In which a group of graying eternal amateurs discuss their passions, interests and obsessions, among them: movies, art, politics, evolutionary biology, taxes, writing, computers, these kids these days, and lousy educations.

E-Mail Donald
Demographer, recovering sociologist, and arts buff

E-Mail Fenster
College administrator and arts buff

E-Mail Francis
Architectural historian and arts buff

E-Mail Friedrich
Entrepreneur and arts buff
E-Mail Michael
Media flunky and arts buff

We assume it's OK to quote emailers by name.

Try Advanced Search

  1. Another Technical Note
  2. La Ligne Maginot
  3. Actress Notes
  4. Technical Day
  5. Peripheral Explanation
  6. More Immigration Links
  7. Another Graphic Detournement
  8. Peripheral Artists (5): Mikhail Vrubel
  9. Illegal Update

Sasha Castel
AC Douglas
Out of Lascaux
The Ambler
Modern Art Notes
Cranky Professor
Mike Snider on Poetry
Silliman on Poetry
Felix Salmon
Polly Frost
Polly and Ray's Forum
Stumbling Tongue
Brian's Culture Blog
Banana Oil
Scourge of Modernism
Visible Darkness
Thomas Hobbs
Blog Lodge
Leibman Theory
Goliard Dream
Third Level Digression
Here Inside
My Stupid Dog
W.J. Duquette

Politics, Education, and Economics Blogs
Andrew Sullivan
The Corner at National Review
Steve Sailer
Joanne Jacobs
Natalie Solent
A Libertarian Parent in the Countryside
Rational Parenting
Colby Cosh
View from the Right
Pejman Pundit
God of the Machine
One Good Turn
Liberty Log
Daily Pundit
Catallaxy Files
Greatest Jeneration
Glenn Frazier
Jane Galt
Jim Miller
Limbic Nutrition
Innocents Abroad
Chicago Boyz
James Lileks
Cybrarian at Large
Hello Bloggy!
Setting the World to Rights
Travelling Shoes

Redwood Dragon
The Invisible Hand
Daze Reader
Lynn Sislo
The Fat Guy
Jon Walz


Our Last 50 Referrers

« Mao/Marx | Main | Ewan on Acting in Front of a Blue Screen »

July 15, 2005

Basic Fairness Questions

Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards --

* If Jewish schools can require that none of their students bring non-Jews to the prom, then can schools run by other religions do likewise? Can Catholic schools forbid non-Catholics from attending prom? How about Protestant schools? Should they be allowed to shoo non-Protestants away from their events? And what if this meant that some Jews were forbidden entry?

* If it's OK to run a get-together for female bloggers, does that mean it's OK to run one for male bloggers too?



posted by Michael at July 15, 2005


I strongly favor freedom of association, as does the Constitution. Beyond the useful aspect of allowing people to choose who they will associate with, it also serves as a signalling mechanism. It's kind of like how a critic that you always disagree with is just as useful as a critic you always agree with.

Some of these sorts of decisions give me a really easy way to identify people I don't want to associate with. That's a valuable service.

Posted by: Doug Sundseth on July 15, 2005 04:15 PM

An obvious answer to both of your questions -yes; it's still a free country, innit?

Following 339(last I checked)-comments' discussion on how much anti-discriminatory regulation is permissable on one of my favorite Russian blogs:
- if a shopkeeper wants to hang "we don't serve Germans and French" sign on his door (as it was a case in Holland, if I'm not mistaken) - yes, he has the right to do it; the shop is his property.
-if a private school (religious, dance academy, culinary institute, etc) decides "who's in" for a party - they can absolutely do it.
-if a country wants to limit the flow of immigrants coming in, on whatever conditions the native populace decides - it's this country's inalienable right.

Now, other question is how many customers the shop will retain after publicizing these policies.
And how many male bloggers will attend "no girls allowed" conferences...
But hey, (all together now)-
it's still a free country!

Posted by: Tatyana on July 15, 2005 04:16 PM

Doug, completely OT: a small Fri present for you.

Posted by: Tatyana on July 15, 2005 04:29 PM

What can I say? Freedom is not considered politically correct these days.

