This thread wouldn't exist if we were all comfortable that sexism isn't a problem. The issue will be around for a few more decades.. maybe a century. So if you're tired, I'd suggest more naps...

This thread wouldn't exist if we were all comfortable that sexism isn't a problem. The issue will be around for a few more decades.. maybe a century. So if you're tired, I'd suggest more naps... — Mongrel

Strawman.

Strawman — Pneumenon

Probably. The Tonight Show had a running joke making fun of football players. Apparently a number of the joked upon didn't take it well and developed a bit of hatred for Jimmy Fallon. And that with no mention of favorite sexual positions — Mongrel

It seems the First Amendment issue has been raised contra sexual harassment/discrimination claims when professors indulge in pontificating about women, but I doubt it would serve well when employed regarding the speech of boorish male college athletes; even those of Harvard. The First Amendment defense hasn't seem much success against hostile work environment claims in the ordinary workplace, it seems, but colleges are, of course, very special places.

The issue with that is the women's team didn't even know about the "report" until about 10 days ago so it most definitely isn't "harrasing " speech. If the "report " was published each year and handed to the womens team then i could understand it being harrasing. But dont the supposed "victims " need to know they are being victimized? Or nah?

You might expect someone with username The17thStateUniversityBro to have a very specific outlook on this question - but don't judge a book by its cover!

The issue with that is the women's team didn't even know about the "report" until about 10 days ago so it most definitely isn't "harrasing " speech. If the "report " was published each year and handed to the womens team then i could understand it being harrasing. But dont the supposed "victims " need to know they are being victimized? Or nah? — The17thStateUniversitybro

The question I thought was: What is it appropriate for Harvard to do now that this is unquestionably known to it to have taken place? There may be no viable claim arising out of the conduct at this time, but Harvard has exposure to future claims (not merely those arising from this practice) if it does nothing as it will appear to tolerate the conduct, or even seem to encourage it. I think any competent lawyer would advise Harvard to take action of some kind--at the least to reprimand and also make it clear such conduct is improper and won't be tolerated in the future.

But any draconian approach to that, including legislation, of course, as well as social ostracization, public shaming, etc., would be anything but good manners. — Terrapin Station

Well, that's the way manners actually do change. If someone behaves really rudely, there is legislation starting with slander etc. Typically the person is ostracized who behaves badly.

Now what I think happens with "SJW & PC-culture" is that some groups or communities simply want to influence and change just what is seen as correct (and what isn't) when the popular position is still something else. Naturally they want to portray their cause as important as basic human rights. This of course feels like a PC culture to many. Here usually our customs and society has developed to be more permissive and less connected to religion... at least in the West.

But the trend can change, who knows.

really not sure what you're implying

When people talk about free speech I think they generally that one should be able to express whatever *opinion or view* they have without facing legal repercussions. And not that you can literally say whatever you want in any situation without restriction. — dukkha

That's probably true. However, I'm not an "average person" in that regard.

One of the repercussions of my view that I think is a big benefit is that we wouldn't put so much weight on the mere fact that anyone is claiming (or threatening, or promising, etc.) whatever they are. People would start to get into the habit of being skeptical, getting a variety of opinions from a variety of sources, doing research, and having more rigorous epistemic standards for believing things.

At any rate, it's kind of patronizing to assume that I just hadn't thought about any "difficult cases" prior to settling on my view, right?

I found something I wrote in my reply box around the time that you posted the thread but for whatever reason I decided not to post it (That happens to me a lot when it comes to the topic of contemporary "social justice"). Re-reading it I don't think it will twist too many knickers. Maybe I have the master of knicker twisters to thank for that, El Trump, in some very dark sort of way...

Here it is:

I've seen this sort of thing occurring more and more for the last several years.

It's a flabbergasting contradiction for we men: We live in a time when women are in appearance and behavior more sexy and sexualized than ever before, while men are simultaneously being judged more and more harshly for being attracted to women and expressing it in any way not fit for daytime T.V., even if it's harmless and private speech. I'm kind of sick of the hypocrisy to be honest, but that's modern western culture for you; an insecure tit-monger who hides it's inexhaustible lust with an over-compensated sense of self-righteous purity.

No I'm not complaining about or asking "why can't men get away with sexual harassment anymore?", I'm complaining that somewhere in our pursuit of equality between the sexes, we completely missed the part about holding one-another to the same ethical standards, at least when it comes to anything sex related. Men have always lived in a world where hurt feelings are one's own problem; something to be dealt with personally. But now somehow, especially in regards to sex, feelings are suddenly the be all and end all of social interaction. Consider the following interaction:

Man: "Hi, want to fuck?"
Woman: "No."
Man: "Well fuck you then bitch."

By most measures of "feeling", this interaction seems to constitute an example of sexual harassment. If a cop was standing right next to them, we might expect them to do something in response.

Now imagine the same interaction with reversed gender roles...

