February 25, 2004
From the desk of Jane Galt:I am woman, hear me whine
So Naomi Wolf has been traumatised for life by the fact that after she invited him to dinner at her house, Harold Bloom put his hand on her knee.
Is this what feminism has come to? How on earth can we claim to be men's equals when we are so frail that we cannot withstand the psychic anguish of an unwanted advance?
I mean, don't get me wrong, I find these things as awkward and embarassing as the next woman. I blush. I stammer. I back away. But I might point out that this is because, post-feminism, I no longer have the moral authority to slap his hand and say, in an indignant voice, "what kind of girl do you think I am?"
What would we think of a man who said that, after a female professor (or a male one, for that matter) put a hand on his knee, he was so unutterably wounded that his grades declined? That he's been carrying the "wound" around with him for twenty years? We'd think he was a hysterical fool, that's what. Naomi Wolf does the cause of equality no favours by implying that for women, such hysteria is only natural.
Posted by Jane Galt at February 25, 2004 11:17 AM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound linksMegan, that's a welcome bit of common sense.
There's a bit in the movie "Bull Durham" where Susan Sarandon's friend has just slept with Tim Robbins' character and she goes back to Susan Sarandon and claims she was seduced. Sarandon's character, Annie, says something to the effect of, "you are a powerful woman capable of making your own decisions, you cannot be seduced."
We, as women, should never choose to be vitims. Being put in an uncomfortable situation is NOT sexual assault. It is an uncomfortable situation. The more women complain about it, the more they look like victims in need of protection. Therefore, they look like lesser citizens.
Believe it or not, I agree with you completely on this front.
Kate/Jane
Very well put. I'm fortunate to have married a woman who's both gentle and strong. She would echo your comments...
Jay
Kate/Jane
Very well put. I'm fortunate to have married a woman who's both gentle and strong. She would echo your comments...
Jay
Jane, I couldn't agree with your sentiments any more.
Like affirmative action, feminism isn't really been about equality anymore. It's about controlled inequality.
Apparently she was so traumatised that she became a Rhodes Scholar immediately afterwards, and wrote a big best selling book WHILE a Rhodes Scholar.
How do I get Harold Bloom to put his hand on my knee?
University males are subject to being hauled before closed tribunals without representation, on unsupported assertions of 'offended' females, and forced to prove their innocence of their alleged acts. Failure to so prove can cost them all sorts of humiliating sanctions including 'sensitivity training' or expulsion.
The ordeal of confronting a tribunal of feminist justice minions under such loaded conditions can be thought of as every bit as soul-destroying as poor Naomi's encounter, or worse. She could have defended herself by many effective means, verbal, body-language or physical, whereas our defendant would be summarily convicted if he used any of them aggressively on his own behalf before that tribunal. So be sure poor Naomi isn't suffering alone.
Here I go, agreeing with JG again. Someone check Satan's thermostat.
"English prof feeling up co-ed" and "using national magazine to attack someone for long-past minor wrong" can both be filed under, "Power, irresponsible use of."
Here I go, agreeing with JG again. Someone check Satan's thermostat.
"English prof feeling up co-ed" and "using national magazine to attack someone for long-past minor wrong" can both be filed under, "Power, irresponsible use of."
Yes, it's too bad "what kind of girl do you think I am?!?" is no longer socially acceptable.
At bottom, it's just a variant on "it's not you, it's me", but an accusatory rather than apologetic variant.
Probably the worst of the lot were/are the women who accept special treatment offered because of their "assets", then sue later, perhaps because the offers no longer are made?
At bottom, it's just a variant on "it's not you, it's me", but an accusatory rather than apologetic variant.
No, it isn't that at all. Take your meds.
you know, I understand that naomi is on her 14th minute---her entire brand of post Gail Sheehy schtick seemed tired in 1993, when she got her first book contract. She's been a regular on the womyn's studies/colloquia 5-10k/pop regular chicken circuit since then...and well her schtick is just that--hard to pitch a 20 yr Comp Sci major at UCLA, whose looking at a 95k package at Microsoft or Goldman her first year out that she is a victim of the patriarchy.
so she goes into the closet and comes up with this.
