International Women’s Day, and Its Discontents

Womanhood has been weaponized. Some will argue that feminism has always been aggressive and short-sighted, but I disagree. In 1914, the concerns at the forefront of the women’s movement included the right of a woman to work, to her convictions, and to keep her name. Major contributions of the second wave, beginning in the 1960s, included an expansion of reproductive rights for women, such as greater access to contraception and legal abortion, and a renewed focus on a woman’s right and, in many cases, preference, to both work outside the home, and have a family. I would hope that our goals for feminism going forward include those listed here, as well as equality of opportunity, and protection from predation and quid pro quos—such as sexual favors for career advancement—as have been revealed in corporate America and Hollywood.

Feminism’s third wave suffers from many things, among them a victimhood mentality, and, when faced with conundrums like why there aren’t more women software engineers, an inability to consider alternative hypotheses to the ever-present women are being discriminated against or harassed. (It has been often noted that nobody seems to be shouting for gender parity of sewer workers.) Third-wave feminism got a tremendous signal boost in the fall of 2017, when story after story piled up about the behavior of Harvey Weinstein, and others. As tales amassed about tycoons, Hollywood and otherwise, the reprehensible, sometimes criminal behavior of some men was dragged out into the open for all to consider. #MeToo, as a viral movement, was born.

#MeToo had the potential to do good. It had the potential to reveal, to the vast majority of men who do not engage in bad behavior towards women, that the vast majority of women have, at some point in their lives, endured harassment that they should not have had to endure. #MeToo therefore also had the potential to reveal the obvious conclusion from putting those two truths side by side: a small minority of men engage in bad behavior towards a large majority of women.

Instead, #MeToo became a free-for-all, in which accusations became ever more frivolous; all men were considered guilty, or potentially guilty; and asking for evidence of claims was considered victim blaming. Hasn’t she endured enough? Who would lie about something like that! Into that morass it should surprise no one that bad actors showed up, and false accusations mounted. As elsewhere in the ideology of the far Left, #MeToo seemed to be shaping up to reverse historical oppression, rather than address the history, and help us move forward together to a more just future.

Enter International Women’s Day. In my experience, International Women’s Day had been but a minor blip, if any blip at all, in all past years, but beginning in 2018, it became a major tool in the weaponization of womanhood. This struck me as parallel to what I saw at Evergreen, where a minor, good faith effort to discuss race, the Day of Absence, which had been going on for years, was changed, magnified and weaponized, all at once.

When International Women’s Day arrived with fanfare last year, I had several, sometimes conflicting, thoughts about it, but the gist of my response was this: I wish that this weren’t happening.

This year, I received an email from a furniture store inviting me to “Come join us in celebrating International Women’s Day! Check out what’s happening in your local store.” (Here’s a guess: they will be selling furniture. As they always do.)

This feels like yet another attention grab, another distraction. For what it’s worth, I feel the same way about Valentine’s Day, and Mother’s Day, and all the rest. Not that we couldn’t all use a little celebration in our lives, but when it’s quasi-mandated, especially coming on the heels of a train (or a canoe) that we’re told that we must board, or else betray the sisterhood, sorry, but it’s not for me. The fact that it has been monetized by those who benefit from making full-time consumers of all of us only pushes me further from embracing it.

Celebration, and its more formal cousin, ceremony, can be beautiful and often cathartic and healing. It is as old as the hills—sometimes older, depending on the hills. It can bring communities together. I have participated in wonderful ceremonies, helped begin to create some, and been witness to others. In northeastern Madagascar, I was invited to photograph a retournement, an annual “turning of the bones” ceremony, in which the ancestors are disinterred and the living elders speak to them of what has happened since last they met. Men, women and children are all necessary in a retournement; the entire village comes together, and, afterwards, a large feast and a party with jubilant dancing, and no shortage of alcohol, goes on long into the night. I have also participated in carnaval, in both Central and South America. I have seen a carnaval that was an extravagant exploration of liminal space, including reversals of power and role—men dressed as women, children acting as parents, the police in a brass band being playfully pelted with food and foam and smiling throughout. And I have been in more banal carnaval crowds of beer-fueled partiers. Those latter crowds of partiers, who had jettisoned much of what carnaval had been built on over centuries, were left with something much more barren.

