Re: "Science advances one funeral at a time"

1

Obviously old people are the worst, but I can think of a couple of other structural reasons that might explain the same shift. Over the past thirty or forty years (fifty?), there has been a huge drop in the organization-man model. If you started working for a company or school when you left college and are running it when you are sixty, you might feel more willing (obligated?) to defend it against all accusers than if you were plunked in at the top six months in a lateral move after tanking the shareholder value of American Aerosol Cheese and Hors D'oeuvre. Plus, I think it may be starting to sink in that covering up a sexual crime is going to result in far more damage to the person running the organization than allowing the accusation to be aired.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 6:29 AM
horizontal rule
2

Anyway, ever since I watched how quickly open racism jumped back into the political discourse, I'm leery of the idea that generational shift is a reliable source of improvement.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 6:53 AM
horizontal rule
3

Some organizations will have MRA people climbing the ranks.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 7:02 AM
horizontal rule
4

How much of this current thing is media-driven? Everybody knew (I knew, for Chrissakes) what Bill Cosby and Louis CK were up to long before these became issues of public concern. My guess is that harassment, rape, etc., are covered up until people realize there are a lot of others who are similarly situated who are willing to come forward. There's a kind of collective action problem: The first dozen Cosby accusers aren't enough to prompt action; they just get held up to public ridicule. But the next dozen bring you to a tipping point. You can see at Montgomery Blair, there are several hundred victims and witnesses.

Maybe communications among victims -- via the media, via the Internet -- are better than they used to be.

Old people are the worst, though. The sooner my generation dies off, the better.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 7:05 AM
horizontal rule
5

Be the change, pf.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 7:07 AM
horizontal rule
6

(Don't be the change. We'll miss you.)


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 7:08 AM
horizontal rule
7

I went to one of Blair's rival high schools and would expect nothing less of them.

Of course it's media-driven. It took a long time but the media now is willing to talk about harassment and rape, which makes more victims realize it's okay to speak up, which causes more media coverage, etc. The real question is what made the media start paying attention. One word: Trump.


Posted by: DaveLMA | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 7:12 AM
horizontal rule
8

I went to one of Blair's rival high schools and would expect nothing less of them.

So did I! I was confused because this didn't sound like the Montgomery Blair High School that I remembered. It turns out that the science and math magnet program at Blair started the year I graduated from high school. I'm so old!

Also just found out that it's named after a person named Montgomery Blair (the losing lawyer in the Dred Scott case). I had always assumed the Montgomery was referring to the county.


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 7:44 AM
horizontal rule
9

To reflect a new era of new beginnings they will be changing the name to Montgomery Burns High School.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 7:46 AM
horizontal rule
10

Okay, did I go to the same school as DaveLMA, or peep, or both? I have to say I was relieved, after reading "nationally famous magnet school near DC", to find out that it was one of the *other* ones.

Not that I have any reason to think this couldn't have or didn't happen at mine.


Posted by: Nathan Williams | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 7:56 AM
horizontal rule
11

The real question is what made the media start paying attention. One word: Trump.

To which I suppose the answer is: why wasn't that one word "Clarence Thomas"?


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 7:57 AM
horizontal rule
12

I have a quibble about your math.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 8:03 AM
horizontal rule
13

11.2: Too many words.

10.1: Walt Whitman.


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 8:03 AM
horizontal rule
14

11: Because in 1990 all the leaders in both parties, as stated in the OP, were older men who even if they were gentlemanly themselves, had lots of friends who enjoyed sexually harassing.

If Chris "Ted Kennedy's partner in crime" Dodd was still in the Senate today he probably wouldn't be in the Senate anymore.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 8:04 AM
horizontal rule
15

11: For the same reason that Thomas didn't lead to giant protests the day he was sworn in.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 8:07 AM
horizontal rule
16

14.1 is exactly my thinking. And more broadly, that for Thomas, it wasn't a black box -- the old guys who didn't think it was a big deal did it in public. But for a lot of complaints that get to "Everyone knows! Why aren't there any consequences? Why does he still have a career!" that it's plausible that the decisions on consequences and on what happens to people's careers are generally made quietly by the people in the top levels of organizations, who tend to be old.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 8:25 AM
horizontal rule
17

And this is a cohort, not an age, argument -- it's just easy to forget how long ago the attitudes of people still in the workforce were formed.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 8:30 AM
horizontal rule
18

The time passed from Clarence Thomas to Bob Packwood isn't enough for generational replacement. Packwood was stupid enough to keep a diary and let people know about it. I think that shows some evidence that the mechanism wasn't necessarily people in power thinking it wasn't a big deal, but just refusing to believe women without other evidence.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 8:30 AM
horizontal rule
19

Or refusing to admit they believed women unless forced into it.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 8:33 AM
horizontal rule
20

But my impression was that there was a huge fuss about sexual harassment at the Thomas hearings, and whatever the Senate thought about it, it certainly made the media sit up and start paying attention to the issue. So how does that sit with 7? Did the media just go to sleep again?


