What Happens to #MeToo When a Feminist Is the Accused? - Sensationalist Headlines

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/13/nyregion/sexual-harassment-nyu-female-professor.html The case seems like a familiar story turned on its head: Avital Ronell, a world-renowned female professor of German and Comparative Literature at New York University, was found responsible for sexually harassing a male former graduate student, Nimrod Reitman. An 11-month Title IX investigation found Professor Ronell, described by a colleague as “one of the very few philosopher-stars of this world,” responsible for sexual harassment, both physical and verbal, to the extent that her behavior was “sufficiently pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of Mr. Reitman’s learning environment.” The university has suspended Professor Ronell for the coming academic year. In the Title IX final report, excerpts of which were obtained by The New York Times, Mr. Reitman said that she had sexually harassed him for three years, and shared dozens of emails in which she referred to him as “my most adored one,” “Sweet cuddly Baby,” “cock-er spaniel,” and “my astounding and beautiful Nimrod.” Coming in the middle of the #MeToo movement’s reckoning over sexual misconduct, it raised a challenge for feminists — how to respond when one of their own behaved badly. And the response has roiled a corner of academia. Soon after the university made its final, confidential determination this spring, a group of scholars from around the world, including prominent feminists, sent a letter to N.Y.U. in defense of Professor Ronell. Judith Butler, the author of the book “Gender Trouble” and one of the most influential feminist scholars today, was first on the list. “Although we have no access to the confidential dossier, we have all worked for many years in close proximity to Professor Ronell,” the professors wrote in a draft letter posted on a philosophy blog in June. “We have all seen her relationship with students, and some of us know the individual who has waged this malicious campaign against her.”

They should be happy that her career hasn't been permanently destroyed as it would have been were she anyone else.

Wich is a shame actually, she deserves the absolute same treatment, no quarter given.

Anyone actually surprised? The vast majority of activists are actually more concerned with tribal politics than with the consistency of their principles.

I disagree with you on the part that a vast majority of folks wouldn't hold a woman accountable for sexual harassment, Its just that the people who claim that its not possible are very loud. Although I suppose it depends on how you define "activist". I fully agre with you on the second part. That being said, when I do bump into one of these people, their ignorance is astounding. Its always depressing when I have to explain that, yes, it IS possible for men to get raped or something like that.

I wouldn't be so sure that most people wouldn't let it slide. Way fewer people give a shit about sexual harassment done towards men, let alone sexual harassment done towards men by women. And regardless of their numbers, those who claim such things aren't possible aren't just loud, they're chiefly the ones who hold the power. As you can see, this woman is a "superstar", a champion of feminism, one which has great influence on the movement, and yet she doesn't see any issue with behaving in the exact same way as the people she decries. Her colleagues are the first to jump to her defense, too. Has any prominent feminist figure, institution or association condemned this persons' action and behavior in the face of those accusations, in the same way they did when other, more usual allegations were surfacing? All I can hear is chirping. If there are as many people who care about such issues as you seem to believe, then they're a pretty damn silent majority. The truth is most don't really care, at best they agree when prompted, but they won't take the initiative of rallying and making it known when it happens, like they do when the victim is a woman. Those who acknowledge its existence will claim that adressing it isn't a priority and women's issues are more important. Others will straight up deny that it's possible and accuse you of trying to hijack their movement.

What kind of parent names their son Nimrod.

Oh I know her. Here she is dressed as Trinity or something from a documentary about contemporary philosophers called "Examined Life" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKD9anjgcCI She's kind of an asshole, bitching about getting 10 minutes in the film just like everyone else For my own sanity, here's a much more interesting philosopher from the same film: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRMUhZTz924

Exactly to be expected tbh. A lot of these high horsing type feminist scholars are absolutely horrible/abrasive people.

I hate this title’s line of thought. Just because someone’s a feminist doesn’t mean they aren’t trashy people. Just look at Jonathan McIntosh and Joss Whedon

Better title would be "Hypocrite"

But his charges have met disbelief from some feminist scholars. Translation: We found some hypocrites so we decided to write this article in a way that attempts to delegitimize an entire feminist movement through a single letter

Here's something else on the matter, note that it was published quite a bit earlier than the article in the OP: https://www.chronicle.com/article/How-a-Letter-Defending-Avital/243650 It looks like the letter is fairly widely regarded as a screw-up, to say the least. Anyone who actually still stands by it as written deserves to get their reputation tarnished by it, though.

Another article from this obviously misogynist writer: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/04/opinion/sunday/dating-women-matriarchy-single-moms.html?ref=oembed Is the mere existence of this kind of article an affront to #metoo or do you actually want to quote a part where it says the whole movement is bunk and useless?

The issue is that its proven to be a very convenient shield the last couple of years.