Ceremony absent tradition feels empty, and generally fails. Tradition can be built with intention, but by its very nature it isn’t yet tradition when in its nascent form. While the first International Women’s Day was celebrated over 100 years ago, it has mostly been a dormant idea, little recognized for most of those years. In the current climate of demographic one-upmanship, and bullying of those who might resist, we have had a celebration handed to us. It feels disingenuous at best.

Why don’t I feel the same way about Martin Luther King, Jr. Day? In part because King’s message was so universal—and also now losing ground in American society—that we could all benefit from considering his words at least once a year. Let’s take a minute. “Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.” His message took root, over time, and became the background against which most of us have built at least part of our worldview. It didn’t happen by fiat, or by decree. And, perhaps most important of all, his message was one of actual, universal inclusion. We were all encouraged to come along, as equals, in his vision of the future.

In a mad rush towards legitimate societal change—Recognize our experiences! Help us to be safe and strong and productive!—what is being forgotten is that people take time to adapt. Also, the deeply illiberal trends right now seem to be towards recognizing the experiences of one group at the expense of everyone else.

All that said, I was flattered and honored to be named on lists of women who are worth paying attention to, both last year and this, and I don’t want to be impolite to those who so honored me. I am appreciative. Over the last several months, I have come to know the work of many of the women with whom I was on these lists, have been in virtual contact with more, and have been lucky enough to meet some in person, many of whom I am now grateful to call friends in real life.

And in those same months, I have, of course, also come to know the work of, become virtually acquainted with, and become in-real-life friends with many men, whom I am equally grateful and honored to know.

Should women, worldwide, have equal opportunities to work, to play, to choose, as men do? Of course. Should we expect men and women to make equivalent choices—and for the outcomes to therefore be equal? We should not. Should we, therefore, attribute to discrimination all gender differences—gender differences such as representation in types of jobs, or in hours worked, or in titles achieved? Not necessarily. There have been entrenched systems of gender discrimination in WEIRD countries in the past, and there still are quite entrenched systems of gender discrimination in other countries now. But the claim that, in the US, we are battling active and on-going discrimination against girls and women, when women are earning more college degrees, enrolling at higher rates in medical school and other health related fields, and even, at Google, making more money than men!—well, the claim is weak, at best.

I also know that I don’t want my contributions to be paid attention to because I am a woman. Yes, men and women are different, on average. We tend to have somewhat different strategies, interests and skills, ways of responding to and being responded to in the world. But, in intellectual space, where we are exploring ideas and their consequences, I don’t want to be segregated by sex, nor be tokenized or valued because of my sex. Nearly always, I have found such segregation diminishes, rather than enhances, conversations.

An extended anecdote seems the best way to illustrate this.

For many years, I played Ultimate Frisbee. Ultimate is a team sport that is a little like soccer, a little like football, and a lot like having athletic fun on a field with thirteen other people (if you’ve got that many) and a frisbee. Ultimate, unlike many team sports, is actually compelling as a coed game, and not dangerous to the women involved. I played on and captained coed Summer League teams, played pick-up many times a week for years, played in day-long tournaments, and was, for a year, on the women’s team for the University of Michigan, which traveled many weekends to play. And so I played a little all-women Ultimate, and watched a little all-men Ultimate, and played and watched a lot a lot a lot of coed Ultimate.

Among other things, I observed this:

All-male games are fast and furious. The points are quick, the throws thrown far downfield (hucks) are long, the layouts exhilarating, and, in many points, most players never touch the disk. Victory is boisterous and infectious and loud.

All-female games are slower, more careful, less risky. When a player does go long, sprinting to the end zone in hopes of receiving a long pass, she is generally left hanging, no disk coming her way. Short passes down the field are the rule, and they are thoughtful, and considered.

It drove me, and my dear friend Toni, a bit mad.

We both liked to go long, and throw long, and so we played more like the boys in that way. We were both extremely good players. But if Toni or I were playing on a coed team, and we were up against another team that had one less woman on it, such that one of us was on defense against a skilled male athlete—or that skilled male athlete was defending us when we had the disk—we were (almost) always outmatched.

That’s just true. It’s not brainwashed or misogynistic to say so. Frankly, it would be both brainwashed and misogynistic to claim the opposite.

I loved playing Ultimate, and loved watching it. I never did enjoy watching all-male games, or playing all-female games, as much as I loved playing and watching coed games. Coed games brought out the best of both approaches. Coed games were faster paced than the sometimes ponderous all-female ones, but, compared to all-male games, more players generally got to touch the disk, their contributions adding to the game. Coed games were a richer mixture of short back-and-forth passes and long hucks down the field. In Ultimate Frisbee, men and women played a more interesting, and to me a more rewarding, game, when we played together. And that has been my experience in the rest of life, too.