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 8:40 AM
horizontal rule
21

Count me in with the folks who see a Trump backlash as being key. In 2007 (going back to our last Republican president), and especially in 2005 (going back to the Republican Congress) I think the Clarence Thomas nomination goes basically the same as it did in 1991.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 8:41 AM
horizontal rule
22

It's hard to draw bright-line distinctions. But I think what gets lumped under 'not believing women' usually incorporates a big chunk of not so much disbelieving them about the general outline of what happened, but disbelieving that their interpretation of it as a real problem was reasonable. Like, I would bet that a lot of people who supported Thomas through the Hill hearings both thought that he probably talked about sex some in the office, and thought that Hill was maliciously misrepresenting the interactions as harassment rather than just uninhibited. That gets combined with straightforward disbelief on particular facts, but 'sure, something like that happened, but not in a bad way' seems to me to usually be a big part of it.

Like, the teacher in the post. He wasn't abusing girls secretly, he was hassling them in class -- not acting there had to have meant more thinking it was NBD than really disbelieving that anything happened.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 8:43 AM
horizontal rule
23

20 It (we) got a shiny new object in the form of a lovable rogue who was governor of Arkansas. Scold could scold but the people who'd pooh-poohed Hill couldn't be as loud as they'd have been if Thomas had withdrawn (rather than, as I believed at the time, committed perjury).


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 8:43 AM
horizontal rule
24

scolds


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 8:44 AM
horizontal rule
25

The Thomas hearings were going on while I was in college, and I definitely recall a wave of "Now finally everything is going to change!" sentiment in a lot of media (no hash tags back then, thank goodness). And then it just sort of fizzled.

As noted in 2, the narrative of continuous forward progress may be more comforting than accurate.


Posted by: AcademicLurker | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 8:44 AM
horizontal rule
26

22 I think the fairer characterization is 'NBD in the context of his various virtues.'


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 8:47 AM
horizontal rule
27

I do think calling out "Racism!" made some on the left hesitant to pull the trigger. I think the same thing happened with Cosby, and that's why the story didn't really explode until a black comedian called him out.


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 8:48 AM
horizontal rule
28

25: "The Year Of The Woman" in the next round of Senate elections, right?


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 8:48 AM
horizontal rule
29

But back to Thomas: he lied because he had to lie, and people pretended to believe him because they had to pretend to believe him. It was a step in the process, but obviously not the final step.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 8:49 AM
horizontal rule
30

26: Something about the word 'fairer' in that sentence makes me want to bury my head in my hands and weep softly for about a year.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 8:51 AM
horizontal rule
31

26 So, maybe not even NBD in context, but 'not sufficiently egregious to toss his ass out' might be more accurate. Babies and bathwater.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 8:51 AM
horizontal rule
32

30 I don't think people thought is was nothing. I think they thought they were making a trade-off. I can't prove it, but strongly suspect that at any time in the past, a lower caste/value man wouldn't been tossed aside for even the mildest of these things. This is why NBD isn't accurate.

It was wrong to tolerate so much, I'm not disagreeing with that. But the standard wasn't 'girls are fair game' so much as 'if you're a star they let you do it.'


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 8:55 AM
horizontal rule
33

dammit: would've!


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 8:56 AM
horizontal rule
34

20: Thomas was genuinely a different case than Trump.

1. The accusations weren't as grave against Thomas as against Trump;
2. Thomas never bragged that the allegations were true, and the multiple accusers of Thomas were largely silenced (Thanks, Joe Biden!)
3. Thomas didn't become president of the United States by finishing second to the first woman to win the popular vote; Anita Hill only went through a few months of public abuse for being ignored. Hillary had decades of public abuse culminating in a humiliating defeat engineered not so much by Trump as by the Patriarchy writ large.
4. Thomas was skillful in manipulating the real history of false sexual assault allegations against black men.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 8:56 AM
horizontal rule
35

He had various virtues but most men only have one.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 8:58 AM
horizontal rule
36

34 Thomas lied so he could sit in Marshall's chair and undo as much of Marshall's life's work as he could. People who wanted that result pretended to believe him.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 9:00 AM
horizontal rule
37

25: I remember this basically the opposite way: Now we know what powerful men can do with impunity.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 9:01 AM
horizontal rule
38

But what made him a star was that he was good at developing and nurturing talent in students. If he was fucking over students generally -- directing them away from prestigious programs, telling them they were categorically unfit to succeed in his field, making them uncomfortable in his presence -- that wouldn't be an irrelevant side issue, that would be the very core of doing his job. If that were his relationship with students, he wouldn't have been a star.

