Well, much as I’d like it to have been otherwise, students at my own school have engaged in some racist and bigoted behavior, and the culprits, according to BuzzFeed, The Daily News, and many other sources, was a historically Jewish fraternity, Alpha Epsilon Pi. At the University of Chicago, fraternities aren’t formally a part of the school’s social system, as they’re organized and maintained privately, but this still reflect poorly on the school—especially on the fraternity.
It’s not clear how pervasive the toxic culture was in AEPi, but one of the “brothers,” fed up with it, leaked several emails, sent between 2011 and 2015, to BuzzFeed. They show, among other things:
- A general denigration of Palestine and Palestinians, including calling the vacant lot next to the fraternity house “Palestine.”
- General bigotry against Muslims, calling one Muslim student a “terrorist” and saying that explosives were fixtures of Islamic culture.
- Racism, including watching a blacksploitation film and eating fried chicken on Martin Luther King Day. (I also patronize that venue, Harold’s, for its great chicken, but this seems to be a deliberately racist gesture). The word “nigger” was used liberally, and blacks were discussed using the code word “community members.”
- Widespread viewing of women solely as sexual objects, including a “constitution” about how to treat women (i.e., how to bed them).
You can see lots of the emails at BuzzFeed.
The University of Chicago can’t do much about this, as AEPi is not affiliated with them (even if they were, our speech code probably wouldn’t allow the students to be penalized), but Dean of Students Michele Rasmussen condemned the emails as offensive and inconsistent with the university’s values. And the Executive Board of the national AEPi organization promises an investigation, issuing a statement that “The current Executive Board is doing everything in its power to investigate and confront the individuals of the fraternity who sent these emails.We whole-heartedly condemn this behavior and reaffirm that there is no place for these hateful and bigoted sentiments in our fraternity.”
As a historically denigrated and marginalized group, Jews should know better than this. Long-time recipients of bigotry and hatred must do their best to avoid dishing that out to other groups, for living well (i.e., in a spirit of tolerance) is the best revenge.
Sigh
Damned shame to see Harold’s misused in such a manner. …Damned shame to read the whole thing actually.
Fraternities sure seem to bring out the worst in young men.
My mother always said that sororities also brought out the worst in women. She advised I avoid single-sex living situations when I went off to school.
I’ve never liked the idea of fraternities or sororities. They aren’t really a part of university life or culture in Canada but the exist. I always thought they were cliques aimed at isolating others and you have to pay to join them!
We don’t have then here either, and I’m glad about that. They’ve always looked like elitist cliques to me too, designed to create a “them and us” mentality.
Even without them, young people away from home for the first time still manage to get stupid and nasty ime – fraternities/sororities seem to just exacerbate that.
Concur with all of you! GDI all the way.
Unfortunately, some of today’s snowflake groups seem to develop and stoke as much divisiveness as the traditional Greeks.
“A shonda” is what my folks would say. It is an embarrassment to us all.
The weird thing is, why are these single-sex institutions still allowed? I mean, I went to a single-sex school, which are pretty much extinct these days (though it was much more common 35 years ago) ; they’re considered unhelpful. Got to a private club, and if it is single-sex then that’ll be a continuing struggle for the management to maintain. Go to a public institution, and it’s got to treat people legally, and that has long been taken to include treating males and females equivalently.
Who funds these fraternities (and/ or sororities), and how do they defend their supply of these funds to their investors?
I agree about single-sex schools. They’re awful.
I went to a single-sex secondary school, then at university engineering school I was in a single-sex hostel out in the back of nowhere (~no female engineers in those days anyway). With the result that, desperate for female company as I was (like all young men), I hardly knew how to say ‘hullo’ to a girl. Desperate but inhibited, like. No fun.
cr
I went to a single-sex school too and hated it. It meant years without friends who were boys. I think single-sex schools are damaging to people developing normal friendships/relationships.
I cherished my friendships with boys in my tiny but coed high school. Got into two prestigious women’s colleges but chose Stanford because I hated the artificiality of single sex institutions. Stanford had frats (though I mostly avoided frat boys) but sororities were abolished in the 40s, in my mother’s day, because too many women were committing suicide when they didn’t get into the sorority of their choice!! I guess you could call this sexist, but it was probably for the greater good of women.
One of the things I liked about UC was the lack of Greek Life. Friends who went to other schools would tell me about their fraternities and sororities, and what they did, and it sounded elitist and childish. There were only two fraternities at UC when I was there, until my Fourth Year, when several more, as well as a sorority sprang up. This was part of the school’s misguided attempts to improve campus social life (not that we didn’t need more options socially, but that the school had no idea how to enable them). I still do not see the attraction of Greek Life, and am never surprised when things like this come out.
It has also just come to mind that those were also the days when the University tried to ban our classic football cheer:
They are lucky people even cheered. Let’s remember that the defining moment of the University’s existence was when they tore down the football stadium, and built a library in its place. Good times.
I don’t like football but a Classics cheer I can get behind!
Great fun, thanks for posting that! 😀
These e-mails became offensive only because someone decided to make them public, G*d knows why. My opinion is that humans will always be human, for good and for bad. They will harbor racism and other bigotries. Even if the Mideast conflict is solved tomorrow in a way applauded by all sides, and if crime and welfare dependence falls to zero for all US ethnic groups, many would still have a need to bash other groups of people in order to feel superior. What troubles me more is thought police digging into private correspondence to find out who must be “fixed” or ostracized.
This said, I hope the students in question have learned their lesson: Never send an e-mail which you aren’t ready to show to the world! Much worse things can happen to those who type faster than they think. Such as e-mails not published right away but used for blackmail.
Well they are offensively period. We just all know about them now.
I agree with the response below that they were probably offensive even if not shared, but I think your general point is extremely well-taken. Why are we publishing random citizens’ leaked personal correspondence and then berating them for it? That’s not journalism. It’s not activism. And I fail to see how it is even remotely appropriate or helpful. What did this “article” actually accomplish? I guess maybe some of these students will now be fired or un-hireable or pariahs in their fields. Gosh, what a great outcome.
And why, other than the obvious practical and PR type reasons, is the UofC commenting AT ALL on private communications between students that happened off-campus as part of their private freedom to associate? How exactly do the thoughts and opinions of people who just happen, secondarily, to be its enrolled students reflect on the university AT ALL? There’s a sort of backwards narcissism at work, there. If I raise a child who grows up to be a horrible person, is it my fault? If he was in my fifth grade class? If he came to Sunday School and I taught him there? If I met him once at a party and told him an off-color joke?
