Feminist Activist Posts Sexist Tweet . . . Then Allegedly Retaliated Against Boston College Adjunct Professor Who Objected

Amy Siskind, founder of the feminist nonprofit The New Agenda, shocked many people in stating that she would never support any white male in the Democratic primary. Period. Does not matter what they have accomplished or what they want to accomplished. Does not matter if they are the most qualified for the White House. Siskind simply intended to vote on race and gender, but apparently does not like being called a sexist or racist. When political talk show host and Boston College professor David Pakman made the obvious objection to her tweet in a video entitled “Racism & Sexism Exist On The Left, Too“, he says that she not only blocked him on Twitter but allegedly complained to Boston College to jeopardize his adjunct position.

Pakman tweeted out her blanket rejection of all white male candidates on December 17th.

Amy Siskind @Amy_Siskind

I will not support white male candidates in the Dem primary. Unless you slept thru midterms, women were our most successful candidate. Biggest Dem vote getters in history: Obama ‘08, Hillary ‘16. White male is not where our party is at, and is our LEAST safe option in 2020.13.4K9:10 AM – Dec 17, 2018Twitter Ads info and privacy8,400 people are talking about thisTwitter Ads info and privacy

What is curious is that she seems to view Hillary Clinton as a good candidate despite being the least popular candidate ever nominated by the party and someone who lost to the least popular candidate ever nominated by the Republican party. The general view is that a wide array of candidates including male candidates like Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders would have easily defeated Trump. Yet, Siskind still views Clinton as the model of the candidates going forward.

Yet, the most problematic element is Siskind’s open sexism and racism in rejecting any white male. I can understand Siskind discussing the racial or gender issues in the campaign, but she calls for a categorical rejection of candidates based on their race and gender.

That point was reasonably raised by Pakmanon Twitter when he observed that “pre-emptively dismissing a candidate based on their race and gender” did not seem “progressive” to him: “I feel like there’s as [sic] word to describe that.”

What is ironic is that Siskind is known for her posting of The Weekly List, on how Trump is “eroding norms” and yet seems to exhibit a sense of utter immunity from espousing sexist positions on males or whites. Siskind serves on Cornell’s Council of Cornell Women our its Cornell University Council. She has been featured at Cornell in advising students on women empowerment. She also writes for the Daily Beast.

Siskind did later respond that “[s]ecure men are always at the fore-front of diversity.” However, she did not apologize, let alone rescind her earlier position against any white males. Imagine if she had written that she would not cover any African American or hispanic male. Yet, she views it as perfectly appropriate to encourage people to vote on the basis of gender and race.

Yet, Pakman alleged that Siskind did “call[] Boston College demanding they not have me back as adjunct faculty.”

For her part, Siskind would only say that “Mr. Pakman can publicly apologize and explain his misstatements. I understand he has been corrected. People are watching how he conducts himself.” I am still unclear of what misstatement Siskind is referencing.

Pakman identifies himself as liberal and his video does not seem to be intentionally insulting or clearly inaccurate:

I also fail to understand why such criticism would produce such an alleged response in blocking the critic or seeking to harm his academic association with Boston College. If you look at the comment section on this blog, there are some pretty insulting and heated criticism of the host. I rarely delete such comments against me absent vulgar or racist elements because that is the price one pays to write publicly. On a blog committed to free speech, we often tolerate trolling and juvenile commenters to guarantee a forum of free exchange.

As a writer for the Daily Beast and a public figure, Siskind should either deny that she took these actions or explain why she felt that they are appropriate.

Boston College should also confirm that, if Siskind did reach out to the college, it did not change Pakman’s status due to the objection over his exercise of free speech.

29 thoughts on “Feminist Activist Posts Sexist Tweet . . . Then Allegedly Retaliated Against Boston College Adjunct Professor Who Objected”

  1. Ms Siskind’s statements are fairly normal on leftist blogs of late such as Daily Kos. Markos Moulitsas the owner of “DK” has said the same many times and his perspective is typical of what I’d maybe call identitarians. The fact that they don’t see themselves as racist and sexist only reflects on how out of touch they’ve become.

