quote:

ORIGINAL: respectmen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

FR

If a Black Woman texted out "Kill White Men" do you think they would be all over her about it ?

T^T

Of course not. Leftists are very deeply stupid hypicrites. They lecture white men about equality while wanting double standards at nearly every turn.

quote:

WASHINGTON, April 25, 2016—The Department of Justice now interprets Title IX to require colleges and universities to violate the First Amendment.

In an April 22 findings letter concluding its investigation into the University of New Mexico’s policies and practices regarding sex discrimination, the Department of Justice (DOJ) found the university improperly defined sexual harassment. DOJ flatly declared that “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature”—including “verbal conduct”—is sexual harassment “regardless of whether it causes a hostile environment or is quid pro quo.”

To comply with Title IX, DOJ states that a college or university “carries the responsibility to investigate” all speech of a sexual nature that someone subjectively finds unwelcome, even if that speech is protected by the First Amendment or an institution’s promises of free speech.

“The Department of Justice has put universities in an impossible position: violate the Constitution or risk losing federal funding,” said Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) President & CEO Greg Lukianoff. “The federal government’s push for a national speech code is at odds with decades of legal precedent. University presidents must find the courage to stand up to this federal overreach.”

The shockingly broad conception of sexual harassment mandated by DOJ all but guarantees that colleges and universities nationwide will subject students and faculty to months-long investigations—or worse—for protected speech. In recent years, unjust “sexual harassment” investigations into protected student and faculty speech have generated national headlines and widespread concern. Examples include:

•Northwestern University Professor Laura Kipnis was investigated for months for writing a newspaper article questioning “sexual paranoia” on campus and how Title IX investigations are conducted.
•Syracuse University law student Len Audaer was investigated for harassment for comedic articles he posted on a satirical law school blog patterned after The Onion.
•A female student at the University of Oregon was investigated and charged with harassment and four other charges for jokingly yelling “I hit it first” out a window at a couple.
•The Sun Star, a student newspaper at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, was investigated for nearly a year for an April Fools’ Day issue of the newspaper and for reporting on hateful messages posted to an anonymous “UAF Confessions” Facebook page.
•And just two weeks ago, a police officer at the University of Delaware ordered students to censor a “free speech ball”—put up as part of a demonstration in favor of free speech—because it had the word “penis” and an accompanying drawing on it, claiming that it could violate the university’s sexual misconduct policy.

DOJ’s rationale would not just legitimize all of the above investigations—it would require campuses to either conduct such investigations routinely or face potential federal sanctions.

This latest findings letter doubles down on the unconstitutional and controversial “blueprint” definition of sexual harassment jointly issued by DOJ and the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights in a May 2013 findings letter to the University of Montana. FIRE and other civil liberties advocates at the time warned that the controversial language threatens the free speech and academic freedom rights of students and faculty members.

“Requiring colleges to investigate and record ‘unwelcome’ speech about sex or gender in an effort to end sexual harassment or assault on campus is no more constitutional than would be a government effort to investigate and record all ‘unpatriotic’ speech in order to root out treason,” said Robert Shibley, FIRE’s executive director. “Students, faculty, and administrators must not give in to this kind of campus totalitarianism—and FIRE is here to fight alongside them.”

In January, FIRE sponsored a lawsuit filed against Louisiana State University (LSU) that challenges the unconstitutional definition of sexual harassment being promulgated by the Departments of Education and Justice in this and in previous letters. Teresa Buchanan, a tenured associate professor of early childhood education in LSU’s acclaimed teacher certification program, was fired for “sexual harassment” under an LSU policy that tracks the federal government’s broad definition. Buchanan’s lawsuit challenges the policy’s constitutionality and its application to her.

FIRE is a nonpartisan, nonprofit educational foundation that unites civil rights and civil liberties leaders, scholars, journalists, and public intellectuals from across the political and ideological spectrum on behalf of individual rights, freedom of expression, academic freedom, due process, and freedom of conscience at our nation’s colleges and universities. FIRE’s efforts to preserve liberty on campuses across America can be viewed at thefire.org.

quote:

RUSH: Harvard. "Harvard Cancels Men's Soccer Season Over Sexually Explicit 'Scouting Reports' -- Harvard University announced Thursday that it would forgo the remainder of its men's soccer season after the school's lawyers found several 'scouting reports' prepared by team members that assessed members of the women's team based on their physical appearance. The Ivy League school's newspaper, The Harvard Crimson reported last week that members of the 2012 team created a document rating each of that year's women's soccer recruits on a numerical scale and assigning them a sexual position."

