Conservatism = rationalized cover for bigotry

[BRussell]

Consider this a kind of liberal re-invention of the Kansas thread.

The thesis is that the primary goal of political conservatism is to provide cover for bigotry. Cut social programs, get tough on crime, clamp down on illegal immigration, oppose affirmative action. It's all a way of bringing respectability to bigoted beliefs that lurk below the surface in all of us but can't be openly stated.

Check out this quote (http://select.nytimes.com/2005/10/06/opinion/06herbert.html) from political strategist and former Republican Chairman Lee Atwater explaining the Republican political strategy:"You start out in 1954 by saying, 'Nigger, nigger, nigger.' By 1968 you can't say 'nigger' - that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.

"And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me - because obviously sitting around saying, 'We want to cut this,' is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than 'Nigger, nigger.' "He seems to be saying that the basic tenets of political conservatism - cutting programs, cutting taxes, states' rights - replaced overt racism when overt racism became socially unacceptable.

Discuss. :P

[groverat]

Well this is a nice can of worms. Name-calling will get this one closed, as well, so mind your manners, everyone.

In all fairness, Atwater's quote is from 1981 and I think it is pretty clear that since then the Republican party has clearly believed its own lie to a large extent. I don't think the majority of Republicans see these things as code for nigger-bashing, they truly believe it is sound public policy.

I am not saying that they think critically and make a thorough analysis of these matters, but one thing politicians of all stripes are fairly good at doing is repeating a value message until it is a de facto truth.

Fear of outsiders and fear of change is obviously a driving force in conservative political idealogy, but it's moved on from niggers to a wide spectrum of fear tools. Queers, Muslims and abortionists have joined the welfare queens.

[trumptman]

Perhaps one should question why cutting anything is synonymous with racism in the first place and then one could understand whether Atwater was making sense or talking out his ass in 1981.

To me he is discussing what someone could do to get elected in the South in the past, doesn't matter if they were Republican or Democrat.

Nick

[segovius]

Racism is traditionally virtually always the preserve of the right-wing.

In fact, if you select a racist entity - whether it be governmental, institutional, organizational or theoretical, then you can almost certainly guarantee it will be right-wng in basis.


Similarly if you choose at random an anti-racist entity, odd-on it will be left-wing.

Try it for yourselves.

[groverat]

I smell another 20-page thread arguing what "right-wing", "left-wing" "conservative" and "liberal" mean.

This thread's got legs. :rolleyes:

[addabox]

Originally posted by trumptman
Perhaps one should question why cutting anything is synonymous with racism in the first place and then one could understand whether Atwater was making sense or talking out his ass in 1981.

To me he is discussing what someone could do to get elected in the South in the past, doesn't matter if they were Republican or Democrat.

Nick

In the other thread you dismissed my question regarding by what mechanism the Democratic Party is "throwing out white men", so let me ask again in the context of this thread.

I want to ask because I think the entire idea that the Dems "hate white men" is a central part of the coded racism of conservatism.

By putting the onus on the Democratic Party, the person "thrown out" gets to be a passive "victim", but how does that work, exactly?

Presumably, it's something like "to the extent that liberals are for Negroes they are against white men", but for that to make (non-racist) sense there would have to be some program by which the Dems would aspire to elevate black access to economic and cultural power above that of white men, or instead of white men.

Which must mean affirmative action and hiring quotas and the like.

Now, that being the case, I think it's fair to ask: "Are such programs being implemented at great cost to the former economic security of white men"? (Looks around the United States of America). Gee, doesn't seem to be. I mean, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the economic status of black Americans is rising sharply while white men fall ever further behind?

So maybe Nick you could clarify? Because if white men feel they are being "thrown" from the Democratic Party because of the idea that anything that improves the lot of colored people damages the well being of white men, then that is, in fact, racism.

All of this presumes, of course, that you're basing your oft repeated idea that the dems hate white men on something more than something Al Sharpton said once.

[segovius]

Small point: before things get too out of control I would like to draw a distinction between 'Dems' and 'Left wing' just in case Groverat's worst fears of the thread's ultimate destination become reality.

I would say that I am fairly 'hard-left' (if we must label these things) but I yield to no-one in my despising of the US Democratic party who I hold to be a far greater menace than the republicans for the simple reason that the Republicans are honest about their depredations and thus never betray the voters. You get what it says on the tin - in the present era this may well turn out to be fascism but hey, that's democracy.

I would blame the Dems partly also for the current mess viz a viz the spurious 'WOT' and problems with 'jihadis' but that's a different story. My point is the two are not interchangeable terms and 'Democrat' in the US sense really means 'quite right-wing'.

[Northgate]

My niece was asked a question from her high school teacher to describe the Democrats and the Republicans. She's raised by a staunch conservative. Here was her answer (an answer my brother was very proud of):

Republicans are a party for the white man.

The Democrats are a party for everyone else.

True story.

In her mind, via my brother's coffee table banter, Democrats only support minorities. It never occurred to her that Democrats stand for whites AND blacks AND mexicans AND muslims AND hindis AND chinese AND japanese AND gays AND athiests AND christians AND jews...

But to her that's bad.

My brother was beaming with pride.

Oh, and he refers and to me and his wife as his favorite communists.

[groverat]

addabox:

In the other thread you dismissed my question regarding by what mechanism the Democratic Party is "throwing out white men", so let me ask again in the context of this thread.

This is a very good question, especially considering that we have the hindsight to know that affirmative action policies have had absolutely no negative impact on the economic and social dominance of white people.

One does wonder what the "Democrats are leaving the white man behind" argument is built on if not a simplistic, irrational fear of non-whites.

[Northgate]

Why do I fear that this thread will be derailed into a meta-discussion about the what the definition of "white" is?

[Placebo]

I'm boycotting this thread.

[Northgate]

So are the conservatives. :lol:

[Aries 1B]

Originally posted by Northgate
...My brother was beaming with pride.

Oh, and he refers and to me and his wife as his favorite communists.

