Holy shit that is funny.
Mad props to the person who came up with 'Nixon' as their safe word.
it might be the funniest thing ive heard in a long time
Man, if you don't know the safe word's NixonYour polyamory could use some fixin'.
If your Department needs a safe word...
Am thinking that the Hanna manifesto is just what we need to bring the FPers and the PMBers to unity.
It's behind a paywall. Can some Anonymous out there cut and past pls.? Thanks, Anonymous.
no -- you can get it from DailySnooze
Glaucon, I think the chances are good that that's the source, given Thompson's Colorado connection. CU should use your clip and ditch this one:http://youtu.be/fHp4G3i5fM0
7:09 wins the internet for 10/20.
this blog needs a safe word! how about cocknballs?
how 'bout 10.23eatadick?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
name names of lady friends who go for trading favors strategy plz
That would be a mistake, unless someone has a smoking gun. Remember the horrible threads with names from a few days ago.
Triple penalized if they also had to have relations with the H-dawg.
fuck you, 6:50
Anyone who names names is pure scum and you're a troll in the classic sense 6.50.
No names named. But was it worth it, 8:28? Or do you prefer not to ask or ponder this question?
7:30, Herbert Kornfeld is the one and only H-dawg.
True, 11:50, true.:: opens forty-ounce O'Doul's, slowly turns it parallel to ground ::
You want names? Just look at the contributors of books edited by Hanna. Protip: google the pictures of female contributors, and you'll have a pretty good guess. Just a guess, mind.
Looks as though he never edited a book. Journal special issues? That would be even sneakier.
Can I just be clear about what you are suggesting, 6:24? Are you suggesting that people google the pictures of female contributors to books edited by Hanna, and then...what? Assess their appearances? Publicly accuse the pretty ones of engaging in sexual quid pro quo in order to further their careers? So, simultaneously: a. engaging in public assessment of a female colleagues apperance, b. publicly alleging that they are the victims of sexual harassment and c. alleging that they essentially slept their way to the top? On the very thin evidence that they both a. contributed to a volume by Hanna and look attractive?
Yes, 6:36, this is what the 'name names' people want us to do. That is their level of mentality and morality. Fuck them (and I'm not one of the people who already said this).On 'accomplishing the feat' of uniting the femphils and metabloggers: that's not really a feat. There are lots of things on which both groups (to the extent to which metabloggers are a 'group') agree. They agree that the internet has to do with technology. They agree that the earth goes around the sun. They agree that there are some clear cases of wrongful sexual harassment and that those are very bad things. See, metabloggers tend to be the smarter ones and to have a more nuanced view of the world. It comes from the fact that The femphils are party liners and we're anti party liners.So here goes. I think the femphils tend to be idiots. I'm a more extreme metablogger. I've always maintained that sexual harassment exists and is a very bad thing when it exists, even though the femphils are completely unwarranted in making claims about its extent in the profession (not wrong -- we just don't know -- but clearly unwarranted) and that their suggested measures and their preening and lockstep pronouncements and opposition to the free discussion that constitutes philosophy are disgusting. There's nothing new about my agreeing with them that something like what Hanna seems to defend is horrid. But here's your big mistake. Metabloggers, even the most extreme of us, occupy a moderate position. Femphils do not: they're the extremists we're opposed to. So the real 'feat' of uniting us would be something that goes the other way: a case in which femphils say, "Hang on, *that* isn't sexual harassment" or "Stop judging this nonfemale nonfeminist philosopher that none of us have reason to like of sexual harassment! We need to protect the unjustly accused! Let's have a respectful silence until those properly authorized to review the case have done so." Another way of achieving a true feat of reconciliation would be to get femphils to say, "Let's face it, most of what passes as feminist philosophy is garbage. Let's tighten up our standards." Or how about this: "The profession is nowhere near as bad for women as most feminist philosophers say." Find me one -- just one -- feminist philosopher who says that and is part of the FP crowd. One person, at any point in the last 30 years. That would be a 'feat'. But I'll bet you can't even find one. That's the problem with everyone on that side being in lockstep. But the converse for Metabloggers? Well we say all kinds of things here, even against the Metablog. That's the distinction you're not getting as you try over and over and over again to get us to have warm thoughts about FP. Please stop already.
I'm 6:36, but I think you're confused, 4:30. I never said anything bout accomplishing any feats.
It's probably too late to have an effect, but I've deleted the comment at the head of this thread. I'm just not comfortable with anonymous hearsay about the conduct of particular people. Sorry, 6:41.
I have a hard time seeing these people as victims. (More generally, I am disturbed by how willing feminists are to interpret these cases in such a way that it takes away the agency from the women involved and pictures them as helpless victims of power structures they either cannot understand or are incapable of resisting; thought this was very striking in the Pogge case.)Someone who enters a sexual relation with X is not a helpless victim but a willing participant, fully aware of what she is doing, and should be treated accordingly: as an intelligent, responsible agent, not a helpless object pushed and pulled around.
sorry, should have been a reply to 6:41am
I guess the thought is that a woman propositioned by Pogge or Hanna has two bad options, unless she is genuinely attracted to him: sleep with an old creep and get a publication/letter, or refuse him and get blowback. Both options include victimhood as well as agency.
7:29, I commend your ability to be polite and rational sound while still explaining exactly what was wrong with a pretty disgusting comment.
well, we are not talking about teenage gurls here. Educated,intelligent women should be able to understand what it means to do sexual favors as a means of getting a paper into an edited collection.
7:43, what's that got to do with anything? Can't an intelligent person be a victim because she's given two bad options?
yeah obviously, as when a criminal puts a gun to one's head and gives the options, your life or your money. But I don't see that as relevantly similar. The woman propositioned can just renounce the publication and walk away.
But if she walks away she risks blowback from the spurned propositioner, no? That's why both options are bad.
OK, so the woman who walks away and risks blowback is a victim-victim. The one who takes the wrinkly penis and the publication is a victim-beneficiary. What should we do about her?
Maybe what we should do about her is quit fucking worrying about her and start worrying about what to do about this scumbag at Colorado who is infesting our profession.
