Response to challenge to name the offensive professors:
I never said the statements are exact quotes. The statements were hypothetical in terms of exact quotes but the professors are real, and my characterization of them is in no way exaggerated. I do know some specific examples but I don’t want to give away where I have studied/worked and currently study/work. I don’t expect anyone to take my word for it but others have posted names. Talk to some students. Maybe others here can post some personal experiences.
sail:1. Arab speaking student hears other Arab students celebrating the 9-11 attack. He confronts them tells them they are wrong and how dare they celebrate the attacks. Did the PC University expel the students for their anti-US celebration? No because they were PC, it was the guy who didn’t agree with the 9-11 attacks who was politically incorrect, and was warned not to repeat his offensive behavior claiming people shouldn’t celebrate that attacks.
Drgya_Yes asked for a cite for this claim, and HailAnts provided some links. However, the linked articles don’t actually support this statement. Yes, an Ethiopian student claimed to have reproved other Arabic-speaking students in the library for approving the attacks. As the campus paper reported:
In other words, Kebede was not labeled as “politically incorrect” by anyone, and he was not “warned not to repeat his offensive behavior claiming people shouldn’t celebrate the attacks”. Rather, he was formally accused (apparently unjustly, and by a party or parties unknown) of having “verbally harassed” the people he argued with, and accusing them of being terrorists. Because a formal accusation was brought, he had to meet with an administrative officer to “discuss his conduct”. There is no evidence in the article that his conduct was in fact condemned by the so-called “PC University” in any way, nor that he received any punishment. sail’s attempt to spin this as an instance of PC injustice is so far completely unsubstantiated by the facts.
IzzyR: *In any event, let me just ask you to consider the following two scenarios, which would seem to be analogous:
A) Feminist professor of psychology teaches that most men are inherently violent and obsessed with dominance, with some exceptions.
B) “Masculist” professor of psychology teaches that most women are hyperemotional and irrational, with some exceptions.
Who will provoke a more hostile reaction?
Again, I don’t deny that much of the criticism of white males is about cultural inequalities, as you point out. But I’m wondering about cases where that is not the issue - what has been your impression in such instances?*
It’s kind of hard to assess this, because that sort of [jargon alert] “essentialist” [/jargon alert] simplistic position is so widely disdained among academics of all political stripes. You don’t really hear people talking any more about what “most men are like” or what “most women are like” as though it were an interesting or enlightening approach to gender issues. Yes, there are a few notorious exceptions, like BC professor Mary Daly, but in general I think that academic researchers, and even students, would turn up their noses at such statements—about men or women—as tired and old-fashioned. The popular press adores “sound-bite research” that they can describe with simple conclusive assertions, like “New Study Shows Women Think More Slowly than Men” or “Historians Find Female-Dominated Societies More Prosperous”, but that sort of sweeping remark makes most real academics break out in hives.
That’s another reason I tend to be skeptical about assertions that the modern university is categorically liberal and unqualifiedly PC and so forth. Jeez, show me any group of academic researchers who are categorically and unqualifiedly anything with respect to research in their field! The way that deep philosophical divisions get papered over by the lay press is astounding sometimes; for example, there are several competing schools of thought in modern feminist theory whose proponents have probably said worse things about one another than Rush Limbaugh ever said about any of them. But you’d never know it from the way some mainstream pundits talk about the ideological goosestepping of the feminazis as though “feminism” were somehow a single unified ideology out to suppress all dissent.
My impression, as you might have guessed, is that the reactions would be different towards analogous situations. Maybe the examples that I gave were off, but there are definitely characterizations of general male and female qualities being done by people out there. If I recall any examples, I’ll try to look them up.
I tend to be frustrated by a persistence in addressing extreme or unqualified statements such as the assertions addressed here (& the one noted in the previous post). It makes it much harder to have a meaningful discussion of what might be valid, if less sweeping, positions.
Okay Izzy, but remember that just a few posts ago Lonesome Polecat was talking matter-of-factly about “the left’s domination of the nation’s colleges and universities” and “lefties on campus harassing pretty much everybody who didn’t share their veiws”. I sympathize with your preference for discussing more nuanced and meaningful characterizations, but apparently the more “extreme and unqualified statements” still require some debating.