Someone thinking "He's got a problem with girls, but to be fair he's fantastic at developing students, we can't give that up" is someone who thinks that real students are boys, and what happens to girls that might end up in classes with them is a peripheral issue.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 9:02 AM
horizontal rule
39

38 to 32/


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 9:02 AM
horizontal rule
40

It's not that hard to be a great teacher when you get all the best students.


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 9:07 AM
horizontal rule
41

(Thanks, Joe Biden!)

That reminds me of another big shift in the political environment. In 1992 there was a gender gap in voting, but not so large as now. That shift has encouraged elected officials in the Democratic Party to be attentive to women's views to a greater extent than even twenty years ago. It's like the positive flip side of Trump not being willing to denounce openly professing Nazis.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 9:07 AM
horizontal rule
42

40: "Great" should probably be in quotation marks.


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 9:08 AM
horizontal rule
43

38 Yes, devaluing girls as math students was definitely an element. Probably a lot of dying off is still required to fully urge that one.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 9:11 AM
horizontal rule
44

purge!


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 9:11 AM
horizontal rule
45

43: Perhaps it is atypical here (because of below-market wages?), but it feels like everybody doing what I do is now either a woman or older than dirt or me.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 9:15 AM
horizontal rule
46

And why "what I do now," I mean that statistics part, not the being an asshole on the internet part.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 9:17 AM
horizontal rule
47

not the being an asshole on the internet part.

Men still dominate in that field!


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 9:19 AM
horizontal rule
48

47: I'm doing as much as I can.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 9:25 AM
horizontal rule
49

47: Ha!


Posted by: Opinionated Bots | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 9:26 AM
horizontal rule
50

In addition to what everyone else has said, there are also some specific-to-high-school issues that come up. I've been watching some related issues unfold at one of my high schools as formerly beloved teachers are discovered to have been "problematic" or worse and have noticed:

1. Until, I think, social media, "sweep things under the rug and solve the immediate problem" was an obviously attractive strategy for high school administrators; the illusion that you could deal with a problem "privately" was great and the risk of being caught up in a viral storm seemed low. And you can easily understand from an administration perspective why it might seem better for everyone involved to deal with something "privately." This seemed "workable" until the modern age of viral information-sharing.

2. The weird power dynamics of high school. High school is this autonomous fiefdom in which the faculty is in charge and plays by its own rules and various purported "traditions are important; it's a weird dynamic, and gets worse as the high school gets fancier.

3. Related to 2, a general tolerance for mild (or worse) faculty hazing of boys is a readily-available tool for male faculty to sexually exploit girls. In the case of my school one of the formerly beloved teachers/coaches was famously known to be "gruff" and "tough" and would say mean shit to boys all the time, until the kid demonstrated enough fortitude to become a favorite. Of course this "toughness" made many people love him. It turned out if you were a girl enduring the "toughness" meant enduring more explicitly sexual comments and that for some girls demonstrating enough fortitude (on a few occasions over a 40 year period) involved him demanding and receiving sex. In the case of this particular guy, I smugly feel vindicated in my belief as a 15-17 year old that the teacher was an arrogant asshole with a cult following, but "arrogant asshole teacher with a cult following" is often indistinguishable from "beloved superstar high-school teacher who changed my life for the better." Sounds like something similar was going on with this math coach.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 10:31 AM
horizontal rule
51

Vaguely related, but I just got reminded what lovable anti-establishment hero Randle McMurphy, in "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest", was actually in prison for.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 10:38 AM
horizontal rule
52

When I've been close to sticky situations in a university setting, it has seemed the overriding priority of those (administrators) making decisions was "how can I minimize what I have to do?" Not catering to the powerful, not devaluing girls, just shoving stuff under the rug or actively suppressing it to avoid discomfort and extra work. So, to "what has changed?" I would guess that metoo has just changed the calculus, changed the perceived cost/benefit of ignoring things. Temporarily. Until activists stop activisting.


Posted by: chill | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 10:39 AM
horizontal rule
53

"how can I minimize what I have to do?"

I say that to myself every morning when I wake up.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 11:12 AM
horizontal rule
54

I sort of assumed it's why nobody ever lets me be in charge of anything.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 11:14 AM
horizontal rule
55

53. 54: I knew we had something more in common than just Columbus and Unfogged.


