…and this is a 
Sometimes, it just takes a little sharp humor to clarify our current situation.
Well, to understand the Sonia Sotomayor fracas you have to realize that the timespace confundulum has actually fractured into two frozen moments, one having to do with the sudden appearance of emotional, abrasive Latinas and their strange cuisine amid the eating clubs of Princeton, and the other having to do with ungrateful women of color getting named to positions where they can dole out their reverse-racist versions of "justice." Yes, that's right, it's always 1972 and it's always 1993--and at the same time.
I didn't get admitted to anything in 1972. But in 1974, I was a freshman at Regis High School in New York, where I heard one of my more conservative classmates say, in the course of a discussion about affirmative action, that he had been the victim of reverse discrimination for too long. Exasperated to the point of flummoxation, I noted in reply that (a) affirmative action showed up only yesterday, (b) you're thirteen years old, d00d, and (c) you're attending an elite, tuition-free Jesuit high school that does not admit women. And the reason I remember that moment 35 years later is that it has never gone away: guys like Stuart Taylor and Fred Barnes are still thirteen years old, still the victims of reverse discrimination, and still questioning the credentials of smart women while campaigning for the protection of conservative white men under the Endangered Species Act. Taylor graduated from Princeton in 1970; Barnes from the University of Virginia in 1965. Neither of them had to compete with women for admission; Princeton started opening its doors to that half of the population in 1969, Virginia a year later. That's why guys like these worry so much about the decline of standards in college admissions since 1970, you understand. Because things were tougher and people were smarter when white guys only had to compete with 44 percent of the population for admission to elite colleges, positions of power and influence, and so forth.
He also reminds us that Clinton caved in when faced with a similar situation during his presidency. Let's hope Obama is made of sterner stuff.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: RM | June 3, 2009 6:30 PM
It amazes me that as tough and smart as some white men claim to be, they surely are scared of a lot of people.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
June 3, 2009 6:32 PM
I like this comment from the blog:
All the Republicans have left now is shouting and whining. So they're indulging in whiny shouts about Santomayor. They should actually be happy. She's about as liberal as Obama is, i.e., not very much. There are candidates who are a whole lot more liberal, so if Republicans use up a lot of their political capital shooting down Santomayor, Diane Woods is in the wings.
Posted by: The Tim Channel
|
June 3, 2009 6:36 PM
Not only have the minorities taken over all the jobs, but they also own a lot of businesses. I work for a gay couple at a prominent JACKSON MISS restaurant. I've worked for a lot of minorities. Jews, gays, late term abortionists (seriously), Lebanese, and Black folks just to name a few.
Should I be pissed that the minorities have taken the jobs white people once dominated, or happy that they aren't discriminating against me like so many of my hetero brethren?
My boss constantly winks at me just so I can get a feel for what sexual discrimination feels like (or maybe I really am as cute a 51 year guy as I think?). I could complain, but I'm more than happy to suck up the suffering...just like Jesus did for the Christians, but you folks don't owe me anything for it. LOL.
John Cole (over at Balloon Juice) just coined another category for his blog posts that I want to share. Wingnut Event Horizon. You guys know how I love a good mix of science, religion and politics.
Enjoy.
Posted by: Nat J.
|
June 3, 2009 6:45 PM
You're right, minorities (especially minority women) own all the good and influential positions. Especially executive positions in Fortune 500 companies and spots in the Senate and Congress. It's ridiculous to what extent their numbers are an over representation of their portion of the population; not to mention that no compensation in this regard is needed.
Wait... what?
Posted by: Nat J.
|
June 3, 2009 6:47 PM
Tim,
You're so right, minorities (especially minority women) own all the good and influential positions. Especially executive positions in Fortune 500 companies and spots in the Senate and Congress. It's ridiculous to what extent their numbers are an over representation of their portion of the population; not to mention that no compensation in this regard is needed.
Wait... what?
Posted by: Ed Darrell | June 3, 2009 6:50 PM
It frosts the hell out of Republicans when the person with the best qualifications for the job turns out to be the person they warned us affirmative action would make us have to settle for.
I have a one word response: Skroom.
Posted by: Nat J.
|
June 3, 2009 6:50 PM
ahhh! double post!
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
June 3, 2009 6:55 PM
Both my father and his father were those types of tough, smart, white guys (read: conservative bullies). Both of 'em liberalled up in a hurry as soon as they ran into anyone not scared by their bluster.
Posted by: Steve | June 3, 2009 7:12 PM
Just another Republican meme. A bad one. Like the letter to the editor in a local paper that claimed Native Americans were bleeding the country, well... white. I said, "That's good. They deserve a lot of payback, and I hope they get ahead someday." But for right now, they aren't even close.
If you scream things long enough, people believe them. Hitler and his buddies knew that.
Posted by: maddogdelta | June 3, 2009 7:42 PM
When I talk like that, I make it clear that I'm joking. I point out that when I applied for the Naval Academy, that I was beaten by a guuuurrrrllll.
Of course, I explain, it had nothing to do with the fact that she had higher grades than I did, or that she had taken more AP classes than I did, took part in more activities than I did, was president/captain of those activities while I was just a participant, etc....
There's no real punchline, but most people smile, nod and agree with my unstated premise that "girl" or not, she beat the hell out of me as far as qualifications for the academy went.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 3, 2009 7:52 PM
Yes, that's right, it's always 1972 and it's always 1993--and at the same time.
This. Yes.
Pat Buchanan and Newt Gingrich constantly on TV spewing absolute nonsense (much, especially from Buchanan, nothing more than racism). The D.C. Heathers legitimize these idiots and maintain this temporal frozenness through: their hatred of Dirty Fucking Hippies; their fear of Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and any accusation of "Liberal Media!!!!!"; and their simultaneous contempt for the anti-cosmopolitanism of the religious right, desire for its approval, and acceptance of its inherent morality.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | June 3, 2009 8:26 PM
Hey, I remember the frozen moments of 1972! I was stuck in a blizzard with my flock of sheep, and nothing to do but cuddle up with a woolly girl and think. So I composed a poem.
WHAT HAPPENED FOR YOU IN 72?
by S. Batzrubble
Did you like Marlon or Alex or Clint?
The singing Swedes or Don’s lyrical stint?
And do you recall the numerical odds of
One African General
Three Gunman at Lod
Five bungling burglers
Seven medals for god
Nine bombed body bits
Eleven athletes in bags
Thirteen Derry hits (even more body bits),
And, although the count's even, it's no more or less odd,
Than people who think they hear voices from god
Sixteen fall from the sky
And eat best-buddy pie.
And what, you now ask, of the Latino gals,
Who were biding their time in all-male hells?
Well that moment arrived, and it started to thaw
And the good ol’ boys found they had less than before:
A black man in the White House, an aerial pig,
And a woman named Sonia, who don’t give a fig.
Posted by: breakerslion | June 3, 2009 8:41 PM
I'm confused. Are we in an alternate time stream, a-la Back to the Future time travel rules, or have we been teleported back to 1972 along with a bunch of people from 1993, a-la Terminator rules? Is Eddie in the time stream again? WTF? Seriously, WTF? Who stepped on the butterfly? Until I read that piece, I was not properly in fear that reality as I know it was fracturing. I just thought a bunch of misogynistic, egomaniac thumb-suckers had ranted their way into positions of power and authority. How naive!
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | June 3, 2009 8:47 PM
It is all because eddies in the Space-Time Continuum.
Posted by: Carlie | June 3, 2009 9:46 PM
Wait, dammit, I didn't even know Berube was back! Now I have almost a year of archives to deal with...
Posted by: MadScientist
|
June 3, 2009 10:23 PM
Gee, when I was a kid we used to have a name for the boys who were afraid of girls: pussies. You'll probably agree these pussies are also known to be dicks all the time and all are bona-fide assholes. They really are the bottom of society.
Posted by: noc noc | June 3, 2009 10:24 PM
"Let's hope Obama is made of sterner stuff."
Haha. Obama can barely come out against murdering abortion doctors.
Posted by: momus
|
June 3, 2009 10:57 PM
"eddies in the Space-Time continuum," I don't think so. Thirteen year-olds that won't leave Never-Never Land is more like it!
Posted by: rnb | June 3, 2009 11:45 PM
Well, white women were oppressive to non whites of both genders when I was a child. As my non-white mom knew only too well.
I have no doubt here are plenty of white women complaining about the current Supreme Court nominee.
Posted by: hyphenate | June 3, 2009 11:48 PM
Well, shoot, I went to an all girls high school for six years before graduation in 1974. That last year was the first time the school had become integrated, and it seemed funny being a senior and seeing all these little male children running around.
It was drilled into our brains that we were smarter, better looking than our male counterparts across town, and more able to handle all of life's battles. We learned early that brains were better than brawn, and that women should never diminish themselves for men.
In 1974, my fellow classmates and I graduated with the only intent to conquer the world. Thirty five years later, I'm wondering where my piece of the pie went, as somehow I missed its presence.
Posted by: hyphenate | June 3, 2009 11:53 PM
Well, shoot, I went to an all girls high school for six years before graduation in 1974. That last year was the first time the school had become integrated, and it seemed funny being a senior and seeing all these little male children running around.
It was drilled into our brains that we were smarter, better looking than our male counterparts across town, and more able to handle all of life's battles. We learned early that brains were better than brawn, and that women should never diminish themselves for men.
In 1974, my fellow classmates and I graduated with the only intent to conquer the world. Thirty five years later, I'm wondering where my piece of the pie went, as somehow I missed its presence.
Posted by: hyphenate | June 3, 2009 11:56 PM
Well, shoot, I went to an all girls high school for six yeaars before graduation in 1974. That last year was the first time the school had become integrated, and it seemed funny being a senior and seeing all these little male children running around.
It was drilled into our brains that we were smarter, better looking than our male counterparts across town, and more able to handle all of life's battles. We learned early that brains were better than brawn, and that women should never diminish themselves for men.
In 1974, my fellow classmates and I graduated with the only intent to conquer the world. Thirty five years later, I'm wondering where my piece of the pie went, as somehow I missed its presence.
Posted by: Tim | June 4, 2009 12:14 AM
Judge Sotomayor should do just fine if confirmed. At that level, the bulk of contempt is reserved for working people.
Posted by: JeffS | June 4, 2009 12:28 AM
I find the whole process disgusting. Look at rulings on contentious political issues, it's always split down the liberal/conservative line.
Its a joke. Judges are just puppets. Who cares what race or gender they are? It doesn't matter.
Posted by: Susan | June 4, 2009 12:56 AM
Bérubé is back! Thanks for cluing me in. I had no idea, and he's on my list of top ten bloggers ever. This post by him is perfect.
Posted by: Clemens | June 4, 2009 1:26 AM
If white men were really that much tougher and smarter, surely they shouldn't be afraid of a bit more competition?
Like those silly white supremacists. If they think themselves superior, why do they need segregation laws? If they were right, blacks just wouldn't make it to college.
Posted by: Sili
|
June 4, 2009 3:48 AM
Yay! Extinction! Something to thank the Shrub for - finally.Posted by: Bruce Gorton | June 4, 2009 7:35 AM
On the one hand, I feel like the Republicans are just being sexist pigs, on the other, I would much rather see Judge John E. Jones III. Okay, he is white, male, and basically Republican, but just read this:
http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/speech_judge_jones.asp
Now that, is a judge.
Posted by: BlueIndependent
|
June 4, 2009 9:43 AM
"...All the Republicans have left now is shouting and whining. So they're indulging in whiny shouts about Santomayor. They should actually be happy. She's about as liberal as Obama is, i.e., not very much...
That may be, but most unfortunately it appears it works often enough that they feel compelled to keep doing it. We've gotten a few too many caves-in after a little over 4 months of office to suggest that change is going to happen quickly. Foreign policy seems to be the only area where the ball is moving apace. Where republicans being happy is concerned, they haven't been made to feel like a worthless minority yet so even if Obama put up a former Reaganite the republicans would probably still have a problem with it. The whole situation smacks of a democratic majority that still just doesn't get it and is deathly afraid of a 5% drop in the polls, while a spoiled rotten child of a small minority opposition continues it's 15-year long obsession with disagreeing to be disagreeable for power's sake.
Someone needs to get every democrat in government in a room, and ask them why the hell they are such gutless pawns. The last time a democrat displayed real stones - nay, gall - in getting things done was LBJ. His war hawk qualities notwithstanding, the guy got stuff done. Has any democrat since LBJ been as skillful (or as forceful) when necessary? I'm not looking for a hyper-liberal state here, I'm just asking that the dems stand the F up for their positions and act like they give a sh!t.
Posted by: Lee Picton | June 4, 2009 10:11 AM
Mediocre men have always been afraid of smart women, but never had to worry about their places as masters of the universe, due to their having grabbed most of the power and leverage of their ill-gotten positions. Of COURSE they are loathe to give up their perks. Reminds me of the undergraduate school I attended, where an unspoken, but pervasive admissions standard reigned (this was in 1960). Until it was analysed and made public, it became clear that women were admitted only if their SATs were over 1200, the men were admitted with SATs as low as 900. (The men then outnumbered the women 3 to 1). And some of them had the temerity to be shocked that the "girls" got way better grades. Didn't matter though. These inferior males still went out into the world and were admitted to the boys' clubs and the women spent their lives bumping up against the glass ceiling. Now get this. Once this terrible disparity was revealed and gender neutral admission standards were applied, it only took a few years before there were more women students than men. Low and behold, the college (unfortunately publicly) bemoaned this "disparity" and announced that they were considering affirmative action for the men! On noes! We have to help them! Obviously they were unable to spell hypocrite.
Breube was right on target. Judge Sontomayor is every mediocre man's (read Gingrich, Buchanan, et al.) nightmare, and they are rightly terrified. Maybe when all the able women are running the world, we will just keep the men around for pets - and sex.
Posted by: pluky | June 4, 2009 11:41 AM
One of my sweeter moments as an undergrad was responding to a snarky comment about my 'affirmative action'admission to another undergrad by noting:
-- I had higher SAT scores than he did
-- I had a higher GPA in HS than he did
-- I had higher NYS Regent's exam scores than he did
-- I had more AP credits than he did
-- I had a higher GPA in a tougher major than he did
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 4, 2009 11:52 AM
The D.C. Heathers
:D
Posted by: Lee | June 4, 2009 11:56 AM
Hypothesis: Affirmative action discriminates against white men.
Observation: Looks around at workplace, doesn't observe very many minorities.
Conclusion: This hypothesis must be modified to fit the obvious facts.
Also the new hypothesis should include bacon
Posted by: rnb | June 4, 2009 12:11 PM
My experience has been white women accept affirmative action only to the extent that they see it benefiting them.
Posted by: Fluffybunnyfeet | June 4, 2009 1:22 PM
"Sterner stuff"?
SMARTER stuff. The Rethugs are already backing down on their filibuster/jihad - Rush Freaking Limbaugh says he may vote for her (who asked him?!) because she's Catholic (WTDF?!?!?), and best of all? It's too LATE, Dumbasses - your 'Hispanic Outreach' is gone forever.
Just like your Rockefeller wing...
Posted by: SC, OM | June 4, 2009 1:33 PM
BTW, if you're interested check out the NYTimes "Women Bridging Gap in Science Opportunities" article link on the right.
Posted by: Bob | June 4, 2009 8:26 PM
Let's be clear. Most of the pundits who decry reverse racism do so because they know they've had privileged lives and that they couldn't compete on a "level playing field." They can't acknowledge the privileges they've enjoyed because doing so would destroy the pretense of meritocracy, and without that pretense, no one would listen to them.
Posted by: Bob | June 4, 2009 8:35 PM
Let's be clear. Most of the pundits who decry reverse racism do so because they know they've had privileged lives and that they couldn't compete on a "level playing field." They can't acknowledge the privileges they've enjoyed because doing so would destroy the pretense of meritocracy, and without that pretense, no one would listen to them.
Posted by: Bob | June 4, 2009 8:38 PM
Let's be clear. Most of the pundits who decry reverse racism do so because they know they've had privileged lives and that they couldn't compete on a "level playing field." They can't acknowledge the privileges they've enjoyed because doing so would destroy the pretense of meritocracy, and without that pretense, no one would listen to them.
Posted by: astrounit | June 5, 2009 11:51 PM
Bob
Bob
Bob
It's not your fault. ScienceBlogs is just a little slow on the uptake. (So when do you guys go back to the old system that actually worked efficiently? As many of us have implored? Or must we all continue to suffer your consultation with code experts who will make it all better?)
Grumble.