September 10, 2013

Lesbian dean angry that female Harvard MBA students are looking for husbands

From my column in Taki's Magazine:
A striking feature of post-1968 liberalism is its obsession with the problems of people who don’t really have major problems. While leftists of the past worried about the fate of coal miners or the unemployed, contemporary activists find more galvanizing the troubles, such as they are, of female students at the Harvard Business School. 
I never went to Harvard, but my impression from attending a decent public B-School is that elite MBA students, male or female, have perhaps the fewest significant problems of any category of people imaginable. Still, since we’re living in the fallout of Team Obama’s decision to revive feminist resentments to turn out the vote, attention must be paid to HBS women’s oppression. 
Thus, in “Harvard Business School Case Study: Gender Equity,” Jodi Kantor, a New York Times reporter and author of The Obamas, reports at length on the school administration’s experiment in micromanaging the social lives of Harvard MBA students to overcome that most pressing problem of our day: Women at HBS average lower grades than their male colleagues.

Read the whole thing there.

51 comments:

Anonymous said...

" Richard Dawkins Pedophilia Remarks Provoke Outrage "

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/09/richard-dawkins-pedophilia_n_3895514.html

"In an interview in The Times magazine on Saturday (Sept. 7), Dawkins, 72, he said he was unable to condemn what he called "the mild pedophilia" he experienced at an English school when he was a child in the 1950s.

Referring to his early days at a boarding school in Salisbury, he recalled how one of the (unnamed) masters "pulled me on his knee and put his hand inside my shorts."

He said other children in his school peer group had been molested by the same teacher but concluded: "I don't think he did any of us lasting harm."

"I am very conscious that you can't condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours. Just as we don't look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can't find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today," he said.

He said the most notorious cases of pedophilia involve rape and even murder and should not be bracketed with what he called "just mild touching up.""

deconstructingleftism said...

My recent insight- leftists are not socialists.

Anglophone leftists have supported the causes of blacks and women because it attacks the traditional power structure- macho and rural- but not urban workers, or only incidentally urban workers, because they need poor, helpless urban workers as servants. The same people that were shocked and horrified at enslaving black adults to do agricultural labor had no problem with enslaving small white boys to clean chimneys.

That supplying them with an unlimited number of poor, helpless servants can be framed as a civil rights issue is a dream come true for them.

Shouting Thomas said...

Ah, the great civil rights campaign to get more stuff for upper middle class white women!

That's the stuff of MLK's dream!

The gay marriage campaign was more of the same... a great civil rights campaign to get more stuff for the children of upper middle class whites professionals.

Anonymous said...

OT but there's a book coming out about how the murder of St Matthew Shepherd (pbuh) was some sort of sordid drug crime rather than a hate crime as we all thought:

http://forward.com/articles/183494/what-if-matthew-shepards-murder-wasnt-an-anti-gay/?p=all

Anonymous said...

The time for talk is over. It is time to "organize for action" against the left-liberal hydra.

Gentlemen (and ladies), I bring you the Million Troll March on Media Matters.

For 24 hours we will be saying all those naughty things we "aren't allowed to say", all those ungoodthinking blasphemies against anti-racism, multiculturalism, critical theory, black liberation theology, political correctness, lesbian separatism, feminism, environmentalism and every liberal sacred cow. Join us on media matters dot org for 24 full hours of liberal butthurt.

This is a once in a lifetime event. Do NOT miss your chance to say all the things you've been dying to say, right to the liberals' faces. Help us drop a lulzbomb on the Great Satan. Contact everyone you know and tell them to stand up for what we believe in this September 11th by putting down everything liberals believe in.

Anonymous said...

Dawkins is becoming progressively disinhibited.

This is going to end badly.

Anon.

Anonymous said...

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-viewpoint/090613-670166-irs-holder-advised-black-nonprofits-tax-law.htm?p=full

Anonymous said...

just when is this million troll march happening ?

agnostic said...

The Left in the '80s was the least airheaded and the most populist that it's going to get. Here's a review, quoting major participants like Noam Chomsky, as well as showing the covers of the major left-wing magazines (Mother Jones, The Progressive, The Nation) to see what topics they pushed the most.

http://akinokure.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-left-in-1980s-what-did-they-focus.html

They would've vomited at the idea of campaigning to boost the salaries of Harvard Business School students, male or female. Check out those magazine covers and notice how at-home a lot of us would feel with them... certainly compared to today's leftoids, but also compared to a lot of Republicans today, who are elitist rather than populist.