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 11:19 AM
horizontal rule
56

50: Yeah -- I think that's a real thing about hazing as a way to identify 'toughness', that it is fundamentally unfair. I mean, unfair to girls, generally, but even between two boys, I'd bet that the way to differentiate between boys 'who could take it' and were successful from ones who hated it was going to be largely about who the teacher liked at first sight. The implicit claim that the reaction to hazing tells you something about the kid's character is usually going to be more about laundering the teacher's whimsical likes and dislikes.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 11:19 AM
horizontal rule
57

Also related to hazing, I've heard that often the older women in an organization are the opposite of helpful in these situations. They survived worse harassment in their day and got to where they are, why can't you?


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 11:28 AM
horizontal rule
58

It's not because they suffered worse harassment, but because they never saw Sex and the City.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 11:29 AM
horizontal rule
59

57: I am not going to say that that's never a problem -- it's definitely a problem sometimes. I do think there is a strong tendency to look at this sort of thing and try to find the nearest woman to blame, or to generalize that older women are a general problem: once they have any power at all, it's their fault for not having fixed everything. Why didn't Meryl Streep stop Harvey Weinstein?


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 11:31 AM
horizontal rule
60

Why didn't Meryl Streep stop Harvey Weinstein?

Russian trolls.


Posted by: AcademicLurker | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 11:52 AM
horizontal rule
61

52 pwned by RH in 50


Posted by: chill | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 11:54 AM
horizontal rule
62

In the future, we won't have to worry about old people dying off because technology will save us from sexism:

With their ability to provide tactile and verbal feedback, sex robots could serve as top-notch sex-education tools. (Bonus: Unlike a human sex-ed teacher, a robot also won't pass judgment.)
We're already used to using lifelike dolls to teach people important skills. What about Rescue Annie, the CPR doll who has "the most kissed face" in the world? She has taught over 400 million people how to perform this life-saving technique with little downside. And how many students leave their CPR classes thinking that women are just lifeless dolls needing to be saved?
One of the biggest tools that teenagers and adults alike need to be taught is consent. And what better way to teach it than within a simulated sexual situation itself? Instead of learning the fundamental rules of consent with a stranger in inebriated circumstances, where a misunderstanding could lead to arrest, you could learn with a sex doll imbued with artificial intelligence.

Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 12:02 PM
horizontal rule
63

The CPR dummy in my high school was kind of horrifyingly grimy and gross.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 12:10 PM
horizontal rule
64

I clicked on the article linked in 62 because the headline on my Facebook feed was "Why The #Metoo Moment Needs Sex Robots."

I mean what DOESN'T need sex robots.

63 - yes. And now feels grosser knowing that it was the "most kissed face" in the world.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 12:17 PM
horizontal rule
65

I remember being taught that the first step in CPR was to snap off the removable arms and legs, because they get in the way. This might not have been something to generalize from.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 12:20 PM
horizontal rule
66

Instead of learning the fundamental rules of consent with a stranger in inebriated circumstances, where a misunderstanding could lead to arrest, you could learn with a sex doll imbued with artificial intelligence.
You should probably still be drunk, state dependent memory and all.


Posted by: Eggplant | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 12:20 PM
horizontal rule
67

Also, it's good practice for having sex with a limply non-resisting inanimate body. (Too soon?)


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 12:24 PM
horizontal rule
68

Wait, inanimate? What kind of lousy sexbots are we talking about? How are they going to implement an enthusiastic consent protocol?


Posted by: Eggplant | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 12:30 PM
horizontal rule
69

It's only creepy if they can't figure out how to get the doll to be above room temperature.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 12:30 PM
horizontal rule
70

The good news is that non-consensual sex is nearly unheard of in the future. The bad news is you need to assume all corpses are consenting in order to get this statistic.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 12:34 PM
horizontal rule
71

In the future, the most common fetish will be for the uncanny valley.


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 12:44 PM
horizontal rule
72

Advanced directives, Moby. No assumptions required.


Posted by: Eggplant | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 12:45 PM
horizontal rule
73

I mean, as long as my corpse is heated up and the limbs popped back on afterwards I'd be fine with it.


Posted by: Eggplant | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 12:51 PM
horizontal rule
74

New mouseover?


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 12:59 PM
horizontal rule
75

50.3

It isn't just high school: In the maestro's thrall

Very similar attitudes and tactics as the high school story, though more extreme.

(If it's paywalled for you, it's about James Levine, former music director at the MET.)


Posted by: DaveLMA | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 1:01 PM
horizontal rule
76

We definitely need a new mouseover. It's been too long, and it's too German.


