Wednesday, March 07, 2007

Sanday's Structure

In a recent article at Inside Higher Ed, Penn anthropologist Peggy Reeves Sanday announced that she was going to place the “Duke case in perspective.” What “perspective,” precisely? “The eye-witness accounts of campus gang rape I present in Fraternity Gang Rape.

Oh.

But first, she had a couple of questions she would be “leaving aside”:

(1) “whether a sexual assault took place at the party”;

(2) “whether the district attorney botched the investigation.”

This approach harkens back to Wahneema Lubiano’s April remarks that the Group of 88’s crusade would continue “regardless of the ‘truth’ established in whatever period of time about the incident at the house on N. Buchanan Blvd.

Sanday’s column could be confused with a parody of extreme political correctness:

  • She spends almost two paragraphs on the McFadyen e-mail without ever mentioning it was a take-off from American Psycho. (Are the professors who assigned the book contributors to Duke’s “culture of crassness,” as well?)
  • She says the players “didn’t give a moment’s thought to hiring two minority ‘exotic dancers’ to perform for them” without ever mentioning that the players didn’t, in fact, request “minority” dancers. (And was she present when the issue was discussed at the party, to know whether or not they gave a “moment’s thought” to the issue?)
  • She writes that while she was “not surprised” that “the rape charges were dropped in the Duke case in light of the absence of DNA evidence,” it “is noteworthy that the sexual offense and kidnapping counts have not yet been dropped.” (“Noteworthy” in what way—as an example of prosecutorial misconduct?)
  • She contends that “according to the dancer who did not take the drink the accuser was sober when she arrived at the house,” and “it was when they began their strip show that she ‘began having trouble.’” (Has Sanday decided to “leave aside” the accuser’s own admission of taking Flexeril with alcohol, or that Kim Roberts gave a much different account to Ed Bradley?)
  • She concludes with fulsome praise for the “honesty” and “moral leadership” in the Campus Culture Initiative report.

Indeed, apart from the CCI’s report, nothing in Sanday’s column suggests that she has read anything about the case since late April. But she still pronounced herself qualified to put events “in perspective.”

Sanday’s name might sound familiar to those who have followed the case closely: her Fraternity Gang Rape, which “updates the incidences of fraternity gang rape on college campuses today, highlighting such recent cases as that of Duke University,” is required reading in Anne Allison’s springtime class, “Hook-up Culture at Duke,” a/k/a “Group of 88 for Credit.”

The arguments in Sanday’s book raise troubling questions as to Allison’s motive for assigning it. “Enough is known of the context surrounding the alleged gang rape,” Sanday writes, “to suggest that the activity is similar to what I describe in these pages.” Keep in mind that in every other case she describes, she alleges that a gang rape definitely occurred.

“However pathological the [players’] behavior might be, Sanday adds, it is necessary to understand its roots before effective change is possible.” And what are those roots? In the lacrosse case, like the other episodes she studies, “the event operates to glue the male group as a unified entity; it establishes fraternal bonding and helps boys to make the transition to their vision of a powerful manhood — in unity against women; one against the world. The patriarchal bonding functions a little like bonding in organized crime circles — generating a sense of family and establishing mutual aid connections that will last a lifetime.”

A brief search through webshots.com, a photo hosting service, shows that “spring break party” reveals 285,845 photos; “spring break drunk” reveals 60,341 pictures; “spring break beer” brings up 39,483 snapshots; and the number for “spring break naked” is more than 6,500. Youtube reveals thousands of videos of sexually tasteless activities over spring break. Is Sanday suggesting that each of these incidents resembles “bonding in organized crime circles”?

The lacrosse case, Sanday concludes, is clear-cut. “The debate shows a split between those who continue to blame the victim and those who are more likely to hold institutions and individuals responsible.” In other words, anyone who has concluded that the only crimes that occurred in this instance were committed by Mike Nifong is guilty of “continuing to blame the victim.” Evidence, it appears, carries no weight for Sanday.

And this is the book selected by CCI gender subgroup co-chair Anne Allison for her spring term class, where she has assigned her students to function as de facto snitches, to observe and report back on other Duke students, especially sports teams or fraternities, “in terms of the themes covered so far in class: gender, race, heteronormativity, power, everyday culture, image and prestige of Duke. Consider the role of alcohol in these cultures.” As Sanday makes clear, the facts are irrelevant in such a quest.

59 comments:

wayne fontes said...

In the lacrosse case, like the other episodes she studies, “the event operates to glue the male group as a unified entity; it establishes fraternal bonding and helps boys to make the transition to their vision of a powerful manhood — in unity against women; one against the world. The patriarchal bonding functions a little like bonding in organized crime circles — generating a sense of family and establishing mutual aid connections that will last a lifetime.”

Wow! That's Murphyesque. Junk advocacy at it's best.

Anonymous said...

Aren't people like Sanday and Allison "winning," though? Their disciplines are thriving and expanding, facts be damned.

KC Johnson said...

To the 12.20:

Yes.

Anonymous said...

There are real rape victims out there. Why, as an advocate, would you want or need to use a non-rape, non-sexual assault case, to try to make your points?

Not only do you look stupid but also your cause suffers.

Anonymous said...

What will Brodhead and the Duke trustees do about Allison assigning this junk advocacy in her classes at Duke? What do the alumni think?

Joey T said...

What sickos these people like Peggy Reeves Sanday are. They live lives of total fiction.

Joey T said...

Just thinking: I would hope that some kind of civil suit would be possible against Sanday, too, whether it's successful or not. So many of these people will only admit to the actual facts in this case when they're forced to, since their own consciences obviously arent enough.

Anonymous said...

"It is a shame that the commentary focusing on the legal issues and the alleged ethical violations on the part of the DA has obscured the broader cultural issues such as the impact of alcohol in this case and more broadly on college campuses."

Herein lies the problem.

The "commentary" is not responsible for "obscuring" anything. The "legal issues" and the "alleged ethical violations of the DA" have become the story all by themselves because, believe it or not, in this case they are the story.

Those "issues" and "alleged ethical violations" do not retroactively convert underage drinking and hiring strippers into good ideas that should make parents proud of their teenage sons. Fine. People do get that. Really. They do.

But those "legal issues" and "alleged ethical violations" also happen to have expanded this case to the point far beyond where they can reasonably be pushed into a casual aside in another moralizing lecture about "broader cultural issues."

If the "broader cultural issues" are "obscured" by -- oh, I don't know, specific justice issues, perhaps -- maybe the "shame" is in blowing off the justice issues as if the cultural issues are always more important.

Dave

Anonymous said...

If these people are winning then it doesn’t say much about the state of rational thought in this country. The writing of some of the Duke “scholars” is horrible. There is no logic and the sentence structure is overly complicated. It is almost as if it is written by a precocious child who has learned a bunch of fancy words but lacks the ability make a clear point.

Doesn’t intellectually honesty force one to look at all the facts and not just pick the facts that support your predetermined conclusion?

Anonymous said...

As a woman, I have often wondered how these ultra feminists reconcile their assignment of all things evil to men, and their personal relationships. How could you believe that "all sex is rape" (Catherine MacKinnon), for example, and love your husband. If you think all men oppress all women- how can you truly love your husband?
Are they all lesbians? I honestly don't know.
I also want to point out that this whack job teaches at Penn, not at Duke. Further evidence of what I have said for months- all academic institutions have professors like this woman. The more elite the college, the more pervasive it becomes in my experience.

Anonymous said...

Great work, Professor Johnson. Keep the spotlight on these professors.

Anonymous said...

Warning: my perspective, here explained at some length, goes somewhat against the prevailing views expressed (eloquently) on this blog. Accordingly, you might want to skip this.

First, I need to give a name to the coalition of people whose favorite notions to describe the world are (in this order, it seems) race and sex. I'll call them the Rex.

The Duke lacrosse scandal was an unqualified success for the Rex. They flaunted their strengths: organization, discipline, ruthlessness, and, needless to say, their religious tenets, ready to be shouted at any opposition. One may object that facts, logic, honesty, fairness and even, arguably, the law are not on their side, to which they would reply, if they were sincere, "whatever." Recall that old story about a Wild West poker game which boils down to a showdown between two players, and the first triumphantly announces "four aces," to which the second counters with "two loaded guns." Similarly, this case is about power and members of the Rex truly relish the opportunity to wield it. Without any adverse consequences, they are able to destroy careers of innocent people, threaten extreme violence, push their ideology down everybody's throat, etc. The fact that they can do this based mostly on their fantasies should be even more impressive. What better way to show the world what you are capable of than to pick some guy walking down the street and make him a prime candidate for burning at the stake? The Rex are not in retreat, but instead have been energized and emboldened by the scandal (look at the CCI story, for example).

By far, the Rex are not the only, or the worst, coalition of its type. If you really want to understand them, rather than vent, think of one whose goals you generally agree with (or at least think they advance your interests) and try to honestly compare methods.

