How I Discovered Leftism In Law School Lurking At Every Turn

We are all sadly familiar with how thoroughly entrenched leftism has become in Western universities. Undergraduate students spend thousands of dollars year after year, becoming increasingly indoctrinated by leftist rhetoric. But are professional degrees any better? One would hope that a graduate school at least, whose sole purpose is supposed to be preparation and training for entrance into the profession, would be less biased.

While I can’t speak for medicine or accounting, I can say that Canadian law schools are just as bad, if not worse, as any undergraduate degree with the sole exception, perhaps, being women’s studies.

Before law school had even begun we had a mixer the previous spring to get to know some of the faculty. I spotted the resident feminist harpy the moment I stepped into the room. Tall, gaunt, with a neck like a buzzard and eyes that screamed with the rage of thousands of years of patriarchal oppression, she simply couldn’t be anything else.

And when she was introduced, yes, she was the head of the Feminist Legal Theory department and taught, you guessed it, family law. Those poor, poor students.


Moving on to orientation week, we were forced to sit through an entire week’s worth of lectures on what to expect during law school. Much of the time was taken up (and by that I mean completely wasted) by explaining how we should disagree with one another without causing offense. Mostly through weakening our language and distancing ourselves from our own opinions. Naturally, I didn’t pay much attention.

Critical Theories Of Law – Sponsored By McDonald’s

The most interesting lecture of orientation week, however was on “Critical Theories of Law,” and it was, get this, sponsored by McDonald’s. The irony that a lecture aimed at destabilizing the status quo, and undermining the terribly oppressive capitalist patriarchy, would be sponsored by a multinational corporation was, sadly, lost on most of the student body.

And so the lecture on Critical Theories of Law—Sponsored by McDonald’s—began. A dumpy female professor with frizzy hair and eyeglasses made for frowning over approached the lectern and immediately commenced her assault on the very foundation of our society.

She was very careful not to make direct assertions, instead, choosing to phrase all of her points as “what ifs,” and “something to think abouts.” Did you know that law, not even specific laws mind you, just “law” generally, has a fundamentally sexist and racist foundation?! Neither did I.

Here I thought the law was a social contract, designed to protect individual and property rights so that large groups of people can live together in a civilized society without murdering each other. But no, apparently, at its core, “the law” is all about keeping women and minorities trampled underfoot. I can’t say it’s doing a very good job then if you ask me, but nobody did.


Similarly ridiculous musings were promptly followed by one of the dumbest discussions of discrimination I have ever had the misfortune to witness. She actually suggested that non-differentiated aerobics standards are discriminatory against female firefighters.

That is to say, that holding female firefighters to the same physical standards as men discriminates against them. And the worst thing was, students around me were actually taking notes! No, it’s not discriminatory, you moron, it’s equal! Holding men and women to different standards is what would be discriminatory… but sensing that my thought crime might be slightly frowned upon, I refrained from interrupting.

The Onslaught Continues


Leftist bias continued to be evident in many of our lectures throughout the year. In contracts, husbands are considered to have a duty to financially provide for their wives even once divorced, nevermind that it’s now the 21st century and women are perfectly capable of paying their own way.

In criminal law, minorities such as aboriginals get special treatment at sentencing, often receiving lesser punishments than a Caucasian would. In constitutional law, we were forced to endure several long lectures on “hate speech” and discrimination, while freedom of religion was mysteriously missing from the course.

A friend of mine, the poor guy, was in a criminal law class being taught by a self-identified feminist legal theory professor. She was teaching sexual assault law and claiming consent cannot be obtained unless the girl is 100% sober. One of the girls in the class (with an ass that would tempt St. Paul himself) disagreed, saying that it’s more of a grey area and that if she wants to go partying, get drunk, and have sex, that’s entirely consensual.

My friend couldn’t stop grinning as he described to me how the furious professor lit into her for nearly 15 minutes. I think he just appreciated seeing a rampaging feminist biting a girl’s head off for a change.

Refute Everything, Concede Nothing

Yes, our universities are controlled by leftists. Yes, the majority of the students are indoctrinated to one degree or another. But there is hope. There are dissidents. My own criminal law professor, especially, was surprisingly objective.

Not only did he lead class discussion on the difficulty of determining consent in sexual assault cases, but he even raised the issue of male victims of female violence. I was pleasantly shocked. Others, it turned out, were less pleased. I heard from other students that our criminal law professor actually received complaints, for “the manner” in which he taught our class about the law on sexual assault.

Apparently, his refreshingly honest, fair-handed and nuanced approach to teaching sexual assault law offended someone’s feminist sensibilities.

In another discussion where the majority of the class was arguing that violence should be banned from sports (hockey, boxing, etc.) because it makes men more likely to commit violence, I was actually able to stand up and argue the exact opposite. That violent crime has been declining across the board, while violent entertainment has been increasing exponentially, and I suggested that perhaps the solution would actually be to allow more violent entertainment for adults, not less.

The professor not only allowed me to disagree without shutting me down, he supported my alternate view as something for the rest of the class to think about.

So if you are in university, don’t give up. Even when it seems like every professor around you is a Marxist stooge, and the students nothing more than feminist robots, there is hope. There are good professors, there are students who think critically. It may be a small minority at the moment, but it is growing.


To paraphrase Winston Churchill, we shall go on to the end. We shall fight in the universities, we shall fight on the campuses and the podiums, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the lecture halls, we shall defend our right to speak our mind, whatever the cost may be.

We shall fight on the student boards, we shall fight on the hiring committees, we shall fight in the classrooms and in the offices, we shall fight for the minds of our fellow students, we shall never surrender.

Pick your battles carefully. Choose your professors wisely. But never surrender.

