Affirmative Action for White Men, Chap. 4,651

It isn't often that someone owns up to flagrant sex discrimination in the op-ed page of the New York Times, so I suppose we should be grateful to Kenyon College dean of admissions Jennifer Britz for her honesty. In "To All the Girls I've Rejected" she admits what many parents of girls suspect: Boys have an edge in college admissions. In order to preserve "gender balance" and avoid the dreaded "tipping point" of 60 percent female enrollment, which supposedly makes a campus less appealing to applicants of both sexes, Kenyon puts the thumb on the scale for boys. The villain? Why feminism, of course: "We have told today's young women that the world is their oyster: the problem is, so many of them believed us that the standards for admission to today's most selective colleges are stiffer for women than men. How's that for an unintended consequence of the women's liberation movement?" Right: if only more parents had discouraged their daughters' aspirations, Ms Britz wouldn't have to reject them now. Why not: if only more boys worked a little harder in high school they'd deserve a place at Kenyon?

At Kenyon, more girls apply, so more are rejected--not because they aren't brilliant , but because they are girls. Let me put that another way: inferior boys are accepted, because they are boys. "Gender balance" looks a lot like a quota system to me, the sort of extra-credit-for-testicles that the Supreme Court has specifically outlawed for public universities. If Kenyon was a public college, Britz would be on her way to court right now. Anyone for a lawsuit?

Britz asks "What are the consequences of young men discovering that even if they do less, they have more options?" How about: those young men will do less than ever, because why put down that Game Boy when Kenyon College will take you anyway? then, armed with their not- quite-deserved diplomas, they get jobs they don't quite deserve, and promotions they don't quite deserve either. Exactly the sort of thing that opponents of affirmative action claim happens to blacks who benefit from affirmative action. Except, oh I forgot, the boys of Kenyon (and other colleges that favor males in admissions--and I just hope to God that Wesleyan, where my daughter is a freshman, isn't one of them) aren't black! They haven't been the victims of centuries of discrimination continuing up to the present moment, didn't grow up in segregated neighborhoods, go to overcrowded under- resourced schools without extracurriculars or AP courses or maybe even science labs, and have families who couldn't afford math tutors, SAT Prep classes, and maybe even a hired consultant to help them write a killer application essay. They're middle-class white boys! Whew.

Comments (65)

1. First! For once!

   Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/23/2006 @ 6:16pm

2. well, what did anyone expect? its been time for a re-evaluation of affirmative action for a while...kind of funny we start talking about it here only when white boys benefit...heehee

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/23/2006 @ 6:55pm

3. In this male-dominated venue, I wonder how many will be overly eager to counter ZERO's rantings and support Ms. Pollitt's?

   I personally have never heard of Kenyon College before a quick google I just now performed. Now I must ask...is it worth all the outrage and indignance over a liberal arts college of 1600 students in the middle of Ohio?

   I would ask of Dean Britz an Kenyon, "Would it be such a horrible thing if your female enrollment did eclipse the supposedly dreaded 60% mark?" If I were a student at Kenyon, I would be seriously concerned about the credibility and capability of an admissions officer who admitted to the nation that her admissions process is not as "selective" as her website claims it to be.

   ZERO, I agree with the points you make, but I doubt that this "problem" (however one may interpret it) is as bad as either you or Ms. Pollitt make it out to be.

   Posted by liveeasy at 03/23/2006 @ 7:12pm

4. I suppose indignance isn't a word...should be indignation.

   What do you expect? ...I'm a recently-graduated male. Probably wasn't qualified in the first place hehehe.

   Posted by liveeasy at 03/23/2006 @ 7:24pm

5. the writers at the nation are psycho! are you people kidding me! Mike Davis complains about " white republicans " and the racist scumbucket lowlife, Hatha Pollitt, complains about " white boys "! Now imagine if a conservative complained about " black democrats " or " middle class black boys "! You hypocritical, racist freaks would be up in arms! The writers at the nation are an embarrassment to all Americans ( regardless of color or gender ) and they should just pack up and move to the land of entitlements, political correctness, bad hygene, and socialism! This land is called France and it's burning for the second time in less than six months, but it's politics are something the writers of the nation seem much more suited to agree with, so please just move there and do us all a favor! I wonder how long it will take until the white flag-waving, cowardly french ask us to bail them out again?

   Posted by barry25 at 03/23/2006 @ 7:50pm

6. zero, are you denying that white male privilege exists?

