University of Alabama - “ peak neo-antebellum white Southern culture” - NYT

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her point was the upholding of traditional power structures. I get that some of you have issues with other things she said, but her main point was that traditional sororities in the south uphold the white power structure with a side of patriarchy and diversity efforts would just be window dressing.

It is not deep. It is nothing to take personally. I say this as a blonde white woman who loves lulu and makeup and being tan and was in a sorority. This author isn't wrong, even if you don't like how she said it.

You say her main point is that traditional sororities uphold the white power structure, but she herself says the sorority doesn't have the power to confer, they just "brand." Try as I might to find one, I don't see an actual argument in the article explaining how sororities at Alabama "uphold" or even "brand" white power ("white power" isn't used in the essay, much less defined). It's more like a narrative that I would expect to be shared between people who have already decided they simply don't like predominantly white sororities. I'm not a fan or sororities or fraternities. I advised my kids to avoid them if they ended up at schools with them because of the time drain; they ended up at schools that don't even have them. But I don't fault people for wanting to join them if that's their thing, and I haven't read a clear description of how they are an instrument of white power. It's ironic she mentions Faulkner, cause the whole thing just comes off as a bunch of sound and fury to me. The essay might have more of the desired impact if it talked in objective and quantifiable terms about how Black rushees are being turned away at a higher rate than white ones and how belonging to those same sororities impacts "power" outcome in some measurable way. An anecdote about a biracial rushee getting less attention than her (already initiated??) sisters is just an anecdote. I would've thought an essay making such bold claims from a PhD in social science would be rooted in hard statistics, not arm-wavy narration.

+100. Frankly, it's so free of data, and so couched in emotional dog whistles about shiny blond hair, that it comes off as racist and misogynistic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She has clearly hit a nerve.

She is an idiot. People react to idiots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her point was the upholding of traditional power structures. I get that some of you have issues with other things she said, but her main point was that traditional sororities in the south uphold the white power structure with a side of patriarchy and diversity efforts would just be window dressing.

It is not deep. It is nothing to take personally. I say this as a blonde white woman who loves lulu and makeup and being tan and was in a sorority. This author isn't wrong, even if you don't like how she said it.

You say her main point is that traditional sororities uphold the white power structure, but she herself says the sorority doesn't have the power to confer, they just "brand." Try as I might to find one, I don't see an actual argument in the article explaining how sororities at Alabama "uphold" or even "brand" white power ("white power" isn't used in the essay, much less defined). It's more like a narrative that I would expect to be shared between people who have already decided they simply don't like predominantly white sororities. I'm not a fan or sororities or fraternities. I advised my kids to avoid them if they ended up at schools with them because of the time drain; they ended up at schools that don't even have them. But I don't fault people for wanting to join them if that's their thing, and I haven't read a clear description of how they are an instrument of white power. It's ironic she mentions Faulkner, cause the whole thing just comes off as a bunch of sound and fury to me. The essay might have more of the desired impact if it talked in objective and quantifiable terms about how Black rushees are being turned away at a higher rate than white ones and how belonging to those same sororities impacts "power" outcome in some measurable way. An anecdote about a biracial rushee getting less attention than her (already initiated??) sisters is just an anecdote. I would've thought an essay making such bold claims from a PhD in social science would be rooted in hard statistics, not arm-wavy narration.

+100. Frankly, it's so free of data, and so couched in emotional dog whistles about shiny blond hair, that it comes off as racist and misogynistic.

+200

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her point was the upholding of traditional power structures. I get that some of you have issues with other things she said, but her main point was that traditional sororities in the south uphold the white power structure with a side of patriarchy and diversity efforts would just be window dressing.

It is not deep. It is nothing to take personally. I say this as a blonde white woman who loves lulu and makeup and being tan and was in a sorority. This author isn't wrong, even if you don't like how she said it.

Nobody doubts there's a white patriarchy in Alabama. Or even that bottle blonds probably do better in the marriage stakes, money- and power-wise at least, than frumpy whites or minorities.

It's just that Cottom didn't even try to demonstrate that the white patriarchy is working through a few white sororities. To demonstrate this, Cottom needs to document discrimination that keeps blacks away from these alleged centers of power. But Cottom doesn't even allege discrimination, let alone try to document it with facts or even anecdotes. In fact any "discrimination" argument is undermined by the fact that most black women probably aren't interested in these white sororities.

Cottom also doesn't bother to articulate reasons for her "diversity would be window dressing" argument. Can we guess at what Cottom was getting at here? Because of conformity and low career ambitions among white sorority sisters (exclusively)?

Cottom contradicts the whole "power structures" thesis by pointing out, repeatedly, that lots of these women just want to find a husband. Even Cottom argues many of these white women don't want to take over the power structures themselves.

So I come back to the fact that this is a really incoherent piece. And this is why lots of us suspect that Cottom is just going after white women... because she can? Because Karening is accepted by many these days?

friend, she is writing a piece of cultural criticism for the NYT. not a brief for a discrimination lawsuit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her point was the upholding of traditional power structures. I get that some of you have issues with other things she said, but her main point was that traditional sororities in the south uphold the white power structure with a side of patriarchy and diversity efforts would just be window dressing.

It is not deep. It is nothing to take personally. I say this as a blonde white woman who loves lulu and makeup and being tan and was in a sorority. This author isn't wrong, even if you don't like how she said it.

Nobody doubts there's a white patriarchy in Alabama. Or even that bottle blonds probably do better in the marriage stakes, money- and power-wise at least, than frumpy whites or minorities.

It's just that Cottom didn't even try to demonstrate that the white patriarchy is working through a few white sororities. To demonstrate this, Cottom needs to document discrimination that keeps blacks away from these alleged centers of power. But Cottom doesn't even allege discrimination, let alone try to document it with facts or even anecdotes. In fact any "discrimination" argument is undermined by the fact that most black women probably aren't interested in these white sororities.

Cottom also doesn't bother to articulate reasons for her "diversity would be window dressing" argument. Can we guess at what Cottom was getting at here? Because of conformity and low career ambitions among white sorority sisters (exclusively)?

Cottom contradicts the whole "power structures" thesis by pointing out, repeatedly, that lots of these women just want to find a husband. Even Cottom argues many of these white women don't want to take over the power structures themselves.

So I come back to the fact that this is a really incoherent piece. And this is why lots of us suspect that Cottom is just going after white women... because she can? Because Karening is accepted by many these days?

friend, she is writing a piece of cultural criticism for the NYT. not a brief for a discrimination lawsuit.

And you'd say exactly the same thing if she happened to be white, giving her opinion about black sororities. Right? No biggie.
DP

[Anonymous]

So, basically you think she was being a meanie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her point was the upholding of traditional power structures. I get that some of you have issues with other things she said, but her main point was that traditional sororities in the south uphold the white power structure with a side of patriarchy and diversity efforts would just be window dressing.

It is not deep. It is nothing to take personally. I say this as a blonde white woman who loves lulu and makeup and being tan and was in a sorority. This author isn't wrong, even if you don't like how she said it.

Nobody doubts there's a white patriarchy in Alabama. Or even that bottle blonds probably do better in the marriage stakes, money- and power-wise at least, than frumpy whites or minorities.

It's just that Cottom didn't even try to demonstrate that the white patriarchy is working through a few white sororities. To demonstrate this, Cottom needs to document discrimination that keeps blacks away from these alleged centers of power. But Cottom doesn't even allege discrimination, let alone try to document it with facts or even anecdotes. In fact any "discrimination" argument is undermined by the fact that most black women probably aren't interested in these white sororities.

Cottom also doesn't bother to articulate reasons for her "diversity would be window dressing" argument. Can we guess at what Cottom was getting at here? Because of conformity and low career ambitions among white sorority sisters (exclusively)?

Cottom contradicts the whole "power structures" thesis by pointing out, repeatedly, that lots of these women just want to find a husband. Even Cottom argues many of these white women don't want to take over the power structures themselves.

So I come back to the fact that this is a really incoherent piece. And this is why lots of us suspect that Cottom is just going after white women... because she can? Because Karening is accepted by many these days?

friend, she is writing a piece of cultural criticism for the NYT. not a brief for a discrimination lawsuit.

finally somebody says it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her point was the upholding of traditional power structures. I get that some of you have issues with other things she said, but her main point was that traditional sororities in the south uphold the white power structure with a side of patriarchy and diversity efforts would just be window dressing.

It is not deep. It is nothing to take personally. I say this as a blonde white woman who loves lulu and makeup and being tan and was in a sorority. This author isn't wrong, even if you don't like how she said it.

Nobody doubts there's a white patriarchy in Alabama. Or even that bottle blonds probably do better in the marriage stakes, money- and power-wise at least, than frumpy whites or minorities.

It's just that Cottom didn't even try to demonstrate that the white patriarchy is working through a few white sororities. To demonstrate this, Cottom needs to document discrimination that keeps blacks away from these alleged centers of power. But Cottom doesn't even allege discrimination, let alone try to document it with facts or even anecdotes. In fact any "discrimination" argument is undermined by the fact that most black women probably aren't interested in these white sororities.

Cottom also doesn't bother to articulate reasons for her "diversity would be window dressing" argument. Can we guess at what Cottom was getting at here? Because of conformity and low career ambitions among white sorority sisters (exclusively)?

Cottom contradicts the whole "power structures" thesis by pointing out, repeatedly, that lots of these women just want to find a husband. Even Cottom argues many of these white women don't want to take over the power structures themselves.

So I come back to the fact that this is a really incoherent piece. And this is why lots of us suspect that Cottom is just going after white women... because she can? Because Karening is accepted by many these days?

friend, she is writing a piece of cultural criticism for the NYT. not a brief for a discrimination lawsuit.

DP. The more serious the allegation the more important to back it up meaningfully. She made a lot of sensational claims that reflect very poorly on the members of those sororities, if not the entire university, but she did almost nothing to support the claims with real evidence. There was a time when journalistic expectations were much higher, especially at the NYT. I don’t think the lazy insults help her cause. Underneath all the subjective nonsense it’s possible there’s a valid point or two, but, even if so, she’s turning off people who don’t already agree with such a biased and poorly reasoned presentation.

[Anonymous]

What she really should have referenced was this documentary: The Machine: Vivat Apparatus which you can watch for free on Tubi. This is scary as hell and I now understand where this writer is coming from. University of Alabama should be ashamed. It is quite shocking that a university would allow this to continue. They really ought to abolish these fraternities and sororities. It's truly disgusting that these organizations are allowed to persist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her point was the upholding of traditional power structures. I get that some of you have issues with other things she said, but her main point was that traditional sororities in the south uphold the white power structure with a side of patriarchy and diversity efforts would just be window dressing.

It is not deep. It is nothing to take personally. I say this as a blonde white woman who loves lulu and makeup and being tan and was in a sorority. This author isn't wrong, even if you don't like how she said it.

Nobody doubts there's a white patriarchy in Alabama. Or even that bottle blonds probably do better in the marriage stakes, money- and power-wise at least, than frumpy whites or minorities.

It's just that Cottom didn't even try to demonstrate that the white patriarchy is working through a few white sororities. To demonstrate this, Cottom needs to document discrimination that keeps blacks away from these alleged centers of power. But Cottom doesn't even allege discrimination, let alone try to document it with facts or even anecdotes. In fact any "discrimination" argument is undermined by the fact that most black women probably aren't interested in these white sororities.

Cottom also doesn't bother to articulate reasons for her "diversity would be window dressing" argument. Can we guess at what Cottom was getting at here? Because of conformity and low career ambitions among white sorority sisters (exclusively)?

Cottom contradicts the whole "power structures" thesis by pointing out, repeatedly, that lots of these women just want to find a husband. Even Cottom argues many of these white women don't want to take over the power structures themselves.

So I come back to the fact that this is a really incoherent piece. And this is why lots of us suspect that Cottom is just going after white women... because she can? Because Karening is accepted by many these days?

friend, she is writing a piece of cultural criticism for the NYT. not a brief for a discrimination lawsuit.

Friend, she’s writing for the NYT, not for the Asheville Citizen-Times. If she’s going to make sensational and insulting claims, her feels aren’t enough, she needs to work a little harder to undergird them with at least some facts and analysis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What she really should have referenced was this documentary: The Machine: Vivat Apparatus which you can watch for free on Tubi. This is scary as hell and I now understand where this writer is coming from. University of Alabama should be ashamed. It is quite shocking that a university would allow this to continue. They really ought to abolish these fraternities and sororities. It's truly disgusting that these organizations are allowed to persist.

Golly. If only Cottom had established an actual connection between these white sororities and The Machine. Something meaningful about the women's specific role in this power, not that they just want to marry the guys. Or if only Cottom had written about The Machine instead.

But she didn't. Next.

[Anonymous]

Folks we want get facts and analysis with our fluffy opinion pieces. Cant get by without them facts and analyses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Folks we want get facts and analysis with our fluffy opinion pieces. Cant get by without them facts and analyses.

This, basically. It's the minimum I expect from The NY Times when the allegations are actually serious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Folks we want get facts and analysis with our fluffy opinion pieces. Cant get by without them facts and analyses.

This, basically. It's the minimum I expect from The NY Times when the allegations are actually serious.

Mercury’s in Scorpio - Oooooops I forgot to give facts and analysis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Folks we want get facts and analysis with our fluffy opinion pieces. Cant get by without them facts and analyses.

So your new line is… Cottom gets the wonderful opportunity to write for a prestigious newspaper with a huge circulation, the newspaper of record… and she writes a piece that’s deliberately ridiculous and says things she doesn’t believe herself.

That’s really sad.