I did my doctorate there, in the humanities, perhaps these students’ racism is actually MY fault? Mea maxima culpa! How exactly do we believe that education and moral choice work when we release these types of statements? I think something is very off about our answer to this question, and I wonder where my UofC peers, who love to analyze everything looking for moral error and the vectors of power, I wonder where they are when this type of analysis is required.
My mother always told me if you don’t want it known, don’t put it in writing. I could add today that if you don’t want it known, then have good security. The fact that they were written, plus the fact that they were obviously available to the whistle blower, does more to demonstrate the degree and acceptance of the bigoted and racist attitudes prevalent in the fraternity than it is an egregious breach of privacy.
No offense to your mother, but that’s basically just victim blaming. Can I not keep a diary? If someone breaks into my house, steals it, and publishes it online, is that now my fault? Can I not send a gchat to my husband? If someone hacks into my account and publishes those chats, is it my fault for having a private conversation with my husband?
Not only is it reasonable to have an expectation of privacy in these situations, it is 100% necessary for a free state. Your mother may have accurately described the status quo, but that is a description of a problem, not a morally sound situation. Just because you don’t like the CONTENT of the private communications does not change the nature of the breach.
Also, I think we should be careful about the use of a word like “whistleblower.”
There is a big difference between leaking information about a breach of law and leaking information about beliefs we disagree with. There is also a difference between leaking information about an organization or a public person who is engaged in a misuse of power and leaking information about a private citizen whom we plan to publicly shame.
+1
I disagree. The original complaint came from a fraternity member, who published the material in order to expose problems in his own organization presumably in the hopes of making the situation better. What he did was IMO very much activism; he’s trying to change his social world for the better, the same way an employee at a corporation that tolerates sexual harassment might publish examples of that harassment in order to provoke change in the organization. In both cases, the person is using bad press to change bad practices. I would hope that he blocked out personal names and other info that identifies individuals, but other than that, I don’t see much of a problem here.
I do agree with the other comments above about such organizations having the potential to bring out the worst in people. Any insular community is vulnerable to the possibility of a few nasty personalities driving it to an extreme position, and teens aren’t exactly known for their maturity and good judgment in the first place. But these organizations don’t have to be bad, and hopefully the national organization will help put this local chapter back on the road to being a positive place for like-minded people to gather, rather a place where bigotry and racism come out.
Nice comment, eric.
“As a historically denigrated and marginalized group, Jews should know better than this.”
My wife went to a high school in Miami with a high proportion of Jews, and many of these classmates were also quite racist in regards to African-Americans. She also was amazed that a group that has long experienced terrible racism would in turn dish it out. I’d add that her classmates were also quite academically gifted, and I’d always hoped that smart people would know better.
I guess the lesson is that it is hard to overcome the more primitive aspects of human nature. It requires a desire, willpower, and I’d think a keenly honed sense of fairness to shepherd your thoughts in what I consider the correct, more progressive, more civilized direction.
An aboriginal in Canada years ago was stripped of his Order of Canada medal by saying Hitler was right because the jews were taking over. You’d think he’d know better too as an aboriginal but I guess some people are just incapable of theory of mind.
Yes, I have lost any expectations that people from any put-upon group are or should be less prejudiced and kinder than people born among the top d*gs. I remember reading years ago about how Gaelic-speakers driven from their land in Scotland behaved worse to the Australian aboriginal people than did people from other groups.
Some wit once observed that the dearest wish of a slave is not freedom, but to have a slave of his own.
Unfortunately, you don’t have to look far to find evidence to support that.
Roman stewards on farms were slaves and they were typically much more vicious than the slave owners.
There must be a psychological label for this.
Yeah, “house” slaves could be similarly brutal to (and hated by) a plantation’s “field” slaves. (Think Samuel Jackson in Django Unchained.)
Yeah, “house” slaves could be similarly brutal to (and hated by) a plantation’s “field” slaves. (Think Samuel Jackson in Django Unchained.)
Perhaps there is a tendency for those who have been persecuted to persecute others. Like a child, beaten by his father, who then kicks the family dog. Is this a need to find someone lower in the pecking order, or an attempt to get revenge when punching up is not an option?
These are random thoughts – I have no evidence for any of them.
I also agree with comments below of the “storm in a teacup” variety. Male students talking about female students as sex objects – who’da thunk it.
I would hazard a guess that persecuted or disadvantaged minorities *could* be just as prejudiced about others as anybody else. There’s nothing about the fact of being persecuted that indicates superior ethics. That’s quite aside from the persecution potentially making them paranoid.
This is contra to what SJW’s automatically assume, of course.
All I would say (from my limited observations) is that one group is not like another, the prejudices one group or society has are likely to be quite unlike those of another group. You have to take each group on their merits as you find them.
cr
It would make an interesting sociological study.
I would not limit it to those who have been persecuted. Rather I’d say that tribalistic thought of any sort opens the door to tribalsm based on irrational criteria such as skin color. Once you start creating in-groups and out-groups in your mind, it is easy enough to make out-groups of people who don’t look like you.
In my humble opinion, a lot of storms in a lot of teacups:
◾A general denigration of Palestine and Palestinians, including calling the vacant lot next to the fraternity house “Palestine.”
Given the pathological anti-semitism that seems to be endemic among the Palestinians, I think Jewish students can be forgiven for taking the piss out of them occasionally.
◾General bigotry against Muslims, calling one Muslim student a “terrorist” and saying that explosives were fixtures of Islamic culture.
I don’t know what could possibly give anyone this idea…oh, apart from just about every news bulletin transmitted over the past decade and a half.
◾Racism, including watching a blacksploitation film and eating fried chicken on Martin Luther King Day. (I also patronize that venue, Harold’s, for its great chicken, but this seems to be a deliberately racist gesture). The word “nigger” was used liberally, and blacks were discussed using the code word “community members.”
Perhaps the self-appointed Witchfinders of Racist Thoughtcrime could issue a menu of foodstuffs we’re allowed to consume on holy festivals such as MLK Day, accompanied by a list of officially-sanctioned movies.
◾Widespread viewing of women solely as sexual objects, including a “constitution” about how to treat women (i.e., how to bed them).
Male students discussing how to get laid: say it ain’t so!!
You were reading my mind while I typed my comment below…very similar.
What your comment tells me is that you would be OK with a little bit of racism. Where would you draw the line, if I may ask?
Too bad we don’t live in a society where one is allowed to be insensitive and racist in their private correspondence without there being an investigation. Unless these emails were used to incite violence, what is there to investigate? What was written was not kind, not prudent, but certainly not illegal. Jews who call Muslims terrorists? I wonder what that’s about? Frat boys who discuss how to get laid at college? Oh your god!! Say it isn’t so. I’m sure this kind of thing never happened when I was in school.
