It seems that in spite of myself, I can't stop hopping on the hippest controversies in town. That's consistent, because today's theme is the result of ideology that messes with its own ends.
We now return to: Dr. Ted Everett's paper "Against 'Sexual' 'Assault' 'Awareness'": now with a link to the full presentation! http://www.geneseo.edu/philosophy/ted_everett
For those who haven't heard: last week my college went into an uproar anticipating this paper as the focus of a small Philosophy Department colloquium. Students protested and petitioned, the event was moved to the gymnasium to accommodate angry supporters of women's rights, and everybody got bad press. To be equally fair, I'll rag on both Dr. Everett and his antagonists, since everybody has been tripping up. And don't worry: more book reviews are coming soon.
We'll start with the man himself. My biggest complaint, probably as a slave to infotainment, is that this paper was not worth the hullabaloo it got. None of his points is particularly striking, and together they add up to a rather inconsistent whole. After all, as stated in its preface, the thing is a philosophy paper, not a lambent speech. The content itself reveals problems with both sides. While he's quite right in saying that the goal is to prevent sexual assault rather than correctly determine whose fault it is, nothing should obscure the secondary goal of letting people know what's crossing the line and what isn't. And while that analogy about a kiss from grandma is worth a giggle (if you've already had a beer every time he's said "roaring drunk"), it's a key misleading point. Where I come from, your grandma is probably not going to the same parties that have SAA worried. And even if you're just going to kiss somebody, absolutely make sure it will be wanted. We don't live in Pirates of the Caribbean (if you do, let me know). Whether or not you define an unwelcome result as sexual assault, it's still the wrong thing to do for emotional reasons, if not those of sanitation, personal space, etc.
Then come the enlightened students. What has me most frustrated is the fact that I'm not allowed to talk to my friends about it unless I say certain exact things. In some circles, I must chant, "They don't know what he said!" In others, it's "It doesn't matter what he said; sexual assault is still wrong." Whether I agree, or whether I see both of these as changing the subject, I tend to miss my cue. This makes every detail I offer an object of suspicion, forcing me to return to my position before the event: if we can't talk about sexual assault, how aware are we? I'd certainly flunk that test, having skipped the colloquium entirely to avoid hearing possible shouting matches. All I ask is to do what will be written on my diploma, and analyze the pieces of what I can read of Everett's paper and of my friends' opinions, as fairly as I can. Unless I can do this, I might as well not listen to anyone.
Here's all you can do. Learn from it if it works for you. You can refuse to cross any interpersonal boundaries, sexual or otherwise, unless you have reason to believe you may. You can keep in mind the common sense to make this distinction. It comes from listening, the aural version of awareness, which is what everybody thinks they want nowadays, but which is still frightfully scarce. Awareness is a result of thinking for yourself. In combination with respect, there's nothing it can't do.
Sunday, April 28, 2013
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Intrigue! Controversy! Relevance!
It's the return of that guy who used to write about the books he reads! Don't worry, that will restart soon enough. But first, I've decided to hop on the bandwagon of getting myself more attention, "likes," and Google hits by talking about the same thing as everyone else for a change.
Happy Earth Week/Sexual Assault Awareness Week/Earth Year*/Cheeseburger Awareness Week!
While these are all made up, some are more exciting to discuss than others. For example, there's a finite number of things to say about a cheeseburger before hunger and dietary restrictions have to duke it out mano a mano, sin palabras. But it would seem that there's no end of things to say about a lecture that hasn't been given yet, especially if you already know your opinion about it.
With that I present Geneseo's earth-shaking, fist-shaking scandal-to-be: a presentation entitled "Sexual" "Assault" "Awareness." http://www.geneseo.edu/news_events/update-philosophy-department-colloquium
This one needs a whole family of disclaimers. Firstly, I haven't spoken at length with Professor Everett, the presenter, since I took his introductory class in 2009. And I must admit I liked him. He contrasted well with my English professor at the time, who was a professed Marxist whose angsty male ex-Catholic devotees are exceeded only by the amount of times per class he looks for laughs at his insulting affectations. The point of Everett's class, which was lost on the overwhelming majority of us as an "honors" audience, was to use the history of philosophy as a framework for thinking for ourselves. That's no fun, I say. I want a flag under which to rally! Actually, I was serious at the time, unaware of the paradox of devoting myself to an author who could tell me my "individualism" was okay. It's a good thing I didn't find one. The theme of preconceived notions was a good prelude to my college experience, as well as to the thunderstorm approaching three and a half years later.
The second disclaimer follows logically: I don't know how many other people have spoken with Dr. Everett about this lecture. The natural tendency is to talk at someone, and look for self-affirmations in or against his response. My friend helped me realize the most dangerous part about this lecture: because it's so controversial, and is appearing everywhere from traditional news media to blogs more successful than mine, the title alone will reinforce the beliefs of anyone who spots it. The cleverest feminists and those who have put down that flag in favor of loving thy neighbor, won't be able to ignore the fact that many people aren't even close to a standard of treating women well. And the clueless feminists, at whom this lecture is targeted and who aren't aware of sexual assault in any personal way, will take it as a crack in the brittle foundation of a purely conceptual ideology. They're interested in rights rather than what's right, and will fight to micromanage and flatten out morality until it's all written in law, when everything will be beautiful and nothing will hurt.