   Posted by johannesrolf at 03/23/2006 @ 8:09pm

7. Posted by BARRY25 03/23/2006 @ 7:50pm |

   I'm sorry, ZERO, for characterizing your posts as a "rant." It had been a while since I read a real rant. After glancing at this idiot's post, I again remembered what "ranting" really looks like.

   Posted by liveeasy at 03/23/2006 @ 8:39pm

8. wow, big shocker that zero is the one here ranting and raving on this thread. what a lucky little wife he has. i wonder who that poor dear was in her last life to deserve such a fate. it's interesting to note that zero's all-caps "absolutely hysterical" insult here is hurled at a female writer. i've seen zero arguing with many hysterical men here but he never refers to them as hysterical. i'm surprised shrill wasn't used as well. i suspect mommy problems here. his usual calm tone accelerates greatly when he discusses women's issues.

   i did not get any free college at all. and i'm female. i had to pay just as much as the boys for my five years.

   what i notice in this very non-hysterical blog entry of katha's, is that less qualified males are accepted instead of more qualified females. this is in order to keep enough males on campus so it will be attractive to both sexes. hmmmm......how bizarre. i've been hearing about this save the males in higher education thing for about a year now.

   it was no problem at all for men when there were almost no women allowed in higher education. and that wasn't that long ago.

   Posted by loveloki at 03/23/2006 @ 9:50pm

9. so ibble, you're social darwinist, against women saying what happens to their bodies and now also against affirmative action. i take back the joyceian description of your stream of consciousness rants, faulknerian yes, but joyceian....never!

   Posted by loveloki at 03/23/2006 @ 9:58pm

10. what i notice in this very non-hysterical blog entry of katha's, is that less qualified males are accepted instead of more qualified females.

    Yes, at Kenyon College this is apparently true, which is why I question the credibility and the capability of their Dean of Admissions. But I still question the implication that this is an "across-the-board" problem. As you say, LOVELOKI, it wasn't that long ago that almost NO women were allowed in higher ed. But...now that this problem has been (for the most part) fixed, isn't a bit early to be raising alarms of reverse discrimination?

    Posted by liveeasy at 03/23/2006 @ 10:02pm

11. wonder how long it will take until the white flag-waving, cowardly french ask us to bail them out again?

    That does it. Barry on ignore.

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/23/2006 @ 10:12pm

12. i just reread the blog entry of katha's and i just don't see any alarms or any mention of reverse discrimination or any across-the-board accusations. i did see her hint that maybe someone should sue this kenyon college.

    Posted by loveloki at 03/23/2006 @ 10:14pm

13. those poor white males, sob...

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/23/2006 @ 10:22pm

14. oh wait, i did get special treatment in college (an engineering school that admitted in 1992 that they only try to recruit midwestern white males). that special treatment consisted of pompous bloated egotistical retarded middle aged white males telling me that it was a miracle that i was in college at all being a female. males evolved to be superior in every way, especially intelligence, they said. how could women be expected to evolve with all those kids clinging to their knees? how could they be expected to learn to think? one of these repulsive disgusting old gas-bags even had a one-question test--who is the most mentally superior sex? if u didn't put male, u got an f. that was one of only five tests for the semester.

    so ya, zero, i saw all that special treatment you're talking about!

    Posted by loveloki at 03/23/2006 @ 10:33pm

15. oh by the way, that repulsive old dust bag with the one question test--his name is holdsworth, just in case there are any homicidal feminists reading.

    Posted by loveloki at 03/23/2006 @ 10:35pm

16. Good points Loveloki,

    Yes, why is it that the most privileged in society always see themselves as the biggest victims of that same society?

    Posted by blue photon at 03/23/2006 @ 10:38pm

17. i just reread the blog entry of katha's and i just don't see any alarms or any mention of reverse discrimination or any across-the-board accusations

    From Pollitt's blog entry:

    "In "To All the Girls I've Rejected" she admits what many parents of girls suspect: Boys have an edge in college admissions"

    "the problem is, so many of them believed us that the standards for admission to today's most selective colleges are stiffer for women than men."

    ...and from the editorial she references:

    "The fat acceptance envelope is simply more elusive for today's accomplished young women."

    "The reality is that because young men are rarer, they're more valued applicants."

    This is evidence that both of these writers ARE implying that it is an across-the-board phenomenon that men are now given preference over women in the admissions process.

    As for my claims of reverse discrimination: I should have given it a moments more thought before typing that phrase. This phenomenon actually deserves the invention of a whole new phrase.