Posted by: susan on July 15, 2005 04:32 PM

Thanks for that, Tatyana. A fine find on a Friday afternoon.*

* I think "afternoon" qualifies as continuation of the alliteration, but this may be a contested point.**

** You realize, of course, that I had to. 8-)

Posted by: Doug Sundseth on July 15, 2005 04:50 PM

My guess is that if the schools get any government money whatsoever they have forfeited their right of free association.

Posted by: ricpic on July 15, 2005 06:51 PM

If the schools have been so remiss in inculcating their students the need for endogamy among Jews, well, by prom time it's a little too late.

Posted by: Omri on July 15, 2005 07:23 PM

I think boys are allowed to go to the blogher conference, though why anyone would want to is beyond me. Conferences are too much like work, full of dreary powerpoint presentations and earnest discussions like "Whither blogging?"

Posted by: Rachel on July 15, 2005 08:44 PM

It wasn't Holland.

Posted by: Tatyana on July 15, 2005 10:15 PM

I get so fascinated by these fair's-fair gray-zone questions. If female sports reporters are to be allowed in the guys' locker room, shouldn't male sports reporters be allowed in the gals'? If there's a Latino-descent theme dorm on campus, why shouldn't there be an Irish-descent theme dorm?

There's a funny thing in employment law that I love. A business up to a certain size isn't obliged to hire without regard to sex/race/etc. It can hire whom it pleases. The reason is family businesses: presumably a Korean deli owner is going to be employing mostly family, so he/she shouldn't be held to the usual equal-opp rules. But where do you draw the line? At five employees? At 20? On what basis?

I'm pretty sympathetic to the idea that a business owner (or landlord) should be free to serve who he/she pleases. Why should business owners be obliged to have dealings with absolutely everyone? (And besides, they do make many de facto choices: no bums, for instance.) Yet there are those awful images of southern small towns where black people can't get any service at all.

Fun to think about these things, not that I get anywhere, exactly ...

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on July 15, 2005 10:34 PM

Try to get your heads around this: In South Africa the government wants to ban the country's only white trade union, which mainly exists in order to influence the government's anti-white affirmative action policy, on the grounds that it discriminates against blacks by campaigning only for white workers' rights!

Funnily enough, there hasn't been talk about banning the blacks-only Black Lawyers' Organization...

Posted by: Will on July 16, 2005 12:04 AM

That's pretty delicious, er awful, er delicious, er awful ...

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on July 16, 2005 12:54 AM

I'd love to go to a guy-only Blogging conference, as long as I were the only guy there, and plenty of beautiful, intelligent bloghers decided to crash it.

Posted by: . on July 16, 2005 03:34 AM

More gray-zone stuff: Publicly and officially, we're mean to pretend that group characteristics don't exist (except, of course, when they're celebrated and "good"). Yet the more informal circumstances get, the more openly group characteristics are acknowledged. Hang out with, for example, a bunch of New York City-ites of Italian descent, and you'll pretty soon get an earful about what "the Irish" or "the WASPs" or "the blacks" are like, at least in their eyes. (Yet just try to make a generalization about Italians!) Hang out with gays -- who are often really smart and funny about typing classes of people -- and the whole world can begin to look like a hilarious cast of vivid stereotypes. (Yet just try to make comic generalizations about gays ...) So where does the fuzzy gray line get drawn on that transition from official to highly-informal?

I wonder. It seems to me that there's often this funny moment in acquaintanceships when it gets tried out: Can I make this kind of observation? Will the other person snap? Have I just been welcomed into some kind of new intimacy? Can we relax together about such-and-such? Sometimes it's fun and welcome: it can be great to be able to horse around informally and good-naturedly. Sometimes it's awful. You see a side of someone you'd rather not have been exposed to, and it can be awkward. What do you do? Ignore it and hope it goes away? Shut it down firmly?