But don't forget the people of which the clever feminists, the clueless feminists, and the rest of us random schmucks have always been worried: those who will take this lecture title, three words, as a sign that it's okay, that we're all safe now, and that awareness can go home without a problem.
You've been good, so here's a third disclaimer: I don't know of anybody who has experienced sexual assault. Readers, do yourselves a favor and do the main thing I learned from Dr. Everett: don't take me seriously. I'm not here to dictate my opinion, but to stir yours around a little and make sure it hasn't sunk to the bottom of your brains.
On the other hand, it would be slippery of me to write all this without any stated opinions, so here are some for the road. Rape is on par with murder. Don't forget it. On the other hand, if trying to get coffee with a girl who is repelled by your hygiene is sexual assault, then I'm in deep trouble. There must be a line somewhere. The same friend I mentioned somewhere in that muddle farther up the page told me that everybody, even those who commit it, know sexual assault is bad. My contribution to her thought is that the entire fight is over what constitutes this sin, this crime.
But since that's still a rather abstract opinion, and hence has nothing to do with me, I might as well announce why I'm not going to Dr. Everett's lecture, and why I'm fed up with Womyn's Action Coalition and a large percent of the people who will be there to oppose him. I don't think anybody will listen to each other. Negative energy only begets more negative energy, as anyone with the sense to interpret any given week of history will tell you. It's got nothing to do with gender, nor with the supposed spectrum from liberal to conservative. And while I appreciate those who want to end sexual assault, in this case they're swatting a fly on the expensive china.
*Why is there only one Earth Week?
Happy Earth Week/Sexual Assault Awareness Week/Earth Year*/Cheeseburger Awareness Week!
While these are all made up, some are more exciting to discuss than others. For example, there's a finite number of things to say about a cheeseburger before hunger and dietary restrictions have to duke it out mano a mano, sin palabras. But it would seem that there's no end of things to say about a lecture that hasn't been given yet, especially if you already know your opinion about it.
With that I present Geneseo's earth-shaking, fist-shaking scandal-to-be: a presentation entitled "Sexual" "Assault" "Awareness." http://www.geneseo.edu/news_events/update-philosophy-department-colloquium
This one needs a whole family of disclaimers. Firstly, I haven't spoken at length with Professor Everett, the presenter, since I took his introductory class in 2009. And I must admit I liked him. He contrasted well with my English professor at the time, who was a professed Marxist whose angsty male ex-Catholic devotees are exceeded only by the amount of times per class he looks for laughs at his insulting affectations. The point of Everett's class, which was lost on the overwhelming majority of us as an "honors" audience, was to use the history of philosophy as a framework for thinking for ourselves. That's no fun, I say. I want a flag under which to rally! Actually, I was serious at the time, unaware of the paradox of devoting myself to an author who could tell me my "individualism" was okay. It's a good thing I didn't find one. The theme of preconceived notions was a good prelude to my college experience, as well as to the thunderstorm approaching three and a half years later.
The second disclaimer follows logically: I don't know how many other people have spoken with Dr. Everett about this lecture. The natural tendency is to talk at someone, and look for self-affirmations in or against his response. My friend helped me realize the most dangerous part about this lecture: because it's so controversial, and is appearing everywhere from traditional news media to blogs more successful than mine, the title alone will reinforce the beliefs of anyone who spots it. The cleverest feminists and those who have put down that flag in favor of loving thy neighbor, won't be able to ignore the fact that many people aren't even close to a standard of treating women well. And the clueless feminists, at whom this lecture is targeted and who aren't aware of sexual assault in any personal way, will take it as a crack in the brittle foundation of a purely conceptual ideology. They're interested in rights rather than what's right, and will fight to micromanage and flatten out morality until it's all written in law, when everything will be beautiful and nothing will hurt.
But don't forget the people of which the clever feminists, the clueless feminists, and the rest of us random schmucks have always been worried: those who will take this lecture title, three words, as a sign that it's okay, that we're all safe now, and that awareness can go home without a problem.
You've been good, so here's a third disclaimer: I don't know of anybody who has experienced sexual assault. Readers, do yourselves a favor and do the main thing I learned from Dr. Everett: don't take me seriously. I'm not here to dictate my opinion, but to stir yours around a little and make sure it hasn't sunk to the bottom of your brains.
On the other hand, it would be slippery of me to write all this without any stated opinions, so here are some for the road. Rape is on par with murder. Don't forget it. On the other hand, if trying to get coffee with a girl who is repelled by your hygiene is sexual assault, then I'm in deep trouble. There must be a line somewhere. The same friend I mentioned somewhere in that muddle farther up the page told me that everybody, even those who commit it, know sexual assault is bad. My contribution to her thought is that the entire fight is over what constitutes this sin, this crime.
But since that's still a rather abstract opinion, and hence has nothing to do with me, I might as well announce why I'm not going to Dr. Everett's lecture, and why I'm fed up with Womyn's Action Coalition and a large percent of the people who will be there to oppose him. I don't think anybody will listen to each other. Negative energy only begets more negative energy, as anyone with the sense to interpret any given week of history will tell you. It's got nothing to do with gender, nor with the supposed spectrum from liberal to conservative. And while I appreciate those who want to end sexual assault, in this case they're swatting a fly on the expensive china.
*Why is there only one Earth Week?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)