« A campus tale | Main | A philosopher picks up the phone »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Ole Koksvik

I find the last claim plausible, but wish it was backed up by more argument, or at least surrounded by more reflection. Feels like a lot of setting up, and then we're left hanging once the punch-line arrives.

Eric Schliesser

Do we still need arguments for the conclusion?
Recall this post:

David Wallace

Eric: complicity in sexual discrimination is very different from complicity in sexual assault. I don't think the conclusions of your NewAPPS post (e.g., about how insiders benefit from it) hold up under substitution. (Which is not to say that there are no connections between the two.)

Eric Schliesser

David, why wouldn't it hold up under substitution? I am coming to believe that sexual harassment and sexual assault are among the means by which sexual discrimination is caused in the profession. (I am not claiming it is most important proximate cause.)

David Wallace

I had a quick go at writing this up properly but I can't do it quickly and I'm short of time; if you think it does work then fair enough. In the abstract, I suppose: I understand how your intentionally abstract framework is instantiated in the discrimination/underrepresentation case, not in the assault case; I also think it's much harder to make the case for a pattern of sexual assault, whereas underrepresentation is easy to demonstrate. And I don't think I can be said to benefit, net, from a high level of sexual assault in my institution, given that there's some probably in any instance that it will be someone known well to me and that that will be both traumatic and time-consuming.

Ruth Groff

I understood Eric to be saying that everyone who is not organizing-against is complicit-in in that there is an environment of endemic sexism in place that facilitates sexual harassment (and which sexual harassment and assault play a role in reinforcing). The idea that men as a group (an artificial, abstraction of a group, since at a minimum "men" doesn't take race into account) -- the idea that men as a group benefit from the largely unacknowledged/denied environment (including, thereby from the mechanisms through which it is enacted and reproduced) seems different from the idea that men as a group benefit from those rare cases when there is a public accusation. I don't know what I think about the latter scenario. But even that is different from the issue of whether any one man will be upset by it, I think.

Ole Koksvik

Err, yes, we do. For one, you don't restrict the 'we' at all, and you obviously should, since some actually do stuff, even if collectively it's too little too late.

Alex Guerrero

A small point: "ruined the life of a young journalism major" is not how I'd put it. Horribly mistreated, wronged, harmed. But let's hope her life has much left to it, and that it is not "ruined." (The suit does not actually allege this, does it?)

Eric Schliesser

Alex, if you read the descriptions in the reports, her life is ruined. Hopefully, it won't stay so. (I didn't write her 'whole life.')

The comments to this entry are closed.

Here's a link to my past blogging (and discussions involving me) at: New APPS.


Blog powered by Typepad