I find it frustrating that this letter gives cover to the kneejerk victim blaming defenses over the last year of male sexual harassers. It's a straightforward argument for those writers to point out that a group of world renown feminists, who have studied power dynamics in-depth, fell into the exact same trap. This is exactly the wrong conclusion to reach, and stalls the momentum of a movement that was doing genuine good. I disagree with the trend of dismissing due process in the #MeToo movement, but it is absolutely undeniable that it has brought justice to victims of horrible abuse, in a way that simply would not have been possible 2 or 3 years ago, and should be applauded for that.
Just an incredibly infuriating story overall.
I haven't seen any such similar defense of a male harasser. Some individuals dared to say something about someone here or there, but a letter by a group of leaders in the field that the accused works in... No, nothing of the sort.
But then a person like Judith Butler should not sign such a letter, showing that she has not understood the power dynamics that have been keeping sexual harassment quiet.
I should be clear: I'm a huge admirer of Professor Butler, and her writing has been very meaningful to me personally (though i recognize that many HNers might disagree). I still admire her greatly, but it just makes the disappointment so much greater. She should know better than this.
For example, if the accused continues to protest the accusation, a good friend might offer to help the accused bring the truth to light.
Or if the accused is clearly guilty, a good friend might offer to help the accused find appropriate ways to make restitution, and/or offer emotional/logistical support if the accused will be punished.
My feeling is that it's rare to stick to the principles at hand compared to protecting your own (and I mean for any group/tribe not any specific one).
We should support feminist agenda and movements like #MeToo. But to keep ourselves sober to whole movement, at the same time we should never forget there's a strong tribal element to actions of these people. And hopefully keep the effects of these in just in the right levels.
The lesson we need to learn is how powerful and misleading our biases and emotions are.
They are only unhappy now that someone they value is under the same rules.
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.
I think what it comes down to is that some people (myself included) are finding it hard to give the benefit of the doubt here when the character defence being offered so closely parallels what's been said in the past in defence of brazen male perverts.
That said, I think you've hit the nail on the head regarding in and out groups, and we should simply be looking at this as: a person has been wronged here, what's the appropriate response?
There's a reason the law as written doesn't discriminate offences on race or gender.
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.
I see a lot of healthy debate and constructive criticism within feminism.
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.
I'm still a feminist though, and other than learning one woman's story I genuinely don't understand what was supposed to happen here.
This isn't a debate between 2 equal factions, as you've seemed to cast it: it was a Stalinist style purge of all who didn't hold the correct opinions; with the same people who committed the purge, still in control today.
I'm still a feminist, and I still don't understand why I can't be a feminist and also believe the story I just told. The fact that "mainstream feminism" ostracized Pizzey has nothing to do with my personal beliefs. I guess I'm not a mainstream feminist?
Is this mainstream?: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/01/19/feminism-inte...
This is pretty close to me.
FWIW, I think very few people exist as absolutes but typically shades of grey. IDK what "good" or "bad" people are anymore, just good or bad actions. Promoting equality is something I find to be a good action. That is what I feel feminism represents (or should represent, or represents to me).
Specifically, what about these cases is remotely illustrative of "all" of anything?
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.