 

If you enjoy our articles, be a part of our growth and help us produce more writing for you:
Total
688
Shares

74 comments

  1. Due to the serious nature of allegations, surely we should operate under a mode of ‘suspicious until proven guilty’.

    How do you all feel about Michael Jackson after the Leaving Neverland documentary? Do you feel that his victims, gaslit into loving him while he abused them, got caught in the bind of ‘innocent until evidence is available’ approach? In the meantime, he may well have abused others.

    In the workplace, the testimonies of multiple people should be enough to allow a member of staff to be suspended or even terminated to protect other staff.

    1. Only innocent until proven guilty can ensure that we do not condemn innocents. Look at the Covington boys that were condemned by millions but turned out to be completely innocent. Look at Jian Gomeshi who had 3 accusers in his lawsuit and they all lied and two colluded extensively (they exchanged over 5000 mails about Gomeshi calling him a pig and more) to bring him down. Testimonies are not reliable enough and even video testimonies can be misinterpreted.

      A bad person doing a bad person is an individual. However, if we use the system of justice to do bad things to innocents we’re responsible for the bad act. It is better that 10 bad guys go free than that one innocent get convicted.

      1. I heartily disagree. Civilisation itself is a contract. Our legal systems are fair but not perfect. Thus, as citizens, there is always a risk we could be accused of guilt when innocent. We have all feared this – it is a common cultural theme on TV and in movies. So actually, it is rational to accept that for every n guilty accused, there will be always be x inncoent accused. x will always be lower than n.

        This is the contract of living in an open, free democratic society.

          1. Swap accusation for punishment, its the same premise. And holds. The system sometimes gets it wrong. We all have to suck that up.

        1. I dont think there is any reason to beleive x is less than n especially when there is a situation where there is a collective hysteria about some moral panic.

  2. Feminism has always had a bigotted misandric aspect to it the suffragettes were nakedly misandric the suffragists perhaps not. It is the suffragettes who have been lionised and celebrated by the following generations of feminsists despite their se of terrorists tactics, that they campaigned only for votes for rich women, that they were a small minority of those campaigning, and the that contemporaries thought that their net effect was to delay votes for women. The reason is because feminism celebrates misandry and is inimical to moderate movements expecially those that wish to partner with men. Where is the recognition taht tnearly a million men had to die to get the vote for men and no women had to die to get the vote?

    The issue with the #metoo campaign was visible form the very start. Most of what Harvery Weinstein has been accused of and much of what he is criticised for was transactional. Women actresses provided sexual favours in return for career advancement. That is not all he has been accussed of but it is most of it and before a trial the most convincing. Yse condemn Weinstein but why has been no condemenation of these women’s actions? If I was to provide a bribe to a official or administrator who asked for it I would be as guilty of a crime as they are.

    This is the very essence of feminism identifying all of the short comings and crimes of individual men and the hardships of any women as the fault of all men while overlooking any shortcomings of women and any hardships of men. It is a nakedly sexist and biggotted movement.

    13
    1. You clearly do not understand power dynamics and coercion. Women who said ‘yes’ to Weinstein were coerced. Every reader who ignores this coercion angle is revealing themselves to have very little life experience. I’m starting to think the readership of Areo are largely just rejected teenage boys and a few divorced middle-aged men whose wives thankfully escaped into the night.

      1
      5
      1. I think everyone agrees that Weinstein is a complete and total pig. I also think that almost everyone knows and agrees that his word had an effect on careers, esp to those who rejected his advances. However, there are a lot of people- men and women both who are perfectly ok with selling themselves for fame. As long as those people exist and it works, this issue will never disappear, and it will ALWAYS cast doubt on the a total victims. Sad truth.

        1. Yes, I agree, but then shouldn’t we use our knowledge of this to allay our doubts? i.e. knowing the bad apples can make us doubt victims we should actually be more inclined to believe them when we know there will ALWAYS be more subordinates to seniors due to the nature of hierarchy. Thus, more power-related abuses. As hierarchies are essentially pyramids, disposing of one employee further up will usually benefit many more below.

          1. Do you feel you shot yourself in the foot with your response Laura? That you unwittingly proved we should actually be more understanding of victims?

            1. Oh.. So sorry I didn’t respond. It seems that my life, unlike yours, does not revolve around the internet, or this page. Unfortunately, until society masters the art of mind reading, I don’t see how it’s going to change. People who are willing to sell themselves for fame are also more than willing to lie later on and become the victim when it suits their purpose. You talk about how people who ignore the coercion angle have no life experience? I disagree. Does it happen? Sure. Does it make it right? Nope, not in the slightest. But. The burden of proof is on the accuser. We can’t just throw people in jail on someone’s say so. Perhaps in the future, if the #metoo movement doesn’t burn itself out, things will change, but money is king in Hollywood, and as long as pigs rule, the casting couch will always be there.

              1. I think you’ll find that proving sexual power crimes is difficult because by nature they are secret. By putting the onus on the victim, who may well be experiencing stockholm syndrome or have been gaslit into loving the abuser, or is worried that going public would destroy their career (these are the power dynamics you ignore), you create a very unreliable system of justice. Not as solid as you seem to believe.

                In fact, when there are corroborating accounts, this should be enough to suspend or terminate an employee. The right to hire and fire is a libertarian principle. I’m surprised you’re all so against it in the case of sexual power politics.

                So, yes, I still believe you have very little life experience, else you’d have seen power politics in action and would better understand the true nature of coercion and abuse of power.

                1. Dear Anonymous, it seems everybody disagrees with you so you really cannot be right according to your own rules. Sorry.

                  1. Peter, you have already proven your logical credibility is lost. Maybe you should look for it among the crusty socks under your bed.

                  2. I don’t expect support for my views here. Doesn’t mean I’m wrong. I certainly seem to be adequately confusing you lot.

                  3. Anyone want to address this point?

                    “I heartily disagree. Civilisation itself is a contract. Our legal systems are fair but not perfect. Thus, as citizens, there is always a risk we could be accused of guilt when innocent. We have all feared this – it is a common cultural theme on TV and in movies. So actually, it is rational to accept that for every n guilty accused, there will be always be x inncoent accused. x will always be lower than n.

                    This is the contract of living in an open, free democratic society.”

                  4. I am still curious as to how you feel
                    “[Presidents] had tremendous power and tended to use it when it is beneficial”

                    voids my argument that:

                    you are making wild assumptions about the typical behaviour of literally half of the global population (3.5 billion people vs 45 presidents).

                  5. @Anonymous Well, you rule is that if there are multiple corroborating testimonies then we should assume they are true. So not sure why that rule does not count for yourself?

                    1. Dude, these are completely different situations:

                      1) Sexual abuse of power
                      2) A discussion on a lame website

                      Once again, logic has left the building. Give up before you have to change your moniker out of the shame of being stupid.

                    2. As a test of your logical abilities, how about you try your best to dig yourself out of the following hole you created for yourself:

                      How does:
                      “[Presidents] had tremendous power and tended to use it when it is beneficial”

                      void my argument that:

                      you are making wild assumptions about the typical behaviour of literally half of the global population (3.5 billion people vs 45 presidents)?

                2. I don’t ignore those power dynamics. And our justice system is completely flawed. It puts innocent people in prison and lets criminals free all the time. That doesn’t change the fact that we can’t just go around putting people in prison, or firing them because someone brings accusations against them. Once its proven, however, all bets should be off. We don’t differ on our feelings on the situation. Hollywood, and big business in general gets away with a lot of reprehensible things. Where we differ is on the fact that you need due process to get anywhere, and you want to just go ahead and throw the book at someone without proving they did anything. I’ve followed Hollywood history for a pretty long time, and this is not new. This has been going on since it’s inception, and even before, back into the days of Vaudeville. It’s going to take a lot of time to undo this damage.

                  1. Clearly, you still don’t understand. Putting the burden of proof on the victim is completely ignoring power dynamics. I have said, in the absence of direct evidence, corroborated accounts should be enough. Specifically, in the case of child protection, a single accusation is enough.

                    Would you be happy sending your child to a school where a teacher had a single accusation of child rape against them?

                    If so, what if it was your child that made the accusation?

                      1. Typical neo-libs. As soon as a difficult question is posed, they ALWAYS flake out.

                        At least X. Citroyen tried (and failed miserably). But at least he tried.

                        1. Definitely doesn’t mean you’re right. Given your behavior here, you obviously are mentally disturbed and I’m not going to engage the crazy anymore. Seriously. You need help.

