…Or, as some people would have it, “traditional conservative values.”
Unless of course some of it’s practiced, say, here. Then it’s just a manifestation of grrlpower and progressivism!
Search
Archive Calendar
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |
Archives
Categories
- A Government That Can Force You to Buy Health Insurance Can Make You Do Anything (3)
- a protein wisdom philosophy primer (3)
- academics (25)
- armadillo (8)
- Friday Fiction 100 Word Challenge (51)
- from the protein wisdom conceptual series (136)
- identity politics (33)
- If Republicans Win the Senate in 2014 (1)
- in which celebraties comment on current events (67)
- language / intentionalism (88)
- legal (6)
- My brief conversations with inanimate objects (130)
- NSA / FISA (46)
- One Term to Serve, the 2012 Revival (6)
- Overheard in a Fallujah bunker (27)
- Poems from 196x, Revised by the Ghost of Richard Brauti (27)
- protein wisdom's DNC coverage (30)
- protein wisdom's RNC coverage (29)
- protein wisdom: the movie Lists (20)
- Provocateurism (16)
- real-time empirical observations (51)
- red pills found behind the sofa cushions (42)
- Scenes from my driveway (61)
- Talking back to 80s music (41)
- The Martha Stewart Chronicles (58)
- The protein wisdom interviews (10)
- The protein wisdom original poems (142)
- Uncategorized (20,046)
- Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance, abridged (34)
Recent Comments
- In The Mailbox: 02.28.23 (Afternoon Edition) : The Other McCain on Hey, longtime pw readers…
- In The Mailbox: 12.23.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll truly IS a sad, embittered psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- In The Mailbox: 07.18.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
“Conservative assholes” also view women as “straight-up property.” Bet you didn’t know that.
Hey, I’m just quoting Dinesh D’Souza and Laura Ingraham. Don’t blame me if the kids on your side of the aisle define “traditional values” as opposing admittance of women and minorities into Ivy League universities.
Well, yeah, that particular conservative asshole does. Note how I modified “conservative” with “asshole” to make it clear that I wasn’t talking about all of you—only, you know, the assholes.
Or did I modify “assholes” with “conservative”? Whatever. Point is, I thought it was clear that I definitely didn’t mean all (or most, or even many) conservatives.
Now, did they oppose the admittance of women and minorities, or did they oppose playing favorites to women and minorities? I only ask because of the tendency in some circles to confuse the two.
Do you really expect us to believe that a womens school today is as problematic as a single sex ivy was at a period when elite society was so predominantly male? Wow. Thats’ pretty obtuse to the issues.
So if I were to start making cracks about “feminist douchebags,” you’d be cool with that? Because it’s not like I’d be calling all feminists “douchebags.” Only the douchebaggier ones, who really deserve it.
C’mon.
Also, does Vox Day even consider himself a conservative? He says he’s a “Christian libertarian.”
If you don’t buy into their discrimination, why you are … wait for it … discriminating against them.
See, it’s okay now but it wasn’t okay then because we have no fucking principles. None. Can’t even be bothered to pretend anymore.
“Now, did they oppose the admittance of women and minorities, or did they oppose playing favorites to women and minorities?”
They wanted a quota for males.
Being from Baltimore, I remember the feminist protests when Goucher College (where Jonah Goldberg, of all people, went!) when it was set to go co-ed.
There is a logic to same sex dorms, all female universities, all male clubs, etc. Recognizing that reasoning is not the same as sexism, I don’t think.
Similarly, I’d have to take a closer look at the race claim, but I suspect that it’s less a matter of racial animus than it is matter of method.
Plus, this is 1972 we’re talking about. Things have changed considerably since then. Part of the problem is that some of the changes that should have taken place legislatively or, barring that, culturally, were made juridically, setting bad precedent and straining the plain text of the Constitution to bring us to a point where we are now citing a mythical, color-determined “diversity” as a societal goal, and as a reason to discriminate against non-traditionally disadvantaged “groups” (also based on pigmentation).
What does that lead to? Well, who knows. But in Canada it leads to this.