Read More: 4 Reasons Why Leftists Are Clinically Insane

115 thoughts on “How I Discovered Leftism In Law School Lurking At Every Turn”

  1. Shouldn’t that be the feminist professor taught ‘destruction of family law’.
    Of course feminists are going to invade the law departments: they want to train the next generations of parasitic scum (no offense to the author) who are going to bleed us all dry in the law courts, not to mention operationalise, inch by inch, the fundamental forensic principle of feminist jurisprudence, namely, the absolute facticity of Penis-in-vagina sex as a particularly gross form of statutory rape deserving the severest of penalties
    Also, beware of any course with ‘critical’ in the title: all it means is marxist feminist.
    Final point: agree completely that we should be fighting our corner in the classroom. There are a lot of male faculty who are just waiting to rise up against these academic witches, but first they have to be able to make a reasoned case for doing so

        1. I think they tend to wait until they too, are backed into a corner as individuals, alone, with no one to help defend themselves but themselves. It’s better to keep the mob unaware of their existence. How many codified laws can be split into engendered, dichotomous interpretations until they rewrite all codes? It’s surely started.

        2. You’re not wrong. Feminism, comfortably ensconced in gender studies departments and backed by governments etc, functions rather like the communist party did in the soviet bloc. Feminists and student union activitist etc now exercise many of the same powers political officers once had. In that situation male academics or any who are against this kind of policing of knowledge generally suffer alone and in silence as you say. I think the tide is beginning to turn a little, but an allegation of sexism non-political correctness is still dangerous enough to kill a career and even tenured professors aren’t safe anymore. The culture is turning against feminism though as governments try to impose it and more and more academics will I hope start to speak out even if in small ways. The Tim Hunt affair was an example of that

        3. A good example – comparing them to the political officers of the former Soviet Union. I think more people need to use that analogy (I do at every turn) when it comes to today’s feminists or SJWs.
          The U.S. would have none of this in the 1980s and we spoke out against it at every turn. Now, years later, we’ve become the former Soviet Union adopting plenty of their “bad habits” that we used to rail against.
          Younger men need to watch some of the older movies and documentaries regarding the Soviet Union to get an idea of what we’re talking about here. It is strange to see it end (there) only to see it pop up here years later.

        4. Increasingly I think it’s a literally true analogy, particularly with regard to the policing of speech within the universities. It’s only going to get worse unless we call it out and oppose it tooth and nail

        5. Yeah we’ve become the soviet union because the public school system is a conformist communist propaganda machine, the only three things I can remember being taught in public school was ….Walmart is Bad, Communism is a good Idea that had been used improperly in past societies,and Islam is the most Peaceful religion, I got out in 2008 but I can only imagine what has been tacked onto the propaganda list, probably LBGT Homosexual stuff,… scary….

        6. No…I can truthfully say things have gotten worse in 20 years.
          It used to be : “We want you to take classes that count as Cultural Diversity to expand your horizons”
          Then it became : “All cultures are equal”
          Now it’s : “Check your White Privilege”

        7. Stuff like Gender is a social construct, and if a girl has one sip of wine and leaps on the nearest erect penis, she can claim PTSD from rape 6 months later.

        8. Yeah, God Forbid a woman is responsible for her own choices.Isn’t it queer that women are just as capable as Men in everything and in most cases better than Men according to feminism, but yet feminism treats women like children who aren’t on the same level as Men when it comes to adult choices and claims women aren’t responsible for choosing to get drunk and choosing while drunk to have sex….Interesting no ? It’s sort of like admitting women are children like what the Manosphere has been saying about women’s mentality but simultaneously saying women are stronger and better at everything than Men, Confusing isn’t it?

        9. I think it would be useful for us to brand these SJWs as political officers. When they ask the meaning, we’ll explain to them (and others) what it means.
          SJW (warrior) is not a good term at all for these fucks. Political officers (see former Soviet Union) would be a better term for them.

        10. Sad, because you used to have real debate in school. You may not agree but the debate was needed (important tools to use later on in life). That was a long time ago. Today, it is nothing but a propaganda machine (similar to TV, news, etc…). I stopped watching years ago because I noticed the subtle ‘programming’ that was being used on people. One example: the news is nothing but violent shit (shootings, etc…) and then fluff bullshit afterwards. I see it, sometimes, when passing in airports or out shopping. It’s the same shit, over and over again.

        11. I started noticing it too, a couple years ago, especially the Ignorant and Bigot Examples they’d use in TV shows, where a white Male would laugh at a queer or tranny and then the enlightened progressive hero would school and shame the white male for being so intolerant, I can also remember all the commercials where the white male was shown as an imbecile and his wife or woman in the commercial had all the answers,…Yeah for those reasons i’ve Dropped Tv as well, if I want to watch something i’ll stream Netflix or Youtube.

        12. Yep, I choose what to watch, now (commercials are out). Be it on Netflix, Youtube, Bluray, etc…I choose my own programming. If it hints of the bullshit FI narrative, Disney shit or anything similar, I won’t watch it.

    1. Academic reform needs to be made into a political issue, just like illegal immigration so on.
      All presidential candidates should be asked to provide a plan to fix the identitarianism flowing out of the colleges. Write letters, demand political action today.

        1. I’d argue that gender and victim studies should not exist in the first place, but that’s a start.

        2. That is an excellent article. Thanks for the ref:
          I like this quote – “This is were it becomes clear that abolishing gender and women’s studies
          departments and programmes would not only be no loss, but would
          actually have the advantage of making it possible to bring back some
          theoretical and methodological knowledge seemingly lost with the
          fixation on women and gender”.

        3. you’re welcome. Its good to know there are academics out there who take these harpies on

      1. I want a future congress to have a national Media/Academia ‘audit’ in which all media organizations, all academic departments must affirm their political philosophy…followed by a mandatory ‘rebalancing’ of all departments to insure a 50/50 ratio of liberals and conservatives, followed by a law requiring all professors, academics and reporters shall be required to identify themselves by political affiliation ( “Dr. Robert Smith, Democrat, Professor of Climatology”) when speaking publically…this is not ‘censorship’ and thus isn’t unconstitutional. Yes I understand academia is supposed to be about challenging ideas, but the left, allowed to run academia, has turned it onto a maoist autocracy…we need the government to step in and forcibly rebalance the equation so that academia becomes once again a place where ideas are explored and challenged, not an indoctrination center filled with trigger warnings.