Our universities are a breeding ground for learned victimhood and identity politics. Perhaps, if this was the official correspondence of one of the fraternity officers to the members, then it would be noteworthy…but otherwise, who cares?
I think we can all agree that calling a black person a “nigger” is a deliberate racist insult and should be condemned, but if eating a takeaway dinner from KFC on Martin Luther King’s birthday is now considered cause for offense, then campus “anti-racism” really has descended into self-parody. And if randy male students plotting to get their leg over is also unacceptable, then we’d better just close down every university and college in the western world.
No normal person can exist in the state of ideological and linguistic purity demanded by the neo-puritans that seem to infest our universities these days.
Their behavior is certainly not illegal. I expect the frat brother who published material wasn’t trying for a police investigation, he was trying for exactly what he got – (1) the national fraternity organization looking to see if the local chapter is demonstrating the values they promote (its a private club after all, they can certainly discuss whether this bad behavior is reason for kicking their own members out), and (2) public condemnation of racist behavior in the hopes that the racist behavior will stop.
While I obviously reject their views, this post comes across to me as uncomfortably close to a desire to police private behaviour. The first three items listed seem entirely private matters of this group. The very speech code you’ve lauded, PCC(E), is the road block. And if you’ll forgive me, I hear just a touch of annoyance in your post.
As a feminist, the objectification of women concerns me, but that mindset will change when women refuse to date or have sex with men who exhibit such a mentality. You can only remove structural inequality. You can’t force people to be tolerant.
One reason I reject ‘social justice’ politics is because I see these authoritarian signals constantly and remember distinctly feeling them in my early twenties when I was enamoured with Trotsky. Guilt and authoritarianism are the dark side of liberal-left views.
I also don’t like the idea of Jews being expected to do or think anything, even what consensus deems positive things, because they’re Jewish. Principles should stand on more solid ground than the vagaries of ancestry.
+1
I didn’t read Jerry’s post as wishing to police or punish these students’ behavior in any way, but just to say (as he did) that Jews (because of their history) should know better. I think though, that you could say that about any marginalized group…which would mean that women and blacks should know better than to say anything negative about anyone. Nowadays, it appears to be okay though, as long as you’re “punching up” and I suppose the Jewish white males were “punching down”.
Yes, I wouldn’t ask for them to be punished, for that’s free speech. I was just offering counterspeech.
But they were punished: the national branch of their fraternity disenfranchised them.
If the University of Chicago had punished them, you would have heard some very vociferous objections from me.
yes, to all of this. Go, Victoria.
I’m no apologist for Judaism (I tend to sympathise with the Palestinians), but I can’t see anything particularly bad there.
It has to be taken in context. If they had said those things with blacks or Palestinians present, or in public, then it would be highly offensive.
But as I recall from my university days (in a male-only hostel), we used to say the most outrageous things we could think of. (This also happened on BBS’s – bulletin boards – in pre-internet days). We knew, perfectly well, that in ‘real life’ one behaved – sensibly.
I’m not even concerned that their attitudes will persist with them into adult life. Unlike a cult or a closed religion, when they leave the fraternity and enter the ‘real world’ their surroundings will change and so will their response. They probably know this anyway.
cr
I fail to see why saying racist things become less racist depending on the venue. Racism is racism no matter where.
I disagree with you there Diana.
The circumstances do make a difference.
For example, even in this venue, and though we’re adults not young college students, we feel free to criticise religion in, sometimes, quite offensive ways (offensive to a religious person, that is). I recall making a crack about ‘hard to commit necrophilia with a 2000-year-old corpse’ or somesuch – you can guess whose corpse that was. Many others here have been similarly outrageous. I would not do that in a church.
‘Racism is racism no matter where’. I disagree. First of all you would have to define ‘racism’ and none of these -ism’s are absolute. But this would lead us down a side track off the point.
I am not defending their attitude, but I am defending their right to have bad attitudes in private. I think everybody has them. Nobody is to be commended for it, but – in this particular instance – I think it’s no big deal.
(As it happens, if I were present, I would be quite offended by their attitudes – but I wasn’t.)
cr
Your example is a false equivalency. Criticizing ideas like religion isn’t racism. If we said all Jews are cheap and all Muslims are rapists, I bet Jerry would shut that shit right down.
Not saying things in church that you would say here is simply being polite in society bit is a lot different from only being racist at home when no one is listening, which is hypocritical.
I think Diana, that we’re all hypocritical in that we say things to ourselves at home when no-one is listening that we… put in rather more considered terms when we say them in public.
Call it hypocritical, call it ‘being polite in society’… shades of grey.
cr
Whilst I agree with your “false equivalency” point, I still agree with cr’s general point. We are all hypocrites to a greater or lesser degree, and there are shades of grey (though not perhaps 50 of them).
This story has elements of thought police about it.
The story only has elements of “thought police” if you assume these students are being policed for what their thinking. Where did anyone advocate censoring the students for what they think or say. Quite the opposite – they can think and say what they want, but that doesn’t mean that I have to sit here and take it. I can think and say what I want right back.
Ironically, I think the censoring seems to be aimed at those of us who oppose the behaviour, not the other way around.
Fair enough. I’m not censoring you ;), just engaging in the debate.
I can’t say for certain what these people were thinking. But context is important.
If you saw me making anti-semetic jokes with my friend about jewish bankers, you’d probably call me a racist.
But then, if you knew the whole story, that this friend is a jew, and I once played a dada game of Monopoly with her where she handed out money (or refused to hand out money) for whatever insane reasons pleased her, while declaring herself the Jewish Banker, then you’d think differently.
Context really is everything, especially when it comes to comedy. My friends in medicine have a very dark sense of humor. If they told these jokes to the patients, they’d probably get fired. But when they do it in private, it’s just part of how they cope with a job where death is a regular occurrence.
There’s nothing PCC lists in his post that necessitates that they are racists. A bunch of idiot college kids having a laugh is also a plausible explanation.
This isn’t mature behavior, and I wouldn’t be too surprised to find that they were actually racist, but I’d need to know a lot more about them and the context before I go calling them racists.
Jerry didn’t call these people racist. He says their behaviour was. There is a difference.
Again there is a difference between understanding context and saying blatantly racist things at home where others don’t see your true nature. It’s still racist.
I am late to the comments on this but very much in the Diana camp. Making stupid racist comments to your pals in emails is what you are when you said it. You don’t get a pass because you were just impressing your buds – it’s juvenile and it stinks. They put it in writing for crying out loud. If 18 to 22 is not adult and you are not held accountable for what you say and do, you need to open the doors of a lot of prisons and let those poor boys go.
“If 18 to 22 is not adult”
What age can you legally buy alcohol in the US?