  2. Turley why do you always fail to recall that Hillary received close to THREE MILLION MORE VOTES than Trump; making Hillary the far more POPULAR candidate!

    1. Because that’s not how our election process works? Our founders set up the electoral college so that a couple of highly populated states don’t become king maker while the rest of the country has zero say in who our leader was.

      If it was based on population, then only CA and NY would select our President. The vote in every other state of the Union wouldn’t matter. That would create Presidents who never campaigned in 48 states, and would not care what happened to those states while in office. They could make nuclear waste dumps out of 48 states without consequence.

      CA and NY got to have their say in the election, but they were not allowed to take it over. That’s fair.

      If you look at the state of CA, San Francisco and LA are overwhelmingly Democrat, and have the lion’s share of the population. The rest of the vast square miles of the state are Republican. The majority of land of CA is red, but Republicans have almost zero say in governance of their state. Urban centers dictate policy for the rural and farming areas of the rest of the state, and they know nothing about how to do so. However, with their higher numbers, the rest of the state have zero self governance ability.

      Take roosters, for example. Urban Californians cannot imagine any possible use for a rooster besides fighting, so they have strict limits on keeping roosters that they impose on unincorporated areas. That means that most roosters are killed. I should have written this with one of my bantam Roos sleeping on my lap to illustrate the irony.

  3. Sounds like what a racist and sexist would say? “I won’t vote for anyone that is a black woman” probably wouldn’t go over very well?

  4. One way for thee, another for me.

    Identity politics is, by definition, racist, misandrist, and bigoted. Feminism has had a disturbing misandrist undercurrent for decades. I believe in equal opportunity, but that paradigm has no place in femenism.

    As for the comments insulting our host, that’s like attending an open dinner party and then throwing a cream pie in the face of the host. Disagreement and debate can be the intellectual spice of life, but insults are a poor substitute for wit, to paraphrase a certain dowager.

  5. I suspect one reason she says words such as these shows perhaps what was an attempt to remain relevant with her audience, and ultimately her paycheck. It’s becoming Racism Inc. for many of these figures. Her perceived audience responds well to canards in this form. Whether or not she believes in what she says is probably another issue.

  6. The woman is childish and nothing she says should be taken seriously. Her complaint to BC would be of no interest bar that higher education today is run by the sort of toads who would fire him. That’s a much more consequential problem than some stupid harridan on Twitter.

  7. She says he’s been “corrected.” The smug way these radical morons use this term has always made my flesh crawl! Yikes!

  8. I am as anti-establishment as they come. Bushie, Cheney, Obama, and all their CIA operatives who administered, committed, and did not prosecute violent felony international crimes (torture and murder) cry out for criminal conviction and the death penalty.

    No need for Glenn Greenwald and his ilk to wonder what and whom causes ultra right wing Presidents like Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro to gain power: I give you exhibit A, Amy Siskind.

    I generally admire Greenwald. In reply to his hand wringing about Bolsonaro’s anti-homosexual remarks (which I too deplore), I wonder what is Greenwald’s opinion about groups like the San Francisco based Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. The “Sisters” used to and still may participate naked or almost naked, in publicly financed SF parade, celebrating their sexual perversions and mocking established religion.

    1. Princess, –It sounds like the Sisters of P.I. found an ideal, supportive community where they can display and promote their brand of religion.

  9. The de facto misogynists are women who hate pregnancy and childbirth and who have put the American fertility rate in a “death spiral” requiring America to import its population. American women have executed America’s death warrant…seems like the worst type of treason to a nation. Can America ever be made right again? Not with the 13th, 14th, 15th and 19th unconstitutional amendments. At what point does the American President, for the benefit of the nation and its Constitution, declare marital law?

  10. Can we get rid of “Affirmative Action Privilege” and redistribution now? Can we get rid of the entire communistic redistributionist welfare state? Can we regress to the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution and Bill of Rights? It can’t happen here…It can never happen here!

