Affirmative Action for Men, Part Deux

Remember when opponents of affirmative action argued that it hurt blacks' self-esteem because they'd never know if they had succeeded on their merit? According to this theory, first-rate students who would have been accepted anyway are stigmatized by being lumped together in the public mind with students accepted only because of their race, and this is stressful and anxiety-producing all around. Much better not to take race into account, and let excellence be the only criterion.

I wonder how those champions of meritocracy feel about gender- based college preferences for men. Yesterday, Dean of Admissions Jennifer Britz confessed on the New York Times op-ed page that Kenyon College accepts inferior men over better qualified women simply because they are men, raising the obvious question : What about the self-esteem of these poor boys? Surely some of them would have gotten into Kenyon without the genital advantage, but how can a given Kenyon male know it was his brains and not his penis that won him a coveted thick envelope? Thanks to Dean Britz's candor, the value of a woman's Kenyon degree has soared--a girl must be really something to have made the cut--and that of a man's degree has plummeted. He went to that college that takes the dumb guys!

If I was a man at Kenyon, I'd be thinking about transferring. I wouldn't want people to think I needed a boost just because I was male. And I wouldn't want to wonder if maybe I DID need a boost. I might even feel guilty that I had deprived a better candidate--you know, one of those brilliant poetry-writing future-vaccine- discovering change-the-world-for-the better girls Dean Britz describes rejecting. I might have to go to a slightly less-selective college, but that would be okay: I would have my self-esteem!

Comments (39)

1. ms. pollitt - u defeat yourself with your own logic and tritely show your bias

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/24/2006 @ 6:08pm

2. 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.

   sorry 4 the repost, but i like this continuing thread and disagree...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/24/2006 @ 6:10pm

3. I still think the same conditions for acceptance for everyone...with no box checked for gender, sexual preference, or religion...or any other excuse for "I need a break because...."

   How about, "if they can actually read their high school diploma with out errors" as the norm...might have smaller college populations in first year, maybe...

   Posted by john maasch at 03/24/2006 @ 6:31pm

4. i understand the past. i don't disagree with affirmative action in and of itself. if it is going to continue, though, it must do what it says it will do - is there a clause that says white males are not deserving of the protection of these laws? the logical tract of ms. pollit's arguments are held together only by her assumption that as a constitutionally valid document, it must apply to all segments of the population AND that it is not only an attempt to right past wrongs, but to PREVENT FUTURE WRONGS too...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/24/2006 @ 6:45pm

5. her assumption to not ... do ...see? white male here! need some help! yuk yuk

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/24/2006 @ 6:56pm

6. Katha Pollitt tries to use sarcasm in her remark, "Much better not to take race into account, and let excellence be the only criterion." Apparently, this is designed to have men (presumably of pale complexion) fall back in terror of equality. To her I say, bring it on.

   BUT -- and this is a big "but" -- no picking and choosing on where you want to be equal. If an occupation or sport has a physical requirement, then the standard should be the same regardless of sex. If men are required to register for selective service in order to get student loans, then women can fill out forms with them. If lines form outside female restrooms, no "potty parity" rules to give the distaff side twice the toilets per capita. Finally, in fields where the very top tends to be male dominated -- math, science, and art -- no creative accounting in order to balance gender, just a critical examination of each person's talent.

   I'm willing to live in such a world of pure equality. The question is, is Katha?

   Posted by Snarfangel at 03/24/2006 @ 8:05pm

7. KVH - The ultimate lib. Blinders on all the way.

   Posted by USAPRIDE at 03/24/2006 @ 8:28pm

8. A repost from a previous blog:

   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 @ 8:48pm

9. Gentlemen (I'm assuming that's what you all are),

   It's not just about equality and merit...but opportunity. If you think that women and minorities over the past several decades have had the same opportunities as white men, then log off, grab a beer and turn on a Nascar race or something.

   If you want to be serious, then give consideration to Katha's point that we are still EXCLUDING based on genitalia...in 2006 as in 1950. White men are not disadvantaged, yet we are ensuring their opportunity exists where it might not for other members in our society.

