Dark Comedy
Friday Ephemera

Things That Tell Us Who They Are

John Sexton at Hot Air

Elisa Parrett teaches at a public technical college outside of Seattle called the Lake Washington Institute of Technology. Last June 19, in the wake of the death of George Floyd, the school held an event called Courageous Conversations which was based partly on Robin DiAngelo’s book White Fragility

In short, a two-hour racial struggle session based on stupefying woo

Dr Parrett used the session, attended by close to 200 educators, to air some fairly obvious concerns, regarding tribalism, zealotry, and the racially segregated nature of the gathering, speaking for a total of four minutes. A summary of Dr Parrett’s comments can be found at the link above and here, where Jesse Singal shares a longer, more detailed account. Readers are invited to search out anything particularly scandalous.

Five days later, Parrett got an email from President Amy Morrison… It read in part, “Because of your egregious behaviour which has led to substantial harm to hundreds of colleagues on campus, I have asked [Vice President of Instruction, Suzanne] Ames, Dean Doug Emory, and [executive director of H.R.] Meena Park to meet with you in the next few days to have a serious conversation about how successful you can possibly be on campus in the future.” Two days later, Parrett was placed on administrative leave… A disciplinary complaint was filed against Parrett by the vice president… The complaint alleged Parrett had behaved in a “corrupt, insolent and insubordinate manner.”

And because this is Clown World, where there’s always more,

When [Jesse] Singal emailed the Vice President about the story, she doubled down and claimed that Parrett had been “aggressively yelling at folks in the meeting.” At the time, she was apparently unaware that Singal had the audio of the entire session. When he sent her a copy and asked her to point out where Parrett had yelled at anyone, a university spokesperson suggested Parrett’s “visible anger” wasn’t conveyed by the audio.

It was, it seems, a kind of aggressive yelling that was radiated at inaudible frequencies and which therefore cannot be captured by mortal recording devices.

And so, we’re expected to believe that hearing just one person briefly disagreeing with the premise of a racial scolding session has resulted in “substantial harm to hundreds of colleagues on campus,” albeit in ways left unspecified and intriguing. And further, according to Vice President of Instruction, Suzanne Ames, that the experience of hearing dissent was “super-stressful,” resulting in ringing ears, “sweating,” and an “out-of-body experience.”

Taken at their own words, these educators sound somewhat unhinged and hysterical. Unless, of course, they’re merely dishonest and are feigning a kind of hysteria in order to conform with some woke ideal. Either way, readers may wish to mull whether these are the kinds of personalities to whom they would happily entrust the education of their children.

Update, via the comments:

Commenter [+] quips,

Today’s word is ‘madhouse’.

Well, quite. If just one person’s objection to zealotry and racial segregation can reduce a grown woman, a supposedly professional educator, a Vice President of Instruction, to a twitching, sweating, disembodied mess – or can oblige her to publicly pretend such – then I think it’s fair to say that something is amiss. And I think it’s fair to say that an environment in which such dramas are considered normal - indeed, a basis for status - is itself dysfunctional and absurd.

It’s worth pondering the ongoing spread of this phenomenon, this neurotic role-play. From a wariness of saying the obvious yet oddly unacknowledged, to the kinds of farcical contortion quoted here pretty much every week. And to ponder what follows from that. Say, the shrinking range of socially permissible facts and socially permissible questions; or the creation of environments in which dishonesty is not only commonplace, but necessary for promotion or continued employment. Even becoming competitive, a ratcheting unrealism.

And then to ask what kind of people are likely to flourish in such environments.



That’s a lateral move.

I’m assuming these are some kind of switched-on beat combos.

Jay Guevara

Again, things that tell us who they are.

Beverly, Nora, Sara.



Really bad band name

Daniel Ream

Yes, social shaming - while not exclusively female - is a distinctly feminine trait. It shouldn't be surprising that when you inject large numbers of women into existing male-dominated hierarchies, they start competing for position in those hierarchies using feminine strategies instead of masculine ones.

Uma Thurmond's Feet

they start competing for position in those hierarchies using feminine strategies instead of masculine ones.