Posted by: Barry Freed | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 1:03 PM
horizontal rule
77

||

To British people: I am seeing a crescendo of discontent from British people on social media and in the press about "World Book Day" which appears to be a day when parents are forced to dress their children for school as characters from movies. Just to make it clear, since it has "World" in the name, and it seems like the sort of thing Americans might have come up with: Other countries do not do this! Britain alone is to blame for this specific nightmare of shallow consumerism. You can stop any time!

|>


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 1:09 PM
horizontal rule
78

In 2007 (going back to our last Republican president), and especially in 2005 (going back to the Republican Congress) I think the Clarence Thomas nomination goes basically the same as it did in 1991.

Sorry if this has been said, but: I think there's a lot to this, but that it's also not quite right. Why not? Women in the Senate.

During the Thomas hearings, there were exactly 2 woman Senators, one of whom was born in '32* and voted Yea. In '05 there were 14, and in '07 16.

It's not so much that none of those women would have voted for a Thomas--many if not all of the Republicans presumably would have--but that the whole tenor of the thing would have been different. Biden** would have been scolded behind closed doors for how he handled things, and when the nomination came to the floor, Def women would have been reading testimony from the women who corroborated Hill's testimony but were never called.

As I say, I don't think the original comment is totally wrong--harassment was clearly not taken as seriously just 10 (or 3) years ago as it is now, but the Senate in '91 was still a relic in terms of sexual politics.

* probably making her younger than the average and median

**you know what I mean


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 1:10 PM
horizontal rule
79

77: Probably just Purim.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 1:13 PM
horizontal rule
80

The Saturday Night Live sketch about the Thomas hearings that aired at the time was actually funny. Would that have been true in 2017?


Posted by: AcademicLurker | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 1:14 PM
horizontal rule
81

Nobody can stay up late enough to see SNL anyway.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 1:17 PM
horizontal rule
82

77 - I had never heard of this before your comment, but apparently the official title is actually "World Book and Copyright Day". The best day of the year!!


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 1:19 PM
horizontal rule
83

RH just busted out the booze and party favors at his office. "Who forgot to order the cake?"


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 1:22 PM
horizontal rule
84

"cake" should obviously be "layered meat dish".


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 1:22 PM
horizontal rule
85

"layered meat dish" should be "fleshlight"


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 1:23 PM
horizontal rule
86

||

I just saw a captioned photo for "The Darkest Hour", co-staring Kristen Scott Thomas, who I briefly thought was Kristen Stewart, and I boggled.

But then I was curious about relative ages and all that. Turns out that, for once, Hollywood wasn't being ridiculously sexist in the ages of the leads: KST is just 2 years younger than Oldman, where Churchill's actual wife was about 10 years younger. Meanwhile, Oldman was aged up about 6 years for the movie, meaning KST was actually a few years older than the person she betrayed.

I think this proves that sexual harassment is no longer a thing.

|>


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 1:33 PM
horizontal rule
87

Mr. Walstein - the guy in the OP - was my ninth grade geometry teacher. Huge asshole. HUGE! None of this surprises me, and yet I was not aware of any of it at the time.

The one story I do remember about him, which I heard a few years after, was that he got blackmailed by a hooker, didn't pay, and ended up getting divorced because of it.

That will have to be my two cents for now, though, because I'm about to get on what is likely to be a very barfy airplane ride back up to the Northeast in the middle of a cyclone.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 3:23 PM
horizontal rule
88

Maryland must pay teachers very well or hookers very little.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 3:33 PM
horizontal rule
89

We definitely need a new mouseover. It's been too long, and it's too German.

I agree. And, for German, it's far too short.


Posted by: md 20/400 | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 4:31 PM
horizontal rule
90

If the sexbot were equipped with a vagina dentata it might teach some really effective lessons about consent though possibly about anal sex as well.


Posted by: NW | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 7:13 PM
horizontal rule
91

OT: Wales people murder more entertainingly than.Scottish people.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 8:50 PM
horizontal rule
92

Meh. It's just froth.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 9:50 PM
horizontal rule
93

I choose enthusiastic consent. You have thirty seconds to comply.


Posted by: intelligence-imbued sex robot | Link to this comment | 03- 2-18 10:03 PM
horizontal rule
94

87: The president, now there's somebody with money sufficient to pay blackmail to a prostitute.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 03- 3-18 6:42 AM
horizontal rule
95

Somehow blackmailing a president seems more lucrative than blackmailing a teacher.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 03- 3-18 8:02 AM
horizontal rule
96

Let's all list our SAT scores and how many people we've paid for their silence.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 03- 3-18 8:04 AM
horizontal rule
97

Rory and I were discussing basically the same hypothesis put forth in the OP yesterday. She suggested it was unseemly for me to look forward to the imminent die off of a generation. But now that Rory is talking about the possibility of law school in a few years, what choice do I have?