You're my favorite Communist too. ;)

V/R,

Aries 1B

[trumptman]

Originally posted by addabox
In the other thread you dismissed my question regarding by what mechanism the Democratic Party is "throwing out white men", so let me ask again in the context of this thread.

I want to ask because I think the entire idea that the Dems "hate white men" is a central part of the coded racism of conservatism.

It is an interesting deduction that being hated and leaving is some secret code whereby you are then actually empowered.

Presumably, it's something like "to the extent that liberals are for Negroes they are against white men", but for that to make (non-racist) sense there would have to be some program by which the Dems would aspire to elevate black access to economic and cultural power above that of white men, or instead of white men.

Perhaps what you don't realize is the "or" nature of the answers and solutions you seek. Plenty of people can realize that to be FOR someone doesn't mean you have to be AGAINST someone else. Democratic thinking is always zero sum. You can't have multiple winners. So in their solutions there has to be a loser in order for someone to become a winner. When your party has planks to promote feminism, minority and sexual orientation rights, it is clear who the loser has to be.

Not that I want it to be that way. I've argued for years that Democrats could easily start winning elections if they could see past their own racism and sexism to simply win back male votes. But they can't do that. They can't get past zero sum. They can't have colleges be 57% female and still have it be suggested that perhaps males need some educational help. The second you suggest such a thing you are promoting hate against women, patriachy, a return to the bad old days of the 50's where all women were bare-foot, pregnant, couldn't own property and didn't dare consider thinking about voting.

Which must mean affirmative action and hiring quotas and the like.

It could also mean busing, set-asides, government agencies that attempt to determine what jobs are equivalent, set their salaries, etc.

Now, that being the case, I think it's fair to ask: "Are such programs being implemented at great cost to the former economic security of white men"? (Looks around the United States of America). Gee, doesn't seem to be. I mean, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the economic status of black Americans is rising sharply while white men fall ever further behind?

I would argue that are indeed being implemented at great cost to white men. The Democratic Party should be the party of fair trade and unionization. The only unionization they really stand up for anymore is government unionization which is primarily female oriented. (teachers, office workers, etc.) Clinton signed NAFTA and the meat packing plant that might have employed a union white male worker is gone. Democrats won't fight against it. They've helped promote it. If they don't then they are racist for not helping good jobs to other countries where people aren't white.

The only reason families haven't felt this decline as much is two fold. One is that women are going to school and work and earning more than ever. The second is that men are specializing in jobs that require longer non-union hours, might be more dangerous or require working in climates and conditions that are more uncomfortable or dangerous.

So maybe Nick you could clarify? Because if white men feel they are being "thrown" from the Democratic Party because of the idea that anything that improves the lot of colored people damages the well being of white men, then that is, in fact, racism.

Standing against a racist or sexist mechanism isn't racist or sexist. The government has found numerous ways to discriminate against men using zero sum reasoning. The belief that the only way to improve the lot of colored people is to damage other people or white men specifically is not an acceptable recourse nor even decent reasoning.

All of this presumes, of course, that you're basing your oft repeated idea that the dems hate white men on something more than something Al Sharpton said once.

I'll tell you what. Go to the website for the Democratic Party here. (http://democrats.org/) Go under the heading for people. Simply note who is missing.

Nick

[Aries 1B]

By the way, Wikipedia's article on Lee Atwater (who died in 1991 of brain cancer)'s discussion offers this analysis which contains the original quote in the first post of this thread as well as a measure of... context:


(from) Southern Politics in the 1990s by Alexander P. Lamis at the UMCP library. Here's the context for the quote from page 7-8 (written in Chapter 1, by Lamis).
As the party began to build at the state level, driven by white reaction to the end of segregation, the party made its most faithful converts among those attracted by its conservative position on New Deal-type economic class issues. But it also picked up substantial support from white Democrats angered by their national party’s “betrayal” on the race issue. Twisted into the situation was the logical compatibility of conservative economic-class Republicanism with the racial protest. The GOP, as the party philosophically opposed to an activist federal government in economic matters, gained adherents also from those who objected to federal intervention in the racial affairs of the states. The two streams of protests could not be easily separated in the public arena, and the Republican candidates, who recognized that they were beneficiaries of both prongs of reaction, rarely made the effort.
The best exposition of the subtle merger of these twin forces was offered by South Carolinian Lee Atwater eight years before he became chairman of the Republican National Committee after serving as the architect of George Bush’s 1988 presidential election victory. It came during an interview while he was a member of President Ronald Reagan’s White House political staff:
Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry Dent and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn’t have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he’s campaigned on since 1964… and that’s fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster…
Questioner: But the fact is, isn’t it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps…?
Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, 'Nigger, nigger, nigger.' By 1968 you can't say 'nigger' - that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.
And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me - because obviously sitting around saying, 'We want to cut this,' is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than 'Nigger, nigger.'
This makes more sense. Atwater was talking about his effort to dilute or abstract race from the Republican Party's appeal in the South. He was talking about Reagan's "New Southern Strategy".

I don't see where one can legitimately use the original quote to smear Republicans as racists.

Atwater was talking about his effort to dilute or abstract race from the Republican Party's appeal in the South

V/R,

Aries 1B

[groverat]

What I find really interesting in the notion that Democrats "hate" white men is that the power structure of the Democratic party is white and male. Really weird, that.

Democratic thinking is always zero sum. You can't have multiple winners. So in their solutions there has to be a loser in order for someone to become a winner. When your party has planks to promote feminism, minority and sexual orientation rights, it is clear who the loser has to be.

Who is that? I don't remember getting any Dem leaflets about men, whites and straight people having to lose anything. I don't know why straight, white men like Howard Dean would want that, even.

I would argue that are indeed being implemented at great cost to white men.

For all the FUD surrounding "affirmative action" when the concept was first invented, it is amazing that here in the year 2006 all the fear-mongering idealogy has in its arsenal is more vague, groundless innuendo.

Surely this plague should have some real, measurable effects, no?

The government has found numerous ways to discriminate against men using zero sum reasoning.