   Rio, I bet there are a few ignorant, unskilled, physically incapable female Westpoint grads that could kick your ass.

   Posted by kfine at 03/24/2006 @ 9:06pm

10. Posted by BLUE PHOTON 03/24/2006 @ 8:48pm

    networking? i have never experienced such. i think you have a valid point, but i think you exagerate it. men also compete with one another, even white men... also, although i dont think it invalidates your argument, even in more socially advanced areas than my gothic south, dont you think these numbers are at least partially afected by the fact that many women prefer their husbands be primary income earners, for whatever reason? its not all some female enslaving white male scheme...lots of families simply choose to organize themselves thusly...

    but if affirmative action is to remain, it must impartially act with, again, an eye to the future...

    look, fact is, white men do not excercise the stranglehold on everything we once did...if we are going to enforce a tribalized genderized society, we need to do so for all gendertribes. it starts getting kind of silly sounding at this point now, does it not? hopefully one day we will not need some form of affirmative action...its ultimately stupid, but i dont quite trust human nature in this regard yet myself. can't advocate immediate eradication of it...

    i just think that despite our effort to totally equalize the genders (whatever the hell that means) there will always be differences between the genders that skew statistics, and its not a big antifeminist conspiracy...and i think that ultimately we are encouraging tribalism by not considering a day when we wont need it affirmative action. in terms of ethnicity, 1 in 6 kids born in the us are of mixed ethnicity now anyway...get it? times ARE a changeing

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/24/2006 @ 11:25pm

11. Ib,

    First let's refrain from using terms like "white male trailer trash."

    i dont like the thought that i dont have the same right to assistance from my government if i need it.

    Who said you don't have a right to government assistance if you need it? There are plenty grants, loans, scholarships that are awarded to people on a financial basis.

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

    No, what Pollit was trying to show the inanity of the argument that affirmative action should be eliminated because it hurts the self-esteem of women and minorities.

    AND that it is not only an attempt to right past wrongs, but to PREVENT FUTURE WRONGS too...

    No, the reason we have affirmative action programs is because women do not have access to male "affirmative action programs" such as access to the all-important "male networks".

    Posted by blue photon at 03/24/2006 @ 11:31pm

12. Posted by BLUE PHOTON 03/24/2006 @ 11:31pm

    "male networks"? elucidate please - from what i have understood, this whole idea of male netwroks may be a bit overrated and based more on assumption than good scholarship...

    how about the expectation thing? in terms of genders occupying certain professions? do as many women, regardless of their education, desire to be priciple income earner as men? and before you answer, remember - i'm not asking if the majority of nation posting women here, ok? i suspect you "guys" are not a typical representation of american womanhood...thats a compliment...

    how many women realistically expect to marry men who make less than they? how many women want to be secondary income earner and primary house manager? how many men expect the same? i'm sure someone has done a legitimate study on these questions...could do a master's thesis on it...

    is it time to go to my happy place? its with me wherever i go...football...movies where things blow up...ah, here i am...safe in my good little piggy happy place...

    white trash? white trash allstars - trailer trash - lint heads - rednecks - bubbas - crackers - hell, i'm white, i'll say em all i wanta, dammit! yuk yuk...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/24/2006 @ 11:53pm

13. Ib,

    networking? i think you have a valid point, but i think you exagerate it.

    I am just telling you what I have experienced in the workplace. Perhaps other women would like to comment?

    if we are going to enforce a tribalized genderized society, we need to do so for all gendertribes.

    The only problem is that white men are not a historically disenfranchised group.

    hopefully one day we will not need some form of affirmative action

    I--like you--also look forward to that day; however that "day" is not today as many people on this blog would like infer.

    its not a big antifeminist conspiracy

    Where in my previous posts have I said this is all a big antifeminist conspiracy?

    times ARE a changeing

    You are right, times certainly are changing--and not for the better. In a few years, men will decide what women can to do to their own bodies. Hell, men are already asserting their control over women. Just ask the unfortunate women who happen to reside in the state of SD.

