|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good article, although I would have liked it more if his teeth had been sharper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Good article, although I would have liked it more if his teeth had been sharper."
Really? I thought the part at the end where he made a mockery of the idea that "decent men" must take responsibility for violence was really powerful.
Also, if anything, well-reasoned and paced articles such as this one are more likely to put Prof. Delaney in hot water at Stanford. Isn't an associate professor one who hasn't earned tenure yet?
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps you're right, Scott. I'm just used to reading some of the venomous stuff posted on the Internet, and it just seems anymore that what gets printed in the newspapers is milktoast. Not sure about the tenure thing, though I'm pretty sure there are full professors out ther without tenure. Perhaps one needs to be a full professor in order to be a candidate for tenure. Either way, the things I read from her higher-ups seemed to offer her a lot of support, so I don't imagine this furor will have any deleterious effect on her career, though it should.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Marc Angelucci on Wednesday August 28, @06:25PM EST (#5)
(User #61 Info)
|
|
|
|
|
"so I don't imagine this furor will have any deleterious effect on her career."
You're probably right about that Frank. But I think the article's calm and rational (but still frank) tone will have alot of impact. All too often gender feminists successfully use our furor as a red herring to divert attention from the message. And it works. A tone like this puts more pressure on opponents to not change the subject by attacking the messenger. I loved the article. Unfortunately we rarely see the actual impact. We usually can only measure it by noting incremental changes. But the impact is there. Articles like this are reasons to cheer. I wrote Kieth and thanked him wholeheartedly. We need more of this, that's for sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wrote Kieth and thanked him wholeheartedly.
I also wrote and thanked him. He deserves our gratitude and support.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I too thanked Keith.
Marc is right, if their is any official discipline of Dr. Delaney, it most likely will not be made public, therefore never publicaly known. I would be willing to bet there has been some discussion between Dr. Delaney and her administrators, wherein they ask her for clarification of exactly what it was she was trying to say, and stressing the need for sensitivity in public relations with all parties for the good of the public image of Stanford University.
They are not so big or wealthy that they can afford to make a policy of thumbing their nose at the public in difficult economic times.
I suspect hidden under all of this may be a small victory of sorts. ...and the growing awareness that pot shots against all men based on the behavior of a few will no longer go unanswered by men of good will. "All that is necessary for evil to prosper is for men of good will to do nothing."
EVERYBODY DO SOMETHING, whatever your time, talents, and treasures permit. Don't lose hope, collectively the impact is beginning to be felt so "gird up your loins" and with diligence and good strategy press the battle home to the oppressors in whatever small or large way that you can. I for one will greatly appreciate it, and revel in even the smallest of victories.
Sincerely, Ray
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discipline her *haw*. If she was at Whellesey they probably would have insured her tenure. Im almost half inclined to think this is the case here.
Going at her is one thing but really the people around her and *obove* her is the best route.
The mindless drones of the feminist movement eat this shit up like candy. It somehow satisfies their day.
Although I enjoy the email lists Im a part of and posting on this board, I would really like to get these articles out to people who do not usually read these sorts of things.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 29, @12:33AM EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
Remember, there was a time when we wouldn't have even seen THIS much.
Slowly, We are seeing Millitant feminist types asked and at times DEMANDED to back up their statements.
There WAS a time when that was not EVER the case.
We should turn this into a momentum. Keep the pressure on the Marx-fems.
ANYTIME they make a statement about Men, We MUST demand they pony-up and show us PROOF of what they say. They have demanded no LESS from us.
FAIR is FAIR, right?
AND because WE do have the statistical facts to prove what WE say, and They..., well, MAKE UP nearly everything they say, WHOM will ultimatly win out in the credibility department?
Okay, maybe I tend to be a BIT optimistic.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"...I would really like to get these articles out to people who do not usually read these sorts of things."
Therein lies the rub. We're preaching to the choir here, aren't we? Well, the choir and the few trolls who happen our way. Though I will say that there are new visitors here who don't necessarily post. I, myself, visited off and on for quite awhile before I posted anything.
