
What Happens to #MeToo When a Feminist Is the Accused? - Tomte
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/13/nyregion/sexual-harassment-nyu-female-professor.html
======
OskarS
This is from the letter signed by her colleagues:

 _We write as long-term colleagues of Professor Avital Ronell who has been
under investigation by the Title IX offices at New York University. Although
we have no access to the confidential dossier, we have all worked for many
years in close proximity to Professor Ronell and accumulated collectively
years of experience to support our view of her capacity as teacher and a
scholar, but also as someone who has served as Chair of both the Departments
of German and Comparative Literature at New York University. We have all seen
her relationship with students, and some of us know the individual who has
waged this malicious campaign against her. We wish to communicate first in the
clearest terms our profound an enduring admiration for Professor Ronell whose
mentorship of students has been no less than remarkable over many years. We
deplore the damage that this legal proceeding causes her, and seek to register
in clear terms our objection to any judgment against her. We hold that the
allegations against her do not constitute actual evidence, but rather support
the view that malicious intention has animated and sustained this legal
nightmare._

It is crushing to see a statement like this signed by a person like Judith
Butler. It is exactly the kind of response that have kept sexual harassment
quiet for so long. "We know [accused harrasser], he would never act this way.
We've worked with him for years, he's an honorable man, we know his
character,... The accuser is just seeking attention/money in this malicious
campaign". It just happens to be the case that the accuser is a woman in power
this time.

Having a powerful feminist be accused of sexual harassment does zero damage to
the feminist movement at large. If nothing else, #MeToo has taught us that
there are harassers hiding everywhere, and even the people you least suspect
can be guilty of it. This is just another example.

~~~
patrickg_zill
I'd note that all the feminists were fine with Title IX star chambers with
oppressive rules that hampered a good defense... As long as it could be a
cudgel to be used against "misogyny" and "patriarchy".

They are only unhappy now that someone they value is under the same rules.

~~~
moate
Hello, I'm a feminist. Not unhappy that people who are committing sexual
crimes are being brought to justice.

Your wide brush is counterproductive to the "logical and open" discussion
here. The whole point of the article that you read in its entirety and
internalized before commenting upon it was that this is difficult for some
people to accept: a champion of women's rights was perpetrating the crimes she
seemed to be fighting against. Reconciling these truths is difficult for some
people, and some people who worked closely with this woman will come to
defense of her character as they knew her.

Hypocrites abound. In fact everyone holds some conflicting views/acts in ways
that work against their self interest. It's human nature. But not everyone who
you disagree with is a hypocrite. Hell,some of them aren't even objectively
wrong! But if you only exist in an in-group vs. out-group mindset you're going
to miss some great points.

TL;dr- Title IX is great, and it seems like this woman is both a renowned
academic AND a sexual abuser.

~~~
newswriter99
I'm curious as to how often you go out of your way to criticize the lack of
logical and open discussion in feminist circles.

I'm in the journalism industry, and have seen time and time again one-sided
mob psychology suffocate anyone even considering to constructively criticize
the movement.

If you can't admit just how extremist and tribal the current atmosphere is, I
don't think you're going to be able to appreciate the perspective of the
person you're replying to.

~~~
moate
Is "when I think they're wrong" often enough?

You're just restating my point back to me. Remember when I said this:
"Hypocrites abound. In fact everyone holds some conflicting views/acts in ways
that work against their self interest. It's human nature. But not everyone who
you disagree with is a hypocrite. Hell,some of them aren't even objectively
wrong! But if you only exist in an in-group vs. out-group mindset you're going
to miss some great points."

That's the same thing as admitting that tribal behavior is a problem. My whole
POINT is that the tribal behavior/generalized statements (like "all
feminists") creates a breakdown in the discussion.

------
Tomte
Standing out for me:

1\. there was a real and direct power differential, which moves this very fast
into „inappropriate, possibly criminal“ territory

2\. her allies defend her on the grounds of „we don‘t know anything about this
issue, but we‘re vouching for her character“

And most obviously

3\. those two points are exactly what happens when a female student accuses a
male teacher. Seems people behave just the same as everybody else, in a tribal
way.

~~~
cimmanom
Yes.

This case is rare because it's rare for the woman to be in the position of
power and the man in the subordinate position.

In any of these cases, we need to take the accusations seriously, which is
what #MeToo is about.

Let me reiterate that. #MeToo isn't about women vs. men. It's about
acknowledging the abuse of power to harass, humiliate, intimidate, and
violate. It's about resisting the knee-jerk reactions in defense of people who
abuse power. It's about fixing the dynamics that have historically caused
victims to avoid speaking out because doing so is more likely to destroy the
victim's career than the abuser's.