    1. For starters never vote for main proponents. Get rid of them first. as the RNC had to get rid of the RINOs who were really the right wing of the left With that much accomplished they can go on better things.

      Same with getting rid of the DINOs but I see no sign except in the new 40 of willingness to turn their back on national or international socialism.

      Can’t meet in the middle when one side, intact, says the middle is the dash between Marxist-Leninism or a similar division between Benita Pelosillyni and and the Adolfists National or international they rule with a tight fist clenched hammer and sickle waving their East is Red banner with no shame.

      Blue maybe a faint smear.

  11. let’s not fool ourselves. the subrosa attack agenda against white men, has risen to the surface.

    white men, if they are not entirely stupid, in solidarity, will form self defense alliances to secure their interests.

    time will tell the outcome.

    we should thank her for her explicit attack as it is precisely what is needed

  12. Beware the authoritarian streak we are seeing from the militant left. They are so possesed of self-righteousness, and so convinced of their opponents’ irredeemable evil, they are prepared to mow opponents down, destroying careers, even setting up scenarios for violent retribution. Beware the polemicists whose uber-defensive mindset does not allow self-criticism, nor engaging in the unpredictable give and take of persuasion. Beware those who move from disagreement to personal denunciation in nanoseconds. Ask such persons to come back to meritocratic debate, referreed if needed to ensure civility. Remind such persons of the way militancy can backfire, such as the Jocobin’s reign of terror, the Bolshevik Revolution being coopted by authoritarians despots.

    1. Yes, we have a shovel ready for her at the future retraining facility,
      where she will learn to dig ditches for thin soup.

  13. First, she is an idiot for voting Democratic regardless of the candidates race and gender. If she stands w/the vast majority of Americans who are being hurt by both legacy parties she would not be a Democrat. Not everyone believes AOC is their goddess and savior! (I don’t believe in the god Bernie either so don’t try to attack what I say on that basis.) That said, she had a right to make her statement. Likewise, other people have a right to dispute her statement w/out jeopardy to their job status.

    Basically she is using her power as a weapon of injustice against someone else’s employment.

    He disagreed w/her so he has to go? This is a person who should not be at a university. She is unable to engage an argument squarely and instead moves straight away to harming a person who disagrees w/her. He’s been corrected? For what?

    Boston College needs to discipline her for her unprofessional, unethical behavior. If they tolerate her actions, they are not upholding the values of free speech, freedom of thought, ethical behavior and the right to disagree/argue one’s case w/out retribution.

    1. The professor is an ignorant totalitarian who has no business living in our country. She needs to relocate to Putin’s Russia or Assad’s Syria where her views will fit right in.

      1. HA! actually men do very well in those places and women are not quite so belligerent.
        She would be unwelcome I am sure.

        Maybe this was the irony of your remark, apologies if I am too dull.

      2. She’s not a professor. She professes to have once been a consequential figure in the financial sector. She’s also a dyke who was allocated two children by a member of the worthless social work fraternity.

    2. Jill,
      “She is unable to engage an argument squarely and instead moves straight away to harming a person who disagrees w/her. He’s been corrected? For what?”

      Sounds like middle school tactics to me.

      Unfortunately, there are women out there (I know a few personally) that parrot her brand of sexism, mouthing foolishness that women are somehow more moral and virtuous than men.

  14. IMHO, it is people like this that gave us Trump. Idiots, they are so angry they can’t see clearly. Unless the Demos come to grips with their anger, Trump, or a worse successor, will be around for a long time.

  15. It’s been funny to see the left’s social justice narrative descend into a sea of contradictions. These people are not very smart, and not nearly as smart as they signal. Their argument is decaying before our eyes, but they may have done irreparable harm before they finally fade away in a sea of deserving ridicule.

    1. The left is pro anti women and pro victimizers of women as evidenced by their willingness to keep the top two in the nation in their party instead of throwing them out into the Atlantic as much as possible.

Leave a Reply