Anyway, here's a couple of funny example. On my desk I've got a couple of books. One's a serious intellectual policy book from Cambridge University Press. And you know how -- in public anyway -- you aren't supposed to notice that many of the people in the neoconservative movement (and, god knows, many of the people supplying its intellectual oomph) are Jewish? Yet everyone knows (informally, of course) it is? Well, the title of this book -- written, I note, by a scholar named Murray Friedman -- is "The Neoconservative Revolution: Jewish Intellectuals and the Shaping of Public Policy." So: Is it now officially OK to openly discuss how Jewish neoconservatism has been? After all, a serious book from Cambridge University Press has put the fact on its cover. On the other hand, maybe the public realm isn't quite ready for it. And could anyone not named something like "Murray Friedman" have written a book with this title and gotten it published? None of this etiquette is written-down, yet we all have to negotiate our way through these waters anyway. Shifting sands, and people ready to be offended and angry. Not easy!

Here's another example: a lightweight but amusing relationship-tips book by Dave Singleton called "Behind Every Great Woman There's a Fabulous Gay Man: Advice From a Guy Who Gives It To You Straight." It's pretty funny, it's prettty down to earth. It's also page after page of the most amazing trafficking in stereotypes and generalizations of the kind we're generally discouraged from making. Gay men are like this, women are like that, we "all know" that straight men tend to act like this ... Many of these Singleton's observations struck me as witty and dead-on (as well as sensible: girls, go by this book and be a little less stupid about your relationships!). Yet, like I say, it's one stereotype after another. Singleton himself, who has published one other "gayguy advice" book, seems to be marketing himself as a witty and amusing and down to earth gay advice-giver -- so in a way he's stereotyping himself too.

Do we let a Dave Singleton get away with the broadest kinds of stereotypes -- and publishing a book purveying them! -- because ... he's witty and amusing about them? (Yet should wit and amusingness give someone a kind of license the rest of us don't have?) Because he's gay? (But why should gayness confer this kind of privilege?) Because after all this book is the equivalent of yak between a girl and her hairdresser, so why fret it?

I think part of the reason I like pondering these conundrums is because they all kind of give the finger to the official blank-slate set of pretentions. Funnily, though, I don't mind a certain amount of public hypocrisy. I think some hypocrisy may be necessary -- it's good to dress in a way that's appropriate to the venue, basically. Yet there's something about current official understandings that irks me some.

Of course, these things are also fun to think about for their own sakes ...

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on July 16, 2005 12:16 PM

Oh, how I wish, Michael (and other commenters to this post, naturally) could read Russian! It might be instructive for native Americans (small "n"), who used to taking their rights for granted to see people grown in heavily restricting environment try to formulate principles of freedom and limits to it for themselves. Might warn y'll of growing statist/socialist restriction in your own environment, too.

Relevant discussion @ Arbat's LJ I mentioned above have grown by now to 468 comments to the original post (titled: who'll defend the shauvinist?) and 106 to the update (titled: to squeeze the slave out of yourself..., invoking famous expression by Chekhov). Amazing, how some people voluntarily put on er, bridles. (sorry, don't know the right word here)

One other thing.
Interesting, Michael, do you yourself notice how you [subconciously, I'm sure] apply different set of criteria to your examples of habitual hipocricy?
In your example of book on neoconservatism as product of Jewish intellectualls you concentrate on author being Jewish himself, not on the content of the book. In your gay author's advice book example you summarize the book itself. Not fair, say I. It would be equal footing claim, IMO, if instead of
"Do we let a Dave Singleton get away with ...publishing a book purveying [stereotypes]because he's gay?"
-you'd say :" because the whole publishing business is run, in majority, by gays?"

Note, I'm not talking about your stereotypes per se, their outrageousness (or not), frankness of expression, answers to your assumptions, etc. Only about apples-to-apples conspiracy comparison: it seems you assume all neoconservatives are Jews, why not parallel it with "all publishers are gays"?

And if I'm permitted to answer the first part (since I'm Jewish, I feel entitled): neoconservatives consist of mostly Jewish intellectuals because ALL schools of thought consist mostly of Jewish intellectuals. Communism (Marx, Kautsky, K.Libknekht and R. Luxemburg, etc), Trotskism (need I list more?) - and I'm sure, if you pay attention to the names of your liberal friends...

I'll stop now and let the cakes fly.

