Discriminations: Kennedy: Hoist On His Own Canard

« Interesting Alito Snippet... | Main | Elitist Snootiness In The Washington Post »

Kennedy: Hoist On His Own Canard

Yesterday the Washington Times reported that Sen. Ted Kennedy, who has been fulminating about Judge Alito's alleged sympathetic association with the Concerned Alumni of Princeton, both belonged -- and more importantly, apparently still belongs --

to a social club for Harvard students and alumni that was evicted from campus nearly 20 years ago after refusing to allow female members. According to the online membership directory of the Owl Club, the Massachusetts Democrat updated his personal information -- including the address of his home that is in his wife's name -- on Sept. 7.

The club has long been reviled on campus as "sexist" and "elitist" and, in 1984, was booted from the university for violating federal anti-discrimination laws, authored by Mr. Kennedy.

Posted by John Rosenberg on January 13, 2006 8:20 AM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.discriminations.us/sa/mt-tb.cgi/4207

Say What?

The problem with CAP was not that it was a private club that didn't allow women. It was club that wanted to make princeton a private club that didn't allow women.

But no surprise that a powerful white catholic male belongs to a sexist club.

Posted by: actus | January 13, 2006 9:22 AM

Sexism is a nonexistent crime, actus, that exists only in the minds of old school Marxists committed to eradicating the difference between men and women.

You don't get it, do you? The Alito hearings, in retrospect, will be remembered as the event that ended the era in which screaming "racist, sexist, homophobic" at people made a dent.

It's all over, actus. Nobody cares any more. Everybody in America has been cursed as racist, sexist and homophobic at least a thousand times. If a knucklehead like Ted Kennedy, who callously left a young woman to drown, is the standard bearer of the PC movement, you can only laugh.

You've been relegated to the dust heap.

Posted by: Stephen | January 13, 2006 10:58 AM

"Everybody in America has been cursed as racist, sexist and homophobic at least a thousand times. If a knucklehead like Ted Kennedy, who callously left a young woman to drown, is the standard bearer of the PC movement, you can only laugh."

Its hard to see how he can represent me in any way. he's a senator from MA. I live in DC. would that I had a senator to reprsent me to be my standard bearer in the government.

Posted by: actus | January 13, 2006 11:58 AM

"But no surprise that a powerful white catholic male belongs to a sexist club."

Especially a Kennedy...

Posted by: deb | January 13, 2006 4:09 PM

actus,

But no surprise that a powerful white catholic male belongs to a sexist club.

I really think the critics of the Catholic Church need to figure out whether it's overly severe to women or overly indulgent to them, and pick one story and stick to it. Bruce Bawer (Stealing Jesus — more than a decade old, I think, but irritating because up until then I liked Bawer very much) described the declarations of the Immaculate Conception (mid-19th-c.) and the Assumption (1950s somewhere — 1954?) as sops to women implemented because most of the churchgoing Catholics were women anyway. It is difficult to see how a religion that exalts the Queen of Heaven above all but God can be "anti-woman" exactly, and obviously many other Christian denominations have taken particular offense at the Catholic reverence for Mary.

Just for information's sake, actus, is an all-female organization a "sexist club"? If not, why not?

Posted by: Michelle Dulak Thomson | January 13, 2006 4:54 PM

"I really think the critics of the Catholic Church need to figure out whether it's overly severe to women or overly indulgent to them, and pick one story and stick to it."

Because there is of course only 1 possible criticism of the church.

"Just for information's sake, actus, is an all-female organization a "sexist club"? If not, why not?"

It can be. I have no idea. Someone claimed that Kennedy belonged to a sexist club, and I accepted that claim.

Posted by: actus | January 13, 2006 5:14 PM

actus,

Because there is of course only 1 possible criticism of the church.

No, there are a lot of possible criticisms of the Church, but perhaps we could limit ourselves to ones not directly contradictory of one another. When I see the same institution slammed for being too harsh to women and too indulgent of women, I wonder whether women are actually anyone's real issue, or whether it's something else.

Posted by: Michelle Dulak Thomson | January 13, 2006 6:43 PM

"No, there are a lot of possible criticisms of the Church, but perhaps we could limit ourselves to ones not directly contradictory of one another. "

Its quite possible that some things the church does are too pro women for some folks while other things (or even the same things) are too anti-women for other folks.

Its not like there is 1 critic here, or even 1 thing the church does.

Its possible the church can have 'sops' to women in its declarations while putting irish women in those hellish magdelene sistes convent/prisons.

In the end though I don't think it is a bad idea for critics of the church to get together and talk about their problems with it though.

Posted by: actus | January 13, 2006 6:50 PM

actus,

Its quite possible that some things the church does are too pro women for some folks while other things (or even the same things) are too anti-women for other folks.

That's reasonable enough, as a bare account.

In the end though I don't think it is a bad idea for critics of the church to get together and talk about their problems with it though.

