The UC protestors have done damage to 'women' only if you think (or think that society should think) that any woman speaks for all women. Which is a sexist thing to think.


As to the Summers remarks:
How about "They framed a guilty man"?

(Not guilty of sexism, per se, but other things that Richard can name better than anyone but hasn't been bothering to name.)

Standing Eagle
 

Hardly sexist, SE. Come out to the real world sometime. The way these things are framed in the media does matter--and this incident does undermine the real, legitimate complaints that women and girls had about the Summers' NBER speech.

Not sure what your parenthetical means, though.
 

Actually, what's more interesting to ponder here is the possibility that, merits of his arguments aside, Summers actually IS a victim of the cultural wars. Maybe he deserved it; but in this day and age, stifling speech is an acceptable mechanism, used by right and left alike, to down one's enemies. Arguably, the real culprit here is the "serious" media, which like a bunch of whorish tabloid reporters, rushes into any conflict and pumps it up until its a nationwide controversy, necessitating announcements of "action", Oprah confessions, etc etc. Summers, being Summers, got up and made some questionable comments on accepted scientific data and some offended people walked out. So what. And yet look at all the fallout - including the silliness at UC. He's a dolt. And maybe he wasn't a good choice for President of Harvard. But, in truth, he WAS a victim too. We have only ourselves to thank, because we swallow the big lie that big media has cooked up for us.
 

The parenthetical above is meant to suggest that Summers deserved most of what he got as President -- but not guilty of sexism particularly. It would be helpful if you, who've studied the story, would remind us of the underlying reality within the University instead of letting fresh media reframings revise history.

"The way these things are framed in the media does matter."
Why the passive voice? Aren't YOU part of the media? And if the framing is wrong, who is doing it? What's THEIR agena? You should be calling them out if they have their facts wrong.

"real, legitimate complaints that women and girls had about the Summers' NBER speech"
All those complaints were themselves the result of media framing -- if the talk hadn't been publicized it could have demoralized no one.

How can you not see that the actions the media takes are self-fulfilling? You're setting up straw men against each other. In the women-in-science teapot, the media amplified something that wouldn't have been harmful if it hadn't been loud; and then now that that harm has become reality through your deeds, they magnify another tiny incident to rehash the whole thing from the other side. A keening feedback scream that began with someone saying into a tiny microphone, "That was insensitive," is followed on by another of someone saying "You're being oversensitive." Yeah, my ears hurt all right -- but that's because the EQUIPMENT is malfunctioning. Turn off the amps so I can hear!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursive


It would be different if those UC petitioners had a constituency. But who might that be? It's certainly not WOMEN writ large.

All of which is not to say that I don't disagree very strongly with the UC petitioners, and in a smaller way with Summers's judgment in giving his talk. I just am constantly amazed by media chutzpah in covering (small) stories by going on and on and on about how they're covered.

SE
 

Best not to cover anything at all, then, eh, SE?
 

Lazy straw-man move.

How about:
Best to cover things as they actually are and not as they're covered.

If you hadn't written a book that did a good job of that I wouldn't have spent any time on your site in the first place.

SE
 

Ooh, testy testy. Covering the coverage allows one a moral neutrality that is especially useful to the avoidance of the appearance of hypocrisy.