Higher education redux

I could — as others already have — devote my blog to portraying the insanity that passes for higher education at so many American Universities and Colleges.  I've opted not to, since there are other things I want to maunder on about here.  Nevertheless, occasionally something going on at one of these "education" factories catches my eye, and I simply feel compelled to bring it to your attention.  Although the pickings are slim, the higher education arena is still, in theory, a marketplace and there places you, as a consumer, may wish to avoid. 

Today's example of a college you may want to avoid is Bucknell.  Lee Markison, a freshman there (and how did a freshman get to be so wise), gives us this latest example of your tuition dollars at work:

Nipple tassels, “smut” stories, and strippers.  One would expect the mere mention of these things to cause hordes of feminists to storm the nearest fraternity house complete with burning brassieres and demands that the oppressive men inside respect women.  But we are living in strange times, and at Bucknell nipple tassels, “smut,” and strippers are apparently synonymous with feminism.

In mid-February the Bucknell University Conservatives Club was asked by the Bucknell Feminist Majority to help fund a show to bring sex workers (strippers, prostitutes, phone sex operators, etc.) to campus to celebrate their professions.  “Of course we’ll fund it, we like free speech,” was the expected response.  We respectfully declined, because while we hate the idea of censoring speech, we do not feel a need to support all speech.
However, while the BUCC refused to help cover the $1,920 cost of the Sex Worker’s Art Show, other members of the campus community did.  Groups like the Women’s and Gender Studies Department, Center for the Study of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Samek Art Gallery, Office of Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Awareness, and others all cosponsored the event (feel free to ask them why they felt your tuition dollars and alumni contributions ought to be spent in this manner). 

Lee then provides us with a discreetly written, but still shocking, description of the sex show Bucknell got for its money.  I'll leave it out here.  You can go the link above (which takes you to the Independent Women's Forum) to get the details.  I really like Markison's conclusions about this embarrassing, degrading show:

Rather than promoting causes like ending the international sex trade, where countless women’s lives are ruined as they are sold into sexual slavery, Bucknell’s “feminists” made a joke of prostitution.  Actually, what they did was worse; they celebrated it.
The supposed message of this show was that sex workers are people, they could be your neighbor, your sister, your mother (read your, not my) and you should not look down on them.  Unfortunately, this message was lost by a stunning display of nipple tassels, political jabs, stripping, lubing, and overall degradation.  It was in fact nothing short of a carnival promoting sex work and the supposed empowerment that it offers.

The BUCC [Bucknell University Conservatives Club] has always been a proud proponent of free speech.  Our disgust for some types of speech should not be confused with a desire to censor.  To the contrary, this event proved one of the BUCC’s core arguments in favor of unfettered speech: when all are speaking, we are best able to determine which ideas and groups ought to be discarded as irrelevant, mindless, and unworthy of consideration.

We now all know what the Feminist Majority stands for, and now you have a question to ask yourself: “Do I stand for that too?”

How, in the forty odd years of the women's rights movement, did that movement travel from urging equity for all women to celebrating deviance and degradation?  Even more, how did it become a movement that is so fascinated with this morally degrading behavior that it turns its back on the millions of women worldwide whose lives are destroyed because they are forced into the sex trade?  Those are actually rhetorical questions, simply because the answers would fill a book (or several books) not a mere blog entry.  Suffice to say that it's no surprise that most American women, when asked, vigorously deny allegiance to the modern feminist movement.

Talking to Technorati: , ,

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. Kevin says

    I read this and caught myself wondering–how can so many people be liberals if this is yet just another example of the kind of thing that is celebrated by the left? Is the fear of declaring morality to be better than no morality so overwhelming that a significant cohort of the population will support just about anything in order to avoid it? One would logically think that there should be some straw that ultimately break the camel’s back but as these things keep occuring (and escalating) without repercussion I’m having a hard time imagining what it might be.

  2. T.S. says

    In related news:

    Praise the Lord! Leg amputated in 2002, today he walks!

    “Some al-Qaida leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al-Qaida leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks.
    — President Bush. Cincinnati speech, Oct. 7. 2002.

    “Zarqawi’s activities are not confined to this small corner of north east Iraq. He traveled to Baghdad in May 2002 for medical treatment, staying in the capital of Iraq for two months while he recuperated to fight another day.”
    — then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, U.N. briefing, Feb. 5, 2005.

    “From Iran Zarqawi traveled to Iraq in May 2002, where his wounded leg was amputated and the limb fitted with a prosthetic device. He spent two months recovering in Baghdad, at which time “nearly two dozen extremists converged on Baghdad and established a base of operations there.”
    — Matthew A. Levitt, senior fellow in terrorism studies at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, National Review Online, Feb. 6, 2003.

    Miracles really do happen — especially over in the Holy Land. Because we have just watched the video of Iraq-based terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and, lo and behold, the once-crippled man seems to have grown two healthy legs. The 30-minute video, in which Zarqawi surfaced publicly to rally Sunnis and foreign fighters behind the insurgency, shows Zarqawi running through the desert, crouching to fire a machine gun, even sitting cross-legged in a meeting — with no hint of the prosthetic limb that he allegedly received with the aid of Saddam Hussein.

    As the AP notes:

    He seemed healthy, shown in one scene standing and firing a heavy machine gun in a flat desert landscape that resembled the vast empty stretches of western Iraq, where he is believed to be hiding.

    The alleged amputation, that apparently wasn’t, isn’t just a small piece of medical trivia. The “fact” that Zarqawi supposedly was able to receive treatment in Baghdad with Saddam’s blessing was offered (believe it or not) as another “smoking gun” that Saddam, the secular socialist, was in fact in bed with the Islamic radicals of al-Qaeda.

    In fact, we could write at great length about how the reason that Zarqawi was in Iraq in the first place had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein, how he was based in that part of the country that the government did not control. But that matter has been explained to death — to anyone who will listen — since the Bush lies of 2002 and 2003.

    In fact, by 2004, officials in the Pentagon and elsewhere were sheepishly acknowledging that, well, OK, maybe Zarqawi’s leg was never amputated after all. Here’s what Powell’s former aide, Lawrence Wilkerson, said about it all on Nov. 27, 2005, in the New York Daily News:

    But Powell was skeptical, Wilkerson recalled. He said the peg leg tale – now believed to be untrue – proved in hindsight “how little we knew about the man.”
    “There just seemed to be no direct evidence making him an Al Qaeda member and quite a bit of evidence that demonstrated he was doing his own thuggish thing,” Wilkerson said.

    So now you might ask, if the “peg leg tale” was disowned two years ago, why are we harping on it again today, with the release of the video. The reason is because our initial check of the main news stories today about Zarqawi shows that not one of them even bothers to mention that the White House once used the bogus “amputation” of Zarqawi as a reason for war, and even as the guy is now prancing around on tape.

    Yep, Zarqawi’s prosthetic leg has vanished right into the memory hole, and it will stay there unless we continue to pull it out and hammer away with it. Because if we don’t weed out the lies of Bush and his pals every day, even the old and dying ones, a hundred fresh, new ones will sprout tomorrow.

    http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/003169.html

  3. says

    It seems with every new generation in the “movement”, the programming changes. New brains, new programming.

    The only real question was, do institutions change people or do people ultimately change the institutions over time.

    Or, as the case may be. do the institutions that cause change like the NAACP, become obsolete once their purpose is fullfilled, therefore allowing others to modify the institution that changed other institutions?

  4. says

    T.S., please do not confuse errors with lies. It may well be that Bush and the administration were mistaken. But you have not presented the slightest evidence that they knew they were mistaken, that they “lied.” Such loose use of emotionally charged terms discredits your argument and your cause. DQ.

Leave a Reply