I'm male and have spent about the last year of my life being sexually abused by my "well respected" female therapist who has told me no one would ever believe me and reading this article really just drained me of any hope in the matter. I haven't told anyone besides my doctor (and I guess now everyone on the Internet) and it feels like I'm basically forced to remain silent because otherwise I'll face shit like this.

A writer typically doesn't have the final say on what their article says, that usually falls to the editor. Most articles have quite a few peoples' inputs going into them. I never claimed this was the fault of one person, as it could have been anyone who was involved in writing the article. Thanks for bringing up an unrelated article, though, I guess. You don't actually have to specifically say "the movement is shit and anyone in it is shit," you just have to write a vague headline, and lo and behold, you've got people holding the article up as proof of tribal politics.

I think the later article (the one in the OP) is written to be intentionally misleading to some extent, since it didn't seem that clear to me that the letter (or a later version of the letter, supposedly) was sent before the investigation concluded.

It also just spends way too much time talking about the case and not the letter itself. Just adding up the paragraphs and seeing how much of them are mainly about the letter versus the case, the article spends about 75% of itself just going over the case.

It is basically identity and tribal politics, everyone is expected to conform or act a certain way towards a certain group of people. When the roles are reversed and something happens which challenges the main group's mentality then shit hits the fan. Basically, no one is interested in being constant about their views and while arguing against the status quo they are literally maintain the status quo. It is really counter-productive. If you are going to be against abuse and react a certain way then you need to apply that fairly across the board. If not, then how you act now should be how you act across the board. It's really nice being told that you should be against x, y, z topic/issue and then when it happens to a male or someone outside of the group the polar opposite happens. Lets make it simple, abuse is bad, it should be investigated, and action should be taken. Anyone who attempts to use "intellect" or "talent" as key points to a defense should shut the fuck up.

I mean the article doesn't mention the letter in the title, so why would you expect it to spend 75% of the time on the letter? The Times article had access to excerpts of the final report, which the other article didn't have - isn't it pretty natural that it goes over what the allegations actually are? It's literally just a different focus.

This is where I am thinking contemporary Feminism has shifted from being a movement of equality to flipping the social paradigm of "Male Dominance" to now "Female Dominance". I get a lot of movements have hypocrites but someone in her position is smart enough to know how her actions can influence an entire movement. Thats why to me the biggest take away from the letter was the fact that who ever created it shifted the blame on the supposed victim and defended the professor without knowing anything. This, to me, points to more Identity/Tribal politics because people whos lives are built off of being completely informed are jumping the gun with little to no information. But at the end of the day I am always reminded of a quote by Lord Acton: "Power Corrupts. Absolute Power corrupts absolutely." C'est la vie.

That's not what your own article says either, though? Judith Butler, a professor of critical theory and comparative literature at the University of California at Berkeley, was the first name on the list of signatories. (Butler, whose work on gender and sexuality is broadly influential, is also president-elect of the Modern Language Association.) She said in an email to The Chronicle that the letter pulled from Leiter’s blog was an "incorrect version" and that it contained errors in the list of names. Butler declined to provide a correct version of the letter or explain how this version was incorrect. "The Title IX investigation had concluded prior to the writing of the letter which remains confidential as do all proceedings regarding this matter," she said in an email.

The title of the article is "What Happens to #MeToo When a Feminist Is the Accused" and not "Noted Feminist Accused of Sexual Misconduct," indicating that the article is about the aftermath of the case, not the case itself. It's very clearly asking a pointed question, then diverting attention so that people like you don't realize that they're not answering the question.

Nothing happened to #metoo after this happened, it’s alive and well. I read that as “what happens to the principles of #metoo when...”. If you legitimately thought that article would be about what happened to the whole movement after this small case, I don’t really know why to tell you. Maybe get off your high horse as well, and stop trying to imply I’m incapable of independent thought. There’s really no need for insults.

No yeah you're 100% correct, The New York Times, a high factual-reporting and left-center leaning news source, previously champions of female equality, wants to dismantle #MeToo. from the inside-out. You figured it out, paramud. You cracked the code. It was just one big con to delegitimatize women's struggles all along. You found Pepe Silvia! Or, considering the entire article doesn't match the meaning you ascribed to the title, maybe your interpretation is wrong? As GoDong-DK points out, the author probably wanted to highlight the failings of the intent behind the #MeToo movement when it came to this man's case, which necessitates summarizing the whole of the case instead of focusing on the letter.

Keanu Reeves is too pure for this world.

Jesus Christ my heart skip a beat, i thought my favorite actor is in some deep shit, but thank God it's actually something wholesome.

You're welcome That's honestly not a big difference. It's either attacking the people of the movement, or their principles. Either way, it pushes the generalization that the people who wrote the letter represent the movement in general, and all you have to do is read some of the posts in the thread to see that it totally fucking worked.

Ever stop and consider that most of the posts you make are completely misguided and your attitude disingenuous?