Another professor bites the dust

[apl68]

There is no safe or acceptable way for a man to comment on a woman's appearance in today's culture.  I have been careful to avoid doing so for decades now, even in private.  It's one of several reasons why I have abandoned all efforts at initiating any sort of close personal relationship with a woman.  It's just no longer possible without courting disaster. 

I've heard that many young women in business have lamented that they get less mentoring than their young male colleagues from senior male colleagues. In the MeToo era, many of these men have chosen to avoid virtually all informal interaction with women to avoid any chance of accusations. (And of course mentoring often depends on those sorts of informal interactions.)

Although I would not be surprised if MeToo has scared some senior male colleagues away from mentoring junior female colleagues, I doubt that it's the main reason why women complain of receiving less mentoring.  People instinctively tend to see those who are like themselves as their natural successors and mentees.  If most of the seniors are white guys, then they can very easily find themselves mentoring mostly other white guys.  It doesn't have to be that way, but the senior white guys do need to make an effort to look for a greater range of people to mentor. 

Really, anybody needs to be prepared to extend mentorship--or anything else they have to offer--beyond people just like themselves.  We learn things when we do that, and even in a mentor-protege relationship the learning has lots of potential to go both ways.  I've been mentored by female colleagues--nothing unusual in this business!--and have mentored white and black women and white and black men in turn.  And have learned a good deal from each of them in turn.

I've been very, very careful--as in bending over backward careful--to avoid anything that could be construed as unfair pressure or harassment against female staff and colleagues (See the comment about never speaking about a woman's appearance above).  Yet I have not found that this prevents open and friendly interactions with them.  If guys are indeed being scared away from mentoring by MeToo, they shouldn't worry so much.  Just understand that the flirting and comments on appearance and other stuff like that are well and truly off the table, and you should be okay.

[marshwiggle]

Romance is, and always has been, mainly about objectification.  It's not for nothing that we speak of "the object of one's desire."

FWIW I recently read a convincing (academic) article on Harlequin romances, and how the conventions of the genre actually preclude the objectification of their heroines. I'd be happy to share the reference, if it's of interest.

Given that the overwhelming majority of their market is women, it stands to reason that the genre has developed according to what women appreciate, so anything they would find offensive would be absent.

[mahagonny]

There is no safe or acceptable way for a man to comment on a woman's appearance in today's culture.  I have been careful to avoid doing so for decades now, even in private.  It's one of several reasons why I have abandoned all efforts at initiating any sort of close personal relationship with a woman.  It's just no longer possible without courting disaster. 

I've heard that many young women in business have lamented that they get less mentoring than their young male colleagues from senior male colleagues. In the MeToo era, many of these men have chosen to avoid virtually all informal interaction with women to avoid any chance of accusations. (And of course mentoring often depends on those sorts of informal interactions.)

That is a doggone shame. Everyone should get all the mentoring they need. I wonder if there have been any studies done that would show whether persons who previously self identified as men but now self identify as women are less likely to be accused of harassment from women they mentor? Or, related, if women would be more comfortable around a transexual woman than they would be with a cisgender man, for a mentoring setting? Some might be more flexible than was thought.

ETA: (just saw this)

I've been very, very careful--as in bending over backward careful--to avoid anything that could be construed as unfair pressure or harassment against female staff and colleagues (See the comment about never speaking about a woman's appearance above).

At the beginning of the remote teaching odyssey a couple years ago we were shown a video to prepare us. As the female professor was beginning the class, the first student to arrive was also a woman. The professor complimented the student for her 'pretty appearance.' After the video (we were still zooming) we were invited to ask questions. I pointed out that the professor had done something that men are forbidden to do, compliment a woman on her appearance. They were nonplussed.

[secundem_artem]

Andy Warhol was wrong.  It's not that in the future, everybody will be famous for 15 minutes.  It's that, in the future, everybody will have their turn to be inside the internet rage machine until it can turn its attention to the next poor SOB.

Ain't Twitter fun??!!??

[mamselle]

Cleveland Amory's work on "Celebrity" vs. 'fame' comes to mind.