The problem with just worrying about the scumbag, 8:13, is that this will alienate a lot of the people who compete for jobs with the connoisseurs of wrinkly penises.
is it conceivable that some women genuinely enjoy these supposed 'favors' for their own sake and also wouldn't mind gaining professional side-benefits from doing them?
Does it go the other way? Would a male student or new faculty member in need of a good publication enjoy a little under cover work with the editor of a journal like THOUGHT? Would these men be victims too? Or if you aren't heteronomative, maybe enjoy some wrinkly penis for a shot at a NOUS article.
10:02: No, the male person would, qua male, be a willing participant complicit in a wrongful practice.
What I love about this blog is the way in which one can point out that not all naked philosophy emperors are white males.
(lightly stroking 10:35's ballsack)
That's right 9:56 - junior women love it when you hit on them. The quid pro quo benefits you offer are a mere cherry on top of your sexy cake.
you, lightly-stroking-lightly-licking-male-genitalia-on-many-threads-guy, are a creep.
A deal for the femphils: philobros stop protecting creeps like Hanna, and the fems agree to throw under the bus those among them who benefitted from sexual quid pro quo. Any takers?
I think this long focus on people who "benefit from sexual quid pro quo" is creepy in and of itself. To be offered such is a shitty situation no matter how you take it.
Surely none of the SS ladies are faculty schtuppers?
12:53, that being offered a sexual quid pro quo is a bad option has been pointed out by several people above. It also looks as though everyone here is in favor of punishing dirtbags like Hanna. However some of us also think that it is at least worth having a debate about what to think of victim-beneficiaries of sexual attention/quid pro quos. We have all seen the old male profs hiring and/or mentoring a string of uncommonly attractive junior people (men or women, let's not be heteronormative), and we are pissed off about it, given how cutthroat the market is.
Some of the people more pissed about the sexual quid pro quo are probably unattractive females: they get all the gender disadvantage, and none of the shortcuts available to their more shapely sisters.
1:05, isn't this a no-brainer w.r.t. choosing your battles? We should care more about fixing a shite situation than seeking retribution from targets of sexual harassment.
1:05, 1:08 is calling you ugly.
Picking battles just with the harasser is not a smart strategy, because it alienates a chunk of your potential supporters, namely those who have to compete with the victim-beneficiaries of sexual quid pro quo. We can't let these people pull up the ladder after themselves. They had two bad options, not two equally bad ones. They chose the most convenient and most immoral option, and they must pay.
Well, I hope at least that even if you think these people must 'pay', you make sure that you don't accuse people by name, and that you don't enourage others to do so. Because just like mere accusations of sexual harassment can do damage to a person's reputation, accusations that a person engaged in quid pro quo can do massive damage. So just like in the former case, I suggest you adopt innocent-until-proven guilty in this case too, and refrain from speculating about specific individuals, and refrain from making such people 'pay' (whatever that means) until it has been proven that they engaged in this kind of thing.
Has it been 'proven' that Hanna engaged in this kind of thing? I mean, we're all pretty certain that he did, and I don't want to question that. Some of us also have a good sense of which women benefitted from his M.O.
As far as I can see, nothing has been proven at all and I sure would like to know the complete facts before forming any judgment.
Yes, it's pretty clear it's been 'proven.' A. He doesn't deny it, B. he received an institutional punishment (which seems pretty good reason to believe that he did it - otherwise, we'd have to assume both that the university just punished him on the basis of mere accusation that he sent certain emails, and did not bother at all to ask to investigate these emails, when they could esaily do so; and that they punished him for this, and he didn't think to point out that he hadn't sent them). So I dont really see how its relevant if you have a 'good sense.' Did the person publicly admit it? Or have they been through some judicial process that resulted in punishment for this, or something relevantly similar? If not, then I can't see what grounds you'd have. If you have other reasons for thinking that you know who benefited, i.e., you have heard rumors etc., I suggest you apply the standard you would apply if you had heard rumours that someone had sexually harrassed a colleague, i.e., don't say anything that could unfairly damage someone's reputation merely because you have heard rumours.
well, it hasn't been proven that he is guilty of sexual harassment.
Also, I just want to point out how what's going on here is seriously nutty. We have one anonymous commenter stating that he/she has heard rumours that Hanna engages in quod pro quo. On this basis - one anonymous comment, alleging something that has not been alleged at all elsewhere, despite the fact that Hanna himself has recently been investigated by an office of harassment - is enough for people to suggest that we should go look at the books he edited, look at the pictures of people who contributed, and assume (I'm guessing) the pretty women should 'pay' for this (despite the fact that even if this did happen, they are also victims of clear-cut sexual harassment). So it's fine to judge these women - it's fine to smear their reputations. But we should reserve judgment about what Hanna did, despite the fact that he was actually investigated and received institutional punishment, despite the fact that he does not deny it, and despite the fact that his odd screeds basically confirm it. Because we supposedly 'don't know the complete facts.'
How the hell has it not been proven, 6:49? Sending the kind of emails he was accused of sending is sexual harassment. He was investigated, and received institutional punishment. He doesn't deny he did this. His weird essays attempt to justify such behavior. So how is it 'not proven'?
im a female prof and been in the phil biz for nearly 20 years. i have never once been hit on by a male philosopher. i have to admit it made me wonder once or twice whether i am attractive as a woman. other women seemed to be getting hit on all over the place.
What do you think explains your not being "hit on"?I admit to being surprised by how many women experience sexual approaches and harassment in philosophy. It had never occurred to me that philosophy offered an attractive dating/sex pool.
@ 7:04 - I think often a student in this circumstance (choosing to be involved with a professor) is somewhere a willing participant and a helpless victim. They are a willing participant in that they agree to get involved with someone they are attracted to. But, while not a helpless victim, they are someone who is at a relative disadvantage: they may not be knowledgeable enough about academia to fully understand some of the consequences. I look at it as on par with recent suggestions on this blog that, in one case, a student needed professorial advice on how his dickish behaviour could hold him back and, in another case, the grad student in the CHE article was ill-served in that he didn't get advice in how to deal with the predatory media. Grown-up students know something of the way their chosen fields work, but it's not denying them agency, and certainly not sexist, to think they could use some help rather than being left entirely to their own ignorance when making major, career-effecting decisions.I don't know if it's just me, but it seems that this argument (that it's sexist and agency-denying to suggest that students could use career-help) is primarily applied when it's a question of getting a student to fuck a professor. Does it come up in any of the other circumstances when a student might need advice? (Oh - I can remember one almost case from my grad school days. The faculty tried to ban bridge from the grad student office quad. They had no such power, and we let them know it. We didn't accuse them of being sexist (because that doesn't even make sense on the student-fucking-professor case) but we certainly did think they were denying our agency.)
