pride celebrity-wanna-be. But it seems the professor misjudged. Chai really seems to be a vapid and shallow idiot. She just fills her emptiness with virtue-signaling about 'muh refugees', but when she finally has a chance to share her views on the subject, her signature presentation is the 'me so horny' look.
A student (man) spoke up to the professor by questioning her low perception of men. He was taken aback by the fact that the professor genuinely believed that he was incapable of focusing his attention on the content of a presentation rather than on the presenter’s outfit. Another student (woman) backed him up and commented on how inappropriate the professor was being.
This is actually a good point, and I agree that the professor's main complaint shouldn't have been about the MALE GAZE. It should have been about proper dress and conduct in class. Class is not a house party or one's living room. It is shared space for ideas. One should not come to class dressed like one's going to a party, night club, or spring break.
And even though the MALE GAZE argument is too much, the fact remains that appearances do matter. Surely, if a guy came to class with see-through shirt to show off his muscles, it's going to affect how people respond to what he has to say. Humans are supremely visual creatures. We are always ogling and always judging by looks. When we watch a movie, we judge people not only by actions and words but by their looks and style. This is why various professions have different looks and styles. A nun doesn't dress like a waitress at Hooters. A policeman doesn't dress like a male stripper. A government worker doesn't dress like a Las Vegas hooker. Looks send signals. If a guy in class gave a lecture with his shirt open and baring his chest like Fabio, people WILL react to that. If a professor gave a lecture in his pajammies and bunny slippers, people will notice that too. While style isn't everything, it doesn't affect our response to the substance. Presentation matters along with the content.
Then, an international student (man) said that I should have more respect for the audience and that it was a moral obligation to dress more conservatively. Needless to say, I was shook.
“Am I morally offending you?” I asked. I had to step outside the classroom because my eyes filled with tears of rage and disbelief.
Chai just doesn't get it. It's a matter of set and setting. Chai can dress anyway she wishes in her own house. Or, if she wants to go to a night club, she can dress like a slut. If she goes to the beach, she can wear a swimsuit, even a bikini.
But you don't just wear whatever you like anywhere. If Chai were to attend a funeral, would she dress like a teenager going to a frat party? There is a time and place for everything. A classroom is a place of learning. It's not a fashion show, house party, or one's living room.
Also, if Chai is really so confident of herself, why did she walk out and cry? So much for confidence and agency. She wilted and broke down at the first sign of disapproval. So, for all her shtick about agency, autonomy, and confidence, she lives for the approval and flattery of others. She is a spoiled princess.
And only the eyes of an idiotic spoiled princess would fill with TEARS OF RAGE AND DISBELIEF over such trifle.
Sheesh, it seems no one ever told her NO. She must have been spoiled and pampered all her life. Most of us regular people heard far harsher criticisms all our lives, and we learned to manage and even learn from it. But my oh my, she was filled with TEARS OF RAGE AND DISBELIEF because someone dared to tell her that a classroom is not a place where one comes dressed like at a House Party or Night Club. Maybe she thought her 'me-so-horny' act would grab the attention of classmates. Maybe she thought she was a superduper girl. She is smart enough to attend Cornell. She is soooooo caring about refugees, thus morally superior. And as if being smart and soooo virtuous aren't enough, she is oh-so-sexy too. But it turns out some men weren't impressed and rolled their eyes at her lame K-Pop hussy act. That was sooooooooooo TRIGGERING!!!! Oh boo hoo. Surely, the refugees she studied never experienced something as worthy of TEARS OF RAGE AND DISBELIEF.
Two classmates (women) stepped out to the restroom with me. The international student stood outside and tried to apologize, but I was in no position to speak calmly with him. He grabbed his backpack from the classroom and left. The professor chased him out, lost him, turned to me and asked to speak.
Oh poor smart-virtuous-sexy baby. She was sooooo traumatized that she had to be helped by a couple of classmates. Why didn't someone call the ambulance and Red Cross? Why expend all that time and energy on saving refugees when a great tragedy was unfolding at Cornell because a student dressed like a hussy was sooooooooo triggered. This reminds me of the Leave Britney Alone hysteria:
Seth Green's parody is even funnier: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiqkDm9UoKo
What is so amusing is that despite Chai's claim of agency(by which she means the right to act like a spoiled brat), she confirms so many sexual, socio-economic, and ethnic stereotypes. She confirms the sexual stereotype that women are both slutty and fragile. She comes dressed like a hussy, but when people criticize her, she just can't take it. She wilts and cries like a little girl... like Bob Dylan said in the song "Just like a Woman". She wants daddy and mommy when things don't go her way. Waaaaaah, boo hoo hoo.