For instance?

I'll tell you what. Go to the website for the Democratic Party here. Go under the heading for people. Simply note who is missing.

Muslims.

RNC website (http://www.gop.com/) - Where are the white men here? RAR REPUBLICANS HATE WHITE MEN!

[trumptman]

Originally posted by groverat
What I find really interesting in the notion that Democrats "hate" white men is that the power structure of the Democratic party is white and male. Really weird, that.

Don't forget to also add almost always old money.

Who is that? I don't remember getting any Dem leaflets about men, whites and straight people having to lose anything. I don't know why straight, white men like Howard Dean would want that, even.

Because institutional old money never loses their place. They endorse whatever they think sounds good then go back to their big houses and big dollars. Dean's daddy worked on Wall Street and Mommy was an art appraiser. Little Howie wasn't exactly in danger if the local state school started turning away qualified applicants of one race in order to admit unqualified applicants of another.

For all the FUD surrounding "affirmative action" when the concept was first invented, it is amazing that here in the year 2006 all the fear-mongering idealogy has in its arsenal is more vague, groundless innuendo.

Just because you make it only a white/black issue doesn't mean that was the only way it caused an affect. It has also had a big affect a male/female ratios. I posted to an article where black women on average outearn white women with college degrees. This is partially because white women take their domestic diva stance and prefer the "choice" of staying home which black women are never given. Articles like this (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/531ffoaa.asp) point out the decline even if you don't care to admit it.

For instance?

Title IX and Violence Against Women Act for a start. We can't have the violence against partners act because apparently only men commit violence and never suffer from it.

We can forgive the ignorance of the forefathers when they stated "All men are created equal." What is the excuse for using sex specific and sex exclusionary language in these modern times?

Muslims.

I would have thought they would be included under religious communities. However since Democrats typically hate religion you are probably right and it was intentional.:p

Where are the white men here? RAR REPUBLICANS HATE WHITE MEN!

You are welcome to point to the section of the Republican website where the heading is people and then the list all the people except white men.

Nick

[Aries 1B]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
You can't argue with someone who relies on:

1) innuendo,
2) implicit arguments ("i never said xyz!"),
3) a refusal to engage the points being made by others,
4) an infuriating lack of willingness to ever concede anything.

Just speaking generally here.

Right, guys?

I agree; really, the dems are amazing!

V/R,

Aries 1B

[rufusswan]

BRussell,

Atwater just didn't realize that we would call it Political Correctness decades later.

As long as you don't 'offend' anyone with your words, you can be as devisive and bigoted as you want.

When words no longer 'effect' the audience, their meaning is ambiguous at best. This and other threads I have read this evening bear this out. Even here, you are making distinctions between "liberal" and "Democrat", "conservative" and "Republican". I think someone also said in a single sentence, about being pro-choice and anti-abortion?????

I can enter a discussion with someone says 'them damn niggers' and I can understand where he is coming from. But when someone starts talking of racial minorities or economically dis-advantaged or elevation-challenged, what the hell are we REALLY talking about?

Paz

[Splinemodel]

Aren't most hispanics Republicans?

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Splinemodel
Aren't most hispanics Republicans?

No.

(It varies of course by National origin, Cubans are mostly republicans, but they are also mostly fascist, too. Ok, so its an over generalization, but most left Cuba because the "liberal" communist government was threatening their existence...)

[tonton]

I understand the concept cpmletely that tax cuts = for the rich and since more white people are rich, they benefit more, thous widening the gap further. But I don't think it is true that it is racially motivated any more, by any means.

That is not to say that bigotry based on class is not pandemic within the Republican leadership.

[hardeeharhar]

I don't know.

Growing up in the south, you hear things slip...

[groverat]

trumptman:

Because institutional old money never loses their place.

My argument that the Democratic Party doesn't hate white men does not require that "old money never loses their place".
Your argument that the Democratic Party hates white men, on the other hand, requires that old money always lose their place, which is a patently absurd notion.

Just because you make it only a white/black issue doesn't mean that was the only way it caused an affect. It has also had a big affect a male/female ratios.

Again, how does this prove hatred of white men? Does a policy's negative impact on a particular group necessarily indicate hatred of that group from the policy's backers?

One thing from the article you posted:
federal education laws were reformed with the enactment in 1972 of Title IX, a provision that requires numerical parity for women in various areas of federally funded schooling.

I LOVE shoe-horning TitleIX into this argument, that is so blatant and pathetic. It is a truly telling indication that one's argument is weak when one has to couch a deceit so carefully. "Various areas", yeah, none of which are connected to college admissions or retention. :rolleyes:

Title IX means nothing in this argument.

Here is a key point from the article you posted:
Feminist groups pushed the Equal Rights Amendment through the House and Senate.

And what significance does this have?
The article cites Brandeis University's applicant pool shrinking. At some point the dominant class in America has to expect to actually be competitive instead of rest on its laurels and scream bloody murder when challenged.

Your article doesn't make a case for hating white men, it only makes a case for school's not recruiting men as hard as they did women.

Again, from your article:
While much of the gender imbalance in higher education results from girls' advancing through high school and into university in greater proportions than boys, there are a few categories of boys who are stuck or losing ground.

So do high schools hate white men as well? How far does this white hatred conspiracy go, trumpt?

Title IX and Violence Against Women Act for a start. We can't have the violence against partners act because apparently only men commit violence and never suffer from it.

Are you wanting to embarrass yourself again on the domestic violence issue, because I'll happily go through that again. Let me hear the argument about how a nagging wife is just as violent as a man beating his wife, that was a treat. That was awesome, let's do that again.

What is the excuse for using sex specific and sex exclusionary language in these modern times?

Because the biological makeup of the human species includes sexual dimorphism which makes women far more likely to be victims of male violence than vice versa. This biological truth is born out in every study ever done in the history of mankind with regards to domestic violence.

Except in your mind, of course, where being asked to do the dishes is just as violent as getting your teeth bashed in with a tire iron.