If the University felt that confronting these offensive students was the right thing to do why the warning letter? I interpret a warning letter as condemning a person’s behavior. Why not send him a follow up letter thanking him for standing up for America and apologizing for the warning letter?
Kimstu, I will admit that when I said the student was condemned for “…his offensive behavior claiming people shouldn’t celebrate that attacks” I should have said “…his offensive behavior telling people they should not celebrate the attacks”
Thanks for the additional information, sail, but there’s still no indication that Kebede was chastised in any way on account of his opinion of the attacks or for having criticized somebody else’s opinion of them. The letter you cite simply forbids “confronting members of the campus community in a manner that is found to be aggressive or abusive”. Surely you’re not suggesting that it would be okay to be aggressive or abusive?
Mind you, I saw nothing in any of the articles to indicate that Kebede was in fact aggressive or abusive, so if he has indeed been officially reprimanded for being so (as opposed to simply receiving a form letter as part of the disciplinary proceedings), then that may indeed be an unjust punishment. On the other hand, the only witness to the argument who was quoted in the article was Kebede himself, so there may be another side to the story. In either case, it is still completely unsubstantiated to suggest that Kebede was being persecuted on account of his opinions, or that the university in any way supports the views of the people he was arguing with.
The penises thing wasn’t a red herring, it was a joke (albeit a bad one).
I think you ignored my point – you’re trying to make up motives for them. I think that all this “rallying around the flag”, esp. when fundamental parts of the constitution are being ignored in the hunt for terrorism is quite a bit ugly. Do you interpret that as me agreeing with Osama as well?
And even IF it was because of a persieved PC climate, i.e. the librarian not wanting to offend people, I’d still guess that this is a very unusual thing, and by no means representative for everything that the PC movement has done.
I mean, not everyone on the left wing hangs penises from their roofs, right?
Let me get this straight - you ask for one example of a professor who claims all white people are evil. I provide you with Jeffries, who, while not claiming that “ALL WHITE PEOPLE ARE EVIL,” asserts that the lack of melanin causes whites to be “born cold and greedy,” and that “Blacks are biologically superior to whites and that the cause of this superiority is the skin pigment melanin.” Your response is words to the effect of “Well, except for HIM!” Touche.
You asked for one professor. I provided you with two. The article I linked provides a few more, I believe. Yes, I trotted out Leonard Jeffries. Your reaction proves that you knew of him when you made the statement:
Thus, you challenged someone to a quest you knew would refute your position (that NOT ONE example existed), then berated a person who acheived this quest, not with counter-logic or even an answer to the challenge, but with a “never mind him, find someone else.” Is that not TROLLING?
As to Dworkin and McKinnon - re-read my post. I didn’t say that Dworkin said all sex is rape. Of course, you didn’t actually say that McKinnon DIDN’T say it - you just tried to marginalize her effect on your challenge. Allow me to drag you somewhat back to the point:
Their marital status, unlike your assertion of McKinnon in general, is irrelevant, unless you’re trying to point out Ms. McKinnon’s hypocracy?
kimstu:
Please re-read the above challenge. I did NOT mis-read his challenge. Let me expand:
I was NOT challenged to prove that the most egregious example of sail’s Point #1 would not find professional problems (though, it should be noted that Dr. Jeffries remains on the faculty of CUNY), just that they are employed there. And this link will tell you of Rev. Glover’s “job difficulties:”
I also re-read sail’s assertion. Nowhere did he assert that “racism or sexism on the part of blacks or women (respectively) is generally considered acceptable.” He DID, from my reading, assert that professors who are racist are openly employed in academe. I think the article I posted does in some small way back that up, at least insofar as the racism charge is levelled. From lurking for some time, I suspect that the book “Illiberal Education” by Dinesh D’Souza will carry no weight with you, but I would recommend it. It is a bit out of date (written in 1992, I believe), but it is extensively footnoted, and would address many of your concerns. I truly wish my copy of the book wasn’t in storage.
