Writes Daphne Merkin in a NYT op-ed.
I don't quite get it. The stories of rape and sexual harassment that have been making the news are not of women "who helplessly acquiesce to sexual demands." We're hearing of women who have said things like "I’m not interested" and "Get your hands off me right now" and have "taken the risk that comes with it," and they've lost out. Their advancement was impaired and presumably other women got advantages. And I would not say that those other women — who are not coming forward — just "helplessly acquiesce[d] to sexual demands." You don't know what was in their mind. They may have self-helpingly acquiesced. That's agency too.
Other parts of this op-ed make more sense:
And what exactly are men being accused of? What is the difference between harassment and assault and “inappropriate conduct”?... I think this confusion reflects a deeper ambivalence about how we want and expect people to behave. Expressing sexual interest is inherently messy and, frankly, nonconsensual... whether it happens at work or at a bar. Some are now suggesting that come-ons need to be constricted to a repressive degree. Asking for oral consent before proceeding with a sexual advance seems both innately clumsy and retrograde, like going back to the childhood game of “Mother, May I?” We are witnessing the re-moralization of sex, not via the Judeo-Christian ethos but via a legalistic, corporate consensus.
पोस्ट्स
६९ टिप्पण्या:
Maybe most of this goo is happening because there are so many out of work lawyers.
The "Feminists" are trying to rewrite the laws of nature.
They might succeed in screwing up things for normal women while they are at it.
Maybe they should read, "Men on Strike."
That's a great op-ed in the NYT.
Except for the next-to-last paragraph, which made me think French Revolution.
Other than that, it's very good. And kind of amazing to see in the NYT. Liberal in the classical sense, it's like a breath of fresh air.
I don't quite get it.
To give one example…
"I'm on the phone, and he's masturbating on the other end, I know he is, and I'm standing there listening, and he's so powerful, I can't hang up. I can't hang up! Why can't I hang up?"
It’s all coming to pass as I predicted. Democrats being raked over the coals they’ve raked normal Americans over for the past 30 years is finally going to lead to some changes in culture and hopefully policy.
As the writer acknowledges: Human sexuality is messy and impossible to legislate beyond firm boundaries like forcible touching/rape.
Writes Daphne Merkin in a NYT op-ed.
Daphne Merkin?
Har!
What happened? Perhaps it was just some women doing what some women have always done, and will always do.
“No I'm sorry, I need affirmative consent. I'll need you say 'Yes you may take me upstairs and crush my pussy at this time.'”
Ass-kissers get ahead, but its to a job that requires ass-kissing.
Find a play-for-pay entry level job and get good at it.
You made a comment early when this stuff started happening that the passes and wolf whistles would discredit the serious assault accusations.
And here we have it.
This is setting up a system where who is powerless gets shifted around, but the powerful just do whatever they want. The intrusive HR approach ends up being signalling.
not via the Judeo-Christian ethos but via a legalistic, corporate consensus.
That's it's coming from the Progs is karma since they broke it.
The new Puritans.
It's so amusingl
Women found Pro-Choice, selective, opportunistic, and congruent. Female chauvinists threw women, men, and babies off the cliff, for the Choice: political, social, and financial progress.
"To give one example… "I'm on the phone, and he's masturbating on the other end, I know he is, and I'm standing there listening, and he's so powerful, I can't hang up. I can't hang up! Why can't I hang up?""
That I get.
I believe these women were clinging to the hope of advancement through access to Louis CK. He was exacting a price for his help in the business and they were reluctant to end the potential opportunity. They were not helpless, in this interpretation (which could be wrong), they were still thinking of helping themselves by putting up with his boorishness and getting something for their trouble. They may have thought if I don't tolerate this, some other woman will, and she will get the career advancement that I want.
The larger movement is about changing the structure of all of this, so that women are not put in this predicament. The change has basically already happened, because the men now have a vastly different picture of the price that THEY pay in an arrangement like this.
Daphne Merkin. Tee hee hee...
Friendship with "benefits".