Their behaviour is obnoxious but they’ll probably grow out of it.
(18-22 y.o. males are usually pretty obnoxious by definition. I probably was 😉
“and you are not held accountable for what you say and do, you need to open the doors of a lot of prisons and let those poor boys go.”
Whooooah. There’s a very big difference between ‘say’ and ‘do’. Guys in jail are there for what they *did*, not what they said or they thought. And in this particular case these guys weren’t even ‘saying’ it publicly.
cr
mmmm. Not sure what alcohol has to do with this but that age requirement has been all over the place from 18 to 21 and back. When I was 18 in my particular state it was 21 but you could be drafted into the service at 18 and lots of them were and some died.
Also, what is said in private (if you call email private) means the same thing if you say it in public. The KKK did most of their boys being boys in secret and with white bags over their heads.
What you will often find is that the guy who will lie, will also steal, and he will likely do worse.
In many ways the guy who does the racist talk but only behind closed doors, is more dangerous than the one who says it to your face in public. The coward, or the quiet one is the one who will surprise one day.
late to the party
Do I have to spell it out? The alleged reason for the drinking age, currently 21, is that younger than that they’re not mature enough to handle it.
“In many ways the guy who does the racist talk but only behind closed doors, is more dangerous than the one who says it to your face in public. The coward, or the quiet one is the one who will surprise one day.”
That’s a wild generalisation. Do you have any evidence for it?
cr
I agree with Diana, too. And note, she’s not saying anyone should take it upon themselves to barge in and censor frat boys or whatever group is being offensive, merely that truly racist and sexist slurs have the same meaning everywhere and therefore can be criticized no matter where they’re used.
(Unfortunately, for many this peer-encouraged bigotry stays with them all their lives, too.)
And I furiously agree with Diana, Diane & Randy.
I find it rather ironic that I, who usually sympathise with Palestinians, should be – if not defending, then excusing – the bad behaviour of a bunch of Jewish students.
When I saw the headline I assumed they had done something heinous. I suppose I was expecting to see that they had picketed Muslim speakers or demanded ‘safe Jewish spaces’ or demanded the sacking of a professor or somesuch. But having read the indictment, what occurred to me was, in the words of Bob Geldof, “Is that it?”
I suppose what mitigates their offence a lot for me is, they were just talking among themselves, they didn’t harass anybody else or try to impose their views on anyone else (unlike, say, SJW’s). No individual person was harmed or intimidated. And since these were private emails, criticising them for the contents is a little like accusing them of thoughtcrime.
For the record, I don’t agree with their views. But I think students are allowed to be a bit obnoxious without turning it into a federal offence.
I’ve said enough.
cr
Agreed, apart from the last sentence 🙂
Thanks, Haggis!
🙂
+1. Happy to find agreement on a topic outside pure science/math.
Ideas matter. They may not have been committing heinous crimes but their ideas are repugnant and worthy of being called out as such.
“I find it rather ironic that…”
I was waiting for someone to put into words what I was thinking. +1
And I hope no one ever uses a concealed recording device on me. I will sometimes say the most extreme things you can imagine with a completely straight face for shock value, and often leave it up to people who know me to tell those who don’t that I was only kidding. I don’t say such things in email however, I’m old enough to know better than that. I’m not suggesting these kids don’t really mean all the things they are saying, but I can say they do either.
It doesn’t really matter if you burn crosses, or just think about it, you are still a racist any time you put the superiority of your own race above that of others. For instance, the US criminal justice system has been redesigned to incarcerate a large proportion of young black men, it works well, and race is never mentioned. The only difference between those that let this go on, and the KKK, is a matter of degree.
But matters of degree do matter! There’s a big difference between, say, having to put up with Pommie jokes (which every British immigrant to New Zealand encountered), and burning crosses on your lawn.
I agree the incarceration rate for blacks in the US is shocking (I actually think the rate for all categories in the US is shocking, but blacks have it worst) – but are you implying there was a deliberate conspiracy to rig the justice system that way? Or is it just an unfortunate chance combination of a number of factors?
Here in NZ we have a disproportionate number of Maori and Pacific Islanders in jail. I don’t think that is deliberately designed, though it is much deplored, I think it’s more to do with socio-economic factors.
cr
You kind of missed my point there, which was that racism is an attitude or belief, not necessarily an action. If you hold the belief that Palestinians are lesser beings than Jews, then you are a racist, whether you show it in public or not.
“You kind of missed my point there, which was that racism is an attitude or belief, not necessarily an action.”
Well said!
This is where I don’t understand your outrage. No one is advocating putting these students in jail or censoring them. We’re simply saying their behaviour is unacceptable. I find it odd that the students are allowed to say and do what they want but we who oppose their behaviour are not and are seen as some sort of monsters.
It seems we are supposed to just STFU when we hear racist or sexist remarks because that’s just none of our business.
Exactly.
Who’s being outraged? Not me. I don’t find the students’ private comments (which we only heard, remember, because they were leaked), or the reaction to them here, to be sufficient to cause outrage.
What I did query was George Norman’s statement that the US justice system was redesigned (that word implies deliberate intent) to persecute young blacks. I accept that it does, but I always tend to suspect cock-up rather than conspiracy.
cr
This conversation must have gone on all night.
I wanted to say one additional thing regarding age. Apparently to many here, adult-hood comes much later than it once did. I believe here in the states 18 is considered adult and at that time you are no longer kids. I realize we now have helicopter parents and people continuing to live with mom and dad until 30 or older.
Makes no difference really because at 18 you will be treated as any adult in the legal system. At 18 you will register for the draft and if they still had one, you would be drafted to go fight in a war. To give 18 or 20 year old’s a pass on speech or action because you would a 15 or 16 year old would be a mistake. Coddling adults as if they were juvenile is not doing them a favor.
sub
A pack of human males is similar to a pack of dogs. It’s never going to turn out well.
It has always been interesting how humans seem to be herd animals…unlike cats.
I guess you’ve never seen a pack of human females when they get together. I once worked in a hospital lab during the night shift and most of my co-workers were either women college grads (lab techs) or female college students working their way through nursing school. When they’d get going, you’d think you were in a frat house. I even had a female supervisor grab my butt when I was bending over the fridge to get a specimen out. No male in that lab would have done that to a woman, especially if they were the lab supervisor. When I was at university, I used to party with some nursing students who lived in my building and they could put frat boys to shame. But of course, women get a pass on such behavior, right?
Why was the specimen in your butt?
I’ll get my coat.
And I agree. All sex segregation is bad. It makes it too easy to see the opposite sex as an alien “other”.
Have you ever considered a career in comedy? You really need to give it some consideration.
