It’s not that debates don’t break out within the law professor blogs, but that you wouldn’t normally know that it’s a debate because they are so unbearably “temperate” in their disagreement that you can’t quite tell that it’s happening. Normally. This one is different.
Over at Co-Op, Danielle Citron argues that the AutoAdmit scandal was not a simple matter of puerile to defamatory comments, but a cyber assault on women. Referring to a March 3rd NPR show with Citron, Marc Randazza and David Margolick, this was her take:
During the program, former New York Times At the Bar columnist and current editor at Portfolio magazine David Margolick characterized the AutoAdmit attacks as mostly “juvenile, immature, and obnoxious, but that is all they are.” He called them “frivolous frat boy rants.” Margolick said that because the female law students who graduated from the most prestigious law school in the country now have good jobs, they suffered no harm. Mark Randazza agreed with this characterization of the harassment: “these are digital natives; it is their juvenile shtick.”Citron doesn’t merely disagree that this can be chalked up to “frivolous frat buy rants,” but contends:
As my article “Law’s Expressive Value in Combating Cyber Gender Harassment” (forthcoming Michigan Law Review) argues in great detail, far too many people like Margolick and Randazza trivialize the serious harms that women uniquely suffer as a result of such cyber harassment in much the same way that society downplayed or ignored workplace sexual harassment until 1970s. In the face of threats of sexual violence, women not only feel afraid, but also chilled to act on their own desires. Women withdraw from online discussion groups, shut down their blogs, and alter their physical activities to avoid offline harassment connected to the online harassment. For instance, AutoAdmit victims stopped going to the gym to ensure that the anonymous posters could not take a picture of her and post it online. The cyber harassment also harms women’s dignity and sense of equal worth. Online assaults objectify women by reducing them to their body parts. Harassers further humiliate women by reducing them to diseased body parts. This treats women as moral subordinates and undermines their self-respect just as workplace sexual harassment makes women feel like sex objects, not competent workers. Women suffer a performative harm: they may assume male pseudonyms online to avoid cyber harassment. And cyber harassment inflicts distinct harms to women’s emotional and physical well-being. Women fear that online threats of sexual violence will be realized: anonymous threats are all the more frightening as they are shorn of any cues that might alleviate that fear.
Was this, as argued, proof that cyberspace is rife with gender harrassment, or has Citron taken a individualized instance that happened to involve women and claimed gender ownership as evidence of a phenomenon? Is it truly different for women, with society downplaying or ignoring the unique suffering of women?
While the post alone sounds like another Womens Studies 101 indictment, with the first comments adopting the academic orthodoxy that says no man can ever challenge a gender claim without himself being a nasty discriminator, Marc Randazza takes the side of intellectual integrity to challenge feminist ownership of cyber harrassment.
You say that “80% of the victims are women,” but I am not convinced of that. The sources in your law review article were a bit thin on this stat, but lets presume that they were accurate.
Isn’t it more likely that 80% of those who *complain* about it are women? Men are more likely to either ignore it, see it as trivial, or engage in self-help.
As far as women withdrawing from online discussion, this is something else I highly question. First off, there have always been less women involved in online discussion. I’d attribute this to the fact that online discussion is just now starting to get past its geek stage. However, the only forum where women seemed to withdraw was AutoAdmit… and frankly, given what it became, what self-respecting woman wouldn’t? On the other hand, when JuicyCampus was alive, it seemed that the vast majority of the perpetrators of online harassment were other women.
In the real world, Randazza’s response would be considered not only reasonable, but relatively low-key. Not in the Academy, however, where this evoked a reaction accusing Randazza of being “glib and trivializing” of feminist issues. The problem appears to be that any time gender is inserted into an argument, everyone must be very serious and deferential, even if it may not be accurate. It makes for great dogma, even if it precludes disagreement. You have to be very empathetic to survive in the Academy.