Posted by: Tatyana on July 16, 2005 01:38 PM

Tatyana writes: "neoconservatives consist of mostly Jewish intellectuals because ALL schools of thought consist mostly of Jewish intellectuals."

That's a great line! Those Jews, they certainly do love (or support, or generate, or something) intellectuality, as well as intellectual argumentation. I wonder why that is? I mean, aside from being so smart and all.

Oops, I just made a generalization. Well, I'm 1/32nd Jewish (I think -- the family has never been too clear about this), so maybe I'm semi-entitled...

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on July 16, 2005 01:55 PM

20th century Thomistic theology consists of mostly Jewish intellectuals? (Maybe a dated school of thought, but a school of thought nonetheless).

Posted by: PatrickH on July 16, 2005 05:30 PM

Patrick, what about Christianity itself?

Posted by: Tatyana on July 16, 2005 05:50 PM

because ALL schools of thought consist mostly of Jewish intellectuals. Communism (Marx, Kautsky, K.Libknekht and R. Luxemburg, etc), Trotskism...

Communism AND Trotskyism? I guess mentioning a subject and a subset of the same subject is a pretty good illustration of the intellectual breadth of a people who so dominate ALL schools of thought.

A larger, and more interesting range can be seen in their editorship of both the old Daily Worker and The National Review. One might also examine the contents of the NR, before and after it was subverted...err...dominated by those great intellectuals.

Please, examine this quote from the article:

Worse, she said, the decree might inadvertently prove racist.

Now, these great intellectuals may just as easily have said, "Adding one and one might inadvertently prove two!" Sure enough, the hallmark of intellectualism is the ability to conduct thought processes which arrive at correct answers. And naturally, limiting the prom to a single race may well prove racist though that addition of the word "inadvertently" seems a little odd. Like, we killed you and then inadvertently turned into killers. Hmm... Then, we read on:

“Most people can pass as Jewish,” ... “If the school was going to investigate students they suspected brought non-Jewish dates, the only red flag would be if someone was another race.”

So that's it. By "racist" they mean "racist against black people," which is, in a practical sense, the working definition of racism. The wonders of self-deception. "Jewishness" is a faith, not a race. Yet, I don't think they have an exception which states that non-Jews are allowed to convert at the door. No, no. No conversions to this faith.

Another quote:

Carol Pankin, ... opposes interfaith dating, but said parents — not schools — should be the ones making decisions about dating and proms.

You see? There is a living argument among Jews as to the appropriateness of anti-Goy prom restrictions. On one hand, should institutions enforce the ban? Or should such enforcement be left up to parents? It's that wide, wide scope of thought (we've seen it time and time again) as wide as Communism vs. Trotskyism.

And along with this debate, there is of course that most Jewish of all characteristics (outside of the pure intellect, of course), magnanimity:

“We try to make it clear that bringing non-Jews to watch a school play or a basketball game is OK,” Rabbi Lehmann said.

Why, that's downright southern' of you, massa. Yes, suh, I sho' do appreciate you letting me watch you bounce that ball round. No, suh, I won't be looking at your daughter, no suh.

And another quote:

Jeffrey Jablansky, ... rejected the notion that the school’s policy was “segregationist” or “exclusionist” in a newspaper editorial...“Face the facts or abdicate from them: We are the next generation of Jews and we cannot afford a diluted Judaism in times of mixed marriages and anti-Semitic sentiment all over the world,

"Diluted Judaism"? We are not segregationist, and it is very important to stay pure, all in the same editorial. This same clown then goes on to abuse the word "faith". Faith is not like genetics where you can be half-and-half. It is only race that can be diluted by mixing. One could say to Jeff J. that Jewish purity is easily found in Israel, and that America, according to the Jews themselves, is a melting pot. Somehow I don't think the great intellects would understand their real faith.

Well, why is it? Why are there a thousand-and-one organizations for black people, for hispanics, for [fill in the blank]. The quietly understood reason: Black people need to organize. They're continuously down-and-out and need to use every possible strategy to win. If they live and think and vote collectively, it's just a matter of staying afloat. Right? So why do Jews do the same thing? They ARE intelligent. They ARE wealthy. Their overrepresentation among the world's billionaires is over 1000 percent. Why do they use tactics that we grudgingly allow Africans to use specifically because those Africans are pathetic?