Why was the specimen in you butt?
I just gave the kind of brain that sees things funny. Once my passport had a rude stamp on it from NZ that warned me if I didn’t leave in time I would “face removal”.
“Why would they take off my face?” I genuinely wanted to know.
As Ms. Monroe responded when asked if she had had anything on during her Playboy photo-shoot: “Just the radio.”
LOL
“But of course, women get a pass on such behavior, right?”
Get a pass? They would have got an A+ from me.
But then at that age I was randy and deprived. (That’s ‘deprived’, not ‘depraved’. ‘Depraved’ was what I wanted to be but rarely got the opportunity).
😉
cr
I fail to see how reporting this excuses the sort of behavior reported in the article above. Yes, you were a victim of sexual harassment, and you were free to either say something, or to report it, but to imply that this is OK because women do it too is just wrong.
That isn’t at all what he implied. He responded to a nakedly misandrous comment equtaing men to a pack of predatory animals. Mordacious cited a completely relevant example that men do not have the market cornered on bad behavior. In no way shape or form did he attempt to excuse the inexcusable behavior of the fraternity brothers in the article. He merely pointed out that making sweeping negative generalizations about people, you know the whole reason why this is an issue in the first place, is wrong. Period. Even when you do it to men.
“A pack of human males is similar to a pack of dogs. It’s never going to turn out well.”
That is a sexist generalization. The default setting for a group of males is not pillage.
The Klan killed the two Jewish kids from New York — Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner — just as dead as it killed the black kid from the Mississippi, James Chaney, after it caught the three of them on a dark rural highway after a day of registering new voters in the South.
Racism is racism is racism. It is no more acceptable in private than it is in public. Private associations that abide it are the crevices in which its fetid miasma breeds. The Klan started out as a fraternal social club for former Confederate officers. White Citizens Councils claimed they were no different from the Kiwanis or Rotarians.
Racism, bigotry, and misogyny should be called out wherever they are encountered. That’s how the free marketplace of ideas functions.
Mark me down on this in the column with Diana, Diane, Randy, and Tim.
That was exquisite, Ken.
To me, it would be a free marketplace of ideas if the disagreeing member argued with the others and expressed his ideas to counter theirs.
+1
just to be a nit-picker…I doubt that the Klan was aware that the two white guys were Jewish. I’m sure they were just going after any n-lover. Horrible however you slice it.
Since Goodman, Schwerner, and Chaney were set up for the Klan by an earlier police stop, the Klansmen knew that the two white boys were Jewish before stopping them, although the race and ethnicity of the car’s occupants were probably incidental to their goal of murdering Freedom Riders. The Klan was, nonetheless, overtly anti-Semitic (and anti-Catholic). Since the two Jews in the car were from New York and working to register black voters, the Klan no doubt also made them for commies — another of the Klan’s bêtes noires.
I’m totally non-plussed by: “eating fried chicken on Martin Luther King Day”
What is the point there? What is this about?
IMO, it’s important to distinguish between Judaism, which is a religion, and Zionism, which is a colonial, expansionist, and genocidal movement to carve out as large a Jewish state as possible from the Middle East. The first step, of course, is to dehumanize the native inhabitants of the region, so displacing and killing them is less of a moral dilemma than actually dealing with humans and their families.
To me, it’s not surprising that the scions of wealthy upper class families exhibit this type of bigoted and racist behavior. I’m sure if you scratched the surface of any other organization composed of the wealthy elite in our society, you would find the same thing, just with different targets.
I think that if there are any Jews alive in 100 years, it will be solely because of Zionism.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-laitman/why-jews-have-no-future-i_b_9037556.html
That’s a paranoid viewpoint if ever I saw one.
The answer to the Islamic menace is not to create a Zionist menace. That’s like trying to put out a fire by pouring gasoline on it.
cr
Oh dear, and that was just after we agreed on something 😉
Honestly, I don’t think having all Jews emigrate to a (necessarily vastly enlarged) Israel is the answer to anything. Aside from the trouble the enlargement process would cause.
Quite aside from the question of who constitutes a Jew. A religious one, or a secular one who is fully integrated into their (western) society, or who?
If western societies can’t accommodate minorities like Jews in safety, it doesn’t say much for our society, does it?
cr
“If western societies can’t accommodate minorities like Jews in safety, it doesn’t say much for our society, does it?”
No, it doesn’t. But maybe it is what the society deserves.
The author of the article indeed sounds paranoid. However, as a European non-Jew, I would be very cautious to dismiss his thoughts as mere paranoia. We were unable to save most of our Jews during WWII. Now, French police admits inability to prevent future stabbings, because “it is impossible to assign a policeman to every Jew”.
The Cologne attacks, also mentioned in the article, revealed something very sinister (to me). Police said they were powerless to do anything. I don’t know whether this is true. What I know is that they didn’t try. Even if they were greatly outnumbered, I think they should have intervened. There should have been many injured attackers and policemen that night. This didn’t happen, showing massive dereliction of duty. It seems that police’ highest priority is either their own safety or the well-being of migrants. This means collapse of society. In such a society, everything is possible.
My friend, whose son emigrated to France, says that, by her impression, French Jews have subdivided themselves to 2 categories: people with regular income, careful not to manifest their Jewishness in any way, and richer people, who may be more open and invariably possess some accommodation in Israel.
I don’t think Israel will need enlargement beyond the West Bank to accommodate immigrants, even if all Jews move to it.
That is profoundly depressing.
Please Jews, come to the US and Canada first and hope we can keep at least some sort of lid on the anti-Semites.
http://adandachi.com/istanbul/isis-mentality-in-calgary/
maya, we are big, free, young, diverse countries. You can find any kind of bigotry and worse here, but you can also find staunch commitment to human rights for all. I don’t see the forces of darkness taking over anytime soon, despite the pernicious encroachments in the US Congress and SCOTUS.
(Part of the reason we have home-grown jihadists is because of free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, of the press, etc. This is some of the risk you take with those philosophies.)
What I fear is a pan-Western failure to deliver a message that it is unacceptable to beat a Jew (or to rape or beat a woman, for that matter). Of course, if the dominant ideology is that all cultures are equal, it will be difficult to deliver such a message.
What’s so hard about delivering the message that all segments of society are equally obligated to avoid bigotry and rape?
It is when a society pays lip service to equality, yet singles out some for unequal treatment, that the message gets muddled, confidence in government erodes, and tranquility suffers.
“Of course, if the dominant ideology is that all cultures are equal…”
Yes, indeed. But remember that this is something of an academic fad here ATM (at least we hope it is!) And there really aren’t as many SJW’s as it sounds like online. Also, like the vast majority of the “counter-culture,” a large percentage of their current followers are going to grow up, need to have jobs, get married, have kids…the whole arc of life that tends to moderate political opinions. (For better or worse!)