The key to the kind of public education Dan is talking about is, more than anything else, recruitment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The key to the kind of public education Dan is talking about is, more than anything else, recruitment. "
At least objectivity amongst the masses. I do get new recruits all the time, and I enjoy educating them against the standard acceptances of what feminists put out there.
One thing I do is just print off articles and hand them out. Many people I know just don't have computers and mainstream media is not really pushing this.
I know it sounds really slow to do it one person at a time, but its all I've got so Im going to do it.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I sent a copy of the article, with a link, to the CA state legislators, county supervisors, and others. I keep an email list that I use occasionally for articles like this. It takes very little time and helps chip away slowly at the rock.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Sounds like Stanford could do with a serious outbreak of mensactivism stickers round about now."
Good thinking. I know local L.A. activists who've done exactly that with certain local colleges. I'll pass the word about Stanford. So true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Discipline her *haw*."
No, they won't discipline her. But that's not really what matters. Her academic peers are one of the main audiences here. Direct name-calling does some good, but among academics, the subtle attack in this article (which at the end cleverly infers she is not a decent person and she exploits the university) carries more sting than direct name-calling does.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Good article, although I would have liked it more if his teeth had been sharper."
Really? I thought the part at the end where he made a mockery of the idea that "decent men" must take responsibility for violence was really powerful.
I tend to agree with Frank H here; the author stops somewhat short of calling Delaney an anti-male bigot outright.
One thing that could have been done is to susbstitute "white" for "woman" and "black" for "man" in every statement Delaney made; the result would have been so racist that one could ask how it is that we don't recoil from the original, even though it's every bit as bigoted.
We don't dismiss the threat of imminent nuclear war between India and Packistan as an asian problem and express dismay that more decent asians don't do something about it; there's something abhorrently smug about such statements, and Delaney's "concern" about the inaction of decent men ought to be recognized as such...
unless I'm heavy handed and the more tempered approach is ultimately more effective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
unless I'm heavy handed and the more tempered approach is ultimately more effective.
I think the two styles complement each other. Neither would be as effective alone as they are together.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The truth is finally coming out. Just a few years ago it would have been far more difficult, if not impossible, to find such honesty in the mainstream media.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have as yet received no reply from Stanford University following sending this e-mail to numerous addresses, including Provost Etchemendy and the President of the Associated Students. ...proving once again that when you're a woman, you walk on water and have no accoutability.
Provost John Etchemendy, et. al.:
I am writing to you about an article that was published in the San Francisco Chronicle on August 5, 2002 by Dr. Carol Delaney titled, “CRIMES ARE BY MALES.” Dr. Delaney stated at the end of her article that she was an Associate Professor at Stanford University. I am also writing to you about your subsequent reply to Trudy Schuett, concerning Dr. Delaney’s article, in which you enumerate some of Stanford’s policies, and use them to rationalize the existence of Dr. Delaney’s article. Your letter to Trudy Schuett, and Dr. Delaney’s article are both accessible through Mens News Daily, http:\\www.mensnewsdaily.com/storiesreader080702.h tm
In your letter you state, “I shudder to think what our country would be like if such disagreements were not permitted.” Personally, I’m shuddering now to see what you and your ilk have done to the good, decent men of our country with such hate speech (based on gender) as that uttered by Dr. Delaney in the aforementioned article. Since you are a top ranking administrator at Stanford University (Provost), and such a great defender of free speech, I beg your indulgence to the following few words I submit for your consideration.
With any great freedom goes an equally great responsibility not to misuse or abuse it. Dr. Delaney appears to have become undisciplined in her critical thinking to the point, that she has allowed assumptions to be made and stated that are not substantiated with proper research and facts.
Furthermore, although you state, in reference to Dr. Delaney’s article that you, “happen disagree with the substance,” you go on to say that, “Stanford... ...#1. “tolerates, and indeed encourages, a broad diversity of opinions... ...free and open debate.” You ask, ““I would be interested to know which of the above policies you consider a “tragedy.”?”