    Posted by liveeasy at 03/23/2006 @ 10:40pm

18. thanks blue photon and cool name. :)

    Posted by loveloki at 03/23/2006 @ 10:41pm

19. liveeasy,

    the first sentence you reference from katha's article is about the suspicion of girls' parents. the second sentence you reference is about what girls' parents have told girls about getting into higher education. in neither of these sentences or anywhere else in the blog article does katha state any across the board generalizations about higher education admission practices. these sentences you reference are about perceptions, as katha states.

    i don't think she gives much credence to the article writer she cites. i think she finds it disgusting that she would admit to such practices.

    as for your claim about raising alarms, i don't see it.

    Posted by loveloki at 03/23/2006 @ 11:00pm

20. female nation writers beware! your articles will be dissected, misinterpreted and used against you in every way shape and form. you will be called hysterical, shrill, shrieking, screeching witches for daring to be a woman with an opinion.

    Posted by loveloki at 03/23/2006 @ 11:09pm

21. I have to agree with Katha -- the goal should be excellence in college, not some heavy-handed attempt at "balance."

    So...when are we going to make all college sports coed, and choose just the best athletes?

    Posted by Snarfangel at 03/23/2006 @ 11:09pm

22. so snarfangel, r u suggesting that the boys should just go outside and play with their balls while the girls go to school? is that what you're trying to say?

    Posted by loveloki at 03/23/2006 @ 11:44pm

23. Posted by LOVELOKI 03/23/2006 @ 9:58pm

    heehee - not totally, loki...

    i think affirmative action, although distasteful and in my opinion constitutionally questionable, was the only option to right centuries of structural wrong...although from a purely "fair" standpoint i think it needs periodic re-evaluation with the idea that it is not meant 2 be permenant...but when? i don't know...

    in terms of gender application, well, i know i live in the gothic south, but i have seldom met a woman who does not expect her man to make as much money or more than she... so unless we institute bigamy...'sides, nobody never gave me no money! lol (laugh...joking...kind of...) down here, at least, i dont think women have caught up to their opportunities, in terms of attitudes...i've often felt like little more than a walking talking paycheck with a penis...have tried to not view women as vaginal baby making machines...

    ultimately men and women are messed up in different ways...instead of "men are from mars, women are from venus" i say "men are pigs, women are..." well, i wont say it, being almost a gentleman, but you know what i'm thinking...

    now i think i'll go hide somewhere for a while...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/23/2006 @ 11:50pm

24. those poor white males, sob...

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 03/23/2006 @ 10:22pm

    thats the kind of attitude that turns white males republican...and perhaps rightly so...

    until now, for a poor white male who does not earn academic scholarships there is only the military and hard work...gets old being forced to work that much harder with no freebies and getting ridiculed when u complain, blamed for what u had nothing to do with...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/23/2006 @ 11:56pm

25. that said, scholarships, academic aid, should ultimately be based on economic need above all else

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/23/2006 @ 11:57pm

26. No, loveloki, I'm "suggesting" that equality isn't something you pick and choose a la carte. Demanding equality in one area and then demanding preference in another is hypocritical. I'd be quite happy to have everything decided based on ability rather than on what group a person belongs to -- even if it puts me at a disadvantage in some areas -- but it is clear that there are some who are only interested in what personally benefits them.

    Posted by Snarfangel at 03/24/2006 @ 12:27am

27. ibble, is bitches the word u wouldn't say? i hope so...anything else would be taking it too far. and i'm a bitch from mars by the way.

    Posted by loveloki at 03/24/2006 @ 12:32am

28. wow, rio, that made a lot of sense. did you actually say something there?

    Posted by loveloki at 03/24/2006 @ 12:35am

29. Posted by LOVELOKI 03/24/2006 @ 12:32am |

    you're beautiful! i try to be a good little piggy...which, by the way, is as good as it gets, ladies....so don't come bitchin' to me! har har

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/24/2006 @ 12:38am

30. snarfangel, i know a girl who was upset she couldn't play football with the boys. they wouldn't let her. and girls wrestle boys here in montana now. and they win sometimes too. i'm not much into sports, myself.

    i think affirmative action helps force our racist, sexist society to change. some people use affirmative action to try to destroy it. in nebraska, i noticed a bunch of racist pigs hired their token black guy. he was very stupid. they constantly whispered about how they could have hired a much more qualified white person if it weren't for those stupid laws. i know there are smart black people in the world. why didn't they hire them? because they're ignorant pigs. ignorant pigs exist. sometimes they hide the fact that they're ignorant pigs. that is one of the reasons why we need affirmative action.