It's no longer sexual harassment, or at least the "feels harmful" kind, according to my "feelings"...

This is precisely the kind of shoddy moral intuition that is making it's way into contemporary western "thought", especially in universities, on social media, and many other platforms where preserving reputation is a first priority. Somewhere along the line we confused the human desire to be free from negative or offensive feelings with a moral obligation to never do or say anything anyone might find offensive. You can find this sort of rhetoric everywhere now; "micro-aggression" was coined to describe how individual hurt feelings amounts to the mass systemic oppression of X,Y, or Z group of people. "Safe spaces" are strictly about protecting people's feelings from the slings and arrows of emotional confrontation.

Some male Harvard Soccer students wrote some stuff about some female Harvard soccer students on a google doc that was apparently publicly accessible since 2012, but not publicly known until very recently...

It's Harvard right? We ought to expect them to have the highest standards! Hence the punitive measures taken against the team. We simply cannot tolerate young and inexperienced students exploring their sexuality in such a way that might indirectly lead to hurt feelings one day, lest the facade of purity fall down. In reality everyone is in a scramble because of the irrationally amplified gravitas of some "hurt feelings" which may or may not have resulted from a group of teenagers daring to apply a numeric label to the sexual attractiveness of some of their female counterparts (people who they are biologically wired to be attracted to).

"Feel" is the word of 2016...

Sorry, "feel" is not the word of 2016: post-truth is.

I agree with your response. "Felt uncomfortable" is the new "been molested".

Oh my...

"Post-truth": Post-truth politics (also called post-factual politics) is a political culture in which debate is framed largely by appeals to emotion disconnected from the details of policy.

I hadn't heard this yet, but I really wasn't very far off! The intellect thins while the drama thickens...

Quit your mansplaining, it's triggering me!

I think what's going is that these "progressive" cry-bullies are preying on (mostly white) people's desires to be desperately seen as not a bigot, or racist, or sexist, or transphobe, etc. If you say call one of these people (who love virtue signalling) racist, sexist, etc, they apologize and change their behaviour. In this way the "progressive" gains control over the behaviour of other people. These people love the feeling of power and control over other people, because they've never really experienced it before. This is why lately we're seeing this massive proliferation in talk about, and accusations of racism, sexism, etc. These people have got a little taste of power and control over others and they want MORE. I think one of the reasons Trump was elected was a backlash (or 'white lash') against this manipulation. People are absolutely sick of being told what to do, of being exploited through their own sense of morality - through actually being a good person - into bowing to the whims of some screeching college age SJW. It's gotten to the point that words like racist, sexist, homophobe, have been thrown around so much they've lost of the power and meaning they once had. People are getting to the point of when someone calls them racist, their response is now just, "well if that makes me a racist then so be it". These people don't actually genuinely care about sexism of civil rights or the new craze of "respecting pronouns" and advocating for transgender rights. They don't give a shit. They exploit and use those things (which actual good people DO care about) as a tool to gain political control over other people. It satisfies them. I mean nobody (sane) actually thinks it's sexist to sit with your legs apart on a bus or train ("man spreading"), they just say it is and accuse people of being sexist because it gives them great satisfaction to control someone else's behaviour. This is just a very minor example, they also try to control how others dress, how they think and form opinions, how they celebrate holidays, how they talk, what they are and aren't allowed to say, who they vote for. These people actually WANT you to feel guilty about being white, or male, or middle class, or straight, etc, because it benefits them. Some cherry picked examples:



Girl has one of the most punchable faces I've ever seen.



The black girl is nothing more than a bully. She doesn't care about 'cultural appropriation', she just levels that accusation towards people in order to control and dominate - bully them into submission. All she wants to do is make someone do what she wants. She KNOWS she's being a bully, and she KNOWS what she's doing is wrong, and shameful - this is the reason she attacks the cameraman. Because it's proof of her disgusting behaviour.

"What you're doing offends me. Therefore you must stop doing it. If you don't then you're a bad immoral person". < The best solution towards this sort of entitlement is to simply not care. I'm offending you? So what? The only reason these people have any influence is because (mostly white) people DO care about not causing offense. They are good people already, and they're just being cynically exploited because of it.

Getting back to this thread, the crazy thing is that I bet those girls who were getting rated 9/10 or 10/10, or in some way learned that the males thought they were physically attractive ABSOLUTELY LOVED IT. But only if they find the guy attractive. There seems this double standard between what a guy who they find unattractive says about them, and what someone attractive says. An ugly male says she's "hot, nice legs, big tits, 9/10" is an objectifying sexist creep. Whereas a male who they find attractive says the exact same thing is "confident, 'knows what they want', assertive, alpha, hot".

I disagree.
I look at it like this.
Either there is some standard of conduct which is expected of the students or there is not such a standard.
If there is such a standard and the students fail to meet it, then there should be some consequences.