Social liberals targeted adolescent and prepubescent children for sexual education and transgender conversion therapy. They sexualized boys and girls, and the relationships between men and girls, women and boys, men and boys, women and girls, and offered Planned Parenthood to cover-up/clean-up and STD treatments for all.
Then, feminists painted with broad, sweeping strokes, just like the diversity racket that promoted racism, sexism, etc. (i.e. judgement by "color of skin").
How about this?
"Maybe 20 or 25 years ago I recorded on VHS tape a comedy set by a very funny Southern comic named Blake Clark. He had one bit I particularly liked that I will paraphrase badly now: “A man goes into a bank to rob it. He is captured on security tape IN the bank. There are several witnesses IN the bank who can identify him. The teller has hit the silent alarm. The robber comes out of the bank and is arrested… WITH the gun and the loot. And in the evening’s news report, the media calls him … ‘the SUSPECT.’” Who, of course, has been advised by his lawyer to plead “Not Guilty.”
This hypothetical bank robber caught in broad daylight with a mountain of evidence has far more rights than any man accused of sexual assault, sexual harassment, touching, or “making a woman ‘uncomfortable’,” itself apparently a brand new crime. Being “comfortable” is now a God-given legal right – evidently just for women — along with life, liberty and the pursuit of publicity. Who knew?
And how is a man described who has any of the above sex charges flung at him? CREDIBLY ACCUSED. What a charming new weasel phrase THAT is. “Credible” to whom?"
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/01/thoughts-from-the-ammo-line-200.php
I wonder how many times Louis CK stayed on the phone when he was a young wannabe, listening to famous comedians masturbating, hoping for that big break.
The "Feminists" are trying to rewrite the laws of nature.
Yes, evolution, or chaos, for one. So they can have their fun, and cannibalize it, too.
They are also trying to rewrite history, excusing their progressive bigotry. It's the same thing that is happening with the Press's conduct of a witch hunt in a cover-up for Obama spying, DNC denying, and Clinton colluding. There is a kernel of truth, but the story lies beneath the veil of privacy.
The Girl With The Tattoos And The Streaked Hair From A Bottle hasn't been at the bar lately. I don't think it's because she found a job: we would've heard the good news. She would've come in to celebrate. No, I think it is probably the lack of money that comes from being out of work. Maybe depression, too. A lack of money and depression often are travel partners. And they sleep on your couch.
As I had mentioned previously, she quit her last job because her ex-boss was pressuring her to have sex with him. The Woman With The Smart Wardrobe has mentioned before that she has had bosses making coarse invitations to her; she is the type to tell someone firmly to Fuck Off.She does not see a need for candy-coating, which is refreshing: it can't always be candy.
Of course, when you work in a job with a Human Resources Department there are options in handling such situations: there is back-up, there is a threat to the assholes. Bars generally don't have HR Departments; much of the time the boss is the owner. All roads lead to Rome, and your problem is with the chief Roman.
The smaller the business the less protections are available. We hear about the sexual harassment of the Rich and Famous, and that is sad; but sexual harassment when you are Poor and a Nobody -- that is sadder. Meanwhile, The Girl With The Tattoos And The Streaked Hair From A Bottle is probably at home, eating Top Ramen and watching a Comfort Movie she has seen many times before.
And she is probably sleeping on the couch.
Because sometimes getting to bed in the bedroom just seems like too much effort.
- james james
Women's agency was denied when feminists placed conception before Choice. We've been on a progressive slope ever since. So, it's understandable that some, more women feel compelled to go along to get along.
If women choose to prostitute themselves for advancement in their careers, let them. But we don't want to hear them whining about it later.
I believe these women were clinging to the hope of advancement through access to Louis CK.
Obviously, or they would have mocked him a long time ago.
If they were good comedians they would have ripped him on stage!
How did they not see any comedy from that situation?
The route they chose diminished him. But it didn't help them or their careers, either. It's a Pyrrhic victory. In fact this whole sorry mess strikes me as a Pyrrhic victory.