I am far enough from college (10 years and change) that my recollections of personal experience are somewhat dim. My law school days are a bit fresher. I don’t wish to be misconstrued as saying “the modern university campus is unbendingly liberal,” or words to that effect. However, my recollections are that there was a significant liberal bent to my higher education. References available upon request (but not many - I DO have to work).
Redhawke:"Let me get this straight - you ask for one example of a professor who claims all white people are evil. I provide you with Jeffries, who, while not claiming that “ALL WHITE PEOPLE ARE EVIL,” asserts that the lack of melanin causes whites to be “born cold and greedy,” and that “Blacks are biologically superior to whites and that the cause of this superiority is the skin pigment melanin.”
Redhawke, calm down. Jeffries is ancient news: your links are from 1990 and 1992. I was living in New York when Jeffries became news and even heard the guy speak. The quotatoin about “born cold and greedy” is not a direct quotation from Jeffries–it’s a paraphrase of his “Ice People” theory and (from what I heard him say) one that goes further than he would himself go.
As to his remarks about Jews, yes, Jeffries is reported to insist that Jews were involved in the slave trade (as some perhaps were) and there is an anti-semitic slur there. (I am Jewish, btw.) There were tensions in NY between blacks and Jews at that time (and perhaps still are). To sum up: Jeffries has an unconventional and, to my mind, ungrounded Afrocentrist view of blacks as Sun People and whites as Ice People. Does this qualify as a theory or racial superiority? I guess so. Does this mean that he’s saying that “All whites are evil.” No. Is he at all representative of African-American professors. Hell no. Has he persisted in saying these kinds of things? I can’t say for sure, but I don’t think so; for one thing, I suspect that if he had you’d find more updated links on the matter. To be honest, I’m not even sure that he’s still at CUNY, though perhaps he is.
“Your response is words to the effect of “Well, except for HIM!” Touche.”
On the contrary, I agreed with you that he wasn’t saying quite what sail had alleged some black faculty and “most” campuses say.
“You asked for one professor. I provided you with two. The article I linked provides a few more, I believe.”
I didn’t spot it. You can cite in here if you like.
“Is that not TROLLING?”
No, because neither your link nor my knowledge of Jeffries shows Jeffries saying that all whites are evil.
“As to Dworkin and McKinnon - re-read my post. I didn’t say that Dworkin said all sex is rape. Of course, you didn’t actually say that McKinnon DIDN’T say it - you just tried to marginalize her effect on your challenge. Allow me to drag you somewhat back to the point:”
Again, Redhawke, you impute far too much. I assumed you’d meant Dworkin since she’s typically misunderstood in that way. As to your link: MacKinnon appears to be arguing that it’s difficult to establish rape in certain legal cases because forced sex (rape) is often mistaken for plain old sex. As I’d indicated, pornography is invoked as a contributing cause in this confusion. Nowhere in this link does MacKinnon say taht “all sex is rape.” Early on she says it’s “indigenous” to women’s social condition rather than exceptional. By this she means that rape is a lot more typical than the kind of act that qualifies as rape in a court of law. Whether you agree with this or not, it simply doesn’t mean that “all sex is rape.” Not even close.
I respect MacKinnon’s work though I don’t always agree with her analyses. I do call myself a feminist by the way, but MacKinnon is not a strong influence for me. There is a wide range of feminist thought: and much disagreement within feminist circles. You might actually find these differences fascinating.
“I suspect that the book “Illiberal Education” by Dinesh D’Souza will carry no weight with you, but I would recommend it.”
Dinesh D’Souza was a gadfly during the early 90s, the period in which this anti-PC bashing culture war stuff first became big news. I’ve read excerpts from his book and a couple of reviews. I’d advise you to take it with a grain of salt. He used to get paid big bucks to make this story as sensational as he possibly can. By now I think the whole PC story has grown mouldy. I’m sure universities are just as leary these days of being unfairly PC as they are of being intolerant or un-PC.
“However, my recollections are that there was a significant liberal bent to my higher education.”