In their domain, the Rex are entirely without opposition. Yes, we can ridicule and shame them, but apart from our personal satisfaction (which is reason enough to continue doing it) this is fruitless. In fact, no president of large university will remain such for long if he stands in their way. The same is even more true for university administrators on lower levels. Ditto for editorial staff of large papers. And that a certain DA couldn't
resist a chance to enlist their cavalry when an opportunity knocked is easy to denounce, but should be even easier to understand.

(By the way, the one person I find hard to condemn is the "victim." She is a pathetic loser and doesn't even rise to the level of a peon.)

Until there is a critical mass of principled and backboned people amongthe so-called intellectual elite the Rex is unstoppable. I might add that the percentage of people that are willing to stand up
for something they believe in is much higher in the backwater
village I grew up in than at the large university where I teach.

Based on this, what can we predict? Yes, many contributors
here have dreamt up a nice revenge script (the DA disbarred, the accused exonerated, the city and the university on the losing end of a large civil lawsuit, etc.), but I'm a lot less Pollyannish.

For starters, here's the dilemma for the AG's office. They screw the three defendants, what's going to happen? Well, condemnation on this blog and a few others, a bit of gratitude from the Rex. How about if they let the defendants go? Likely protests (or even riots), and certain backlash at the next election. So it depends on what kind of people they are, but indication so far are not good. Note that the dependants are screwed financially if this case just lingers. My bet is that they'll have to plead to something ridiculous that anybody can be charged with and get some mild punishment. This will seriously damage the prospect of a successful civil case. Alternatively, the AG could go for the trial on current charges. As somebody on this blog has pointed out, at least a hung jury is quite likely, even if the case is moved out of Durham.

How about the media? They also know which side their bread is buttered on. Note how they, for the most part, still talk about the "rape" case. The final story will be one of privileged white kids who have done something horrible, but we'll never know
exactly what. Any data that does not fit this will be professionally obscured (the one thing they're still good at).

Finally, the Rex could decide to sacrifice Nifong, simply because he was unable to properly frame the lacrosse players. However, they have to realize that he was not exactly given prime framing material and deserves partial credit for trying nonetheless. Also, he is now their soldier in enemy's hands and it's at least good for the troop morale to try to rescue him. The best outcome for the powers-that-be would be to find some corner in which he could stay invisible, i.e., not do very much, until he can quietly retire.

Of course, I'm a amateur and may be hopelessly wrong on every point. But you have to consider interests of the opposition, however much you dislike them - and assume they will not just fold, as Sanday's article nicely demonstrates.

Anonymous said...

Welcome to Salem, 2006 - 07. Only now it is in North Carolina and they don't ACTUALLY burn people. But it's the very same mentality as in the 17th century. Ideology has replaced religion, but the effects are the same.

Bakerman said...

Peggy Reeves Sanday homepage, for context and photo; http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~psanday/

Sample titles by Sanday:

Female Power and Male Dominance: On the Origins of Sexual Inequality. l981

Fraternity Gang Rape: Sex, Brotherhood, and Privilege on Campus. l990.

Beyond the Second Sex. Edited book with Ruth Goodenough. l990

A Woman Scorned: Acquaintance Rape on Trial. l996

Sounds a little like Sanday has an agenda.

Meanwhile, an interesting quote; "One of my passions as an anthropologist is to write ethnography that speaks simultaneously to anthropology by building empirically grounded conceptual frameworks and to the public by exploding outmoded Western stereotypes. My recently published ethnography of the Minangkabau presents a conceptual framework for rethinking matriarchy and challenges the stereotype of Islam as universally subordinating women..." - Sanday

(Try walking around Ryiad without a burqua. Then see if your local Penn mosque will let you in, Ms. Sanday. And don't forget that driver's license, it could get you stoned - with stones)

Bakerman said...

...Correction: "Riyadh" (Saudi Arabia)

No justice, no peace... said...

1:08 Inre:"...all academic institutions have professors like this woman. The more elite the college, the more pervasive..."

Agreed, but Duke is in the rare position, with the national spotlight shining to do something about these frauds. Instead, the leadership grants AAAs Departmental status, create the CCI, stacks the CCI committee chairs, and elects McCain as the head of the faculty senate.

Sadly, in spite of the other goodness within Duke, the fraud is institutionalized from the top down.

As mentioned what differentiates Duke is they are at the crossroads to effect change and reject it. Instead they are in lock-step and benchmarking against all the other institutions that support what essentially are failed Marxists. Ironically this suggests the institution of Duke is actively supporting the failed system of Marxism (or post-modernism, statism, or whatever). This support is the rule, not the exception.

How is supporting a failed system liberal, progressive, or just?

I would love to see someone make the case that the thought police aren't running Duke.

Anonymous said...