It's the same thing that is happening with the Press's conduct of a witch hunt in a cover-up for Obama spying, DNC denying, and Clinton colluding.
Sundance at CTH is on the case with an amazing amount of info.
Our research indicates that in February and March 2017 Chairman Devin Nunes, a gang of eight member, reviewed intelligence reports (most likely PDB’s) that were assembled exclusively for the office of the former President (Obama). That is why he went to the Eisenhower Executive Office Building (EEOB) Information Facility to review.
The intelligence product would be delivered to that SCIF system for his review, most likely by the ODNI (Dan Coats) or NSA (Mike Rogers). It would be removed from that SCIF system after Nunes review, (no systems are connected). It is important to note here that President Trump nominated Senator Dan Coats as ODNI on January 5th, 2017 – however, Democrats held up that nomination until March 16th, 2017.
It is not coincidental that immediately following DNI Dan Coat’s ability to provide that information Chairman Devin Nunes first reported his concerns. After Devin Nunes review the information March 22nd 2017, Nunes stated the intelligence product he reviewed was “not related to Russia, or the FBI Russian counter-intelligence investigation”.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman, Devin Nunes, then held a brief press conference and stated he has been provided intelligence reports brought to him by unnamed sources that include ‘significant information’ about President-Elect Trump and his transition team.
Mike Rogers, who is the one who told Trump his transition team was being surveilled, and Nunes are working to get the whole dirty story out in the sunlight.
The larger movement is about changing the structure of all of this, so that women are not put in this predicament.
This wasn't subjected to a public debate. It's just claimed to be a public problem.
It's not a public problem. It's a private moral question. Everybody decides for himself.
Advantages? You get better solutions because people differ on the solution according to their own preferences.
One size fits all is not only worse but positively grim.
Find a guy who doesn't do sexual harassment if that's the important thing. There are lots of them.
I read Mrs. Trollope's account of her visit to America back in the 1820's. At that time, American men were into chewing tobacco. Their aim at the spittoon was not always accurate. There was spittle everywhere. Back then, women wore floor length dresses. It was considered immodest to raise the hem too far and flash the ankle. Women were thus caught in the quandary of either wearing spittle fouled clothes or appearing immodest......,..With the blessing of two hundred years of hindsight, we can see that both parties were in the wrong. Chewing tobacco and spitting on the floor is stupid and unhygienic. Wearing floor length dresses that become fouled by spittle is stupid and unhygienic......I suppose the pursuit of sex is always stupid and unhygienic. Men and women express their stupidity in different ways, and sex--either expressed or repressed--is nearly always stupid.
Women's pursuit of mating opportunities is inherently passive-aggressive, which has consequences. Are they too silly to understand that?
@jj
I find your writings as jj far superior to that of Laslo. As per a comment above I think you would make an excellent writer of novels. Your observations of the human condition are insightful, and I think in longer form could be spellbinding. Thanks for the entertainment and enlightenment. You have a gift.
Pacwest, are you suggesting that JJ and Laslo are not the same commenter?
I have always found Laslo to be acutely insightful.
jj, Laslo, whatever.
Best value per pixel of any commenter anywhere ever.
Thank you for the kind words (and the kind words in an earlier post) -- I truly appreciate it.
As far as a novel: I'm not much on plots. It would probably be a book of all middle, with no real beginning or end.
Probably just beDrop the Cow.
- james james
We are witnessing the re-moralization of sex,
No we're seeing the criminalization of sex, pushed by an ideology that views heterosexuality as a tool for oppression and all penis in vagina sex as rape.
My partner is very adamant on this issue - many/most of the women involved got themselves in trouble. She grew up in Vegas, and had famous men hitting on her, to one level or another, from about the time she started sprouting breasts. And during her time there, she visited precisely one celebrity in his suite - Bill Cosby, because he inevitably had his wife and kids there. She also had a great figure (including 34DDs), that she mostly always had covered up (being mostly oblivious to that sort of thing, I didn’t realize her physical charms until we were well involved). Her point there is that women dress and act sexy, they put themselves in insecure situations, and then complain when men do what comes naturally. Women can’t logically complain that the wrong guys came onto them inappropriately, when they dressed or acted as if they were interested in sex. And can’t complain about what happened in a guy’s hotel room, when they voluntarily went up there. That is where the agency comes in - if they don’t want unwanted male attention when they act like they do, and the guys involved either expect too much, or their actions or dress were aimed at other guys. They aren’t innocent bystanders, and plenty of women escape this sort of thing by taking responsibility for their actions, and not enticing guys that they don’t expect to sleep with.