~~~
goblin89
> This case is rare because it's rare for the woman to be in the position of
> power and the man in the subordinate position.

This may just be due to unfortunate phrasing, but is it really rare? In this
case the roles are adviser-student, and at least anecdotally it doesn’t seem
that rare for an adviser-student relationship to be a female-in-power one. We
just don’t hear often about abuse in such relationships—likely because it
doesn’t happen as much.

(If you meant that it’s rare for the woman to be in a position of power _in
#metoo cases_ then I’d not disagree, otherwise I find that specific statement
surprising and possibly misrepresenting reality in an unfortunate way.)

That aside, I’m mostly in agreement with the sentiment.

~~~
belorn
Usually when people do make studies and take a hard look at people a common
attribute comes out: both men and women are human. The idea that female-in-
power is less likely to abuse assumes that there is some form of biological
sex or gender role difference that is so dominant that human behavior diverge.
The Amygdala is not bigger or smaller depending on sex, which mostly leaves
culture and gender roles to explain why we don't often hear about abuse in
female-in-power relationships.

~~~
jly
The female-in-power is less likely to abuse precisely because of fundamental
biological differences. Men and woman differ _significantly_ in their sexual
behavior and sexual strategies because they have evolved through millions of
years of sexual selection producing significant sexual dimorphism. We can
easily observe the same behavior in other animals species, who lack any
culture and gender roles.

~~~
the_grue
It's quite illuminating that both you and your parent are making
unsubstantiated claims (I'm not criticizing, just observing), but only your
comment gets downvoted. I believe the reason is that you are expressing a
forbidden idea, a taboo. "Behavioral differences based on sex? What next, are
you going to compare races and then grow a narrow mustache?"

People are so afraid to find that not all humans are equal in every respect
other than body that they are willing to stop, mute, censor any and all
discussion on the subject and even block research into human nature rather
than face the danger of having to deal with this (granted, difficult) issue.

------
headmelted
“I am of course very supportive of what Title IX and the #MeToo movement are
trying to do, of their efforts to confront and to prevent abuses, for which
they also seek some sort of justice,” Professor Davis wrote in an email. “But
it’s for that very reason that it’s so disappointing when this incredible
energy for justice is twisted and turned against itself, which is what many of
us believe is happening in this case.”

Given the context, this may be the most blatantly hypocritical thing I've ever
seen in print.

I'm hoping someone can shed some light on this that indicates there's more to
this than what there appears to be.

~~~
klipt
"I only wanted to take away due process from _other_ people!"

------
novia
"Mr. Reitman said he never intended to become any kind of public figure in a
national conversation about gender, and that he started the process before the
movement took off. “It didn’t come from #MeToo,” he said."

Misleading title.

I'm a feminist, and knowing neither the professor or the former student, I
would believe the student's claims above those of the professor. Gender has
nothing to do with it.

My reasoning: there is absolutely no good reason for the former student to lie
about what happened, and there are plenty of reasons for the professor to lie.
Additionally, the email about, "I'll try not to kiss you," is pretty damning
evidence.

I've flagged this article because it seems it is attempting to portray this as
a men vs women issue, which it absolutely is not. Anyone who abuses their
power and makes others feel uncomfortable in this way deserves to face
consequences.

The #MeToo movement is about all of us, all humans, taking a stand against
sexual assault and harassment, especially in professional relationships such
as the one in the article.

~~~
peteretep
> The #MeToo movement is about all of us, all humans, taking a stand against
> sexual assault and harassment, especially in professional relationships such
> as the one in the article.

While I'd agree, the prominent feminists quoted by the article do not agree.

~~~
novia
Which prominent feminists? The person who says the most reprehensible things
in the article, Diane Davis, is not a prominent feminist. I've never even
heard of her. I looked up her wikipedia page, and it looks like her main hobby
might be updating her own wikipedia page.