I guess that depends on where you went to school. I’d go so far as to say that lots of public universities tends to lean in that direction. People who believe in public education tend to be liberal.
Redhawke, you sparked my curiosity about Jeffries today.
According to this link, Jeffries is still around in 2001 and his “controversial” Sun People/Ice people theory is described. There’s a paraphrase again, but now it specifies “cold and unfeeling.” FWIW, that’s what I remember. Lots of coldness; lots of emphasis on African warmness. Of course, he was very much in the spotlight at that time.
Here are the proceedings for a conference on Melanin where Jeffries recently made introductory remarks. The descriptions of the papers are pretty tame.
Here’s someone at Yale in 1995 complaining that Jeffries was invited to campus and “dignified” by being asked to debate Rogers Smith. Rogers Smith, btw, is a Yale political theorist and writes and speaks about African American history. All I can say is that I wish I’d been at that debate. I disagree with the student since I think this is a good approach to dealing with this kind of figure.
This is as much as I have time for, and I don’t want to make too much of it. From what I can tell Jeffries is still professor at CUNY, but possibly no longer chair of a program. The single reference to the Sun/Ice theory (which may have been called up from the past) was the only controversial thing I could find.
I did want you to realize that I was sincere about this and not have you think that I don’t think somewhat might have cause to be exercised about Jeffries. But I do think there was a certain amount of exaggeration, even at the very height of it.
Mandelstom, I offer a friendly counter challenge you to show where in any of my posts I said any black faculty member said any specific quote. I gave three hypothetical people, and my example did not hinge on the use of the word “evil” as opposed to “oppressive”, “greedy”, “responsible for black on black crime”, or other anti-white statements. Nor did it hinge on the phrase “all white people” as opposed to “white people” or “whites” or “the man”.
Points well taken. If I came on too strong, I apologize. However, we seem to be arguing at cross purposes. Yes, my links are from 1992. However, that fact, taken with the point that I made that Dr. J is still teaching, and that I found no indication that he has ever backed down from those theses, suggest that, far from being ostracized from his position of academic power, he has become part of the mainstream. Far from being persecuted, he enjoys a position of (off-beat) respect. Viz the second cite. No, I did not find a post with the words “All White People are Evil.” Maybe I’m just touchy. Cold and Greedy, (especially when compared to Warm and Humanistic) in context, are close.
No offense, but…cite, please? I was in college when this brouhaha involving Dr. J was fresh, and this article was pretty much spot-on to my recollection.
I’m not sure what you’re requesting here. The second professor I provided was Rev. Clarence Glover, Adjunct Professor at Southern Methodist University. The follow-up cite referred to him thus:
“Glover is a nationally known lecturer, consultant and seminar leader in the areas of African American history, religion and culture, male and female relations, the life and times of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., racism and intercultural relations.”
The other academic authorities cited in the article are:
Dr. Yosef A.A. Ben-Jochannan
John Henrik Clarke, Professor Emeritus of African World History at Hunter College in New York
Though I must, to a certain extent, retract. It seems that the article crticizes the two above less as anti-white, more as anti-semitic. Not what you asked for.
Ms. McKinnon:
From my original cite: “The level of acceptable force is adjudicated starting just above the level set by what is seen as normal male sexual behavior, including the normal level of force, rather than at the victim’s, or women’s, point of violations In this context, to seek to define rape as violent not sexual is as understandable as it is futile.”
Forgive me if I’m misinterpreting this particular quote (and I worked at not taking it out of context). This quote (and the discussion surrounding it) do not suggest that “all sex is rape,” as you correctly point out. I would interpret it to be saying that Normal Male Sexual Behavior is, by her definition of the word, rape. Again, the words aren’t there, but the impression it leaves is straightforward:
A normal male will, by default, engage in normal male sexual behavior.
Normal male sexual behavior is rape.
Rape is immoral (if not evil). This one I have absolutely no problem with.
By Aristotilian logic, a normal male is immoral (if not evil).
A little more to the point:
“The view that derives most directly from victims’ experiences, rather than from their denial, construes sexuality as a social sphere of male power to which forced sex is paradigmatic. Rape is not less sexual for being violent. To the extent that coercion has become integral to male sexuality, rape may even be sexual to the degree that, and because, it is violent.”