I dont blame NY--they've been in freefall since 199x--pick a date. How many times can they recycle the "how difficult is it to get into an upper east side pre-school" meme.
what I want to know is this: he put her hand on her legs....rather toward the inner thigh. No further. No pressure. No quid pro quo. He dropped it when she did not melt at first brush. Put frankly, his actions were boorish, but not to different in type from a frat boys delight in publicly farting. ANd she had a breakdown. Just how emotionally troubled was she...and is it right for us to subsidize this kind of stuff....its howard stern, just in the opposite direction.
>
No longer have the moral authority? Why exactly do you need "moral authority" to get annoyed at being touched by someone you don't want touching you? It shouldn't matter if you're mother Teresa or Jenna Jameson. FYI, I don't know about the next woman, but I can tell you I don't find rejecting guys awkward or embarassing* (they're the ones that get embarassed or pissed off), and if I did, I wouldn't be a lameass and blame it on post-feminism. You just chewed out Wolf for her moronic whining, and I agree with your first 3 sentences. So why do you have to spoil it by proceeding to whine about how feminism is the reason you don't have the "authority" and need to "blush and stammer." Next time, instead of "what kind of girl do you think I am?" try "Don't touch me" or maybe "f--k off." You don't blush and stammer "because" of anything feminists did, you blush and stammer because you lack the confidence to be assertive. Not a particularly awful flaw, but nothing to do with feminism either.
*the only time its awkward or embarassing is when the guy is actually someone nice who likes me and who i know pretty well. rejecting nice people is hard (all of the above comments refer to random making-a-pass guys). then I agree blushing is understandable. stammering is still lame.
No longer have the moral authority? Why exactly do you need "moral authority" to get annoyed at being touched by someone you don't want touching you? It shouldn't matter if you're mother Teresa or Jenna Jameson. FYI, I don't know about the next woman, but I can tell you I don't find rejecting guys awkward or embarassing* (they're the ones that get embarassed or pissed off), and if I did, I wouldn't be a lameass and blame it on post-feminism. You just chewed out Wolf for her moronic whining, and I agree with your first 3 sentences. So why do you have to spoil it by proceeding to whine about how feminism is the reason you don't have the "authority" and need to "blush and stammer." Next time, instead of "what kind of girl do you think I am?" try "Don't touch me" or maybe "f--k off." You don't blush and stammer "because" of anything feminists did, you blush and stammer because you lack the confidence to be assertive. Not a particularly awful flaw, but nothing to do with feminism either.
*the only time its awkward or embarassing is when the guy is actually someone nice who likes me and who i know pretty well. rejecting nice people is hard (all of the above comments refer to random making-a-pass guys). then I agree blushing is understandable. stammering is still lame.
I think the correct quote
the friend says he was lured by Nuke Laloosh
and annie says repeat after me - your are a confident strong women (words to that effect) you can not be lured
Women can be seduced but not lured.
Naomi is a putz
No, it isn't that at all. Take your meds.
I'm sorry, did I miss the part where you politely explained why you disagree with Anne? I thought she had a point, myself, but maybe I forgot my meds this morning too. What a convenient debating strategy: Everyone with whom I disagree is mentally ill.
Good lord. With a mouth like Naomi Wolfe has on her, is she really trying to convince the rest of us that she's incapable of saying "Please move your hand. Now!"
Being in the same room with Harold Bloom for more than like three seconds would probably make me want to sue somebody too.
Given what Bloom allegedly said to Wolf as he copped a feel, the perfect rejoinder from her perhaps would have been, "You have the aura of a pathetic old fool." That likey would have diminished ol' Harry's ardor sufficiently.