        1. Any organization that is almost entirely funded by taxes will be leftist. It’s only logical. To eliminate the problem, eliminate the taxes.
          Fake conservatives who work for guvmint will not solve anything.
          “so that academia becomes once again a place where ideas are explored and challenged”
          Academia is a place to control people’s minds..not to open them.
          Go to the real world if you want to “explore” and be “challenged”.

        2. I’ve see it called Auster’s Law and O’Sullivan’s law but it goes like this: any organization or enterprise that is not explicitly conservative will become liberal over time. Liberals know this so they fight tooth and nail against earmarking half of positions as being conservative.

  2. “That is to say, that holding female firefighters to the same physical standards as men discriminates against them.”
    I know this sounds like nitpicking but actually that is a true statement. In a position that requires good physical condition, tests of physical strength and endurance discriminate against the weak in favor of the strong, which is how it should be for firefighters. This test shows a proper discrimination of who would be better suited, no?
    This feminist demonstrated that she does not know how to discriminate, instead focusing on irrelevant data, such as sex.
    I’m old enough to remember when someone who was shrewd and smart was considered to have a “discriminating mind”. This was a compliment.

    1. In a position that requires good physical condition, tests of physical
      strength and endurance discriminate against the weak in favor of the
      strong, which is how it should be for firefighters.

      Exactly, discrimination and sexism are actually something good.

      1. “Discrimination” as used by SJWs means discrimination on an irrelevant characteristic such as sex.

    2. Makes you wonder too that if Men and women are applying for the same job, but Men are held to a higher standard, then where is the real discrimination?

      1. discrimination.., funny, isn’t that what a judge essentially does in the legal system? So contradictory these fucks.

    1. Not only professors, but firewomynz, police, army, philosophers, stateswomynz. Exists a reason by there aren’t much matriarchal societies, and is that a successful society needs both higher thinking and physical strenght.

  3. Dude, you should have gotten up and walked out of that “lecture” …why? alpha males do not take ANY instruction or advice or “teachings” from females, fucking period!, who gives a fuck if they nuke your grades, this site teaches men about male DIGNITY, and to sit through that bullshit that you actually paid for, is disgusting. Maybe if you talked to a male dean and argued your point (like a good lawyer should), they would respect you more, and maybe more men would have the courage and balls to do the RIGHT FUCKING THING! If you do not- you are part of the problem, not the solution. So fucking cowboy up, losing in this instance is winning. I would also encourage you to grab as many male students as possible and lead a revolt against this communist bitch, it’s good to put numbers on your side.

    1. I’m with you in spirit, but one needs to pick ones battles wisely. One can listen to instruction without accepting it, and I was curious about what she had to say. Unlike “Aboriginal Law” where I skipped the entire course. And that’s the thing though, there are no male deans. Our female dean was just replaced with another female dean. The best way to win in this instance is to realize school is a joke, jump through the hoops, and maneuver oneself into a position of power where one can actually change things. Giving the school a big FU may be satisfying but we need to think long-term if we are to take back society.

      1. I spoke out when it got too much for me and I paid the price. I tended to get higher marks from conservative profs and practitioners and lower marks from academics and leftists. My GPA was probably lowered from a B+ to a B- over the course of 3 years. The thing is, essays and essay questions are so subjective it is basically impossible to challenge a mediocre mark.
        Better to keep your mouth shut, limit your political activity while at law school, parrot the leftist and feminist talking points, and get the marks. Keep up the charade at least until graduation, and perhaps a bit longer if you actually want to become a law professor. Success is the best revenge and a successful attorney can get hired back as an adjunct to teach their specialty. However, you need to hide your politics if you want tenure because it is a bunch of leftist profs that will make that decision.

        1. Yeah it’s not like math or science where an answer clearly right or wrong, it often comes down to the bias of the professor.
          That’s the plan, just two more years…

        2. SJW types love to poo poo the validity of the LSAT and bar exams because those have objectively right and wrong answers. There are theories about what are called convergent and divergent learning and teaching styles with the former focusing on a single, correct answer while the other goes off in all sorts of directions. While these ideas might be useful in the learning process, in terms of testing what is learned it becomes anarchy when there is no right or wrong answer and the profs are just making up the marks. However, that is what SJWs push for because it is the environment they can thrive in.

        3. I’m about to start my second year too and I’m not looking forward to it! Do you go to school in the States or the UK?

      2. Completely disagree, if all male students rejected completely these liberal communist bitches, and requested only male professors, universities would have to comply- YOU are the customer as the student.

        1. You are largely viewed as the product since the government pays 3/4ths of the cost of your education. Most of the male profs are fags, white knights or generic leftists. If you insisted on only males who were not raving progressives, you would have two classes a week and it would take a decade to finish your degree.

  4. 1 TIMOTHEY 2 : 12 ” I do not permit a women to teach or assume authority over any man, she must be quiet” Read it and digest it men, make it a part of your life, keep your male dignity.

    1. A black knight is as a fish amongst the fishes. When a man realizes that he is truly on his own in enemy territory, well, he has to use feminine weapons again his foes. Dissimulation is our friend. Use one alpha female against another. Acquire computer skills to set the cat among the pigeons. Use a woman’s deepest fears against her, using her friends to destroy her. A black knight never acknowledges his destruction. He’s always kind of bewildered by it all. He allows women to use him to advance their position. Yes, he’s the fellow that uses audio surveillance. There’s some real nice gear out there, cheaper than you might think. Never let anyone know what you are doing, never leave evidence.

  5. We had a course here during our first year which was called sociology of law.
    The women aren’t great either. A lot of them are trying desperately to become career harpies and always walk around wearing ‘business casual’ clothes and a perpetual frown. One of these days they’ll ban humour.

    1. Best hamster Giff yet. Green, bowl, 1 hamster spinning the other into a stupor, yet sucked into a dizzying vortex, all on a wrinkled canvas. Oooh the symbolism.