The other person quoted, Dana Bolger, who said Title 9 has mostly been used
against predatory men, seemed like they were being quoted out of context.
Nowhere did Dana Bolger say, "historically this has been the case and it needs
to stay that way."

Googling Dana, she actually responds to the article on her Twitter page,
saying much the same thing that I do in my comment.

[https://twitter.com/danabolger/status/1029369826710564866](https://twitter.com/danabolger/status/1029369826710564866)

~~~
JoelMcCracken
From the article:

"Soon after the university made its final, confidential determination this
spring, a group of scholars from around the world, including prominent
feminists, sent a letter to N.Y.U. in defense of Professor Ronell. Judith
Butler, the author of the book “Gender Trouble” and one of the most
influential feminist scholars today, was first on the list."

I assume this is to what grandparent was referring.

------
pwinnski
Sexual power dynamics have to do with power more than anything else, and this
is an example of that. More men are being exposed via #MeToo because more men
are in positions of power. Some percentage of all people are creeps who will
misuse power, so it should not be surprising when women in power are caught up
like this.

~~~
jly
Kind of.

Sexual crimes are more likely to be about sex, not power. The reason why men
are overwhelmingly more likely to commit sexual assault is because of basic
biology of sexual selection - men (in general) desire many and varied partners
compared to women. Positions of power make it easier to perpetrate sexual
crimes without repercussions, but this is still skewed heavily in favor of
men.

Women clearly do get caught up as perpetuators, but it's surprising and
comparatively rare because of the polygynous basis of our species (and most
other animals).

This is a controversial idea because of the public narrative, but
evolutionarily-informed ideas about sexual coercion can be surprising when
applied to humans, while the same behavior in other animals is not questioned.

~~~
slavak
This is intuitively true, but is it also factually true? Many studies
([https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/kze8qn/the-hidden-
epi...](https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/kze8qn/the-hidden-epidemic-of-
men-who-are-raped-by-women)) seem to indicate that, at least for cases of
actual rape, it is not, and women are abusers at pretty much the same rate as
men. This might be different for sexual harassment, but that's a claim that
needs to be verified.

As it is, research and public perceptions when it comes to sexual violence
against men are sorely lacking.

~~~
jly
I had not seen this paper, so thanks for sharing. The primary conclusion is
that more males are victims of sexual crimes and more females are abusers than
is generally thought. I'm sure this is the case, but this shouldn't be
mistaken for women being equal abusers.

First, the referenced source data (NCVS and NSVRC [1]) explicitly point out
that 9% of victims of all rape and sexual assault are male. This is not
insignificant, but it still means that > 90% of all sexual crime victims are
female. 99% of female victims have male abusers [2]. Another recent study out
of Germany found that women were 10-20x more likely to be victims across all
age groups, and men were 50-100x more likely to be the abusers [3].

I think these new looks at the data do highlight a serious lack of knowledge
about male victimization and female abuse, which will help us have a better
picture of what's really going on. Unfortunately, the study referenced by Vice
makes many politically-motivated statements about gender stereotypes, and then
attempts to fit the data to that narrative. It suggests that we should adjust
our national discussion about these issues from a more gender-neutral
approach, which is a very palatable idea.

Modern ideas about sexual abuse that are rooted in evolutionary psychology
actually attempt to discuss ultimate causes about _why_ this kind of behavior
occurs, using well-understood ideas about the evolution of human behavior and
countless examples from other animals. It should come as no surprise that men
and women differ significantly in their sexual behavior, both intuitively and
factually. This is a controversial idea in the social sciences (which are more
widely discussed in the media), but not in biology.

[1]
[https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/publications_nsvrc...](https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/publications_nsvrc_factsheet_media-
packet_statistics-about-sexual-violence_0.pdf) .

[2]
[http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1097184X08322632](http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1097184X08322632)
.

[3]
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4791564/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4791564/)
.

------
djyaz1200
Men are sexually harassed frequently but we don't hear about it often because
there is a lot of shame in speaking about it... since you're admitting to
being lower power/status.

~~~
vorpalhex
I'm not sure why you're being downvoted. I've had grown women, strangers,
inappropriately grab my butt in public or otherwise inappropriately touch me.
Sexual harassment is inappropriate, _full stop_. There's no gender based
excuse that allows it or makes it acceptable.