"Pacwest, are you suggesting that JJ and Laslo are not the same commenter?"
No, clearly the same person, he just seems to me to be using a different formation (not just the sex part) for his insights as jj. I like jj better.
"As far as a novel: I'm not much on plots. It would probably be a book of all middle, with no real beginning or end."
I wish you the best in all endeavors at any rate.
Trading sex for advantage is believed to go back to Australopithecus. What’s changed since 2017 is that the women can later stick a knife in the back of the guy from whom they received the favors. Perhaps the favors were not, in the minds of the recipients, an adequate exchange for the sex given, or perhaps the women involved are simply bitches. Not to mention perhaps there was no such exchange and the woman is lying.
What happened to women's agency?
A woman must never be made to feel bad about, or responsible for, anything.
Ann your 65 years old.....you haven't been to a pickup bar in 30 years, you have 2 grown kids. You haven't had sex someone else besides Mead in a decade...what the hell are you doing trying to come off as some sort of sex expert. Face it you are a retiree!
I am starting to understand the japanese men opting out. Or going gay.
It's not women, per se. Remember that feminists, female chauvinists, granted moral license to men of the left kind, when the "benefits" were politically, socially, and financially progressive. It's only NOW, decades later, that they have decided to abort men that they deem unworthy, inconvenient, or unprofitable, and ostensibly to help women.
In my humble opinion, a person who managed to arrange her own sex life so congenially, summoning a lover from her keyboard, does qualify as an expert.
One of the reasons that Broaddrick didn't report the forcible rape is that she blamed herself for acquiescing to the meeting in a private room. There is room to change the "agency" paradigm without turning women into constant damsels in distress.
The stories of rape and sexual harassment that have been making the news are not of women "who helplessly acquiesce to sexual demands."
You need to read the Silicon Valley orgy article and Matt Lauer cases again. Maybe you're excluding these cases by not considering them sexual harassment. But if so that qualifier was added by you and not part of her comment, thus the exclusion is inappropriate.
Plotting a novel can be learned, you have the stuff that is hard to teach.
There are like eight plots, and there are five flavors, look what can be done with those five flavors.
My partner is very adamant on this issue - many/most of the women involved got themselves in trouble.
We just had a thread about sexual harassment at an orgy! Like, if you're worried about that sort of thing, maybe don't go to the orgy?
They were not helpless, in this interpretation (which could be wrong), they were still thinking of helping themselves by putting up with his boorishness and getting something for their trouble.
Sure, but if we treat these women as having agency, we have to ask whether they helped turn the night sexual by leaving the bar and going to his hotel room (yes) and whether showing sexual interest in a man in order to get ahead isn't a scummy thing to do in its own right (also yes).
We are witnessing the re-moralization of sex, not via the Judeo-Christian ethos but via a legalistic, corporate consensus.
This isn’t the first time that has happened. During the (pre-Christian) Greco-Roman classical world of antiquity, what’s now regarded as the “Judeo-Christian ethos of sex” was invented — not by Jews or Christians — but by the stoicism-steeped local Greco-Roman culture — indeed, the Stoics maintained, by stoic philosophers.
After a while that new ethos was accepted by elites generally including the prestigious stoic philosophers as being rationally obvious. Then, after the Christians (originating in the same classical cultural millieu) took over the Empire, they found themselves too accepting (from a totally different perspective) that that sexual ethos was of course the proper way for things to be.