    Posted by loveloki at 03/24/2006 @ 12:41am

31. ibble, :)

    Posted by loveloki at 03/24/2006 @ 12:47am

32. Posted by LOVELOKI 03/24/2006 @ 12:41am

    yeah - i don't trust my fellows enough to say its time to drop affirmative action like a hot potatoe...

    but yeah, bitches was the word i was looking for - just don't like to bandy it about...think its over used in a shamefully derogatory way in popular culture...but apparantly you understand where i'm comig from...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/24/2006 @ 12:48am

33. hell - where IS this school? i need to work on some higher level eddicashun myself...hmmm....

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/24/2006 @ 12:52am

34. i wanna know where all the free money for girls! free money for girls! is. i want some more eddicashun too.

    Posted by loveloki at 03/24/2006 @ 12:54am

35. where is this vast industry zero speaks of? it's sure as hell not here.

    Posted by loveloki at 03/24/2006 @ 12:57am

36. Please correct me if I'm wrong, loveloki, but it sounds like you are for affirmative action -- unless it results in more men being admitted to college.

    Posted by Snarfangel at 03/24/2006 @ 01:01am

37. i don't think what was being applied there was affirmative action. i think affirmative action is a legal thing isn't it?

    but, having three white sons, i am worried about the fact that boys are not going to college. why is this? are they just choosing not to?

    Posted by loveloki at 03/24/2006 @ 01:07am

38. i'm not aware of any new affirmative action laws that are aimed at getting more white males into college. r u?

    Posted by loveloki at 03/24/2006 @ 01:10am

39. well, g'nite all u males. i'll check back in the morning.

    Posted by loveloki at 03/24/2006 @ 01:14am

40. freaks!

    Posted by barry25 at 03/24/2006 @ 01:33am

41. Katha:

    In your contrast of black males with white males, you ignore that many black males, especially those applying to elite universities, are in the middle class and enjoy the same benefits of their white counterparts that you describe. Second, you state that black male applicants have been the "victims of centuries of discrimination." This is nonsensical, unless there has been a recent crop of antebellum black male applicants. In short, you present a necessarily illogical attempt to square support for engineering a student body based on one genetic characteristic (race) and opposition to the same based on another (gender). Fair admissions policies, and for that matter, job hiring policies, are about achievement, past and potential, not genetics.

    Posted by yanagigoshi at 03/24/2006 @ 02:40am

42. Yes, indeed. It's an extremely slippery slope when any admissions criteria beyond the meritocratic, but especially strict percentages for our most fundamentally bifurcated nominal categorization, gender, is made different than the 49/51 male to female ratio which Nature/God so blithely affords.

    Posted by lewwelge at 03/24/2006 @ 06:21am

43. Slightly tangential to the topic: I used to share a house with the an admissions director from a large state college of art. She'd bring home boxes of applications to read. There'd be apps from straight-A students which included very accomplished drawings, paintings, etc, along with very well-written essays on what Art means to the applicant and all the reasons he or she wanted to attend the school. 'Boring." she'd say. Once in a while there'd be an app with wild, crazy works, and an essay that might say something like: "Fuck Art School. Fuck everything." and she'd say, "Now this person sounds interesting.".... Affirmative Action for Malcontents!

    Posted by bookmanjb at 03/24/2006 @ 07:50am

44. Am I reading Ms Pollit correctly....

    She's mad because affirmative action is helping white males, because it's being applied in the EXACT WAY those who support it say it should be applied....it's just happenning to benefit the "wrong" people?

    Posted by Mask at 03/24/2006 @ 09:09am

45. Yanagigoshi seems to see nuances where middle class blacks are concerned, so here's one: The relatively small percentage of affluent black kids in the U.S. don't tend to get free rides in admissions offices, primarily because they don't need them. Just ask Condoleeza Rice. And yet, the Secretary of State--herself a former college administrator--definitely illustrates Katha's point that women who finally end up in positions of power often end up disenfranchising other women (and/or other blacks), sometimes as part of their job descriptions. Thanx, Katha. Missing you in print.

    Posted by kelvinw at 03/24/2006 @ 09:10am

46. Katha,

    I'll read one more of your blog entries but if the premise is as off base as this one then I'm not going to read any more.

