Ivanka Trumps line getting pulled

amother

Pumpkin

Wed, Feb 15 2017, 9:10 pm

marina wrote:

In my personal experience, the programs that stifled free speech were the helping professions ones where everyone was expected to get along and these were typically populated by women who were socially conditioned to conform.

For example, in my graduate school psychology program, God help you if you had a different opinion about the value of a particular approach to testing students for disabilities. People would be concerned. Professors may question whether you are cut out for the program. You might have to meet with a committee.

In contrast, in law school, people would spend hours arguing in the hallways, with each other and with professors and it would get heated and no one would blink an eye. Once, my friends and I challenged the speakers at an anti-Israel symposium organized by a professor and then we all demonstrably and rather rudely walked out, with a lot of fanfare. No one cared, not one professor or administrator said anything. It was simply a nonevent. Scalia, nishmaso eden Smile

came to speak and students openly challenged him.

It was a totally diffferent atmosphere than school psychology grad school.

I also really see all this griping about college kids as a Get Off My Lawn thing. I have a girl in college and a son in high school and no, they are not entitled brats and neither are their friends. My daughter is doing premed, she has none of the free speech issues mentioned above, and she works harder than anyone I know. When in high school, she literally walked 2 miles in the snow to her job and back 3 times a week. Her friends also have good work ethics and try hard.

So when people talk about teens and young adults in the sort of pejorative way you sometimes do, I just think that maybe they don't actually know any college kids in real life. I dk.

Eh.

You could debate all you want, until it came to social issues. There was an unmistakable liberal tilt, originating with the school's administration and faculty, when it came to social issues, and no, you did not want to find yourself on the wrong side of that fence.

But then, I never attended a graduate psychology program, so maybe it could've been worse Smile

amother

Aquamarine

Wed, Feb 15 2017, 9:19 pm

amother wrote:

The Silberman School of Social Work graduate program at CUNY Hunter College is notorious for not accepting applicant who they consider to be "conservative". They have interviews to weed out "conservative" applicants and it is well known that they do not accept many "Jewish white girls" bc they find us to be to conservatives. Actually they only reject white women, including Jewish white girls, but cover their illegal and discriminatory admissions process with falsified data. I'm surprised that no one has filed a lawsuit against them yet and wonder when someone will be smart enough to file a class action against this program.

amother

Cerulean

Wed, Feb 15 2017, 10:03 pm

This has been my experience as well in a graduate-level nursing program. I had to take a number of health policy/health economics courses. I was actually looking forward to them because I wanted an in-depth understanding of our healthcare system and the pros and cons of various solutions. But that was not what I got. Instead it was a 12-week commercial for Obamacare. One professor actually said that there is no reason anyone would oppose obamacare other than being a bad person. The lack of critical thinking and examining all viewpoints is actually a disservice to students. Even if you support Obamacare aren't we better off understanding its flaws and alternatives so we can develop policies that address those deficiencies?

Since I was going for a clinical degree I was just focused on passing the course and moving on. I did leave a scathing course review though on the lack of balance and rigor. However, this is a course for people who could very well have a role in shaping public policy. Shouldn't we have experience in understanding and analyzing healthcare policy?

Fox

Wed, Feb 15 2017, 11:06 pm

marina wrote:

Also, plse keep in mind that when you are in that moment, everything looks too violent and too destructive and too unacceptable and this changes as you look back on history. So when the civil rights activitists had sit ins and didnt leave restaraunts and had to be arrested and physically carried away by the police, you can be sure that there were many many people who were wringing their hands and saying OH WHAT ARE THOSE LIBERALS DOING WHY CANT THEY PLAY NICE IN THE SANDBOX LIKE EVERYONE ELSE. But many decades later, we look back and see those people as heros.

It is misleading and disrespectful to compare every random protest to civil rights movements. Civil rights movements have goals that can be articulated by the organizers and participants. Civil rights movements target tangible injustices. Civil rights movements rely on leadership that is steeped in a knowledge of history and theology. Civil rights movements utilize strategy to achieve their goals.

In no way do the majority of protests in the U.S. resemble civil rights protests. Demolishing ATMs and Starbucks stores because you don't like a speaker is not marching in Selma. Setting a limousine on fire because you don't like the results of an election is not throwing a brick outside the Stonewall Inn.

marina wrote:

In some places, citizens are afraid to march and show emotions. In some places they just don't care enough. We have a country where millions of women organized themselves to stand up for their rights and those of their children and friends and neighbors. I think that's beautiful and if some people chose to wear p**** hats- I could not possibly care any less.

Precisely what rights were they standing up for? The right to vote? BTDT. The right to own private property? No, women are able to do that in the U.S. The right to work in a job and be paid commensurately? Nope, ditto. The right to get an education? I just did some work for a nearby coed college where 68 percent of the students are female. The right to choose who they will marry or if they will marry? The right to file for divorce? No.

Nor are any of these rights threatened in any meaningful way.

I couldn't figure it out, and you said in another thread that the marchers had a wide variety of causes and reasons for marching. Except, of course, opposing abortion on demand. That was not one of the permissible reasons for marching.

A march for anything and everything is not a cause, it's an indignant block party.

marina wrote:

Also re: p**** hats. Wearing the hats or using the word is a way of reclaiming the term in a sardonic way. This happens often with pejorative terms including queer and the N word. People of those groups take up the term and use it against their bullies/oppressors.

I think most of us are familiar with this concept. Had the hats been worn with greater humor and a sense of fun, I'd think it was hilarious. But however vulgar Trump's remarks, there's no evidence of any individual, let alone a class of individuals, being oppressed.

It's perfectly appropriate for women, en masse, to complain to Trump that he behaved like a boorish pig. But I don't think boorish pigginess is best combatted by a march. It's best attacked by letting our sons know that we will whup them into the 22nd century if we ever hear a rumor that they said anything disrespectful about a woman. But we should also make sure our daughters know that we'll whup them just the same for allowing themselves to be groped simply because some man is rich and famous.

marina

Thu, Feb 16 2017, 1:27 am

Quote:

It is misleading and disrespectful to compare every random protest to civil rights movements. Civil rights movements have goals that can be articulated by the organizers and participants. Civil rights movements target tangible injustices. Civil rights movements rely on leadership that is steeped in a knowledge of history and theology. Civil rights movements utilize strategy to achieve their goals.
In no way do the majority of protests in the U.S. resemble civil rights protests. Demolishing ATMs and Starbucks stores because you don't like a speaker is not marching in Selma. Setting a limousine on fire because you don't like the results of an election is not throwing a brick outside the Stonewall Inn.

Again, that's really not how history works. Civil rights movements aren't these neat and clean movements organized by polite and friendly people who know exactly how to protest in a civilized and respectful way that doesn't inconvenience anyone. Same for any other important movements.

Your praise of these movements is hindsight only. At the time these movements are developing and rising, you would have been quite displeased with them I'm sure. Enjoy this letter to MLK http://teachingamericanhistory.....king/

Quote:

So here's the real crux of your problem with the March. You think that women are not marginalized in any way, so obviously from that perspective any march is a huge waste of time.

You and I will have to disagree on this point. Yes, of course, women's rights are more advanced now than in 1920, so let's all pat ourselves on the back for that.

But there is still a long way to go- check with any woman who lies when a potential employer casually asks if she has any children. Ask a DV victim who doesn't leave because she can't survive on her own or has been taught that this is what women must put up with. Check with an anorexic teenager who is literally dying because of gender-based conditioning. Ask a frum woman in crown heights about why she can't vote for the community council, the main organization that organizes *government* funding and grants in the community and makes decisions about business locations and permits, etc. Ask a woman who drops out of a male-dominated field because of harassment.

Of course, please note that I also pointed out that over 30 countries marched in solidarity or in some version of their own march, so US women's rights are hardly dispositive here.

Finally, yes, many women have and had serious concerns about their rights after Trump won. The leader of the free world is a person who doesn't respect women but who does like to dismantle existing government protections. So why shouldn't women worry that Trump will direct the EEOC or OCR to back off? To limit its enforcement of Title VII and Title IX? You really think women's rights would not be threatened if he did that? Of course they would. Likewise, if RBG dies, women's rights may be jeopardized. These rights are more fragile than you think.

Quote:

Except, of course, opposing abortion on demand. That was not one of the permissible reasons for marching.

The right to abort before viability and even after for health and safety reasons is one of the most important reproductive freedoms women have in America. And, yes, just like people who want to march against birth control and march against women in the workplace, those people will also need to find their own event and not join one with a diametrically opposing message.

Quote:

How did you know how people wore the hats? Did you attend? No. You read some angry person's account. Next time, just go. And then tell us about the humor and sense of fun.

Quote:

It's perfectly appropriate for women, en masse, to complain to Trump that he behaved like a boorish pig. But I don't think boorish pigginess is best combatted by a march. It's best attacked by letting our sons know that we will whup them into the 22nd century if we ever hear a rumor that they said anything disrespectful about a woman. But we should also make sure our daughters know that we'll whup them just the same for allowing themselves to be groped simply because some man is rich and famous.

This is not boorish pigginess. This is the leader of the free world. Just like we don't protest Monica Lewinsky by telling our boys not to accept blow jobs from their mistresses, we don't protest Trump by telling our boys not to grope women.

Blue jay

Thu, Feb 16 2017, 9:38 am

marina wrote:

This is a very emotional post and not data-driven at all. Which is a problem because if you are really disregarding data, you will never be able to assess progress or lack of it. If you're always looking at that one aggressive pan handler or a specific group of poor people in the midwest, you are never going to be able to comment on whether crime and poverty are going down or up. That's unfortunate and also pretty much useless.

Hillary btw won by almost 3 million votes. Our system is such that she wasn't elected, but it's pretty much indisputed that many more voted for her than Trump.

What I learned from this past election is the beauty of the electoral college. After all, we are the "United States of America" . The diversity and needs of each state are so important. What is good for Liberal New Yorkers may not work in struggling middle states. If the popular vote counted it would be the "United States of New York, California and Vermont"

My post reflects my reality. I see first hand, with my own eyes what is going on in the Medical system. Doctors are fed up and frustrated as much as the patients. I am fed up paying huge taxes for Public schools I do not use. I agree with school choice. I already stated numerous times, how concerned and frightened I am by all the terrorist attacks happening in free and westernized countries including our own.

I'm sorry your data does not make me feel reassured. The press lies and you put too much faith in your sources.

I really tried my best to understand your viewpoint and all other liberals here on this thread but you are all master illusionists, telling me I should see things I really do not see.

And what disturbs me the most, is that any Liberal Jew out there protesting is walking side by side with people who hate and despise Israel. Probably lots of those "hip" and "swang" people also participated in "Die-ins" during the last Gaza conflict too.

I am sure Marina, that you are a nice and good person but I really feel like you are pushing my feelings aside and telling me that they do not count.

Blue jay

Thu, Feb 16 2017, 10:55 am

marina wrote:

Data does not work when it comes to assessing progress. First, there are no reliable data or news sources that I trust. I listen to ABC news for the weather only, and most of the time I take an umbrella with me anyway. I'm sure Obama ran up a study of data and statistics with his strategists to support his Health care reform. Now, the whole Health care world is imploding.

Also, I think NYC is a much more dangerous and scary place than it was 15 years ago. But I keep hearing "Crime is down, studies say..." Yet , I have crossed paths with aggressive pan handlers, squeegie guys and scary nut jobs on trains. I hardly ever venture out to the city anymore.

Marathon bombings, nightclub shootings, work place terrorism in California, terrorist attack in college.

Oh wait here is another, Dorm room notes left on doors of Jewish NYU students telling them to pack up and leave.....

I think I have enough data and facts to keep me in proper perspective when I vote

Last edited by Blue jay on Thu, Feb 16 2017, 11:42 am; edited 1 time in total

Fox

Thu, Feb 16 2017, 11:29 am

marina wrote:

Absolutely correct. I can't think of a single problem facing women in the U.S. today that is the result of "marginalization." That's not to say that women as a class don't face problems -- but those problems aren't the result of systemic discrimination or persecution.

Some of the problems you mention have legal or medical remedies. At least one -- women dropping out of male-dominated fields because of harassment -- may not exist at all. Reforming cultures where women are not valued is a laudable goal, but if that's the goal, a more powerful statement would involve extreme vetting of immigrants to ensure that they will not contribute to or support the subjugation of women. Whoops! That's not so popular!

Let's reimagine the Women's March: What if half a million women showed up in Washington to demand that President Trump pressure and/or place sanctions on countries that . . .

* Do not prosecute honor killings;
* Do not allow women to vote;
* Do not permit freedom of movement for women;
* Permit gender-based abortion;
* Deny women the right to earn a living;
* Permit or overlook s-x trafficking
* Deny women educational opportunities

I'd be there marching in a pink hat, myself. Okay, I probably wouldn't march, but I'd for sure get one of those cute pink hats. There are plenty of women in the world who are marginalized, but the various Women's Marches appeared to me to be the epitome of first-world problems. And however legitimate, none of those could be solved by a march.

marina wrote:

Actually, "we" didn't protest President Clinton's exploitation of Monica Lewinsky at all. Senator Lieberman condemned his behavior in a speech to the Senate and the Democratic Party worked feverishly to convince everyone that it's a private, consensual matter when "the leader of the free world" exploits an obviously vulnerable young woman less than half his age.

Obviously you raise your sons differently than I do, because I have tried very hard to communicate the value that a significant part of manhood means protecting those who are vulnerable rather than exploiting them for personal satisfaction or gain. And, yes, I actually do think of it as a protest of sorts.

marina

Thu, Feb 16 2017, 12:10 pm

QueenBee3 wrote:

Right, so you have no way of deciding progress or lack of it because you don't trust any information, other than random people who scare you by making up ****. I feel sad for your because your existence must be so scary and sad. Just don't spread the ignorance, that's all I ask.

marina

Thu, Feb 16 2017, 12:16 pm

Quote:

Ok, so you don't believe in systemic discrimination or institutional racism, you only believe in the most explicit bigotry. You think that if male employers condition professional advancement on s-xual favors that's not a women's rights problem, because she has some legal redress, regardless of how much it costs her or how likely she is to win.

We are not going to agree on this at all.

As for women in the US protesting treatment of women in other countries, sure, that's fine. But generally people in France aren't protesting human trafficking in Ohio. People address the issues they see in their country first. You don't see any issues, so good for you.

Fox

Thu, Feb 16 2017, 1:01 pm

marina wrote:

I believe that such explicit quid pro quo demands are comparatively rare in our times and that the legal mechanisms in place provide reasonable protection. In fact, the threat of legal liability has done more to protect women than an increase in moral scruples.

Now, if you want to argue that some people will still abuse or exploit employees despite those legal mechanisms, you are correct. But I don't believe vulnerability to abuse or exploitation is necessarily tied to gender. It occurs with immigrants, unskilled workers, workers whose English skills are poor, etc.

In addition, the free market works relatively well. We've had a number of threads here over the years in which women felt uncomfortably with a boss's familiarity. Typically, they chose to find new jobs. Employers who demand s-xual favors or even just have boundary issues generally find that they pay a literal and high price in the form of turnover.

marina wrote:

As for women in the US protesting treatment of women in other countries, sure, that's fine. But generally people in France aren't protesting human trafficking in Ohio. People address the issues they see in their country first.

And thus are born the concepts of first-world problems and white privilege.

Gretchen Carlson and Megyn Kelly have the tools and means to defend themselves to the degree they see fit. A 10-year-old bride in Pakistan does not.

marina wrote:

Fox wrote:

Obviously you raise your sons differently than do

Wow. And don't mean that in a good way. Wow.

Well, perhaps I misunderstood you. Here's what I responded to:

marina wrote:

Just like we don't protest Monica Lewinsky by telling our boys not to accept blow jobs from their mistresses, we don't protest Trump by telling our boys not to grope women.

So are you saying that Clinton's and Trump's behavior was okay? Are you saying that it was only a problem because it became public? Are you saying that you don't believe in teaching men to behave with honor?

It is highly unlikely that my personal opinion on Clinton's or Trump's s-xual antics will make one whit of difference to anyone. But as a parent, I have a unique opportunity to "protest" behavior I don't like by trying to make sure my kids don't follow that path or regard it positively.

So, um, yes. I want my sons to see people like Clinton and Trump as damaged, incomplete men who never absorbed a code of honor -- or who abandoned that code of honor in the face of weakness or peer pressure. And I want my daughters to recognize that kind of behavior as a symptom of weakness, not strength.

Telling someone, "don't be a sexist pig" doesn't really work. You can't teach a negative. You have to teach and reinforce the inverse positive concept.