The odd part of all of this "just shrug it off" is that any time I have heard of a male who was the victim of unwanted sexual gesture (from another powerful man), their reaction was even more severe. Dropped the course, left the graduate program, quit the company, etc. It is a violation of a professional relationship.
The reality is that in most cases, an unwanted sexual gesture *does* destroy the relationship in a completely shocking way, even if no coercion is involved. Very few can "just ignore it". After a gesture like that, very few feel that they can pretend it never happened.
Now, should Ms. Wolf have brought this up now? Probably not. But belittling her being shaken by the experience is neither uncommon or something to be ashamed of.
Tom West, you're correct that such an advance breaches trust in the mentor-student relationship. Even being hit on unexpectedly by a friend can put you off balance for a few distracted days; I don't think anyone is saying they should have been able to shrug it off by morning. But these women--Wolf quotes three or four of them--didn't get thrown for a loop, recover themselves, and get down to avoiding contact with the offender again. They spent full *semesters* unable to cope with the disillusion. That's excessive. There's something going on besides professional misconduct.
Part of it is the way hoity-toity colleges are run. Jane, I started at Penn the year after you, but I imagine the sex spiel during your orientation week was pretty much the same: *any* unwanted sexual overture was treated as an affront of cosmic, life-reordering ramifications.
I am so very glad that you have put my thoughts into words in such a down-to-earth and logical manner, and the comments as well mostly echo the obvious: Women cannot complain about not having a door held open for them by a man and at the same time bitterly scream that they can open it by themselves, thank you very much.
Borish people have a right to be borish. Intelligent people can easily handle them or avoid them.
They spent full *semesters* unable to cope with the disillusion.
Not ideal, but perfectly understandable. For those who actually believe in the ideals of the university (or the workplace for that matter), it can be profoundly shocking and disillusioning to find that those you respected and trusted are betraying those ideals.
It can certainly make one question the integrity of the entire system, and those who believe the system a hollow facade are unlikely to make their best effort, especially if they now realize that they can never know whether a superior's interest is in their work or in their body.
I wonder how many other promising academic careers the professor ended?
Tom,
It might be fair to expect that a man's reaction to an overture from another man would be more severe than a woman's reaction to a man, given the absolute novelty of that experience for most men.
I don't think it's crazy to expect women to deal more adroitly with men's attentions, given the almost-daily reality of that sort of thing.
Not that that justifies sexual harassment, or minimizes your correct point that this involves a substantial breach of trust, but I don't think it's fair to imply that "men are bigger weenies than Wolf" given that their situation is not entirely analogous.
I also don't think it's reasonable for a man to have the kind of outsized reaction to an advance from either a male or a female professor that these women describe . . . and if they did, there would be feminists who would decry their homophobia or sexism for reacting thus. I'm willing to countenance a certain amount of adolescent drama, having engaged in quite a bit of it myself, but coming close to flunking out of school? Over three seconds of knee/hand contact? That's self indulgence.
I think it's different if the professor is coercive or threatening, but Bloom wasn't. He was just lecherous.
Could I possibly suggest that the "Platoon principle" [1] could profitably be applied by everyone who thinks that they're well-placed to judge either side of this incident?
[1] You don't know what it was like! You weren't there!
I don't think it's fair to imply that "men are bigger weenies than Wolf"
Actually, I wasn't trying to imply any levels of weenieness :-). But the only situation I could think of for a man that matches depth of unwelcomeness that most women feel in such a situation is a homosexual overture to a straight man. It's unwelcome, but more to the point, it's *unexpected*.
There's no doubt that Ms. Wolf's reaction would have been much less if she had already written off all men as unable to control their physical urges and thus unfit to hold positions of responsibility. But she hadn't. I doubt she even considered the possibility.
I don't know her background, but coming from a somewhat socially progressive / sexually conservative background, I'd have been shaken to the core by a similar incident (not necessarily sexual in nature - a "money for marks" proposition would be just as unsettling). I was lucky enough to (1) be male, and (2) surround myself with a calibre of people were such an incident could not occur. She was not.