The “tragedy” has been the irresponsible and obtuse use of free speech to spread hatred onto a victimized and oppressed class of people (men), while under the guise of a respected member of the faculty of a prestigious university (Stanford). Dr. Delaney says, “These hideous crimes are being committed by men.” I say, “a small percentage of all men.” Dr. Delaney says, “What has gone so wrong in the rearing of men in this society.” I say, “Look directly at what has gone wrong in the lives of those individual men, and do not link all “men” into one group as if to say we are all in some way involved in committing those heinous crimes.” At Stanford University, apparently, it is condoned that this kind of aforementioned, irresponsible, hate speech is allowed to be spewed upon the developing young minds who are held captive to the graduation requirements of their discipline. Is this a captive audience who, in the long term, may come to focus their learned prejudice onto that, now demonized, class of battered and victimized men that Dr. Delaney has so maligned.
To be specific, let me say that I am equally concerned about: #1. the victimization of men by this negative stereotyping, and #2 the developing of young minds at Stanford into a prejudiced view point of the male gender. When I considering the destruction and tragedy that has been wrought on this world by the atrocities of the Nazi era in history I am disgusted to find any flavor of that kind of prejudiced and demented reasoning still going on.
The bigoted spiel put on by Dr. Delaney in her article sickens me. Without the facade of your prestigious university (Stanford) attached to her story, I would not have been nearly so outraged. If, while standing in the checkout line, I had encountered Dr. Delaney’s story on the cover of some supermarket tabloid, a vehicle much more suited to her hip shooting style of unscholarly sensationalism, I would have taken it much more in stride.
Vilifying hate speech against all men as a evil homogeneous group, having no individual differences or redeeming qualities, must have a stop, NOW! I, for one, will not tolerate being treated so hatefully just for being male and alive.
As a California taxpayer, I am appalled that even one cent of my hard earned money should go to such an institution as yours. Your Ombudsperson’s ethical principals document states that she does not act on 3rd party complaints. Therefore, based on the above paragraphs, the comments of Dr. Delaney and subsequently you, I have no recourse but to say that it is my layman’s “opinion” that any “MAN” ( faculty member, student, or staff) who has the misfortune to be actively involved with Stanford University would be wise to contact the Ombudsperson directly at Stanford University and file a complaint concerning the verifiably hostile environment that men are subject to there, because of their gender. This would go double for any male student who is enrolled in any course of study under Dr. Carol Delaney.
If any male faculty member had uttered such hateful nonsense about women as Dr. Delaney uttered about men, I suspect he would already be subject to the “politically correct” discipline process, and most likely be on his way out the door. Isn’t it about time men see some equal justice in these kinds of affairs or is this just another area in the institutionalized mindset, where the only thing seen is CRIMES ARE BY MEN?
Sincerely, Ray Blumhorst
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Before this story their was Dr.Carol Delaney's book, "Abraham on Trial, The Social Legacy of Biblical Myth,"
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0691 059853/qid=1030585723/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-441511 8-1088714?v=glance&s=booksies.
You only need read the reviews to see that, before the book, their, apparently, was a brainwashing at the hands of tax payer funded, male bashing, Women's Studies programs.
Ray
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
d
y
s
l
e
x
i
a
bad... Should have been "there" not "their" (twice). Also my name twice... oops! tired now... sleep.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 29, @03:30PM EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
...I've had a REALLY bad case of the flu here lately.
I too, on another thread, printed my name twice, And on yet another thread spelled my name; "ThunderSloud."
I'm a lousy speller as it is. (I haven't spoken English all my life) But this was BAD even for me.
So, don't feel bad, We all go through times like this. THEN we come back stronger than before.
Thundercloud.
(Spelled it right this time.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I guess Delany must have skipped all that "self sacrifice" bit evident in the bible.
Jesus himself explains " I and the father are one" is this not true for Abraham? In fact Abraham was going to kill himself for the greatness and good of god. And what was Abraham's reward for doing such a deed? God gave him what he and his wife dreamed of their greatest joy a son.