No!

You mean like they're a 10 or a 9 or an 8? You mean like Trump does? Oh, no! You mean boys are boys, even at Harvard? Does this mean men are men even at Harvard? They haven't been able to scrub that out of them so far, so they're going to cancel the soccer season? You know what's amazing about this story? I'm telling you the truth. These kids, students, the Harvard players... They've grown up... Don't doubt me on this. They have grown up being taught not to act like boys. Do not doubt me on this, folks.

I'm not trying to be funny. I'm not trying to get your attention by saying something outrageous. It is something that is part of our culture. Boys have been raised to believe that in their natural state, they're unacceptable. They are predators; they are potential rapists; they are rough, insensitive, selfish, all of these things, as defined by women. So the chickfication of the education system -- and there's no other word for it. All it means is that women now dominate positions of power in education, and they have done their best to redefine masculinity.

I've even had a couple of stories in the past couple of weeks about that very thing, about how colleges are actually attacking the notion of masculinity as though it is a negative trait. Look, folks, if you are new to the program, if you're just tuning in because it is election time and you want to see what is going on, do not doubt me on this. I know this sounds funny and cliched, and I know how sensitive people have been made in our culture today, that it's safer to conform. It's safer to go along, don't make waves. But I'm telling you, this makes perfect sense.

They have spent at least a generation trying to convince and teach boys not to act like boys. That's why I made reference to the opening scene in Hacksaw Ridge. Nobody will think a thing of it, except I did. See, I've been trained to spot the politics in everything because the left politicizes everything. I'm just telling you, you watch it. Go see this movie with friends. I guarantee you in opening scenes you're going to have some people say, "Do you believe what they used to let kids do? We would no more let our kids do this..."

Yet what you'll see portrayed in this movie is the way you used to grow up in this country. We are trying to take masculinity away from men. They have spent their lifetime in schools trying to pound into young boys' brains that being a man is a bad thing, or potentially. If you don't get a handle on it. If you don't get control of it. What's amazing is despite these efforts... You know what this is like? Back in the early days of the modern era of feminism... Some of you may be too young to remember. In the late '60s, early '70s, what they tried...

"Enlightened" parents raised their little girl babies with G.I. Joe's and painted their rooms blue, and they were not given any toys like dollhouses or Barbies or anything like that. Because the belief was girls grew up to be the way they were because they were conditioned by a sexist, patriarchal society who made little girls want to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. So Barbie dolls here and there, little tea houses, play houses and kitchen sets and so forth.

So what these parents did is they gave all that girl stuff to the little boys and they gave G.I. Joe dolls and all that to little girls. Do you know what happened? The girls started looking for different outfits to put on G.I. Joe and little boys started using Barbie dolls as missiles, throwing them around. In other words, nature is nature. Feminism came along and was attempting to basically redefine basic human nature because, for some reason, they don't like it.

So for the past number of years there have been efforts to strip masculinity and manhood out of the young male population, and they failed. They've obviously failed. If the men's soccer team at Harvard has come up with a secret numbering system to rate the female soccer team recruits on a scale of, what, 1 to 10. Stop and look at the way Harvard's dealing with it. Cancelling the soccer season. This is considered to be such a great cultural and societal offense.

If you listen to Hillary on the trail, one of the things, one of her mantras is when she talks about Trump (imitating Hillary), "Donald Trump, I'm getting sick and tired of Donald Trump basing women on their appearance. I'm sick and tired of Donald Trump rating women on their appearance." Now, I watch this and I ask myself, who's odd? Hillary, do you really think that stopped happening some time ago? Do you think men stopped rating women based on the way they look?

The reason why you women ought not worry about that is that every woman is gorgeous to somebody. You can see it. Every woman is attractive to somebody. What are you smirking at me for? Look, don't make me prove this. Don't, don't make me say what's necessary to prove this. Use your brain. Every woman is attractive to somebody because tastes are different. People's own self-esteem is different. Every guy is attractive to somebody. It works both ways.

But the Democrats, the Hillarys of the world want to come in, take this aspect of human nature and drum it out of everybody. So now Donald Trump is unqualified to be president because he notices pretty women and women in his mind that are not so pretty. We can't have that. What, we're supposed to see all women the same? Sorry, it doesn't work that way. And the other way around with women. We guys have been trying to figure this out as long as we've been alive, why certain women like the absolute worst examples of our friends, cohorts or what have you.

