Tagged: New York Times Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • just a conservative girl 1:49 PM on 07/24/2013 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , New York Times,   

    UPenn and the Hook-Up Culture 

    About a week ago I came across this article from The New York Times on the hook-up culture on the campus of Penn.  It is a very long article and very sad.  This article epitomizes why “feminism” is horrible for women in particular and society in general.

    “We don’t really like each other in person, sober. We literally can’t sit down and have coffee.”

    Says a young, obviously intelligent young woman who is only known as A.  You can’t sit down and have a conversation with this young man but you can take off your clothes and share the most important thing that you have, your body.  There is no emotional connection whatsoever, it is just scratching an itch.  It seems the reality that you are putting yourself in a position for unplanned pregnancies that likely end in abortion as well as STD’s doesn’t even enter into the equation.

    One of the things that makes us human is our emotion.  But it seems that in order to be part of the whole feminist movement that is something that you need to put aside in order to achieve your goals.  What is the point of achieving anything if it costs you the most basic part of your humanity?

    Instead, she enjoyed casual sex on her terms — often late at night, after a few drinks, and never at her place, she noted, because then she would have to wash the sheets.

    Heaven forbid you have to wash the sheets.  I mean, doesn’t she have to wash the sheets at some point anyway?

    Increasingly, she said, many privileged young people see college as a unique life stage in which they don’t — and shouldn’t — have obligations other than their own self-development.

    While it is perfectly understandable that someone would want to take some time and figure out where they fit in the world, it seems that becomes the only thing that really matters.  Is that where we want to young women to head?  There are many people out there that for whatever the reasons, don’t want to be married.  That is fine and it is a personal choice.  But the underside of this behavior is that you never learn how to bond to someone, everything becomes disposable.  Doesn’t that make it that much harder to make a marriage work?  Marriage is different things to different people.  Each couple has to find their own way and figure out works for them.  But there is no way around this, marriage is a series of compromises.  You can’t have what you want when you want it 100% of the time and expect that marriage to work.  Sometimes your spouse is given a great job offer that requires to you and your family to relocate.  Sometimes you need to get your children into a better school system, sometimes extended family will need assistance that requires you to make some changes to your everyday lives.  These things are going to happen over a period of a marriage and weighing those choices isn’t always easy, but is necessary in order to make the relationship work.  It won’t always be about you.  That is just how it is.

    “I don’t want to go through those changes with you. I want you to have changed and become enough of your own person so that when you meet me, we can have a stable life and be very happy.”

    Her youth and inexperience is showing.  As you age, your ability to be flexible gets harder not easier.  As I said, marriage is a series of compromises.  The older you get the less likely you are to make those compromises.

    “I’m a true feminist,” she added. “I’m a strong woman. I know what I want.”

    At the same time, she didn’t want the number of people she had slept with printed, and she said it was important to her to keep her sexual life separate from her image as a leader at Penn.

    “Ten years from now, no one will remember — I will not remember — who I have slept with,” A. said. “But I will remember, like, my transcript, because it’s still there. I will remember what I did. I will remember my accomplishments and places my name is hung on campus.”

    Really?

    A friend of hers, who attended a nearby college and did have a serious boyfriend, said that she felt as if she were breaking a social taboo. “Am I allowed to find the person that I want to spend the rest of my life with when I’m 19?” she said. “I don’t really know. It feels like I’m not.”

    How sad is it that young women today are made to feel that they are bad people because they are choosing love?

    Another young woman who arrived on campus a virgin says:

    “It’s kind of like a spiral,” she said. “The girls adapt a little bit, because they stop expecting that they’re going to get a boyfriend — because if that’s all you’re trying to do, you’re going to be miserable. But at the same time, they want to, like, have contact with guys.” So they hook up and “try not to get attached.”

    Now, she said, she and her best friend had changed their romantic goals, from finding boyfriends to finding “hookup buddies,” which she described as “a guy that we don’t actually really like his personality, but we think is really attractive and hot and good in bed.”

    One of the points of the article is that young women are driving the hook-up culture because they are strong young women who know what they want.  But do they?  Or have they just accepted that this is reality and stopped looking  for anything else?

    The hook-up culture that seems to be fueled by alcohol also puts young women in the position to be sexually assaulted at higher rates.