You are welcome to point to the section of the Republican website where the heading is people and then the list all the people except white men.

I just showed you one group off the top of my head that wasn't included.

The DNC is run by white men, you have no argument. (Also, please do not miss the irony in your revenge read of Frank's book and your desperate argument that voting against your own best interest's isn't necessarily a bad idea.)

[Splinemodel]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
No.

(It varies of course by National origin, Cubans are mostly republicans, but they are also mostly fascist, too. Ok, so its an over generalization, but most left Cuba because the "liberal" communist government was threatening their existence...)

I read in some magazine a few years ago that most [legal] hispanics vote Republican. I can't really help you more than that since it was a while ago and I didn't think it would be valuable to retrieve at the time. What is the source for the contrary? It's just that it seems a bit specious for there to be a Republican-controlled government if only a subset of white males are voting for them.

Needless to say, a lot of party dynamics will probably be shaken up a bit this November.

Lastly, I wouldn't want to live in Cuba, either -- Or for that matter any communist/fascist state. I don't have the knowledge to say if the Cubans (most of which seem to live in South Florida) are fascists, but they definitely have Republican-dominated districts. I'm don't think fascist, though. Of course, all of those counties (electorates) vote Democrat, but I'd guess that has more to do with the fact the the majority of the population in South Florida actually consists of relocated, white New Yorkers.

[hardeeharhar]

Sorry, I should have posted this article. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/20/AR2006052000964.html)

[Splinemodel]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Sorry, I should have posted this article. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/20/AR2006052000964.html)
Well, that's to be expected, due in part to the immigration issues, but perhaps more because of the source -- the Washington Post. The article also mentions that in 2004 most Hispanic voters supported Bush.

I'm not saying it's not the case, as it seems likely, but we won't really know until November.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Splinemodel
I read in some magazine a few years ago that most [legal] hispanics vote Republican. No way. (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.htmlhttp://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html) Hispanics went for Kerry 55-45.

Bush supposedly did better with Hispanics than previous Republicans because of his good relations with them in Texas. That could be another media myth, I don't know.

But Republicans lose every minority group in the country, and overall lose non-whites 70-30 but win whites 60-40. Much of the talk of how divided we are politically as a country can be boiled down to race, but of course no one wants to talk about that.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by groverat
trumptman:



My argument that the Democratic Party doesn't hate white men does not require that "old money never loses their place".
Your argument that the Democratic Party hates white men, on the other hand, requires that old money always lose their place, which is a patently absurd notion.


I think you ought to revisit this and turn it into something comprehensible.

From what I THINK it might you might be saying, one cannot hate men unless they believe old money will always lose their place. That is a strawman. For it to be true, all white men would have to rich old blue bloods. That simply isn't true. You can always implement a policy even when you are part of a group knowing that you won't be part of the affected portion of that group.

Again, how does this prove hatred of white men? Does a policy's negative impact on a particular group necessarily indicate hatred of that group from the policy's backers?

It indicates hatred because when parity has been reached or a numerical target hit, then the policy should either stop, of if necessary reverse to keep and insure that numerical balance. Instead we have seen the opposite.

We can all understand that some colleges were once simply considered finishing schools where women went to find a husband and other schools simply kept women out. It makes sense to demand open admissions and also to work to insure that qualified people are not turned away.

The backers of various affirmative measures declare that this wasn't good enough. The numbers underneath the lack of qualification reflect institutional bias i.e. racism and sexism. The thought here is that men naturally control the institutions and thus will retain their advantages even when actual barriers are set against them.

What we have seen is a situation where women have more than reached numerical parity. They are 50-51% of the population and are currently around 57% of the college population. That number is projected to go up to 60% by 2010. The trend of continuing to advancing beyond 50% is well established and has been advancing in this fashion for 20 years.

We haven't heard or seen any response related to the lack of male educational achievement. Instead we have only heard about how women are cheated in math and science.

When a group can never be viewed as anything but an oppressor, that is a sexist and hateful view. Yes it is. When one is unwilling to remove or reconsider affirmative measures against that group when they are no longer necessary and in fact still demand them then it is no longer about equality but privilege.

One thing from the article you posted:
federal education laws were reformed with the enactment in 1972 of Title IX, a provision that requires numerical parity for women in various areas of federally funded schooling.

Ok.

I LOVE shoe-horning TitleIX into this argument, that is so blatant and pathetic. It is a truly telling indication that one's argument is weak when one has to couch a deceit so carefully. "Various areas", yeah, none of which are connected to college admissions or retention.

Title IX means nothing in this argument.

I can undestand why you consider the Kansas book persuasive and Ann Coulter serious instead of satire. You actually consider what you wrote above, devoid of any reasoning or rationale to be valid and persuasive. What you wrote is nothing more than a weak-minded, dismissive rant. Because you attach the labels blatent and pathetic on it then this subject must be done in your mind.

Title IX has been harmful in a multitude of ways because it sets the limit of male participation in sports and often as a result in college at the level of female interest in those sports. If 25% of women are interested enough in athletics to participate then that is all the men that can participate. Even if there are more teams for women set up, even if they offer scholarships to those teams, if women don't take up the interest, then the men's teams, funding and also scholarships that allow them to attend have to be defunded and dismantled. Understand that these teams have been defunded and dismantled EVEN AFTER women were the clear majority on campus. Women would be 56% of the student body but because they were not as interested in sports, they were defunding and disbanding men's teams and sending away the scholarships that allowed men to attend those schools.

Here is a key point from the article you posted:
Feminist groups pushed the Equal Rights Amendment through the House and Senate.
And what significance does this have?

You tell me. You brought it up. I've only stated that when numerical parity has been reached and even surpassed, that if we are unwilling to take steps to insure that measures are no longer working against the supposed oppressor class then the motivations there are not based in desiring equality. When a group has 90% of positions and are 50% of the population you can understand the desire for action. There may not be agreement about the course of action but the need is understood. However when a group now has 40% of positions and are 50% of the population the understanding about a desire for action against them is no longer there. When the same labels of oppressor are labeled against them, they no longer make sense. When a person cannot think of a person as an individual and can only label the group negatively we call that what it is, hatred.

The article cites Brandeis University's applicant pool shrinking. At some point the dominant class in America has to expect to actually be competitive instead of rest on its laurels and scream bloody murder when challenged.

When any other group is underrepresented they are not blamed for being uncompetitive. Instead we are told that societal factors are limiting their competitiveness. You can rant all you want but when you are willing to apply that thinking to every group EXCEPT ONE, then you are expressing an irrational hatred toward that one group.

Your article doesn't make a case for hating white men, it only makes a case for school's not recruiting men as hard as they did women.

Well based off the fine counter-arguments/rants you made I'll just have to assume that is the best you can do thought-wise and leave you time to rant at someone else. I mean sure the article coughs up all these FACTS that you just don't care to engage but who cares about them.

Little facts like this...

Underperformance in education is no longer a problem confined to black males, Hispanic males, or even poor whites. In 2004, the nation's middle--income, white undergraduate population was 57 percent female. Even among white undergraduates with family incomes of $70,000 and higher, the balance tipped in 2000 to 52 percent female. And white boys are the only demographic group whose high school dropout rate has risen since 2000.

Hey we have only ONE GROUP for whom the dropout rate has increased, even if we don't act on it, shouldn't we perhaps even investigate it?

The Department of Education doesn't appear to agree. The home of Title IX enforcement continues to be so preoccupied with advancing women that a recent 50--page study called Gender Differences in Participation and Completion of Undergraduate Education focuses not on the shortfall of men that's evident in practically every data point, but on tiny subpopulations of women who still have "risk characteristics," such as those entering university after age 29. And the department still spends money on studies such as Trends in Educational Equity of Girls and Women: 2004, while ignoring the eye--popping trends for boys and men.

I guess not...

I mean sure when the ratios were reversed we were passing legislation, but naw... we still need to worry about how girls in high school don't take enough math and science.

So do high schools hate white men as well? How far does this white hatred conspiracy go, trumpt?

I would call it institutional. I feel very qualified to make that statement seeing as I work in the very institution itself. Women make up the clear majority of elementary school teachers going as high as 98% of all teacher below third grade. If I had a nickel for every time I was told that I am their child's first male teacher when they reach me in fourth grade, I wouldn't have to work and neither would you. (I'd have so many I could retire you as well)

Nationally the number of male teachers is at a 40 year low and now stands at less than 25%. (http://www.nea.org/teachershortage/03malefactsheet.html)

Can you name other reasonable scenario to explain the results that doesn't resort to machismo?

Really, I mean simply declare that men suck and need to step up doesn't work for you as a solution when discussing any other group. Machismo isn't a real solution. Tossing around words like a football coach (rest on laurels=lazy) (scream bloody murder = feminine trait of being a sissy)

Perhaps that is what the Democratic Party can put under the people, white male section. Men, you are the oppressor class and you need to suck it up, stop sitting on your ass and stop acting screaming like damn girl because Coach Grove says the fact that you can't read is just because you are wimp.

Are you wanting to embarrass yourself again on the domestic violence issue, because I'll happily go through that again. Let me hear the argument about how a nagging wife is just as violent as a man beating his wife, that was a treat. That was awesome, let's do that again.

The fact is the law in label and implimentation is sexist. We can argue the percentages of who does what how often and to what affect. The law is clear on it. Men are the only ones who commit violence. Women are the only receivers of that violence.

Also nice use of machismo again...which btw has no affect if you haven't figured that out by now. Your dismissive rants will always be embarassed by my facts. The numbers you gloss over and dismiss with your machismo are persuasive to others even if they are not to you.

Because the biological makeup of the human species includes sexual dimorphism which makes women far more likely to be victims of male violence than vice versa. This biological truth is born out in every study ever done in the history of mankind with regards to domestic violence.

Except in your mind, of course, where being asked to do the dishes is just as violent as getting your teeth bashed in with a tire iron.


Thanks for the perfect example of what I meant. Really... thanks. You justify your sexism so perfectly. Why a helpless ol' woman could never pick up a tire iron. Nonsense. Any law that assumes that fact is plainly sexist. The fact that you want to excuse is it by appealing to machismo is just sad.

Don't you get the irony of using machismo to make an appeal against violence? You essentually say if you weren't such a pussy, you would allow society to screw you over. Your attitude actually promotes the violence you claim to want to stop.

I just showed you one group off the top of my head that wasn't included.

The DNC is run by white men, you have no argument. (Also, please do not miss the irony in your revenge read of Frank's book and your desperate argument that voting against your own best interest's isn't necessarily a bad idea.)


Actually I see a lot of female names (http://www.democrats.org/a/party/ourleaders.html) in that leadership as well which is to be commended.

And as for Frank, actually he is very, very hard on the DLC portion of the Democratic party for selling out to corporate interests and not providing a clear choice between themselves and the Republican party. The book itself though is not a very enjoyable read so far. Four chapters in it has been nothing but ranting narrative featuring nothing but pure hyperbole. If Frank is a serious writer for the left, I now understand why others consider Coulter a serious writer for the right. Hyperbole isn't scholarly no matter what side of the political spectrum it is on. I guess the difference is I'll call Coulter a comedian while you'll still call Frank a scholar.

Nick

[groverat]

trumpt:

I think you ought to revisit this and turn it into something comprehensible.

For your argument that the Democratic Party hates white men to hold up one must assume that all the white men who actually run the Democratic Party hate white men.

Your bizarre argument hinges on the following factors:
(1) All white men that run the Democratic Party hate white men.
(2) All white men that run the Democratic Party are "rich old blue bloods".
(3) All people in the Democratic Party who are not white men hate white men.

It indicates hatred because when parity has been reached or a numerical target hit, then the policy should either stop, of if necessary reverse to keep and insure that numerical balance. Instead we have seen the opposite.

This indicates hatred? Do you know what the word "hate" means?

What we have seen is a situation where women have more than reached numerical parity.
...
We haven't heard or seen any response related to the lack of male educational achievement. Instead we have only heard about how women are cheated in math and science.

There is plenty out there about males not succeeding in college, you even quote some of it. What, exactly, are you looking for?

This is what I don't understand, you point to a mountain of literature about how men are falling behind and say "NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT IT!"

What is your proposed solution?

Title IX has been harmful in a multitude of ways because it sets the limit of male participation in sports

We aren't talking about sports. We are talking about college admissions, college retention and college graduation. This is why I ridiculed the article's use of TitleIX, because it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

I've only stated that when numerical parity has been reached and even surpassed, that if we are unwilling to take steps to insure that measures are no longer working against the supposed oppressor class then the motivations there are not based in desiring equality.

Who is unwilling? What has been proposed and rejected? What has anyone actually done to oppress men?

You've been asked for the mechanisms by which white-man-hate is expressed and you've come up with nothing. Title IX and the ERA are not quota systems that have forced men out, so what is your point?

What is your proposed solution?

When any other group is underrepresented they are not blamed for being uncompetitive. Instead we are told that societal factors are limiting their competitiveness.

There are obviously social factors leading to the decline in male participation in college, when did I say anything differently?

I merely pointed out that this isn't a conspiracy against white men. Something is happening and it isn't white man hatred.

I mean sure when the ratios were reversed we were passing legislation, but naw... we still need to worry about how girls in high school don't take enough math and science.

Why shouldn't girls in high school take more math and science? Why is it that, in your mind, anything pro-woman is inherently anti-man? That is just nonsense.

What proposals to encourage increased male academic participation have been rejected and denounced by the white-hating, liberal establishment? Yet another simple question you will completely avoid.

Can you name other reasonable scenario to explain the results that doesn't resort to machismo?

As someone who starts his first year teaching this year (8th grade English), I don't know what the hurdle is that keeps men out of teaching aside from their own choices. Sure, there are a ton of women around me all the time, but if anything I've been pampered. Schools were falling all over themselves to hire me the moment I began expressing interest.
I can't think of a principal who didn't beam when, in interviews, I would talk about being a positive male role model.

In many places teaching doesn't pay well and is seen as a woman's job. I actually get a bit of flack for my choice from some men. I haven't had any woman say anything negative, however.

Really, I mean simply declare that men suck and need to step up doesn't work for you as a solution when discussing any other group.

In the absence of legal or strong social barriers, "step up" is my default position. Your characterization of my stance is completely without merit.

It is absolute, undeniable fact that this country was built for the white man and that this cultural dominance still exists. I have benefited from that my entire life.

To put it simply: We run shit.

And as for Frank, actually he is very, very hard on the DLC portion of the Democratic party for selling out to corporate interests and not providing a clear choice between themselves and the Republican party.

So it's not exactly what you thought it was after 10 minutes of research on right-wing blogs? Shocking!

I guess the difference is I'll call Coulter a comedian while you'll still call Frank a scholar.

When did I call Frank a scholar? Frank is a social/political commentator.

[addabox]

OK, Nick, looking over your responses, I would say your thesis devolves into: the Democratic Party hates men.

Not white men, because you can't really make a case that black americans are thriving in some way that damages the prospects of white americans, so apparently you're just throwing that in there because.....well, I don't know why. In for a penny, in for a pound, in the big resentment sweepstakes, maybe?

So your thoughts actually have very little to with the thread topic.

But even on its own terms your argument that it is the "Democratic Party" that hates men is absurd, and cobbled together out of a bunch of dispart items that apparently piss you off.

This is probably not the place to deal with the whole Title IX mythology, but the idea that it is something the dems cooked up because they "hate men" is absolutely grotesque. The language for Title IX simply forbids discrimination in offering services and opportunities at federally funded colleges. Yes, the disproportionate spending on men's basketball and football programs have led to controversy around how athletic programs are funded, but what is the alternative? Tell the women that the boys already have a lucrative lock on sports and they'll just have to make do with whatever is leftover?

As far as enrollment in colleges and universities, how did the dems engineer that again? Women are applying in greater numbers with better qualifications. I agree that poor performance by boys at the high-school level is cause for concern, as is the disproportionate number of women faculty, but, again, this is the Democratic Party's fault how? Men don't teach because it pays poorly-- what does that tell you about how jobs are parceled out? Oh, and I must have missed the part where the dems enforced low wages for primary education faculty. Very devious.

While women's wages have risen over the past 30 years or so they still lag behind men; you can massage the numbers by pointing toward career patterns and willingness to do "unpleasant" work, but that doesn't make men the losers, and, again, did "the Democrats" pass a law while I wasn't looking that forces employers to pay women more than their male counterparts? Just to, you know, stick it to whitey (whoops, sorry, I mean "men")?

You talk like someone who has had some bad experiences with particular women in particular settings and taken the whole of your resentment and applied it to "the Democratic Party", and then lumped in "white people" as another put upon group just for the hell of it.

[groverat]

Not only are his rantings off-topic, but his provided evidence (TitleIX) doesn't even match the argument he wants to make (self-hating liberals enact a secret man-hating agendas to keep males out of college).

Also, welcome to the ignore list you big jerk! RAWR!

[trumptman]

Originally posted by groverat
trumpt:



For your argument that the Democratic Party hates white men to hold up one must assume that all the white men who actually run the Democratic Party hate white men.

Your bizarre argument hinges on the following factors:
(1) All white men that run the Democratic Party hate white men.

Self-loathing and self preservation are absolutely at work here.

(2) All white men that run the Democratic Party are "rich old blue bloods".

All, how about a very clear majority. I know how you love to fixate on words.

(3) All people in the Democratic Party who are not white men hate white men.

Sure, why not.

This indicates hatred? Do you know what the word "hate" means?

It means to have a strong aversion to someone or something. I'd say it matches up just fine.

There is plenty out there about males not succeeding in college, you even quote some of it. What, exactly, are you looking for?

Evidence that men are nor should be viewed as the oppressor and privileged class.

This is what I don't understand, you point to a mountain of literature about how men are falling behind and say "NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT IT!"

No one is talking about it comparative to the number of parties affected. This is a very clear and troubling trend that has been evidenced and continued since 1982. There isn't a total vacuum but there hasn't been a societal awakening and response yet.

What is your proposed solution?

I'm not sure I have the solution. For now general awareness and societal conversation might be a good start.

We aren't talking about sports. We are talking about college admissions, college retention and college graduation. This is why I ridiculed the article's use of TitleIX, because it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

There are plenty of people who find the gumption to start and finish school because of secondary factors associated with that schooling. Especially in the area of athletics there are flat out people who couldn't attend without the scholarships provided by the athletics.

Who is unwilling?

The government and mostly feminists at this point. There have been attempts made to look into this problem and address it. They are all opposed by feminists who fear it will cause some massive backlash to the 50's. Also realize that being unwilling to consider stopping affirmative actions for others that limit opportunities is still unwilling in my view as well.

? What has been proposed and rejected?

Items I have read about that have been proposed and rejected include an end to preferential registration, an end to outreach programs for groups that are already overrepresented at a minimum and possible outreach programs for underrepresented men. There have also been proposals for male studies programs similar to female studies programs.

What has anyone actually done to oppress men?

I've posted plenty on here. The reality is that you are allowed to set up any sort of exclusionary criteria you want for grants, scholarships, outreach programs, you name it as long as it doesn't favor white men. I can create a scholarship to promote the academic pursuits of hispanic women to the exclusion of all other groups tomorrow. I could never do the same for white men. We can claim that such things aren't necessary because white men control, oppress, run, etc everything but the statistics don't match that view.

I've posted at length about how misperceptions about power and who has it lead to bad conclusions and outcomes. Men make more and thus must have all the power. Does it matter who makes it or who spends it for example? Why is working longer considered empowered when men are concerned when everyone else considers the ability to forgo employment to be empowered and well-off?

You've been asked for the mechanisms by which white-man-hate is expressed and you've come up with nothing. Title IX and the ERA are not quota systems that have forced men out, so what is your point?

Your dismissal is not the same as a rebuttal. I've said my piece. You either are convinced or not.

There are obviously social factors leading to the decline in male participation in college, when did I say anything differently?

The most interesting view regarding all this for me is the historical view that men are empowered. Perhaps a few men have been this or that throughout time, but the majority are no more empowered than most. They have been slaves, serfs, those drafted into war and killed and those who fill the prisons. In otherwords some men may have gotten to write the history books or lead the Forture 500 or countries, but a disproportionate majority ended up no better off.

If anything history has shown us about men it is that there are few winners and an awful lot of losers. That should be the whole point with progressivism. Equal out the winners and losers. Instead we've declared all members of one group winners simply because most of the winners belonged to that group. That is sexist and racist. It is also why a progressive voice fails to resonate in this country.

I merely pointed out that this isn't a conspiracy against white men. Something is happening and it isn't white man hatred.

I've been asked for my view and attempted to support it. You've dismissed it and provided no alternative. You don't have to agree with me but at least enlighten us with what you believe the "something" to be. I don't have to agree with you. I'll try not to even argue with you about it but it would be nice to hear what you think.

Why shouldn't girls in high school take more math and science? Why is it that, in your mind, anything pro-woman is inherently anti-man? That is just nonsense.

You take that wrong. What is inherently anti-man is to presume that girls don't take more math and science BECAUSE OF MEN and that action needs to be taken against men because of this. I'm all for women taking whatever classes they desire and men as well. The difference is that when women make their choices I assign responsibility for them to women, not men. The solution I have heard to address this problem for example are female only classes. Well if you previously had four sections of Physics and you make two of them female only, that does limit the choices of men for no good reason. The reasoning is that men are sexist and make sneering comments toward women in science, or that men are overly aggressive and beat out the passive women in answering questions in class or in pursuing assignments or position that curry favor. The solution, toss the men out.

Another solution, outreach programs and camps that seek to interest women in science and math. The cost for men, full cost. The cost for women, free.

What proposals to encourage increased male academic participation have been rejected and denounced by the white-hating, liberal establishment? Yet another simple question you will completely avoid.

I've mentioned that you cannot have ANY program that specifically targets white men. It will be sued out of existance as racist and sexist. Is it really so hard to believe that people seldom propose that which is illegal?

As someone who starts his first year teaching this year (8th grade English), I don't know what the hurdle is that keeps men out of teaching aside from their own choices. Sure, there are a ton of women around me all the time, but if anything I've been pampered.

Well first congratulations on the job. I hope all goes well for you and as the husband of a former eighth grade English teacher, you can also let your wife have my condolences at the same time.;) :lol:

Schools were falling all over themselves to hire me the moment I began expressing interest.

They should be, you are a rarity.

I can't think of a principal who didn't beam when, in interviews, I would talk about being a positive male role model.

Of course they are beaming. They now have that wonder male teacher who they can dump all the strong-willed students on and he will "handle" them. Of course you don't have any tools available to you that a female teacher doesn't have. In fact you probably have fewer because if a student claims you menaced or intimidated them, there might be trouble. However between then and the time you go completely insane, there is the period where they can beam with the thought you might "handle" all those rough students with your wonderul machismo and male-like manner.

BTW, when you get tired of hearing parents talk about how nice it is to have a strong-male teacher to handle little Johnny, Jamal or Jose (or Josephine, Jamiqua, or Johanna if you prefer) you can ask me for a nickel.:D You won't have to ask me for a nickel if they actually end up thinking you've been strong or male as a teacher, you'll have to get ShawnJ for that matter.

In many places teaching doesn't pay well and is seen as a woman's job. I actually get a bit of flack for my choice from some men. I haven't had any woman say anything negative, however.

Women don't really say anything negative, unless you were actively dating and you've already got that covered since you are married. They do assume that you, like all other males on campus are actually the custodial staff and as such are eternally available to help them lift and move things. That does get tiring periodically but.. oh well hell as they say.

