The Conference Radcliffe Wouldn’t Hold?
Posted on April 11th, 2008 in Uncategorized | 8 Comments »
That’s how Harvey Mansfield is advertising his conference on “feminism” (who knows what that word means anymore, and Mansfield is probably using it ironically anyway). As the Crimson reports, The oft-controversial Government professor and author of the book “Manliness” is hosting, of all things, a feminism conference. The poster for the event bills it as “The Conference the Radcliffe Institute Didn’t Want to Host” and, though the event is free, promises that “ladies receive an additional 50% off.” In the tradition of Bill Buckley, there’s something a little immature about all this—the 50% off joke, for example—but there’s also something worthwhile in trying to figure out whether the claim that Radcliffe wouldn’t host a conference of “conservative”(another essentially meaningless label) feminists is true.Why? Because before she was president of Harvard, Drew Faust was dean of the Radcliffe Institute, and if she wouldn’t host such a conference, it suggests something about her. Like what? Perhaps that her politics in this area are more important to her than open intellectual debate. Or that she knew such a conference would alienate her base of support within the university. Or that she didn’t think the people involved were particularly intellectually meaningful. On the other hand, Mansfield could just be making it up to stir the pot; he himself spoke on the subject of “Manliness” with Nancy Cott at Radcliffe in, I think, 2003. Not his finest hour—Mansfield was on pretty shaky ground with that whole “manliness” argument, which was not intellectually serious.
8 Responses
4/11/2024 9:29 am
Since it is not currently 1985, neither this event nor this post is interesting. In fact just reading about it makes me want to go pour Lysol into my cerebrospinal column.
4/11/2024 9:32 am
SE,
Again with the Lysol? That stuff can’t be helping….
RIchard
4/11/2024 9:42 am
What happens when you pour Lysol into the cerebrospinal column? Is it worse than pouring it into your ear, or on top of your head?
Don’t tell me SE is a doctor besides all else.
4/11/2024 9:55 am
It is indeed both better and worse than pouring it on top of your head.
Mostly worse.
But you feel cleaner.
4/11/2024 2:21 pm
Agreed, SE, and save some for me. Camille Paglia is still in circulation?
4/11/2024 7:50 pm
Some alcoholics have been reported to use Lysol as a beverage owing to its alcohol content. In some jurisdictions laws have been passed prohibiting the sale of this and similar products to a person whom the seller believes is likely to use the product as a beverage. [1]
Aboriginals communities in Canada have faced problems regarding Lysol ingestion among poorer communities as hardware and general stores are often open longer hours than liquor stores. In addition, Lysol has a much lower price tag than comparable alcohols. This practice is comparable to petrol sniffing and paint huffing. - from Lysol (cleaner) - Wikipedia
-Uh, yuck, SE.
4/13/2008 12:46 am
Wow: Skocpol throws Clinton under the bus! J.M. Marshall writes:
Anyone who knows TS’s “Boomerang” will find this a remarkable moment.
Theda Skocpol writes in …
I have been in meetings with the Clintons and their advisors where very clinical things were said in a very-detached tone about unwillingness of working class voters to trust government — and Bill Clinton — and about their unfortunate (from a Clinton perspective) proclivity to vote on life-style rather than economic issues. To see Hillary going absolutely over the top to smash Obama for making clearly more humanly sympathetic observations in this vein, is just amazing. Even more so to see her pretending to be a gun-toting non-elite. Give us a break!
I wonder if she realizes that gaining a few days of lurid publicity that might reach a slice of voters is going to cost her a great deal in the regard of many Democrats, whose strong support she will need if she somehow claws her way to the nomination — and even more so if she does not clinch the nomination. The distribution of “we’re not bitter” stickers to her campaign rallies is the height of over-the-top crudity, and the reports are that very few audience members seem to have much enthusiasm for this nonsense. Not surprisingly, people cannot see the reasons for so much fuss.
Yes, she wants a big break, she desperately wants the nomination she and Bill believe is hers by right. We all know that. But where is her authenticity and her dignity and her sense of any proportion?
This has to be one of the few times in U.S. political history when a multi-millionaire has accused a much less wealthy fellow public servant, a person of the same party and views who made much less lucrative career choices, of “elitism”! (I won’t say the only time, because U.S. political history is full of absurdities of this sort.) In a way, it is funny — and it may not be long before the jokes start.
4/13/2008 1:14 am
And try a sampling of these for another side of HC:
http://tammybruce.com/2007/02/hillary_in_her_own.php