Well, it's very impolite to mention Jewish wealth, intelligence, influence, etc. Tatyana obviously is an amateur, or she would never hold to the Jewish supremacist line.

Someone said, The tactics of the weak are necessary for their survival. But when the same tactics are used by the powerful, they result in despotism. It's easy to overthrow a despotism that consists of two percent of the population. And so Jews have adopted a survival strategy that blacks gave up in the 1960s...ridiculousness. "I'm so pathetic, so clumsy. Woody Allen is our only sex symbol. There's not a chance that I represent the ruling class. We're _so_ pathetic we need the ADL/SPLC/AIPAC/etc."

Posted by: onetwothree on July 16, 2005 09:13 PM

You have to hand it to the Jews, they know how to have their cake and eat it. In South Africa, the Afrikaners carried the can for apartheid, while Harry Oppenheimer amassed a fortune of $30 billion. Nadine Gordimer, famous for her anti-apartheid novels, was married to a mine manager. The mines, mostly owned by Jews, were the biggest beneficiaries of cheap black labour, which partially explains the Jewish prominence in the anti-apartheid movement. If apartheid were to have succeeded in creating independent homelands for all blacks, the supply of abundant black labour would have been effectively curtailed.

Posted by: Will on July 17, 2005 09:58 AM

How come no ones excited about the Dutch?

A tiny nation with a miniscule population and yet they are one of the world's great financial powers with extensive investments (and influence) in every corner of the globe.

Must be a conspiracy, huh?

Posted by: ricpic on July 17, 2005 12:59 PM

As was stated before, the action of a minority does not have the same impact as that same action performed by a majority.

In the business world, Microsoft is prohibited from the same actions that are allowed its rivals because of it's status.

For example, society recognizes that the benefits of a black-only business association outweighs the harm it does to the few who are excluded. It also recognizes that the harm that a white-only business association causes is substantially higher than the benefit is accrues.

Specifically, in most minority/majority situations, the minority-only group exists to advance the collective interests of the minority usually focussing on common experiences and situations that differ from the majority. In most majority-only groups, the group exists to prevent the minority from advancing. There are usually vastly fewer common relevant experiences and situations between all participants that differ from the minority enough to justify exclusion.

Posted by: Tom West on July 17, 2005 01:01 PM

"For example, society recognizes that the benefits of a black-only business association outweighs the harm it does to the few who are excluded. It also recognizes that the harm that a white-only business association causes is substantially higher than the benefit is accrues."

Tom, your argument is of necessity false. A discriminating minority excludes more than it includes, whereas the opposite is true of a discriminating majority. If the number of people excluded is a measure of harm, then minority associations cause the most harm.

Posted by: Will on July 17, 2005 01:33 PM

I can't quite tell if anyone's being nasty about Jews, but if so, let's have none of that.

The point about Jews and neoconservatism is that 1) It's simple historical fact that many of the heavyweights behind neoconservatism have been Jewish (and former Trotskyites too, if I remember right). Yet 2) During debates over neoconservatism, mentioning its historical connection to Trotskyism and the Jewishness of many of its heavyweights was essentially forbidden. It got to the point where criticizing neoconservatism even without mentioning Jewishness got you in trouble -- after all, you were obviously being anti-Semitic. Neoconservatism's defenders were very quick to play the anti-Semitism card. Yet 3) Here comes a book (by a Jewish intellectual) from Cambridge U. Press that's flat-out discussing the Jewishness of neoconservatism. So where do we stand now? And ain't it a hoot -- in the sense of being amusing but also being infuriating and ridiculous -- the way these understandings evolve? I wonder if there are any larger patterns that beat beneath the evolution of these kinds of semi-official semi-unofficial social agreements.