How should I take “sexuality as a social sphere of male power to which forced sex is paradigmatic”?
OR:
Instead of asking what is the violation of rape, their experience suggests that the more relevant question is, what is the nonviolation of intercourse? To know what is wrong with rape, know what is right about sex. If this, in turn, proves difficult, the difficulty is as instructive as the difficulty men have in telling the difference when women see one. Perhaps the wrong of rape has proved so difficult to define because the unquestionable starting point has been that rape is defined as distinct from intercourse,’ while for women it is difficult to distinguish the two under conditions of male dominance.
OR:
In the manner of many socialist_feminist adaptations of marxian categories to women’s situation, to analyze sexuality as property short_circuits analysis of rape as male sexuality and presumes rather than develops links between sex and class. Concepts of property need to be rethought in light of sexuality as a form of objectification. In some ways, for women legally to be considered property would be an improvement, although it is not recommended. FN 3.
I cannot agree to respect Ms. McKinnon’s work. Her most important conclusions are without cite (wouldn’t she die on this board?), and without visible support.
Which brings us to Mr. D’Souza.
:rolleyes: You read some excerpts and the reviews of a highly charged political text, and came away with the impression it meant nothing. Color me shocked. Here, I went to the trouble of reading the book. And the footnotes. Of which there are many. I would estimate more than 70 per chapter. Some chapters contained more than 100. Now, I will concede that the existence of footnotes does not, ipso facto, make a better book. But to dis a book without reading it, your “advice” notwithstanding…
Yes, I’m aware of Mr. D’Souza’s gadfly status. I’ll do you one better, I’ll provide the evidence therefore. For those of you familiar, Mr. D’Souza was the editor of the Dartmouth Review, one of the most conservative college newspapers around. Further, during one of the DR’s habitual rounds with the Dartmouth Administration, he is either attributed with, or with repeating the old saw, “Don’t get into a mud wrestling match with a pig; not only does everyone get dirty, but the pig enjoys it.” But none of the above directly impugns his work. Must we throw out every fact cited or developed by those with a bias? If so, this will be a lonely board indeed.
P.S. I have read, though will not contend at this time, that the discussion linked above revolved around the occupation of the admissions office by 70 or so students. The reason I do not contend it is that it was cited in an editorial this morning, without cite, and I cannot at this time confirm it. Because I cannot confirm this “fact,” I will not assert it, merely allow as how I read it. The article is:
NOTE: Professor Leonard Jeffries believes that blacks are “sun people,” warm and humanistic, and that whites are “ice people,” cold and unfeeling; he also endorses the Black Muslim idea that the black slave trade was controlled by rich Jews and has taught that Jewish-dominated Hollywood has engaged in a conspiracy to humiliate and denigrate African Americans.
Much better. Especially that last line. :rolleyes:
The second quote is from “The Institute of Karmic Guidance,” and I missed where Dr. J spoke. I saw a Rosalind Jeffries, tho’. And yes, the mission statement is bland as Wonder Bread. And likewise irrelevant to the discussion.
The third cite makes no reference to Dr. J at all. I presume it’s a mis-cite?
Fourth cite: Yes, I saw that in my initial research. My read is less focussed on the fact that someone wrote the article and more on the fact that Yale was inviting him to speak in the first place. Where’s Yale’s invite to David Duke? Must have gotten lost in the mail…
With respect, I believe this strengthens my argument, not detracts from it. That Yale University’s Black Political Forum Executive Committee would invite Dr. J (in 1995) says volumes about his “loss of integrity in the academic community.” We both agree that Dr. J is less than reputable, academically, yes? Yet Yale’s Black Political Forum Executive Committee felt compelled to invite him.
My point (if there was one) was that Dr. J, though discredited (the last cite mentions thus), still has not been coerced into the kind of apologias (apologii?) that some white professors have been compelled to make in order to keep their jobs. If you really doubt that the latter has happened, I again invite you to actually READ Mr. D’Souza’s book. Mine’s packed.
