The professor who recently claimed that women “have every right” to “hate” men has defended her remarks by claiming that “it makes obvious sense for women to have rage.”

The controversy began on June 8, when Northeastern University Women’s Studies Professor Suzanna Danuta Walters penned an op-ed in The Washington Post titled “Why Can’t We Hate Men?” in which she outlines various justifications for hating men who do not subordinate themselves to feminist concerns.

"The world would be a better place for men and for women if we did away with gender altogether—gender norms, gender binaries, and so on."

“So, in this moment, here in the land of legislatively legitimated toxic masculinity, is it really so illogical to hate men?” Walters writes, going on to blame men en masse for a litany of issues including structural inequality and the lack of women in office.

To address these issues, Walters prescribes an easy fix for men.

“Pledge to vote for feminist women only. Don’t run for office. Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power. We got this,” she writes, appearing invoke a phrase popularized by Chelsea Manning, who was convicted of espionage in 2013.

[RELATED: Prof says feminists have ‘every right’ to ‘hate men’]

Although Walters later claimed that she doesn’t hate men, her June 8 essay concludes by by noting that “We have every right to hate you. You have done us wrong. #BecausePatriarchy.”

After the article was published, Walters granted an interview with the sympathetic Chronicle of Higher Education, during which she told reporter Alexander Kafka that she doesn’t “hate men in some generic way.”

“My point here was to say it makes obvious sense for women to have rage, legitimate rage, against a group of people that has systematically abused them,” she wrote, adding that she could likewise ask “why can’t we hate white people?”

Neutrality puts men on the side of the oppressor, she added.

“To men who are not just taking responsibility but actively working to undermine and challenge toxic masculinity, go for it. I love ya,” she remarked. “To men who are part and parcel of the problem, I am not your fan.”

[RELATED: Prof declares that ‘masculinity itself’ is ‘the problem’]

She also rebuffed the suggestion that her missive could be interpreted as hate speech, arguing that because “almost all acts of gun violence against children in our schools are committed by white men,” that it is actually white men that are guilty of “weaponized hate speech.”

“So to talk about a feminist author who writes an op-ed with data that is indisputable and says, We have a right to anger—to say that that is hate speech is absolutely ludicrous,” she told Kafka.

According to Walters, in fact, “the world would be a better place for men and for women if we did away with gender altogether—gender norms, gender binaries, and so on.”

“And God knows men would be happier and better people if we did away with that. But they clearly also benefit from it. If you get more money in the world simply by virtue of having a penis rather than a vagina, you’re benefiting,” she told Kafka.

Campus Reform asked the Chronicle of Higher Education why they placed Walter’s response under paywall, especially considering the public controversy over her comments, and also inquired if the interview was conducted on the condition that it would only be accessible to Chronicle subscribers.

UPDATE: Walters did not respond to inquiries from Campus Reform, but Kafka made clear that "there was absolutely no discussion of paywall or no paywall as a condition for this interview taking place," and provided a link to a publicly-accessible version of the interview.

Follow the author of this article on Twitter: @Toni_Airaksinen