But you know what I'm talking about. People hook up, they get together, everybody eventually does. There are exceptions, of course, not everybody, nothing ever is a total of 100 percent. But the abnormal, the unnatural way of looking at this is this Hillary Clinton's way. Most men look at women and see them on a scale. You can't help it. It's in the genes. It's built in. We are designed this way. It's rooted in this mysterious thing called life which does everything it can to perpetuate itself.

Life is an amazing thing. It will do whatever it can to perpetuate itself, to avoid going extinct. And it's built into virtually every living thing, and it's something that you scientifically cannot capture or quantify. And therefore a lot of people reject it because you can't scientifically quantify it, qualitative it or get a consensus on it. So every time I hear Hillary Clinton say it, so what's wrong with that? Everybody else does, too. And women do it. Women judge men the same way. Maybe not a number scale, but they've got their own ways of doing it. It's just as natural as it can be. (imitating Hillary) "I'm sick and tired of Donald Trump who judges women based on how they look."

I'll tell you what, Donald Trump's hired more women in positions of authority and power and paid them a lot more than Hillary Clinton ever has or ever will. You can make book on it. Donald Trump has hired more women than Hillary ever will, and he pays them more than she ever will. And they are of different types and appearance and looks. They run the spectrum. One of my main gripes about liberalism is that it is essentially, given everything else it is, it's an assault on basic human nature that they're trying to erase and wipe out. And this trying to erase masculinity and trying to take manhood out of little boys, this is classic what they're doing at Harvard here.

Okay, so the male soccer team is keeping their eyes on the new female soccer team recruits. And they've got a secret little system for rating them. It has to be secret because the leftists at the school disapprove of this kind of behavior. So they have their secret little list, and it's been discovered. And the people at Harvard who want every student to be an automaton, who want everyone thinking the same way, doing the same things, acting the same way, are now going to shut down the soccer season as punishment.

But on the bright side, you can look at it and say, they've tried to strip masculinity and traditional manly characteristics out of young boys, and it's obvious at Harvard they have failed big time.

RUSH: I have a quick question. Back to Harvard canceling the men's soccer season because they discovered that the men on the soccer team actually had a secret way of rating new recruits on the Harvard women's soccer team. Yes. The male soccer team members were rating the newly arrived female team members on a 1-to-10 scale of attractiveness. Now, there have to be some gay members of that soccer team, right? What would Harvard do if they learned that gay men's soccer team members were rating newly arrived recruits who were gay on the men's soccer team?

Well, you know that happens. You know it happens, just like it does with men and women. What would Harvard do if they found out that gay men were rating other newly arrived gay men on the attractiveness scale? "Well, nothing, Mr. Limbaugh, because that has nothing to do with masculinity." Don't give me that! Do not. I don't want to go there. Don't tell me... Because it does. Hey, it's just a think-piece question. I'm just asking it. I like to ask questions to blow up people's logic.

quote:

Vincent, using the dictionary definitions of the terms "sexist" and "racist", please explain exactly how what these students did fit those definitions.

quote:

it also might come as a surprise to the comrades with pseudo-heightened sensitivities, but to men, women are sex objects.

quote:

"Department of Justice: Title IX Requires Violating First Amendment"

this is not a perfect fit, but the essence of it is nevertheless the case...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul

quote:


'The point that should be readily apparent by those who can set aside their own agenda for a moment is that these scholar athletes

Were they scholar athletes? If so, they would have have signed papers agreeing to standards of character. According to statements made by administrators at all of these colleges, this behavior conflicts with standards explicitly set for athletes. But things like that are tied into scholarships, particularly.

quote:

texted

Not just texted. Group email threads, and some were also publicly published for years at a time, updated yearly, including info such as pics of the girls along side degrading remarks and judgments made by the boys

quote:

juvenile remarks

I have been working with juveniles for the past 20 years; overheard their talk in the hall, taken up notes, found papers with notes on them, seen their blogs on the web that they don’t realize school counselors and college admissions offices look for, etc. And I never saw things that reached the level of most of what content was available in the reports. Below are excerpts from the reports, or are quotes straight from the emails/texts in question.

“Here you’ll see me with my main bitch ***** and my side hoe *****. Also notice the bump where my penis should be. That’s my penis. The upperclassmen know not to fuck around with these two lovelies, but freshman be warned: touch either of my meat slabs and I will fucking end you. Especially *****. God knows the little one can’t protect herself.”