I’m far more worried about the danger of the plutocrats/oligarchs than I am about the SJW’s.
“Please Jews, come to the US and Canada first and hope we can keep at least some sort of lid on the anti-Semites.”
Diane,
alternatively, you could offer to take in the European Muslims… as that would improve the situation of Jews in Europe as well.
Yes, it would. I don’t see them as in quite as much danger of eradication, though.
And I’m going to get into trouble for saying this, but I think we have less anti-Semitism here than in Europe.
That wouldn’t be surprising, as the US has a much smaller population of Muslims than Europe.
You do know that, incorrect as it is, anti-Semitism is used to refer to Jews only, right?
Diane, you seem to be missing my point. I’ve suggested you should take in the European Muslims instead of Jews as that would stop the rise of antisemitic abuse Jews are subjected to at the hands of European Muslims. And I further said that I wouldn’t be surprised if the level of antisemitism was lower in the US, because the country has a much smaller number of Jew-hating Muslims.
“Diane, you seem to be missing my point…”
I sure was! Sorry Scientifik!
It was my impression that European anti-Semitism was not limited to Muslims alone.
AFAIK, the murder of Jews in a kosher supermarket in Paris, the recent stabbing of a Jewish teacher in Marseille, etc. were all done by the Muslims, and here’s where I would see the source of rising antisemitism in Europe. It further stands to reason that as millions more Muslims migrate to Europe in the coming years, the antisemitism will likely increase even more… Again, if you want to help the Jews, don’t offer to resettle them in the US or Canada, take in the Muslims instead.
After reading some of the apologist comments in this thread, I begin to wonder whether not being racist, sexist, homophobic, etc is simply what some people do when presenting themselves in public…
I do not wonder, I am convinced it is. I also think that too vigorous attempts to reform human nature cause more harm than good. E.g. the effort of “ultra-liberal” whites to purge themselves of any racism forces them to excuse attacks of non-whites against whites, which of course is also racism.
It’s true that non-white people are often treated to a different standard. Take note, for instance, how Rula Jebreal ends her conversion on racism in this video. Can you imagine a reverse situation in which a white guest says to other journalists in the studio how comfortable they felt with an all-white discussion panel to the great amusement and satisfaction of those on the panel?
None of that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice” stuff for you, I see.
Those of us who have seen and experienced the advance of civil and human right in our lifetime are convinced that the better angels of our nature remain hard at work bending that arc — not invariably or always rapidly, and still with many degrees of justice left to go, but steadily and (we hope) ineluctably.
Beautiful, Ken.
I’m not entirely convinced, but do like the evidence seen so far. As you say, within our lifetimes.
You are right. I am pessimistic.
Oh, I have a bad habit of often expecting the worst from people; sadly, a tendency all too often reinforced.
But–the US has had a black president for two terms! We just take it for granted now, but in light of what’s gone on and what’s going on and how recently the battle for Civil Rights was fought, it’s still damned near unbelievable sometimes.
A thought crime is not a crime. Only RELIGION wants to control our thoughts. Or at least this is what I used to think until I get to know the new wave of thought puritanism, as represented by the self-appointed SJWs.
Jerry would say the guys have not committed a crime and should not be punished. But he and others judged them as they were criminals, moral criminals.
Is there really a (moral) crime thinking that your race, colour, sexual affiliation etc. is better than others? Or for that matter that other races, colours, sexual affiliations inferior to yours?
Thinking of murdering your boss, ex-friend makes you a murderer? Have you given some thought to it?
I reckon that as free speech should not be forbidden unless when inciting violence, private thoughts (or private conversations) that may be classified by some as racist/sexist should not be forbidden unless they imply public discrimination. Private thoughts are what the name says: private!
We should beware of turning our desire to “make a better world” into a bloody inquisition to clean up people’s impure thoughts.
“A thought crime is not a crime.” But it can still be racist.
No one here wants to police anyone else’s thoughts. And none of us wish to make anyone’s speech a crime. But if you give voice to your thoughts and your thoughts are racist, be prepared for others to lodge their opprobrium. Who said speech had to be completely cost free? Therein lies the difference between “free speech” and “free beer.”
LOL!
And + 1
They were not given voice to their supposed racism. This was a private conversation. It fits the same category as a thought, unlike an announcement or an expressed declaration.
Furthermore, it is debatable whether what they said is racist or not. Yes, they used stereotypes to refer to other people, but Jews are used to be called names or to hear stereotypical comments (not all of them negative). I hear it all the time. They were likely just talking the way other people talk about them. To refer to Palestinians as terrorists (many Palestinians are terrorists after all) is nothing compared to what the vast majority of Palestinians and Arabs in general have to say about Jews. See http://www.timesofisrael.com/poll-93-of-palestinians-hold-anti-jewish-beliefs/ for a recent poll.
As for the other racist insults, I cannot really judge. Being not an American, I do not understand what the problem of eating fried chicken in MLK day. Is KFC supposed to close its doors on this day?
While I obviously don’t support this behavior, though I suspect there was an expectation of privacy here, and I doubt these people are actually bigots, sexists, racists, do we really think women, and Muslims don’t say worse about men, and Jews in similar organizations? Particularly given that bashing men and Jews is stigmatized to a far lesser degree.
Also knowing buzzfeed as I do, if this had come from women, and Muslims it would likely have gone unreported.
I don’t understand your point. Are you saying tu quoque? No one is saying only men and Jews behave badly. We are saying these specific Jewish men in this instance behaved badly.
I’m saying when Muslims behave badly you don’t hear about because people think it’s acceptable to hate Jews, or because people are afraid they’ll be adding fuel to the anti-Muslim fire, and when women behave badly it’s called “The View”, and people laugh about it. I’m saying there’s a double standard.
I think that’s painting with a broad brush. I don’t tolerate racism or exist of any kind and when people and nasty from criticizing ideas, I call them on it. I can however see why people cringe at criticizing Muslim ideas if you look at what people like Sam Harris go through. Not everyone has his fortitude.
Isn’t that the soft bigotry of lowered expectations on your part?
Imagine a lily-white frat house that called the vacant lot next to their house, “Africa”; that said that watermelons and fried chicken were fixtures of lazy nigger culture; and held seminars on effective techniques for womanizing. Would they not be held to account for such reprehensible behavior?
Should the fact that the reprobates in question are Jewish make it acceptable for us to hold them to a lower standard?
Should the fact that many misogynists and xenophobes hold women and Muslims to an even lower standard still mean that we should automatically assume that women and Muslims wouldn’t even in principle be able to act in a civilized manner?
