The first (and only) time I heard that song I thought that line rather ridiculous myself.
Helen Keller was certainly not mute - she was deaf/blind but anyone with a tv knows she could at least say 'wa-ter' even if you weren't paying attention to any other part of the Miracle Worker.
In any event - I am constantly surprised at the stuff that women will adopt and then hold up as some badge of liberation.
The most obvious example IMHO is the fact that the Playboy label is now much more popular amongst women than men. I still have trouble working that one out.

The most ironic thing about this article is the author describing what she finds ironic, without appearing to have any sense of irony herself.

I’m disappointed.

I thought this essay was going to set off a stampede of comments/links about all the heaps and heaps of ‘research’ that has been done to ‘prove’ that women really beat up men just as much as men beat up women and how feminists have been doing a dastardly cover up on this for years and years.

Or at the very least ... just a teensy little huffy about the irrelevance of any kind of women's advocacy since we all became so lovely and equal ages and ages ago?

... Anyone? Hel-lo-oo?

What’s happened? Has the sentry at MRA troll headquarters fallen asleep at the watch?

It is good that students have not forgotten how to get a rise out of the pompous crankypants that abound in academia.

Hold on, the little blighters were singing, you say?

Whoops, sorry, nearly lost it myself that time. Yes, of course, grab their student cards and off to the GULAG they go for 're-education'. There are ways of making them feel respectful and thankful.

Why didn't the students sing the Lily Allen song (the one that starts with F), and why didn't academic feminists object to it being played so often on the radio?

SJF: We figured if we waited more than an hour you'd get bored and go away. Try it with hands on your head (thanks for the suggestion).

I believe the vast majority of males don't hurt women, already respect "inviolability", don't need further indoctrination, and with increasing resentment are getting sick of being treated like they "might".

The case described in the article is an appeal. The female involved has already had justice. More than she wanted, more than she asked for. The male involved has a similarly "inviolable" right to appeal. If his appeal is a nonsense as Pringle speculates, it will be thrown out and costs may be awarded, further demonstrating the folly.

I'm just not seeing where the problem is. There may be some dwindling amount of unreported violence specifically against women, but since police, hospitals, ambulance, and health clinics have mandatory reporting of every wound that is even suspected of being the result of domestic violence, and many workplaces have guidelines amounting to much the same, I'm sure it is getting small by now. There is also an unreported rate of violence against children by women. Let alone the reported stuff publicly available. You don't need links, SJF, you can read for yourself, I think.

Violent situations are perhaps rare enough per capita to be assessed on merits, rather than by the heavy hand of the Duluth model, in which the male is always removed and assumed the aggressor. Why not the female in a random 50% of cases if the situation is not easily assessable by police? Why not both in 100% of cases, "just to be sure"?

I seem to recall that restricting women's freedom of sexual expression was once touted a form of repression (though possibly only by "feminists", not their mothers). Now the next generation is expressing it's a form of repression/exploitation. Seems someone wants it both ways. Try and tell these sassy young ladies to cover up and see how respectful they are. Remember, telling her what to wear is unacceptable "controlling behaviour", so you may be out of line.

Rustopher.