"There is no logic and the sentence structure is overly complicated. It is almost as if it is written by a precocious child who has learned a bunch of fancy words but lacks the ability make a clear point."

I've always understood poor writing to be the symptom of poor thinking. If they expressed themselves clearly, the triteness of their remarks or the absurdness of their remarks would be obvious to all.

Other said...

Anonymous 12:28:00 AM said...
"There are real rape victims out there. Why, as an advocate, would you want or need to use a non-rape, non-sexual assault case, to try to make your points?

Not only do you look stupid but also your cause suffers."


An excellent question.

For the answer follow the money. And I'm talking about the 'big money'.

GS said...

Even Cash is jumping ship?

Read Cash Michaels latest, sounds like he is distancing himself from Nifong.

Talking about no DNA, Nifong misleading people. And surprise the accuser changing her story many times.

"To even the casual observer, it seems a sure bet that the remaining charges in the Duke lacrosse alleged sexual assault and kidnapping case will be dropped, as one source says, “any day now.”

NIFONG'S DILEMMA

Anonymous said...

Ms. Sanday,

As long as we've agreed to ignore all the actual facts of the case, allow ME to place the Duke case in perspective in light of MY (forthcoming 1997) work, "Peter Pan and the Lost Boys vs Tinkerbell: Enforcing Male Hegemony in a Post-Arendtian Neverland."

The Duke case, as a metanarrative existing only in my head to justify whatever I want to say, clearly illustrates how these irresponsible residents of Duke's Neverland who refuse to grow up (until they graduate) and spend all their time playing games together enforce their gender-based dominance and pack mentality by means of sexual violence against any women who come along.

Let's call the accuser Tinkerbell. As a woman and a minority (fairy), she is socioeconomically disadvantaged and forced to flit around in that skimpy outfit for the amusement of these privileged boys. She is outnumbered and marginalized, as indicated by her diminutive size. She has been oppressed so long by these brutes that she has lost the ability to communicate coherently; Peter Pan presumes to speak for her. When he and the other Lost Boys got her alone in that bathroom, they were engaging in a bonding ritual and, in your words, "making the transition to their vision of a powerful manhood" where they would be free to enjoy their hegemonic dominance, symbolized by their power of flight. Given the gender-biased social dynamic, this repressive sexist violence was inevitable and will be repeated until we succeed in fundamentally altering the social paradigm in Neverland.

My analysis is at least as valid as yours. None of the Lost Boys have had their DNA excluded, after all, and Tinkerbell's diminutive size would help explain how an elaborate gang rape could have occurred in such an enclosed space. And Peter Pan's admitted fictionality is hardly as convincing an alibi as the one Reade Seligmann has.

If your analysis isn't bound to reality, you're free to say whatever you like and no one can contradict you.

That's not scholarship. That's just bullshit.

In real disciplines, people call you on it. String theory, for instance, is facing a serious backlash in the physics community because in spite of all the pretty pictures it paints, there's no way to establish that it is any more than an interesting idea. No one can determine whether it actually describes reality and can make concrete predictions of future behavior that can be tested, and if it can't do that, what use is it?

Similarly, if what you say has no meaning outside your head, why should we listen?

Jack Webb

Anonymous said...

Duke is probably actively recruiting Peggy Reeves Sanday.

Kilgore said...

1:08 said: As a woman, I have often wondered how these ultra feminists reconcile their assignment of all things evil to men, and their personal relationships. How could you believe that "all sex is rape" (Catherine MacKinnon), for example, and love your husband. If you think all men oppress all women- how can you truly love your husband?

Because they are not interested in the least in women loving men or men loving women. They see marriage and long-term heterosexual relationships as a threat to women in general. They seem to see marriage as the ropes that have tied women to the home and are doing their best to destroy it along with the traditional family. Sanday is one of many who have been pushing this agenda. What I can't understand is why more people haven't been calling their cards?

I have been telling people about this for some time now and people simply don't believe me. This is not hard to prove. Their own writing verifies the above. They are anti-family in the deepest sense.

scott said...

Maybe Nifong should consider Sanday as a "character" witness.

She seems to be willing to testify that underage drinking trumps his unlawful action as a DA.

Two facts in this case are indisputable. There was underage drinking occuring on the night of 3/13/06 and Nifong has engaged in unlawful actions throughout the time he spend on the Nifong Scandal case. In Sunday's world that means, hang the LAX 3 in the town square at high noon and pat Nifong on the back because he had to suffer from insults by the fools that want to bring up his conduct when they should be focusing on "broader social issues."

Sanday is an intellectual midget.

gwallan said...

wayne fontes said...

