Feminismus bedeutet nichts mehr: Miss Piggy gilt als Vorbild. Siehe dazu auch das Schindluder.
Allerdings gibt es weiterhin anhaltende Versuche, Omas Ideologie wiederzubeleben. Die Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung etwa hat eine neue Werbekampagne für den Feminismus gestartet, wo C-Promis erklären, warum sie diese Form von Sexismus ganz supertoll finden. Lutz Bierend demontiert den Quatsch in der Huffington Post.
Die männerpolitische Website A Voice for Men hat eine neue Satire über diese Ideologie veröffentlicht.
George R. Martin erklärt Feministinnen, warum deren Erwartung absurd ist, dass die in Martins "Game of Thrones" gezeigte mittelalterliche Welt das moralische Verständnis unserer Zeit repräsentieren solle.
Das Blog "Kritische Wissenschaft" setzt sich mit dem ulkigen Verständnis von "Geschlechtergerechtigkeit" bei den Grünen auseinander.
Der Schwulemiker befasst sich mit den, naja, "Argumenten" gegen die Homo-Ehe: Apokalypse der Heterosexualität. Siehe dazu auch Erzählmirnix.
Der bekannte US-Komiker Jerry Seinfeld erläutert, warum er bei seinen Auftritten um Hochschulen einen großen Bogen macht:
I don’t play colleges but I hear a lot of people tell me, ‘Don’t go near colleges, they’re so pc.’ Hey, I’ll give you an example. My daughter’s 14. My wife says to her, ‘Well, you know, in the next couple of years, I think maybe you’re going to want to hang around the city more on the weekends so you can see boys.’ You know, my daughter says, ‘That’s sexist.’ They just want to use these words. ‘That’s racist. That’s sexist. That’s prejudice.’ They don’t even know what they’re talking about.
Das ist absolut verständlich, wenn schon die linken Professoren, die an solchen Hochschulen tätig sind, berichten, vor ihren linken Studenten Angst zu haben. (Der hier im US-amerikanischen Kontext verwendete Ausdruck "liberal" bezeichnet aus europäischer Perspektive linke Strömungen.) "Edward Schlosser" führt näher aus:
I have intentionally adjusted my teaching materials as the political winds have shifted. (I also make sure all my remotely offensive or challenging opinions, such as this article, are expressed either anonymously or pseudonymously). Most of my colleagues who still have jobs have done the same. We've seen bad things happen to too many good teachers — adjuncts getting axed because their evaluations dipped below a 3.0, grad students being removed from classes after a single student complaint, and so on.
I once saw an adjunct not get his contract renewed after students complained that he exposed them to "offensive" texts written by Edward Said and Mark Twain. His response, that the texts were meant to be a little upsetting, only fueled the students' ire and sealed his fate. That was enough to get me to comb through my syllabi and cut out anything I could see upsetting a coddled undergrad, texts ranging from Upton Sinclair to Maureen Tkacik — and I wasn't the only one who made adjustments, either.
(...) Instead of focusing on the rightness or wrongness (or even acceptability) of the materials we reviewed in class, the complaint would center solely on how my teaching affected the student's emotional state. As I cannot speak to the emotions of my students, I could not mount a defense about the acceptability of my instruction. And if I responded in any way other than apologizing and changing the materials we reviewed in class, professional consequences would likely follow.
(...) All the old, enlightened means of discussion and analysis —from due process to scientific method — are dismissed as being blind to emotional concerns and therefore unfairly skewed toward the interest of straight white males. All that matters is that people are allowed to speak, that their narratives are accepted without question, and that the bad feelings go away. So it's not just that students refuse to countenance uncomfortable ideas — they refuse to engage them, period. Engagement is considered unnecessary, as the immediate, emotional reactions of students contain all the analysis and judgment that sensitive issues demand
(...) This sort of perspective is not confined to Twitter and the comments sections of liberal blogs. It was born in the more nihilistic corners of academic theory, and its manifestations on social media have severe real-world implications. In another instance, two female professors of library science publicly outed and shamed a male colleague they accused of being creepy at conferences, going so far as to openly celebrate the prospect of ruining his career. I don't doubt that some men are creepy at conferences — they are. And for all I know, this guy might be an A-level creep. But part of the female professors' shtick was the strong insistence that harassment victims should never be asked for proof, that an enunciation of an accusation is all it should ever take to secure a guilty verdict. The identity of the victims overrides the identity of the harasser, and that's all the proof they need. This is terrifying. No one will ever accept that. And if that becomes a salient part of liberal politics, liberals are going to suffer tremendous electoral defeat.