It was only in my late twenties that I realized that that sort contemptable behaviour could come from people who weren't obvious sleazeballs. It's amazing what you can miss if you have have a fundamental belief in people's virtuousness. (A fault that I am still accused of.)
Dsquared, I've been there. Every woman has. Me perhaps more than most, because before I went to business school, I spent several years in technology firms and on trading floors, where there are almost no women and the atmosphere is desperately macho. I've been groped, leered at, catcalled, and propositioned in terms that would make anyone blush. Some of the perpetrators were men who were in authority over me, or for whom I had deep respect, including a close friend's father (who was still married to her mother). I hated it. Sometimes I was distraught for hours. But I didn't retreat to my bed and pull the covers over my head for six months because of it.
I'm not excusing Bloom. What he did is crude and, given that he was her professor, wrong. But he didn't, as my college advisor did (not to me), suggest that unless she complied, she would not pass his course. I've heard other, worse stories about Bloom, and in some of those cases, its entirely understandable that the woman in question went into a tailspin.
But not based on this story. Ms Wolf's reaction to a clumsy pass by a man she respected is straight out of a Victorian novel. And if we really are such delicate creatures, who go all to smithereens whenever boorish men make sexual suggestions, then how can we demand equal entry into a world full of boors and cads?
Naomi wrote that she was so traumatized that she stopped writing poetry. If only someone had really assaulted her and stopped her from writing all together!
Naomi wrote that she was so traumatized that she stopped writing poetry. If only someone had really assaulted her and stopped her from writing all together!
Naomi wrote that she was so traumatized that she stopped writing poetry. If only someone had really assaulted her and stopped her from writing all together!
hi megan,
"I think it's different if the professor is coercive or threatening, but Bloom wasn't. He was just lecherous."
"I'm not excusing Bloom. What he did is crude and, given that he was her professor, wrong. But he didn't, as my college advisor did (not to me), suggest that unless she complied, she would not pass his course."
what exactly is it that you think bloom did that was wrong. was it the pass itself? the fact that he is morally required to refrain from trying to make a pass at a student? or...?
or, could it be that even if there was no verbal or explicit "quid pro quo", that a man, in a position of authority, 20 years ago, with a less experienced and accomplished, more vulnerable woman, made a pass. would you allow even the merest hint of a quid quo pro from someone who is in such a position of authority?
on a related note, what if the situation that faced socrates with phaedrus were repeated today, and a modern "socrates" had "stepped over the line" and tried to diddle phaedrus (with whom he heavily flirted in the original)? even if it were consensual, would you (and/or others) think that there had been an abuse of power in the teaching relationship?
Well said Jane. We are talking about more than the adolescent Wolf's overreaction. OK. She was young and impressionable. Perhaps naive. She was hurt. She needed a good cry. I dont blame her. The point is this happened twenty years ago when she was 20. She is 40 now for Christ's sake! She should be over it. There is something deeply disturbing about nurturing such commonplace adolescent trauma and disillusionment, the sort we all go through one way or another, into middle age. And there is something truly despicable about setting out with cool deliberation and premeditation to ruin the reputation of an elderly man over a twenty year old grievance as petty as this one.
Most of these comments take if for granted that Wolf is telling the truth.
Most of these posts also assume that Bloom doesn't have a truth of his own.
Never was so much made out of so little. But, then, that is the story of feminism. Bratty, over-induldged suburban white girls trying to cop the mantle of the oppressed negro.
The corporate world has been a a snit-fit for 10 years over this nonsense. The whole thing is about to boomerang. My prediction. You'll begin to hear a wave of stories about people screwing in the corporate boardroom and in the conference room. (I already have.) There is no greater turnon than that which is deemed off limits. Second prediction. Those who mouth the PC feminist mantra about how horrible such hijinks are will be the first in the boardroom with their panties down around their ankles.
And the really hysterical part of all this... I make my living from the sexual harassment frenzy! Might as well get in on the booty (financial) that is.