    You do realize that Rutgers University (which is a State University) has an UNDERGRADUATE college which is exclusivly for women. Do you know what happened to private Universities that had men only admission crieria? And yet, in the year 2006 a State University has a women's only college (Douglas College)!

    Katha, there are real problems in this country.....problems that need some illumination......the type of illumination you have been given the power to provide. A beef about "only" 60% of the student body of Kenyon being women is not one of those pressing problems!

    Posted by freedomplease at 03/24/2006 @ 09:16am

47. Freedom, I read that the Rutgers women's college will be phased out. this also happened at Columbia here in NYC, where the women's college, Barnard now admits men, and Columbia admits women

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/24/2006 @ 09:47am

48. Mask, I believe she's noting the irony that people with no economic, social, racial, or cultural barriers in life nonetheless "get a hand up". Say what you will about affirmative action programs, their intention is to level the playing field vis a vis the barriers facing women and minorities, not reaffirm the primacy of a white male class structure. Moreso, being a white male myself, I breezed into the fine college I attend without even a flutter of difficulty, and I imagine those families with actual money and privilege have an even easier time sending their little bastards to college.

    Barry25, if "freaks" is all you have to say, why the fuck are you even here? Honestly, it's embarassing.

    And finally, Rio,"This nation of multicultrual American citizenry will be all in gender equilibrium and perfect harmony as soon as the vendetta against the white, married w/family, employed, male of anglo-saxon decent is complete! (sorry, that is all males, wrong leftwing victimized clique) "

    you know, I've spent considerable time in women's history, women in politics, human rights (as taught by a feminist), and other classes. I find them very easy to get along in, so long as you can honestly state that you feel there should be gender equality through cooperation. It's not that hard, Rio. Women are not the enemy. They have boobles and other fine things, and I hear they're even nice to spend time with at night. Amazingly, they can even think and speak for themselves, too.

    Posted by Megido at 03/24/2006 @ 09:52am

49. Posted by KELVINW 03/24/2006 @ 09:10am |

    so affirmative action, when applied to anyone other than white males is enfranchising them...when applied to white males it is disenfranchising everyone else, regardless of statistics...?

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/24/2006 @ 09:54am

50. JR,

    There is fierce opposition to the closing of Douglas College and frankly I doubt that it will happen.

    Actually, I don't really care one way or another....that's sort of my point, which is that you can make an argument that women are favored on an admission / scholarship / financial aid basis and you can make the opposite argument. But even if one is actually correct and the other is wrong, it still pales in comparison to the point that we have a President that is actively breaking the Law. We have troops in harms way at great life, limb and monetary expense to accomplish something that we no longer know what it is nor want. We have a Phase II investigation that was the cause of a closed door session in the Senate (the first in my recollection) but is again hopelessly delayed in committee. And if you want to concern yourself with gender issues then wouldn't you be better off focusing on the S. Dakota thing, and more recently the CT decision on the morning after pill?

    And if you want to focus on education, surely the NY ruling that the State now has to fund the City's (New York City) schools as payback for the all the years the State has screwed the City school system is considerably more significant than a gender inequity at Kenyon college.

    Posted by freedomplease at 03/24/2006 @ 10:02am

51. You know, if Pollitt woke up one morning and didn't have (or couldn't create) some feminist issue to fight about, she wouldn't know what to do with herself. The laws are all on the books here, so why not take the fight to somewhere where female oppression is still an issue-I'm thinking "almost anywhere else in the world" would be a good place to start.

    Chip Thornton

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 03/24/2006 @ 10:23am

52. Whining white men! Here's what Katha's saying before you pity yourselves into self-imposed martyrdom:

    1) Ain't it ironic that affirmative action is now giving a benefit to white men. Advantage isn't measured in NUMBERS. Even though white men are fewer in numbers in terms of college admissions, they are hardly disadvantaged. They don't work hard to achieve the admissions standards...because they don't have to (not because they don't have the opportunity to).

    2) Back in 1950, an exceptionally talented woman might be denied entrance to a college, because, well, she was a woman. In 2006, an exceptionally talented woman might be denied entrance to a college, because, well, she is a woman. Same shit. Different century.

    If we allowed nature to take its course and the BEST applicants took the positions in colleges regardless of sex...then we might actually have more females in medical, science and executive positions. I guess we can't let that happen.

    Posted by kfine at 03/24/2006 @ 10:31am

53. Posted by MEGIDO 03/24/2006 @ 09:52am | ignore this person

    Then, basically Pollit (and you) are admitting that it's not about "equal access and opportunity to 'segregated' insitutions"....but gender and racial quotas.