~~~
bitL
I had a 100-year old neighbor that grabbed my butt, then she laughed like a
teenager. It was shocking, but only because no one would associate centennials
with that kind of behavior; otherwise it's a super funny story to tell at
parties.

~~~
r_smart
My brother and his girlfriend both worked at the same retirement home when
they were in high school. They both were harassed extensively and on a daily
basis. And yes, they were both minors at the time. Your experience is exactly
what I've come to expect of centennials :)

------
_bxg1
Too often, ideological movements devolve into tribalism. If you align with
one, you have to be vigilant that your motives don't make that shift.

~~~
philwelch
Most ideological movements _are_ tribalism. "Their tribe is oppressing our
tribe, so down with their tribe!" is a good summary of most leftist
ideologies, whether those centered around class, gender, or ethnicity.

~~~
lotyrin
If you had left out "leftist" here you could have made a point instead of
serving as your own example.

~~~
fein
You could try explaining why you think that way instead of going for some
snide remark.

I agree with him, you don't see this dynamic on the conservative side of
things with anywhere near the same zealotry as the left. Leftists have turned
purity spiraling into a competitive sport, which has turned into a snake
eating it's own tail. The winner of the oppression olympics is still a loser
overall.

~~~
lotyrin
There absolutely is tribal zealotry on the conservative side -- any side of
any issue. Just not this specific shape or color or flavor of it that happens
to stand out as an example because one tribe is seen to do something that
another tribe is not seen as doing.

People generally don't act with sufficient intent and information, don't have
great theory of mind for large groups, have a hard time with large figures and
probability, so most of any kind of political meme (traditional meaning here)
- concept, movement -- will devolve to a tribal version of itself once you get
more than a handful of people involved in it due to regression to the mean.

Instead of "do I think this or that policy is likely to have a good or bad
impact upon this or that situation" which requires some deliberate steps and
psychological self-mastery you get "does my tribe prescribe this or that
policy regardless of the situation" easy because it's automatic, an
involuntary knee-jerk.

This is why politics discussions are frequently fruitless -- while you can
form rational arguments and negotiate consensus about policies and their
utility, you can't do so with identity.

Painting others (or even oneself) with labels like "leftist" seems to only
perpetuate that problem, and it seems that a strawman is a strawman even if
most of the population and therefore most of any group above a certain size
happens to be made of said straw.

I think we should be careful to point to specific people or at least specific
groups, specific events or actions, specific policies as applied in specific
situations and determine the value of those and that statements like "<general
class> does ..." or "<general class> doesn't..." is insufficiently precise to
demonstrate we aren't falling into the tribalism trap.

It's so easy to use tribalism to false-generalize that even when we know a
generalization is correct I think we should avoid using it because it promotes
the use of those generalizations which may not be.

Specifically in this thread I think we are all concerned about a set of groups
who hold as truth a broad generalization that all privileged classes act as
oppressors regardless of any individual's actions or intents. That's certainly
a concerning concept, and I have specific examples of problems that it has
caused, but I don't think "most leftist ideologies" subscribe to this concept
-- nor that even if they did, I don't think it is useful to generalize about
it in that way because I'd like to extend to the ideologies that do not
subscribe to that the same benefit of the doubt that I hope they'd give me as
a member of several privileged classes.

~~~
fein
Politics is rooted in tribalism; I'm not sure what your point even is.

There is no trap; tribalism (collectivism) is the foundation of a nation.
Trying to resist it is doomed to failure.

~~~
lotyrin
I suppose we are both confused then.

Politics is rooted solely in policy: if we do or don't form this or that
policy, are the subjects of our policies better or worse off? Anything that
distracts from a process of objective assessment and consensus-finding in the
process of forming said policy means we fail to form the correct policies and
so reflects an inefficiency.

~~~
fein
> Politics is rooted solely in policy

And where does that policy come from? The collective. A "correct" policy is
whatever the tribe deems is correct.

~~~
lotyrin
I doubt you propose we abandon the concept of there being objective truth, or
any possible way for diverse groups to find consensus, but what are you
proposing?

If I use simulated annealing to arrive at an optimal schedule for some
processing task -- is that not a policy because there is no collective of
identities or their feeling/opinion involved? Certainly not.

The correct fiscal policies for my HOA are whichever ones that keep the roofs
maintained vs the ones that do not, even if that is a concept that's not
popular among with the board right now.

A policy is a policy -- this is what we are doing -- correctness is derived
from the results as filtered through some value function, which is derived not
from agreeableness but some set of value-axioms.

Obviously, at human scale, we can differ on what those axioms are because they
are axiomatic, but that's not the same thing as policy, and it's not what's
happening in the typical political discourse -- people will frequently have
very similar axioms for what is valuable in the outcome of policy but get
distracted about other concerns and fail to find consensus.