To those actually still reading this thread, I apologize for the major hijack.
IMO, flag flying for any nation is oppressive. A flag is a symbol, which represents the country’s way of life, right?
So whenever a flag of a country is displayed, the displayer is effectively supporting the way of life represented by the flag, because they believe that it is the best possible way of life.
So when an individual/company/public institution flys the american flag, the falg-flyer is effectively saying “My way of life is the best”, which is easily perceived by those with alternate ways of life, as saying “The American way of life is better than any other way.”, which certainly is oppressive to anybody who does not agree with the American way of life.
Redhawke, can’t get back to you till tonight. One quick point though: Jeffries did attend the conference in that link I provided. As I said, he made introductory remarks and, as a result, there is no paper-title listed for him. Later dude.
The mere display of a symbol is only oppressive if your definition of oppression is so broad as to be useless for any purpose other than invective. Only force or the threat of force can make an action oppressive. (Of course, the use of force does not by itself mean that an action is necessarily oppressive.) It is exactly such abuse of language that makes Political Correctness so contemptible.
this posting is regarding the authour of this post
I think, lackwit, that your idea of the definition of oppression is poor and incomplete. Yes “A” definition of the word is “to keep down by the cruel or unjust use of authority and power; to rule harshly; to tyrranise over”,
however, the principle definition of this word is to weigh heavily upon the mind, spirits, or senses of a person or body of persons.
The American flag is a very oppressive thing indeed. It represents a lifestyle that was propagated by hypocritical slave owners who claimed that all men were created equally and continues to adhere to warlike ideals of oppression and assimilation of other ideas and races/ethnicities that go against them.
This is only one example of a flag that is oppressive. The flag is oppressive in that not all that are FORCED to live under the flight of this flag agree with what it represents.
**Redhawke.the.bard **: “Yes, my links are from 1992. However, that fact, taken with the point that I made that Dr. J is still teaching, and that I found no indication that he has ever backed down from those theses, suggest that, far from being ostracized from his position of academic power, he has become part of the mainstream.”
Fair enough. First, let me remind you that I didn’t enter this thread to defend Leonard Jeffries, whose work and reputation I don’t admire. I came into this thread because I believed and still believe that sail’s contention that “most” campuses have faculty members with strong anti-white or anti-male biases is utterly groundless.
From what I see on the Web, Jeffries has toned his act way down. I think his Ice People/Sun People theory does qualify as a theory of racial superiority of sorts; but as I heard it described back then I believe his intent was to promote Afrocentrism rather than spread the idea the whites are “evil.” In neither case do I agree with it, much less with his anti-semitism, but I do believe that the intensity of his remarks was exaggerated even at its worst. (That’s an impression; I didn’t attend his seminars, read his publications, etc.)
So another way of looking at the situation is that the one truly controversial African-American faculty member that anyone knows of falls far short of sail’s prescription, and has been made to tone his act way down. To use this example to argue that “PC” disproportionately forgives the racism of black faculty, we’d have to look out for racist white faculty on the campuses where we’re likely to find them. Personally, I have no interest in doing the research.
But I do think it’s worth saying that before we assume that black racism is given a free ride, let’s not forget that our own sitting Attorney General has said some dubious things in some dubious places and seems to have managed to occupy one of the highest offices in the land.
“No offense, but…cite, please?”
Sorry, Redhawke, I have no cite of a lecture I attended almost a decade ago.
Now while I have no interest in defending Jeffries beyond suggesting that he isn’t a rabid and uncontained white-hater, I do have a certain desire to clear up misunderstandings regarding MacKinnon, much though she’s never been my personal cup of feminist tea.
I do think you’re misunderstanding her extremely difficult prose, which is intended for legal specialists.
MacKinnon herself: “The level of acceptable force is adjudicated starting just above the level set by what is seen as normal male sexual behavior, including the normal level of force, rather than at the victim’s, or women’s, point of violations In this context, to seek to define rape as violent not sexual is as understandable as it is futile.”