I've heard from numerous feminine voices online (YMMV), that they prefer male bosses for that reason. They want to know what they need to do to get the job done.

I've come to the belief that a well-functioning society needs both masculine and feminine energies. Too masculine and it becomes a dictatorship of order; too feminine and it becomes a dictatorship of feelings. An uncensored society lets us point this out and allows us to re calibrate and move forward.

Now all I need is to throw in "hate whitey" and I could have a NYT best-seller on my hands.


I've heard from numerous feminine voices online (YMMV), that they prefer male bosses for that reason. They want to know what they need to do to get the job done.

I'm male and I tend to prefer male bosses: I had one female boss in my career and the entire project team hated her. This is in contrast to high school and college where I had no complaints about my female teachers and professors except for just one. Of course, I have no idea what it would have been like to be a postdoc working for one of those female professors.

elephants gerald

What a carve up!


They want to know what they need to do to get the job done.

About twenty years ago I was working in broadcasting and needed to make a run up to NYC from my employer’s location in North Jersey. SOP was to get petty cash for tolls from a nice lady who worked in operations (the white collar side of the business). Nice lady was out sick that day, however, and for some unspecified reason the petty cash box was being held by the woman who was then operations manager for the entire East Coast. So, after getting all my other shit together, I strode into operations, knocked on her office door, stepped inside, and told her where I was headed and that I would need cash for the tolls.

She paused for a second, then proceeded to tell me I couldn’t have it, and to explain in a dismissive manner that she didn’t even have any idea who I was. I just looked at her, knowing that she was lying, and letting it sink in that I knew that she knew she was lying.

I’d been with the company for at least half a year at that point. I’d worked an average of 65 hours a week that entire time. I had a good, and somewhat eccentric reputation. She had walked past me or stood around chatting within spitting distance of me while I was working in the shop countless times. The previous week we had both been in a meeting where I had been standing directly opposite from her the entire time.

After letting it sink in I turned around, walked out, got in the box truck I had ready, and drove up to Yankee Stadium paying the tolls out of my own pocket, not having time for her shit.

So I get up there and the first thing I’m greeted by is my boss with a big grin on his face shouting, “What the fuck did you do!”

Turns out, right after I left, her majesty went and told one of the older engineering guys who’d moved into upper management about our little impass. Apparently not wanting to let an opportunity to fuck with this woman slip by, said guy just told her, “Oh, I think you pissed off the wrong young man.” Then he radioed my boss to tell him the good news.

Then my boss handed me about double what the tolls cost out of his own pocket.

Daniel Ream

It's all evolutionary psych. Men demonstrate their mating potential by protecting and providing; women by physical beauty and youth. Both act to out-compete their rivals, but since humans hunt in packs the alpha males need the betas around. So long as they can physically keep the betas away from the breeding females, they're happy to keep them around as spear-chuckers.

Women out-compete their rivals by eliminating them from the pack - by turning the rest of the pack against them and driving them out. This is a death sentence.


Turns out, right after I left, her majesty went and told one of the older engineering guys who’d moved into upper management about our little impass.

And THIS is why I don't like working for female bosses, or dealing with women in charge, in a bureaucratic setting, anyways. And I'm female. Those powerskirt types backstab and play little games behind your back, and you generally never know what's going on unless there's some men in the mix. I had the misfortune to take a position in a bureaucratic regulatory agency that was top to bottom, bossed by women. It was a toxic mess.

In fairness, I also worked in a research capacity for a female boss, but she was an engineering-minded type. She was up front and straightforward and a complete hardass, but I respected her. With her, you knew where you stood, and what you needed to do. My immediate supervisor at the same place was male, but he was the passive aggressive backstabbing mind games type you usually get with women.


Jordan Peterson on aggression in males and females:

"I was interviewed by the Economist and we were talking about aggression... Men are on average more physically aggressive than women... Women, girls, however, they are more aggressive than males if you measure aggression differently. They use reputation destruction. So, well, we've seen what happens with social media. Physical aggression doesn't translate to social media, but reputation destruction does. unbelievably well. So maybe it's time to have a little chat about toxic femininity.

The comments to this entry are closed.