In the lacrosse case, like the other episodes she studies, “the event operates to glue the male group as a unified entity; it establishes fraternal bonding and helps boys to make the transition to their vision of a powerful manhood — in unity against women; one against the world. The patriarchal bonding functions a little like bonding in organized crime circles — generating a sense of family and establishing mutual aid connections that will last a lifetime.”

Wow! That's Murphyesque. Junk advocacy at it's best.


Significant feminist paranoia on display here. They genuinely believe that when more than one bloke get together they spend all their time plotting against women. Note their insistence on entry to all previously male only environments while simultaneously demanding the right to women only spaces. Note also their ongoing attacks on male sporting teams and clubs. Any collective of men not supervised by a woman is a threat to them.


And this is the book selected by CCI gender subgroup co-chair Anne Allison for her spring term class, where she has assigned her students to function as de facto snitches, to observe and report back on other Duke students, especially sports teams or fraternities, “in terms of the themes covered so far in class: gender, race, heteronormativity, power, everyday culture, image and prestige of Duke. Consider the role of alcohol in these cultures.” As Sanday makes clear, the facts are irrelevant in such a quest.

Couldn't this be seen as a form of stalking?

Anonymous said...

Can anybody explain to me why it is, perhaps in theory at least, that the G88 is allowed to run wild on the Duke campus? Duke certainly can't be thinking this publicity is good for them, can they? Anybody who thinks using 2 syllable words or more can see this stuff for junk. The Duke administration to this whole affair is just beyond comprehension to me

GAK

Nifong's hat trick said...

Just another male athlete/sports/ hater! It would be interesting to know what percentage of the 400,000 or so "spring break" photos actually belong to athletes (since most athletes don't have much freedom during spring break)and what percentage of the photo's are of females. Sanday's comment about the alleged rape: “the event operates to glue the male group as a unified entity; it establishes fraternal bonding and helps boys to make the transition to their vision of a powerful manhood — in unity against women; one against the world."
And does Sanday's unity;one against the world theory hold true in female sports as well or is the female unity against men; one against the world strictly reserved for male loathing professors?
Why do men continue to allow man hating to be so prominent in our Universities, and in our society? Why are ther no male advocacy groups speaking up for these 3 boys, are there male advocacy groups?

Anonymous said...

The number of experts willing to set aside facts to put this in "perspective" is just down right frightening. God help us. I getting to the point that I want to sent my kids to college out of the country.

gak

John Kaiser said...

Feminist thinking is an oxymoron if there ever was one. Just take this article you cite. She has already constructed her conclusion and simply constructs the events without any regard for the facts of the case. Why? Because to her facts don't matter, they would only hamper her narrative about "patriarchy" and "white male privilege."

To think they teach this junk on campuses across America.

bill anderson said...

In reading Cash's latest story, it seems to me that he does not want to be caught on the losing side. He saw what happened to people like Alton Maddox and Al Sharpton when they played the "bitter end" game in the Tawana Brawley case.

(Remember that Sharpton and others kept Brawley and her family in a church and had them refuse to cooperate with the grand jury investigating the case. The Brawley family ultimately absconded to Virginia with the hundreds of thousands of dollars given them. This is called "obstruction of justice," but Sharpton and company received a free pass.)

Cash knew from the start this case was bogus, but decided to milk it for his own benefit. The man has no credibility with me.

As for Sanday and Allison and the others in academe who insist we had a gang rape, all I can say is that these are fundamentally dishonest people. Truth is whatever comes from their mouths at any particular time, and to challenge what they say is to be anti-women. So, one cannot engage people like this.

Anonymous said...

Anyone see the news reports of the recent celebration in the streets of Chapel Hill? This is a customary event after a UNC victory over Duke. The media made numerous comments concerning the crowd's activities - jumping over fires, a lot of shouting and drinking - and the relief that there were no major injuries. If this had occurred in Durham, I suppose the pictures of all those students under 21 would have been front page news the next morning.

Anonymous said...

The only good thing I can say about the academic frauds and the junk they foist upon students is that once you leave the campus, it's all forgotten until you see it pop up somewhere like this. This thinking has no legs in the real world, yet.

Jamie said...

Talk about bonding! What a spectacle it is to observe these slavering race-fem agendists pile on, one after another, each completely deaf and blind to fact or reason.

They operate just like a pack, excitedly taking up each other's howls, driven by lust to satisfy their ideological appetites.

They smelled blood way back, and even though it's mostly gone now, they still can't get the scent out of their nostrils.

They are still dangerous... and obscene: for they are gang-raping the Truth.

