The Me Too movement (or #MeToo movement), with many local and international alternative names, is a movement against sexual harassment and sexual assault. #MeToo spread virally in October 2017 as a hashtag on social media in an attempt to demonstrate the widespread prevalence of sexual assault and harassment, especially in the workplace. It followed soon after the sexual abuse allegations against Harvey Weinstein. (
> But the minute you retaliate against a colleague because your sexual chemistry ran its course is the minute it's an abuse of power.
I don't think removal of special treatment should count as retaliation. It's only retaliation if the man treats her worse than he would have had the relationship never happened
I suspect Robin is just responding to the same incentives that I do but with the greater freedom that comes with his academic and popular status. Namely a desire to come off as an interesting, unconventional thinker who is willing to speak truth to power (social pressure in this case).
As Robin is an academic I suspect he's also pretty immersed in a certain left leaning ideological view so I suspect that when his posts push back against this it's easy to mistake this for pushing back against the more mainstream views.
I mean I often feel the same emotional reaction as you do to some of Robin's posts (must be how other people feel about what I write) but then I remind myself that no it's not good to discourage people from making speculative arguments that imply we should do X just because we happen to believe on balance ~X is better.
It seems like a rather Socratic thing to do to show other people to be ignorant about something which they claim to care deeply about. As Plato's Socrates repeatedly claims, doing that is doing a favor to someone who really cares about justice or virtue; if they don't actually care about those things, but rather what they value is power and social standing, they likely will be upset. Same as it ever was.
It seems like you're missing that receiving unwanted attempts can constitute a disadvantage, in which case attractive women have a different disadvantage from men and unattractive women (contra 'not attractive women').
Separately, the large amount of unwanted attempts implies a large success rate only if supply is not far below demand.
I'm just saying that offering a deal is different from offering a deal and threatening active harm if the deal is declined, and it shouldn't be surprising that people feel more strongly against the latter
How confident are you that they truly believe there will be no adverse affects on their career if they rebuff your advances? Will disclosure of the relationship create a problem at work due to the appearance of favoritism or retaliation from other people who believe your sexual partner has slept her way to the top?
I think it’s rarely fine. But there are still many industries where dating is common enough there are norms about how to stay above board.
So you’re saying it’s fine to have sex with somebody that you're in a position of power over, as long as you don’t threaten that person or use your power to harm them?
So your position is that offering sex for career help isn't problematic or harassment as long as you don't threaten to harm if no sex?
Big part of the issue with Weinstein is the threat (and actual carrying out) of career harm. So the comparison doesn't work, it's the difference between a legitimate security firm and a mob protection racket.
Robin explicitly states that our Star's value to Grizzled Musician is a function of Professional Value and Sexual Value. He will help her only if the Overall Value exceeds his Willingness to Help threshold.
He makes a value assumption when he states that any "reasonable woman" would know that removing that Sexual Value will necessarily reduce her Overall Value below his Willingness to Help threshold.
But this ignores the fact that the market won't tolerate terrible Stars. Networking only works if our recommendation is valuable. If our Grizzled Musician regularly subjects his audience to a dismal guest performer, it would hurt his ability to provide professional help. The bargain is only sustainable if the Professional Value these women provide independently exceeds their Willingness to Help.
The Sexual Value these women provide is rent seeking. It's systemic power these men are wielding to extract value from women.
If there wasn't a widespread belief that men deserve sexual access to their co-workers, shrewd investors could make a killing rejecting this system of sexual favors and put the Harvey Weinsteins out of business. That doesn't mean people strongly believe that. We're able to have the #MeToo conversation precisely because we are recognizing the biases we inherited are inconsistent with the society we want to live in.
And spare me with the "Nice for Sex and Less Nice for No Sex" isn't rational. It's not rational in the colloquial sense that it's contra our society's lofty ideals of equity and fairness. But it's absolutely rational in the economic sense - which doesn't put a moral value on motivation. Weinstein didn't simply promote women who slept with him, and retaliate against women who wouldn't. He decided which women were vulnerable and receptive to extracting sex, and preemptively retaliated against the women who threatened his continued ability to abuse this perk. This perk had no value to his investors and clients, and significant value to the women. That's not irrational behavior. It's just unsavory.
I don't see how it implies that "he has more value than her" and what it would even mean. Economic value of a good or service, whether it is money or sex, can exist only in relation to an economic agent who does the judgement. That is how economists try to avoid making value-laden / moral claims.
That aside, "men are nicer to the women they are having sex with, and become less nice when the sex stops" is a pretty good description of irrational male behaviour, so I wouldn't even try to frame this in terms of homo economicus model.
How would that word choice make it better?
Harvey Weinstein didn’t hire anyone he didn’t think would make him money. He didn’t trade career help for sex. He extracted sex from actresses, using his stature in the industry as leverage. This widespread behavior limits economic opportunity and causes unyielding economic anxiety for half the population.
Our older male singer did not get sex in exchange for career help. He’s an aging musician. Discovering a Star is a huge get. It’s almost like Bradley Cooper graduated from Leading Actor to Director, Producer and Actor.
The relationship is bonus. It’s gravy. It’s wish fulfillment.
Robin states any reasonable woman should know he’d put the brakes on promoting her if they stop shagging. That implies he has more value than her, and it’s only the sex making up the discrepancy. That’s a value laden assumption, with strong roots in learned misogyny.
This is sophistry. Obviosuly, what Robin meant by "nice" is "preferential treatment". Your comment is just one big linguistic gotcha trying to shame conventional word use.
There is nothing nice about giving your sexual partner preferential treatment in her workplace. You undermine her and cause lasting economic harm in reputation and earning potential. To consider that sort of behavior ‘nice’ is demonstrating an underlying assumption that sexual partners can never be your equal, and their presence in the workforce is mostly so “great men” can have easy access to disposable women.
What interests me most is whether people answer differently if they're reminded of a specific situation they've really taken in, or not reminded of it. So really I'd like there to be a followup question to the Treatment 2 saying Did you see a Star is Born?
Because people often don't think hard when the situation is abstract. Re: consumer valuation surveys, environment value survys.