This is about holding students accountable to standards of conduct, not sheltering women from unseemly realities.

I found something I wrote in my reply box around the time that you posted the thread but for whatever reason I decided not to post it — VagabondSpectre

. . . I pretty much agree with all of that. Lots of excellent points throughout.

Either there is some standard of conduct which is expected of the students — m-theory

How would the standard of conduct be expressed so that rating women would be against it?

I'm sure the standard doesn't specify that one isn't to rate women.

Whatever it would specify so that rating women could be seen as a violation of it must be so broadly phrased that just about anything could be seen as a violation of it.

I disagree.

It is common sense really.
The young men are likely expected to conduct themselves in a way that upholds the values of the school.

There is no way the school would condone such a rating system of women even if they don't explicitly state that you should not, as a representative of the school, rate women according to your opinions about their sexual attractiveness.

These guys are representing the school and common sense should have informed them that the school would not condone such things.

They obviously were not concerned with taking that duty of representing the school and it's values seriously and so they should face the consequences for failing.

I completely disagree that such things must be stated explicitly in the guidelines before these young men can be held accountable.
They used poor judgement, there is no argument about that.
They knew that if their activities were exposed it would reflect poorly upon them as representatives of the school.

The school ought to penalize these young men for that failure or the school risks the appearance that they condone such behavior.

The school cannot condone such behavior so it must penalize these young men in order to demonstrate that these young men's actions do not represent the schools values.

What you didn't answer was this: "How would the standard of conduct be expressed so that rating women would be against it?"

I did answer.

That is a matter of common sense.
There is no need for the school to state explicitly that as a representative of the school you should not rate women according to your opinions about their sexual attractiveness.

I disagreed with you that it should be necessary to do this because I believe it is reasonable for the school to expect of these young men to be capable of employing such judgement without explicit guidance.

They are old enough to understand what is expected of them and to understand that failure to uphold such expectations results in consequences.

Again I don't agree that what they did was excusable because again they did not represent exclusively themselves, which would be arguably excusable sure, but they also represented their school and therefor must take into account what expectations their school will have of them as representatives.

Are you saying it is not reasonable for the school to expect such things of it's representatives unless it is strictly stated?

Also consider how it will look for the institution if they do nothing.
It would then appear that the school does condone such things.


Of course I disagree with the view that the school must state explicitly that you should not rate women according to sexual attractiveness, it should be obvious from the school's own practices that to do such a thing is not representative of the schools values.

Harvard does not rate it's female staff and students according to opinions about the sexual attractiveness of those women, so it should be obvious to these boys that doing so that it is not in keeping with Harvard's values to do so.

That is a matter of common sense. — m-theory

So "it's a matter of common sense" would be how it would be expressed in the school's policy?

It is simple.
Again the school obviously does not rate women this way so obviously it is not in keeping with school values.

The school is not being unreasonable in expectations in my opinion.

So, no, I don't agree that guidelines must explicitly state that you should not rate women on scale in accordance with your opinions about their sexual attractiveness as a representative of the school.

Perhaps you believe that such guidelines should be exactly worded.

I think that would be a disservice because in the reality of a work environment such things will not be explicitly stated and these young men will be expected to exercise their better judgement.

If this had happened in a professional setting it could result in a sexual harassment lawsuit.

These young men should be learning what is expected of them as adults in a professional setting, letting them slide for childish behavior would be detrimental to their development in my opinion.

They need to learn how to meet the expectations of the institutions they will represent.

There is nothing unreasonable about that.

Perhaps you believe that such guidelines should be exactly worded. — m-theory

I'm just asking you how you believe it should be worded so that it's implied, at least. How would you express that in a code of conduct or whatever?

You don't have to type such long replies every time, by the way. It starts to seem like some sort of OCD thing where you're not able to type short replies.

If the code of conduct states that the student is expected to behave as a representative of the institution and the institution does not rate women according to sexual attractiveness than that to me is sufficient to communicate expectations.

Okay, but I think that would be easily challenged in court, say, since it's very ambiguous.

I disagree.

I think it would be easy to demonstrate how rating women according to sexual attractiveness is not a policy condoned by Harvard guidelines even if it is not explicitly stated.

I think it would be easy to demonstrate how rating women according to sexual attractiveness is not a policy condoned by Harvard guidelines even if it is not explicitly stated. — m-theory

Not if all it says is "expected to behave as a representative of the institution "

I disagree.

It should be very easy to demonstrate if the institution rates women according to sexual attractiveness or not.

. . . An approach that wouldn't work because it would be very easy to demonstrate that the institution doesn't do all manner of things that its students publicly do, yet the institution has no problem with all of those other things. Hence, "doing only what the institution itself does, and not doing what it doesn't" wouldn't fly as a criterion.

I see your point.
Hypothetically, if these young men sued the school, they might win that lawsuit.

But I still disagree that would be the most likely outcome.