Hi. My name is Mike Adams and I am a public sociologist. That means I do more than just teach sociology. I also apply my knowledge to real problems in the real world for the benefit of real people. Today, I am dedicating my column to those who are about to send their daughters off to college. Consider the following exchange before you allow your daughter to study Humanities at any institution of higher learning:
Dr. Adams, You're a prick with a complete lack of understanding of other human beings.
Rachel you just don't understand me!
You are the laughing stock of the internet. Good luck with your shitty life and your Daddy issues. Go to http://community.livejournal.com.
Gosh, Rachel, that's terrible. You seem like such a happy bunch of people. And smart, too.
I’m laughing out loud at you taking the time to continually reply to these e-mails. For once, I'm able to get a hold of a professor!
Well, see, we agree on something. Professors are generally lazy. Especially those with tenure.
You and I agreeing on something would mean that there are occasionally women who have thought processes equal to men. Gasp.
Why is that so strange to you?
Because your article argues the opposite; that women don't think things through deep enough. Then you have to come riding in on your white horse to explain to them how the world works, and that whores should continue to be arrested for providing a service, while the purveyors of said service are not held responsible. You know, just like drugs.
I don't know where your skewed world view comes from, but maybe you should talk to some of the girls in your classes and see how they feel about your broad generalizations and condescending attitude towards a culture you clearly know nothing about.
But I don't believe that prostitutes should be arrested and "Johns" set free. You did not think the article through deep enough. You just reacted emotionally without considering the point, which, clearly, was not to let "Johns" off the hook.
Are you in college?
I read the article a couple times actually (I couldn't believe some of the things you said in it, and had to re-read in order to see if you were honestly saying such awful things). A good writer is able to get their [sic] point across clearly and easily, and doesn't need to tell their [sic] reader that they [sic] simply didn't read deep enough. Maybe you should revise your article so that people know what you're trying to say right off the bat. It seems to me that a lot of people "just didn't understand" what you were saying.
And no, I just graduated college
But, Rachel, the only ones who did not understand were the ones on liberal websites. This reinforces the unfortunate view that liberalism is an emotional disorder rather than a political philosophy. I believe I can say that since I am a former liberal.
Are you a prostitute?
Well then I'm sorry that something awful happened to you in your life that caused you to change your thinking, and make you the bitter, self-righteous shell of a man that you are today.
Are you honestly asking me if I am a prostitute? Have you ever MET a working girl? Asked her what circumstances in her life led her to "choosing" such a profession? Of course you haven't. I hope you don't have any daughters. Rachel.
Rachel, I am so sorry that my last message offended you. I did not mean to come off as angry or self-righteous. I assumed from your previous comments that you did not pass judgment on prostitutes. That obviously is not the case. Why do you look down on them to such an extent that you are offended at the mere suggestion you are one of "them"? And what gives you the right to speak for prostitutes? And why are you offended when I speak about "a culture (I) know nothing about" (to quote your previous correspondence) if you are not a part of that culture?
Finally, what was your major in college? I am hoping that since you are a college graduate you will consider writing me back without any name calling. You know, conservatives have feelings, too. We are a part of another culture and you should not judge another culture to which you do not belong.
I don't know what kind of response you're expecting. I also don't understand how you don't connect that the things you say could come across as offensive. I do not pass judgment on prostitutes, but it is fair to say that I am not one. I was not offended by your question, so much as surprised by it. You seem to draw these crazy conclusions from out of nowhere. I don't think it's your place or mine to pass judgment on these women who OBVIOUSLY DON'T CHOOSE THIS DANGEROUS AND DEGRADING LIFESTYLE.
I majored in Humanities at the Evergreen State College. And I would be glad to have an intelligent conversation with you, but you need to start acting like an adult. If I were you, I would refain [sic] from asking someone to lay off the name-calling, when you yourself said that, "liberalism is an emotional disorder".
But, Rachel, I said that the stereotype that liberalism is an emotional disorder is unfortunate. You took my quote out of context. Go back and look at the whole sentence and see whether it has a different meaning. And then ask yourself why you got angry. Are you beginning to understand the origins of the stereotype I referenced?
Furthermore, you have conflated the terms "woman" and "feminist" in a previous comment. They are not the same. Women are not inferior intellectually. But when women study Women's Studies and become feminists they become emotionally inferior through conditioning. They get to the point where they cannot appreciate even a simple joke.
For example, I just told a feminist that I thought it was funny that Obama signed the stimulus package at the same desk where Clinton had his package stimulated. And she got angry. Don't you think that's funny?
Mike, I think that you either lack the social skills to "read" your audience, or you're the type that enjoys watching things you say get a rise out of people. While I think that joke is mildly amusing, I wouldn't think of saying it to a feminist, nor would I tell a rape victim a sex joke. But I guess you and I draw lines at different places, huh?
When you called liberalism an emotional disorder, you were explaining that the overwhelming liberal reaction to your poorly-written/thought through (if there was any thought to it at all) article, was to be dumbfounded and offended at the fact that someone who holds such a prestigious and normally well-regarded position (college professor, go you) would be so thoughless [sic] and crass. Of course people were offended, and if that somehow makes it seem to conservatives that liberalism is a disorder, well... I don't know what to say to that. Like I've said before, you draw your conclusions out of some crazy dimension where gays = evil and Toby Keith is just so awesome.
Rachel, accusing me of liking Toby Keith is worse than calling me a prostitute. But since I am writing you from Wrightsville Beach this afternoon where I have been drinking beer (responsibly, of course) and seeing a lot of fake breasts I would like to revisit an old issue raised in the column that angered you.
Why do feminists deem women getting fake breasts to be degrading while deeming men getting fake breasts a cause for celebration? And how is that not gender discrimination?
Mike had to leave the beach at 5 p.m. before Rachel had a chance to write back. So, for more of his hate mail highlights, just log on to www.DrAdams.org. And don’t send your daughter to college to major in Humanities. If you do, she’ll be dumber by Thanksgiving. And she’ll hate you and everything you stand for.