We have all seen our fill of hippies and to go this way is a red herring. The point at hand and what I don't understand is where the "lack of morals" idea comes from.
Some thoughts:
1 - Perceptions have consequences because we act upon what we perceive/believe to be true. If one gives off the appearance of being amoral, he will probably be treated as amoral.
2 - Moral relativism. It all depends upon what you (or anyone) perceive to be moral. Some of the groups that associate with the left (gays, pro-choice, legalize pot, whatever...) are considered to be amoral by others. However, to call someone that supports traditional marriage and family amoral is silly. On the other hand, the Right certainly has its share of wickedness (Enron and their ilk).
My point was the propensity for folks to try things outside of their comfort area is higher when they are exposed to different cultures on a more regular basis. You took it in a very negative light as if there is something wrong with or someone is attacking meat and potatoes.
This is what you said:
Why is it "conservatives" turn up their nose at a suggestion to get Indian food and the "liberals" are all for it?
The tone is such that you are saying that Conservatives are somehow prejudiced against foreign food, while the Liberals are free of this prejudice. Now... Step back and look at your sentence.... You have made generalization and a stereotype, in your attempt to say that Conservatives are generalizing and stereotyping ("all foreign food is bad because it's foreign").
As a side note, to not extend curtesies because someone won't recipricate 100% is not how I choose to operate. (He won't eat my hamburger, so I won't eat his chickpeas.)
I never said that, and never implied that either. My point was that it's OK not to like food, no matter where it comes from. It doesn't have to mean that someone isn't "culturally enlightened" or anything. Sheesh... I don't like seafood, but all it means it that I don't like seafood, not that I have a prejudice against fishermen.
A few angry feminist professors do not speak for the whole. Also, this is in your experience and I might argue that experience is 50% reality and 50% perception. Perhaps insecurities and attitudes can effect ones experience on campus be it in a positive or negative light. Perhaps as a white male you felt attacked.
“Felt” attacked?!? If her diatribes had been directed at any other group with the same amount of hatred, she would have been booted from campus.
I would think it a shame if you were to take this negative experience and create a prejudice in your head. I see that as no different that being racist based on the fact that once a black person stole something from you.
Now you’re calling me prejudiced, and even trying to drag racist into the accusation. Nice try, jackhole. Funny, I mention negative racial attitudes against white males and you attempt to turn it around to accuse me of being the racist. Real cute.
That was that one person, not the whole race. I hope you have not chosen to look at all of academia based on one person or a subset.
Cut the sanctimonious crap. Of course I’ve got other teachers that don’t drag their personal doctrine into the classroom. I try not to stereotype and generalize; maybe you should try the same.
As a side note, how is it that "traditional nuclear American values" are the right and only values that should be taken into account?
Again with the moral relativism. My opinion: man and a woman make a baby and raise said baby together, both contributed to the balanced development that comes from having both a masculine and feminine influence.
How is that a flawless sytem that should not be examined and reconstructed if necessary?
Ummm… If it’s flawless (your words, not mine), why destroy it?