As historian Paul Veyne writes in his intriguing A History of Private Life (quoting…):
Similar incoherences and baffling limitations are found in every century. In Greco-Roman culture we find them associated with another pleasure: love. If any aspect of ancient life has been distorted by legend, this is it. It is widely but mistakenly believed that antiquity was a Garden of Eden from which repression was banished, Christianity having yet to insinuate the worm of sin into the forbidden fruit. Actually, the pagans were paralyzed by prohibitions. […]
Hypocrisy was the result. To suspect disharmony in a marriage was now regarded as slander or defeatism. One symptom by which we can recognize the champions of the new morality of marriage is their edifying style. When Seneca and Pliny speak of their married lives, they do so in a sentimental style that exudes virtue and deliberately aims to be exemplary.
One consequence was that the place of the wife ceased to be what it had been. Under the old moral code she had been classed among the servants, who were placed in her charge by delegation of her husband's authority. Under the new code she was raised to the same status as her husband's friends, and friends played an important role in the social life of the Greeks and Romans. For Seneca the marriage bond was comparable in every way to the pact of friendship. […]
What can be said about this moral transformation is approximately the same that can be said of any “event” in the history of ideas. After a century of cultural sociology, many historians frankly admit that they are incapable of explaining cultural mutations and, even more, that they haven't the slightest idea what form a causal explanation might take.
Let it be noted simply that the cause was not Stoicism. The new morality had its champions among the enemies of the Stoics as well as among Stoics and neutral onlookers. […]
In these circumstances it is hardly surprising that the Stoics, too, adopted the new morality, for it had emerged triumphant and would henceforth be taken for granted. But because there were so many Stoics, and their voices were so powerful, they appear, misleadingly, to have been the propagators rather than the dupes of the new moral outlook. […]
Apart from the deliberate conformity of the later Stoic philosophy, there was a more genuine affinity between Stoicism and the new conjugal morality. The new morality did more than just prescribe certain marital duties. It exhorted husband and wife to emulate a certain ideal of the couple, relying on feelings of friendship, constantly tested, to dictate their duties. Stoicism was a doctrine of moral autonomy, which held that the reasonable individual ought to guide himself, from within. But it was essential that he pay constant attention to every detail along life's path.
{Continued on the next page… 2}
{Continued from above… page 2}
This had two consequences: first, all the rigor of the matrimonial institution was incorporated into conformist Stoicism; and, second, the institution was made more rigorous than ever, by requiring husband and wife to control their every gesture and to demonstrate, before giving in to any desire, that it conformed to the dictates of reason. […]
It is clear that the requirements of marriage had become more stringent than ever. Because marriage was friendship, husband and wife could make love only in order to have children, and even then with care not to indulge in too many caresses. A man must not treat his wife as he would a mistress, Seneca adminishes, and Saint Jerome cites him approvingly.
His nephew Lucan was of the same opinion. He wrote an epic, a sort of realistic historical novel, in which he describes in his own fashion the story of the civil war between Caesar and Pompey. He shows Cato, model of the Stoic, taking leave of his wife (the same wife he lent for a time to a friend) as he prepares to go off to war. Even on the eve of such a lengthy separation, they do not make love, as Lucan is at pains to point out, explaining as he does the doctrinal significance of the fact. Even that semigreat man Pompey, although no Stoic, does not sleep with his wife on the farewell night.
Why the abstinence? Because a good man does not live for petty pleasures and is careful about every action. To give in to desire is immoral. There is only one reasonable ground for a couple to sleep together: procreation. It was a question not of asceticism but of rationalism. Reason asked: Why do this? By nature a planner, reason found it difficult to accept “Why not?” as an answer. […]
Clearly we must not argue in terms of stereotypes and imagine a conflict between pagan and Christian morality. The real cleavage lay elsewhere: between a morality of matrimonial duties and an internalized morality of the couple. The latter, which originated somewhere in the heart of pagan culture, was commonplace by A.D. 100, shared by both pagans and Christians under Stoic influence. Stoics believed that this morality was morality par excellence, hence necessarily their own invention. To affirm, on abundant evidence, that late pagan morality was identical with almost all Christian morality is not to confound paganism and Christianity but to blur the outlines of both. […]
Besides, a moral code is more than just a collection of precepts. Even if some pagans and some Christians shared identical rules of marital behavior, questions would remain. At a certain point in history both pagans and Christians said: Do not make love except to have children. But the consequences of such a declaration differ, depending on whether it is made by a philosophy that offers advice to free individuals, who may take it or leave it as they find its arguments convincing or not, or by an all-powerful Church, which sees its mission as one of securing salvation in the hereafter through the regulation of consciences here below and seeks to lay down the law to all men without exception, whether convinced or not.