    If it wasn't, then she (and you) would find it ironic, but not tragic, that white males are getting A.A. to go into female-dominant universities and put it down to "taking the bad with the good".

    But apparently, it IS a "restitution program" and not about "opening up equal opportunity to ALL", and therefore is inherently discriminatory....it's just that you "don't like" the people being discriminated against in the other cases (white males) and therefore it's "okay".

    Posted by Mask at 03/24/2006 @ 10:31am

54. Take this white male/boy problem back to Kindergarten. There is a national trend to start boys (primarily and statistically WHITE boys) in Kindergarten after their 6th birthdays. Not just holding back because they are close to a school cutoff date or have special needs...but starting them later to make them older to GIVE THEM AN ADVANTAGE. The statistics are not there for girl late starts or minority late starts.

    Let's make sure we give our white boys all the advantages we can!

    Posted by kfine at 03/24/2006 @ 10:39am

55. (I already wrote a much better version of this, but I guess I timed out the server...the "one that got away" indeed).

    What is the purpose of (racial) affirmitive action? Is it some sort of pennance for white people to pay? Is it to produce a college campus that is looks white and brown? Is it to satisfy some abstract notion of fairness? It's hard to say, since so many people involved have their own agendas.

    But quite frankly, I would have thought that (racial) affirmitive action is a mechinism to help ensure an maximumally educational expirence at college. The driving concept behind the liberal arts education is exposure to a wide range of things. Take econ classes, take psych. Prehaps more important that any class (or so the Deweyian in me would like to believe) is the idea that each student, and thus democratic society as a whole, is better by being around people you've never met. People from Vermont meeting people from Kenya and Alabama, conservitive Christians meeting gays, prep school boys meeting black girls from Indianapolis and indians from West Texas. Rich socialists meet poor libertarians. When any segment of the class is an over-wheming majority, this has a detrimental effect. And so yes, it is problematic that a college class is two-thirds female, for exactly the same reason it's problematic to have a class that is 75% white.

    Think it's hard for women to get into college? Try being a white, male, Jewish, prep schooler from the east coast. There are more us applying to Kenyon and Wesleyan and every other school than you can shake a stick at. When you have a lot of people who are demographiclly similar, you can pick and choose a great deal. You could fill a dozen Kenyons with people like that, all smart, driven, active, high-achieveing, but would you want to? It's no more my fault that I'm white and male and middle class than it is the fault of someone that she is poor, black, and female. What education, academiclly and socially, is to be gained from sitting in a room talking to, in essence, yourself? Is is problematic to reject someone from New York City in favor for a student from Arkansas when the student from NYC is just as smart, hard working, driven and likeable, but the 38th person like that from New York who has applied, but no one from Arkansas has been accepted?

    In addition, I am rather dissapointed by by Katha's article (particularly since I greatly respect her and her work), and by the comments of many people here. If you know it's stupid to say that black kids don't work hard since they know they'll get into college anyway to fill a quota, why say the same thing about white kids?

    In addition, it's all too easy to just drop an easy, snide remark. It's so heart-warming, really. And making fun of rich people never gets old. Ha ha, people at Kenyon are white, and that's funny, but it's ok because who cares about a small school in Ohio. I'd have expected Nation readers to be above that, but you all sound like the wing-nut on talk radio, only your not all right-wingers (except the guy talking about the anglo saxon race...what's with that?).

    So go ahead, take what I say and just throw things like "Whining white men! Here's what Katha's saying before you pity yourselves into self-imposed martyrdom" at me. Sorry to whine, sorry to be white, sorry to be a man, and sorry for not looking at this soley as an issue of being mean to women (and sorry about the typos, too).

    Posted by lapsed at 03/24/2006 @ 11:49am

56. sorry megido! Ok, you moronic, racist freaks! How about that one?

    Posted by barry25 at 03/24/2006 @ 11:55am

57. Ooops he did it again!

    President Botch apparently added a signing statement to the newly reauthorized Patriot Act. Senator Leahy noticed it....and the "liberal" media didn't even after Leahy pointed it out.

    Quick summary....The Patriot Act renewal was overwhelmingly approved in part because of new Provisions that added Congressional oversight. Botch's signing statement basicly says that these "oversight" provisions are not actually "law".

    Are there any apologist's out there that still don't think we have lost the Republic.....not to terrorists, but to a coke snorting, drunk driving, draft dodging, unpopular maniac!