P. Rich said...

Reeves is yet another bent feminist in yet another soft science overrun by bent feminists. Without the Dukes and Penns providing platforms from which to spew, these people would be nothing other than shrill voices behind placards in a meaningless march somewhere.

And isn't it wonderful how by cross-referrals they lend each other a further air of legitimacy. These nut jobs use their pseudo research to prop up other sympathetic pseudo research and advocacy, a never-ending cycle of [customer and employer] exploitation and self-promotion, which should tell us something about the absence of character and integrity among these "true believers."

Oh, wait. Character and integrity are probably illegitimate, meaningless patriarchal constructs invented to ensure male dominance. Sorry. Take it all back.

becket03 said...

Sanday's column is truly breathtaking in the scope and depth of its error.

She claims MacFadyen's email was about the "messenger’s fantasy about reliving the excitement of the evening." Is it really possible to be this dumb? Does she know anything at all about what happened that night? MacFadyen wrote his very ill-advised and offensive email out of anger, not to relive a fantasy!

Sanday represents the quality of scholarship in feminist studies today. Perhaps that's a good thing. For with "scholars" like her speaking on gender issues, no one with any commonsense is likely to pay much attention.

beckett

Michael said...

Just read Cash Michael's latest and that's about the most sobering article that I've seen him write. One could almost say that he was contrite. No admission that he did anything wrong of course. But it certainly isn't the Cash that we've been used to using outrageous innuendo to get his readers riled up.

I'm sure that Cash reads this board and perhaps he's now able to admit the obvious.

kenb said...

I went to ratemyprofessors.com to see if any students said anything about Sanday and here is the result:
"Condescending, spiteful, treats her students as though they are lesser beings not worthy of her time. Not only that, but she is insulting and rude."

The other students who rated her gave her bad grades also but no juicy quotes (apart from "she made me cry".

For comparison, ratings of KC are along the line of:
"THis is the best teacher in Brooklyn College. His classes are interesting and fun and if you pay attention you will do well. I have taken every class possible with him, and everyone else should as well"

Heh.

Anonymous said...

Nifong's hat trick said...
"Why do men continue to allow man hating to be so prominent in our Universities, and in our society?"
Mar 7, 2007 7:55:00 AM

MTU'76 says...

Why do men and women allow man hating to be so prominent in our country?

Kilgore said...

anon 9:46 said

The only good thing I can say about the academic frauds and the junk they foist upon students is that once you leave the campus, it's all forgotten until you see it pop up somewhere like this. This thinking has no legs in the real world, yet.

I could not disagree more.

Just look no farther than the media and our laws produced by our chivalrous legislators. The media follows along with the feminist tunes like children to a pied piper. Our legislators are no different. Unable to say no to these idealogues they simply nod and unanamously pass bills such as the VAWA based on hatred and so-called feminist thought. We are in this deep and we are in big trouble.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...The only good thing I can say about the academic frauds and the junk they foist upon students is that once you leave the campus, it's all forgotten until you see it pop up somewhere like this. This thinking has no legs in the real world, yet.
Mar 7, 2007 9:46:00 AM

MTU'76 says...
Legs in the real world: Having lived in the PIT of PC, San Fransicko, these past four long years, the place if full of 'rice rockers' (those who constantly have electronic devices plugged into their orifices)(electronics made in China of course) and they are the epitome of the 'real world.' Outside of every subway entrance one can find at least 8 daily or weekly newspapers. Great diversity right? Wrong. They are all singing the same tune. Rock on. The 'rice rockers' are white, black, brown, yellow, male, female, whatever. There are entire government departments here devoted to sex, race, privilege, gender, whatever. And this is the means test for every decision in government and unbelievably in business. I am just a little old olive skinned lady with a walking stick. The 'rice rockers' don't give me their seat on the bus, the 'rice rockers' don't hold heavy doors for me, it's the 50 year old and up "white male privilege". I saw a grandmotherly type holding an infant fall to her knees on a subway train because the PC folks going to work (or maybe a demonstration? same thing) would not offer a seat (I was already standing.)

The 'me' generation have spawned the sex, race, privilege, gender, whatever generation. If you notice this tendency in your children and grandchildren please help them get better.

Anonymous said...

Michael, it is not clear to me that Cash reads anything other than menus. He is not contrite, will never admit that he is wrong, anymore than he will admit to being a morbidly obese, no talent hack who has gotten where he is by the riding the affirmative action train. He is a graceless, tasteless, fat slob whose writing is on par with his self control. That he is wrong is of no import to him or his ilk. All that matters is race, and of course, where the next bucket of grease he can consume is located.

Anonymous said...

Sanday and her colleagues are simpletons. They apparently don't understand the difference between empiricism and opinion; fact and meta-narrative; scholarship and demagoguery.
A few weeks ago, I checked the credentials of the faculty of AAAS at Duke on their home page. It is a disgrace. Mark Anthony Neal claims radio interviews as part of his scholastic output!
Can anyone imagine an engineering professor listing media interviews on his or her c.v.?
These incompetents may have jobs, but I can't imagine that they have the respect of their peers.

Can you picture an academic conference moderator asking a 'diverse' panel about their academic achievements;

Moderator: Name your latest significant accomplishment;

Microbiologist: I found a new way for high-fructose corn syrup to be included in athletic supplement shakes.

AstroPhysicist: I discovered a new planet.

Duke88: I raised awareness by performing skits in a neon wig while dressed as a man.

Tall T

Anonymous said...

Have any of these so called educated people ever looked at the middle east to see how women are treated there. If you cry rape there and don't have 3 witnesses you are stoned to death for falsely accusing. Why is this never mentioned by these intellectuals, it is only let's pick on the American male. Sanday has traveled the world, but comes back to write about her own culture and tell us how great these other cultures are. She could at least see the male dominance over females in these other cultures, it certainly seems to be more prevalent there then here.

Other said...

Nifong's hat trick said...
Why are ther no male advocacy groups speaking up for these 3 boys, are there male advocacy groups?

You'll find websites and various blogs set up to inform men of how their rights are being seriously eroded but they are mostly unfunded, individual efforts.

In contrast, all sorts of specialized womens and minority groups exist that are well funded at the taxpayers expense. It would seem that their job is to spring into action as soon as someone starts speaking out against certain long-term social engineering projects. The main one being the destruction of the family unit.

As Kilgore said:
"They see marriage and long-term heterosexual relationships as a threat to women in general. They seem to see marriage as the ropes that have tied women to the home and are doing their best to destroy it along with the traditional family. Sanday is one of many who have been pushing this agenda. What I can't understand is why more people haven't been calling "

In the UK a few years ago Judge John Curran gave a speech on how the rise of single motherhood was contributing to the increase in crime. Despite the fact that everything he said was true and could be backed up with evidence, various womens groups like this one jumped on him for daring to attack women who must only ever be seen as 'victims'. Anyone who speaks out like this puts their career on the line.

The US and UK governments want to push the ID card concept (and later microchipping) onto the population with the end goal of being in total control. Strong, healthy two parent families that think freely and want liberty stand in the way of this. Disenfranchise fathers from families and you get more dependence on the state plus more dyfunctional and criminal youths. With more crime the call for ID cards seems quite reasonable to most of the sheeple after all, "if you've got nothing to hide what are you afraid of?"

In my opinion, a lot of feminists are unwitting subsidized stooges for whoevers pulling the strings behind the US/UK governments.

Georgia Girl said...

Says Sanday: "... patriarchal bonding functions a little like bonding in organized crime circles — generating a sense of family and establishing mutual aid connections that will last a lifetime.”

Sanday also suggests that fraternities operate much like street gangs ... with a pack mentality.

IT'S TRUE!

Gang Rape and Drug Rape have long existed on fraternity row across the country for many decades.

One of the biggest productions of gang-drug-rape happens during the initiation of pleges.

Why isn't there more discussion on the "reality" of what goes on within frat walls and off-campus house parties?

It seems to me that all of you attempt to portray a stellar picture of the lax team.

Perhaps if these remaining charges against the lax team stick, then just maybe it'll set a precedent whereby "fraternity gentlemen" everywhere will face very harsh penalties for underage drinking and illegal drugs --- not to mention drug-rape and gang-rape.

Meanwhile, stop trashing those like Sanday. SHE is not the issue!

Georgia Girl said...

Also, do you guys realize how extremely angry you come across? Your adjectives describing Sandy and/or her work are as follows:

junk, fiction, ultra feminist, trite, bullshit, intellectual midget, dishonest, dangerous, obscene, a nut, pseudo, simpleton

(I sure I missed a few)

And is it not true that "real" victims get labeled with a few of these adjectives as well?

Other said...

Georgia girl. You're either a satirist with a talent for missing the mark or a total imbecile.

Anonymous said...

I hope Georgia Girl is trying to be satirical since she ignores facts and evidence.

No justice, no peace said...

10:00 Your point about the propping-up is well taken. That likely explains why one is hard-pressed to find the race/gender/class warfare faculty published articles. They are not linked on their web sites and are most typically by reference only to publications that are not widely available. To publish would expose the shallowness/perverse/fraudulent nature of their work and the cross-fertilization of the "publications" cited.