But what’s the big deal about letting women lay claim to ownership of cyber harrassment? It comes at the expense of the first amendment. As expressed in a comment by Devon B:
However your “someone said something mean about me on the internets,” is designed to imply that the person making the comment is childish and unreasonable. There is a sharp divide between childish comments online “dood ur gay” and things along the lines of “I would rape her” and “Take a picture of her next time you’re in the gym” Even in jest these comments are designed to be BEYOND a puerile discussion. The comments are trying to actively destroy her sense of safety and security. Furthermore, if such things had been sent to her by an anonymous letter. Or in this case, sent to everyone around her. There would be outrage. The internet is seen as harmless because the generation making the laws have never experienced it. The life being lead by students today is wildly different than the life being led by the students of 10 and 20 years ago.
Devon contends that free speech is “wildly different” today. Every generation sees its circumstances as being “wildly different,” thereby justifying a wholesale revision in fundamental rights to accommodate the latest ox being gored. Another commenter, A.W., responds:
My God, we creep toward fascism pretty quickly in this area, don’t we? All in the name of proving how enlightened we are on women’s rights. But you can recognize the real and unfair damage done here and still say, freedom trumps.
If you spend any time at all enjoying lawprof mud-wrestling, you realize that this is tantamount to a kick in the groin. It doesn’t get any harsher than this. While the subject of the debate is important, as one sacred cow butts heads with another, and how intellectual honesty is almost lost in the quest for political correctness.
Mind you, the effort at trying not to offend, despite the loss of rhetorical clarity and strength, is Herculean and, at times, painful to watch, it’s important that someone keep reminding the forces that seek to convert any perceived harm into a feminist issue that they aren’t going to take ownership of basic civil rights without being called on it.
Now why is it that there aren’t any women willing to stand up for freedom of speech when it clashes with the feminist orthodoxy? Could this be women discriminating against the rest of us?
Update: Danielle Citron has taken up arms to battle back the Philistines in a second post, Cyber Harassment: Yes, It is a Woman’s Thing. I can’t imagine what made her pick that name, considering that she doesn’t bother to link to this post. Not that it reflects an inability to confront a challenge directly, of course. But it does show that practicing lawyers aren’t the only rude people around. (Never mind, the omission has now been corrected.)
Beginning with some facile stats that fail to address the issues raised by the last set of facile stats, which essentially prove conclusively that women complain more than men (yes, they actually did a study for that, Jdog), it leaves the question open about what constitutes “threats of attack,” the criterion claimed here but discredited in her last post, where any comment shy of nurturing was deemed harassing.
Citron then shifts into a curious defense of her 1st Amendment bona fides:
Some commentators suggest that my work ignores the First Amendment. As my article Cyber Civil Rights develops in great detail, the civil rights proposal that I suggest for the most egregious of these attacks accords with both First Amendment doctrine and theory. Indeed, working to change our online culture to prevent such cyber sexual harassment would, in fact, enhance more valuable speech than it would inhibit. As L.P. Sheridan and T. Grant explain in their work, victims of cyber harassment are often advised to stop using computers.
If this doesn’t make any sense to you, you’ve got company. It appears that Citron advance the theory that suggests we can enhance the 1st Amendment rights of people Citron likes by curtailing the 1st Amendment rights of people Citron dosen’t like, thus allowing the people Citron likes to be able to exercise their rights without anybody being mean to them and hurting their feelings. That’s what “valuable speech” means, as opposed to speech Citron doesn’t value, and hence she deems unworthy of protection.
As to the Sheridan and Grant work, either their participants need to get better advisors or Sheridan and Grant need to talk to tougher participants. Sticks and stone, you know. Free speech is definitely not for crybabies.
So is this what makes it a woman’s thing?
Update 2: Another voice has chimed in on the subject, again lacking the balls to show his face publicly and take a licking. This gets increasingly bizarre as it makes its way down the intellectual ladder, leaving one to wonder whether this attempt to manufacture a position out of false assumptions and strawman arguments is the best that neo-feminists, or their male supplicants, can do?