“asians really have horizontal vaginas”

In the email, the team member refers to one woman as “a walking STD,” and writes, “Everyone needs their meatslab,”referring to another. He describes a third woman – “Without being too mean, she is a stuck up, snobby, bitch; AKA the perfect formal date for the desperate members of our team.”

“Many debate what’s more disturbing: his fetish for the anus or his fetish for the Orient.” One of the jokes hinges on confusing two women of color personally known to the team. Another description suggests that a member of the team enjoys sexually pursuing children. A description of a current senior on the team reads “Sure, when you first meet him you may think: “Woah, is that dude in the trench coat going to rape me?”

The texts in question include wrestlers regaling each other with descriptions of their fellow students such as “fish pussy,” “ugly socially awkward cunts,” and “nigs.”

And the reports described below were the ones created each year, updated, and shared as a public Google document, there for all the world to see, to be shared. Complete with pictures of the girls and the degrading things the boys had to say about the them.

In what appears to have been a yearly team tradition, a member of Harvard’s 2012 men’s soccer team produced a document that, in sexually explicit terms, individually assessed and evaluated freshmen recruits from the 2012 women’s soccer team based on their perceived physical attractiveness and sexual appeal.
The author and his teammates referred to the nine-page document as a “scouting report,” and the author circulated the document over the group’s email list on July 31, 2012.

In lewd terms, the author of the report individually evaluated each female recruit, assigning them numerical scores and writing paragraph-long assessments of the women. The document also included photographs of each woman, most of which, the author wrote, were culled from Facebook or the Internet.

The author of the “report” often included sexually explicit descriptions of the women. He wrote of one woman that “she looks like the kind of girl who both likes to dominate, and likes to be dominated.”

Each woman was assigned a hypothetical sexual “position” in addition to her position on the soccer field.

“She seems relatively simple and probably inexperienced sexually, so I decided missionary would be her preferred position,” the author wrote about one woman. “Doggy style,” “The Triple Lindy,” and “cowgirl” were listed as possible positions for other women.

The author also assigned each woman a nickname, calling one woman “Gumbi” because “her gum to tooth ratio is about 1 to 1.”

“For that reason I am forced to rate her a 6,” the author added.

“She seems to be very strong, tall and manly so, I gave her a 3 because I felt bad. Not much needs to be said on this one folks,” the author wrote about another woman.

Concluding his assessment of one woman, the author wrote, “Yeah… She wants cock.”

The “report” appears to have been an annual practice. At the beginning of the document, the author writes that “while some of the scouting report last year was wrong, the overall consensus that” a certain player “was both the hottest and the most STD ridden was confirmed.”

These were updated and publicly available until 2014, despite administrators efforts to stop it.

quote:

and were disproportionately punished by an oppressive nanny state that prevails in American institutions.'

In the business world, people lose their jobs all the time for things just like this. These boys are not being suspended from the university or anything like that. Their sports are being restricted.

Sports are a privilege.

Their education is not being affected.

If this were a job, they probably would have been fired.

Whatever happened to people being held accountable for their actions?

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

Here is an article from today's USA Today, hardly a right wing rag.

It's an opinion piece, not a news article.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

"Department of Justice: Title IX Requires Violating First Amendment"

this is not a perfect fit, but the essence of it is nevertheless the case...

quote:

WASHINGTON, April 25, 2016—The Department of Justice now interprets Title IX to require colleges and universities to violate the First Amendment.

In an April 22 findings letter concluding its investigation into the University of New Mexico’s policies and practices regarding sex discrimination, the Department of Justice (DOJ) found the university improperly defined sexual harassment. DOJ flatly declared that “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature”—including “verbal conduct”—is sexual harassment “regardless of whether it causes a hostile environment or is quid pro quo.”

To comply with Title IX, DOJ states that a college or university “carries the responsibility to investigate” all speech of a sexual nature that someone subjectively finds unwelcome, even if that speech is protected by the First Amendment or an institution’s promises of free speech.

“The Department of Justice has put universities in an impossible position: violate the Constitution or risk losing federal funding,” said Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) President & CEO Greg Lukianoff. “The federal government’s push for a national speech code is at odds with decades of legal precedent. University presidents must find the courage to stand up to this federal overreach.”