~~~
fein
A sufficiently diverse group will indeed fail to find consensus. That is
something that can only be reached when diversity is low.

I'm proposing we approach policy setting with a basis in reality instead of
trying to project an inhuman value function to humans. People are not driven
by pure rationale, rather emotion and instinct.

~~~
lotyrin
That is a very interesting perspective and I think it helps me understand a
few issues in a new light.

Thank you for sharing it.

------
InTheArena
This is clearly a legal matter - and college based tribunals and councils have
often looked like a Star Chamber or Kangaroo courts. That's not a mistake -
it's the inevitable outcome of a non-judicial and closeted legal system that
is unconstrained by transparency and fairness. In fact, this was the exact
fate of the original star chamber:

"The Star Chamber was originally established to ensure the fair enforcement of
laws against socially and politically prominent people so powerful that
ordinary courts would probably hesitate to convict them of their crimes.
However, it became synonymous with social and political oppression through the
arbitrary use and abuse of the power it wielded."

So how do you make a non-governmental court even more powerful? You make up
laws and definitions as you go. There is a difference between the legal
definition of racism/sexism and a (sometimes held) academic definition of
racism/sexism. The argument put forth here fails the basic doctrines of equal
protection and application of the law.

When you combine Unelected and unconstrained tribunals, with non-legal
justifications of crime, it's inevitable that there will be abuses and usage
of that power not just in the persuit of good and noble goals (where it always
starts) but in the systematic destruction of people with different viewpoints
the accuser (where it ends). People are objecting not because of the guilt or
innocence of the accused, but because it's a arbitrary use of unconstrained
people-crushing power in the first place. It's a unconstrained weapon, and the
only the wielder is safe from it's effects.

------
tom-_-
What is a more core principle of feminism, equal treatment of the sexes or
empowerment of women? These are not synonymous.

~~~
cwkoss
I think it is interesting to consider that whenever their is a cultural shift
in opinion, if you were to chart the populations opinion over time, it would
look like a bell curve sliding in the direction of an axis.

To what extent are 'extreme' long-tail opinions necessary to shift the center
of the bell curve? Which cohorts along the curve have the most influence on
velocity of the center point?

specific to this example:

Premise

\- Equal treatment of the sexes is a noble goal.

\- Currently society values women as less to some extent.

\- An inversion of sexism that places women over men would also be
undesirable.

\- When people fight for a position, they often compromise to achieve
progress.

Conclusion:

\- Fighting for equality can only asymptotically approach equality, while
never reaching it.

\- The 'extreme' viewpoints on the long-tail of cultural opinion that women
should receive not just equal treatment but unequal benefit from society may
be a fundamental requirement for the centroid of the population curve to reach
the equality point.