    Posted by blue photon at 03/25/2006 @ 12:18am

14. Ib,

    dont you think these numbers are at least partially afected by the fact that many women prefer their husbands be primary income earners

    No, the real question is: are men secure enough about themselves that they would be willing to marry a women who makes more money than he does?

    Posted by blue photon at 03/25/2006 @ 12:31am

15. blue photon, you are beautiful, intelligent and largely wrong...

    i grant you have some points

    i would also like to say i have seen many women at anti abortion rallies...i think you are over generalizing your attitude and values to include all women. i also think that you are a woman. if i am wrong i dont apologize, as you write like a woman. men who write like women are men who think like women which is a very tricky and admirable thing, as almost is the opposite. regardless, as a human you are infected with the desire to survive, and the best way to do that is to thrive, which includes identifying with a group, as well as advocating that which is best for you...i am not accusing you of anything more nefarious than looking out for big number one...

    cognitive dissonance is not limited to gender, race, religion, nor political belief...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/25/2006 @ 12:49am

16. i've heard a lot of women say they are comfortable marrying a man who earns less money than they. most men i have known just dont think there are many women who are looking for men who make less miey than they. in my experience most women exibit a desire to mate with men who make or are capaple, at least of making more money than them. perhaps my perception is influenced by my part of the country, because i have yet to court a woman where at some point it did not require significantly more outlay of cash on my part than on hers...and i'm not talking trailor trash here...

    i think there are still some men who would be uncomfortable with their woman making more $ than they, but not like i the 50's, or 60's, or whatever...is it just me and all my lazy bum guy friends?

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/25/2006 @ 01:16am

17. Long before affirmative action became a catch phrase, the good universities all had preferential admissions for children of alumni. They still do. Interestingly, although this same "self-esteem" argument would apply against such policies, I have never heard anyone make it. Do you suppose that George W. Bush's self-esteem is lowered by the thought that, but for being his father's son (and grandfather's grandson, and relative of several other Bushes and Walkers) he might not have gotten into Yale?

    Posted by mosesklein at 03/25/2006 @ 01:48am

18. Ms. Pollitt might want to recognize the situation described by Dean Britz as an indication that all is not well with male students. Although she may be tempted to think that there are more "qualified" female applicants for university admission due to their being innately superior either in talent or work habits, it is also reasonable to assume that our schools are failing to address the performance gap that is evident even in elementary schools. I agree that ideally we would have universities full of the best and brightest, but is Ms. Pollitt so sure that the criteria used to judge students throughout their schooling are meaningful and bias-free? There are documented developmental differences between boys and girls, and failing to address the differences in the early years is likely to result in skewed results later on. Take, for example, the changes in the teaching of math in the last twenty or so years. The increased use of "word problems" has helped the achievement of girls, but damaged the performance of boys whose language skills are slower to develop. It has been noted that the math and science texts frequently use language several grade levels above the intended grade level of their science or math content. A boy capable of understanding the math may be hindered by the requirement to read and understand the language of examples and problems. Would it be unfair to acknowledge the developmental differences in order to help each student achieve his or her best? Were we to do that for students at ages 6, 10, and 14, the gender gap in college admissions might begin to shrink.

    Posted by Ingrisani at 03/25/2006 @ 06:37am

19. Ingrisani, the solution to flawed criteria is to develop better criteria, not to add a fudge factor to make the solution fit one's perception. That's what led us to the current problem -- we confused "Men and women are equally deserving of respect" with "Men and women are equal in all respects." Rather than say "Men as a class tend to have different strengths and weaknesses compared to women as a class," we said "There are no differences at all between the sexes, so the numbers in every field of endeavor must be precisely equal in order to be fair."

    I personally think using even flawed criteria consistently and without prejudice is better than using quotas. If the mix of men to women on campus is 30-70, then fine; if the mix of male to female mathematicians is 70-30, then that's fine as well. Demanding a percentage of any group must be a certain sex or race is harmful to the group as a whole, as is demanding equality in one area and preference in another.