                          1. I’ll work on the assumption you’d be happy to send your child to be taught by a teacher that had a single unproven child rape allegation. It’s good that you’re anonymous else child protection services might want a word.

                      1. Yep, but how about you respond to my moral quandary? Or do you not have the aptitude? Reminds me of another reader on this site…

                  1. (Everyone is hiding behind anonymous monikers by the way. That you can’t tell the difference between a validated user account and a label is concerning).

                        1. And I’ll personally like the above comment 10 times to also demonstrate the pointlessness of your little world of virtue confirmation.

                      1. So, now we’ve established that the identification and liking system on here is a nonsense… will you actually address my points?

  3. Maybe the sporting analogy isn’t the best to use at a time Martina Navratilova is being denounced as a hateful bigot for daring to suggest women’s sport shouldn’t be open to men.

    2
    1
  4. THANK YOU!!! I never had even heard of International Women’s Day until recently, and today, my social media has been inundated with all kinds of Girl Power stuff. I find myself uneasy and uncomfortable with the concept of International Women’s Day in its current incarnation, and I couldn’t put my finger on why until I came across this- which took quite a bit of searching by the way and I had to wade through all the articles about who tweeted about it and how wonderful it was. It seems that this day had it’s place once, and had a great message, but now…it’s hijacked. Shame, really. Thanks for the great article!

      1. My gender should not matter. So I pretended to be a woman, so what?? Are you some kind of racialist? I am a man, and proud of it. My wife left me and I hate women. I hope they all die.

        1. Laura, such a strange outburst. But glad you’ve finally revealed your true identity. I do think saying all women should die is a little extreme though. I just want them all to constantly hurt in some way, to make up for my heartbreak and shame at being a turd.

  5. Thanks for an inspiring thoughtful piece. I’ve watched with trepidation the events at Evergreen and hope it serves as a warning and we can avoid it being repeated here in Australia. Keep up the good work.

  6. Not much I ever disagree with Heather Heying on. But I will just say as food for thought: were Harvey Weinstein’s victims the women who had sex with him and advanced their careers? Or the women who had enough self-respect to refuse that we have never heard of, and are waiting tables at a restaurant somewhere still? My understanding is that he never once pinned someone down or pointed a gun at their head. He’s a creep and a bastard, and deserves to lose his status in society, but…
    I have personally had the opportunity offered to me to subvert my morals in order to advance my career and/or make more money, but like many people you’ve never heard of, I said no. I suspect there are many men and women who could say the same thing. Are people who said “yes” victims? Or perpetrators, and the ones who empowered Weinstein (Harvey!).

    21
    1
    1. Righto, anyone who doesn’t resist a sexual predator or whose assault doesn’t involve extreme physical violence is morally suspect. Got it!
      You can crawl back to your cave now.

      2
      7
      1. You ignore the premise: the people that advanced their careers. It is not as if many if the alleged victims did not get a huge reward? I find it a valid question that you try to shout down.

          1. Can you elaborate how your conclusion can logically follow from my reply? In general I like women but that does not make me blindly believe they are somehow more saintly than the rest of us. We’re all for sale, only the price we can ask differs.

            I am curious if you recognize that these actresses also had a reward for their ordeal when they got a well paid role in a movie? Is there something sacred in the act of sex that makes it untradable? What are voluntary prostitutes if not making such trades every day? It is my cup of tea but if a men dives into a sewer to clean it so he get a wage out of it, is he then acting very different then the actress? Who would you prefer to be if you were forced to chose?

            It is not my cup of tea but it is hard to deny this trade exist and actually provides quite a bit of power to women.

            1. Trade? You think sexual assault is a form of trade?

              The general consensus is that in these situations, a powerful person is coercing a subordinate to behave in a way that the subordinate feels they have to due to their position in the hierarchy. So, women may have benefited career-wise, but this does not make them responsible, due to the coercion. You need to understand power dynamics to get it. If you’ve never seen it in action (if, for example you are an unexperienced teenage boy), it may be difficult to understand this, but power dynamics are at play throughout society and when sex is involved, it tends to be hidden, hence ‘suspicious until proven guilty’.

              1. Trade is imho anything that people exchange to their mutual benefit. Sexual assault in the dictionary meaning of using physical violence is then clearly not trade, it is sexual assault. Illegal and morally sick. However, isn’t prostitution trade? A woman that stays with her husband because she likes the money he brings in? How do you distinguish that from trade? Trade is balancing lots of parameters and deciding when something benefits you more than that it costs you.

                Maybe it is not just me who has to understand the power dynamics better. Women have a tremendous sexual power and tend to use it when it is beneficial. Someone women are disgusted and don’t budge and thereby lose the role. Some women think, ah what the heck, it’ll only take 5 minutes. Assuming that women have no choice is to deny them adulthood and agency. Without violence, any person can always walk away; the fact that you then do not get the role is not coercion, it is just not willing to pay the price. Remember, we’re talking strictly non-violent cases here.

                Regardless, once society gives preference to believing a subgroup this subgroup will inevitably abuse this privilege. After all we’re only human. Justice must be blind because one day it is you on the wrong side of the fence.

                Take Jian Gomeshi. He was defendant in a law suit with 3 plaintiffs. Since there were also other allegations the media still condemns him today as molester. During the trial it turned out all 3 women had neglected to tell the police important facts, some of them lied, and two of them colluded in over 5000 mails to ‘bring the pig down’. I’ve no idea how often these things happen but there are too many of such stories to not be very careful assuming that men are always guilty. A society that condemns an innocent is worse than a guilty perpetrator that evades punishment.

                Hence, the lesson we learned over hundreds of years: Innocent until proven guilty. Change at your own peril.

                1. Actually, I have learned that pragmatism in a changing world is the best approach. Our own legal systems regularly use human intervention to make pragmatic assessments. i.e. context.

                  Sticking to rigid principles in the face of life’s complexities is more like a religious doctrine, which I would expect rationalists like yourselves to reject.

                2. Oh, and you ended up unwittingly exposing your misogyny here:

                  “Women have a tremendous sexual power and tend to use it when it is beneficial.”

                  Hateful.

                    1. “Obama” is a single person.

                      “Women” represents all women (i.e. 3.5 billion people).

                      The fact you can’t see the difference has TOTALLY destroyed your credibility.

                      1. I could change presidents for Obama and that voids your argument but that is irrelevant. I am curious where we disagree. Is it hateful to say that women have sexual powers or is it hateful to say that women then also use this power when it is beneficial? (The alternative would be that women are not very clever which I do not see around me.) If you’re a woman I doubt you never used your charms to get something from your father? If you’re a man it is hard not have met a woman that need something done and rewarded the work with a radiant smile that we generally thankfully accept.

                        1. Dude. Give up now. I’m here to debate with actual grown adults.

                          “I could change presidents for Obama and that voids your argument”

                          I have no idea what the above means, I assume its confused nonsense.

                          Your gender assumption that all 3.5 billion women “tend” to use their “tremendous sexual power” is frankly ridiculous by any standards, even the lax standards of Areo.

                          Did a lady use her tremendous sexual power against you at some point? Is that why you hate women?

                            1. Ah, the libertarian flake out. Predictable behaviour when confronted with the shame of being wrong.

                              However, I am still curious as to how you feel
                              “[Presidents] had tremendous power and tended to use it when it is beneficial”

                              voids my argument that:

                              you are making wild assumptions about the typical behaviour of literally half of the global population (3.5 billion people vs 45 presidents).

    2. You clearly do not understand power dynamics and coercion. Women who said ‘yes’ to Weinstein were coerced. Every reader who ignores this coercion angle is revealing themselves to have very little life experience. I’m starting to think the readership of Areo are largely just rejected teenage boys and a few divorced middle-aged men whose wives thankfully escaped into the night.

  7. “#MeToo had the potential to do good. It had the potential to reveal, to the vast majority of men who do not engage in bad behavior towards women, that the vast majority of women have, at some point in their lives, endured harassment that they should not have had to endure. #MeToo therefore also had the potential to reveal the obvious conclusion from putting those two truths side by side: a small minority of men engage in bad behavior towards a large majority of women.”

    It’s hard to overstate the relevance of this insight. Looking forward to reading more of your work.

  8. Burn the heretic!

    Just kidding. Thanks Professor, glad to see you’re still alive. So far the lynchings are still mostly virtual.

      1. Dear Father Christmas, please can you make me more intelligent? I’m out of my depth on a website populated with complete morons. As a moron, I would expect to be able to debate with them, but instead I keep embarrassing myself. Please help.

Leave a Reply

Inline
Inline