I'm not convinced of this idea (or even all the premises), but I think it's
interesting. Wondering if anyone could suggest further reading on this
subject.

~~~
adiusmus
To assist with your reading I’d suggest you create a list of legal rights that
men have that women don’t. Then create a list of legal rights that women have
that men don’t.

This exercise will lead you into interesting territory.

------
learc83
'"I woke up with a slight fever and sore throat," she wrote in an email on
June 16, 2012, after the Paris trip. I will try very hard not to kiss you —
until the throat situation receives security clearance. This is not an easy
deferral!" In July, she wrote a short email to him: "time for your midday
kiss. my image during meditation: we’re on the sofa, your head on my lap,
stroking you [sic] forehead, playing softly with yr hair, soothing you,
headache gone. Yes?"'

Her defense is that everything was consensual. The problem is that she was his
advisor. Nothing they did was really consensual. If you want to have a truly
consensual relationship with someone for whom you are in a position of
authority, you have to remove yourself from that position.

------
djsumdog
I really suggest this episode from the Owls at Dawn postcast:

[http://www.owlsatdawn.com/episodes-2/2018/6/25/me-too-ism-
wh...](http://www.owlsatdawn.com/episodes-2/2018/6/25/me-too-ism-wheidi-
matthews-owls-at-dawn-episode-52)

In it, Heidi Matthews, a law professor, goes into all the legal implications
of the me too movement. The trouble with the whole movement is the way that
many people in it seek legal guards in our framework, but which simply don't
work in the really complex and nuanced ways our social relationships work.
It's a really good and in-dept legal analysis that I highly recommend.

So let's take a step back: professors who marry students. My graduate adviser
married one of his students (she was a grad student when he was a professor
when they met). Where do wanted/unwanted advances being and end?

In this specific case, it looks like the professor kept going after this guy
after he was clearly not interested. She should have stopped, right? Yes.
Should this be a legal thing? Hmm... now we get into gray areas right?

Let's take a big step back to the 1990s and the TV show Family Matters. Steve
Urkel was a creep. Go to YouTube and watch some old videos. He does a lot of
really questionable stuff, his infatuation is stalker-ish and the show is
written to sympathize the audience with his unrequited love.

I don't think this show would be made today, but we are talking about people
in different age groups, different generations and totally different ideas of
what is or isn't acceptable.

Louis CK asked for consent in many of the cases (there are two questionable
reports, one where he stood in front of the exit and another where he didn't
ask consent when he was on the phone with a woman; both of those are not OK of
course). This consent doesn't matter because he was in a position of authority
over them, or so the argument goes. But they're adults right? So when is
consent not consent? When is a Yes not good enough?

I think there are a lot of complexities here that may not have legal
solutions. Sex and sexuality are weird things, which is why we classify things
as "fetishes". Most of the animal kingdom (cats, dolphins, fruit flys, ducks)
all participate in non-consensual sexual activities (if animals had the
ability to consent; also in most animals, sex last less than 1 minute, except
for Bonobos, Dolphins and possibly a few others). There is an inherent
violence that is a part of the core human psyche that goes with sexuality and
we have to be willing to acknowledge and address that and the awkward way that
doesn't fit into our legal frameworks.

There is a lot of complexity here and I think everyone should think really
carefully and critically before taking any stances. It will affect the way
people pursue relationships and how we think of ourselves (as sexual
men/women/whatever). There are already A LOT of lonely people out there. I
don't want to move to a world where people are even more afraid to connect
than they already are.

~~~
bitL
How was Louis CK in the position of authority? As a celebrity, his
attractiveness level was way off charts, otherwise an obese, middle-aged
balding guy would be completely invisible, so he tried to capitalize on that.
But those women freely flocked to him, trying to capitalize on associating
with him. If anything, both sides were "damaged goods".

~~~
s73v3r_
Because he was a big name in stand-up comedy at the time. He had connections,
and people listened to him. If he really wanted to, he could have blackballed
the women who rebuffed him.

------
dropit_sphere
Abandon hope all ye who enter here (this topic)!

------
Simulacra
Do as we say, not as we do.

------
peteretep
Some random highlights:

> “Our communications — which Reitman now claims constituted sexual harassment
> — were between two adults, a gay man and a queer woman, who share an Israeli
> heritage, as well as a penchant for florid and campy communications arising
> from our common academic backgrounds and sensibilities,”

This is the ... it's not sexual harassment if you're gay and Israeli defense?!

Anyway, that comment makes it sound like she thinks it's all just office-place
banter, but:

> In July, she wrote a short email to him: “time for your midday kiss. my
> image during meditation: we’re on the sofa, your head on my lap, stroking
> you [sic] forehead, playing softly with yr hair, soothing you, headache
> gone. Yes?”

!

Also:

> In a submission to the Title IX office, Professor Ronell said she had no
> idea Mr. Reitman was so uncomfortable until she read the investigators’
> report.

and

> Maybe, Professor Ronell suggested, he was frustrated because he just wasn’t
> smart enough ... “His main dilemma was the incoherency in his writing, and
> lack of a recognizable argument”

Ouch. Also, Reitman is now a "visiting fellow at Harvard", so can't be all
that thick.

Finally:

> Diane Davis ... were particularly disturbed that ... Mr. Reitman was using
> Title IX, a feminist tool, to take down a feminist.

All other points aside, she needs to take a fucking hike.

~~~
djsumdog
I'm looking back through this ... so .. did he ever tell her to stop?