Also, she confirms the socio-economic stereotype of the urban elites: how conceited, stuck up, nasty, and snotty they are. Oh miss princess, how dare anyone criticize anything about her. Finally, she lives up to the Korean ethnic stereotype of Nut Rage childishness, a mix of hysteria and self-pity.
She faces a trifle of criticism, and she reacts like it's the end of the world. What kind of parenting and upbringing created such an insipid creature. The stereotype of Korean crassness and shallowness fits her to a tee. I hear Korea has the most plastic surgeries in the world. I've seen a bit of K-pop, and it's all plastic and fake. And that kind of vapidity sums up Chai's essence as a person. But most shocking is her total lack of self-awareness. She is so wrapped up in her own ego and vanity that she has NO empathy. True empathy means the ability to see the world through other people's eyes and understand their point of view. But Chai can't conceive of the possibility that some people might find her mixing of slut and scholar to be ludicrous. Imagine if some white person studied the tragedy of the Korean War and then came to class in a Hawaiian shirt, flip flops, and a baseball cap to give a speech. Now, there is a place where such attire would be appropriate, but it certainly wouldn’t be in a college class devoted to serious issues and matters.
Perhaps the problem with Chai partly owes to the infantilization of society as a whole. Ours is a truly debased culture in which rappers are revered as prophets, porn performers are invited to colleges to give lectures, where people look to celebrities for answers, where old religions have been replaced by the new faith of Homo Worship, where supposedly serious critics and thinkers expound on the meaning of STAR WARS movies or fantasy Wakanda of BLACK PANTHER based on a comic book.
Conservatives are supposed to be impressed that Kanye West likes Trump. And Hillary Clinton was supposed to be ‘cool’ because she had the backing of Jay-Z and Miley Cyrus. And when she lost the election, college exams were called off and milk-and-cookies were passed around to students like they are kindergarten kids who fell off the swing and scraped their knees, oh boo hoo.
For many affluent young people, there is no memory of hardship. Boomers grew up spoiled but their parents went through Depression and WWII. So, they heard some stories of hard times and struggle. But so many of the urban elites are kids of affluent parents who were also kids of affluent parents. Also, the domination of Pop Culture wiped out memory of more serious strains of culture. Too many affluent parents raised their kids as precious darlings, and these kids now attend elite colleges and act like princelings and princesses. But privilege and affluence aren’t enough for them. They want privilege but also self-righteousness as eternal victims or best friends of eternal victims. Refugees are just a useful prop for their ego.
After all, if they really cared about refugees, their main agenda should be to oppose Wars for Israel pushed by Zionist-controlled US. Why did Palestinians become refugees? Because the US-backed Zionist imperialism in Palestine. Why did so many Iraqis become refugees? Because Zionists spread lies about WMD and falsely linked Iraq with 9/11 in order to take out one more enemy of Israel. That’s why so many Iraqis became refugees. Well, at least the Left opposed the war under Bush. But it was utterly silent about Obama’s destruction of Libya that set off a huge migration crisis. Again, Zionists, the real power behind the US, used their puppet Obama to wreck yet another nation hated by Israel.
And then, why did so many Syrians become refugees? Because Israel, Saudis, US, and Turkey ganged up on Syria. They forced OPEN BORDERS on Syria and armed & sent in 10,000s of Jihadis and terrorists from all over. Syria, once a peaceful nation, became a war zone. This happened under Obama. And Madeline Albright the genocidal lunatic said killing half a million Iraqi kids was worth it to impose Zionist-American peace on the Middle East.
But I don’t think people like Chai ever condemned Zionist policies or Obama’s foreign policy that merely continued Bush’s pro-Zionist policy. People who champion refugees are missing the point. They are ignoring the root of the problem: Refugees are the result of wars and imperialism. It is terrible for people to be reduced to refugee status. So, the proper thing is to prevent the creation of refugees in the first place, and the best way to do that is to oppose imperialist foreign policy. It is the US, under Zionist control, that has done most to turn the Middle East and North Africa upside down, and all because Israel and the Jewish Lobby wants to remake the whole region to ensure Zionist supremacy. And now, the same lunatics are calling for a war with Iran and a ‘new cold war’ with Russia, a nation with an economy smaller than South Korea’s. The whole thing is a sick joke. But of course, Chai will not go there because honest criticism of Jewish power and Obama’s foreign policy will make her persona non grata among the elite set of globalist imperialists who agree on one thing: The US is an ‘exceptional’ and ‘indispensable’ nation with some quasi-divine right to invade, destroy, and remake any nation on earth in the name of ‘human rights’ and ‘democracy’ when, in fact, the only beneficiaries seem to be Israel and Jewish globalist power.