These would be the critics who thought the Church too indulgent of women and the ones who thought it too harsh? They are supposed to have anything in common with one another why, exactly? What's the dialogue supposed to be about? About how women are made to bear children vs. how women are made into saints? I really don't think that's going to work.

Posted by: Michelle Dulak Thomson | January 13, 2006 6:59 PM

"What's the dialogue supposed to be about? About how women are made to bear children vs. how women are made into saints? I really don't think that's going to work."

Really? I'd say putting women on idealized pedestals is something that some could see as a piece of oppression.

Like I said, good idea for critics of the church to share their criticisms.

Posted by: actus | January 13, 2006 8:20 PM

But no surprise that a powerful white catholic male belongs to a sexist club.

And that's because it's well known that white Catholic males are more sexist than white Protestant males or white Jewish males? (Are Jews white? Oh, never mind.)

actus, I'm sure there are some readers of this blog who think you're not real, that I've invented you and write your posts just so that I can have a straw man making opposing arguments. Posts like this one, with its religious bigotry against Catholics, makes me think they may be right....

Posted by: John Rosenberg | January 13, 2006 8:39 PM

"Posts like this one, with its religious bigotry against Catholics"

Because catholic values on women are just peachy.

"And that's because it's well known that white Catholic males are more sexist than white Protestant males or white Jewish males?"

I suppose they can be just as sexist. I don't like how orthodox jews treat their women. Protestants are too diffuse for me to notice, though some powerful ones have said some pretty silly things about women i'm sure.

Posted by: actus | January 13, 2006 8:53 PM

I suppose they can be just as sexist is a pretty far cry from your original assertion, But no surprise that a powerful white catholic male belongs to a sexist club.

And your latest version has the virtue of reverting to your usual stance, i.e., that all white males generically are racist, sexist, etc.

Posted by: John Rosenberg | January 13, 2006 9:14 PM

actus,

I suppose they can be just as sexist. I don't like how orthodox jews treat their women.

Meaning that "Orthodox Jews" are men, who own or control women? Do Orthodox Jewish women not exist, and how do they treat their women?

Protestants are too diffuse for me to notice, though some powerful ones have said some pretty silly things about women i'm sure.

You're sure, though you have not "noticed" the majority of the American public. I think if you have something like a hundred million people in your flock you are pretty much bound to find one utter idiot. That you can't even think of one means only that you didn't look yet.

Posted by: Michelle Dulak Thomson | January 13, 2006 9:51 PM

Nothing is funnier than the sensitive, PC man trying to convince us how concerned he is with the rights of women, i.e., actus.

Are you a Catholic, actus? If not, as I suspect, why do you volunteer to help the Church determine its policy? Given your views, the actual result of the application of your dogmas to the Church would be the destruction of the Church. Which, undoubtedly, is your goal.

The vast majority of American women, I assure you, find your Marxist views repugnant. How, exactly, did you become the voice of proper treatment of women?

Are you aware that, probably, 95% of Americans think that being a Marxist discredits you totally in the politcal arena?

What constituency exactly to you imagine that you represent?

Posted by: Stephen | January 14, 2006 12:06 AM

Stephen, please cut it out. I don't think actus has proclaimed him/herself a Marxist. For that matter, actus hasn't so much as announced his/her gender AFAIK, and I've tried not to use gendered pronouns in consequence.

Posted by: Michelle Dulak Thomson | January 14, 2006 1:18 PM

actus does not need to proclaim his Marxism. This is pretty plain to anybody living outside SF.

And the use of the word gender when in fact you mean sex announces your belief system too.

Posted by: Stephen | January 14, 2006 4:11 PM

actus does not need to proclaim his Marxism. This is pretty plain to anybody living outside SF.

And the use of the word gender when in fact you mean sex announces your belief system too.

Posted by: Stephen | January 14, 2006 4:12 PM

Oh, all right, Stephen. Do you call them "sexed pronouns" too? Frankly, I was trying to evade John's (or rather his Web host's) naughty-word-filtering system, which has blocked a few posts of mine in the past. But if you want to infer my "belief system" from that decision, do go for it.

And if actus were a Marxist, he'd have said so proudly a long time ago. The Marxists I know always do.

Posted by: Michelle Dulak Thomson | January 14, 2006 4:39 PM

Hmm. Just used a male pronoun for actus for the first time IIRC. actus, as I said, I've tried for ages not to do that. My apologies.

Posted by: Michelle Dulak Thomson | January 14, 2006 4:44 PM

The problem with CAP was not that it was a private club that didn't allow women. It was club that wanted to make princeton a private club that didn't allow women.

No, it didn't. Princeton went co-ed before CAP was formed, and no alums -- regardless of how happy they were with this decision -- actually thought there was any chance of reversing this.

Posted by: David Nieporent | January 15, 2006 1:10 AM

Posted by: pTkCMJqmIa | January 16, 2006 7:03 PM

Discriminations

cogitations declarations contemplations inspirations conversations ruminations

Kennedy: Hoist On His Own Canard

TrackBack

Say What?

Post a comment