    “You go in, and they take you down to a dark basement,” Haley, a blond, pink-cheeked senior, recalled of her first frat parties in freshman year. “There’s girls dancing in the middle, and there’s guys lurking on the sides and then coming and basically pressing their genitals up against you and trying to dance.”

    Dancing like that felt good but dirty, and like a number of girls, Haley said she had to be drunk in order to enjoy it. Women said universally that hookups could not exist without alcohol, because they were for the most part too uncomfortable to pair off with men they did not know well without being drunk. One girl, explaining why her encounters freshman and sophomore year often ended with fellatio, said that usually by the time she got back to a guy’s room, she was starting to sober up and didn’t want to be there anymore, and giving the guy oral sex was an easy way to wrap things up and leave.

    Well doesn’t that sound empowering?  I know that is how I want my sexual experiences to be.

    In November of Haley’s freshman year, a couple of months after her first tentative “Difmos,” or dance-floor makeouts, she went to a party with a boy from her floor. She had too much to drink, and she remembered telling him that she wanted to go home.

    Instead, she said, he took her to his room and had sex with her while she drifted in and out of consciousness. She woke up with her head spinning. The next day, not sure what to think about what had happened, she described the night to her friends as though it were a funny story: I was so drunk, I fell asleep while I was having sex! She played up the moment in the middle of the night when the guy’s roommate poked his head in the room and asked, “Yo, did you score?”

    Only later did Haley begin to think of what had happened as rape — a disturbingly common part of many women’s college experience. In a 2007 survey funded by the Justice Department of 6,800 undergraduates at two big public universities, nearly 14 percent of women said they had been victims of at least one completed sexual assault at college; more than half of the victims said they were incapacitated from drugs or alcohol at the time.

    The close relationship between hooking up and drinking leads to confusion and disagreement about the line between a “bad hookup” and assault. In 2009, 2010 and 2011, 10 to 16 forcible sex offenses were reported annually to campus security as taking place on Penn’s campus or in the immediate neighborhood.

    Sadly many of the young women in this study said that there were following the advice given to them by their moms.  This is what moms want for their daughters?  That is nothing short of tragic.  I know I wouldn’t want my daughter treated that way.

    Paula England, a sociologist at New York University, who led an online survey of 24,000 students at 21 universities called the Online College Social Life Survey, said that women tended to fare much better sexually in relationships than in hookups.

    “Guys don’t seem to care as much about women’s pleasure in the hookup, whereas they do seem to care quite a bit in the relationships,” Dr. England said. By contrast, women “seem to have this idea they’re supposed to be pleasing in both contexts.” In hookups, women were much more likely to give men oral sex than to receive it.

    Part of the reason men aren’t as focused on pleasing women in hookups, Dr. England said, is the lingering sexual double standard, which sometimes causes men to disrespect women precisely for hooking up with them.

    There is judgment from other women, too — two women said they had been rejected from sororities because of their sexual reputations. And technology has made it easier to spread gossip. One woman recalled a guy showing her an e-mail he had received on his fraternity Listserv, in which another guy described having sex with a girl in the bathroom at a club.

    “They’re not afraid to use names,” she said of the men, adding, “I’m sure there’s been a story about me on a Listserv. It happens to everyone.”

    Just lovely huh?  It happens to everyone?  It has never happened to me nor will it.  I don’t give young men a pass in this by any stretch of the imagination.  But this also has become part of the culture today to the point that men have also been conditioned to believe that this behavior is normal and “empowering”, so hey why not.  I hear from feminists all the time that we should be teaching young men to not rape.  Shouldn’t we also be teaching young women not to get to drunk and put yourself in the position that when you don’t have your full capacities that these things are more likely to happen?  Of course men shouldn’t sexually assault women, that is a given.  But we also need to tell young women the dangers of their actions.

    But there is some good news:

    For all the focus on hookups, campuses are not sexual free-for-alls, at Penn or elsewhere. At colleges nationally, by senior year, 4 in 10 students are either virgins or have had intercourse with only one person, according to the Online College Social Life Survey. Nearly 3 in 10 said that they had never had a hookup in college. Meanwhile, 20 percent of women and a quarter of men said they had hooked up with 10 or more people.

    According to one young woman who comes from a less privileged background has this to say:

    Mercedes, a junior at Penn who is on financial aid, said that at her mostly Latino public high school in California, it was the troubled and unmotivated students who drank and hooked up, while the honors students who wanted to go to college kept away from those things.

    When she went to Penn, she was surprised to see her elite classmates drinking, but even more surprised by the casual making out. She would go along with her friends to fraternity parties, but she refused to dance with strangers or to kiss anyone.

    “Sharing that side of myself with a stranger just seems very strange to me,” she said in September. “I mean, if you break it down, it’s a very strange thing to do.”

    Another young woman:

    In Catherine’s view, her classmates tried very hard to separate sex from emotion, because they believed that getting too attached to someone would interfere with their work. They saw a woman’s marrying young as either proof of a lack of ambition or a tragic mistake that would stunt her career.

    But Catherine noted that a handful of young women are starting to question that idea. In an article on Slate titled “Marry Young,” the writer Julia Shaw, who married at 23, said her generation was missing out on the support that young couples could provide each other as they faced the challenges of early adulthood.

    “Marriage wasn’t something we did after we’d grown up, it was how we have grown up and grown together,” she wrote of herself and her husband.

    As a teenager, Catherine had thought she would wait to get married until her late 20s or early 30s. But her college experiences had made her think that she would rather marry young than throw away a good relationship because it wasn’t the right time.

    That might mean having to pass up certain career opportunities, for geographic reasons. But Catherine thought that her peers underestimated how hard it was to find the right person to be with — as hard, perhaps, as finding the right job.

    “People kind of discount” how “difficult it is to find someone that you even remotely like, let alone really fall for,” she said. “And losing that can be just as impractical and harmful to yourself, if not more so, than missing out on a job or something like that. What else do you really have at the end of your life?”

    If behaving like you don’t have emotion is the way to be a good “feminist”, I pass.

     
  • just a conservative girl 2:39 PM on 06/23/2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: european union, labor practices, New York Times, vacation time   

    The Mystery of Why Europe is Broke May Be Solved 

    The EU’s Court of Justice ruled earlier this week that if you happen to become ill during your ‘vacation” days, your employer must simply give you more vacation time.  Insert deep breath here.  This is not a typo, you will be given additional vacation time to make up for the fact that you were ill during your vacation.

    “The purpose of entitlement to paid annual leave is to enable the worker to rest and enjoy a period of relaxation and leisure,” the Court of Justice of the European Union, based in Luxembourg, ruled in a case involving department store workers in Spain.  “The purpose of entitlement to sick leave is different, since it enables a worker to recover from an illness that has caused him to be unfit for work.”

    So, the logical question becomes, what constitutes illness?  Say for instance you cut your foot on a rock while at the beach and spend part of your vacation time getting a doctor to take a look at it, you then can’t go to the beach the next day because it hurts a little.  Do you get the entire week again, or maybe just that day or two?  I used to travel a great deal in my younger days.  Several of those trips were to Mexico.  Every time I was there I met people from the UK.  So, if they drink the water and get an upset tummy they will get another vacation.

    This policy is ripe for abuse and goes a long way in explaining why they have stagnant economies, higher unemployment, and just all around broke.  But hey, they get another vacation day if they get sniffles.   So all’s good.

    This is so backwards that even The New York Times is questioning the wisdom of this policy:

    With much of Europe mired in recession, governments struggling to reduce budget deficits and officials trying to combat high unemployment, the ruling is a reminder of just how hard it is to shake up long-established and legally protected labor practices that make it hard to put more people to work and revive sinking economies.

    Everyone once in a while NYT says something that makes sense.  The more the government interferes with the private sector the more the people suffer in the long run.  The Europeans are not interested in fixing their problems.  This case makes that painfully obvious.  While this policy seems good on the surface, what it has done is make employers less likely to hire.  The more the employee costs, the fewer the private sector will employ.  It is simple math people.

     
    • Don 7:28 PM on 06/23/2012 Permalink | Reply

      Do you think that workers, knowing this policy is the law, will take their vacation, then get “sick” and ask for more vacation time?

      Nah, folks won’t game the system…

      /sarcasm off

    • Drama 8:14 AM on 06/24/2012 Permalink | Reply

      Okay who let the intern put that paragraph on the end of the story? What are you trying to do us, develop readership?

  • just a conservative girl 7:43 PM on 05/23/2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , New York Times, ,   

    Quote of the Day – Jesse Jackson Sr. Edition 

    “I believe his father was very much involved in it and did condone it. The New York Times did a pre-emptive strike.  But, I’m not holding it against his son. Tom has been fair and open. Ever since he’s owned the Cubs, he’s been reaching out.”

    Jesse Jackson on the campaign to smear Joe Ricketts.  Ricketts is a Romney supporter and has funded a Super-Pac to further the cause of Romney being elected president in November.

    How is this man a “man of God”?  Further, how is The New York Times still in business?

    Nothing to see here folks, just move along.  The right is just paranoid idiots for thinking that there is a liberal bias in the media.

     

     
  • Sherry 11:28 AM on 09/11/2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: New York Times, Paul Krugman, , September 11th   

    Paul Krugman is Not Allowing Comments 

    For what he calls obvious reasons.
    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/the-years-of-shame/?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto

    I keep hoping that the Times will issue a note that their site has been hacked.  I hope because I saw a typo, a Te for a The, that the whole thing is a scam to yank the chains of Red State America, a prank by some lowlife who will use a Columnist with a history of being liberal, to promote an agenda that is hatefully so. 

    But so far, it is a benefit of the doubt that I have a hard time extending.  This is the New York Times after all, and even if it was a prank, there is the possibility that the tenor and sentiment expressed is not disagreed with, that those with the power to pull such a piece, do not find the entire piece disagreeable.  After all, he called President George W. Bush a fake hero and declare that the neo-cons wanted to fight an unrelated war that September 11th gave opportunity to begin. That’s classic NYT boiler plate.

    The spaghetti slam of others without names, “How many of our professional pundits — people who should have understood very well what was happening — took the easy way out, turning a blind eye to the corruption and lending their support to the hijacking of the atrocity?” and the demand that we agree that this day is now a day of shame followed by the duck and cover of not allowing comments make me wonder what he actually believes happened on that sunny Tuesday that became so other than the morning had promised. 

    By contrast, President Bush spoke yesterday at Shanksville. (I guess Krugman thinks he was cashing in by being there). He said, “One of the lessons of 9-11 is that evil is real and so is courage.”  That for me is the take away knowledge from that day, the reality that must be kept in our hearts along with the names and stories of those lost.

    Mayor Guiliani and President Bush both acted as leaders on that day, whatever the avant guards of fashionable thought in Hollywood or New York might think or have come to think afterwards.  Krugman also throws in Bernie Kerik into the mix as as one of those who made September 11th about them.   What any of these three men did beyond September 11th, good, bad and otherwise, does not change what they did On September 11th, which was brave, hard and good.  

    Maybe Krugman needs to get out of the city a bit more often, but most recognize September 11th was not about these three men, not even close.  I would submit that even most New York Times reading New Yorkers know that as well. 

    Looking at the nation, Red, Blue or otherwise, the people on the streets, in the parades and even on the televison don’t seem to be politicizing September 11th.  They seem to be recalling the events of that day, not packing it with politics that came afterwards.

    Most of us remember the day for what it was, and not as Krugman demands that we acknowledge. There is no shame, no atrocity in recalling that day, whatever mistakes, human, political, personal, public, nationally and internationally that may or may not have followed.    

    As for falseness and phoniness, Paul Krugman may consider himself courageous for posting this piece but I don’t.  Throwing that emotional molotov cocktail of trash out onto the internet and running off to congratulate himself, he may feel secure because no one can talk back.  Most people call such tactics those of a coward and a bully.  On the internet, it is the standard operating procedure of a troll.  

    Krugman may well consider September 11, 2011 a day of shame, when the conscience of a Liberal at least in his case, was shown to be so very small.  He has used the date to batter his readers who cannot respond because of his choices, to advance a rage that has nothing to do with the celebrations and memorials of the day. 

    But I will give him one point.  He claims the events are subdued.  He’s correct in that, no First Responders or Clergy that might remind us of the reality of that day,(rather than the ideological wars that have begun since then), were invited.  If he is complaining about no “real heroes,” perhaps he should stop looking across the political aisle and offer up some food for thought to the powers that be that organized the Ground Zero event.  Perhaps he should save some of that vitriol for those trying to use today’s services to advance their future career, (Hello Bloomberg?) rather than politicians that are not currently in charge, much less proclaiming themselves heroes of September 11th.

    For the rest of us, September 11, 2011 is a time to remember September 11, 2001.  Ten years or twenty years, fourty or 100, September 11th, 2001 was a day America was attacked, 2,819 people were killed and all of us became linked by the pain, the reality, the scars of that day.  It is a day we set aside to remember those that died fighting those who plan such things as September 11th, and those who died because of those who planned September 11th.  

    If Krugman truely wants to honor those hurt by September 11th, perhaps he should practice in his own life, what he has demanded of his readers of this column, and in the future, Not allow himself to comment for obvious reasons.

     
    • zillaoftheresistance 11:47 AM on 09/11/2011 Permalink | Reply

      If that smarmy bastard allowed comments, I would say to him something much like what is posted at doupbleplusundead, here:
      http://doubleplusundead.com/2011/09/11/dear-paul-krugman/
      but I would not be so restrained and polite.

    • just a conservative girl 3:02 PM on 09/11/2011 Permalink | Reply

      A few comments if I might.
      His last sentance is that in its heart the nation knows it is true. If that were the case there wouldn’t be an obvious reason to not have comments.
      I disagree with the NYT pulling this down. This needs to be shown and shown often. This is the mindset of the liberal left who want nothing more than to whitewash history.
      And lastly – anyone with a “conscience” would not publish something like this on a day like today when people are mourning the loss of a child, a spouse, a parent, a sibling, and think of all that they have not shared with this person for the past ten years.

    • Sherry 8:24 AM on 09/12/2011 Permalink | Reply

      Zilla, I cracked up. And Just a Conservative Girl, you are so right that if we actually were sympathetic to Mr. Krugman’s views, he’d have opened the comment section to receive the heaps o’ praise that would have come his way.

  • Sherry 7:30 PM on 03/28/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , New York Times   

    and I know it’s Frank Rich but the idea that the only reason anyone is upset at anything in the healthcare bill is either 1) they want to gin up support for their political campaign (machiavellian Rove type maneuvers of the political class) or 2) they are hayseed rednecks who have a visceral hatred of anyone different than them is a destructive and frankly terribly limited way to think about the American people. It’s dismissive of all criticism as motivated by the very worst of human emotions.

    People take offense and rightly so to being called bigots and racists because they oppose healthcare.

    The 2,700 page bill has many things one should oppose: funding abortion, mandatory enrollment, IRS being given an expanded role of power to enforce. These are troubling things that deserve some reflection and consideration and maybe even criticism. Some of us think a bill with such unseemly large pork payoffs to Democratic friends and allies is a bad thing, an escalation in the pay for votes method of making law that corrupts the representative process by making the most powerful legislator not the most ethical but the one that holds out and then flips to get the biggest piece of pork pie. People also worry that a 1.3 Trillion dollar deficit might not be something we could overcome as a nation and the Democratic hegemony that is in charge is running forward writing checks as if nothing has happened or will happen. These are all legitimate reasons to be upset with the government that have nothing at all to do with the President’s race or Barney Frank’s proclivities or Nancy Pelosi’s gender. They don’t come up. They’re irrelevant.

    To be dismissed by the writers of the media and the political ruling class as idiots because we don’t entirely agree….well that should make us mad. It is meant to insult and to silence. Shut up or you are a racist. Shut up or you are a bigot. Shut up or you are declared an idiot. Shut up or you will be eviscerated publicly as we did Sarah Palin and her family. Shut up or we will destroy you with words and make the world hate you.

    I guess the best we can say in response is, we’ve been warned.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28rich.html?ref=opinion

     
    • fuzislippers 12:30 AM on 03/29/2010 Permalink | Reply

      The Alinsky-style demonization and ridicule tactic isn’t working as they intended. With every attack, our numbers grow. The world does not hate us, and in fact, is fast-realizing that BO is an absolute disaster who is undermining world peace, including that in his own country. He’s fast becoming an object of global ridicule, except by tyrants like Castro and Chavez (and this, of course, causes many an eyebrow to raise the world over).

      The crazy left here at home, however, do believe all the lies spewed, but how long will that go on? How long will our fellow countrymen and women willfully ignore their own two eyes and ears?

c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel