Aww, there’s plenty of micro (and overt) aggression on this thread, methinks. What is it about women that they just have to become targets for the correctness patrol?
Why should she have to pat the freaking law review president on the head and be granny or patronizing? Is that how you’d expect a male dean to handle it?
Can we leave it be?
Assuming he runs across an over-sensitive boss, he’ll likely get fired. They’ll feel better about keeping the patriarchy down, while he’ll be out of work.
Or not, since I recall a comment up-thread, by a HR lawyer, that this wasn’t actionable in any way, shape, or form.
Many states are “at will” states making termination pretty easy without reasons given or trumped up reasons.
Then it would be whim on the part of the employer. Personal whim, for a slight that isn’t even widely acknowledged as a slight. A gender specific compliment, rather.
Besides advising our hapless introducer to seek new employment with a mellower class of employer, I’d suggest he sue his old one.
Joe Patrice neither said he doesn’t want to be disagreed with nor called anyone an aggressor.
We’re evidently hearing different things.
When he says: “Hey, I know you weren’t being all Hitler-y, but that remark you didn’t realize was sexist was still derogatory so you should stop doing it.” I don’t hear much other than “If I think you’re talking sexist, you need to put a cork in it”.
When he laments the tattered reputation of a term he found useful in the past… micro-aggression… I take him at his word.
I liked lookingforward’s comment #201, and was amused by it, but I didn’t think that catahoula was advocating for the remark listed in #196. It’s an interesting example for the “bless your heart” discussion we were having on a different thread . . . actually in this case “bless your little heart.”
Interesting thread! I had never heard the word vivacious used to describe a male. Sherpa and I must of had a similar experience growing up because in thinking about the times the word vivacious had been used it seemed to convey a liveliness that was linked to attractiveness. I am a lot closer to 60 than I am to 50 and it is a word that I can’t recall ever using nor would it be likely that I ever would.
I completely appreciate the sensitivity on the part of the Dean. I also believe that the reaction to be extreme. The thinking seems to be in many sensitive area’s and area’s that involve legal considerations that massive over reaction is justified because of the positive effect it will have going forward as it relates to establishing precedent for behavior. I understand that to a degree but when you make casualties out of mostly innocent well intentioned people it goes to far. The punishment can be way to severe for the mistake or lack of awareness that occurred.
It can be generations that are on the cusp of cultural transition that are the least equipped to properly address issues of this nature. I am in no way excusing inappropriate behavior but I do consider the degree of such and the intent of the person who committed it.
My wife and my daughter have assisted me a great deal in understanding institutionalized sexism. I get it and there is a lot that needs to be improved upon and changed. I have found this conversation very interesting and have appreciated the various perspectives.
Btw, if anyone didn’t notice, Joe Patrice continued his discussion on 9/8. Worth looking at, if you’re genuinely curious. http://abovethelaw.com/2016/09/theres-a-lot-more-to-this-dean-calling-out-a-student-for-sexism-story/?rf=1
Ah, the money angle (lf’s reference in #209). My university has a policy against students receiving pay and academic credit for the same work, which apparently was allowed for law review editors in Florida, for 30 years. Given the long precedent, it probably wasn’t a good idea to overturn it in a short time frame.
The other aspect of the law-review practice that seems very weird to a scientist is the idea of using student editors at all. In my field, most grad students are barely getting their minds around their own research topic by the third year of grad school. The journal editors are all eminent scientists. I assume there are other legal journals that are run by law school faculty?
No, law review editors are virtually always students. There may be limited exceptions but at all major law schools the major law reviews/ law journals are run by student editors. The editors consult with faculty specialists regarding the scholarly merit or originality of a particular article, however, and faculty members lobby for certain articles to be published. But there isn’t the same tradition of “peer-review” for acceptance of articles as in other fields.
Nope. Top Law journals are all-students-all the time. In many cases, they have not a clue of what they are reading about.
Just the opposite. A Law editor could have been an undergrad Russian Lit major and will be ‘reviewing’ a submission with heavy economics in it as applied to the law. No matter.
Pretty much, other than calling it interesting might be too kind.
Telling people to stop saying things that are sexist or derogatory is not remotely the same as “I don’t want to be disagreed with.” Saying sexist and derogatory things isn’t a disagreement; it’s rude.
What’s more, calling someone’s speech aggressive isn’t the same as calling a person an aggressor; the former is descriptive, the latter is definitive. Think about it: I’ve done mean things, but I’m not mean; I’ve done lazy things, but I’m not lazy; I’ve been drunk, but I’m not a drunk. This isn’t tricky.
I have had all sorts of things that one could consider sexism happen to me in the last 32 years in my job, ranging from what would be considered all out sexual harassment, to the unintentional annoyance. It has gotten so much better over the years, I can’t even describe it. I could tell you stories that would make you cringe. However, I always managed to not go crazy over things, handle it with good humor, put people in their place if necessary (I can harass back with great skill, if one considers that anything to brag about), or ignore and accept the trivial. I have never reported anybody for anything, because if something is bad enough, I’ve taken care of it myself. I don’t need to publically humiliate someone or report them.
Women who overreact about trivia don’t do other women any favors. After all these years, I still have to establish myself to people whom I don’t know, because often they are still a little afraid of working with a woman. Will she get offended? Will she report me? Does she have a chip on her shoulder and I need to tiptoe around her? I try to instantly put people at ease, because I need them to feel comfortable to speak freely, and be onboard as a full member of the crew. Besides just being safety related, it’s also a matter of enjoying ourselves while we work. I make off beat, mildly inappropriate jokes, I swear a little, praise a lot, criticize very gently, and do my best to make men in particular feel comfortable. Sometimes it doesn’t work, if you have someone who is really uncomfortable working with women, or has zero sense of humor, but usually it is very effective.
I really don’t get this description of the workplace. Other than a few minor comments here and there, women were easily equal to men, women were chosen for high positions, our firm was at no disadvantage (and often an advantage) that we were headed by women, and we marched into CEOs’ offices all the time to give advice and no one GAS if we were male or female. I don’t want to name names as its too personally identifying, but I worked with and for women who ran major companies or major divisions thereof, sat on major university or charity boards, and blended home and family well. What you all describe is about as dated to me as wearing a navy suit with a floppy bow tie.
Some of you act as though working for a woman is some kind of novelty, for men and women alike. I’ll shout out to @EllieMom since she is in my former field, but I really can’t relate. The idea of not being equal to men in my field does not compute.
I must be missing something here. I thought vivacious was the opposite of “dud”. I would rather be called vivacious…than be called a dud.
Good things those aren’t the only options, then.
@busdriver11 You also have the luxury of a union and a job where your performance measurement is less subjective. I do think, however, that broaching sexism is required to bring about change. Never addressing it doesn’t lead to improvement. It sounds like you haven’t stood silently by but HAVE commented on things.