One thing about western culture that Delaney has forgotton about such historical collections is, their litature does not work in such a linear fashion.
We follow more closely the greeks which is what the 4 apostles were originally written in. Christianity follows more of the linear fashion that we do. Yet the writers of the books were also trained in Hebrew I find that the new testement fully explains the old as well as pushing for an even greater understanding of what manhood is about.
Feminists I find don't really like the bible, but these books were written by men for men. Im sorry if that sounds sexist but it is invariably true. This is not to say that women can not enjoy the eternal wisdom of these books.
I expect that in future more litrature will be written concerning man and spirituality concerning and in relation to women to make it seem more inclusive. But in the end it will be as about the same as writting a book for men on how the experience of pregnancy and child birth will be.
Ironically this is why men are always sacrificing their sons. They sacrifice their first born son for that of the world. Just like god sacrificed his only begotton son. Are we not in his image? We are sacrificing our selves which to the Hebrews means sacrificing your first born son. Get it? I and the father are one?
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, this does make me feel a bit better about the whole mess! Here's the final exchange:
----- Original Message -----
From: John Etchemendy
To: Trudy W. Schuett
Cc: John Etchemendy
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 12:18 AM
Subject: Re: Fwd: re:Crimes are by males
Dear Ms Schuett,
I'm beginning to feel like Alice in Wonderland. Did you read the same letter from Professor Delaney that I did? Give me a break. "Incorrect information which may cause damage to the public at large"?
When I read the letter, I see a couple of correct factual assertions about recent news stories, followed by some opinions based on these observations that I don't personally agree with. I hate to break it to you, but a letter to the editor expressing opinions like this, even from a Stanford University professor, is not going to "cause damage to the public at large." It didn't cause you to change your opinions about the cause of the behavior in question, now did it? Then why do you have such a low opinion of the intelligence of the newspaper reading public that you imagine the mere expression of opinions you disagree with will "cause damage" to them? This is the attitude that leads to repressive regimes that restrict the expression of ideas. Do I oppose such an attitude? You'd better believe it.
Just to make my earlier remarks explicit: You do not have my permission to publish any of this correspondence in your Journal. Judging from the responses I've received from your readers, they are a rather strange bunch who are not very interested in facts or rational discussion. I'd rather not be part of the windmill you and they are tilting against.
John Etchemendy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
My reply:
It has been clear from the start who I am, and what I do. My initial e-mail was cc'ed to a number of individuals at Stanford and elsewhere. There has never been any suggestion on either side this is or should be personal correspondence. Had you requested confidentiality or asked not to be quoted, I would have given the request due consideration, but you did not do so. You were given a variety of choices to use in your response -- postal mail, e-mail, or phone. You could also have chosen not to comment, or referred the issue to your public information officer. You chose to e-mail the publisher of the DesertLight Journal direct. By the same token I have no way of knowing to whom you may have bcc'ed your side of the messages. E-mail is not a secure communications medium.
Just because you are in a position where most journalists extend you preferential treatment, does not mean all journalists will. In this case it is not a question of 'permission,' since communication with any journalist carries with it the knowledge of the purpose of their communication. You have apparently chosen to ignore this convention. Though it seems you would prefer this exchange not be made public, I am within my rights and indeed have a responsibility to my readers in 41 countries to inform them on this issue.
Although I did attempt to conduct this exchange on a respectful level, you seem to have misinterpreted this common courtesy as an offer of some sort of editorial privilege that was not offered. You have made the position of Stanford University quite clear on this issue and I will be reporting this stance at the DesertLight Journal.
__________________________________________
Trudy W. Schuett
The DesertLight Journal
http://www.desertlightjournal.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Etchemendy wrote to Trudy why do you have such a low opinion of the intelligence of the newspaper reading public that you imagine the mere expression of opinions you disagree with will "cause damage" to them? This is the attitude that leads to repressive regimes that restrict the expression of ideas.
Actually, the relentless preaching of anti-Semetic hate went a long way to creating the repressive regime of Nazism, just as the relentless preaching of anti-male hate has done so much to create the repressive regime of feminism under which we now live and which grows more insidious every day.