Thank the lord for those who want to protect the rights of their personal “downtrodden” by advocating the elimination of everyone’s rights. However could we survive without defending the weak and the oppressed from mean people.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Great post except for the final paragraph. There are plenty of women who refuse to suck up to the Second Wave feminist orthodoxy. Check out some of Tatiana Von Tauber and Jessica Christensen’s writing on the Legal Satyricon. 🙂
Injustice collectors. They need hobbies.
I stand corrected. Tatiana Von Tauber and Jessica Christensen, second wave sexist pigs.
Tatiana especially is an inspiration to anyone who thinks feminism is a dirty word. What you (and I) hate is second-wave feminism.
First wave: Susan B. Anthony and the like, I think we can all agree that they kicked ass.
Second wave: Andrea Dworkin, Katherine MacKinnon, Gail Dines. “Feminists” who became “feminists” because they hate their daddies, but weren’t hot enough to get into porn.
Third wave: Naomi Wolf, Von Tauber, Camille Paglia. These are kick ass, sex-positive women. The kind of role models I want for my daughter — and the kind of women who absolutely drive the Dworkinites insane.
I never did get a chance to ask Zelazny if “the mad dwarf Dworkin” was inspired by Andrea; only met him a couple of times, and I was working hard (albeit not necessarily effectively) not to come off as clueless fanboy. Damn.
Kathleen,
So awesome. I *just* learned about Professor Sommers from this article.
Best lines from it:
What article? It links to Page Cannot be Found.
Mr. SJ, I think this post is jinxed.
Scott,
Thank you for the lively and important debate. I apologize for not initially cross linking to your post and have corrected that error.
Danielle Citron
I see. That’s good. I also found it here.
Thanks for the cross-link and I’m happy that you’re finding the debate worthwhile. I agree that it’s a very important issue, and while we may disagree about whether it’s a gender or societal problem, and how to cure it, I hope that getting it outside the Academy will bring more voices into the discussion and at least make people more aware of the problem.
BLASPHEMY!!! If people outside the academy discuss it… well, then you just have a bunch of pp… ppp … ppp. PRACTITIONERS talking about it! They don’t know anything about the law!
Sheesh.
I’m not surprised that there’s stats that show that women complain about this stuff more than men; that’s how we’re largely [programmed | incented]. I’d be shocked if it was the other way around.
We keep sticking our nose inside the tent. One day, you pedagogues will have to accept us as, as, as LAWYERS!
Exactly. It’s just how we roll.
Have you read this garbage she’s spewing?
Here is a nice little example:
A poster told the community there that he sent an email to a named student’s faculty members with embarassing information about her. Posters hailed the sender as a hero who should be awarded a Congressional medal. (source)”
The “Congressional Medal” statement was made, but even a drunken blind reader in a hurry could tell that it was pure sarcasm and a statement of disdain for the sender. I reproduce it below:
Date: March 9th, 2007 2:17 PM
Author: David Carr (Glass of water for Mr. Grainger)
DUDE, DONT DO IT!
Date: March 9th, 2007 2:19 PM
Author: c00kie
This is a great idea that you are guaranteed never to regret. ( MJR note, that is called sarcasm)
Date: March 9th, 2007 2:34 PM
Author: Bodhi Tree Miracle
Clearly.
Will likely lead to a Congessional medal of some sort. (MJR note, that is sarcasm too)
Even if you can’t see the sarcasm in that statement, if you read the entire thread, you’ll see that the vast majority of the comments condemned this action. But, why let a little provable fact get in the way of your point that this is all some kind of conspiracy?
The thread is fully available here.
Judge for yourself. Then ask yourself how Citron could have made that mistake. Did her sources lie to her? Did she not bother to read the thread before making the statement? Or is this just more BS from a desperate “academic” who wouldn’t think of letting the truth get in the way of adding a publication to her portfolio.