Anyway, the point of the post is that such cartoonish depictions of conservatives—particularly when one makes judgments solely based on ends (we legal conservatives are very concerned with process)—is based on bad faith, and so is likely an unnecessary impediment to having substantive debates on the underlying issues, which involve a complex calculus of freedom of assembly, federal funding, a host of Constitutional Amendments (1, 14, 15 of the top of my head), etc.
“Anyway, the point of the post is that such cartoonish depictions of conservatives”
But the point is that CAP was cartoonish. They called co-ed dorms ‘cohabitation.’ They bemoaned the fact that alumni gatherings would no longer be homogenous. By the time that alito was touting his CAP’ness, CAP was an anachronism that had a view of undergraduate life that was unreflected in the actual undergrad population.
The point is, they could be for or against certain practices and not be sexist, racist, or bigoted simply because they held a particular procedural view.
I’m against quotas of any kind on principle, though I think with the right tweaking and the right assurances of vigilance I could be persuaded to back an affirmative action program that was based on economic circumstances.
And even though I’m against the male quota idea, an argument can be made that CAP was prescient.
Wells goes co-ed?
Well, boo-freakin’-hoo, baby.
Wanna see my scar?
SB: members
Ah-henh…
“The point is, they could be for or against certain practices and not be sexist, racist, or bigoted simply because they held a particular procedural view.”
Whats the procedural view? They didn’t want women, and then they didn’t want sex-blind admissions. They wanted more legacy quotas. Substantively. Not procedurally.
Wait, did I read this right?
Only 150 guys applied to freaking Wells? That’s it? 700 of these men-starved-bi-curious-collegians available with a ratio of 7-1 and only 150 guys even applied?
What is wrong with the youth these days? Can’t they see they- what? What do you mean this is a sexist position?
You don’t remember being an 18 year old guy?
Bah.
TW:amount- “Not even the huge amount of chicks could get Chad to apply to Wells.”
If Wells wants to stay women only, fine! Let them.
But I say that the Virginia Military Institute can appeal the 1996 Supreme Court decision that broke down the men’s only policy in place since VMI was established in 1839, 29 years before Wells College, without a single word of complaint from the feminazis. VMI has seniority….a system no better or worse than gender based privileges, but the ensuing hooraw ought to be amusing enough to warrant the additional bandwidth.
VMI is a state school, JeffS. Wells is private.
Go back to my prior comment where I talk about procedure, method, etc..
As to not wanting women, that is a substantive position, but it’s only when it’s viewed from the end point (they don’t want women and sex-blind admissions) that it becomes necessarily sexist. The thinking that goes into reaching that decision—men perform better academically in all-male situations, there’s a long school tradition that they wish to honor, etc.—are not necessarily sexist positions.
We should go back to actus’ original quote again, guys. Seriously. Why bother assuming that womens’ schools matter?
The simple fact that they’re full of nothing but girls is proof that they’re nowhere near as significant as a men’s only school. Thinking otherwise is like caring about whether or not she had an orgasm. It’s so obtuse.
Actus supports the ladies like he supports the troops.
Not to mention a complex calculus of eons of allaged, assumed, implied wholesale patriarchal rape of what, millions of brides, sisters, daughters, against the opposite evil—a very real one this time—involving precisely that host of Constitutional rights. Pesky things like equal protection, due process, gender discrimination, presumption of innocence, etc.
But those offenses are okay, after all, we’re restoring balance here.
IT’S ALL BECAUSE OF THE PENISES.
You write a complete but all too polite analysis of the problem of pathological leftist intellectual preemption, Jeff. Remember, it’s always okay to talk out your ass (or your aching vulva) when you have dispensation from the various genderist gods of political correctness.
What’s the single most offensive thing in American society? I’d say it ain’t your father’s (alleged, assumed, implied) racism.
tw: What pendulum has swung? That one.
Is she silenced by boys at work? Does she participate with those male quashers of grrl speech at civic and political events?
Can the notion of a female prez, I guess. She’d be silenced by all those other, boy heads of state.