Forget about who is the man and who is the woman in this and think about just
two people. The partner, who is your student yes, but they still accept all
your flirtations, sleep in the same bed with you, cuddle with you, and either
don't show any signs they're uncomfortable or you're just really not socially
aware and don't real them.

They graduated and then sue you for the entire, what was in your mind,
"relationship."

She probably loved this guy. She probably thought he loved her, or at least
felt something for her. I dunno. Are we going to now require contracts before
going into any relationship that might involve a power dynamic?

~~~
horsawlarway
Right from the article:

\----

“She put my hands onto her breasts, and was pressing herself — her buttocks —
onto my crotch,” he said. “She was kissing me, kissing my hands, kissing my
torso.” That evening, a similar scene played out again, he said.

He confronted her the next morning, he said.

“I said, look, what happened yesterday was not O.K. You’re my adviser,”

\----

~~~
IshKebab
Not the strongest "no". But on the other hand how many of the #metoo women
said no? I think the implication is that they don't have the option.

~~~
dhimes
Why the heck is this being downvoted? That _is_ the big problem: When someone
has power over you you don't have the option to say "no." That's the entire
goddamn point.

~~~
UncleMeat
Because "it would have been different if you'd said 'no' more clearly" is a
horribly common refrain that should be removed from our vocabulary. A weak no
is still no and we should never criticize somebody for having a hard time
saying no forcefully.

Affirmative and enthusiastic consent.

------
kazinator
> "We testify to the grace, the keen wit, and the intellectual commitment of
> Professor Ronell ..."

By golly, so do I so testify. Evidence: "my astounding and beautiful Nimrod."

------
fosco
I found the article informative, but this title seems like click bait which is
why I hesitated reading it.

shouldn't it be something along the lines of:

Avital Ronell Title IX investigation found her guilty

------
writepub
There's a rinse and repeat pattern of denial, suiting narratives here.

Anytime the modern feminism movement is faced with situations not to it's
liking, there's an immediate, knee jerk, non-objective denial, and bull-
shittery that casts aspersions on the truth, accuser, media, etc.

It happened with Sarah Jeong, where the feminists distorted the English
meaning of the word 'Racism' to suit their narrative that it only applies to
those in power. It happened when Linda Sarsour was openly anti-semetic and
when her troupe faced metoo accusations.

It's happening now with this case, and it's not the last time. And just so you
are aware, these narratives rely on the evisceration of science, logic, reason
and well established definitions of words

~~~
andybak
> distorted the English meaning of the word 'Racism'

I studied Sociology in the late 1980s and this definition of racism was part
of the curriculum.

Isn't it entirely possible that a word can have different meanings in academic
and non-academic circles?

~~~
ticviking
Just because a term is overloaded in the context of an academic specialty
doesn't mean that definition has entered common use, or should be used as the
legal standard.

~~~
moate
But if there are conflicting views about what a word should mean, isn't it a
bit much to say "well your (accepted) version of the word means isn't what I
meant, and therefor you're wrong"?

Let's take something (presumably) less polarizing: the word "Literally". To
some people, it means "an event that actually is/has happened" but it can also
be used as a synonym to the word "figuratively". This can create conflict or
misunderstanding when 2 people have different expected definitions of a word.
Both are accepted by large populations, and if you use one in a way that has
not been accepted by the person you're speaking to, you're not "wrong" you're
just having a misunderstanding.

You can argue the validity of each definition, but there's no objective right
or wrong here. If I say "Black people can't be racist towards white people
because they don't have the institutional power to do that", and you respond
"anyone can be racist" we're not having the same argument. You're just arguing
semantics while I'm trying to make a point about the world.

~~~
feverfew
I think what people are truly angry about is when someone is racist (to be
clear I'm using the definition involving prejudice based on race) towards
someone who is of a generally privileged class (i.e. white) and when this is
pointed out sometimes the answer is is that they're not being racist because
their definition of it is also related to power. And so both parties are drawn
into the argument over language semantics. However, it is the wrong argument
to be involved in, because it is correct to point out the hypocrisy: it is not
ok to be racist (using the definition without power) to anyone, regardless if
in general they benefit from their race.

~~~
moate
[https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/are-white-people-
jokes...](https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/are-white-people-jokes-racist-
let-fellow-white-person-explain-ncna899981)

I disagree. This article pretty well sums up my thoughts.