From what I've seen, I think the quid pro quo stuff rarely is as straightforward as "fuck me and I'll get you perks". Maybe Hanna was that forthright (I've not kept up), but more typical, from my experience is like this:You're one of a handful of grad students, male and female, that are getting more strokes than the rest of the grad students: good grades, fellowships, opportunities to do things (like help out at conferences) that lets you get meet and hang out with visiting scholars, research assistantships, co-authoring, etc. You think that you and the other students getting that attention are getting it because of the quality of your work. Then, one day, one of your profs seriously hits on you. If you're attracted enough you might go along with it, if you're not, you won't. But either way: you start to wonder whether the perks you've been getting are because you deserved it. Some almost certainly are: your grades and fellowship came from the whole faculty, not just this one guy. But what about some of the other stuff: the research assistantship, the chance to drive big-shots around. Some of that may have come solely or primarily from the one guy. So you question it.If you turn the guy down, or break off after dating. There's an almost certain chance that you will no longer be getting perks. If it was quid pro quo, for sure not. And that's right and fair, but what wasn't fair was fooling you to begin with (and screwing over more deserving students)But even if it wasn't quid pro quo, even if you deserved the chances, there's a good chance that they dry up from rejected prof, even if he's not a jerk. You're just not going to be on his radar of people he particularly wants to help and/or be around. Since most people aren't jerks enough to blatantly offer quid pro quo, I think the above scenario is the more common one.
9:00, "... good grades, fellowships, opportunities to do things (like help out at conferences) ... visiting scholars, research assistantships, co-authoring, etc."I recognise this kind of scenario. I've seen it. It's genuine power - "fellowships", "conferences". "research assistantships", etc. But still, the majority of academics do *not* have anything remotely resembling this kind of power. When people introduce the "power" angle, I think there is serious delusion occurring. Academia is stratified and hierarchical, with many harrowing sob stories. The majority of academics can only dream of the perks just mentioned. One can call such people (with money for research leave, research assistants, conferences, etc.) "big-shots". But most academics are not big-shots.
I don't really buy the claim that the majority of academics don't have that kind of power. In every single department I have been in (both prestigious and un-prestigious), every single faculty member has had some kind of discretionary power over students. Whether it's deciding who gets chosen for, say, limited teaching opportunities, or making sure you get introduced to a visiting speaker, or more important things like who gets a prestigious fellowship. Or even if it's just little things, that are really confidence building - like having someone treat your questions in seminar as important and interesting, rather than dismissing them (if a professor makes it clear by their behavior, for example, that they rate you as a philosopher, this can have a reinforcement effect - not just in terms of your own confidence, but in terms of other peers and faculty's perceptions of you). It seems pretty obvious to me that having a good personal relationship (romantic or otherwise) can have a lot of benefits. And I think it's going to be true in pretty much every case that there's at least one faculty member - say, the most senior member of the department - who you really want to have a good relationship with.
Why is Hanna or Pogge a creep? Just because someone likes to sleep with hot chicks and does everything to achieve that, doesn't mean he's a creep, don't you think?Let's not blame people for trying to get hot chicks to sleep with them just because you've had no luck getting the girls yourself or because you like to keep the old guys away from them.So fuck off with this creep talk, or admit you're a creep yourself!
Did you even read Hanna's creepy fucking papers about this, 535AM? So much of this thread is exactly the kind of attempts at rationalization for Hanna and blaming women. It fucking sucks to see that shit creeping into the metablog, which has often before been a place for non creeps to thoughtfully disagree with the more PC crowd.
Who's "blaming women," for what?
5:50, I've read Hanna's paper on sexual McCarthyism in academia. Now, I'm not sure he's right in all the details about the current state of academia, but I also have no reason to believe he's wrong. There may well be cases of what he describes--of former romantic partners now wanting not to have had the relationship, or not to have wanted the relationship, or now not wanting the relationship, who for whatever reason make a bogus sexual harassment complaint to the ODH, and then get the benefit of the doubt without there being any basis to their complaint.Okay, but what does this paper have to do with being creepy?
"But the non-rational emotional association with the ugly phrase “sexual assault” is no doubt precisely why the sexual McCarthyites chose the equally ugly phrase “sexual harassment,” and not, e.g., “romantic relationship troubles.” Indeed, sexual McCarthyites like to talk about “victims” of “sexual harassment” precisely because in fact there are no such people as“victims” ofromantic relationship troubles — there are just people in all their multifarious peculiarity, having the all-too-familiar romantic relationship troubles with each other — but they want to evoke, non-rationally, theimpression that there are such victims"Denial about whether anyone is ever sexually harassed = CREEPY
But Hanna does not deny that there any real sexual harassment cases (what he calls "assault" because he argues "harassment" is unduly expanded). Quoting from the same paper: "Of course, sexual assault, and any other sexual interaction that is not governed by mutual moral respect and rational consent, e.g., rape, is immoral. It’s entirely awful, evil, and wicked, and no one ever ought to do it.What I am wanting to point out, however, is that in the era of sexual McCarthyism, many intimate, romantic relationships, or wanting to have such relationships, even when they are entirely governed by mutual moral respect and rational consent, are being used as sufficient grounds for disciplining or firing people, by colleges and universities all over North America."So, it seems you've misunderstood the paper if you think he denies anyone is ever sexually harassed. He acknowledges that serious immoral sexual harassment cases ("assault" in his language) are possible.
What evidence do you have that he's using the term "sexual assault" in that way (to refer to bad harassment as well as actual assault)? He only uses it 3 times in the essay. It seems more likely that he's only using it to mean what it normally means, namely actual assault.Textual evidence for my interpretation: he lumps "sexual assault" along with rape under the category of "sexual interaction that is not governed by mutual moral respect and rational consent." Sexual harassment isn't usually a sexual interaction, it's usually a verbal interaction. So you're misinterpreting him, unless he's using a very esoteric definition of "sexual interaction."
Since when did presence or absence of 'creepiness' become an acceptable criteria for evaluating an argument?
Since it was established as such by descriptive feminist epidemiologists. Along with feminine intuition.
Is this really so hard? Hanna is saying that what the rest of the world calls sexual harassment is better described as relationship trouble or requests for dates. The rest of the world uses sexual harassment to mean a variety of things, from sexist jokes, sexually explicit comments, unwanted requests for sexual favors, that are persistent enough to cause an uncomfortable work environment. It precludes isolated, offhand remarks or jokes.So, given that Hanna was disciplined for sending unwanted, sexually explicit email to people at work, I'm guessing he saw that as "looking for a date" and others saw it as harassment. I can imagine some contexts where I would support Hanna's position, but it would involve presupposing a lot of things that there is no evidence for.
I found Hanna's phrasing here pretty weird:"... in the era of sexual McCarthyism, many intimate, romantic relationships, or wanting to have such relationships, even when they are entirely governed by mutual moral respect and rational consent, are being used as sufficient grounds for disciplining or firing people ..."What could Hanna mean by "wanting"? Presumably not the mere fact of harboring a desire. I wonder if this is an allusion to the explicit e-mails propositioning department members that Hanna is said to have sent. If so, Hanna's claim that such "wanting" is benign is obviously absurd.
2:23, no-one's saying "this argument is flawed because it's creepy." They're saying for the most part something along these lines - "this is a nonsensical argument and its gaps, leaps, and non-sequiteurs only make sense with the granting of very creepy assumptions. It is therefore a creepy argument." Hanna helpfully makes some of those assumptions explicit, as in his claim that there is no sexual harassment that's not a subset of sexual assault and thus that absent evidence of sexual assault it is McCarthyism to talk about sexual harassment. An argument that relies on that being true isn't a bad argument because it's creepy, it's a bad argument because it so obviously rationalises potentially harmful behaviour that only someone wearing blinkers of creep could find it plausible.The question I suppose this leaves open is "can a valid argument from uncreepy premises still be creepy if we happen not to like its conclusions." I'd say not, I suspect you would find many people on FP or NewApps who would say so. But that has very little to do with Hanna, whose arguments are paradigm creep by the terms I set out above.
4:48, I think this is another of Hanna's nonsense-leaps. I doubt he could find a single example of someone who has been fired for wanting to have a mutually respectful relationship with a colleague. What he, presumably intentionally, perhaps in the throes of delusion, omits are instances of PURSUING such relationships when the mutual wanting is unapparent or absent. Do people get fired for constantly bothering people they want relationships with when the object of their wanting hasn't encouraged them and could suffer harms for explicitly rejecting them? Probably. I'd hope so. That's what sexual harassment without sexual assault looks like, and what the whole argument of Hanna's papers requires to be impossible.
5:00, "... it so obviously rationalises potentially harmful behaviour ..."Is non-monogamy also "potentially harmful behaviour"?
5:12 - obviously not. But you're granting one of Hanna's nonsenses: that he was being persecuted for being polyamorous (incidentally, the idea that polyamory is the great last taboo is nonsense - have you ever met a polyamorist capable of not droning on about it? It's up there with having a tattoo for uninteresting things people think makes them admirably edgy and everyone else square. Look how long it took the members of the super-secret groovy internet cool kids polyamory club to splash their names around in public).What I was thinking of as harmful behaviour was what he was (by all accounts) punished for: propositioning junior colleagues over whom he had the power to inflict harms (even of omission, such as not writing letters or supporting teaching allocations, or whatever). For the reasons in my second post above, just inflicting the decision as to whether or not to reject someone from whom such an invitation isn't absolutely welcome puts an unfair degree of professional stress on those juniors. But Hanna doesn't acknowledge that this should be a consideration. If he didn't assault them, how can they have been harmed?
i think these posts in the ether are by a theoretical object i am calling "british girl", whom i hypothesize to be a badass razor wit.
Why would refusal to be complicit imply victimhood? You'd renounce getting something (a publication, say) that you know you'd not be getting anyway if it weren't for the sexual favors.
You are not just renouncing the publication. You are also taking on the risk of blowback from a spurned harasser. Sorry, 'potential romantic partner', if we go by Hanna's language.
But what's the evidence that this 'blowback' exists? That's what I haven't got so far.
Sorry, 5.03; are you asking the following question:What is the evidence that, if someone is unscrupulous enough to try to incentivise you into having sex with them by holding out the prospect of some kind of professional advancement (eg a publication), and you refuse to have sex with them, thereby humiliating them, implying strong disapproval of their proposal, and introducing the possibility that, since you have responded in a way that leaves you with nothing to hide, you might denounce them to others -- what is the evidence that, in such a situation, this person, who ex hypothesi has significant institutionally-encoded power over you, has thereby become more likely to treat you badly, consciously or not, and perhaps do you severe professional harm?Is that the question you're asking?
I don't know. Maybe. My parser broke less than half way through.I think you're saying: we have no evidence, but it's just common sense. Is that what you're saying?In the story told above, the victim risked losing all the special little perks the lecherous guy had been favoring her with if she didn't do godknowswhat with him. Is that blowback? (I can't tell if it fits the implicit definition you gave, buried deep in italics.)
"have some cojones"
Hanna joins McGinn in the club of guys who just don't know when to stop talking.
McGinn on Colorado: http://www.colinmcginn.net/sublime-ridiculous-colorado/
They used that acronym only so that they could claim good PENMAnship.
Good point, 1:08. That reminds me of the femtroll who comes here incessantly and tries to get people to love FP and, when she doesn't succeed, posts inflammatory things that will appear to be by sexists so that she can vindicate FP that way.Hey, femtroll: I'd like to acknowledge that everyone at FP seems to have good penmanship and also good PENMAnship.
So one of the signatories of the Good-For-Thee-Not-For-Me Ethical Non-Monogamy Study Group's Statement on Polyamory is, apparently, an undergraduate. Perhaps I'm dense, but isn't talking about your sex life with students (and other potentially vulnerable parties) in private, even if your not propositioning them and even if your not supervising them, just the sort of thing that would ordinarily lead to charges of unprofessional conduct?
self-correction:*you're and you're
1:40: no, because to imply that women might be capable of unprofessional conduct is to commit a category mistake.
1:40, I think you're missing this distinction: discussing sex is not the same as 'discussing your sex life.' And discussing relationships is also not the same as discussing sex. So, for example, it's of course fine to discuss whether, say, gay marriage should be legal. And if you mention to your students that you are gay, that is also fine.It's also of course fine to discuss the ethics of sex (like what counts as consent). It's also fine to discuss how we should treat peopple we have a special relationship with (for example, do you have special obligations to your spouse?)It's especially fine to discuss such things if the student you are discussing them with has asked you to discuss such issues, or has chosen to take a class discussing such issues, or has voluntarily joined a group discussing such issues.
But didn't the Ethical Monogamous Facebook Group Call for Members explicitly state that those merely interested in talking about ENM are not welcome?
"Good-For-Thee-Not-For-Me Ethical Non-Monogamy Study Group" -- what's that supposed to mean? The FB group was announced publicly on Daily Snooze, and anyone can join, provided one is actually ethically non-monogamous as per the group's definition.
Why is that relevant, though, 2:21?
But didn't the Ethical Monogamous Facebook Group Call for Members explicitly state that those merely interested in talking about ENM are not welcome?Yes, in fact the statement reads "We are philosophers. Several of us are polyamorous. Others of us identify as ethically non-monogamous in other ways." I can see that the description of the group at the bottom is a bit ambiguous though.
In these sorts of situations, the group at the bottom is usually a bit ambiguous.Hey-oh!
2:03-Suppose I've got a female undergraduate (for context, I'm a cis-het-male, although I primarily identify as an otherkin) alone up here in my corner office. We're talking about material from class that can somehow or other be related to sexual matters. Do you think it would be appropriate for me to spice up the conversation using illustrative examples drawn from my own sex life? Or ask her to provide such examples? I'm inclined to think that in the context in question, anything other than discussion of very abstract principles/examples is prima facie problematic. Suppose we add an audience of like-minded individuals listening in on the conversation...is it any less prima facie problematic?
I agree, 3:03. (Depending on what you mean by 'your own sex life.' I certainly think something like this is fine: if, for example, you wre gay, and the topic was gay marriage, and you mentioned that you and your partner recently had a commitment ceremony because you couldn't get married. On some very broad construals of what it means to talk about 'your sex life' this would count as talking about your sex life. But it obviously seems fine to me). I guess I just haven't seen any evidence from anybody that a. the mere existence of an ethical non-monogamy discussion group is equivalent to having an dodgy discussion about your sex life or b. that the mere existence of such a group is fine, but that members of the group engage in the kind of discussions that we think are not OK.
3:03 here. Let me try again to put my finger on what seems troubling here. Another Case:Suppose I am gay. Suppose I and several other gay male professors on my campus form a discussion group that meets off campus. We talk about all kinds of issues that are relevant to us as gay academics. Sometimes details of our sex lives come out, although that's not really what the group is focused on. Sometimes *other kinds* of non-sexual personal details come out as well, although, again, our group is largely focused on academic discussion of general/abstract topics. Should we invite undergrads to join our group?
I actually think the person you're thinking is an undergraduate has already graduated.
Well, it depends - I don't think the answer is obviously 'no, you shouldn't.' it depends on what kinds of 'details' you mean.I mean, here's what seems fine to me: if a group of, say, gay philosophers wanted to form a group to discuss ethical issues affecting gay people, and they wanted to limit the group to people who are actually gay (and therefore, personally affected). I'm not gay, and I am interested in ethical issues arising from such relationships (like gay marriage - although obviously that's not too controversial anymore). But I get that sometimes people feel more comfortable discussing ethical issues that directly affect them personally with others that are also directly personally affected. Would it be fine for students to join that group? Sure. But if the group was not actually about discussing ethical issues, or something similar, and actually about people giving detailed accounts of the kind of sex they had last night, then that would be wildly inappropriate. But it doesn't seem to me like the mere existence of such a group is troubling in any way.
Y'all havin' a good laugh at the whole "nixon" thing, but that's the only part of the story that gives me hope. It suggests that at least one participant in this fruitloop farrago realised how goddammed stupid it was.
I'm guessing it was Barnett. Good guy, sharp mind, and fucking hilarious.
The Barnett case is "complicated." The Kaufman case sounds like the UC fucked up and will pay mightily. Or so I hope.
Minor nitpick. Whenever I see UC, I think California. University of Colorado is always, CU, for some reason.
It was Rupert.
The Barnett case is "complicated."Huh? But Barnett isn't a woman.Oh, a tranny?Otherwise I don't see how it can be 'complicated'.
Word on the street is, the PHILOSOPHER'S ETHICAL NON-MONOGAMY ALLIANCE is a force to be reckoned with in dividing up the cake of power of the post-Leiter era, cuz that's where the really cool kids play. Thoughts?
One thing we know for sure is that the signatories of the post on Hanna are not just saying they're non-monogamous to bang grad students at conferences. I mean, their partners are likely to see the post on fp.
Indeed, their partners will see that the members of the group are "interested in exploring". I think this will end felicitously by simultaneously solving the problem of solipsism and ending the age of individualism in one huge APA Dionysian orgy with tribal beats and enough ecstasy pills to calm all these lunatics down.Given the gender balance in the profession the cocksucking guy up there will just love it.
Some of them are surely well-connected to the fems, but if you look at the signatories you'll see that the group is too disparate to be a coordinated war machine like the Jenkins-Barnes-Haslanger-Paul-etc. squad. I doubt the nonmonogamists would have the power to take down Leiter.
Which Paul are you talking about here? Not Laurie Paul, surely.