Then there is the little chickie who cried when she got the tragic news that she’d be sitting in class with those penis-bearers.
I hate feminists. They are bad for the image of women.
Male enrollment is down nationwide quite a bit, Tman. As is marriage. Too risky.
“Go back to my prior comment where I talk about procedure, method, etc.. “
You were talking judicial and legislative. The issue with Princeton was the best process of all: private. Again, what is the beef with private.
“The thinking that goes into reaching that decisionâ€â€men perform better academically in all-male situations, there’s a long school tradition that they wish to honor, etc.â€â€are not necessarily sexist positions.”
No, but the decision that keeping a school you do not attend a certain way has costs to women. And its the fact that these costs do not outweigh your feelings for a school you do not attend that make it sound more like you’re unwillign to share (or get with the times) than anything else.
Also, its hard to spin the fact that they bemoaned that alumni gatherings would no longer be homogenous.
“Seriously. Why bother assuming that womens’ schools matter?”
I’d say it applies to mens schools as well, so long as again they’re not keeping women from having certain opportunities. That’s not quite the case with an ivy league school in the 70’s.
Vox, for guy who’s claiming to be a libertarian, has an incomplete understanding of the distinction the law makes between person and property (and between types of property.) I suggest that he is kind of a dope.
Wells needs to go coed, as so many women’s colleges have before it, to attract students and funding and keep its damn doors open.
FWIW, VMI had the right to go private and stay male – they didn’t because they needed the state money.
Jeez, Allah, you’re no fun, pointing out facts and all that stuff! If I were a leftie troll (naming no names, of course), I’d point out that schools are schools—who cares where the funding comes from.
But I’m not a leftie troll (again, naming no names), so I’ll just retreat into my bunker, muttering away…….
My point exactly. Your bringing up procedural there didn’t apply.
And changing it has a cost for men. Ultimately, Princeton made the decision; but CAP made its case. There’s nothing wrong with that. I’m not interested in “what it sounds like.” To suggest that there are no legitimate reasons for supporting same-sex education or the traditions of a university from which you graduated is to beg the question: you’ve already assumed that the “costs to women” outweigh the costs to men.
Why would you need to spin it? They can’t have a preference? Alumni can’t be nostalgic about returning to a school the way they remember it?
I have a much harder time if this same kind of thinking went into the racial component. But subsequent studies have shown that men perform better academically in a competitive environment with other men.
This private school attained Ivy League as an all-male school. So they should have a say in how they maintain it.
They chose. Some disagreed. That didn’t make them sexist necessarily.
Thanks for the pointer on VMI history, SarahW—I was mixed up on their option to go private.
Hear that smack! of my hand hitting my head….
See, Jeff, what you did wrong was making a snarky blog post instead of making a crudely drawn black and white cartoon depicting college women binding men’s feet and burning them at the stake.
Because then actus would have defended you against accusations of offensive hyperbole, rather than picking at your obtuseness.
Er. I was referring to Goldstein, of course. Not The_Real_JeffS_Who_Has_The_Same_Taste_In_Blogs_As_Me.
TW: Company. We’re in good company.
Here’s the link to the NYT story.
As a commenter on feministe notes:
More to ponder here. And here’s a piece from the Daily Princetonian that tries to represent both positions.
“And changing it has a cost for men.”
Exactly. They lose out on the advantage of getting that privileged education without having to compete with women for it. They lose out on how much better college is without women. At the price of helping to equate elite society. The answer is pretty clear.
“Alumni can’t be nostalgic about returning to a school the way they remember it?”
Sure. They can be nostalgic about a racist sexist time and how they wished their school stayed as racist and sexist as society was and didn’t change with all these complications that society brought. But don’t call them racist or sexist for that!
“This private school attained Ivy League as an all-male school. So they should have a say in how they maintain it.”
Attained Ivy-league? Weren’t they founding members? And sure they should have a say, and by 1985, they were quite the joke.
“See, Jeff, what you did wrong was making a snarky blog post instead of making a crudely drawn black and white cartoon depicting college women binding men’s feet and burning them at the stake.”