  6. The only critical theory we need now is critical equality theory.
    Funny how these people never apply critical thought to their own beliefs.

  7. “That is to say, that holding female firefighters to the same physical standards as men discriminates against them”,
    A fundamental difference between the Male and Female mind, Men believe things are earned, women believe things are owed .
    Man: if you want it you have to earn it.
    woman: if you want it you should have it, if you can’t earn it someone should give it to you.

      1. Yeah, and Single-motherhood is a huge problem, i knew of a woman who was making almost $2500 a month from the Gov to help “Support” her kids, meanwhile her only job was driving to the post office to pick up the Gov check, and she was able to buy a house from that income,…Buy a House….It’s a tough one because in society sole custody single motherhood can be very taxing on a working mother, and does the child have to suffer because of the mothers choices and starve or should there be some assistance from society if a working mother can’t make ends meet? Does society have to be drained to support that mother and is society responsible? I can tell you this though, that woman is living a little to “high off the hog” to where she can afford a house and not have to work, something is wrong there.

        1. I agree… It’s not so simple as to say “Let them starve”, but it’s gotten so comfortable that it became a legitimate lifestyle somehow.
          I don’t see anything wrong with charity or helping the less fortunate but something is indeed wrong here…

        2. Yeah definitely way to comfortable, my grandfather said back when he was a kid that if people needed assistance they weren’t given money, but they could go to a Food supply building and receive very, very, basic food, Beans, yeast, and sugar, and it was in limited quantity as well, it was designed so that it encouraged people to get back on there feet and work again, who would want to live on beans yeast and sugar for the rest of there lives? But now there is no incentive to get off the Gov tit, because the Government is paying so well, that mother I described has no reason to get off Gov aid because she is making a killing off of it, I say lets go back to Beans yeast and sugar…

    1. Very true. I lived in Texas. I’m now in Montreal. This is the most pussified place I’ve ever been and I’ve been all over the world. The amount of faggots / pussies / betas / feminists in this place is staggering.
      Nice city otherwise.

  8. It took me all of getting through the second paragraph to recognize that this article is shit. Yup, there has never be been any codified law that define women and people of color as property. Even there were, that’s all over now. Black people and women (even black women) are allowed to be members of Congress Hey, we have a black president (or more specifically a mixed race) so racism is over. As if by magic. The obvious fact that a country that only has history of having older white, Christian, men as Excutives is not “free and equal.”

    1. well the first black president took away our freedom to choose health insurance, and based upon black voting patterns it seems they want government to confiscate all wealth anyways.

      1. Are you implying health care availability is somehow about race? Never mind all the children(black, white or what have you) who if not needlessly die due to common infections to degenerative birth defect due to their parents having reasonable access to health insurance. As the “wealth redistribution” fantasy goes, all reasonable economists report that the American economy is being carrying by the quickly disappearing middle class and the lower class while the richest are left largely alone.

    2. History makes nothing in the present an obvious fact. The facts are that women don’t vote for women but whites will vote for blacks, but blacks don’t vote for whites if they can avoid it. Plus, SJWs specifically demonize women and blacks who are conservatives.

      1. Observations of repeated patterns (aka History) are exactly what goes into defining something a fact. Also, God forbid black people get upset when a black congressperson denies bias in the criminal justice system or women don’t like female legislators that work to limit access to birth control.

        1. Whether or not America (or Canada for that matter, given that I am Canadian) is a “free and equal” country circa 2015 – as a matter of fact – has nothing to do with historical patterns. A black man has been POTUS for the last seven years. Hell, even the current crop of GOP wannabes includes women, a Latino, and East Indian, a Black, etc. etc.
          And that is only to consider once you have got around the apex fallacy.

  9. Leftism in law school…imagine that!
    A career that makes money by forcing money out of people at the point of a gun has a leftist point of view…shocking!

  10. Rampant feminist doctrine, and the assumption of female victim-hood, pervades all modern institutions. Right up to the United Nations.
    Take, for example, the recent Millennium goals published by the UN. Right there, goal number 3 is “Promote Gender Equality and Empower Women”.
    Lets have a look at this statement.
    Promoting gender equality is nonsense, and overlooks the most basic tenets of biology and evolution, ie, the fundamental differences between the sexes. Trying to pretend they are equal is sheer politically correct idiocy.
    However, the real kicker is the second part. “Empower Women”. Sounds great right ?, but after you have just declared that your goal is gender equality, to qualify that statement thus, is to assume that women are dis-empowered, and are the ones who are below equal. As usual, an assumed state of victim-hood for women.
    Take a read of the 2015 UN Millennium goals document here.
    In it, you will find 34 references to women and girls, and only 8 to men and boys. And 6 of those 8 references to men or boys, are to demonstrate how women are suffering at the hands of the almighty patriarchy. Don’t expect any mention of the suffering of men. This document is not about men. It is all about women. It assumes we run the world, and thus can take care of ourselves, without any social engineering by the United Nations.
    So, yes. We live in a world where virtually every institution from your local university law school, up to the world governing body, promotes the myth of perpetual female victim-hood.

  11. “One of the girls in the class […] disagreed, saying that it’s more of a grey area and that if she wants to go partying, get drunk, and have sex, that’s entirely
    There you go. I think the problem is that no alpha male would bang your teacher, drunk or not. Actually the real problem, is nobody is willing to ‘take one for the team’ and bang hardline feminists.

  12. “that holding female firefighters to the same physical standards as men discriminates against them.” reducing the requirements of ANY JOB reduces the output value of a single unit of production, thus weakening GDP of a country when multiplied – or in this case – weakening “safety of society.”
    “nevermind that it’s now the 21st century and women are perfectly capable of paying their own way” << women are hired now at a higher rate, and the wage gap has been demystified, at least based on performance alone, if not overall cost of employing females. The tables should already be turned to favor men based on their OWN logic, because providership currently dictates that.
    Now let me run to McDs and get a $20 burger from a unionized McWorker. brb

  13. “She was teaching sexual assault law and claiming consent cannot be obtained unless the girl is 100% sober.” I don’t agree with this, much like the female class student mentioned. Unless the girl goes straight to the cops, immediately after sex (within a few hours or less) and is instantly drug & alcohol blood tested, how the FUCK are you going to argue degrees of sobriety? Also, maybe the girl lies and tells you she’s sober. Then in essence she raped YOU by not being 100% sober. “Here sweety, before I do more than kiss you, take this drug test, sign this waiver, I’ll have my notary notarize it, then turned into an affidavit, then we can have sex.”

    1. Exactly, its extremely difficult to prove such a case. Often there are no good witnesses, no tests were done, etc. Now with the Yes means Yes laws in the states they are moving the onus to the defendant to prove that he is innocent in order to win more cases. Nevermind the fact that doing so is completely contrary to the fundamental principles of justice, going all the way back to Hammurabai’s Code…

    2. They move the bar depending on the desired outcome. If a girl was at your place and had a few drinks and you make a move on her.
      She says yes but later cries rape because she could not consent.
      Same girl says no and tries to leave, but you don’t let her leave or follow her home for her own protection because it is not safe for someone in her condition to be alone on the streets at night, and you are a kidnapper or stalker.
      Too drunk to consent but still able to do whatever else the hell she wants to do and if you try to stop her, you go to jail for that too.

      1. If you’re taking girls back to your place these days without a couple coffee or lunch dates first to make sure she isn’t sipping at the trough of the radical feminists, especially if you live alone, you must be crazy or have most of your assets held in trusts.

  14. I want to fall asleep with my c ock in your mouth like a little baby. You are happy to slurp on it and hold onto it like little baby and make gurgling noises. In the morning, I have to u rinate but you won’t let me up holding on to my c ock with your mouth and saying “goo, goo” like a baby so I p ee in your mouth. It is disgusting thick yellow smelly vile morning u rine but you happily drink it.

  15. You are not supposed to agree with all of what your professors and fellow students think and say. Rather than just complaining about it, take them seriously and build up an argument to refute them.
    University professors in general, almost regardless of what strange views they may hold on their subject, have great respect for logically stringent and clearly presented arguments (rare as such are amongst students). Obviously, you will need to do better than just saying “I thought that law was a social contract…”, you have to argue _why_ (and how) is should be interpreted as a social contract and why this view have better explanatory power than alternative ones.
    This post shows every sign of “oppressed truth-speaker” complex (a close cousin of “misunderstood genius” and similar categories of victims of the terrible, repressive higher educational system). For anyone with the slightest experience of university teaching, this is quite unconvincing. Stop whining!

    1. The profs – particularly the leftists – have different standards for logic, argumentation and quality of evidence depending on whether they agree with your conclusions or not.

    2. I’ve found it really varies professor to professor. I once had a professor, a feminist, atheist, vegan, who was like that, excellent prof despite her views, fair, open to disagreement, we had some great classroom discussions. A couple of my professors this past year were also like that, open to opposing positions, it was great.
      But many other profs are like Scorpio says, biased, illogical, and disagreeing with them can really wreck your grades. For example, I had a poli sci prof who gave me a C because I argued “the wrong way” about the war in Afghanistan. I decided to give him what he wanted to see if he really was that biased, and yes, once I started merely parroting back what he was saying I received an A+ in the course. So I’ve learned to pick my battles.
      I don’t consider myself a victim, I’ve managed to do quite well, and I have had excellent professors over the years. But many, I would say the majority, of leftist professors do in fact create a repressive classroom environment.

      1. That’s the trick- play them at their own game, parrot back their own nonsense- that’s the way HR/corporate culture and academia work- conform and falter on the surface, and have your own healthy values beneath, that you can put into place once they think you’re one of them.
        Always remember, and this is crucial, that most left wing ideas are not organic or intuitive in the natural sense and that’s their greatest weakness. For example in the biological sense we know men and women are not equal and this is why I believe that ultimately many of it central tenets will never be accepted, namely, because the evidence of the world, and that’s how most normal people judge life, says “that just ain’t so” even if they don’t publicly state it.

    3. Do they? In my experience maybe 1 out of 5 professors are actually open to rational discussion. The rest are rabid leftists trying to force their views on you.

      1. Unfucking believable! The arrogance of these Kikes. Jews need to be stored underground everywhere.

    1. Thanks, appreciate the feedback! Have you read Young Titan: The Making of Winston Churchill by Michael Sheldon? It’s a fascinating book, very encouraging to learn of all the hardships and setbacks he experienced yet still persevered.

    2. He was a fat bloated stooge for Morganthau and the already Jew dominated Amerikwa. Churchill was disgusting.

  16. I don’t know how it is in the U.S but where I live, the male college teachers are all remarkably soft and effeminate.
    They look like the archetype of the spineless “intellectual”.

    1. usually the ones in the lib arts department. But the more technical clsses tend to teach the opposite way. But they do watch their mouth not to start a shitstorm.

    2. We had a crown prosecutor teaching criminal law and a practitioner teaching mergers and acquisitions. They were definitely not soft or effeminate. The criminal defender teaching trial method was a bit of a jerk, but not a wuss. There was an old guard of actual academics who didn’t fall into the SJW crowd.

    3. Do they sound effeminate also? A lot of males here in the US sound like they are competing with females as to who can have the more high pitch voices, it’s hard to tell if they are Gay or not.

      1. Yes exactly, high pitch voices and feminine postures.
        I guess the emasculation is happening in the entire western world.