   See Blackwell and Amory, (1959). "The International Celebrity Register," and a good secondary comment on that and other writers, like Boorstin, in Chapter 1 ("Becoming Visible") of C. Ponce de Leon's (2003) "Self-Exposure: Human-Interest Journalism and the Emergence of Celebrity in America," (UNC Press).*

There's a short squib that summarizes the Amory/Blackwell book in--of all things--one of Amory's books on his cat, Polar Bear, which led me to investigate further, having been led to look up the topic earlier in C. Lindholm's 1990 work on leadership, "Charisma," (B. Blackwell, pub.) and his more recent group study, "The Anthropology of Religious Charism: Ecstasies and Institutions," (2013, Springer/Palgrave), with its more global emphasis and application.**

M. 

*Google Books has it here: https://books.google.com/books?id=parqCQAAQBAJ&dq=cleveland+amory+celebrity+fame&hl=fr&source=gbs_navlinks_s
** G'books here: https://books.google.com/books?id=dDewAgAAQBAJ&dq=lindholm+charismatic+leader&hl=fr&source=gbs_navlinks_s

[Wahoo Redux]

For some reason the cancel culture thread is avoided and the conversation is picked up here.

This might be interesting in light of people's thoughts:

CHE: Freedom of Expression on Campus; Key Takeaways

[dismalist]

Tweet, schmeet. The medium is the message!

It cannot be repeated often enough that free speech is free only in the sense of being free from government. How anyone can say anything intelligent on Twitter is beyond me. Why an academic would wish to make his or her views known on Twitter is completely incomprehensible. STFU.

This is good iff different universities allow different speech. We could have free speech universities and no speech universities and everything in between. As for State run places, there is also no problem because States differ.

Uniformity is the enemy, not speech restrictions.

[Wahoo Redux]

We can stop saying that "free speech" refers to government censorship.

We know.

[dismalist]

We can stop saying that "free speech" refers to government censorship.

We know.

Then let's not stop saying that variety is the spice of life. There must be places allowing, nay, inviting, disagreement.

[downer]

We can stop saying that "free speech" refers to government censorship.

We know.

Then let's not stop saying that variety is the spice of life. There must be places allowing, nay, inviting, disagreement.

Nope.

[dismalist]

We can stop saying that "free speech" refers to government censorship.

We know.

Then let's not stop saying that variety is the spice of life. There must be places allowing, nay, inviting, disagreement.

Nope.

Oh, then go wear a Mao jacket! :-)

[apl68]

Cleveland Amory's work on "Celebrity" vs. 'fame' comes to mind.

This brings to mind Aesop's fable about a dog who got into so much trouble as he wandered around that his master tied a weight to him that clattered on the ground to warn everybody whenever he was coming.  The dog supposed that he had been given a great distinction and honor by being "awarded" something that nobody else had.

The moral is that we should never confuse notoriety with fame.  A message well worth considering in contemporary society.

[Wahoo Redux]

We can stop saying that "free speech" refers to government censorship.

We know.

There must be places allowing, nay, inviting, disagreement.

Sacrilege!! 

Hypersensitivity does not allow for such a space. 

Echo-chambers for all!!!!

[marshwiggle]

We can stop saying that "free speech" refers to government censorship.

We know.

There must be places allowing, nay, inviting, disagreement.

Sacrilege!! 

Hypersensitivity does not allow for such a space. 

Echo-chambers for all!!!!

It would be interesting to see how people who favour "safe spaces" would make a clear distinction between a "safe space" and an "echo chamber", that isn't defined by the ideology involved. ( In other words, no saying "WE have safe spaces; THEY have echo chambers.")

[Wahoo Redux]

We can stop saying that "free speech" refers to government censorship.

We know.

There must be places allowing, nay, inviting, disagreement.

Sacrilege!! 

Hypersensitivity does not allow for such a space. 

Echo-chambers for all!!!!

It would be interesting to see how people who favour "safe spaces" would make a clear distinction between a "safe space" and an "echo chamber", that isn't defined by the ideology involved. ( In other words, no saying "WE have safe spaces; THEY have echo chambers.")

More sacrilege!!! 

Off to the Gulag with Marshy and dismalist!!!!