This would have been a very good one. It would describe the persecution complex of the CAP’ers very well. Look where sex-blind admissons lead: Cohabitation and burning of men!
“Does it really make sense that as a female Princeton grad she would have joined a group advocating that women not be admitted into Princeton?”
Well CAP tried to fight other battles once it lost this one. After women were let in they wanted a quota, etc…
Okay, Actus. Done arguing with you.
I write
You respond:
It’s like you simply want to argue for the sake of argument.
Not interested.
Just hope this doesn’t turn into a comprehensive analysis of gender discrimination in the US, actus.
Your aspersions are entertaining, the reality of facing institutionalized gender feminism in 2005 wouldn’t be.
“It’s like you simply want to argue for the sake of argument.”
That response was to your nostalgia argument—as in, don’t make the nostalgia argument because it doesn’t help the case for saying they’re not sexist racists.
The argument that men do better in colleges without women around is a good one. I addressed it as a cost for men that is compared to the benefit of helping to equate elite society. The problem with this argument is that it doesn’t explain their position favoring male quotas and legacies. It also doesn’t explain their idiocy in calling coed dorms ‘cohabitation.’
Uh, no.
You can be nostalgic for things that aren’t sexist and racist. You can also be nostalgic for sexism and racism. One is fine, the other isn’t. There’s no reason not to make the argument for nostalgia. There IS reason not to make an argument for nostalgia based on sexist and racism.
There are thousands of coed colleges and a few all black, all female, and all male colleges. There is no want of opportunity.
The kernel of the argument for making Princeton coed, I think, is that the best schools with the best reputations were keeping out women. That was addressed and the decision went the way of women. But that doesn’t mean the arguments made by opponents were sexist.
You see similar arguments today about integrating all-male country clubs because, the argument goes, business women need to get in to network. Exclusion hurts them. I’m more sympathetic to the school argument, though neither is ultimately too persuasive.
If all property is held in common, then how can a woman object if I decide to make use of that which belongs to me?
So in case you ever wondered how conservative assholes like Vox Day actually view women, it’s as straight-up property.
Well, I suppose this Vox Day (whom I don’t regularly read, and hadn’t heard of before, so for all I know he may well be an asshole or he may not) was indeed looking at rape, simply, as a matter of one person trespassing on the property belonging to another. That is, following his argument, rape is objectionable because a woman’s body is her own property, and she has the right to dictate what use it will be put to–unless of course you object to the idea of private property, in which case, he argues, there is (if you discount antiquated ideas about a woman’s ‘virtue’
no argument against rape.
So, yes, Vox was arguing that the female body is a piece of property–her property, just as the male body is also a piece of property belonging to the man who inhabits it (or, if you’re not a dualist, is it). But no argument was made that a woman’s body was any different from a man’s in this regard, so it is hard to claim that there’s some kind of flagrant sexism at work here–whether or not you buy the argument against rape on grounds that a person’s body may be looked at as a piece of private property like any other. The incendiary statement you excerpted was just a bit of ‘SEE what happens if you do away with the notion of private property!’ reductio ad absurdum–NOT something which Vox himself was advocating.
As for the idea that a person’s body can be looked at separate from the person as something which belongs to him or her, well, of course this is full of holes–if only because a person can’t really do without his or her body or give it away as freely as, say, giving up your chair to another person; borrowing and then breaking your friend’s computer is not in the same league as breaking his leg or his neck. But again, a stupid or at least seriously faulty argument is not the same thing as an evil argument.
Speaking of sex-blind admissions and equating elite society, actus, are you aware of the gender ratio in US universities?
Hey! Mind if I link to this over at Althouse?
“You can be nostalgic for things that aren’t sexist and racist.”
You can be nostalgic for things liek elite society back in the day. for the fact that you’d be hanging out and would see a homogenous group of men.
“ But that doesn’t mean the arguments made by opponents were sexist.”