Even middle-of-the-road libs like Bob Geldof were organizing benefit concerts for famine relief in East Africa (Live Aid). Not airhead causes like homo marriage or putting a Prius in every garage.

It's bizarre how quickly leftist populism unraveled during the '90s. Look at how pathetic the mass response was to Pearl Jam taking on Ticket Master. Although you could say the same of right populism, peaking around '92-'94.

We need to talk more in terms of populist vs. elitist. That's more important than Democrat vs. Republican.

Anonymous said...

"Dawkins is becoming progressively disinhibited.

This is going to end badly.

Anon.

9/10/13, 11:36 PM"


What a horrible choice of phrase! Whether or not Dawkins IS becoming progressively disinhibited - or simply finding that what he's always done is now being done in a nation of "Gotcha!" Masters who know nothing at all save the catechisms of their ANY MEANS NECESSARY marching orders to force upon the world some zoohouse mirror image of "social justice" - this is NOT going to end badly. One of the most optimistic whiffs we're receivong in the world is the increasingly ballsy honesty of people like Dawkins, Pinker, Harris and minions of less noteworthies.

I prsonally don't care nearly as much about the revolution against the Victimizer's National Religion as I do, the still unoperational, revolution of the poor against the rich (dunno if we have enough lampposts) but the revolution against what is currently called "Leftist" is underway and there are men (and some women) in its front ranks who refuse to back down or bend.

Dawkins is fantastic. (If you want to know how REALLY fantastic he is, watch some of his lengthier videos here http://www.youtube.com/user/dawkinschannel/videos specifically a 5 or 6 part series that he gave as an introduction to science to school aged kids some 30 years ago. The man isn't just another headline, he's a proper man.

agnostic said...

"Why were sex differences more muted among MBAs three decades ago?"

They were more muted among everybody. Rising-crime times don't feminize men but rather take women more out of the private/domestic sphere than they prefer during falling-crime times. Men are already adapted to the public sphere, so women come to resemble men a bit more as they spend less time in the domestic sphere.

The Roaring Twenties and the Go-Go Eighties were at similar points in the crime rate cycle -- at the final plateau before crime begins to plummet (during the mid-century and Millennial periods).

And sure enough, the '20s are another period commonly thought/known to feature women who chose to spend less time in the domestic sphere, and acculturate more to male norms as they joined the public sphere. Same with the career woman of the '80s.

I'm not sure that "sex differences" are the best way to view it. Women were very feminine in the '20s and '80s, but it just wasn't all va-va-voom, in-your-face, over-the-top assault of the female physique.

Like, these days as the article describes, women in their 20s, even 30s and 40s, dress to emphasize their physical assets, in a cold-blooded and calculating plan to capture a husband. That's no different from the tight pants, A-line skirts, tight sweaters, and bullet bras of the mid-century. Or the exaggeratedly thin waists and ample cleavage of the Victorian era.

In the Jazz Age, they didn't all dress like boys (a misconception), but they did move away from the pin-up girl / burlesque dancer presentation of their assets that the Victorians had pursued. They de-emphasized heaving bosoms and bulging bustles.

Same with the New Wave Age. Sure, unattached teenage girls might have worn tight jeans and tank tops with no bra, but once they entered the workplace, let alone married or had children, women totally changed their look. Career women and mothers in the '80s had somewhat loose-fitting pants, and very baggy blouses, sweaters, and jackets. They didn't give the slightest hint of the shape of their chest.

It was like, you've grown up and entered the workplace and are out-and-about in the public sphere. So you can't just go about flaunting your assets like a teenager looking for a hot date this weekend.

Today's zeitgeist (and the Victorian and mid-century) is more about va-va-voom and cynical manipulation of male libido. That's the strategy for someone who's main goal is on the domestic sphere.

The Jazz Age and New Wave Age was more about sowing your wild oats, but then showing restraint in your 20s, 30s, and 40s, in order to fit in to the community or team, rather than continue trying to make yourself the focus of attention. That comes from a more public sphere orientation.

