Question: what would happen were an academic to take the actual findings of new AG Cooper’s follow-up report on the Duke “Rape” case and write a dissertation based on those findings?
Or, to put it more provocatively: would a dissertation that posited “black, female entitlement”—based, as it is, on a culture of victim politics that rewards group-based grievance narratives and puts the burden of proving a negative on the accused in instances where allegations of sexual offenses against women are proffered—as a society-wide problem, one that underscores the pernicious nature of identity politics and so demands redress through a policy of consciously rolling back weighted legislation benefiting “protected classes,” be so readily accepted by media and intellectual “elites”?
And if not, why not?—it being merely the flipside of the kinds of sociological assertions establishment feminists and the faculty 88 championed (and continue to champion, in many cases) before all the facts of the case came to light?
My guess? They’d call such a dissertation “racist” and “misogynistic”—and move to have its writer expelled from the university. Which just goes to show the growing inability of many academics and establishment feminists (and their “progressive” supporters and enablers) to recognize the inconsistency of their views, and to honestly face their own biases and stereotypes.
(h/t Slart)
When we argue for our limitations,we get to keep them.- Evelyn Waugh
Pelosi Privilege:
Kathleen Antrim from the SF Examiner reported on the Morning Show on KSFO today that she was shopping in Chanel, and guess who she ran into? Nancy Pelosi. That’s right, Nancy With the Crazy Eyes was shopping at Chanel with her entire taxpayer-funded entourage. Maybe she thought that after passing her “Let’s give up in Iraq and knife the troops in the back” bill she deserved to pamper herself.
Kinda blows that whole “I’m for the little guy” image, too, doesn’t it?
Jeff, the first post on your site does not display anything but comments when you view it individually. Either its your own posting preferences or something to do with the first post.
And if not, why not?â€â€it being merely the flipside of the kinds of sociological assertions establishment feminists and the faculty 88 championed
Yes, but we need the flipside to correct the CENTURIES OF ABUSE AT THE HANDS OF THE WHITE PATRIARCHY. If you go for this blinking “equality” thing, all you’re doing is arguing for the status quo of the past.
We don’t want equality, you moron, we want sweet, sweet revenge. In other words, CENTURIES OF ABUSE AT THE HANDS OF THE COLORED MATRIARCHY.
Call us back in 4707 and we’ll talk equality. Until then, take your punishment, pasty boy.
TW: I’m going94 to hell for writing that.
Cultural Marxism, which defines any opposing view or opinion as inherently evil or wrong, is penultimate intellectual laziness.
The ultimate intellectual laziness is to do nothing but drool out of a corner of the mouth after swallowing two liters of Mad Dog 20-20.
Come to think about it, they are pretty much the same thing.
Biases and sterotypes? Biases and sterotypes??? Pish, posh.
IT’S FOR THE NARRATIVE!!
BECAUSE OF THE HYPOCRISY!!!!!
A woman shouldn’t have to be an ANGEL for us to believe her claims of victimhood. And the Duke frat partiers were NO ANGELS so their claims of innocence are complete lies.
We know they weren’t angels because they hired a stripper, which is a filthy, filthy thing to do. And as for being a stripper, DON’T JUDGE HER, you heartless bastards. She was only trying to earn enough money to buy meth for her kids.
Who would have ever guessed a black stripper from the South could become such a totemic (if I may) iconic for modern feminism. One wonders if the feminist outrage over white guys’ priviledge would be as vociferous if the she had been alleged to have been raped by…Bill Clinton.
Okay, I don’t wonder all that much.
Q30, that’s so close to an actual conversation that I had on the subject, it’s scary…..
I thought the whole point of Methadone is that it DOESN’T get you high… It is, after all, more addictive that the Heroin it replaces.
And they’d label it such because for the Left no opposing viewpoint is ever argued in good faith.
IE the abortion debate:
All the while St. Amanda still hasn’t addressed the Duke rape hoax debacle.
I’ll second that, geezer: A recent conversation with an otherwise bright liberal friend ended in his telling me, point blank, that serving the narrative was what the entire side was about—damn my hard facts to hell because they just don’t fit.
The context, not coincidentally, was the apparently willful brew of racist sexism that’s hijacked the Left without basis…as if willful brews of any such cultural Marxism had basis.
Took me about 36 hours to get my wind back. I don’t converse with said friend about such things anymore. Religions are exactly like that…
A truly terrifying implication.
Unless you’re among and within the self-appointed victim group, of course. Which has even more terrifying implications.
Thanks for the informative post.. and thanks for adding our comment to the blog. I am subscribing to your feed so I don’t miss the next post!