    /As an addendum, if students -- male or female, black or white -- are falling behind because of curriculum and teaching style rather than ability, we should of course fix the problem. That doesn't mean giving a bonus to a group simply because it's underperforming, though.

    Posted by Snarfangel at 03/25/2006 @ 08:56am

20. BLUE PHOTON

    "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."

    How much HISTORY do we take into account? Non-property owners were disenfranchised once....if my great-great-great-great grand-daddy working as an indentured blacksmith's assistant in Salem, Mass in 1683....do I get AA?

    Posted by Mask at 03/25/2006 @ 09:17am

21. SNARFANGEK,b>, I agree that we shouldn't try to"fix" the problem by fudging the results. I was trying to point out that the problem has many facets, some of which go back to the early years of schooling. I do not think that either gender has a monopoly on any academic discipline in the long run, but I do think it obvious that there are significant differences at early stages of development that can lead to dominance by one side or the other. Regarding the issue of equity right now, I wonder if anyone would be happy if the gender balance in higher education continued to slide? Would a 75/25 ratio be acceptable to anyone? If not, let's focus on real solutions and not rhetoric.

    Posted by Ingrisani at 03/25/2006 @ 11:22am

22. i just posit that with the changing demograhics of our country the "white man rules" paradigm is simply not as ironclad as it once was. in fact the eminem/trailaer trash segment of the white population has always been present, in need of assistance (and the worse slingers of such slurs as white trash, etc. have always been the "networked" whites...). if affirmative action is to remain only an attempt to redress past injustice, what a shame. to assume some kind of conspiratorial "aryan brotherhood" is absurd and self serving to those doling out favors to themselves.

    how long are we to continue these policies without evaluating their need/efficacy? as long as their has been discrimination? 300 years? 10,000 years?

    allocating resources collected from all to ethno-gender defined subgroups (but denying of such assistance to ONE subgroup - even when hard data suggests that subgroup is in need of help) is unconstitutional and smacks of intergenerational guilt and punishment. to consider affirmative action ONLY as action to redress past wrongs in a world in which ethno-gender dynamics have changed is short sighted, self serving, unfair, and dangerous to the very program itself. it treatens to bring about a fuure of vindictive tribalism. if affirmative action policies are color/gender blind, serving to try to assure NO etho-gender group is unfairly representated, well, although fraught with tribalistic danger, until the LEGITIMATE issues of discrimination are minimalized, not a terrible idea...

    saw a piece on the msm this morning about how to catch liars, basd on a book written by a former interrogater...apparantly women make much better liars than men...lol...

    so ladies, would you be as likel to be attracted to a man who makes =/less $ as you would to a man who makes =/more? when you consider/considered your options for future mate/lifestyle, did you see marriage to a man who would be the primary income earner as a realistic possible outcome? when you say white males should not be granted protection under affirmative action policies are you sure you're not in any way protecting your slice of that pie? tell the truth now, and careful about touching your chin/neck (a hallmark femiine cue of mendacity)...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/25/2006 @ 11:43am

23. Mask,

    The need for affirmative action should be seen not only from a historical perspective but in the present context as well. Science, like the visual arts (name me one famous female painter) is completely dominated by men.

    Look at research institutes, high-tech corporations, graduate programs in physics, math, engineering and computer science departments. Practically all the people you will see there are men. Now, clearly there must be SOME talented women out there who have the interest and capability to join and succeed in these institutions. Or perhaps you are implying that women lack the skills to excel in math and science?

    Ib,

    Not that it matters but yes, I am a women. Also, I think there are more female bloggers on this site than you realize.

    To all antiabortion females: ever heard of the phrase "be careful of what you wish for"? Right now, it is easy to make spurious comparisons between a living conscious human being and a fertilized egg but if abortion ever gets outlawed, I think you will find the debate is more nuanced than you originally thought.

    To antiabortion men and women: instead of screaming at women who decide to go to health clinics that provide abortions services, how about helping those "other" women who have decided to forego abortion?

    Ever think about adopting one of these kids? Or how about providing day care services, so these single mothers can finish school and have the economic means to support their family? And where are you people (I shouldn't say "you people", it is disparaging) but where are YOU PEOPLE when federal and state legislatures slash funding for social programs that exist to help single mothers?

    Posted by blue photon at 03/25/2006 @ 11:58am

24. I would like to suggest that, although the comments related to "Affirmative action for men . . ." have been interesting, many of them have missed one of the central points of the author's argument. That is, the counterargument to AA that suggests it creates an atmosphere in which the person hired under AA does not know whether he or she is really qualified for the position.

    What is critical in this debate is that this argument is one that is often made by the minority persons. I am the chairperson of a department in a Big Ten University and oversee much of the hiring and faculty development. Therefore, I am in a position to discuss many of these issues with both white faculty and faculty of color. When our African American faculty are allowed to speak freely and don't feel the need to adhere to AA talking points, they will quite openly discuss the problems associated with being hired under exceptional circumstances and being awarded larger salaries than their white counterparts because of their skin color rather than merit. In addition, they will often discuss the pressures they encounter from both white and minority progressives who insist that they devote their careers not to scholarly endeavors in their field but to a form of scholarship associated with their minority status. In essence, that they are being intimidated into becoming not, for example, black professionals, but instead professional blacks.

    In addition, we should listen in particular to black professionals who feel that AA, initially designed to create a level field for African Americans in this country after centuries of slavery and post slavery treatment, was co-opted by any group (women, hispanics, gay/lesbian/transgendered) that could create political momentum for their cause. Women in particular who feel that their plight even begins to approach that of African Americans in this country should be aware of how turning this debate exclusively toward their needs is perceived by those with a legitimate claim to discrimintion.

    Posted by regular at 03/25/2006 @ 12:12pm

25. Regular, you make several good points. In addition, I can certainly understand the rationale for Affirmative Action for those currently being discriminated against.

    I don't, however, agree that someone should be given preference simply because of what their ancestors may have suffered -- neither guilt nor virtue is hereditary. For African-Americans, many of their historical oppressors are in their family tree (slave owners not being known for fidelity or even common decency), and for women fully half of their ancestors are men -- if their grandmother suffered under sexism, it was their grandfather (or someone very much like him) that was the cause of it. Forcing me to pay for something your grandfather did is not a basis for fairness, it is a basis for madness.

    This is one why the criteria for both men and women (as well as blacks and whites) should be uniform, consistent, and fairly applied. There is no way we can solve the racism and sexism of people long dead, we have to concentrate on the equal treatment of those now living. If we don't, we'll end up like the Palestinians and Israelis, each claiming victim status as they fight each other.

    Posted by Snarfangel at 03/25/2006 @ 12:37pm

26. "i suspect you "guys" are not a typical representation of american womanhood...thats a compliment..."

    no, gemini boy, it's not. insulting all women and saying a few are ok cuz they're not like the rest is not a compliment.

    having been a bartender for the past 12 years, i met lots of people from the south. they all suck. i mean completely suck. but the women are infinitely better than the men.

    Landless white men: 1856 Non-whites: 1870 Women: 1920 Native Americans: 1924 Adults 18 and over: 1971

    that list is for u regular. voting rights. the fact that you're the head of a department makes me sick. a legitimate claim to discrimination? wow! so do native americans not have a legitimate claim either in your tiny little mind?

    blue photon, good job at attempting to communicate with these people? who are obviously very disturbed individuals. too swallowed in themselves to see what's really happening. which one of these freaks actually said there are no famous women painters? oh who really cares. and as for the math and science, i believe women are completely capable of succeeding in these fields. i don't think it's a coincidence that they begin falling behind in these subjects at the onset of puberty. it wasn't that long ago that people believed women were not capable of higher education at all. your mention of who comprises upper-level management in your job is a pretty much across the board phenomena. women need to work on changing this too.

    Posted by loveloki at 03/25/2006 @ 5:33pm

27. all you "guys" have been bringing up good points and showing grace of thought...all are invited to my upcoming website...lol

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/25/2006 @ 6:12pm

28. for cocktails...and stimulating conversation...thank god its the weekend

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/25/2006 @ 6:17pm

29. Ib,

    white trash? white trash allstars - trailer trash - lint heads - rednecks - bubbas - crackers - hell, i'm white, i'll say em all i wanta

    Actually my point was that you shouldn't ridicule people, including white males, for the economic conditions they are born into.

    Professor,

    the counterargument to AA that suggests it creates an atmosphere in which the person hired under AA does not know whether he or she is really qualified for the position.

    Does you concern for people's self-esteem also extend to white males who are given preferences purely because their parents are wealthy or former alumni of elite universities? Do you honestly believe that that megalomaniac Bush is sitting in oval office obsessing over his "poor" self-esteem because none of his achievements were due to his abilities? Somehow I don't think so.

    If white men don't have self-esteem issues because of the advantages they have in life, why should women have issues with self-esteem if they are the beneficiaries of AA programs? (By the way, when I say "white men", I am referring to the men who belong to the patrician class.)

    Women in particular who feel that their plight even begins to approach that of African Americans in this country should be aware of how turning this debate exclusively toward their needs is perceived by those with a legitimate claim to discrimintion.

    The discussion around AA isn't about who is the biggest victim. Its purpose is to find some equitable way to help women and minorities get into disciplines that have exclusively been the domain of white men.

    Snarf,

    Forcing me to pay for something your grandfather did is not a basis for fairness, it is a basis for madness. I

    I never said AA doesn't have any flaws. My point is AA is a better than the alternative of doing nothing, which is what I believe you are advocating.

    Loveloki,

    i met lots of people from the south. they all suck. i mean completely suck but the women are infinitely better than the men.

    I know you are using hyperbole to make a point; however, you should be careful making generalities lest it be misinterpreted by some people on this blog.

    i believe women are completely capable of succeeding

    Yes, AA is not about women and minorities demanding jobs. AA is about being given an OPPORTUNITY to prove that they can succeed at those jobs.

    one of these freaks actually said there are no famous women painters?

    Uh, I am actually the freak who said that. I was trying to make a point that "art" is typically considered to be a "female" discipline when in reality all the great masters are male. The only female painter I can think of off the top of my head is Artemisia.

    good job at attempting to communicate with these people?

    Actually, many posters here are quite progressive, which is why I was rather shocked to read comments that I normally would expect to hear from men who watch the O'Reilly show. (Notice I said "show", not news program.)

    I was particularly surprised at Zero's rants because on the whole, he holds many of the same views/values that I hold. I am baffled as to why he "went postal" on this issue.

    Posted by blue photon at 03/25/2006 @ 6:58pm

30. look at this enlightened southern right wing voice, ah the wonderful south!!!

    The anti war sentiment is also a product of Satan. Anyone who opposes the war opposes America, and anyone who opposes America needs to be lynched. I wish all you liberal bastards would have been born thirty years earlier, cuz ya'll would have been lynched, and I got the pictures to prove it.

    And since I'm here. All faggots need to die, or at the least they need be stripped of any priveleges we normal, good people have. Sex for pleasure is another product of Satan, even says so in the bible. And gay marriage? Jesus, what's next, are we gonna allow people to get married to cows, watermelons. It's like the horror stories my paps and grandpaps told me about when they started allowing interacial marriage. Judge in Virginia tried preaching the truth about god's divine will to keep the races separate, but no! See what the stupid Civil rights movement lead to. Ya all going to hell.

    And all immigrants need to get the hell out of my fucking country. My paps, grandpaps, and all my ancestors worked thier asses off so I could have my rights, so ya'll need to leave.

    And affirmative action, product of Satan, you know it. What my country, government, and ancestors believed has nothing to do with me.

    To summarize, freedom is good, satan is bad, anyone that supports satan is bad. And although I might sound a bit intolerant, I'm not. I'm a very open minded American who loves everyone, unless you support Satan, then you need to die.

    Posted by STUPIDLIBERAL 03/24/2006 @ 5:37pm | ignore this person

    Posted by loveloki at 03/25/2006 @ 7:08pm

31. blue photon, sorry, i didn't know that was you. there are lots of famous women painters, though. and yes, i was very disappointed a while back to see how zero feels about women's issues. like you, i found and still find 95% of what he posts to be extremely intelligent and well thought out. and no, i was serious about the south. i'm a pretty prejudice person too. i'm not proud of it. but i have my prejudices and southerners are one of them.

    Posted by loveloki at 03/25/2006 @ 7:13pm

32. it's very disappointing to find raving chauvinists in the progressive camp.

    Posted by loveloki at 03/25/2006 @ 7:15pm

33. Hi Blue Photon:

    In response to your post related to my comments, I would say that, yes, my concern extends to everyone, including males who receive unwarranted benefits. I do have additional concerns, however, regarding government sanctioned benefits that are bestowed on a particular group in an attempt to "create equal" because it is, by definition, illiberal and has been shown to lead to less than satisfactory results.

    If we truly wanted to create equal, we wouldn't do it by groups of people, would we? AA in the acadamy, for example, typically confers benefits to those who need them the least. Groups don't suffer, individuals do. Why not take each case individually, in a manner not dependent on group identity, and weigh each claim based on each person's ability to provide evidence of having to overcome some form of discrimination? This is impossible, of course, but is really the only way to do it if you are truly committed to offering opportunities to those who have been denied those opportunities.

    What I am trying to say is that AA and all other such programs have side effects, and we need to continually question whether what we are doing is worth it from the standpoint of costs and benefits. AA may have been necessary, may still be necessary, but to pretend that government sanctioned preferences don't go against our democratic principles and make many of us feel uncomfortable is disingenuous. Arguments regarding Bush's entitlements, although true, are straw man arguments. There are many people who make it in life not because of their inherent qualities, but because of an accident of birth, and that includes women and minorities. I think we can and should do something about these things when we can; for example, legacy admissions to universities, but I'm not sure how anyone would devise a plan to deal with all of the entitlements (wealth, influence, etc) that exist in our society.

    Posted by regular at 03/25/2006 @ 9:30pm

34. RIO,

    We don't understand EACH OTHER, I'll give you that.

    It appeared you were drawing a parallel between the perception that these college males are less qualified yet admitted to college... to "less qualified" female applicants being admitted to a military academy. It's not simply about merit, but opportunity to achieve merit. An opportunity historically not denied to white males.

    Posted by kfine at 03/26/2006 @ 6:32pm

35. bluephoton, i think u have a lot of really great points. u communicate them with a rational calm voice as well. this is something i am often lacking.

    i see that your point about the painters was about the great masters. since u also have a good point about lacking opportunities, i think we can apply that to that time period for sure. when women weren't actively avoiding getting burned at the stake, they were being over-diagnosed with hysteria. that's simplified of course, but i'm sure u get the idea.

    and i'd like to qualify my statement about being prejudiced against southerners by saying that i've met some very wonderful black and hispanic people from the south. it's the white southerners i've had problems with.

    anyway, thanks for your valuable input. and i'm glad to know there is yet another female blogger around here. there are some, like you said, but it seems quite male-dominated. many of the people here thought i was a man for quite awhile. i don't know why.

    Posted by loveloki at 03/26/2006 @ 8:40pm

36. After having been taken to task for her piece last week, Katha Pollit is trying again. But she still doesn't get it, and I don't think that the rest of you do either.

    This not about inheirent equality between men and women, or any inheirent differences between anyone. This is an issue of how colleges select applicants to build a class which is a diverse in place of origin, sex, race, intrests, abilities, etc. I don't know what sort of ideas you here have about things like affirmitive action, but a lot of you seem to think of it as some sort of reparation--but either way, it's irrelivant.

    I said it when she wrote the last article about this, and I'll say it again. If you are building a college class of about 400 people, and are trying to have an a mix of people-racially, economiclly, politically, etc-then you can't admit everyone who applies and is qualified. 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.