When they respond to the admittance of women by saying ‘the make up the student body has changed for the worse’ that’s a tough case to make. When they want to stand around with other alumni and see only white male faces, its tough to see them as having what we consider today a legitimate motive.
“The kernel of the argument for making Princeton coed, I think, is that the best schools with the best reputations were keeping out women.”
Are we sure? In 1972 was Princeton leading the pack of the ivies or lagging in terms of admitting non-white non-males?
“Speaking of sex-blind admissions and equating elite society, actus, are you aware of the gender ratio in US universities?”
I am indeed. Looks like we’re on the way to a more egalitarian elite society. Maybe men will have to retreat to all male schools.
It also doesn’t explain their idiocy in calling coed dorms ‘cohabitation.’
It’s hardly fair to call sexual modesty ‘idiocy’. As anyone who’s been to college in recent years at least can tell you, coed dorms do not at all mean just living three doors down from a person of the opposite sex. They mean, among other things (and just from my own experience), shared bathrooms and showers, people of both sexes wandering the halls in various states of undress, people (who, in fact, didn’t even live in our dorm) having sex in the public showers, walking in on one’s roomate, ah, ‘entertaining’ his girlfriend (and, on another memorable occasion, his boyfriend), and of course the hall’s ‘one article of clothing only’ party.
Back in the day, men couldn’t even get past the front door of the female dorms. Living in coed dorms provides a positive rainbow of opportunities for debauchery which never used to exist for college students, whether male or female. And you don’t think coed dorms are such a big deal? Where the hell did you go to college?
“It’s hardly fair to call sexual modesty ‘idiocy’.”
Its not modesty. Its innacuracy. Co-ed is not cohabitation. And it doesn’t have to mean unisex bathrooms. I frankly doubt it did in princeton in the 70’s.
And thus painfully underscoring your desire to misinterpret everything in order to flatter your personal worldview.
I am a conservative asshole, but don’t view women as straight-up property. So I’m really confused! Again!
“Hey, I’m just quoting Dinesh D’Souza and Laura Ingraham. Don’t blame me if the kids on your side of the aisle define “traditional values†as opposing admittance of women and minorities into Ivy League universities.”
Don’t be ridiculous, Jill. As John Kerry once said: “This is stunning – just stunning!”
Here’s the deal. Everyone has their own problems (I am white and poor!). But your problems aren’t my problems. Life is what it is, and whining makes it no better. Tough shit, huh?
Bummer, (wo)man…
I went to a college with co-ed dorms in the 70’s actus, and visited several others. You are wrong. Feel free however to dispute that which you no nothing about, it makes it easier for me to dismiss you as an idiot.
Sortelli, thanks for the correction. It’s tough sharing a first name with the blogmaster here. It’s bad enough that I’m a white male, I have to worry about women burning me at the stake without being mistaken for Jeff Goldstein.
I’m an asshole, but not all that conservative. I feel women are straight-up proper, not straight-up property. I also took a handful of classes at Smith, where I was sexismed against because of my sex.
WHERE ARE YOUR PIGEONHOLES NOW, FEMINISTE?????
ALL YOUR PIGEONHOLE ARE BELONG TO US!
Do feminists ever look at the root causes of sexism rather than attacking it with their blunt clubs of affirmative action and accusation-hurling? I wonder if feminists are aware of the misogyny they foster. Such animus is one of the undying accomplishments of the movement.
I never understood the feminist movement and I was supposed to be one of those leading the pack in the sixties and seventies. I just didn’t get why I would want to lower my status to be equal with men.
Be nice, I’m on the road, in some lousy motel paying 10 cents a minute on an 800 incredibly slow dial-up line access to write this.
And Jeff … re: Goucher … where I grew up in Western PA, the girls that went to Goucher were thought of as Bella Abzug clones. The “cool” girls wanted to go to Big 10 schools and the really smart cool girls wanted to go to Michigan. This predated you by about 8 years.
I went back and read the whole post by Vox Day. It’s pretty offensive. Even if there are some kernels of truth in it (yes, there are ways we can lower our risk profiles WRT rape) the whole thing was provocative, and deliberately so.
A lot of people forget that men get raped too; I wonder how ol’ VD would feel if that happened to him.
Also: when referring to a woman’s body as “property,” he didn’t specify whom that property belonged to. Given the whole tenor of his comments, I don’t think it was the least bit outrageous of Jill to interpret this as a statement that the female body is male property. Of course, the failure to specify whom a woman’s body belongs to might have been yet another manifestation of his provocative nature, a daring-the-reader-to-misunderstand.
Conservative? Perhaps, on some matters, though it’s unlikely I’ll be going back there any time soon. Asshole? Absolutely.
“I went to a college with co-ed dorms in the 70’s actus, and visited several others. You are wrong.”
We know princeton had co-ed dorms. That’s what incensed CAP so much. The question is did they have cohabitation. Whatever that means in a dorm. And this is princeton we’re talkign about here, one of the last schools to get with the times.
I also went to a school with coed dorms. I’ve also cohabitated with women. And let me tell you, my school wasn’t making me cohabitate
“So in case you ever wondered how conservative assholes like Vox Day actually view women, it’s as straight-up property.”
SELF-OWNERSHIP = FASCISM, RACISM, SEXISM…EVIL.
Self-Ownership = Evil
State-Ownership = Good
Nostalgia……..how I yearn…
It was back in ott-3 in the North Midwestern Roundbottom League of the National Nogash Baseball League.
We wore an onion on the belt of our uniforms because it was the fashion of the time.
I played for the S. St. Bagley Nutcrackers and we were heading into the playoffs. We would be facing much-feared Uptown Guys in a best of five series. At the same time we had bowed to pressure to admit a lady onto our team.
Margeret Strongbush or “Big Bush” as we called her started in left field for us from then on out. In Game 5 she was running to her left for a fly ball and her sanitary napkin fell out of her pant leg (she was in season) and it looked exactly like a baseball to the centerfielder. In the confusion, the U Guys scored an in-the-park homerun and took the championship.
We should have never given in to those blasted femenists.
I’m cold….and afraid.
or feminists for that matter.
actus writes: I also went to a school with coed dorms. I’ve also cohabitated with women. And let me tell you, my school wasn’t making me cohabitate
***********FOX NEWS ALERT*****************
ACTUS THINKS SHE’S A DUDE
That Vox guy is definitely an asshole.
Now I’m just going to sit here and suck on my mouth like Maureen Dowd. I think it makes me look serious. Not to mention I’ve still got a piece of turkey stuck near one of my incisors.
“ACTUS THINKS SHE’S A DUDE”
Nice to be in the land of grownups. I guess we can’t all be ivy leaguers.
*********FOX NEWS ALERT***************
ACTUS THINKS SHE’S A GROWNUP, IVY-LEAGUER DUDE.
actus,
I think you’ve “gone completely mental”. Maybe you’re one of those returning vets that Rall so insightfully depicted with his freakish genius. Maybe you’re so “Rall-returning-vet-mental” that you don’t even remember being in Iraq and now you’ve taken on this persona as this little nitwitty faux-intellectual with bad skin. (I just threw in the “bad skin” for that extra push over the cliff)
As you see actus, I’m using my powers of immaturity for good. I sleep like a baby.
It’s a shame that the blogosphere wasn’t around during that seven year, make that fourteen … make that ‘endlessly ongoing, span when the Equal Rights Amendment was, errr … is up for ratification.
I mean, really, what could be simpler or more easily implemented than that?
Oh, wait —
So you don’t know what it means but you are pretty sure you have done it. The question is, was the woman in the same room with you while you were cohabitating?
tw: was-> it’s like the past tense of is, whatever that means
You mean I can be discriminated against if I have sex? No wonder life sucks.
one ERA-related point:
Thirty-five states voted for the ERA Amendment, mostly during the Nixon/Ford Years *and those states are not allowed to rescind their ratification*
The residents of those 35 states are never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever allowed to change their mind.
Which is to say that the voting sensibilities that dominated the mid-70s are still operative.
I, for one, look forward to the return of the Hybrid Pacer and MP3 players that look like red dynamite plungers.
…………………………….
This ‘in perpetuity’ approach to the ERA’s ratification brings up another question: What other Constitutional amendments have been ratified by some states? How many are out there?
Well … here are two:
The Anti-Title Amendment
I would guess that passage of this amendment would render a significant number of Senators and some house members ineligible to serve. Sure … the Anti-Title Amendment went out for state ratification in 1810, and got 12 votes. But timeliness, apparently, does not matter. The ERA folks use an earlier cite to justify the ‘give us forever’ approach.
If you want to ‘think of the children’ here’s a Constitutional Amendment that’s still out there. This is the ‘Child Labor Amendment’
Section 1. The Congress shall have power to limit, regulate, and prohibit the labor of persons under eighteen years of age.
That amendment has 28 votes.
…..
and, my mistake, the ERA only got a 3 year extension at the time.
.
’I think you’ve “gone completely mental‒
how so? because I think single sex schools are unproblematic today? because I think having a gatekeeper to elite society like princeton was in the 70’s be single sex was a bad idea? nice mental to be.
“So you don’t know what it means but you are pretty sure you have done it. The question is, was the woman in the same room with you while you were cohabitating?”
Well, we don’t know precisely what it means because it’s talkign about keeping a household in cohabitation—and that doesn’t translate well to college dorms, so there isn’t a hard and fast definition. But we know that cohabitation is not what we think of when we have a co-ed dorms.
“If you want to ‘think of the children’ here’s a Constitutional Amendment that’s still out there. This is the ‘Child Labor Amendment’ “
Congress has this power under the commerce clause now.
Someday in the far future, a radical will upset the status quo by suggesting an all-male club/school/dance revue.
Shocking. Just Schocking.
Yeah. When is “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy” going to add a chick to their team?
Interested actus?
Back when I lived in New Orleans, Lousiana law still used the word “concubine.” My cohabiter (now my wife) kind of liked that. It made her feel all mistressy and stuff.
Ayah; those poor gals who had to settle for Radcliffe or Vassar all ended up on assembly lines.
Hey didn’t the star of that oft-maligned, celluloid treasure “Blue Lagoon” attend Princeton?
Gatekeeper idea – 1
70’s single sex bad idea – 0
actus is one of those that are “anti” everything and everybody that you argue “pro”. I have long thought so and the Rall post sort of proved it. He has to find the “gotcha” in every arguement and continually move the goal posts.
Jeff, if you posted on how clear and blue the sky was today, actus would find a cloud somewhere and call you on it.
Principled, reasonable and of independant thought he is not. Him defending Rall is like me defending Rep. Duke. I would have to flush my integrity down the toilet.
tw: “two” – The two faces of actus both point left.
Robert Crawford:
Alito and his buddies OPPOSED gender-neutral admissions. They wanted affirmative-action quotas for rich white men.
And what does Vox Day have to do with this? The man is about as mainstream as David Duke or Ward Churchill. He’s a little bigoted piss ant.
Are you talking about legacy admissions? ‘Cause, personally, I’ve never had a problem with those. Don’t even consider them particularly discriminatory.
alppuccino,
those onions you wore weren’t by chance white were they? in my day we had to wear big yellow ones…we couldn’t get the white ones, cause of the war…
“actus is one of those that are “anti†everything and everybody that you argue “proâ€Â. “
naah. Just the part where he tries to excuse CAP for being the bunch of jerks they are.
No. They wanted men to have preferred status.
That’s in addition to legacy admissions, which are incredibly discriminatory for a school whose alumni are disproportinately white.
What’s the debate here? Clearly conservatives are Racist, and Racists are Evil. Plus they are Nazis and Fascists. Let’s just burn all of them at the stake. It’s what rational progressives do. So let’s stop this debate right now, it’s anti-free speech.
“Are you talking about legacy admissions? ‘Cause, personally, I’ve never had a problem with those.”
They wanted a quota for legacies—which in would be pretty much white. They also wanted quotas for males, and were against sex-blind admissions. They tried in all sorts of ways to hang on to the past.
Well John,
starting in ott-2 the “wearin’ of the onion” became some what of a status symbol in the S. St. Bagley area. Of course the yellow onion signified a good solid American who would just as soon gouge your eye out with a claw hammer as look at you. The still-rare white onion signified a life of comfort and privilege and as it happens most of the “whities” were one-eyed as well.
The Vidalia onioners were an artsy bunch given to meanering musings and a simmering temperament. Whereas those with a big red onion hooked to their belt – just so, were a group in which it was best to leave the lye soap lie on the shower floor if you know what I mean.
Still it was a simple world where everyone knew where they stood, until early ott-2 when a woman was caught with her bonnet garnished with pearl onions and was beaten to death by the Chives. (a rogue gang that took to wearing green onions like Indian feathers)
All in all, they were happy times………..
Don’t forget that Alito also cited The National Review as one of his foundational influences. The National Review, of course, was a blatantly racist publication during those years.
But racist against whom, grasshopper?……..
Pick up that gum-wrapper off the rice paper!! Jesus Christ on a popsicle stick! You try to assimilate one white kid into Chinese culture and you get Basooka Joe all over the floor! Is that wall done yet?
From Alito’s 1985 job application:
Apparently Alito has had a long-term interest in protecting white people from those pesky, whiny Negroes.
A virulently racist mag mourns today’s National Review and celebrates the National Review that deeply influenced Alito.
And your evidence for this is? (I know NR published contemporaneous opposition to the ‘64 CRA that was unsympathetic—or numb to— to the plight of blacks in the South, but you are talking about an era well after that.)
The National Review during the 1960’s–a publication for educated Klansmen.
1963:
1964:
The National Review in 1965:
William F. Buckley in 1965:
White power!
Why does Jill hate Asians and Jews so much? Why does she want to keep them out of top universities, no matter how qualified they are?
Perhaps, her type of “progressivism” is just a clever mask for pure, unadulterated bigotry.
So, basically, they had the modern Democrat party’s policy on affirmative action, but didn’t agree on which group to prefer?
Really? Any proof? Or is this one of those cases where racism is assumed?
National Review was racist in the 1960s.
Geek and his kind are the new racists in the 2000s.
People and views change.
So glad you asked! Besides the endorsement of Jim Crow I noted above, we also find this:
Damn those Negroes for not respecting Jim Crow laws! Those slaves get awful uppity.
Did I mention that the NR was an enthusiastic supporter of APARTHEID?
Did I mention that in the 1960’s Buckley and the National Review pushed the belief that blacks are genetically inferior to whites?
Shorter National Review and William F. Buckley: “Stupid niggers.”
That’s Alito’s intellectual heritage. His opposition to letting more minorities in is part of a larger pattern.
Then you agree with me that Alito should repudiate what he labeled in 1985 as the foundational influences on his intellectual development.
And, to your charge of racism against me, all I can say is “Go fuck yourself.”
“Really? Any proof? Or is this one of those cases where racism is assumed?”
Also this one from the late 50’s I believe:
Geek is a racist. He hates black people. He wants to keep them poor and stupid. Along with his ally David Duke, he wants to keep browm people in chains. He is worse than the KKK in the 1960s.
Those NR articles should be quoted in Alito’s hearings. Make him defend his intellectual hero and heritage.
You may be the dumbest troll I’ve ever encountered. Not a proud distinction, but a distinction nevertheless. Cheers.
Much of “liberal” and “progressive” policies (wage controls, gun control, etc) was enacted by racists in early part of the 20th Century to rob people of color of their rights and opportunites.
Does Geek renounce progressivism and liberalism as the racism it is? Or he is a racist?
Clearly he is a racist, as he continues to defend his racist intellectual heros and heritage.
You stand with William F. Buckley, and I’ll stand with Martin Luther King, Jr. Let the chips fall where they may, sweetheart.
You don’t stand with MLK, you stand with David Duke.
You are racist. You support the oppression of people of color and racist policies.