The shockingly broad conception of sexual harassment mandated by DOJ all but guarantees that colleges and universities nationwide will subject students and faculty to months-long investigations—or worse—for protected speech. In recent years, unjust “sexual harassment” investigations into protected student and faculty speech have generated national headlines and widespread concern. Examples include:

•Northwestern University Professor Laura Kipnis was investigated for months for writing a newspaper article questioning “sexual paranoia” on campus and how Title IX investigations are conducted.
•Syracuse University law student Len Audaer was investigated for harassment for comedic articles he posted on a satirical law school blog patterned after The Onion.
•A female student at the University of Oregon was investigated and charged with harassment and four other charges for jokingly yelling “I hit it first” out a window at a couple.
•The Sun Star, a student newspaper at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, was investigated for nearly a year for an April Fools’ Day issue of the newspaper and for reporting on hateful messages posted to an anonymous “UAF Confessions” Facebook page.
•And just two weeks ago, a police officer at the University of Delaware ordered students to censor a “free speech ball”—put up as part of a demonstration in favor of free speech—because it had the word “penis” and an accompanying drawing on it, claiming that it could violate the university’s sexual misconduct policy.

DOJ’s rationale would not just legitimize all of the above investigations—it would require campuses to either conduct such investigations routinely or face potential federal sanctions.

This latest findings letter doubles down on the unconstitutional and controversial “blueprint” definition of sexual harassment jointly issued by DOJ and the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights in a May 2013 findings letter to the University of Montana. FIRE and other civil liberties advocates at the time warned that the controversial language threatens the free speech and academic freedom rights of students and faculty members.

“Requiring colleges to investigate and record ‘unwelcome’ speech about sex or gender in an effort to end sexual harassment or assault on campus is no more constitutional than would be a government effort to investigate and record all ‘unpatriotic’ speech in order to root out treason,” said Robert Shibley, FIRE’s executive director. “Students, faculty, and administrators must not give in to this kind of campus totalitarianism—and FIRE is here to fight alongside them.”

In January, FIRE sponsored a lawsuit filed against Louisiana State University (LSU) that challenges the unconstitutional definition of sexual harassment being promulgated by the Departments of Education and Justice in this and in previous letters. Teresa Buchanan, a tenured associate professor of early childhood education in LSU’s acclaimed teacher certification program, was fired for “sexual harassment” under an LSU policy that tracks the federal government’s broad definition. Buchanan’s lawsuit challenges the policy’s constitutionality and its application to her.

FIRE is a nonpartisan, nonprofit educational foundation that unites civil rights and civil liberties leaders, scholars, journalists, and public intellectuals from across the political and ideological spectrum on behalf of individual rights, freedom of expression, academic freedom, due process, and freedom of conscience at our nation’s colleges and universities. FIRE’s efforts to preserve liberty on campuses across America can be viewed at thefire.org.

https://www.thefire.org/department-of-justice-title-ix-requires-violating-first-amendment/

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: respectmen

Vincent is racist as well as sexist because he stereotypes all white men as someone who is privileged. This stereotype is simply used to put down anyone who happens to be white and male.

How is that not racist and sexist?

Ahhh . . . I never said all white men were privileged. What I said was those who have been privileged have been white men and you as a member of that group pay for it now. Nothing racist or sexist in that . . . just history. Make a list of the richest people, make a list of Corporate CEOs, make a list of long tenured politicians or university professors. Look at their images. They are overwhelmingly male and white in English speaking nations. Rise up from de Nile, get your face above water, deal with it. Then your choice of conclusions is that white men have been privileged, or that . . . . . women and people of color do not have the wherewithal to succeed in such numbers. Which is it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
Making laws to diminish their rights isn't the answer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: respectmen

Vincent is racist as well as sexist because he stereotypes all white men as someone who is privileged. This stereotype is simply used to put down anyone who happens to be white and male.

How is that not racist and sexist?

Ahhh . . . I never said all white men were privileged. What I said was those who have been privileged have been white men and you as a member of that group pay for it now. Nothing racist or sexist in that . . . just history. Make a list of the richest people, make a list of Corporate CEOs, make a list of long tenured politicians or university professors. Look at their images. They are overwhelmingly male and white in English speaking nations. Rise up from de Nile, get your face above water, deal with it. Then your choice of conclusions is that white men have been privileged, or that . . . . . women and people of color do not have the wherewithal to succeed in such numbers. Which is it?

No you didn't say "white men were privileged" you said "priveledged white boys."

So here, once again, you show that you are aware of your racists comments by "changing" what you said once you were caught. Awareness is correct it seems.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

using their actual quotes doesn't change my mind. they were idiots, but that is in part, the nature of youth and unfortunately, to be expected.