Looks like the genfems have their little femboy, Etchemendy, on a pretty short leash.
Thanks for the update, Trudy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just had a funny thought that I will share, though actually doing it might violate copyright protection and God knows what else, so I'll leave it as a dream.
A few discussions ago, Thundercloud referred us to an advertisement showing a woman walking two naked men on leashes. (You can see it here.) The men are down on all fours, like dogs, with their haunches raised raised, so the woman can enjoy the view of their anuses and genitals .
My dream is of men taking photos of this add and modifying it by labeling the woman "feminist," and then adding the heads of well-known femboys. The femboys could be identified as "Femboy-First and Last Name."
Once again, I'd be careful about the legalities, but I can imagine Femboy-John Etchemendy posted all over Stanford.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Love this idea! Damn the copyright issue, it could be exploited to make those posturing against it look like pompous asses. Perhaps suitably-minded students could bark or make other 'doggy' noises when Etchemendy is around. How long would it take for that to really get on his tits? (I imagine he has tits). And what about dog biscuits? Never mind an apple for the teacher, how about a couple of Bonios? Damn, I wish I was still at university.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"This is the attitude that leads to repressive regimes that restrict the expression of ideas. "
Does he include the administrations of American Universities among these "oppressive regimes"? I certainly hope so, because conservative and pro-masculine ideas have been repressed at every turn at just about every university in this country!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 29, @04:12PM EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
Notice that Etchemenedey, or what ever his stupid name is, uses a common tool of the Feminists.
When Trudy simply expressed her consern and dissent, towards Dr. Delaney's "findings" and comments, Etchemenedy responded by saying;
"This is the attitude that leads to repressive regimes that restict the expression of ideas."
This is a classic tool of rebuttal for the femininsts.
WHENEVER ANYONE disagrees or finds fault with feminist dogma or ideals, feminists ALWAYS accuse the "dessenter" of supporting an "opposite extreame". I.E. "repression", "totaletarianism", and of course their favorite lable, "censorship".
Which I have always found curious, on account of, the VERY things feminists accuse dissenters of supporting, are the very things that millitant feminists, THEMSELVES support!
Geez, Talk about TRANSFERRANCE!
I doubt I'm the only one who recognizes this, But I thought I'd point it out just in case their were those who don't see this pattern.
Go Trudy, Go!!!
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My position on the matter is to permit free speech--even hate speech of all kinds--especially in public forums. Etchemendy is right not to want to get involved. He expressed his own disagreement with Delaney's opinions. Simply because the feminists are intolerant and would work to jettison any assistant professor who made "anti-woman" remarks does not mean we should expect some kind of reciprocal handling of Delaney's case.
Etchemendy clearly considers his own disagreement a personal matter, and chose not to be specific. I think that's fair, against anyone (you might consider me an extremist reactionary on some issues) who believes that he ought to be condemning Delaney for anti-male bigotry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My position on the matter is to permit free speech--even hate speech of all kinds--especially in public forums.
I agree to an extent. What I don't support is a system, such as we have, in which hate speech is tolerated against one group (males) and not against any others. I suspect that it would not have been tolerated, if Delaney had made such accusations against people of color.
It wasn't that long ago that we heard such things. "Crimes are by Negroes... These hideous crimes are being committed by Negroes... What has gone so wrong in the rearing of Negroes in this society?... I am disappointed by the silence of decent Negroes who are not taking this on as a Negro problem." It took a lot of time and struggle for people of color to get our society somewhat past such vicious, hateful prejudice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree to an extent. What I don't support is a system, such as we have, in which hate speech is tolerated against one group (males) and not against any others. I suspect that it would not have been tolerated, if Delaney had made such accusations against people of color.
All that's true. We're attempting to change attitudes, and if we're right, we'll prevail. I'm supporting a change attitudes by promoting and tolerating free speech. I don't believe in re-writing the first amendment because some assistant professor expressed what I consider to be a bigoted opinion. I believe that the article is an appropriate rejoinder, and an indication that public opinion is changing.