http://www.unz.com/tsaker/the-warmakers/
Anyway, the most important issue isn’t caring about refugees. It is about working to ensure that fewer people will become refugees. And the best way to prevent more people from becoming refugee is to stand against Zionist-dominated US foreign policy that is hellbent on spreading yet more violence all for the interests of Israel. But on some level, Chai must know that Jewish power controls most elite institutions and industries. So, while she can virtue-signal about caring for refugees, I'd wager she hasn’t the guts to probe deeper and expose the fact that so many refugees in recent times ended in up forced exile as the result of Zionist-directed Wars for Israel.
Another thing about refugees is that they are not only fleeing from danger zones but invading other nations. Mass migration destroys cultures. Han Chinese mass migration is wiping Tibet off the map. Jewish refugees who went to Palestine wiped Palestine off the map. Jews who arrived as refugees became the new masters while Palestinians were reduced to a subjugated people on their own homeland. The mass migration of whites into Hawaii led to loss of sovereignty among true Hawaiians. And when whites brought in tons of Asian immigrants, the native Hawaiians totally lost their sacred ancestral land to foreigners. Today, native Hawaiians are smaller in number than whites and Asians. And during Japanese colonization, the mass migration of Japanese into Korean and Manchuria were demographically altering those places. Though Japanese civilians came to settle and work and do business, they were in effect replacing the native population or subjugating them. The effect of Mass Migration is eventually Mass Invasion and displacement. Anyone who doubts this should ask the Palestinians. Jewish migration that began as a trickle turned into a flood until Jews totally took over and expelled Palestinians. Anyone who supports Mass Migration is supporting the destruction of existing cultures.
The first thing the professor asked me was if I was going to tell the administration.
“Why? Are you worried about your career?” I responded.
It is hilarious that a professor could be fired for giving a perfectly sound advice in her classroom. In the Current Year, a professor asking students to dress with more dignity and self-respect is grounds for investigation and even dismissal. What a joke. There used to be a time when students didn’t need to be told such simple things. They were raised properly and understood the world is not their oyster. No more, I gather. Too many elite kids are raised to be princesses and brats who get triggered when the red carpet isn’t rolled out to them.
"What did I do wrong?" she asked. I shouldn’t have to explain to a 40-year-old woman why her comment was problematic -- especially because she made it after demanding that I be less submissive. (Yes, I’m Asian. Yes, she’s fucking with the wrong woman.)
If the professor did something wrong, it was mentioning the stupid nonsense about the Male Gaze. Instead, the professor should have justified her criticism on grounds of basic respect. Again, a classroom is not a night club or some party. It is a place of learning, and code of dress and conduct does matter in the classroom. If Chai wants to do the me-so-horny shtick, she has ample opportunity after school at a night club or with some guy she might meet on some hookup site if she uses such.
I shouldn’t have to explain to a college student. By the time you’re in college, you should be fully adult, self-aware, and respectful of others. Chai doesn’t understand because, apparently, no one ever explained anything to her. She is the worst possible combination of privilege and self-righteousness. She acts like a bratty princess who’s only accustomed to flattery. But because she dabbles in victim-ideology, she thinks she is all about empowerment and blah blah. It’s so tiresome, so dime-a-dozen. Her ilk can be found in any elite college community.
Also, Chai doesn’t seem to understand how ‘submissive’ she really is. She is submissive to pop culture, trash culture, celebrity culture, culture of vanity, slut culture, and etc. There is NOTHING independent or autonomous about her aping the dress style of your average pop music idol who does the whore-thing on so many videos. Imitating Britney Spears or some TV hussy is not original. It’s not liberating or empowering. It is just imitative. It is being a slave of the Vice-and-Vanity Industry centered in LA and Las Vegas.
Also, a true maverick isn’t so fragile and easily triggered. If Chai really and truly believed in her choice of dress for the occasion, she would have just shrugged her shoulders and laughed it off. But oh boo hoo, she broke down like a little child. That is worse than submissive. It is pathetic and pitiful. It is INFANTILE. Shame on her mother for raising such a twit.
“You have to understand that I’m a mother and I worry for my daughter,” the professor explained. “What would your mom think?”
This professor sure can be stupid. Bad question. The professor didn’t need to explain herself with nonsense about Male Gaze or about how she is a mother and has a daughter. Her criticism of Chai’s dress had merit simply on grounds that it’s not proper to dress like a hussy, especially when one comes to give a speech about a serious topic. But the professor got all therapeutic and tried to explain herself with nonsense of her own. Also, she responded out fear lest Chai go OLEANNA and squeal to the administrators who usually side with PC gobbledygook.
What would my mom think? My mom is a Feminist, Gender, Sexuality Studies professor. She has dedicated her life to the empowerment of people in all gender identities. So, I think my mother would fine with my shorts.
Okay, that explains it. Like mother like daughter. There is nothing dumber than ‘gender studies’ that would have us believe that Bruce Jenner is now a ‘woman’. According to ‘gender theory’, there are like... 55 genders? Or if a man says he is a ‘woman’, we are to believe that penis and testes count as female organs? And if a woman says she is a ‘man’, her vagina is a male organ? And if men say they are women, they should compete in female sports and beat up women?
And speaking of lack of agency, that seems to be the case of Asian scholars. They never come up with original or independent ideas. They just come to the West, study as teachers pets, and spout all the nonsense taught to them by their professors(very often neurotic Jews).
Of course, ‘gender studies’ is really a ploy to destroy real leftism. Real leftism was about the workers and the masses. It was about May Day, not gay day. But the current elites don’t care about the American Working Class. They just care about fancy homosexuals in Hollywood, Fashion Industry, and entertainment. The New gender leftism is about Wall Street and Las Vegas funding massive homo ‘pride’ parades that conflate anal ‘sex’ and trans-sexual genital mutilation(far uglier than Islamic female circumcision) with the rainbow.
So, her mother is a professor of the most insipid field of study — Bruce Jenner is a woman named Caitlyn, LOL — , and that means Chai’s privileged mother whose entire life revolves around theories about people having sex and indulging in deviant sexual lifestyles is a champion of justice and empowerment. Wow, these people live in a bubble and have utterly NO IDEA how most people really live. (Also, Chai's mention of her mother's profession betrays class snobbery that is so Asian. Asians are status-obsessed, and being a 'professor' is a BIG deal... even when the department is the intellectually impoverished[but well-funded] gender-bender studies. In a way, Chai's showboating about her mother's profession kills two birds with one stone. On the one hand, she is showing off that 'my mother is a member of the superior caste of scholars'. But because the mother is a 'feminist' and 'gender scholar', she also passes as a champion of the underdog and marginalized. This way, the Chai mother and daughter get to claim both higher social status and preening do-goody virtue. So conceited and phony. If they really care about suffering people, why not leave the academia, which is over-saturated with gender theorists, and really do something?)
And then, follow this logic. Because her mother is dedicated to the ‘empowerment’ of people of ‘all gender identities’ — how many genders are there, by the way? — , that means she is fully on-board with her daughter dressing like a K-pop hussy in the classroom. LOL.
So, let me see... imagine a male student coming to class dressed all dirty and mangy, and when the professor asks why, the guy explains that his father is a professor of working class studies, and that means his son, the student, has the right to attend class dressed like an unkempt coal-miner.
I wonder if they teach common decency in Gender Studies. Surely, Chai’s mother knows that a classroom is not one’s bedroom. It is not a night club. There are proper codes of conduct. Or is Chai’s mother totally okay with her daughter dressing like some slut celebrity? Or does she teach her own classes in mini-skirts and see-through blouses. Or does she set up a pole on the podium so that she can mix her lectures with pole dancing? Does gender studies teach that it’s a matter of ‘human right’ for a girl to dress anyway she wants when attending school? Hey, I have a great idea. Next time Chai attends class, she can dress like the Pussy Riot that messed up a church service. Or she can wear a pussy hat and put on a pussy costume. Why not? Her mother is a gender studies professor for the ‘empowerment’ of peoples of 50 or 60 genders.
“What are you going to do?” she asked.
“I’m going to give the best damn speech of my life,” I responded.
I stripped to my bra and underwear, walked into the black box theater, and shared my thesis with my classmates. Needless to say, I’ve never been prouder to be my mother’s daughter.
Yeah, I’m sure people really paid attention to her speech, what with her standing there in her bras and underwear. But why did Chai stop there? Why didn’t she take off all her clothes? If that sort of thing is what she is most proud of, I suggest she go around everywhere in bras and underwear, or naked.
And it’s amusing that a young woman who makes such a fuss about agency and independence seems to be so enslaved to her mother’s approval. "Oh, my mother will be so proud of me because I acted demented in class room like so many shrill hysterical feminists."
So, in the end, it is all very Asian. It’s about a girl seeking approval from mommy. She is not independent. She has no agency. It almost appears as though she pulled her little stunt in hope that her mommy would approve, give her a huggy wuggy, and pet her on the head. Zzzzzz. What a dumb family.
By the way, if Chai’s mother wants to help the downtrodden, I suggest she shift her focus. Homosexuals are now the royalty in the US. Jews are the most powerful people, and they’ve chosen homosexuals to be their main allies. Homosexuals are now so powerful that they even managed to force the US to accept ‘gay marriage’. (Incest-sexuals don’t yet have the power to force through same-family marriage.) Also, bakers are destroyed all over the nation if they don’t bake ‘gay wedding’ cakes. It’s not the homos and trans-sexual types who are being oppressed. It is people who have the courage to speak truth to power and say what homosexuals do, while it should be legal, is nothing to be proud of. But the massive promotion of homo anal ‘sex’ even among straight people have increased anal cancer among millennials by 4x. Well, whoopie. Thank you, all you gender radicals.
https://tonic.vice.com/en_us/article/9am5a7/why-has-rectal-cancer-quadrupled-in-millennials
Anyway, all these elite mothers are pretty dreadful people. Even after Emma Sulkowicz disgraced herself by making a porno, what did her mother say? Oh, she is so proud! So proud! We have stupid mothers who specialize in nonsense knowledge spoiling and egging their daughters on to be worthless brats. And I’m sure Chai’s mother will also egg on her brat daughter. Both mother and daughter will pretend it’s all about ‘justice’ and ‘empowerment’, but it’s just more Nut Rage of over-privileged, conceited, snot-nosed elite idiots. And I’m sure the nasty elites of North Korea also justify their self-indulgent nastiness on grounds of ‘empowerment’ against US imperialism or some such. Chai is an idiot because she can’t face the simple fact that she’s a spoiled child who virtue-signals about 'refugees' to grand-stand. It’s just status-signaling for those who don’t know what real suffering is. People who know real suffering and care about real people don’t act like Chai and don’t make mountains out of molehills.
EMMA SULKOWICZ = Excessive Privilege + Pseudo-Intellectualism + Celebrity Vanity + Slut Narcissism + PC puritanism. What a combo.
This Saturday, I am officially presenting my thesis to an open audience of professors, friends, and family. I ask you, my friends at Cornell, to stand in solidarity with every person who has been asked to change how they look to make other people feel more comfortable. I will be wearing the same bra and underwear (after laundry, of course) and I will ask you to strip down to your favorite undergarments for my 15-minute presentation. Please join me.
Yes, and Chai can delude herself that anyone cares about what she has to say. They will have come and seen the spectacle mainly for amusement. Exhibit A: Spoiled Brat full of herself, a prime specimen of Bad Parenting. The real sad thing is Justice Posturing often obscures what is nothing more than Preening Privilege. We’ve seen this with Christians. So many Christians were greedy, corrupt, and self-serving, but they masked their venality with talk of God, charity, saving souls, and blah blah.
PC and gender-garbage is the New Religion. Spoiled brats like Chai invoke ‘justice’ to mask what is really an ugly soul of entitlement, conceit, and narcissism.
This was also the problem with communist systems. In time, most communist elites were just careerists, pigs, and cheats, BUT they always justified their corruption and abuses by claiming to champion the noble proletariat all over the world. Talk is cheap.
This is for every Asian woman who was told to speak up lest others think she’s submissive. This is for every POC man who was told to pull up his pants to be taken seriously, and every POC woman who was asked to straighten her hair to seem intelligent. This is for every gay friend who was told to dress more “straight” so that others didn’t feel weird around him/her/them. This is for us.
I’ll tell you one thing about homosexuals. If any people are fussy about how people dress, it is homos. Fashion industry is controlled by Homos, and homos are very discriminating and demanding about how people should dress and act. Why is the fashion industry fixated on certain physiognomy? Because homosexual men tend to be extremely fussy and exacting about looks and styles. Homos are not very welcoming and inclusive of differences and dissent when it comes to aesthetics. Indeed, the reason why the super-rich love homos so much is because homos are elitist, vain, narcissistic, and neo-aristocratic. Many homos despise the hoi polloi and love to cater to the rich, famous, and powerful. THAT is why the globalist oligarchs altered leftism to favor gender politics over class politics. While class politics is threatening to the oligarchs, ‘gay’ politics is not. Homosexuals want to make money and rub shoulders with the rich and powerful.
But Chai is too naive and stupid to notice any of that.
No comments:
Post a Comment