@ 4:48 ... Maybe they meant "Saul"?
2:12, "One thing we know for sure is that the signatories of the post on Hanna are not just saying they're non-monogamous to bang grad students at conferences. I mean, their partners are likely to see the post on fp."Jenkins, Kukla, Easwaran, Sebo, Long, Jaarsma, Carmody, Briggs and Rossi state publicly that they are interested in fucking whoever they can fuck. It's difficult to see why should it matter if anyone else sees it. At the moment, I can't see the difference between the behaviour of these individuals interested in fucking around and Hanna's interest in fucking around. Why is Hanna a "scumbag" and these individuals not "scumbags"? Presumably Jenkins, Kukla, Briggs, etc., also "proposition" people? And how is that different from Hanna "propositioning" people? Suppose that Jenkins "propositions" me. Is that "harassment"?
I can't tell if you're serious or not, 7:29. You really don't understand the difference between publicly stating a sexual orientation and sending sexually explicit emails to a student in your department propositioning them?For the record, I don't particularly care if Hanna is polyamorous or not. And the idea that *this* is the reason people think he's a scumbag is just laughable. Find me one single comment, anywhere, that is complaining about this fact about him (rather than his views on sexual harassment, or his actual behaviour that counts as sexual harassment).
does fucking whoever you want include colleagues? not fucking my colleagues is a general rule i live by.i wonder if Kukla Lanced the Boil Yo?
The hypocrites cannot even smell their own bullshit.
Jenkins, Kukla, Easwaran, Sebo, Long, Jaarsma, Carmody, Briggs and Rossi state publicly that they are interested in fucking whoever they can fuck.Huh? They're interested in fucking whoever wants to fuck them on ethical terms -- which clearly is a subset o who Hanna wants to fuck, if you compare his paper with their statement.
7:29: wanting to have multiple sexual partners isn't equal to "being interested in fucking whoever you can fuck." And I second what 7:46 and 1:58 states (except that polyamory isn't a 'sexual orientation').
Everyone's interested in fucking whoever they can fuck! The question is what one takes the "can" to mean in in any given context.
This 'hypocrisy' accusation is one of the most idiotic things I've ever seen.FP sucks, but a stopped clock can still be right and where Hanna is concerned, they're right. From what I can tell, the guy thinks sexual harassment is conceptually impossible. wtf?
Hanna never said that. he did argue that the term 'sexual harassment' is stretched extremely widely so as to give women the possibility to retaliate against ex-partners years after the (consensual) relationship was over. And that seems right to me.
The assumption that "non-monogamous" entails "being interested in fucking whoever (sic) you can fuck" is maybe the stupidest, most offensive thing I've ever seen on this blog.And that's saying something.
For the record, I have never fucked Mark Lance nor wanted to, I am interested in fucking significantly less than .1% of the people I meet, I certainly don't want to fuck YOU, and I am an actual human being who reads things you piece of shit slut shamer. Cheers,
Yo and lo! behold the PENMA attack!
The way we deal with stuff like this here is meant to be expressing community norms, rather than moderating, right?So here's my contribution: 8:09, 12:16: you are in fact pieces of shit.
Could be PEHFA, the Philosophers' Ethical Hamster Fucking Alliance?
I second 12:25, and I'll add 12:27 to the list of 'pieces of shit.' Comparing consensual sex between competent adults to screwing animals is both slimy and stupid. It also reminds me of the old standby of comparing same-sex sex to bestiality.
wait 12:27 - - are you saying Mark LOYOLance looks like a hamster?
When i first saw poliscirumors I had a dim, secret sense of pride: anonymous philosophoblogging is more elevated than anonymous polisciblogging. How naive I was. The data so far suggest that unmoderated forums lead to the same behavior regardless of discipline. Or maybe we're worse than other disciplines. Perhaps anonymous physicists or education theorists are completely civil and without need of tone police.. I wonder.
YO, WHY BE SO SERIOUS? BECAUSE YOLO. LOL
RK, it does count as feeding the trolls if you tell them whom you have and haven't fucked. don't underestimate the lower levels of mordor at work here.
Ok, 12:52. Why don't you post your real name, and the rest of us can have lighthearted fun anonymously accusing you of sexual harassment, or anonymously speculating about who you might have slept with. We can put LOL at the end of every post if you like, just to make it clear that it's meant to be funny rather than serious.
I'm sorry, 1:12, I'm afraid that, were I to do so, bad things would happen. So I must decline. I'm very sorry for what I said, I now see how wrong I was and I take all of it back (I wish I could delete my comment). Please let me know what service I can perform to make up for the harm I caused.
Well, here's a start, 1:31. Maybe you can make one small gesture towards making it the case that bad things don't happen to people who are named on this blog. So this time - or next time you see someone speculating about who are particular person might have slept with - you tell them they're being an asshole, and to cut it out. Sorry if this comes across as patronizing. But either you were being a dick, or you really didn't know that a. it is serious when people speculate about these things in a public forum and b. that it's a good idea to tell those people to cut it out. I opted for the interpretation on which you're not a dick.
1.39, you've been had.
A couple of things that occur to me as I rubberneck this train wreck of a thread:1) Signatory members of a non-monogamy group that publicly condemn a peer for ethical turpitude should not be surprised to see their own morals become a matter of public discourse.2) Those shitting on the non-monogamy group for being non-monogamous seem to be practicing the same sort of public shaming, puritanical scolding, and policing of sexual norms that PMB commenters so often criticizes FP for engaging in.
Depends what you mean by 'not surprised,' 4:02. In one sense I am surprised that the 'morals' of these people become a matter of public discourse (if by morals, you mean speculation about who they sleep with). Because I'm surprised that anyone thinks that the fact that a non-monogamy group responds to someone else in the profession who sexually harasses people (and tries to excuse this by saying he's just polyamorous) by condemning that person means that it's OK to discuss who some woman from that group sleeps with. I'm surprised because I didn't think there were people left who think that that kind of misogynistic bullshit is OK. But maybe I'm being naïve.
I would distinguish. 8:09 is indeed a piece of shit. 12:16 is kind of funny, even if 12:16 is replying to RK's totally justified response to piece-of-shit 8:09.