Somewhere, around 1973, the entire world lost its sense of humor, not to mention its sense of proportion. This crap is of no importance, except to the con artists looking for a payday via the lawsuit of their dreams.
I've been propositioned by men quite a few times. Didn't bother me a bit, although I declined. (In fact, I considered it as it was intended... as a compliment.) One of the most hilarious tenents of feminism is the nitwit contention that men's adoration of women's bodies is a form of... oppression. Anybody around here ever think of developing a thick skin? This discussion (I don't mean on this board, but in general) is the dumbest discussion going in our society. It's amazing how stupid (or greedy in the case of the lawsuit vultures) intelligent people can be.
If somebody makes a pass at you, take it as the compliment it was intended to be. Is this that hard to understand! I ALMOST FEEL LIKE SCREAMING! WHAT ARE INTELLIGENT PEOPLE DOING WASTING THEIR TIME ON THIS CRAP?
But I didn't retreat to my bed and pull the covers over my head for six months because of it.
For Pete's sake, she was only 20. At the risk of offending the 20 year olds here, she was just a kid!
Considering the number of people who wipe out of university because of a broken relationship, nobody should be surprised by strong emotional reactions to shocking events, especially among the very young.
if we really are such delicate creatures, who go all to smithereens whenever boorish men make sexual suggestions, then how can we demand equal entry into a world full of boors and cads?
Perhaps by demanding that they act like the professionals that they are paid to be? Crikey, I can't believe the number of people that believe that men are incompetent creatures at the mercy of their hormones, incapable of acting as paid professionals. Talk about the curse of low expectations!
This isn't a case of offensensitivity. (Okay, it *is* a case of waiting 20 years before saying something, but that's not what most people are complaining about...) What he did was unacceptable by any standards. Putting an unasked-for hand on someone's thigh for sexual purposes is well-beyond the pale.
"Putting an unasked-for hand on someone's thigh for sexual purposes is well-beyond the pale."
I almost broke out laughing at my desk over this one.
Tom, there is a point at which sensitivity become nonsense, and you've reached it.
No, it is not "well-beyond the pale." If the person who's being patted wants a date, it all works out for the good. If the person who's being patted doesn't want a date, they've suffered a slight on the level of kicking a rock and scuffing their shoe. Really, Tom, that's it.
Where in the world did you get such absurd notions? Do you live in a plastic bubble so as not to breathe other's peoples germs?
Get a grip, guy.
Do you know that quite a few million people were executed in the 20th century with a single gunshot to the back of their head? Now, there's a grievance. I suggest that you learn the difference between that and a pat on the thigh.
It will serve you well in life.
Part of it is that she's so utterly humourless about it. She doesn't say "I was twenty, I was stupid, I freaked out and like a total idiot, let my grades decline". She acts as if this was the natural, normal reaction. I have been twenty. I have been propositioned by older men. Believe it or not, I am (and certainly was then) shy as hell. Going on academic probation is not the natural, normal reaction here. It's adolescent drama. In which, as I say, I indulged fairly often. But I recognize, now, that this is what it was, and I don't act as if the rest of the world should be expected to do something about my emotional excesses.
Jane, there's an old fairy tale that deals with this syndrome: "The Princess and the Pea."
Its not adolescent drama now. It is a middle aged woman deliberately injuring an elderly man over what was, at worst, a 20 year old incident of boorish lechery.
Now, there's a grievance. I suggest that you learn the difference between that and a pat on the thigh.
Look, I'm not putting humanitarian atrocities in the same ballpark as a hand on the thigh. By "beyond the pale", I meant that it's bad enough for the professor to verbally make a pass at her, but placing an unasked for hand a student's thigh is.. is.. ick!. I was merely trying to say that unasked for sexual physical contact is even more sleazy than unasked for sexual propositioning and even more likely to freak out a young student.
Jane: Admittedly, if she *had* to write about it, she should probably have used the "traumatized a young, trusting 20 year old" tact.