Diana and others here are demanding no more and no less of others than we demand of ourselves.
b&
“Isn’t that the soft bigotry of lowered expectations on your part?”
I don’t get your point, perhaps it’s because I just woke up, but that’s exactly what I’m highlighting. Muslims aren’t expected to treat Jews with respect, or women men, so such bad behavior is largely ignored or excused. And add to that the bigotry of high expectations that Jews are saddled with by virtue of their historic oppression.
“Should the fact that the reprobates in question are Jewish make it acceptable for us to hold them to a lower standard?”
They shouldn’t be held to a higher one either. Doing so by bringing more attention to their behavior makes it appear they are behaving more reprehensible than other groups, and feeds anti-semitism. I’m not saying whitewash it as regressives do when it’s done by women or minorities, but keep it in perspective. It’s rarely Jews involved, in fact this is the first case of such behavior I’m aware of.
I fail to see how we’re drawing more attention to this particular fraternity than to all the other fraternities we’ve paid attention to over the years. Fraternities are constantly getting in trouble for bad behavior, for everything from hazing to harassment to academic dishonesty to…well, you name it.
If your suggestion is that we should be ignoring the bad behavior in question because the schmucks in this case are Jewish and it might give anti-Semites cause to crow about Jews behaving badly…well, sorry, but I can’t get behind that. It may be a different flavor of bigotry from the one the frat boys engaged in, but it’s bigotry nonetheless.
b&
>
“I fail to see how we’re drawing more attention to this particular fraternity than to all the other fraternities we’ve paid attention to over the years.”
I don’t necessarily thing we are, but it feeds into a culture that does. I don’t know how familiar you are with buzzfeed for example. I’ll eat my hat if you can point out a story where they have highlighted women, or Muslims behaving badly. They don’t cover those stories because it’s considered “punching down”, or “it’s not racism/bigotry/sexism unless it’s done by the privileged, and directed at the oppressed”, that standard goes out the window when it’s Jews, probably the most well documented oppressed minority in history.
Unfortunately by highlighting it here we’re aiding them in that double standard.
I wanted to add I’m not saying we should necessarily ignore it, but let’s concentrate on the fact it’s a story because it’s so rare, and unexpected. While hearing anti-semitic remarks from Muslims, or women bashing men isn’t.
The answer is to use incidents such as this as examples of how everybody must be held to the same standard. But by suggesting we stop talking about this instance of bad behavior, you make it seem that bad behavior by good people isn’t so bad after all.
“When the President does it it’s not illegal” isn’t just bad optics or bad politics; it’s just bad, period.
Plus, Jerry himself is (culturally) Jewish (as am I). He’s holding himself and his tribe to the highest possible standard. That’s the sort of example we should all set for everybody.
“Mea culpa” might not be nice to say and it might not be fair to have to say it. Trebly so when you’re not the one at fault. But, realistically, it’s the only reasonable starting point to actually making the world a better place.
b&
>
“But by suggesting we stop talking about this instance of bad behavior, you make it seem that bad behavior by good people isn’t so bad after all.”
Not at all. I’m saying one is worse than the other in terms of how widespread it is. Because of much of the liberal media’s unwillingness to report bad behavior by Muslims, and willingness to report bad behavior by Jews, the impression created is they are equally bad, or that there is more parity in their badness than there is.
I see lots of reports about Muslims behaving badly. What I don’t see is people blaming their religion.
I also question your statistic that suggests women, as a group, engage in sex pistol behaviour toward men. History just doesn’t bear that out and history has for a long time been reported in a biased way toward women (leaving them out altogether or devaluing them) so you think we’d see lots of reports of sex St groups of women oppressing men all over.
“so you think we’d see lots of reports of sex St groups of women oppressing men all over.”
Exactly, but you don’t do you. More seriously, mainstream liberal media is made up of feminists. And I never said women were oppressing men I said they were insulting, denigrating towards them. And it’s not noticed because it’s not news, for it to be noticed you have to get arrested for a #killallmen hashtag, or make fun of, and laugh about a man who had his penis cut off, and thrown in a garbage disposal, saying “he probably deserved it” on The View. Something Sharon Osborne wasn’t even suspended for. Could you imagine if it was an all male audience laughing about a man mutilating a woman’s vagina? The person who said it would never work again, but it’s considered fair game when it’s men.
So your premise is “feminists” run the media and by “feminist” you mean “man haters” and these man haters are not reporting the wide spread oppression of men?
“So your premise is “feminists” run the media and by “feminist” you mean “man haters” and these man haters are not reporting the wide spread oppression of men?”
You don’t have to hate men to think it’s funny or acceptable to bash them. My wife is not a man hater, but when she heard of the guy having his penis chopped off and thrown in the garbage disposal she though that, while she didn’t applaud it, or laugh, that he must have done something to deserve it. I’m sure the entire audience of The View wasn’t man haters either. I don’t know how you can deny that we live in a society with a double standard where men are concerned. And how about laying off with the intentional mischaracterizations, I never once used the word oppression, and even corrected you when you used it the last time.
I fail to see how anything you just described is in any way gender-specific. How often are women blamed for their rapes because they were wearing nice clothes? Women victims of domestic violence are often assumed to have done something-or-other to have deserved it as well. Why are there so many mother-in-law jokes but not a lot of father-in-law jokes? Why are the jokes about dumb blondes and not dumb blonds?
And to suggest that âthe mediaâ is a sufficiently monolithic entity as to have a gender bias…how does Rush Limbaugh fit into your feminist-controlled media? Is Megyn Kelly pro- or anti-feminism? Where do Howard Stern and Hugh Heffner fall on that spectrum? Is Nina Totenberg a man-hater?
b&
>
“How often are women blamed for their rapes because they were wearing nice clothes? Women victims of domestic violence are often assumed to have done something-or-other to have deserved it as well.”
You don’t hear those types of things from intelligent educated liberals. You hear them from neanderthals, and their lawyers.
Male bashing, and negative stereotyping of men as harassers, and wife beaters comes primarily from educated liberals.
I’m not really denying anything because I am confused about your position. It is why I am asking clarifying questions as you seem to suggest an equal amount of sexism is levelled at men as it is at women but the media of “feminists” covers that up. You imply “man hater” in the context that you use the word “feminist” in that example.
In my view, there are always people who behave in sexist ways regardless of gender but the real question is how systemic that behaviour is. Not that one offs should be excused.
“I am asking clarifying questions as you seem to suggest an equal amount of sexism is levelled at men as it is at women but the media of “feminists” covers that up. You imply “man hater” in the context that you use the word “feminist” in that example.”