Alternately, it’s an ugly example of confirmation bias.
One of the primary failings of Citron’s argument was its use of adjectives, such as malicious and harassing, without definition or apparent basis. It was clear in her first post, and even more apparent (given the challenge to the first post) in her second. Unless we’re prepared to close our eyes and simply accept that whatever is called evil is in fact evil, the argument falls. I wasn’t being snarky in disparaging the significance of the studies, but really doubt that the validity of self-serving definitions.
Confirmation bias, as Jdog remind? I would say so. If you want to prove that women are harassed more than men, then play with the definition of harassment until you end up with the result you want. But don’t expect those who don’t subscribe to the orthodoxy to buy in.
I don’t know about *this* being an example of confirmation bias. The article might be a case study in that theory, but this seems to me to be just a good old fashioned lie — a lie that very few people would know is a lie, and a lie that is difficult to point out if you don’t realize that there is a web archive.
Even if it were confirmation bias on the author’s part, but why did the Boston University Law Review’s cite checkers not catch this — or any of the other steaming piles of confirmation bias that stuck to my shoe as I waded through her law review article?
By the way, here is a better link to the discussion.
Ah, I believe I can offer a thought on that question. It’s because no one can challenge the orthodoxy without risk of being labeled sexist. Gender bias is presented as a polar position, either you’re with us or you’re against us. There is no room for disagreement, especially if you’re male. This is also why so many lawprofs are all too happy to jump on the bandwagon than risk challenging any claim of sexism, for fear that they will be forever tainted and stripped of their key to the faculty lounge.
In other words, lawprofs are actually Sith?
I have adjectives, and nouns. Whatever happened to the concept of being strong and indominable?
We are each supposed pick ourselves up and surge on toward our own safe harbors, elusive as the harbor may be. Isn’t that true? Don’t we each have the same exact problem, even though variations of the problem are individual to each of us? Isn’t that the problem of planning ahead, and working, for our benefit and others — over or around difficulties — the nightmares of insecurity and uncertainty, the deaths, disablements, loss of love, loss of fortune, personal failures, and the other tempests and tragedies that may come at us and that make us scream at fate or curse God? Isn’t this growing up and being an adult?
Isn’t cyber-bullying a flyspeck against the other problems in the background of life, the struggle to survive? We cannot make others change, be they men, or women. Bullying, abusive, domineering and plain evil personalities are distributed about 50/50 between men and women. That has been my observation since age oh, about five. Mrs. Fellows, first grade. A banshee toward all of us, almost, boys and girls. All year long. She seldom discriminated. My first encounter with the Academy. At home the grownups treated us so nice, as though they loved us, but how different it was, and is, out in the world.
But we all know this. We each have had our experiences that show us exactly how bad men, and women, can be. Who cares? Stay away from the malevolent temperments if you can. We can only change ourselves. Not others.
So. Whatever happened to the concept of being strong, and indominable?
So. Whatever happened to the concept of being strong, and indominable?
Kathleen, you silly girl. Being “strong” means complaining about being “uniquely vulnerable” and then asking the government to step in and protect you. See, being weak EQUALS being strong. Censorship EQUALS Free Speech! Come on, you too can play the “victim studies game!”
I guess that’s not me.
Well then, you can probably forget about getting a job as a women’s studies professor.
I guess I can. You uppidy boy.
I thought _ignorance_ was strength.
That does not become you, Mark. Where have you been anyway? In Twitter-dom?
When Orwell is outlawed, only outlaws will quote Orwell.
Yesterday was my day to work for a living.
Aha! A twitter-denier. We all know that Monday was your day to work for a living. Who do you think you’re kidding?
They haven’t read 1984 and would not get the point if they did (lawprofs). What are you doing?
With the economy in the sewer, I find myself having to work for a living two and sometimes three days a month.
That must be why you don’t visit as often. : (