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 03- 3-18 8:27 AM
horizontal rule
98

You can't lock her in a tower just because she wants to go to law school.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 03- 3-18 8:28 AM
horizontal rule
99

At least shouldn't.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 03- 3-18 8:29 AM
horizontal rule
100

If she goes to law school, she may wind up with a job that's effectively the equivalent of being locked in a tower.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 03- 3-18 8:32 AM
horizontal rule
101

She could be a small-town lawyer with a store-front office.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 03- 3-18 8:33 AM
horizontal rule
102

Of course, one of the bigger problems with rising inequality in America is that there isn't nearly as much money in taking small town divorce cases.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 03- 3-18 9:22 AM
horizontal rule
103

Most likely a tech company building AI sex robots would use some deeply limited training data, leading to deeply troubling results, and then under criticism claim the sex robots just mirror what people naturally want.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 03- 3-18 11:36 AM
horizontal rule
104

So I stayed up watching a randomly chosen string of episodes of BSG last night, which included the question whether non-consensual sex with a Cylon prisoner could be rape.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 03- 3-18 12:53 PM
horizontal rule
105

103: Deeply troubling results are probably inevitable because sex robots will be designed and built by the sort of people who would decide to design and build sex robots. I'm imagining them as some sort of insane extrapolation of the same people who are currently obsessed with making self-driving cars.


Posted by: AcademicLurker | Link to this comment | 03- 3-18 1:01 PM
horizontal rule
106

104: Even consenting sex with a prisoner would be problematic.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 03- 3-18 2:35 PM
horizontal rule
107

105: Relevant.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 03- 3-18 2:38 PM
horizontal rule
108

105: Hadn't we had a front page post regarding that book about the sort of people who design sex machines?


Posted by: Natilo Paennim | Link to this comment | 03- 3-18 8:11 PM
horizontal rule
109

Deluge? I didn't read the whole thing, so I guess I don't know how it ended.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 03- 3-18 8:24 PM
horizontal rule
110

Badly.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 03- 3-18 8:47 PM
horizontal rule
111

At my high school it was less than 50% girls, and when they first let girls in they were more academically qualified than the boys. I had one Latin teacher who retired around 1990 who assumed that all the girls deserved an A until they proved otherwise, and that the boys deserved a 60 until they proved otherwise.

He was also prone to throwing things - chalk, erasers - but mostly at the boys. I don't remember whether he rammed his cane on the desk or not.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 03- 3-18 9:05 PM
horizontal rule
112

Is that a euphemism?


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 03- 3-18 9:09 PM
horizontal rule
113

I'm imagining them as some sort of insane extrapolation of the same people who are currently obsessed with making self-driving cars.

Such as a much missed ex-commentator here? I don't think so.

Self driving cars are at least potentially a valuable resource for people with certain disabilities or who are just too damn old, even if the rest of the world wants to carry on driving in the old fashioned way. Sex robots would be toys for millionaires who are too idle to masturbate.


Posted by: chris y | Link to this comment | 03- 4-18 5:05 AM
horizontal rule
114

107. Rule 34 triumphs again.


Posted by: DaveLMA | Link to this comment | 03- 4-18 5:57 AM
horizontal rule
115

||

Very worthwhile article on the "racial liberal consensus", 1965-2016. Building on the theme of Trump as backlash to Obama, assembling more pieces, but also working in how Obama's tenure changed the left.

|>


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 03- 4-18 6:58 AM
horizontal rule
116

2nd 115.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 03- 4-18 8:28 AM
horizontal rule
117

Yeah, 115 is really good. I hadn't really thought in terms of a racial liberal consensus, but here it is:

One of the Civil Rights movement's most undisputed successes was in establishing the norm that overt expressions of racial animus were no longer politically or even socially acceptable in the United States. ... At the same time, however, resistance to school busing and the eventual roll-back of affirmative action programs resulted in clear limits on redressing system-level structural exclusions based on what was typically referred to as "the legacy" of racism and slavery.

The piece really captures both the appeal and the limitations of Obama, and places Coates in a context I hadn't fully grasped:

The central thrust of Coates's writings is that the reconciliation promised by the racial liberal consensus has turned out to be a sham.

Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 03- 4-18 8:47 AM
horizontal rule
118

115 is a good article, but I feel the need to quibble (in part because I just read this article yesterday -- using Ta-Nehisi Coates as a lens to talk about US poltics. I think it's a good article but I also think it's not particularly sensitive to the details. So while the article in 115 is better I still have some quibbles).

For example this is both correct and was obvious from the moment Obama took office -- it isn't a surprising conclusion.

These tensions gave the lie to the narrative that Obama's election was the culmination of the long march toward, if not equality, then at least racial reconciliation. On the one hand, his very presence in office, his blackness in the whitest of houses, was a daily affront to those who still prefer to see the United States as a white man's country. On the other hand, Obama's presence in the Oval Office in itself did little to nothing to end the stark disparities in life outcomes facing African-Americans.