    4. Academia always attracts those types of people, that’s why it’s so skewed left in the first place.

  17. [quote]”In criminal law, minorities such as aboriginals get special treatment at sentencing, often receiving lesser punishments than a Caucasian would. In constitutional law, we were forced to endure several long lectures on “hate speech” and discrimination, while freedom of religion was mysteriously missing from the course.[quote]
    I heard the other way around from my neighbor whom just became a lawyer. That theya re more likely to get harsher sentences like black males in the states or males getting more then females.
    I noticed the same thing to in my socialogy class when they defined masculine culture as “traditional” while feminst culture is “modern and equal”. Really it should be labeled as traditional vs feminist or progressive. This type of wording is just subtle brainwashing. SInce modern is anything that exists today no matter how primitive.
    But getting back to the aboriginal bias, think its the activists that take it one step further and say its on bigotry or oppression. Perhaps back in the day but not now. The detail of the crime should be labeled due to perhaps severity or how their cases play out. But think they get lower is because they reduce due to public pressure. Know a psychiatrist that mentioned this too. That judges for the past 10 yrs are hesitant now with sentencing typically with females for fear of these protesters(sjws feminists) to smear him. Like those people recently got a law passed in Toronto(no surprise) of the right to REMAIN INSANE.
    Like there are biases in court like the “weak beats the strong”.
    old vs young, old wins
    female vs male, female wins
    white vs black, white wins
    handicap vs able body
    They are not 100% but they are givin an edge and more leeway, while the other has to work harder.
    like Say Betty White (old white female with limited mobility) can go up to mike tyson (an able body young black male) call him a rapist the n word and slap or what ever and be an instigator to the max but Tyson has to be the disciplined one in the confrontation otherwise one strike will certainly put him away for a long time. HE could still have a chance at winning but very unlikely.
    Plus it helps how you look and how innocent you look. Like youre rocking tats and a beard youll have a harder time, you look like bieber at court or micheal cera it gets easier. You got muscles?hide em. You wear glasses? wear em.
    For people that are hung up on the race bit. It varies on the crime. Usually ethnics get it worse on physical crimes but when it comes to slander and making remarks about certain groups whites have to be alil more careful and thats usually a problem if you are in a place of influence or doing well financially then youll be cut down. Like a racial/sexist.homophobe comment in a warehouse no one will care but an office job then yeah. ANd social media no one cares until someone complains but happens to everyone like 1 guy makes unpopular joke about the riot in Vancouver he loses his job. Or that crazy indian feminst that wrote kill all white men, nothing happened until it became a shit storm then she lost her job(equality bit her in the ass lol). While say the things krauser says nothing happens since no one cares.
    Though its worth noting how they defend themselves like roosh gets the most hate from sjws then anyone else combines but he wins.
    Some are dealt a better hand but its how you play em.

    1. There is section 718.2(e) in the sentencing provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada (unlike the USA, all criminal law in Canada is federal) that says “all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders.”
      There is an assumed bias because the Indians are in jail out of all proportion to their numbers in the population. It is taken as an article of faith that it is not due to the fact that they commit more crimes than everyone else. Contrast that with the number of men and women in jail: it is assumed that men commit more crimes and that there is no bias.

      1. interesting.You just reminded of this story that a friend of mine mentioned working at a prision this 1 native guy was so dependent on the prison, every time he was released hell throw a brick through a window and get arrested again….treating prision like welfare.

  18. My first year at law school was almost two decades ago and it was eerily similar. A word of advice for red pill law students, once you get to second year: pick profs that are a) old codgers nearing retirement who just DGAF, or b) adjuncts who are practitioners as a day job and teach their specialty part-time. For the latter, it is a bit hit or miss with family law profs as to whether you will get red, blue or purple pill but generally the rest of the adjuncts will be cool.
    In one meet and greet with other students the topic of feminism came up and I mentioned “radical feminists”. One female, who obviously considered herself a feminist, commented: “Is there any other type?” As we had not even had a single day of classes I didn’t have the heart to say, well yes you ignorant bitch, radical feminism is just one of many types such as liberal, Marxist, gender, social, anarchist or eco-feminism. That set the tone for having classes full of attitude but not the background information to have an intelligent discussion.
    In another meet and greet I encountered the lesbian feminist criminal law prof (apparently, every Canadian law school has one). She asked me if I was considering a career in criminal law and I said yes, but only as a prosecutor. When she asked why I said: “So I can put scumbags in jail.”
    She responded: “Well, everyone has a story to tell.”
    And I said: “Fine, then can tell it from behind bars.”
    As part of our first year courses we had to select three “perspectives”, which were basically mini-courses about the various profs’ pet projects, theories or topics. I selected Sex and Law, Theories of Judging, and AI and Legal Reasoning. Turns out the first was actually “gay sex and the law” which, given the feminists and various minorities in the class, became two hours of hate against straight white males. The second was basically “leftist theories of judging” taught by a feminist professor who was not even a lawyer but rather some social science field. The last was actually worth taking as it was taught by the proverbial old codger, mentioned above.
    Contracts was taught by the gay activist who did the Sex and Law perspective. Contracts was also linked to our legal writing study and the first year moot court. I got hammered on my assignments (which unlike exams you are not anonymous) and our contract moot ended up being a gay melodrama that the prof messed up so badly I had to point out that he created a logical impossibility. Instead of coming up with a different scenario or – by following the law as written – making his gay protagonist argue that gay-themed advertising was somehow wrong, he simply invented a ficticious statute but didn’t bother to tell the judges about it. It was a complete mess that confused the hell out of the judges and doomed half of the students (myself included) to defeat. The next year he made the mistake of raising the ire of feminists when the contract case was about the sale of “quimlings”, a ficticious toy that lead young men astray. Of course, “quim” is an old term for vagina and the feminists picked up on and took offence to it.
    The whole thing about discrimination was divided between constitutional law and employment law. The thing is, feminist judges had to re-invent “substantive equality” – as distinct from “formal equality” – to spin their whole feminist web as to why you have to treat women differently so that you can treat them the same. It came out of post-bellum America when a law was put in place to have a literacy requirement for people to be able to vote. On the face, it was applied across the board to all otherwise eligible voters but the courts acknowledged that it was drafted and passed to keep the largely illiterate and recently freed slaves from voting, so it was tossed out as discriminatory. In employment law what was developed was the “bona fide occupational requirement” or BFOR, which is something that you need to do the job. If an employer had a job requirement that had a differential impact on some group then the onus was on the employer to “prove” that the requirement was necessary for the candidate to perform the job, otherwise the requirement was thrown out and the employer faced thousands of dollars in liability from women or minorities who had claimed they were discriminated against. This is what happened with physical standards for cops, soldiers and firefighters. The thing it, everybody acknowledged that one needs to be physically fit to perform these jobs but no court has ever accepted that any particular standard has been “proven” as necessary to do the job, or that any particular point system or merit rating has been “proven” to be directly indicative of on-the-job performance. The cost of conducting scientifically verifiable studies into job duties and their physical requirements has been cost prohibitive even for governments to conduct so the only option was to have different standards scaled for men and women. Of course, a woman in the 90th percentile is only as physically capable as a man in the 40th percentile (ok ok, I just pulled those numbers out of my ass, but you get the idea), however, since nobody can “prove” where the cut off should be or what the direct link is between physical ability and job performance the woman at the 90th percentile would be given priority over all the men from 41st to 89th percentile. . .because that is only “fair”.
    Then their was the prof who was doing a movie about the corporation. I offered to help out with the project as I had a business degree and had studied movies (I had As in entertainment law and film production). His only comment was “I am approaching it from a leftist perspective”. I said that I understood that but I wanted to work on the project. I was ignored in favour of some female Australian exchange student with a social science degree.
    I hated law school and every year I contemplated dropping out, but eventually made it through. I learned three oxymorons:
    1) Civil Litigation (it aint)
    2) Legal Reasoning (they don’t)
    3) Feminist Thought (there isn’t).
    That’s rather damning after learning about business ethics at management school and military intelligence in the army.

    1. That’s very true that the old codgers and the practicing lawyers are the best, I saw that with my torts professor especially. The purely academic professors are terrible, I’m trying to avoid them as best I can.
      Your moot sounds very similar to my own last year. We had to argue the crowns position that the new prostitution laws criminalizing johns are indeed constitutional. None of the judges knew anything about constitutional law at all though, so they ended up deciding it as a question of morality instead of applying the legal tests properly. To my knowledge every single team arguing the crowns position lost.
      I have a friend in the RCMP actually who just completed training and he definitely witnessed what you’ve mentioned. The girls were all extremely fit, top 10-20% probably and often still struggled, while guys who were fat slobs (his words) performed just as well if not better. I don’t know when “fairness” became such an imperative. Life isn’t, has never been, and never will be “fair”. Any attempt to make it so is doomed to fail.
      Was the prof doing the movie about the corporation Joel Bakan by any chance? I had him for constitutional/charter law, very smart guy but a complete leftist.
      I’ve always hated school, it’s like prison for children, but law school is especially bad. I made it about two weeks before I started considering dropping out, nearly did in December. I just can’t wait until I’m done with school and can finally start doing something that actually matters.

      1. Oh shit, you are at UBC! It could be worse. You could be at UVic: a law school so far to the left that they could not put it on the left coast; they had to put it on an island 50 miles left of the left coast.
        Bakan is likeable which is why I wanted to work with him, but for me not so much for his politics. I had Joost Blom for torts. He was Dean for a term before the feminists took over.
        I was generally bored with public school and then my grades shot up at university because I was studying something I found interesting. Then I got to law school and it was a drag. I considered dropping out after the first semester and at the end of first year. My buddies convinced me that things would be better when I could select my own courses in second year but it was still shit. By the end of second year I had too many sunk costs so I bit the bullet for one more year.
        Take some out of faculty credits to keep your sanity and interact with some non-law students. I took film and video production.

        1. Yes I am! Yeah I’ve heard that about UVic, glad I avoided it.
          He definitely is, he’s a very smooth guy, has an answer for everything, but too political. Has some great stories about clerking at the Supreme Court though. I had Joost Blom for contracts, great prof, kept referring to cases as “this dear old chestnut”, think he retired this past spring though.
          Same, I ended up doing all of gradeschool/highschool at home instead, gave me time to work instead of wasting time in class. Undergrad was definitely better, took lots of history courses on Germany, the world wars, military history, etc. The remaining two years of law school are definitely going to be tough to get through, but it is what it is.
          What did you decide to do after graduating, head to a big downtown firm or?

        2. Long story. I bounced around but eventually ended up back in Vancouver as a divorce lawyer with a small firm. I packed it in and went into teaching. Now I live in China. I doubt I will go back to practicing law – even part time – for several more years.

  19. If Luke wants to learn what it is to be a man he should drop out of law school. Do we really need any more goddamned lawyers? Lawyers are parasites that just don’t want to do an honest days work. It’s ideally suited to feminists and Jews and the lazy. Want to man up? Get into a lineman apprenticeship with the IBEW. You’ll make six figures and won’t have to tolerate the feminized corporate workplace and have to eat shit from twinks, feminist cunts and anti-white, anti-family, anti-male multi-cultural Jews which you are surely going to have endure as a goddamned parasitic fucking lawyer. You won’t find Jews or women complaining about White male dominance in professions that require hard work in dangerous conditions.
    Plus you won’t have a mountain of student debt. Cucknada does not need another Shylock lawyer free ranging amongst the honest hard working folk trying to rip them off to pay their student loans off.

    1. No, we certainly don’t need any more parasitic lawyers, but we do need good lawyers who are on our side. I’ll be focusing on business/tech law so that I can help other men start their own businesses so that they aren’t stuck in a feminized corporate workplace for the rest of their life. We shouldn’t simply give up the more academic professions merely because we are outnumbered.
      That’s a good point about debt, I’ve seen other students take out $100,000 line of credit, it’s insane. Due to savings I will be graduating debt free however.

  20. Your article is a perfect epitome of socialism and feminism
    “Here I thought the law was a social contract, designed to protect
    individual and property rights so that large groups of people can live
    together in a civilized society without murdering each other. But no,
    apparently, at its core, “the law” is all about keeping women and
    minorities trampled underfoot”
    Minorities and women are underfoot by the same reason they’ve during all history. Because the most darwinian is the enviroment the most of them will lose. Now that europeans have end up that situation arise the problems.
    “She actually suggested that non-differentiated aerobics standards are discriminatory against female firefighters.
    That is to say, that holding female firefighters to the same physical
    standards as men discriminates against them. And the worst thing was,
    students around me were actually taking notes! No, it’s not
    discriminatory, you moron, it’s equal! Holding men and women to
    different standards is what would be discriminatory…”
    That’s the heavy point, feminism and socialism is not about EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW, BUT DE FACTO EQUALITY.
    Equality under the law is a fact in traditional capitalism, where just individual rigths work. But they reject true equality because true equality will mean a more Darwinian enviroment, in which they can’t compete.
    De facto equality is an awful thing, because is impossible. Each person should be offset by the system for his personal flaws. One lack in intelligence and wants money, easier university standars, other wants plastic surgery, other wants sex. In Brave New World sex is a communal possession that everybody interchanges in a de facto equaility.
    Feminism and socialism is the doctrine of the loser, the one method by they can rise up their reproductive success: lowering winners success.
    Unlike them the only that we need to triumph is freedom, they need a flaware state.
    Good luck from a Spanish law student!!!

    1. Great quote: “feminism and socialism is not about EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW, BUT DE FACTO EQUALITY.”

    2. All activism for equality is founded on the fears and insecurities of the weak.

  21. Look, we are never going to be able to right the ship by going to law school and trying to play word games in the Jew’s playpen. You are not going to debate your way out of this. You are not, as Cuckservative Jared Taylor thinks, going to convince the Jews to see things your way and let their foot off our neck. Jews have taken control of the West and their goal is the utter physical and racial destruction of European people. As Kevin MacDonald has pointed out, in a decade or 2 they will have us on the ropes numerically with the insane levels of mud man immigration and then transition from the soft kill they have been employing and move in to the hard kill. Whites will be rounded up and exterminated in the Gulag system they have been building.

  22. Ultimately this is what female influence of any kind becomes. If their actions are not filtered through the cold hard rational minds of men their behavior will always end as fevered, hysterical, and destructive. The only way for western culture to be secured is to reverse the female influence upon it.

  23. Another Canadian law student here, I’ve studied at two law schools (1L at one, 2L and 3L at another) and I can confirm what the author is on about. Law schools are highly left-wing and feminism has been largely institutionalized, as has been the “academic-ization” of legal education. Useful classes that actually teach the law as it is, and teach the skills necessary to be a practitioner are fewer and farther between, while classes and teachers focusing on critical theory, policy, etc. are more commonplace. The number of professors shoving “feminist perspectives” into essential classes is growing, wasting the time of the intelligent and further indoctrinating the blue pillers. There are “safe spaces”, meditation classes, lectures on how to disagree without offending people (we’re all grown adults with university degrees keep in mind), and all the rest. While open disagreement is still permitted, the sum total of all this institutional BS is an atmosphere in which conservatism is not welcome, criticism of feminism is not welcome, being competitive is not welcome, being a man is not welcome unless you go out of your way to apologize and prostrate yourself for it, being Christian is not welcome (though being Muslim is celebrated, by feminists no less which fucking boggles my mind), openly disagreeing with a majority viewpoint in class is not welcome, any sort of non-PC jokes will result in someone launching a complaint and siccing the HR dogs on you, and so on.
    I intend to work in the private sector at an all-male (or as near as possible) firm, and I would suggest the same to other men in, or considering, law school. Ultimately in the private sector it’s hard work and results that matter so at least to that extent there’s a place for men to build good careers.

    1. Good to see I’m not the only one here! Have you graduated already or are you just entering 3rd year now?
      I’m planning to stick to dry, hard law courses in order to avoid as much of the BS as possible. I’m hoping there’s not much room for leftist bias in subjects like secured transactions and tax.

      1. I’m starting 3L on Tuesday. Likewise, got some good black letter classes lined up and looking forward to putting school in the rear view mirror. Good luck out there buddy!

    1. I really don’t get the anti-Semitism of the manosphere. It’s not much different than Feminism; only instead of blaming White males for the cause of the world’s problems, it’s blaming the Jews.

      1. No my friend, the longer you study everything, the more things point to them. Feminism is an entirely jewish creation. Communism as well btw. ALL leading feminists were jewish women. Youtube the frankfurt school and cultural marxism. I never hated the jews, but the further you go down the rabbithole, the more you realize why these people were expelled from over 100 countries in their history.

        1. Replace the word, “Jew”, in your above comment with “White people” and you have pretty much the same line of reasoning that Feminists have.

  24. Religion.. Is the Opium of the People.
    Karl Marx..
    Marxism is the Crack Cocaine of the academic intelligentsia ..
    We the people…

  25. Look at the bright side, at least the author didn’t mention that any of the law students has to go to the “safe place” to color in coloring books and blow bubbles because a professor traumatized them by presenting an idea or concept that they didn’t agree with.

  26. We now have activist judges and lawyers. The justice system turned into a joke. They can basically punish people just for being on the “wrong” side, and free criminals because they are part of the SJW clique.

  27. That’s becoming an increasing problem in Canada where courts are making the decisions and not the elected politicians

  28. Holding everyone to the same physical standard is discriminatory… against weak-willed crybabies.

  29. University is the best place to indoctrinate people with leftist ideology. These socialists / feminists know it and that is why they have such a strong presence there.
    You have all these students who are pre career and have zero life experience, of course they are going to be gullible to leftist propaganda. Hell if you did not know better, the leftist utopia does sound rather convincing on paper.

  30. So far I’ve been pleasantly surprised. I’m at a top-15 b-school and most of the professors here are politically neutral in their lectures. A good number of them (plurality at least, hard to be sure though) lean right economically.

  31. Rather than argue whether having equal standards for male and female firefighters is discriminatory or not, you should instead argue that discrimination is moral, right, necessary, and good, and that females shouldn’t be firefighters (nor lawyers, for that matter) in the first place.
    I know, I know, fat chance….one of the reasons I chose not to go to law school. The entire system is b.s.

Comments are closed.