(/unQuote)
(Paul Veyne, (Part 1:) “The Roman Empire,” (Volume I:) “From Pagan Rome to Byzantium,” edited by Paul Veyne, translated by Arthur Goldhammer, “A History of Private Life,” The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1987, pp. 202, 42-49)
(Emphasis added.)
––––
(It’s me again:) So now another group of “philosophers” steeped in a particular sexual morality finds themselves adopting the old strictures under a new rationale. How astonishing!
I assumed she was referencing the Louis C. K. sort of stuff when she wrote about agency.
"When I use the word 'agency',' Humpless Dumpy said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less." "The question is," said Al Bundy, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpless Dumpy, "which is to be mistress— that's all."
I recently watched a movie from 1936, called Suzy, with Jean Harlow and Cary Grant. In an early scene the Jean Harlow character, a show girl, goes on an audition to join a cabaret act and is chosen by the manager. He invites her back to his office where he promptly gets affectionate and invites her to go out to dinner with him. She refuses and he suggests that her job is at stake and she then walks out. This was apparently a well known phenomenon in show business back then. So why are we all so shocked to learn about it now? Did we think this doesn't happen anymore? Strange that the excuse of many of the abusers is that "it was the 60's, etc."
PS In many respects the movie is about a woman's "agency" because it centers on Suzy's choices and her character and how she takes charge of her life, despite the fact that the story line is about her looking for a husband to solve her financial struggles.
Because there is no longer due process, and an accusation is taken as proven, there will always be questions about veracity. Since we also include a dirty joke on the same level as sexual assault, agency becomes relevant.
Pence was right -- no male should ever be alone with a female colleague or subordinate. All it takes is one comment that could be interpreted as an off-color remark, and his life is up-ended.
I am reminded of the concern about Rotary or country clubs limiting membership by race, gender, etc. The problem was if that's where deals got done you couldn't deny people who had a right to make the deals a place at the table where the deals got done.
It seems to be sort of a reverse situation here. If the deals get done in the bar and the hotel suite, does that mean those who have a right to make those deals are either required to go to the bar or the hotel suite or drop out? This is the one place where rhhardin misses the boat: If it's fine for women to trade sex for favors, this eliminates opportunities for women who don't want to trade sex for favors.
I don't like bars and I don't like bowling. At company meetings, I don't usually go to the bar for a drink. It is possible I've missed a networking opportunity that would have helped me advance. If that's the case, it sucks and maybe I should have put up with the bar even though mingling at the bar really isn't part of the skillset required to do my job. But I'd be somewhat off-put if someone suggested that I should have sex with someone if I wanted the promo and that if someone else got the promo because they slept with the right person, that was on me for not doing so myself.
" They may have self-helpingly acquiesced. That's agency too."
thank you for that succinct phrasing. i will be using it .
Speaking of "women's agency," the Purdue professor of Engineering is opposed to male patriarchy in engineering.
Stay away from "Social Justice Bridges"
We also, it almost goes without saying, must abandon the whole machinery of rigorous analysis for something freer, more “creative.” Engineering programs, Professor Riley suggests, should “do away with” the ideal of academic rigor. “This is not about reinventing rigor for everyone, it is about doing away with the concept altogether so we can welcome other ways of knowing. Other ways of being. It is about criticality and reflexivity.”
The Sokol Hoax comes to mind.
The Sokal hoax is very pertinent.