    Although I've had it suggested here and other places that admitting this will mean I have no right ot have an idea, I am white, male, middle class, Jewish, prep school educated, and from the east coast. I am a member of one of the largest group of people applying to the top liberal arts schools (i.e. Kenyon), and it's damn hard for someone like me to get in. A school isn't going to take all of us who apply, because what kind of a class would that result in?

    And so we discriminate (and I use that in a non-pejoritive sense), against people like me, picking and choosing, the same way that schools might be more interested in a kid from Arkansas than someone from Chicago: because mid-western liberal arts schools have lots of people from Chicago applying, but not many from Arkansas. Is this "affiritive-action" for people from Arkansas? Well, I guess it is, and according to Katha's logic people from Arkansas should transfer becuase they're just a token.

    However, what I find most distressing is the way in which Katha has constructed her attack. It is far below her standard, more Fox-ish. She says her atricle is about "Yesterday, Dean of Admissions Jennifer Britz confessed on the New York Times op-ed page that Kenyon College accepts inferior men over better qualified women simply because they are men," which is disengenuous, and she should know better. We have rightly been told for years that this sort of argument is utterly without merit when raised in the context of race. So why use it now?

    And why have so few people (only one?) asked why so many fewer boys than girls are applying to college, as is the case across the board, not just at Kenyon? Is everyone just so locked in the midset that women still need assistance to reach a level playing field? Certainly, gender discrimination hasn't been vanquished, but if women are the majority of college applicants (and they are) then they don't need our help anymore.

    Posted by lapsed at 03/27/2006 @ 1:02pm

37. To Katha Pollitt, who writes, "Now we know that the boys who go there [to Kenyon] are stupid." :

    Before you make such sweeping generalizations, I would invite you take your head out of the sand and spend some time at the institution you berate. Get to know those stupid boys - the ones who are forming student organizations, leading class discussions, and making this place more diverse (intellectually AND socially) than the all-female school you attended. We aren't so stupid after all; on behalf of the boys of Kenyon, I demand an apology.

    Yours, Max Thelander, Kenyon '07

    Posted by maximus39 at 03/27/2006 @ 3:21pm

38. I agree with a lot of what LAPSED said about affirmative action. Some of the posts on this thing are a bit on the scary side, very, very right wing, and not at all the kind of responses I'd expect to read at a website like this.

    I believe in affirmative action, but I think that it is not as effective as it could be. I think it should consider a person's economic standing, as well as race. It's pretty obvious that people with money have it easier than those without money. And visit any of the top schools in the nation - poor people are a minority on campus. I'm curious what people think about this idea...

    Posted by Sanju at 03/27/2006 @ 9:10pm

39. I must give credit to Jennifer Britz for being able to admit to such a practice in Kenyon unlike the other colleges (including Wesleyan, Vassar and many others) who practise but did not dare provide datas to show that such "flagrant sex discrimination", if you would like to call it, exist. YOu will be surprised that the acceptance rate in Vassar is 37% for guys whereas it is in the low 20s% for girls. And don't come telling me that is attributed to the stronger applicant pool for guys at Vassar. And if you were to look at Wesleyan's profile on the CollegeBoard, you will realise that Wesleyan has got a 49/51 gender balance (far better than that of Kenyon's which has a 45/55 gender ratio and also the nation's average). So go scream at Vassar or Wesleyan. But will you? I can't believe an editor like you can make such asinine, ludicrous and preposterous statements like claiming that the "guys at Kenyon are stupid" or thinking that "boys playing gameboys" can eventually end up in Kenyon (not that you can't but it isn't as easy as that).

    And if you do think that Kenyon is nothing but a male chauvinist school, you will be surprised to know that both Kenyon's president and Dean of admissions are women. Do list me the number of "selective LACs" that have a lady as their dean or president and I am pretty sure you can't name many. What Jennifer was doing in that article is to bring to people's attention this growing problem and perhaps create some awareness that such problems exist. But I can't believe you take it in such a outrageous manner. Really reflect the kind of education you receive in Radcliffe (a women's college that is now defunct) and I am worried for you. Seriously.

    Posted by stupidkp at 03/28/2006 @ 02:12am