People can be simultaneously funny and pieces of shit, though, 12:16. Trying (and even succeeding, with respect to some people) to be funny doesn't erase being a shit.
so do they bang each other then? responsibly and ethically, of course?
Wait, so are the non-monogamists going to war with the polyamorists now? Where does the Judean People's Front stand on this issue?
No splitters yet: "Several of us are polyamorous. Others of us identify as ethically non-monogamous in other ways."
Oh!.. You're *ethically* non-monogamous. So sorry for the confusion. I just want to get laid at conference hotels after drinking too much or maybe buy some porn. Can I still join?
Yes, 5:25, if your partners are on board with that.
well all i know is that group made me feel bad --i practice non-ethical non-monogamy
Well, if it's non-ethical, then maybe you *should* feel bad. Just sayin.'
Well, I felt bad because I practice non - ethical monogamy, and yet there are philosophers out there scoring right and left with all kinds of people---all while keeping it ethical!
Not exactly off-topic, but a more general question: I'm interested in the 'confidentiality' business. From what I've read, it doesn't seem like Hanna has denied the accusations (and his justifications seem clearly nutty). But does anyone know if it is in fact the case that his fellow faculty members at Colorado had any institutional obligations to keep it confidential? And whether or not it is true that they did, do people think they ought to have refrained from talking about it?Because assuming that this is true: Hanna was accused of sexual harassment, the charges were substaniated, and he received an institutional punishment (suspension) - it's not obvious to me why others should not be allowed to talk about this. (Maybe Colorado has some rule about this, but my question is not so much 'did other faculty violate some institutional rule?' but 'should there be some institutional rule of confidentiality about such cases'?)
Yes. There certainly should be confidentiality rules, to protect everyone. Becoming known as an offender may be disproportionate to the offense, and unless people can know the whole story, they really shouldn't know any of it. But now, thanks to Hanna, we know his whole story.
Well, do you think it is always the case that an offender should get confidentiality? Just thinking of the legal situation, there are very few situations in which someone who has been convicted gets name supression, and those cases are usually cases in which naming the offender would also identify the victim (like child abuse within families). So I don't buy that an offender should get confidentiality just because there is a mere possibility that becoming known as an offender will affect them disproportionately. At the very least, it's got to be really quite likely that the response in the particular case in question will be disproportionate. (And I also think it's got to be very, very clear that the response will be disproportionate. For example, in Hanna's case, people talking about him on the internet is not disproportionate. If we have good reason to think that, say, someone would bomb his house, then that would be good reason for confidentiality). I'm also not sure what you mean by "unless people can know the whole story, they really shouldn't know any of it." By 'the whole story' do you mean all the details from any judicial proceedings, for example? In any case, why do you think a principle like that is the right kind of principle?
5:56, "... that an offender"Could you provide the exact details of the court of law that has "tried" Hanna for his alleged offense?
7:36, 5:38 made some general claims about how we should treat offenders. My comment at 5:56 was a response to that comment.
I agree that there isn't any real problem with people talking about what happened with Hanna, but do keep in mind, for other cases, that the fact that "charges were substantiated" and he "received institutional punishment" is fairly weak evidence compared with a 'guilty' verdict in court. Universities (and from what I've read Colorado is no exception) have much, much lower standards of proof than criminal courts, and they tend to have very dubious rules of evidence and very little in the way of due process protections.
Right, but just thinking about this case, then: (on the reasonable assumption that Hanna did engage in sexual harassment, and that the charge was substantiated, and that the process was fine). Is there any reason why he should get confidentiality? Or, more generally, an offender is found guilty of sexual harassment in an actual court of law. Is there any reason why there should be, say, a presumption in favor of keeping the names of such people confidential?
Can you help a brother out and quit talking about being 'found guilty' of sexual harassment? Sexual harassment is a civil wrong, not a crime. Talking about being found guilty of it is like talking about arguments being true.
I don't really understand your worry, 4:53. But maybe it's a US thing? But even this is true in the US, right - you can be accused of sexual harassment. These cases go to court. And then the jury decides whether or not you're guilty of sexual harassment. If they decide you are, what's meant to be the mistake if we say that you have been found guilty of sexual harassment? In any case, we also talk about people being found guilty of things even if it's not in criminal court. Just to take an example, someone might be found guilty of plagiarism, by some university committee. So it doesn't seem that odd to me to describe a case where plagiarism claims against a person have been substantiated by a university judicial process as a case where someone has been found guilty of plagiarism. Or to describe that person as guilty of the offense of plagiarism. If I told you about the case, and I said that such a person was found guilty of plagiarism, would you not understand what I meant at all? Because it seems pretty clear to me what I would mean by saying that. And I've never heard anyone else say that language such as 'found guilty' always and only applies to criminal legal cases. If you want to suggest some new terms, that's fine, but I'm not buying the idea that there is something conceptually confused about saying that someone has been 'found guilty' in a situation that does not necessarily involve criminal court.
In law, you aren't found guilty of a civil wrong, which is what sexual harassment is. You are held liable. 5:13 was talking about criminal courts. That isn't where sexual harassment issues are dealt with.That there are non-legal contexts in which we talk of finding people guilty is not really relevant.
OK. Here's why I think non-legal contexts are relevant, though. It seemed like 4:53 was saying that we can only use terms like 'found guilty' if someone has been found guilty in a criminal court. If it is in fact true that people use language like 'found guilty' all the time, about scenarios that don't take place in criminal court, and everyone knows what they mean, then it seems like 'found guilty' doesn't have the implication that the case took place in criminal court. So maybe it is a technical legal term. But I also think it has a colloquial meaning, that everyone understands. I was using it in that sense. In any case, it's not all that important what terms we use, I think. We can just reframe the question:If someone was held liable for sexual harassment in court, or if a claim of sexual harassment was substantiated in some quasi-judicial setting that has the appropriate authority to decide such things, like a university committee, then is there any reason for a presumption in favour of keeping the names of such people confidential?