    Posted by freedomplease at 03/24/2006 @ 11:55am

58. freedomplease,

    you're assuming the apologists know what congressional oversight, signing statements and law mean. obviously you're giving them too much credit. wow, it's a real shocker that the liberal msm, who almost all came from right-wing think tanks, are out to lunch on this one.

    Posted by loveloki at 03/24/2006 @ 12:11pm

59. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 03/24/2006 @ 11:55am | ignore this person

    Good thing you had 80% of the Senate Democrats trying to stop him by voting against it, huh?

    Oh wait....we didn't.

    Posted by Mask at 03/24/2006 @ 12:26pm

60. Mask,

    I'm sure the Dems that voted to renew would claim that their decision was made due to the oversight provisions.

    Without those provisions (now negated by a Presidential signing statement) it is possible that "80% of the dems" would have voted against.

    Posted by freedomplease at 03/24/2006 @ 12:37pm

61. Posted by KFINE 03/24/2006 @ 10:31am

    i understand your well researched sociological reasoning. i dont think your sociological reasoning is taking into account the fact that i am a white male. i dont like the thought that i dont have the same right to assistance from my government if i need it...i feel demonized for sins of my ancestors...i dont think thats fair...i am a member of a gender/ethnic subgroup who's ancesters did some shitty stuff...but if i'm born in a trailer park, i'm a "white trash trailer allstar". but i, the white trash trailer allstar, can't locate a single solitary scholarship set aside for white trash trailer allstars...i hit a black guy once...got hit back...i yelled at my girlfriend and got a dui...i aint goin to college...cant afford it...fuck...guess i'll join the army....fuck...then the republican party?

    you have no compassion for people like this? you dont think they exist? you flippantly tell them they dont need help?

    what thoughtless hypocrisy...times DO change you know...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/24/2006 @ 5:23pm

62. LoveLoki: Scratch the surface of a progressive male and underneath you may find an embryonic misogynist.

    Mask et all: "She is mad because affirmative action is helping white males because it's being applied in the exact way those who support it say it should be applied."

    No, she is mad because preferences are being given to a group that has not been historically disenfranchised.

    Zero et all: "My wife, a Latina has been told by a university admissions officer that as a Hispanic woman, she is essentially guaranteed admission". Loveloki, let's you and I apply to the same university that Zero's wife has applied to and see if we are automatically guaranteed admission. Hell, all we need to do is walk in the door and then viola! we are suddenly alumni! [sarcasm]

    My own feeling is that the admission's officer probably said something on the lines of: we strongly encourage Hispanic women to apply to these programs; not we will guarantee you a spot in the program as long as you are alive and Hispanic. There is a big difference between being "encouraged" and being "guaranteed". However, Zero's comments about his wife's conversations can neither be proved nor disproved so there is no point in continuing this part of the discussion.

    Zero: "there is an entire industry of woman-only grants, fellowships, loans, scholarships, etc"

    Loveloki: I mean if we have had all these monies, scholarships and grants literally thrown at us, and given the fact that you and I have paid for our education, we have been hoodwinked!

    Zero: please enlighten us and give us the name of the grant or scholarship where the only qualification is gender and nothing else?

    Rio: "…as the vendetta against the white, married w/family, employed, male of Anglo-Saxon decent is complete!"

    Read my previous post or better yet let me repost it for you here: "why is it that the most privileged in society always see themselves as the biggest victims of that same society?"

    Zero: A MAJORITY of university students nationwide are WOMEN.

    The point is not about who is the majority, the point is about who has been traditionally disenfranchised.

    Free: You do realize that Rutgers University (which is a State University) has an UNDERGRADUATE college which is exclusively for women.

    We originally had all female schools because women were denied access to institutions devoted to higher education. And when women were finally allowed to attend male schools, many continued to join all female schools because many women did not want to subject themselves to harassment by men. However, women have made very significant progress in education; and I agree that all women's schools are an anachronism and should be dismantled.

    Ib: "poor white men" "comments like these make poor males vote republicans."

    The point is that when women complain about legitimate barriers they encounter in the workforce, they are first and foremost always labeled as whiners. It isn't pleasant to have all your legitimate grievances trivialized simply because of who you are.

    By the way, I work on the space program, and my colleagues are mainly--but not exclusively--white males. Yet when I look at upper level management and the senior level scientists and engineers, practically all of them are EXCLUSIVELY white males. Females and minorities on the other hand are relegated to junior or support positions. If women have all these job placement programs that Zero talks about, why do we not see more women in senior and management positions? Could it perhaps be that women don't have access to men's affirmative action programs--like networking, which today is more important than qualifications? (Bush administration, case in point.)

    Zero: "I'm hardly ranting."

    The very fact that you had posted your comments before Mask is quite telling. And not only did you post first, you continue with 3 "epistles" immediately after that. And then you use the term hysterical to describe a comment made by Pollit. Sounds like ranting to me.

    For all you "victimized" males, I say don't worry about women taking over everything. All these so-called advantages that women enjoy will soon be obsolete anyway. Because of dictates from male judges and legislators, women will now be forced into mandatory motherhood. When women are denied the absolutely fundamental right to choose motherhood, all the other so called "advantages" women have are essentially moot.

    Posted by blue photon at 03/24/2006 @ 8:42pm

63. LoveLoki: Scratch the surface of a progressive male and underneath you may find an embryonic misogynist.

    Mask et all: "She is mad because affirmative action is helping white males because it's being applied in the exact way those who support it say it should be applied."

    No, she is mad because preferences are being given to a group that has not been historically disenfranchised.

    Zero et all: "My wife, a Latina has been told by a university admissions officer that as a Hispanic woman, she is essentially guaranteed admission". Loveloki, let's you and I apply to the same university that Zero's wife has applied to and see if we are automatically guaranteed admission. Hell, all we need to do is walk in the door and then viola! we are suddenly alumni! [sarcasm]

    My own feeling is that the admission's officer probably said something on the lines of: we strongly encourage Hispanic women to apply to these programs; not we will guarantee you a spot in the program as long as you are alive and Hispanic. There is a big difference between being "encouraged" and being "guaranteed". However, Zero's comments about his wife's conversations can neither be proved nor disproved so there is no point in continuing this part of the discussion.

    Zero: "there is an entire industry of woman-only grants, fellowships, loans, scholarships, etc"

    Loveloki: I mean if we have had all these monies, scholarships and grants literally thrown at us, and given the fact that you and I have paid for our education, we have been hoodwinked!

    Zero: please enlighten us and give us the name of the grant or scholarship where the only qualification is gender and nothing else?

    Rio: "…as the vendetta against the white, married w/family, employed, male of Anglo-Saxon decent is complete!"

    Read my previous post or better yet let me repost it for you here: "why is it that the most privileged in society always see themselves as the biggest victims of that same society?"

    Zero: A MAJORITY of university students nationwide are WOMEN.

    The point is not about who is the majority, the point is about who has been traditionally disenfranchised.

    Free: You do realize that Rutgers University (which is a State University) has an UNDERGRADUATE college which is exclusively for women.

    We originally had all female schools because women were denied access to institutions devoted to higher education. And when women were finally allowed to attend male schools, many continued to join all female schools because many women did not want to subject themselves to harassment by men. However, women have made very significant progress in education; and I agree that all women's schools are an anachronism and should be dismantled.

    Ib: "poor white men" "comments like these make poor males vote republicans."

    The point is that when women complain about legitimate barriers they encounter in the workforce, they are first and foremost always labeled as whiners. It isn't pleasant to have all your legitimate grievances trivialized simply because of who you are.

    By the way, I work on the space program, and my colleagues are mainly--but not exclusively--white males. Yet when I look at upper level management and the senior level scientists and engineers, practically all of them are EXCLUSIVELY white males. Females and minorities on the other hand are relegated to junior or support positions. If women have all these job placement programs that Zero talks about, why do we not see more women in senior and management positions? Could it perhaps be that women don't have access to men's affirmative action programs--like networking, which today is more important than qualifications? (Bush administration, case in point.)

    Zero: "I'm hardly ranting."

    The very fact that you had posted your comments before Mask is quite telling. And not only did you post first, you continue with 3 "epistles" immediately after that. And then you use the term hysterical to describe a comment made by Pollit. Sounds like ranting to me.

    For all you "victimized" males, I say don't worry about women taking over everything. All these so-called advantages that women enjoy will soon be obsolete anyway. Because of dictates from male judges and legislators, women will now be forced into mandatory motherhood. When women are denied the absolutely fundamental right to choose motherhood, all the other so called "advantages" women have are essentially moot.

    Posted by blue photon at 03/24/2006 @ 8:43pm

64. Oops. Sorry about the double posting.

    Posted by blue photon at 03/24/2006 @ 8:43pm

65. good stuff, Blue

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/25/2006 @ 09:35am