You miss the main point right at the top of your remarks on the "nature of youth." Both sexes at University make up the body of "youth" and yet there is no evidence that the women engaged in such behavior. So, in reality this is the nature of privileged white male youth at these universities specifically.

quote:

at the same time, "speech codes", which is essentially what we are talking about here, are an affront to liberty, however offensive we might find it.

No one has the "liberty" to slander young women in any civil society.

quote:

As I've been pointing out. A true liberal would be more concerned with this than calling them privileged white boys...still wanna know if that makes Obama a privileged black boy in the OP's mind.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
Making laws to diminish their rights isn't the answer.

Who did that?
Expelling somebody from a university for acting like a cunt doesn't require any changes in the legislation: it happens all the time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

using their actual quotes doesn't change my mind. they were idiots, but that is in part, the nature of youth and unfortunately, to be expected.

You miss the main point right at the top of your remarks on the "nature of youth." Both sexes at University make up the body of "youth" and yet there is no evidence that the women engaged in such behavior. So, in reality this is the nature of privileged white male youth at these universities specifically.

quote:

at the same time, "speech codes", which is essentially what we are talking about here, are an affront to liberty, however offensive we might find it.

No one has the "liberty" to slander young women in any civil society.

Sure they do. Get over it.

quote:

The boys were bad boys. The reason car insurance companies charge so much for boys under the age of 25 is because they are naturally prone to thinking like this. Their brains haven't developed impulse control while their hormones are at peaks. There's a lot to consider beside them posting rapper like lyrics. Being outraged at the "priveledged white boys" is just plane stupid. Making laws to diminish their rights isn't the answer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
Making laws to diminish their rights isn't the answer.

Who did that?
Expelling somebody from a university for acting like a cunt doesn't require any changes in the legislation: it happens all the time.

More than one citation, and/or link has been provided. I see that you like to frequently argue without facts. The links were in clear English and easy to read. Google can, also, be your friend.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Vincent, using the dictionary definitions of the terms "sexist" and "racist", please explain exactly how what these students did fit those definitions.

I don't understand why you are having difficulty with the notion that sexist behavior might include expressing opinions about the sexual desirability, or not, of young women by their appearance, especially when they did not invite such expressions. What you are condoning is a breech of consent quite similar to laying hands on a woman at your whim.

What is missing in the dictionary definitions you offered is the very real concept of power. That is the essential ingredient, the primary driver of sexism and racism. Sexist and racist expression in words or deeds contain the assumption that one group has the inherent power to slander or debase another group. It is all about power, the power to do or to threaten to do some verbal or physical violence to another class of humans, and to steal away their dignity. Dictionary definitions come up woefully short in clarifying the issue.

quote:

it also might come as a surprise to the comrades with pseudo-heightened sensitivities, but to men, women are sex objects.

But, isn't part of growing into manhood learning to have respect for others and to have restraint in your dealings with them? Of course it is. Consigning women to the role of "sex objects" quite obviously dehumanizes them.

Both in sexism and racism the power to dehumanize is at the nub of the assault and is why many blacks and women have rage toward privileged white men. The privilege is in the power one group assumes over the others.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: respectmen

Vincent is racist as well as sexist because he stereotypes all white men as someone who is privileged. This stereotype is simply used to put down anyone who happens to be white and male.

How is that not racist and sexist?

Ahhh . . . I never said all white men were privileged. What I said was those who have been privileged have been white men and you as a member of that group pay for it now. Nothing racist or sexist in that . . . just history. Make a list of the richest people, make a list of Corporate CEOs, make a list of long tenured politicians or university professors. Look at their images. They are overwhelmingly male and white in English speaking nations. Rise up from de Nile, get your face above water, deal with it. Then your choice of conclusions is that white men have been privileged, or that . . . . . women and people of color do not have the wherewithal to succeed in such numbers. Which is it?

No you didn't say "white men were privileged" you said "priveledged white boys."

So here, once again, you show that you are aware of your racists comments by "changing" what you said once you were caught. Awareness is correct it seems.

Yes, both terms are correct within the context used.

Picking nits, hey?

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
Making laws to diminish their rights isn't the answer.

Who did that?
Expelling somebody from a university for acting like a cunt doesn't require any changes in the legislation: it happens all the time.

More than one citation, and/or link has been provided. I see that you like to frequently argue without facts. The links were in clear English and easy to read. Google can, also, be your friend.

Links have been provided about the expulsion.
Not one word about the change in the law you allude to, though.