Tom -- I have no trouble with urging people to show some decent respect and sensitivity. (I also have no trouble telling people to suck it up and get on with life sometimes too.) I do have trouble with writing a lot of these things into law. For instance: where do you draw the boundaries? Women's organizations, for instance. Women are in the numerical majority -- yet we're meant to think of them as an oppressed group and thus grant them special legal consideration? On what basis? Another question: where do you draw the boundaries? An example: although my particular census category (straight white Protestant male) is pretty numerous in the country generally, we're a tiny minority in New York City -- somewhere around 4%, I think I once figured out. So do I get officially treated as part of a dominant group or part of an oppressed minority? According to what standard? I'm not saying there aren't OK answers to either of these questions. But I do submit that once you open up such discussions, legally speaking, they're never going to end, and are almost guaranteed to turn into nightmarish boondoggles. And of course there's always the question of who exactly gets to decide which groups get special consideration ... And the question of what's gonna happen if/when one group's status changes ... I foresee a huge, entrenched industry doing its best to perpeptuate itself. Wait, that's what we already have ....

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on July 17, 2005 04:03 PM

Maybe it would be helpful to make a distinction between the issues of freedom of association and lobbying by special interests? The the former are simply those groups that want to be left alone to do their own thing, whereas the latter would
be those groups that lobby government for special favours. Taking Tom's argument (of harm caused to society), it would be clear that only special interests are in a position to harm society in any meaningful sense. (Excluding people from a privilege is not the same as harming them.)

In the example of the Jewish school, I would argue therefore that society is in no way harmed, even though the individuals involved - Jew and non-Jew
alike - might be. Freedom of association implies freedom of choice; the Jewish children who don't
want to stay in the ghetto should be free to leave.

Posted by: Will on July 17, 2005 04:59 PM

...with their parents' permission or once they have come of age, of course.

Posted by: Will on July 17, 2005 05:19 PM

let's separate these two "amusing and infuriating" (why, exactly?) facts: trotskyist past of the founders of NeoConservatism and their ethnic composition (yes, I regard American notion of Jewish being a merely religious affiliation as a sad error. But this subject is tangenial to the post "of departure")

The latter has nothing to do with the former, or at least it appears to be connected only on a surface. I'll chew the obvious for the easily excited conspiracy-seekers: Jews are overrepresented in politics (in any color of the spectre, from scarlet thru green to brown) by same reason we are overrepresented in trade, theology, science, literature, crafts, jurisprudence or engineering: absence of sticky film over grey matter and initial jolt that is still pushing us forward for the last -almost-6000 years.


Basics out of the way, let's talk about interesting stuff: connection of Neo-Conservatism (relatively new to me) and Trotskyism (subject I think I know more about).
People has been known to change their ideas over the course of life (W. Churchill, f.ex. used to be a Freemason in 1910's). Isn't this story old as world - young revolutionary seeing the wrong of his ways and trasforming himself into exact opposite in a few decades? And isn't it natural that same phenomenon happens to a few former comrads-in-arms? So far I don't see anything criminal about Trotskyists evolving into Conservatives, I'm sorry.
I'd be much obliged if you expand a bit on the points of your disagreement (outrage?)with/at the fact; all of any substance I could find online so far was this rather ridiculous (especially in it's "Russophob" ranting) article by , I assume, a Libertarian (capital L, I think, along the Nader's lines).
Why criticism of NeoConservatives has been met with allegations of AntiSemitism? Hmm. May be because it was? May be (I'd love to be proven wrong, with examples otherwise) the critics, without explicitely saying the J-word, didn't judge the ideas on its merit but on the personality of the ones with ideas (like that "easy sport" with Podhoretz you linked to before)? Repeat, I have no facts and would be glad proven wrong - it's just my hunch and a bit of life experience.

your allegations (Jews forming anti-apartheid groups in order to retain cheap black labor for diamond mines) prompted me to do some research; I've sent request of information to some knowledgeable organizations. I'll answer you when I'll be able to form an opinion.

Posted by: Tatyana on July 17, 2005 06:29 PM

Tatyana -- I think the Neoconservatives were reacting to attacks on Neoconservatism with allegations of anti-Semitism because they were trying to undermine the attacks, and trying to control the conversation.They were taking the "So, Senator, when did you stop beating your wife" approach -- there was no way to answer them that didn't look bad. Which meant there was no way to attack Neoconservatism without being met by accusations of anti-Semitism. And which is why it's pretty funny that a book is now coming out (by a Jewish intellectual) explicitly discussing Neoconservatism as the creation of some Jewish intellectuals. It'll be interesting to see how it's received.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on July 17, 2005 08:01 PM

Boy, how quickly that topic went off topic -- into Trotsky and slave labor in diamond minds. Sometimes, I think your readers think... a little too much.