~~~
feverfew
Racist jokes, are just that, jokes. IMO it's ok for anyone to make a joke
against anyone else due to a joke's harmless nature. Although yes, someone who
is a racist (i.e will deny you a job because of your race, or hold negative
stereotypes about you to your detriment) is more likely to utter a racist
joke, but the joke itself is the harmless act. However I'm not talking about
jokes. I'm talking about racist actions that are actually negative to the
person on the receiving end, you know, the things that actually matter -- not
jokes. It's bad for anyone receiving it. Whether you are denied a job, or an
opportunity due to your race it is bad. For example, read up on Asian-
americans being the victims of positive discrimination and having to earn more
marks to get in solely due to their race. Typically these people are affluent
and definitely not powerless and probably are the most powerful in terms of
getting a place at an Ivy, I'd argue they are at the receiving end of a policy
that is racist. Also remember, power can be localised. For example is it
impossible for a white person to be racist in South Africa, because they are
in the minority? Yeah I'd say so. Thougu under your definition - I definitely
can say we can have a debate on that. Is it impossible for a black person to
be racist in South Africa? No, according to my definition of racism and also
according to yours (though you may disagree depending on how you believe powet
works); whilst I imagine the average white person in South Africa is richer
than the average black person, they dont enjoy much political power nowadays
and they are in the minority in terms of people.

My point is, don't let people commit racist actions (I don't care about jokes)
because they may have 'less power' due to their race.

------
394549
FYI, this post hit the front page, but looks like it's been deliberately
buried. I can't find it at all in the first few pages of front page results.

That's probably for the best, even though this seems to be the kind of "man
bites dog" story that generate some novel, interesting comments amidst the
flames.

~~~
thinkingemote
readers have been flagging it, and its probably been auto flagged due to other
readers downvoting a significant number of comments.

~~~
dhimes
Seems like one of the better discussions of the issue I've ever seen.

------
rhapsodic

      > “Our communications — which Reitman now claims
      > constituted sexual harassment — were between two
      > adults, a gay man and a queer woman, ..."
    

I was under the impression that gay and queer meant basically the same thing.
This seems to imply that there's a distinction of some sort. Does anyone know
which is correct?

~~~
dragonwriter
Gay can specifically mean male homosexual (why there is both an “L” and a “G”
in LGBTQ) or homosexual more generally; queer can encompass any distance from
strict heterosexuality or stereotypical gender expression. The terms aren't
mutually exclusive, but they aren't identical. And people whose sexuality is
substantially identical may identify differently given that the terms _aren
't_ mutually exclusive crisp categories, and a tradition of respect in the
community is to use the label the subject identifies with not to interpose
your own categorization.

------
mesozoic
The rules apply to you not us!

------
tomtompl
Revoultion eats its own children

------
mattlondon
This article reminded me of this incident at th Pride march in London this
year: [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/anti-
trans-p...](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/anti-trans-
protest-london-pride-parade-lgbt-gay-2018-march-lesbian-gay-
rights-a8436506.html)

tl;dr - lesbians were campaigning _against_ trans people. _At a Pride march_.

Sad as it is, as a white middle-class cis straight male it is relieving to
know that it is not _solely_ people like me that responsible for #MeToo (as is
sometimes implied in the media), but that actually the "minority groups" are
equally capable of being idiots too... <sigh>

I dont disagree that there is still a lot of unconscious bias and unearned
power/respect/influence that white middle-class cis straight men wield though.
Just saying that it seems that we're not the only "problem group" and I think
that is worth remembering when it comes to the rhetoric et al

~~~
s73v3r_
Unfortunately TERFs are real. And I guess on some level, its comforting to
know that there are shitty people to be found in all walks of life.

~~~
phyzome
"Bigotry is fractal" is I believe the saying.

------
victor106
Ayn rand ( love her books) had a similar affair

[http://brucelevine.net/how-ayn-rand-seduced-young-men-and-
he...](http://brucelevine.net/how-ayn-rand-seduced-young-men-and-helped-make-
the-u-s-into-an-uncaring-nation/)

~~~
tathougies
While it may make Rand socially suspect, she was perfectly okay with this
behavior and made it clear in her writings. The issue at hand in this case is
more than just socially unacceptable behavior, but also the hypocrisy.