I suspect the initial object of this rejection of standards is to enable humanities/social science/identity types to grab some resources (money) from STEM. Heck, who thought it was a good idea to have a department of "Engineering Education" anyway?
But such things have a tendency to snowball.
rhhardin: This wasn't subjected to a public debate. It's just claimed to be a public problem.
It's not a public problem. It's a private moral question. Everybody decides for himself.
Advantages? You get better solutions because people differ on the solution according to their own preferences.
Daphne Merkin: We are witnessing the re-moralization of sex, not via the Judeo-Christian ethos but via a legalistic, corporate consensus.
File under: "Things feminists and spergitarians don't understand". See also: "What feminists and spergitarians have in common", "ironies and paradoxes of feminism and spergitarianism".
There is no functioning "private sphere" among de-cultured ("multicultured", "diversity-ized") atomized individuals. There are no private solutions when there is no shared moral culture. If everything is "privately" negotiated contracts between individuals, with no reference to any tacit shared morality or code of behavior (within which people can negotiate privately), then all you have is a network of very small "private spheres", with as many "private spheres" as there are individuals -- that is, "no private sphere", and legalism (an ever more byzantine and arbitrary legalism) fills the void.
You -ists and -arians were warned, but there's no getting through to you people.
Blogger gbarto said...
"This is the one place where rhhardin misses the boat: If it's fine for women to trade sex for favors, this eliminates opportunities for women who don't want to trade sex for favors."
OK, let's think this through; how should we punish women who trade sex for favors? Public scorn? Ten years imprisonment? Crucifixion? How about we just destroy the careers of the men who accept the deal?
Someone disguising the nature of sex named Merkin? hmmmmmm.
Heck, who thought it was a good idea to have a department of "Engineering Education" anyway?
The same people who wish to become the Dean of Diversity.
I met the Medical School Dean of Diversity a couple of years ago. She was a new hire and I had been teaching 40 years.
How did we ever get by without one ?
Blogger Ann Althouse said...
The larger movement is about changing the structure of all of this, so that women are not put in this predicament. The change has basically already happened, because the men now have a vastly different picture of the price that THEY pay in an arrangement like this.
--
Right..and likely a different lens when a male assesses risk factors in hiring.
Could be a boon to less attractive women..but not in the right sense.
Women who want to exploit their wiles to ascend the ladder etc will become more blatant.
"Like the tatted up/nose-ringed, virulently anti-Trump sound gal who greeted me in a shared crew house kitchen with "Hi handsome."
Prick teasing is all fine and dandy ... until the 'prick' determines teasing isn't enough.
Maybe ruining men's careers and silencing them 10, 20, 30 or more years after the "violation" is women's agency.
The new religion is Pro-Choice, selective, opportunistic, and congruent.
There's morality and moralizing.
Moralizing is about rules, morality is about what defines you yourself.
A guy might accept sexual favors and keep the deal faithfully, as a matter of honor. He might see sex as a transient good, and his deal as sacred. It's what defines him.
It's what the #metoo announcers fail to do, speaking of morality vs moralizing.
Michael
Donna riley at Purdue is not a professor of engineering
She is head of Purdue school of engineering education. Not even the engineering school.
As a graduate of a school of education all I ca think is Yikes! Ed schools have already screwed up k-12. Now college too?
John Henry
Buwaya,
It is not a department. It is a whole separate school of engineering education
John Henry
"Trading sex for advantage is believed to go back to Australopithecus. What’s changed since 2017 is that the women can later stick a knife in the back of the guy from whom they received the favors."
Or perhaps didn't receive the favors. The essential problem with bribery has always been that although an 'honest politician' remains bought, many politicians are not honest politicians.
And what could generate more fury than paying a sexual bribe, only to receive nothing (or at least less than one bargained for)? Especially when one considers that the negotiations surrounding such bribery are often less than fully explicit.
Nonetheless, even if the briber is ultimately cheated there remains complicity in the attempted bribery to sully the moral claims of the briber.
(As one hears the lingering memory of Judy Collins singing "Anathea")
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा