Originally Posted by Piobaire
I could have extended my list but it really only needed the one example, often used by the right wing dunderheads, to demonstrate your argument was exactly the same formulation as theirs. Merely because members of a certain group reach high levels does not mean prejudiced against said group does not exist. Women now equal or exceed men in the number of people admitted to medical and law schools. Are you going to say this is proof women now have it made?
1) The black racism / Obama example is a false equivalence because it's the case of taking an exceptional success and pretending that it's reflective of the whole. I.e., the shit that the mouth-breathing segment of the Right loves to trot out disingenuously. 2) The example of women in med schools and law schools is stupid because admitted graduate students are not in a position of power or prestige. They are low on the totem pole. Come back to me when there are near equal numbers of female faculty and high-level administrators at law schools & med schools (as well as partners at law firms and doctors in supervisory roles at hospitals). When that happens, then yes, I'll believe that the problem of sexism has largely--not completely, of course--been eradicated in those particular fields. 1 + 2) That's why I went out of my way to point out that Jewish academics are well represented in faculty positions across the board as well as prestigious roles. Of course, you still have to go to your bullshit mode of fake cleverness.
I've merely put forth my opinion, one that does not reflect well on your world, and you've taken exception with it. It's human nature so I get that.
Spare me the wise man bullshit. I'm not knee-jerk defending my own profession. There are lots and lots of valid critiques of academia and I happen to enjoy them. I don't enjoy sweeping, uninformed generalizations about my profession. Especially when they're based on a false premise (critical of Israel = anti-semitic) that's explicitly disavowed but still at the center of the whole position.
Additionally, as Teger has described one can be of Jewish ethnicity and survive, even thrive, in the academy as long as the correct views are espoused.
Oh yes, back to Teger. One of your two primary sources of evidence.
Let's face it, the left has always been ambivalent about Jewishness. Not Jews, these days anyway, but Jewishness.
Let's face it, you're uninformed. If you actually wanted to learn, I could show you a wealth of scholarship on Jewishness--and not just Jewishness in and of itself but Jewishness as it relates to and informs seemingly goyish topics like my own field of study--and how such scholarship and the scholars who carry it out are valued in the profession, win prizes, get funded through a wide range of sources. . Shockingly enough, I myself dabble in writing and publishing about such topics. But none of this matters to you since all you want to do is spout off.
Yes, there are lots of important and interesting discussion to be had about the complex, even vexed role of Jewishness within version of Leftist thinking--a role that's partly bequeathed from what Jewishness represents to Christianity (i.e., the kernel of particularity that helps to energize a certain mode of universalism even while resisting it). But you don't want to have this kind of meaningful conversation, and at any rate, this is a fucking Donald Trump thread.