Anonymous said...

apologies for the inappropriate for work language and poorly spelled transcription but:


"I also happen to like it when feminists attack these fat-ass housewives who think there's nothing more to life that sitting home on the telephone,
drinking coffee, watching TV and pumping out a baby every nine months.
P-poom, p-poom, p-poom, p-poom, p-poom...will seven be enough Bob?
...p-poom, p-poom. But what's the alternative? What's the alternative to pumping out a unit every nine months?
Pointless careerism? Pointless careerism? Putting on a man-tailored suit with shoulder pads and imitating all the worst behavior of men?
This is the noblest thing that women can think of?
To take a job in a criminal corporation that's poisoning the environment and robbing customers out of their money?
This is the worthiest thing they can think of? Isn't there something nobler they can do to be helping this planet"heal?
You don't hear much about that from these middle-class women.
I've noticed that most of these feminists are white middle-class women.
They don't give a shit about black women's problems.
They don't care about Latino women.
All their interested in is their own reproductive freedom...and their pocketbooks."

Anonymous said...

Dawkins is an arrogant, alpha sort, the kind of very clever man who can be extremely stupid. I remember a Guardian America election column in 2004 which must have increased the Republican vote - he couldn't believe how stupid American Christian voters were and told them so.

Now he's upset people with his Hate Facts about Islam and Nobel prizes, then moves on to this. He think he's not getting any younger, there's no afterlife, why be shy about saying what you believe?

But - he'll go down as Watson did. The same people who gave him a platform to attack Christianity will cut him loose. He's served his purpose. He won't be the Grand Old Man, he'll be the embarrassing uncle with dementia.

Silver said...

deconstructingleftism,

It's hard to know what to make of the modern (or post-modern or is it post-post-modern?) left. I do know that one hundred years ago I would have been a devout, maybe even bloodthirsty, leftist.

Back then the left actively embraced reality. Unlike today's leftists, they were solid on hbd issues. They may have been wrong about economics, but they were understandably wrong (given the general economic ignorance of the times, and the atrocious scaremongering of the moneyed elites).

Leftism/progressivism today, whatever its motives, is more or less applied insanity.

John Mansfield said...

"In modern America, ages 27 to 29 are prime time to get engaged."

In more realistic cultures, 27 to 29 is prime time to have a third child. Given that HBS students start out that old and come from successful jobs, how many of the men are already married?

Anonymous said...

Is there a prize for reading an article, saying to yourself "Steve Sailer will have a field day with this," and being proven correct within the week? If so I just won it.

Jonathan Silber said...

In the photo accompanying the NYT article, the rumpled, Pat-like lesbo Dean of HBS wears attire appropriate to a summer job in the mailroom.

candid_observer said...

I really like this Million Troll March thingy, but I need to know: can I send my sockpuppet?

Anonymous said...

Dawkins is little more than a living Internet troll these days. These days he seems to make speeches not to enlighten minds, but to provoke responses and thus remind people that he still exists.

Just ignore him.

Prof. Woland said...

"It's bizarre how quickly leftist populism unraveled during the '90s."

Good Government (progressive politics) is diametrically opposed to a race and gender based spoils system, which is where the left has been going for the last generation. To white people it means transparent, well managed, objectively measurable programs that everyone benefits from. Good government for blacks and women means transferring as much of the National wealth to them as possible. Liberalism will be the death of good government.

Art Deco said...

Anglophone leftists have supported the causes of blacks and women because it attacks the traditional power structure- macho and rural- but not urban workers, or only incidentally urban workers, because they need poor, helpless urban workers as servants.

Along time ago a disaffected working-class Brit offered the observation that "the Labour Party only cares about you if you're young, or old, or peculiar".

If you stop and think about it, public policy is reflexively antagonistic to the interests of non-exotic wage-earning men, as is much of mass-entertainment, as are the general assumptions that HR departments make. Consider:

1. The content and administration of matrimonial and family law

2. The evolution of basic schooling and vocational schooling (notably the expense and escalating padding).

3. Immigration law and practice

4. Aspects of labor law and recruitment and training practice (see point 2 as well)

5. The assumptions governing welfare policy from about 1958 to 1996

6. The professional ideologies of the mental health and social work trade (see point 1).

7. The dispositions and behavior of clergy.

8. The attitude toward public order manifest between about 1958 and 1980 (and residually today).

--

The world we live in is more affluent than it was a generation ago or two generations ago, but there are all sorts of impediments and pitfalls there did not used to be for the ordinary man who wants to build a life and not just drink and screw (and less recognition for just being an ordinary husband, father, and worker). And who has done this to us? The legal profession, for the most part, and the higher education apparat, and the politicians drawn from these loci and responsive to them.

Anonymous said...

New 'leftism'... not about helping the powerless but serving the powerful.

Mr. Anon said...

"Unlike Dean Frei, who is gay-married to a former HBS student named Anne Morriss, Dr. Faust is a practicing heterosexual. In fact, there’s an instructive tale in how as a history grad student at Penn she divorced her medical student husband and married her department chairman."

It often seems that the real purpose that motivates strident feminists in "empowering women" is really just to empower lesbians and bitches, i.e., themselves. It is just the will-to-power for women.

Anonymous said...

I don't care. I don't care if women get lower grades in Harvard. I don't care if boys get lower grades in grade school. I don't care if teaching is overwhelmingly female. I don't care if the boardrooms are overwhelmingly male.

Is it too much to ask that people stop whining about this stuff? Honestly, who cares about numeric (in)equality? (I can think of a LOT of people on the other hand, who are bothered by the whining.)

Anonymous said...

Matthew Sheppard, wasn't he that guy from Glee?

pat said...

Dawkins is a fine writer and a fine theorist but he is annoying about atheism. But here he has for once done the public a service.

Child molestation is not now and never has been much of a problem. Lurid Hollywood movies show molested boys forever damaged by being diddled by some old queen. There is no evidence for this. Kids are more likely to be traumatized by not being chosen for the school yard baseball team.

Young girls often experience old men rubbing up against them in crowds. That's not admirable or attractive but it isn't damaging either.

But if we really think male homosexuals hurt little boys permanently why don't we just kill them? Certainly there is no cure for pederasty. If you want the casual child molesters off the streets you will have to lock them in a cage for their entire lives. How compassionate is that?

In a state of nature a father whose son has been molested should just beat the snot out of the molester. But we civilized types aren't allowed those kind of remedies. Beating up a molester doesn't cure him, it just directs him toward the sons of less motivated fathers. Nowadays we have to confine ourselves to socially responsible actions that consider the interests of all participants. That's why capitol punishment is appropriate for child molesters - not because the crime is so bad but because there is little else we can do that has any permanent effect.

Dawkins is something of an asshole but I don't think it had anything to do with having been touched as a kid. Remember just a generation ago homosexuality was the "love that dare not speaks its name". Being gay was an odious condition whereas children were molested casually by the parish priest. Also remember that homosexuality will be cured quite soon and that should dry up at least some of the supply of child molesters.

Albertosaurus

Observing from the Sidelines said...

Another great example of this syndrome is Anne-Marie Slaughter's Atlantic article about "Why Women Still Can't Have it All":
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/07/why-women-still-cant-have-it-all/309020/

Anonymous said...

They talk about this nonsense so they don't have to talk about why there are so few blacks and Hispanics among the students and professors, except in token ethnic studies programs. How many black professors of mathematics are there at Harvard? Clearly there is wholesale racial discrimination going on here, the Federal Government needs to step in.

diana said...

Speaking of lesbians, the NY Times has a total Stevebait article about Diane Ravitch today.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/diane_ravitch/index.html

Ms. Ravitch's career is a study in extremism. It shows what happens to a smart, well-meaning person whose liberal orthodoxy is so entrenched they can't use their functional intelligence. She's been flopping around from extreme to extreme, incapable of admitting some hard truths about American students and population genetics.

Confession: I did not realize "Ms." Ravitch was a lesbian; I thought she was still married to Richard Ravitch.

PS Her father's name was Walter Cracker Silvers. I kid you not. His middle name was Cracker.

http://www.nndb.com/people/894/000049747/

PPS I wonder if her domestic life has anything to do with her policy swings.

Eric Rasmusen said...

It would be interesting to compare business schools with law schools and med schools. Business school students are 5 years older, so they have both the maturity and experience to know that it's tough to find a good husband or wife, and that that's more important than your next of many jobs.

I teach in a very successful on-line MBA program. I wonder how many students we lose to regular MBA programs because of the need to meet in the flesh?

Mansfield said...

"Fifty-seven workers for the Gaithersburg-based Potomac Disposal went on strike Monday. The newly unionized workers say they have been pressing for health benefits and the company has retaliated with immigration enforcement threats."

http://wtop.com/52/3448899/Striking-Md-trash-collector-hit-by-garbage-truck

Anonymous said...

Today's zeitgeist (and the Victorian and mid-century) is more about va-va-voom and cynical manipulation of male libido. That's the strategy for someone who's main goal is on the domestic sphere.

The Jazz Age and New Wave Age was more about sowing your wild oats, but then showing restraint in your 20s, 30s, and 40s, in order to fit in to the community or team, rather than continue trying to make yourself the focus of attention. That comes from a more public sphere orientation.


I'm not sure today's zeitgeist is comparable to that of the Victorian Age or mid-20th century America.

Also during the Jazz Age, most of the US population was rural. Flapper girls weren't representative of most women and they weren't in the "public sphere" to work. Women in the 80s entered the "public sphere" to work because they were forced to work by social and economic changes in the 60s and 70s that reduced the social status of men and made it more difficult for men to afford marriage.

Anonymous said...

"It’s been over three decades since I earned an MBA (UCLA, ’82), so don’t rely upon my advice, but job interviewers back then quickly got the message across that boasting about grades was bumptious. (And when you finally get a job, it turns out your boss isn’t interested in your GPA at all.)"
High school was even worse, especially if you went to college later in life. I rebelled in high school and barely graduated. I later went on to get acceptance letters from Univ. of Illinois, Chicago, Purdue, and Roosevelt University when I finally went to college. I graduated with a B.S. in Computer Science and have had a great career as a data analyst and also moonlight as a columnist in several small town newspapers. Nobody ever asked how I did in high school, nobody ever asked if I even went to high school! As far as they know I could have dropped out in 3rd grade!

Whiskey said...

At the Southern school where I got my MBA in the 90s, women were about 30% of the class, cohort was about 250. There were about two couples, one of them pre-existing, though fluid dating. Nothing serious.

The quality of the men however was lower. Future mid line managers and minor vps. One friend worked at Countrywide, another at Worldcom.

Not exactly guys who launch a Marc Jacobs show. Let alone a thousand sexy pirate costumes.

As always, it is the Alpha male only that matters.

Anonymous said...

Women at HBS average lower grades than their male colleagues.

The MIT of Nancy Hopkins saw that women with same SAT scores were getting better grades at MIT and promptly moved to drop the SAT criteria a few points for the female sex. Now with more than the twice the acceptance rate, there was equality.
Harvard promptly moved to change grading criteria so that women with same scores will have the same grades.

The top institutes of USA showing how it's done.

Anonymous said...

OK, Larry Summers is frequently represented around here as a victim of feminist intolerance for crimethink, which is true, BUT

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harry-r-lewis/larry-summers-conflict-of-interest_b_3679160.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

http://www.institutionalinvestor.com/Article/1020662/How-Harvard-lost-Russia.html?ArticleId=1020662&single=true#.UjC9J9KshcY

there are also plenty of thoroughly Steveosphere-approved reasons to be skeptical of Larry, aptly reviewed by Harry Lewis and David McClintick above. "Conflict of interest? What's that?"

In fact Harvard-in-Russia, and Summers's whole vastly lucrative career, appears to be one tangled ball of connections/backscratching by meritocratic-cronyist insiders.

Anonymous said...

"Just as we don't look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism..."

Look around at the social realities today, and the 'racists' were at least half right.

Anonymous said...

There is a follow up article on HBS in the NYT. It's all about class being overwhelmingly important there over even the horrible sexism of the previous article. They spend half the article saying it reflects negatively on how class driven American society has become. Then they mention almost as a throwaway sentence that most of the class based exclusion-ism is the result of male, international students, primarily from South America and the Middle East. So, in other words, it isn't a reflection of American society, but the international society that Harvard recruits from. As you have said previously: Diversity and Plutocracy go together in perfect harmony.

Cail Corishev said...

Then they mention almost as a throwaway sentence that most of the class based exclusion-ism is the result of male, international students, primarily from South America and the Middle East. So, in other words, it isn't a reflection of American society, but the international society that Harvard recruits from.

And from which they want all other parts of society to recruit in large numbers.

Hmm, maybe that's why they're so pro-mass immigration: their elite foreign friends are lonely without the proles from back home to look down upon.

The Anti-Gnostic said...

It often seems that the real purpose that motivates strident feminists in "empowering women" is really just to empower lesbians and bitches, i.e., themselves. It is just the will-to-power for women.

Attractive women use feminism to get access to quality men. Unattractive women use feminism to get sinecures for which their looks or attitude would otherwise disqualify them.

Women in the middle of the distribution who use feminism usually end up like Monica Lewinsky.

Truth said...

"Child molestation is not now and never has been much of a problem... Kids are more likely to be traumatized by not being chosen for the school yard baseball team."

I'd love to meet the panel that peer reviewed that one.

Truth said...

"At the Southern school where I got my MBA in the 90s, women were about 30% of the class...
The quality of the men however was lower..."

Stands on its own; doesn't required added snark.

Anonymous said...

"I'm single at 50. Why? Men hate me being brainier than them, says KATE MULVEY

A recent study found men simply can't handle it if a woman outshines them
Kate believes this is why she's still single
She's a published author and can speak multiple languages
She's 'lost count' of times she's been rejected for being witty and clever"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2417942/Im-single-50-Why-Men-hate-brainier-says-KATE-MULVEY.html

Uncle Peregrine said...

"As Matthew Weiner explained about why women love his Mad Men televisionshow: “What’s sexist in the office is fuel in the bedroom.”"

From Wikipedia: "His father was a medical researcher and chair of the neurology department at USC. His mother graduated from law school but never practiced."

I've not really watched either show, but I had thought Matthew Weiner was gay, probably because I was confusing him with the _Desperate Housewives_ guy.

Please share this article by using the link below. When you cut and paste an article, Taki's Magazine misses out on traffic, and our writers don't get paid for their work. Email editors@takimag.com to buy additional rights. http://takimag.com/article/thats_frances_with_an_e_steve_sailer/print#ixzz2edBpyThr

Harry Baldwin said...

Jonathan Silber said...In the photo accompanying the NYT article, the rumpled, Pat-like lesbo Dean of HBS wears attire appropriate to a summer job in the mailroom.

Looked at the photo. You nailed it.

I recall one lesbian couple in my circle that were both feminine and very attractive. One strike against the stereotype, I thought. Except now, years later, both are married to men and have children.

Anonymous said...

Kate Mulvey (see Daily Mail link above). Look alright back in 2000. Now - looks like a man in drag. I don't think that's helping her with the gentlemen.

Anonymous said...

@deconstructingleftism

From an essay by George Orwell critiquing James Burnham's "The Mangerial Revolution" published in 1946 (Burnham shows far greater prescience than Orwell in the long run.):

"A more normal variant [of power worship prevalent among intellectuals], at any rate in England, is Communism. If one examines the people who, having some idea of what the Russian régime is like, are strongly russophile, one finds that, on the whole, they belong to the ‘managerial’ class of which Burnham writes. That is, they are not managers in the narrow sense, but scientists, technicians, teachers, journalists, broadcasters, bureaucrats, professional politicians: in general, middling people who feel themselves cramped by a system that is still partly aristocratic, and are hungry for more power and more prestige. These people look towards the U.S.S.R. and see in it, or think they see, a system which eliminates the upper class, keeps the working class in its place, and hands unlimited power to people very similar to themselves. It was only after the Soviet régime became unmistakably totalitarian that English intellectuals, in large numbers, began to show an interest in it. Burnham, although the English russophile intelligentsia would repudiate him, is really voicing their secret wish: the wish to destroy the old, equalitarian version of Socialism and usher in a hierarchical society where the intellectual can at last get his hands on the whip. Burnham at least has the honesty to say that Socialism isn’t coming; the others merely say that Socialism is coming, and then give the word ‘Socialism’ a new meaning which makes nonsense of the old one."

Mr. Anon said...

"Truth said...

""At the Southern school where I got my MBA in the 90s, women were about 30% of the class...

The quality of the men however was lower...""

Stands on its own; doesn't required added snark."

And the funny thing is, he was talking about Tuskegee.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said..." Kate Mulvey (see Daily Mail link above). Look alright back in 2000. Now - looks like a man in drag. I don't think that's helping her with the gentlemen."

The comments are hilarious. My favorite: "The fact you look like a bloke might have something to do with it."

- Sherliker-BritEx-Pat , Auckland New Zealand, 12/9/2013 09:59

Anonymous said...

Is there a prize for reading an article, saying to yourself "Steve Sailer will have a field day with this," and being proven correct within the week? If so I just won it.

No prize, as you can say that about 80% of NYT articles these days.

Svigor said...

Look around at the social realities today, and the 'racists' were at least half right.

Hunter Wallace (Occidental Dissent blog) has done a lot of posts about the racial observations and predictions of 19th century race-realists. They were a lot more than half right. They were downright prescient. The funny thing to me is the fact that if they could see America today, they'd go back to their own time and be much more likely to fight to the death for their cause(s).