I'm sorry, natural language had "Guilty" long before the lawyers did, and I for one am not about to give it up to them. That there are non-legal contexts in which we talk of finding people guilty IS relevant. I'd even go the other direction: that there are legal contexts in which we talk of only finding people guilty in criminal cases is what is irrelevant.Christ, you really want to hand language over to the lawyers?
Oh, yes, pitchforks pointed at lawyerese!One useful things philosophers could do would be to impose reason on the legal codes so as to remove the need for so many lawyers. Reimpose some good old fashioned simplicity. The removal of a large tranche of the caste of lawyers would raise general productivity and economically justify philosophy. Honestly, that's the kind of thing philosophers used to do.
For fuck's sake, you can call whoever you want guilty of sexual harassment. But don't fucking say that they are "found guilty of harassment in a court of law," and so forth. It's like a misplaced modifier. Really, I was just begging for some relief. I guess it is not forthcoming.
Sure, 7:05. No need to start swearing at me. I changed the question for you to take into account your point! (see 5:45). But I also agree with 6:25. Sorry if it bugs the lawyers here, but people say, colloquially, X has been found guilty of Y all the time in contexts that are not criminal legal contexts. And it's really not obvious to me why we should abandon this colloquial usage. If the only reason is that it pisses off lawyers, well, that's not such a great reason. (The fact that it pisses off particular people here, however, is a reason for me to stop using it when the particular terminology doesn't really matter much for the question I am trying to raise. Which is why I changed the question I was asking, taking into account the terminology you suggested).
@5:45I think your question about confidentiality is interesting. I have zero expertise, but here's what I think:There's two aspects to confidentiality in these cases, one official and one unofficial. Officially, part of the hearing and sanctioning might include requiring all of the parties to sign confidentiality agreements. It isn't a requirement to do this, but if done, those parties are bound in some legal or quasi-legal sense.Unofficially, other people might learn what has happened. Probably someone leaked it who was bound to official confidentiality. But once other people know, they are, IMO, only bound by ordinary decency. So, people like us might, for example, respect the confidentiality of one party in the dispute but not the other. That, to me, seems perfectly ethical.I'm guessing, in the Hanna case, the professors who gave his name to the reporter were not officially bound to confidentiality. But the administrators who refused to talk were.
I'm 5:13AM.I see 4:53PM's point. When I compared the standards used in a university disciplinary proceeding to the standards used in a criminal case, that was potentially misleading, since the wrong of sexual harassment isn't a criminal wrong (in the US). So I take it not simply as a correction of usage, but as a substantive point.My own answer to the general question, then, is that someone who is held liable for a civil wrong, in a civil court, has a much better claim to confidentiality than someone found guilty of a criminal wrong, in a criminal court. (Again, that's just in general -- because of the other circumstances I don't think Hanna has a legitimate gripe.)
Right, but even if they have a 'better' claim relative to someone else, I'm still not convinced that there should be a presumption of confidentiality in these cases at all (that is, absent any special reason particular to the case) I don't see why someone held liable in a criminal court, or someone against whom the charges are substantiated in some university proceeding, has any claim to confidentiality.
Completely off topic. Can we please please pretty please have a a regular post called 'New Consensus Watch'? So when some poor schmuck publishes a book that contains only male authors and then it is noted with derision and scorn - but 'no blame' - we can discuss in an open way about whether this is a civil response?
hear hear! surely paying due attention to the context of the situation and how the state of affairs came to be (i.e. an attempt to gosh understand) is better than mere finger pointing.
thats not my student Ryan is it on the guest post?
At least they didn't choose "Clinton" or "Bush".
Well, this thread has not just gone down the rabbit-hole, but the rabbit's ass-hole.
times are tough
Northwestern graduate students are now suggesting at Daily Nous that graduate students should not be sued because one has to pay to defend against lawsuits. They do not say if this proposed rule applies only to poor graduate students. Nor do they say if it applies to poor non-graduate students.
help me -- i don't understand the letter at all! what is the point?
Apparently they think it is wrong to sue people who might lack resources to defend against a lawsuit. Rather than argue for this as a general claim though, these graduate students want to defend the special case in which the person who might lack resources is a graduate student. Perhaps they will extend the argument to others who may lack resources to defend against lawsuits once they leave graduate school.
so does that mean that if I cannot defend myself against a lawsuit because I am too poor, I can slander powerful rich people with bogus accusations of sexual harassment whilst enjoying legal immunity?
would they appreciate ludlow dropping the lawsuit then/.
batphone on the back channel?
what're you suggesting?
Am enjoying seeing the myriad gushing displays of admiration for the Northwestern students that nevertheless remain obviously silent on whether it is such a hot idea for people not to be able to invoke their right to legal recourse against false accusations.
4:28, it is a bourgeois illusion to believe that an accusation might be "true" or "false"; rather, an accusation is a performative act of social justice. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Inventing-Enemy-Denunciation-Terror-Stalins/dp/0521145627
Ah, the Duke Lacrosse argument... Just because the accusation was demonstrably false doesn't mean the accused shouldn't be punished for what the accusation's very existence shows they were sooner or later bound to be guilty of.
Yes, although we should be grateful that Monsieur Lacrosse didn't try to liquidate the kulaks as a class.
Uh, what 5:36? Accusation suffices for being treated as guilty? Is that really your position?
S/he was being sarcastic.
Off topic, but philosophers in the news - http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/10/22/4255051_wainstein-report-says-jan-boxill.html?rh=1 . Are the ethics of sport compatible with the ethics of not being a fraud. Discuss, or if you prefer edit a book on the topic... Is it still fraud if both the athlete and the possible-fraud are women? Discuss. And if Jan Boxill gets fired, what will that mean for UNC's rankings in the "sporting ethics" speciality ranking of the PGR? A drop from 3rd to 6th, with a corresponding possible rise from 4th to 2nd for Penn State? All breaths are bated.
gosh -- hope to hear more about this story as it unfolds
This has to be one of the funniest opening lines in all of philosophy:"We are members of The Philosophers’ Ethical Non-Monogamy Alliance who are dismayed to read Robert Hanna’s article “Sexual McCarthyism, Polyamory, and the First Amendment”."
Hunter S. could have cooked that one up.
Nixon was so crooked that he needed servants to help him screw his pants on every morning.