I think it’s part cover up, but a lot of blindness. Imagine one black man says to another “cops sure like to shoot us”. Neither is likely to recognize the bigotry towards cops in that statement. The more engaged you are in a culture like that the more you’ll hate cops.
Feminists, particularly educated feminists are bombarded with questionable statistics like 1 in 4 girls on campus are raped, 75 cents to the dollar pay gap. Sensitized to men giving them compliments, or opening a door for them as sexism. Hear words like rape culture, and patriarchy. Given that it’s perfectly understandable that many will have little respect for men as a group. And as I pointed out to Ben I’m mainly referring to attitudes of liberal women who I consider part of “my tribe”. Men in my tribe, even if they don’t refer to themselves as feminists support women’s rights, and generally like women. I don’t even dislike feminists I simply think many have been indoctrinated into their bad opinions of men. Opinions that make bashing them acceptable.
One last point with further reaching implications is the word patriarchy. Say that word to the average uneducated woman, and she’ll define it as a male conspiracy to keep women barefoot, and pregnant. Why wouldn’t you have a negative opinion of a group that is conspiring to keep you down.
I think those are a lot of assertions. To suggest that men are so hated by women and so discriminated against needs more proof than assertions. All your work is before you.
Women do get raped, do make less money than men doing the same work, are less likely to be promoted and this may surprise you actually DO get harassed by educated men. These are facts. They are statistical facts. This does not mean that women, hearing these facts, hate all men or blame all men. That is unfair to women. It is infantilizing to suggest the majority of women misconstrue the word “patriarchy” or can’t understand that all men aren’t rapists. Good grief, we are capable of subtly.
“Women do get raped, do make less money than men doing the same work, are less likely to be promoted and this may surprise you actually DO get harassed by educated men. These are facts.”
You say all that, and then say it’s a mere assertion to say that women, particularly feminists who would be more aware of these “facts”, and how poorly they are apparently treated by men, would a problem with them? It’s completely counter-intuitive. I don’t blame black people for having a negative opinion of white people, if for self preservation alone. Women certainly have far better reasons to dislike men than men have to dislike women, unless you’re claiming women are more rational, and therefore LESS likely to dislike men.
I’m saying there is no evidence for your assertion that many women hate men.
“I’m saying there is no evidence for your assertion that many women hate men.”
I’m not sure I said that. If I did I meant more women hate men than men hate women, and given they have more reasons to do so based on your own statements, and people are stupid, based on deductive reasoning it seems obvious. I don’t see how it could be otherwise.
You have a hypothesis. You need to provide evidence for that. So far I’ve seen only assertions based on anecdotes.
“You have a hypothesis. You need to provide evidence for that. So far I’ve seen only assertions based on anecdotes.”
from my perspective that’s the obvious position. I would expect evidence showing it not to be true. How the injustices perpetrated by men on women could possibly not make them hate men on average more than men hate women.
And I didn’t even mention reproductive rights that male lawmakers deny women. Another reason for women, and men to hate men.
In fact I would argue men hate their fellow men more than they hate women, and for the same reasons, we’re brutes who beat, rape, harass, don’t promote, and don’t pay women what they should be paid.
“It is infantilizing to suggest the majority of women misconstrue the word “patriarchy” or can’t understand that all men aren’t rapists. Good grief, we are capable of subtly.”
What educated liberal bubble are you living in. I invite you to visit me here in Alabama where I guarantee you the overwhelming majority of the PEOPLE, who’s average IQ is 90, are incapable of subtlety. And I’ve found the same to be true when I lived in OK, SC, MY, and in the military. Massachusetts (my state of birth) is the only one where a majority might be able to.
Anecdotes are not data. Accusing me of “living in a liberal bubble” is not evidence. Your work is still ahead of you.
I guess I’ll leave it there, and we’ll have to agree to disagree, I don’t want to be scolded for too many comments.
Except to add that my main point in that last comment was I wasn’t infantilizing women, I was basing my opinion on the facts of IQ, and my experience with those people. If my low opinion of people’s intellect in general is infantilizing, then so be it.
Many, if not all Gender studies ‘scholars’, which have unfortunately impregnated academia, do indeed hate men. Some of them even refer to their heterosexual colleagues as “sleeping with the enemy”.
A must read on this subject: The Victims’ Revolution: The Rise of Identity Studies and the Closing of the Liberal Mind by Bruce Bawer
“Many, if not all Gender studies ‘scholars’, which have unfortunately impregnated academia, do indeed hate men.”
As I’ve said it makes perfect sense. If you’re immersed in a field where your job largely consists of noticing instances where men are dominating, and oppressing you, you almost can’t help it, and then of course women who hate men initially would be drawn to gender studies programs. And then you have professors who hate men teaching generations of impressionable young students how evil men are.
That being said when many woman’s natural reaction to the story of a man having his penis cut off is “he must have done something to deserve it”, and when men are constantly portrayed as sexual assaulters, and wife beaters, and perceived as the authors of the patriarchy which oppresses them, it’s not surprising that they wouldn’t hold men, as a group, in very high esteem.
Well, this will probably raise the temperature to an unfortunate level, but it honestly seems to me that the more macho the values a male member of Homo sapiens claims to espouse, the more self-pitying he tends to be about being put upon by nasty feminists who are apparently all employed by the ‘liberal media’ in order to gang up on and poke fun at and otherwise upset innocent and harmless msle members (of the human race, I mean) in whose mouths butter wouldn’t melt… One is reminded of those white people who think it’s unfair that black people should object so much about being shot or stifled in the street for no good reason when white people have such problems of their own.
I’ve been worried about you, young man. It always concerns me when someone goes from posting boatloads to posting zilch. I hope all is well and that you’re soon back to your prolific commenting. If you’re going to beat out that Canadian for most-posts-of-the-year, you’re going to have to pick it up. Eh?
Ditto. I always enjoy reading Ben’s comments, even when he’s criticizing me. :p
Fear not! As Jerry so delightfully put it, my inamorata, the love of my life, and I finally crossed paths, and we’ve been inseparably consumed with each other ever since. My cup — and my calendar — runneth over. About the only spare moments I have for WEIT these days are when I’m goofing off at work.
Plus, it’s “that Canadian” who pointed me in the direction of this thread….
b&
>
Shhhhh! They’re going to know we’re in cahoots!
Oh, that’s wonderful!! Enjoy! She’s a lucky woman. All the best to both of you.
I thought you had to say “Canadian” three times before one showed up…or is that Beetlejuice?
“I thought you had to say “Canadian” three times before one showed up…or is that Beetlejuice?”
Heh, I’m off to French class tonight. Any bets we’ll get through the evening without a couple of references to “Only in Canada” ?
cr