Of course Obama's election didn't "end the stark disparities in life" but it was still a meaningful sign of progress. I think we can look at the rise of Trump and see that the progress is more fragile than it seemed at the time, but that doesn't mean that there hasn't been any progress.

[Compare Pankaj Mishra's noting with slight suspicion than, "Coates proprietorially notes the ethnic, religious and racial variety of Obama's staff. Everyone seems overwhelmed by a 'feeling', that 'this particular black family, the Obamas, represented the best of black people, the ultimate credit to the race, incomparable in elegance and bearing.'" One can understand why Coates would take pleasure in that feeling, without thinking it represents a sea-change in American politics]

So, similarly, this

One of the Civil Rights movement's most undisputed successes was in establishing the norm that overt expressions of racial animus were no longer politically or even socially acceptable in the United States. Despite grumbles about political correctness, new forms of racial etiquette and sensitivity training proliferated across the American educational and corporate landscape. At the same time, however, resistance to school busing and the eventual roll-back of affirmative action programs resulted in clear limits on redressing system-level structural exclusions based on what was typically referred to as "the legacy" of racism and slavery.

Seems like it represents real progress. It also reflects generations of broken promises and failures, but I presume that when he says, "Nor is it at all clear that we should wish for a return to the racial liberal consensus." that doesn't imply that he hopes that the diversity and sensitivity training will stop, and the attempts at racial etiquette will be abandoned. The goal is to retain those while also making a (renewed) attempt to alter the existing power structures.

One other thought that occurs to me, seeing the comment about "the Compromise of 1977" is that there's been a shift in demographics since that point. in 1980 non-hispanic whites made up 80% of the population and African-Americans were just under 60% of the non-white population. In 2017 non-hispanic whites were just over 60% of the population (61.3%), and African-Americans represented 34% of the non-white population. That has to change racial politics. I don't claim any expertise about what that change means but it seems important.


Posted by: NickS | Link to this comment | 03- 4-18 10:57 AM
horizontal rule
119

That was an interesting article. But I think "worthwhile" is supposed to be used only for links that bore you to tears.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 03- 4-18 11:37 AM
horizontal rule
120

I feel like the article makes some decent points but also deeply overstates the degree of consensus on these issues before 2008-2016 and is thus just not very good as history. The "consensus" trope is a rhetorical trick designed to make the present look more radically different than it is. The broader point that racial politics, along with politics more generally, are increasingly polarized on party lines in the US is surely true, but most of that is explicable by (a) blacks and the rainbow coalition becoming the dominant (and, unlike any time before 2008, nationally electorally viable) part of the Democratic Party, (b) the Republican Party increasingly becoming an identity-politics party for older and rural whites, and (c) most importantly, both parties becoming actual ideological parties with sharp and completely unmistakable positions.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 03- 4-18 3:02 PM
horizontal rule
121

which you can kind of track forward the August 3, 1980 rejection, in Philadelphia, Mississippi, of the Compromise of 1977.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 03- 4-18 3:11 PM
horizontal rule
122

Honestly, the line from Gil Scott-Heron's B-Movie to the Trump Counter-Revolution just isn't that hard to see.

The idea concerns the fact that this country wants nostalgia. They want to go back as far as they can - even if it's only as far as last week. Not to face now or tomorrow, but to face backwards. And yesterday was the day of our cinema heroes riding to the rescue at the last possible moment. The day of the man in the white hat or the man on the white horse - or the man who always came to save America at the last moment - someone always came to save America at the last moment - especially in "B" movies. And when America found itself having a hard time facing the future, they looked for people like John Wayne. But since John Wayne was no longer available, they settled for Ronald Reagan and it has placed us in a situation that we can only look at -like a "B" movie.

Except this time, it's not even a B movie.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 03- 4-18 3:17 PM
horizontal rule
123

Except this time, it's not even a B movie.

No, this time its a reality TV show.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 03- 4-18 4:03 PM
horizontal rule
124

Professional wrestling.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 03- 4-18 4:46 PM
horizontal rule
125

the Republican Party increasingly becoming an identity-politics party for older and rural whites

I think that's just re-stating the thesis of 115.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 03- 4-18 7:42 PM
horizontal rule
126

I mean, in theory you could do that without overt racism. It's just that it works so much better after adding the overt racism.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 03- 4-18 7:48 PM
horizontal rule
127

My working theory is that they like it better with overt racism because if a party or candidate gets racist enough, it can't turn to the center to get more votes after the win the primary or get in office.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 03- 4-18 7:53 PM
horizontal rule
128

The last time I came across the author of 115 he was trolling historians to the left of him, but not even that far left as left goes, on the subject of identity politics on a blog I used to read more often. It turned out he had real points he wanted to argue, but he only laid them out after provoking a bunch of people to anger and then yelling, "your anger only proves my point! You can't resist the red flag of identity politics, look at how smart I am to have confirmed my views, which I will now reveal."