Anonymous said...

georgia girl- I doubt very seriously that "Sandy" has ever met a real "victim" in her entire life. It's just so easy for her to make everyone a victim. Face up- she's an academic fraud. If you are really her friend, you will whisper that into her ear one night.

No justice, no peace said...

Sanday is going to have a very tough time finding anyone to sponsor her for club membership.

Maybe she could take up squash to release some of the pent up male-hating anger?

How much does it cost to take her courses at Penn? Who subsidized the student loans and grants?

Maybe they are correct and we should take a year off supporting college sports in order to focus on the frauds in race/gender/class warfare studies.

Anonymous said...

To 1:35

You are spot on.

kilgore said...

Nifong's hat trick said...
Why are ther no male advocacy groups speaking up for these 3 boys, are there male advocacy groups?

Here are a few more:

MANN

Stand Your Ground

Men's News Daily

"Other" is correct that these sites are mostly individual efforts and lack funding. We need more voices standing up against the insulated angry studies.

Anonymous said...

He is a graceless, tasteless, fat slob whose writing is on par with his self control.

Mr. Michaels' careless sentence structure and haphazard punctuation does seem to occasionally confuse histhe readers.

Anonymous said...

I am positive that what goes on in Frat parties today is exactly what occured fifty years ago when I was Making the Scene. Many of the posters here are women, like me. I am not angry at Sandy or the rest of them - just laughing at them. Many of the women in WS and AAWS are olde broads like me. Hopefully out of "teaching". Love men and I am sure, they are laughing also.

Anonymous said...

18}00 These women are not about to take on the treatment of women in Muslin countries. They would be to scared to challange, what I consider a scary group of men. They like to beat and main women. Only in America, are we to polite to listen to this nonsense. The Sandys, Dimes, Curtis, Shadees and the rest are moral cowards.

Anonymous said...

The failure of the complaint will be blamed on Nifon, He messed it up. Even Amanda wrote that he was to much in a rush,inspite of eleven months and no trial date or motions ruled upon. Better him than the guys.

Anonymous said...

KC-
re: 3/7/07 1:35 a.m. poster.

I had been uneasy this past year by the apparent disconnect between the nonsense imparted by the 87/88/89 that you so painstakingly and flawlessly reveal contrasted with the effortlessness with which that group ignores those revelations. That writer (who I assume is female since I'm a sexist) captures the essence of G88's disdain for any need to adhere to 'reason' in a way that I can comprehend! It is freightening for me since the world I reside in allows reason and truth to trump self interest and predjudice. I owe a debt of gratitude to that poster (and I suspect you do too) since it so clearly explains why what seemed to me to be shotgun blasts into their defenses are experienced by them to be no more than minor irritants worthy only of rebuke. They cannot be successfully roused by the tools you use. To quote- you "share neither language nor goal nor ethic" with them.

rl medicine '75

Anonymous said...

I can only hope, that at the end of the day, these slugs have hurt themselves more than they have hurt others. Many folk have vilified these boys and have injured their own reputations. They are quiet for the most part now, but lack the courage to acknowledge their own "drush to judgement."

Anonymous said...

If I was Purdue University I would be ashamed to have A.G. Rud as a professor. Firt of all in NC it is not illegal to have an exoctic dancer at a party. Lets remember most of the mens teams have had dancers at their party's. If it is so appalling to so many then NC should change their laws. Secondly why does everyone say it is a crime to have priviledge or go to Duke. I didn't know Rud was at the party as he speaks as he was there. I didn't know he personally knows these young men and their families. He doesn't he is just giving a moronic opinion. The families of the 3 indicted boys have worked hard for what they have, they don't live in over the top luxury like most CEOs, actors and singers do. Most of the players go into Duke with scholoarships they earned. They all have strong family values and their sons worked hard to into Duke. You don't become star athletes in a division 1 school because you have money. It takes discipline, hard work, commitment, and intelligence. Rud is trying to piggyback on this case to make a name for himself. He should crawl back under the rock he came from, he may even see Amanda Marcotte there. It is amazing how jealousy of people who have more than you financially, who are smarter than you causes all those who are deficient to come forward with pitchforks in hand. Those who will only beleive the lie, with all the evidence and then some proving nothing happened that night, those are the people who are ignorant and jealous and lacking any morals, charachter or integrity. People who shoot their mouths off and give their opionion on something they know nothing about are simply nats trying to gain a name for themselves. So Rud & Marcotta a suggestion to you is to keep your insipid opinions to yourself. No one really cares what you think. And what you say will land you in a civil suit. You'll be added to a long list of those who tried to feed off the travesty of these families.