I've been to a Jewish prom, so I'm not sure why everyone wants to go to one (crappy drinks). I used to be more of a universalist and would get very upset when a group isolated themselves from the others. I don't think a Jewish school should prevent a student from bringing a Catholic date to the prom -- since the prom is not a very Jewish concept to begin with -- but I certainly understand why the administration is doing what they are doing. I'm sure this action is more upsetting to other Jews than anyone else (what will the non-Jews think?).

As for the get-together of female bloggers, I think it is a great idea. I also think it would be nice to have a male blogging conference, but no one will have enough guts to put that one on.

Posted by: Neil on July 18, 2005 12:52 AM

Tatyana, I didn't claim that any Jews specifically formed anti-apartheid groups in order to retain cheap labour. I just pointed out the hypocrisy of those Jews who denounced apartheid as morally evil while they were profiting from wage competition among the masses descending on the cities. (When I was in the army during emergency rule in the eighties we were called on to stop faction fighting in the hostels where the mineworkers were housed, and I can assure you they were not much different from prison wards or hen batteries.)

Posted by: Will on July 18, 2005 10:15 AM

Sure, its fine to set their rules up any way they want, as long as its entirely privately funded. The people who attend the school know the rules. They just shouldn't get any "public" monies. I don't think Catholic tax dollars should fund the school, if Catholics can't go to the prom!

Posted by: annette on July 18, 2005 10:34 AM

Will, you made it worse.
There are so many things wrong with your last comment, but I won't tell you - or our host will label ME Jewish NeoConservative for "trying to control the conversation" by calling shit a shit (excuse me, AntiSemite an AntiSemite).

You're right, Neil - I reread today what i wrote yesterday and agree - I shouldn't.

It's too humid already to waste my breath.

Posted by: Tatyana on July 18, 2005 10:53 AM

Tatyana, apart from the political incorrectness, what else do you have a problem with in what I wrote? I would readily admit my error if you can demonstrate that I am wrong.

Posted by: Will on July 18, 2005 01:47 PM

Trouble is, you could make just as convincing an argument that Jewish intellectuals tend to be of the radical stripe: cf. Marxist critic Michael Gold, for example. So I really don't think it has to do with being Jewish. Just my humble opinion.

At college, we had one of those confrontational situations ca. 1977 in which the gay alliance wanted to hold a dance in one of the dorms. But the "OK" vote had to be unanimous, and one Mormon guy held out, so they couldn't hold their dance.
Then one (Jewish in this case) group started to protest Christmas trees in the dorms. Thank God I got out before the real PC blitz hit. Women's studies was just the tip of the iceberg!

Posted by: winifer skattebol on July 19, 2005 01:07 AM

Winnifer, skattebol, praat u Afrikaans?

Posted by: Will on July 19, 2005 10:05 AM

Will: It's only by a linguistic coincidence that my name means "darling" in Afrikaans. It is actually Norwegian! My mother used to get teased about sending company telexes to her sweetheart (CBS News has a Jo'burg bureau) when she signed off on them.

Posted by: winifer skattebol on July 19, 2005 01:40 PM

What a lovely name. A direct translation of "skattebol" from Afrikaans would render "treasure bundle". Do you know what the Norwegian meaning of the name is?

(Seems like I've prevailed over Tatyana;-))

Posted by: Will on July 19, 2005 05:33 PM

I was at the first two BloggerCons - they *were* basically meetings for male bloggers.

*Ok, not really, lots of ahem, girls, like me were there. Still, the ratio was guyish. And Dave Winerish (make of that what you will). And Oliver what's his name was all like, what, two people of color only? That's not right! And it didn't help that the other one (me) is sort of libertarian-conservative.

Anyhoo, don't mind me. Can't think why I wrote any of that.

Posted by: MD on July 19, 2005 10:37 PM

Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember your info?