I suspect that "overly earnest" and "overly dramatic" are pretty closely related. I can easily imagine Ms. Wolf as overly earnest. But another point is that the professor *did* pick on (at least one) young person who was barely out of adolescence. If there are any other victims, I'd not be suprised if many of their reactions were at least as severe.
Of course, I still don't know why she published it rather than confronting him directly. (Okay, I do know. He damaged her, so now she's damaging him.) Her stated reason "warn others" isn't going to work. Unless students have radically changed since I was at university (same timeframe as Ms. Wolf), students aren't in any danger of listening to how bad things were in the "olden days" (> 5 years before them).
Has anyone seen Harold Bloom in the flesh? This is a relatively recent picture:
http://www.grad.cgu.edu/~scheible/webpage/yale.htm
I wonder if Naomi Wolf would have responded the same way if Bloom looked like Brad Pitt.
Has anyone seen Harold Bloom in the flesh? This is a relatively recent picture:
http://www.grad.cgu.edu/~scheible/webpage/yale.htm
I wonder if Naomi Wolf would have responded the same way if Bloom looked like Brad Pitt.
Has anyone seen Harold Bloom in the flesh? This is a relatively recent picture:
http://www.grad.cgu.edu/~scheible/webpage/yale.htm
I wonder if Naomi Wolf would have responded the same way if Bloom looked like Brad Pitt.
I'm sorry about the spam. It was not intentional. My post took over ten minutes to load!
It's a fact of life -- men make sloppy passes. Women depend on men making sloppy passes.
Call me old-fashioned, but it's my experience that under-attached women spend approximately 99% of the waking moments trying to figure out how to get some big stiff TO MAKE A MOVE!
The rub is that it's most often the wrong man who makes the move -- but women learn how to handle this at a very early age.
The notion that a woman could be SHOCKED, SHOCKED, at an unwelcome advance is pure fiction (right out of Casablanca).
Naomi Wolf's problem seems to be one of articulation. Her last book was about how she had an unpleasent childbirth experience, mainly because she wouldn't tell the doctor what she wanted. In this article, she has all sorts of excuses for why she couldn't approach anyone at Yale at the time and instead comes out with this late hit on Bloom.
As a woman in a strongly male industry (I was in all all day meeting today with about 15 men and me), I hate the flavor of feminism that suggests that women are unable to assert their needs and grievances. That BS won't fly in the real world, ladies.
Dsquared, I've been there. Every woman has
Yeh, but you haven't been Naomi Wolf.
I know two blokes, oddly enough, who lost their legs in the Falklands (one lost both, the other lost the right one). One of them picked himself up and made a successful career. The other one got clinically depressed and had a very rough time of it for years. He's more or less better now, but his life is considerably worse than it would have been.
The point I'm making is not that losing your leg is the equivalent of being groped, but that different people react differently to very similar events, and it's ungracious and mean to judge them too harshly for doing so.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110004747
I found this article through Joanne Jacobs. In an earlier book Wolf describes the same situation, but talks about her excitement at the plan for him to come over and says she got "room-spinningly" drunk.
For me, the stoy's now closer to "knowingly made a false accusation". She writes that she flirted with him, so how unnatural is it for the guy to believe his advance was welcomed?
For me, the stoy's now closer to "knowingly made a false accusation".
I redirect attention to the Platoon Principle mentioned above. If you think she's making a very serious accusation on the basis of flimsy and possibly misunderstood supposition, then what the hell are you doing right now?
Right. Completely contradicting her own public statements is no evidence. I'm having trouble sleeping, can I borrow your blinders?
Oddly, the the Platoon Principle quickly vaporizes when one is preparing to make assertions about the mental capacity or reasoning skills of the current head of US government, examples of which can be found on the D-Squared Digest from time to time.
With respect to Wolf: I would think that when a person presents two nigh mutually contradictory accounts of interacting with someone else, it is left to the reader to judge how reasonable said person's aftermath claims actually are, both in immediate semesters following and in consideration of the fact that this person is still be on a rotisserie spit over it at the China anniversary.
Wolf may have indeed been very startled by Bloom's alleged feel copping, but as the WSJ editorial suggests, the results she describes are completely disproportionate to the approach she apparently took to this same person on another occasion. What do reasonable persons conclude on that basis? That they are entirely unsure about it because they weren't there, or that Naomi Wolf isn't even sure about it anymore yet is making strong statments in spite of herself?
"But I might point out that this is because, post-feminism, I no longer have the moral authority to slap his hand and say, in an indignant voice, "what kind of girl do you think I am?"
Um, no. The actions of a groper are not a reflection of your character, but rather a reflection of his or her (yes, sometimes her) character. Thus, you at all times have the moral authority to issue a stern verbal warning along the lines of "Just what do you think you're doing?" If this does not produce an immediate retraction and apology, you may then proceed to implement the knee-to-groin manuever or other assertive remedy as you may judge fit.
Ok, I have read the New York article by Wolfe and I have to agree that she appears to be making a mountain out of a molehill. Incidentally I suspect her "wound" had as much to do with Bloom's lack of interest in her poety as the pass. The analogy to a male professor and a male student is not accurate unless both are openly gay.
On the other hand I don't see how Bloom is a victim in this affair or why Wolfe shouldn't write about it or how this seriously endangers Bloom's reputation.
Oddly, the the Platoon Principle quickly vaporizes when one is preparing to make assertions about the mental capacity or reasoning skills of the current head of US government, examples of which can be found on the D-Squared Digest from time to time.
A libertarian weblog is perhaps a curious place to be pushing the assertion that governments and their heads should be given anything like as much interpretative charity as natural individuals.
A libertarian weblog is perhaps a curious place to be pushing the assertion that governments and their heads should be given anything like as much interpretative charity as natural individuals.
Ooh, nice try...the coyness almost threw me for a minute, but a proper zinger still needs to have defensible premises.
First, the talkback forum here is not an exclusive domain of libertarians, seeing as how my posting privileges remain. Good diversionary attempt, though.
Second, what's good for the goose is good for the gander; if an influential author with a social agenda is to be given leeway in external judgements of quality regarding her past decision making, apparently on the basis that none of us were physically present in her shoes to judge of the circumstances and available information accordingly, then the same arguably applies to an influential had of state, else we have a curious inconsistency in behavior. Repetitive use of "moron" in the latter case and benefit-of-doubt in the former, for example.
Debates over the long-term consequences of either's decisions are, of course, a related but separate argument.
Personally I'm inclined to let you employ whatever language you wish to describe the current president's capacity and capabilities, but with that comes the need to shove this fluff about "platoon principle" with respect to Naomi Wolfe's bizarre babble.
I think, especially in Stephen's case, there is too much pooh-poohing of what happened to Naomi because Stephen has not actually experienced it. There are, sometimes, men we respect and work for who then make an unwelcome advance. We are expected to find a way to get out of it and yet STILL keep things civil. It's a difficult thing to know how to do. If we say anything other than laughing it off (like, please don't do that, or I don't appreciate that...) we're seen as bitches without a sense of humor. The issue is not really what happened to her, though, but the fact that people's grades were being affected by it -- hers, probably other women who chose to sleep or not sleep with him (IF this is true), and how Yale ignored her complaints, even recently. I myself wouldn't bring such a thing up 20 years later. But even most recently, if you read the article, no one from Yale returned her calls to see how Yale deals with such things today. If they had, this wouldn't necessarily have come out this way.
Also, I went to Penn and want to know which advisor was propositioning students. I'll accept initials. Thanks! ;)
I have seen Harold Bloom and all I can say is if Miss Wolfe tripped his trigger and he thought he should give it a go, more power to him. He who hesitates is lost and all that.
Reminds me of the Joe Namath incedent.
Sometimes that does work, it's why we try!
Comments are Closed.