Also the women don't really have to say anything because.. well... they rule. They simply do what they do and you have to fit in.

In the absence of legal or strong social barriers, "step up" is my default position. Your characterization of my stance is completely without merit.

It's nice you think so. The reality is that you hold different expectations for different groups. In my view, that is racism and sexism.

It is absolute, undeniable fact that this country was built for the white man and that this cultural dominance still exists. I have benefited from that my entire life.

I'm glad you've benefitted. I certainly haven't.

To put it simply: We run shit.

Please contact me after your first year of teaching. We will see if you think the patients or the doctors run the asylum.

Also running things, responsibility... it is a double-edged sword.

So it's not exactly what you thought it was after 10 minutes of research on right-wing blogs? Shocking!

Actually my perception hasn't changed a bit. The shocking part has been the lack of any statistic, fact, research, anything to back up his conclusions. I'm dying for perhaps a bar graph to show the decline of median income in Kansas right now as opposed to his ranting about the whole state being a giant shit hole and anecdotal musings.

It reminds me much of when people used to complain to me as a teacher that I would feel differently about their misbehaving children once I had children of their own. They are right, I do feel differently. I feel even less pity now because I KNOW what I have done differently with my own children.

See the change in perception I have had with Frank is before I actually used to give him a bit more credence then say Al Franken or Ann Coulter. I mean here is a guy with a PhD in History, not a guy doing Stuart Smalley. (To be fair Ann Coulter graduated cum laude and has her law degree)

When did I call Frank a scholar? Frank is a social/political commentator.

Sorry I thought him a bit more than a clown. I guess I'll assign him properly from this point on.

Nick

[hardeeharhar]

I can't even fathom having enough free time to read this thread...

[Northgate]

This is just stupid. Idiotic and stupid. It's intellectually dishonest at best.

The unbelievable horseshit some people believe in is astounding.

[groverat]

trumptman:

All, how about a very clear majority.

I'd be interested to see this proven in some way, because it's quite a definitive statement.

Sure, why not.

Because it is completely and totally ignorant.

No one is talking about it comparative to the number of parties affected.

Ah, so not enough people are talking about it. What would "enough" be?
Do you want quota laws for men that women never got?

There are plenty of people who find the gumption to start and finish school because of secondary factors associated with that schooling. Especially in the area of athletics there are flat out people who couldn't attend without the scholarships provided by the athletics.

And tell me, how many men have lost scholarships because of TitleIX? It is statistically insignificant and you know it.

Items I have read about that have been proposed and rejected include an end to preferential registration, an end to outreach programs for groups that are already overrepresented at a minimum and possible outreach programs for underrepresented men. There have also been proposals for male studies programs similar to female studies programs.

Be specific. Back up your statements.

The reality is that you are allowed to set up any sort of exclusionary criteria you want for grants, scholarships, outreach programs, you name it as long as it doesn't favor white men.

This is a lie. You can absolutely endow a scholarship and say "white men only". There are no laws against it.

Your dismissal is not the same as a rebuttal. I've said my piece. You either are convinced or not.

I have shown, definitively, that Title IX in no way restricts male access to college. At worst it somewhat limits the amount of resources dedicated to male sports versus female sports, but the impact on academics is insignificant.

The Equal Rights Amendment does not enact any quota systems, it only mandates that women not be discriminated against. Again, no impact on college admissions, retention or graduation.

They have been slaves, serfs, those drafted into war and killed and those who fill the prisons. In otherwords some men may have gotten to write the history books or lead the Forture 500 or countries, but a disproportionate majority ended up no better off.

Men are the majority victims and men are the majority perpetrators. Scream, cry, and moan all you like but that's statistical fact. Men kill men, that's how it works. As a gender we are at fault for our own actions. At some point men must take responsibility for their own actions instead of whining about how women are nothing but a walking legion of Lady Macbeths (except your wife and mother and daughter(s), of course, they're perfect, unlike all these other conniving sluts out there).

I've been asked for my view and attempted to support it. You've dismissed it and provided no alternative.

You've made a very very poor attempt that was refuted with 10 second's basic research.

As far as logical explanations...
I think there is merit in the idea that a truly competitive academic environment doesn't necessarily favor male strengths and that the generally more social nature of the female is better suited for the safe, neutered world of academia. That's a sociological explanation. School isn't about who is most intelligent, but who is most suited to the tasks assigned and most adept at thriving in the given environment.

I also think there is merit to the idea that large swathes of our culture do not value higher education, instead casting upon it a suspicion of weakness and feminity that many males find simply unattractive.
Think of primary and secondary education. I cannot speak for any experiences but my own, but academic success was valued in the female peer groups and often seen as unsavory and nerdy in the male peer groups. The prime means of achievement in the male peer groups I was exposed to were largely physical abilities (sports, strength, speed, fighting). This changes as students move up in education but I think it could be a factor.

To me the idea that there are myriad cultural factors influencing the situation makes more sense than a weak-kneed, completely illogical conspiracy fantasy involving secretive machinations of hatred against the dominant class in this society.

What is inherently anti-man is to presume that girls don't take more math and science BECAUSE OF MEN and that action needs to be taken against men because of this.

Is it written in the laws or codes that mandate or encourage more math and science for females that "MEN ARE DISGUSTING PIGS SO GIRLS NEED TO TAKE MORE!" or is this yet another victimization fantasy?

It will be sued out of existance as racist and sexist.

Sued for being racist and sexist? Your grasp of the law isn't very strong, is it? :lol:

I'm glad you've benefitted. I certainly haven't.

There is absolutely no way this is true.

Please contact me after your first year of teaching. We will see if you think the patients or the doctors run the asylum.

I'm not a personality that's easily defeated, so it will be interesting.

The shocking part has been the lack of any statistic, fact, research, anything to back up his conclusions. I'm dying for perhaps a bar graph to show the decline of median income in Kansas right now as opposed to his ranting about the whole state being a giant shit hole and anecdotal musings.

The irony is delicious.