I don't think you can call into existence a "racial liberal consensus" by repeating that phrase, but he sure seems to think so.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 03- 4-18 10:21 PM
horizontal rule
129

I think the epitaph on the Trump years, printed across a picture of his angry-man-taking-a-big-shit expression has to be "We're an empire now: we create our own reality"


Posted by: NW | Link to this comment | 03- 5-18 2:57 AM
horizontal rule
130

Too literary. The epitaph for the Trump years will be "No, fuck YOU."


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 03- 5-18 4:10 AM
horizontal rule
131

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/03/west-virginia-labor-history-teachers-strike


Posted by: roger the cabin boy | Link to this comment | 03- 5-18 5:33 AM
horizontal rule
132

128. I don't think this was the intent of the 115 link, but when I read "racial liberal consensus" it parses as "the consensus of liberals on the subject of race." In that case 115 is accurate. Liberals of both major parties pretty much signed on to it. It took a while but both major parties are now splitting in large part because big chunks of their membership don't agree with that consensus, attacking it from the left and the right.


Posted by: DaveLMA | Link to this comment | 03- 5-18 6:32 AM
horizontal rule
133

There were always big chunks of the membership that didn't agree. The difference I see now is that the leaders of the Republican Party are seeking the votes of those who don't agree (from the right) and doing it directly (not dog whistling).


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 03- 5-18 7:01 AM
horizontal rule
134

Of course Obama's election didn't "end the stark disparities in life" but it was still a meaningful sign of progress.

I think the way you pulled that quote out of context -- even after quoting it correctly in context, is revealing.

You're right that everyone knew that Obama wasn't going to "end the stark disparities in life." But did we really think he would do "little or nothing" to that end? Speaking only for myself, I was optimistic. And even you -- even now -- refer to his election as a "meaningful sign of progress."

The contribution of Gilman's essay, I thought, was to describe the terms under which that progress was achieved -- what it meant and what it didn't mean.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 03- 5-18 7:17 AM
horizontal rule
135

The "consensus" trope is a rhetorical trick designed to make the present look more radically different than it is.

It's always important, when talking about the discontinuity that Trump represents, to not underestimate the degree to which he is merely an extension of Republican orthodoxy.

I'm going to argue, though, that Trump really does represent a sharp break from, say, George W. Bush on matters of race. I liked the essay because it gave a name and a description to the thing that GWB had in common with Barack Obama, but that neither has in common with Trump.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 03- 5-18 7:29 AM
horizontal rule
136

128: I had a similar feeling about that article. I really wished the author had put the last paragraph at the top.


Posted by: Cyrus | Link to this comment | 03- 5-18 9:23 AM
horizontal rule
137

Endorsing 135.last.

I think people here are too eager to point out that the liberal racial consensus wasn't literally, 100% universal, which, duh.

But IMO the Lott story really is significant. I was reminded of it recently, and I honestly was taken aback, because it seemed unreal, even though I was a dedicated participant (commenter, second class) in precisely the blogs that wouldn't drop the matter. Not only would the Lott quote be no more than a 2-3 day story in the Trump Era, it wouldn't have been a big deal, let alone career-threatening. in 2015.

And the difference is in what GOP leaders are willing to put up with/think they can confront. No Republicans were eager to let liberals have Lott's scalp, but they also didn't feel they could go on CNN or NBC and defend the content of his comments. That absolutely changed post-W. And that's a huge part of what led to Trump.

The comment up above about Philadelphia 1980 is spot on--the trend line towards Trump started a long time ago--but its ahistorical to say that the equivalent of Trumpism was just a moment away at all times between 1980 and 2008. Pat Buchanan's notorious 1992 convention speech is an example: he didn't go nearly as far as Trump, yet establishment Republicans--not liberal ones, just establishment ones--were horrified and pushed back, even as the delegates on the floor had been thrilled (this smirking fratboy I knew from some little college in the South was tickled pink over it).


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 03- 5-18 4:53 PM
horizontal rule
138

It was an elite consensus. The premise was that everyone observing the niceties would lead, eventually, to everyone being a little nicer. But white supremacy is a nastier beast than your great aunt whose no one cares for--you can't just smile and paper over differences.

Well, now the beast is out in the open, and the only thing to do is to defeat it or crown it.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 03- 5-18 4:56 PM
horizontal rule