What do you disagree with, specifically? I don't see the area of disagreement. Do you expect a university administrator not to do what he does best, which is cover his ass? That's his job: he SHOULD be covering his ass. I'll be more specific: you can't monitor everything everyone says; a policy of tolerance is considerably easier to maintain (especially for an ass-coverer, even though this is an aside) than monitoring and suppressing everything the faculty says.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"That's his job: he SHOULD be covering his ass."
The thing is, he's not covered HIS ass, he's covering HER's. Delaney published her words with her credentials and her place of employment, giving readers the impression, if not outright notice, that she represented the university, and therefore, this is THEIR official position, or one that they support. If she had left her credentials out of it and if she had not included her place of employment, then she could be said to be speaking for herself. Then I would have no quarrel with the university, I would regard her opinion as her own.
I must conclude, since Etchemendy has not publicly distanced himself from Delany's words, that this bigoted position is Stanford's official position on men and masculinity.
I propose that we identify some male students at Stanford and start a chain letter to them asking that they raise the complaint themselves through whatever forum they deem appropriate. I see this as the only way this will be reconciled.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tolerance? Interesting that everyone agrees that if it were in reverse Delaney would be receiving punishment measures right about now.
Secondly clearly she's an idiot who is bent on male bigotry. Her opinions are biased and faulty at best. I recomend we write an article on her, with the very same statement of, what went wrong in the rearing of Delaney.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tolerance? Interesting that everyone agrees that if it were in reverse Delaney would be receiving punishment measures right about now.
So? Because some militant feminists exact revenge for dissenting opinions and positions doesn't mean that we have to abandon our principles and become unreasonable. We don't become less reasonable by adhering to principles of free speech. We should be putting a stop to the suppressors of speech, not becoming like them because the militant feminists wage an active speech suppression campaign, and we don't.
Secondly clearly she's an idiot who is bent on male bigotry. Her opinions are biased and faulty at best. I recomend we write an article on her, with the very same statement of, what went wrong in the rearing of Delaney.
Entirely appropriate.
Dan Lynch: Martial Arts for the Modern World.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Delaney published her words with her credentials and her place of employment, giving readers the impression, if not outright notice, that she represented the university, and therefore, this is THEIR official position, or one that they support.
I somehow doubt that line of argument would hold up in a court of law. Delaney may have wished to suggest she has the official support of the univesity, but even that is plausibly deniable: she could have wanted to convey the impression of being trustworthy in virtue of her academic position, without necessarily implying or suggesting that her views had the full backing of her employer.
Without a policy statement from Stanford's administration which supports every view uttered by every one of its faculty members (which I doubt any univesity would give), or some independent official support for Delaney (which Etchemendy did not give, since he disagreed), I'm not sure how one can argue that Stanford--or at least Etchemendy--actively supports Delaney's condemnation of masculinity.
Administrators typically disavow any responsibility for the statements of their faculty--that's one means of covering their own asses, which is the primary function of a university administrator; the avoidance of criticism is ultimately the motivation for everything they do, appearances and protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. If anyone else's ass is also covered, that's entirely accidental.
If adminstrators go along with militant feminists, it's because militant feminists happen to have power within the university, and administrative asses would be completely exposed by going against them. But basically the non-response you're seeing is the response you'd expect from a professional ass coverer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Without a policy statement from Stanford's administration which supports every view uttered by every one of its faculty members (which I doubt any univesity would give), or some independent official support for Delaney (which Etchemendy did not give, since he disagreed), I'm not sure how one can argue that Stanford--or at least Etchemendy--actively supports Delaney's condemnation of masculinity."
It may force them to make a statement, plus it raises awarenes of what exactly is going on at these universities and dumb these frauds are. I think its a good idea to tell our sons exactly what to expect when they go to such schools so they can be prepared long before hand.
I personally think its the students we whould be arming to fight those such hate mongers. Students are always fighting causes like that, maybe this one will catch on.
DOWN WITH THE MAN!! lol
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wish we had a geographical center of mass somewhere. In this case, it would be handy if it was in the northern California. It would be so nice to have about a dozen or so guys, locally based so they had more credibility, writing letters and articles trahsing this... woman, and her toady 'boss', in the local print media.
Educators are such snobs, holding themselves above the rest of the population. Hardly do they realize how much they are laughed at behind their backs by the people who live in the real world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<Educators are such snobs, holding themselves above the rest of the population. Hardly do they realize how much they are laughed at behind their backs by the people who live in the real world.>>
Actually I laugh at them right to their faces. I assused my prof of showing a propaganda film and proved it was propaganda in front of the whole class. It was some anti-male bigotry shit about dv. So talking about the last exchange, well here's a guy who got the last word.
Egg on your face is not as good as it sounds.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 29, @07:43PM EST (#33)
|
|
|
|
|
Etchemendy:
You said,
"It didn't cause you to change your opinions about the cause of the behavior in question, now did it?"
My reply,
Yes, I now think that through the siphoning off of funds into special interest feminist programs like the nonsensical women's studies programs on college campuses many battered men are not reached and turn into these monsters. Scam legislation like the VAWA is also a contributor, with its low victimization rates comparable to male homicide rates. Check out the statistics at DOJ, then look at who's getting all the attention and all the billions of dollars.
You said,
"...why do you have such a low opinion of the intelligence of the newspaper reading public that you imagine the mere expression of opinions you disagree with will "cause damage" to them? This is the attitude that leads to repressive regimes that restrict the expression of ideas. Do I oppose such an attitude? You'd better believe it."
then you said,
"Judging from the responses I've received from your readers, they are a rather strange bunch who are not very interested in facts or rational discussion. I'd rather not be part of the windmill you and they are tilting against."
My reply,
Why do you have such a low opinion of the readers of DESERT LIGHT JOURNAL, that you imagine the expression of ideas by them may lead to repressive regimes that restrict the expression of ideas? Do you have this low opinion just because they don't parrot the official, Stanford politically correct bigotry that typifies radical feminist ideology?
Do I oppose such an attitude? You better believe it. Academicians at Stanford are a rather strange bunch who are not very interested in facts or rational discussion. I'd rather not be part of the windmill you and they are tilting against.
The message of the Stanford administration is coming through their double speak loud and clear, "Squawk, I'm a liberal, intellectual, politically correct, Stanford parrot, squawk. I'll be a clone! I'll be a clone, squawk!"
Those who can do. Those who can't teach. It appears that there are a number of those who teach at Stanford in need of a real job to help them find a more basic understanding of the real world (reality), instead of just the view they have from their aesthetically insulated ivory towers, where they spew their inanity on the poor unsophisticated masses. Perhaps in addition to your degrees, an education would be in order.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 29, @08:40PM EST (#34)
|
|
|
|
|
Oops! I didn't break a couple of paragraphs right. It should have been:
"Why do you have such a low opinion of the readers of DESERT LIGHT JOURNAL, that you imagine the expression of ideas by them may lead to repressive regimes that restrict the expression of ideas? Do you have this low opinion just because they don't parrot the official, Stanford politically correct bigotry that typifies radical feminist ideology? Do I oppose such an attitude? You better believe it.
Academicians at Stanford are a rather strange bunch who are not very interested in facts or rational discussion. I'd rather not be part of the windmill you and they are tilting against."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just to make my earlier remarks explicit: You do not have my permission to publish any of this correspondence in your Journal. Judging from the responses I've received from your readers, they are a rather strange bunch who are not very interested in facts or rational discussion. I'd rather not be part of the windmill you and they are tilting against.
John Etchemendy
This remark is gratuitous. He should be consistent: if his intention is to project a profesional presence and not comment, then he should simply state his desire not to get involved and leave it at that; since he was unable to restrain himself from casting aspersions on the Desert Light Journal and its readers, it was fair to publish his letter--in spite of my impression that the letters to Etchemendy haven't lived up to Marc Angelluci's standards of intellectual discipline, and I guess Etchemendy was partly responding to this.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