Forgive me if I’m misinterpreting this particular quote (and I worked at not taking it out of context). This quote (and the discussion surrounding it) do not suggest that “all sex is rape,” as you correctly point out. I would interpret it to be saying that Normal Male Sexual Behavior is, by her definition of the word, rape. Again, the words aren’t there, but the impression it leaves is straightforward:
A normal male will, by default, engage in normal male sexual behavior.
Normal male sexual behavior is rape.
No, here’s where you start to get it wrong. She’s describing how she believes that behavior that is or should be considered rape, is seen as normal sex. In other words, she isn’t suggesting that “Normal male sexual behavior is rape.” Rather she’s suggesting that sometimes what’s rape is interpreted as normal. And that’s a very different claim.
“The view that derives most directly from victims’ experiences, rather than from their denial, construes sexuality as a social sphere of male power to which forced sex is paradigmatic. Rape is not less sexual for being violent. To the extent that coercion has become integral to male sexuality, rape may even be sexual to the degree that, and because, it is violent.”
How should I take “sexuality as a social sphere of male power to which forced sex is paradigmatic”?
Much as above: the argument is that “forced sex” is seen as part of normal sexuality; and that rape is seen as sex, even if violent sex. She’s goes further to suggest that to some extent “coercion has become integral to male sexuality.” But even there, she’s still saying that what’s actually violence has become sexualized and normalized–but she’s not saying that it follows that all male sexuality is rape, or coercive.
“Instead of asking what is the violation of rape, their experience suggests that the more relevant question is, what is the nonviolation of intercourse? To know what is wrong with rape, know what is right about sex. If this, in turn, proves difficult, the difficulty is as instructive as the difficulty men have in telling the difference when women see one. Perhaps the wrong of rape has proved so difficult to define because the unquestionable starting point has been that rape is defined as distinct from intercourse,’ while for women it is difficult to distinguish the two under conditions of male dominance.”
Now that last comment is more controversial; because in the last sentence she’s saying that women find it “difficult” to distinguish between intercourse and rape “under conditions of male dominance.”
Speaking for myself, I certainly don’t agree with that statement; but it is conditional. It suggests that women are too confused by dominance to know what’s up. That may be true some of the time, but I certainly would add far more qualification than she does.
“In the manner of many socialist_feminist adaptations of marxian categories to women’s situation, to analyze sexuality as property short_circuits analysis of rape as male sexuality and presumes rather than develops links between sex and class.”
In other words, analysis of rape as (part of) male sexuality; not male sexuality always as rape.
I cannot agree to respect Ms. McKinnon’s work. Her most important conclusions are without cite (wouldn’t she die on this board?), and without visible support."
Well, as for citations, MacKinnon is famous enough that she’s the person to cite, so I have no problem there. Hers is an analysis based on certain conditions; it’s an interpretation–it’s not based an actual numbers of rapes. How could it be when she’s arguing that there are more rapes than would ever count as rapes; that women themselves may not know if they’re actually victims of rape.
Personally, I don’t agree with the more onerous of her statements. I do agree that rape is hard to prove, and that people sometimes are fatally unable to agree on what is rape. And I think some women put up with a lot of abusive behavior and think of it as “normal” for men. That’s about as far as my agreement goes.
To me there are more helpful ways of describing what gets in the way of male-female relations. And I also think that most men, even in the prosperous US, are themselves so subjected to all kinds of power relations that it makes no sense to draw a division based purely on sex and say: here are the dominators and here are the dominated. That’s why I have a very different feminist perspective and why I believe that many men are feminists.
"Which brings us to Mr. D’Souza.
Sorry, Redhawke. I found D’Souza too ridiculous to take seriously 10 years ago, and he seems more that way now. Bear in mind–for what it’s worth–that I have worked in or close to several academic institutions during that entire decade. I just don’t see a big PC problem. That’s my opinion.
A classic example of political correctness. Mandelstam is bending over backwards and twisting every which way to mitigate (though not excuse) the Black bigot as much as possible. Meanwhile Ashcroft, who has surely not said anything remotely approaching Jeffries’ statements, is held up as a comparison. How very appropriate for this thread.
