If anything it perpetuates the myth that women react emotionally as opposed to rationally. A false assumption but seems to be gaining traction…maybe too much societal chatter about “victim status?” I’ve known plenty of irrational men and I’ve met men who react emotionally and of course, like many of us, I’ve worked and known people who like to blame someone or something for everything that happens to them as if they have no control over their circumstances…again personality generally not situational. The incident in 1992 has no bearing on “her” being vivacious…she probably is. Doesn’t excuse the use of the word as clearly a 'better" one could have been selected, but the incident isn’t an excuse an irrational or emotional response.
I don’t see her pointing out the inappropriate of the word as being emotional or irrational. If someone was pointing out a racially tinged remark instead of a gender biased remark, would you call that being emotional and irrational?
Some of you are arguing for a “go along to get along approach”. Sure, that might further your own career but it doesn’t help bring about change to a more widespread issue which is inequality in the workplace.
He was a “lower status” person introducing HER, the higher status person. So, no go for me on the inequality.
“I don’t see her pointing out the inappropriate of the word as being emotional or irrational”
It’s the manner in which she did it. A normal reaction by a normal businesswoman would be to speak to the offender privately, then let it go. Publishing it in a journal where - yeah, I get that the generic public doesn’t read it, but people in this profession might - in a way that made the guy identifiable is petty and small, and yes, irrational. I’m going to exaggerate to make a point, but that’s kind of the DJT approach to people.
Yes, that is the point in my opinion. In the business world that is referred to as stabbing someone in the back or pushing them under the bus or any number of euphemisms. People that do this aren’t gender specific. It was directed to his peers. Not cool…and bit her as expected.
Ahh, we’re really lined up on 2 sides here. One side contextualizing the specific comment and the other pretty much pulling a Gilda, “What’s all this fuss about some lowly head of law review who slipped on a word?”
We could have expected better of a kid in his position, yes.
Now some are suggesting she’s climbing on his back?
The good news is apparently some here have managed over challenges. The bad is still trying to dismiss her remark, in whole. She’s not playing victim. She’s pointing out an example. Had she couched it differently, referred to a friend who experienced this, mentioned an anon junior staffer, would you get her point? (I don’t think head of review at a top law schools is junior, btw. It’s not fully fledged, but we could expect some more careful awareness.).
Let’s also remember this is law school, the way that law school should form a type of critical thinking. Not your office, your airport, your own professional environment.
No, that’s not correct. My point is that people in the profession do not read that law journal. To be blunt, it is a fourth-tier law school that published it. There are zillions of other articles to read, if one is inclined to read law review articles, which very very few people are inclined to do.
Further anyone reading it will already be sympathetic to the point of view. It is a symposium issue that does not contain original scholarship but pieces remembering and memorializing a particular law professor who made her career talking about implicit bias against women in the law.
I very much doubt that even people in the very narrow field at issue – law professors specializing in critical legal studies, particularly feminist legal studies – would have read the article, given the number of articles published each year on that topic in journals like the Harvard Law Review or Yale Law Journal.
The only people I can imagine reading the article – seriously! – are the attendees at the symposium, (maybe) Mary Jo Krup’s family, and folks trying to find ammunition against the professor who wrote it. Maybe 26 people would have read that article in the absence of the “outrage” by the FLA law review advisor and the student. I mean that quite literally.
It is not the type of article that is consumed by people who consume law review articles. Maybe there are some law professors out there who will disagree with me. If so, I hope they will speak up.
lol, lookingfoward, “What is all this I hear about violins on TV?”
Once again, I agree wholeheartedly with you and think that you have put the point very well.