Take the existence of God. At the first level there is a binary between theists and non-theists. But among theists there is a binary between those who think God can be shown to exist through pure reason alone and those who think that to prove God you need to use empirical evidence. Among those who think that God’s existence can be shown by pure reason alone, there is a binary between those who think ontological arguments work and those who don’t. Among those who think an ontological argument works, there is a binary between those who think Anselm’s ontological argument works and those who don’t. And so on to infinity.

There could be, and indeed have been for centuries, “formalized binary debates” about each of these issues, even though no single debate includes all of the possible positions one could take in theology. Likewise, there could be, and indeed have been for decades, “formalized binary debates” about porn, rape, differences between men and women, or any other topic of interest to you, even though no single debate includes all of the possible positions one could take on the topic as a whole.

(As an aside, keep in mind that the question of whether there are “binary identities”–presumably you mean of gender–is separate from the question of whether there are only two possible opinions one could hold about some issue. In other words, pick your battles.)

So “formalized binary debates” are useful ways to talk about disputed issues. In my previous post I gave some reasons for why they are especially effective, and for why they are at any rate more effective at promoting “open intellectual discourse” than the upcoming event featuring the tastefully-named pornographer. I didn’t say that they were always and everywhere the best “format of discourse”; indeed I suggested merely that an organization like Lets hold a debate as at least one of their events, not that every event they hold must be a debate. Although in truth I think that would be better than the opposite situation that prevails at the moment.

I wouldn’t say that someone is misogynist who herself values masculine traits or behavior about feminine ones. It’s when the claim becomes that there is a single standard for human conduct that I begin to have a problem, since in my view that standard is essentially the one traditionally applied, with some reason, to men. As a relativist (“I don’t believe that there is a “better” or a “worse” behavior. “*) you reject the idea of a universal morality at all, so a fortiori you reject the version I criticize.

(But one problem with relativism that you may want to consider is that it implies that you cannot criticize the culture you live in. If morality is relative to the culture you live in, then what is moral in that culture is moral for you. Indeed, to the extent that your behavior and beliefs conflict with the prevailing cultural norms, you are simply wrong, both morally and factually. If you want to be a cultural critic, you can’t be a moral relativist.)

Finally, I’ve mentioned my reasons for believing that some behaviors e.g. status-seeking and promiscuity are in some sense “inherently masculine”, and likewise for feminine behavior e.g. nurturing. You’ve only denied the conclusion, not my arguments for it, while at the same time advancing no arguments in favor of your conclusion. So my conclusion still stands.

*Technically this statement does not entail that you’re a relativist, so I’ll just ask: are you? If not, the argument applies to those of your co-bloggers who are, which I suspect is a fair contingent, so I’d be interested in their response whether or not you can provide one.

This seems fairly obvious to me, and since you point out some legitimate flaws in the way the university handles these things, I would imagine that you agree.

The other explanation I can think of for why women would go to the university and not the police is that they themselves have two conceptions of rape, such that something might qualify as “college rape” (e.g. drunk sex) without qualifying as “rape rape” (e.g. forcible penetration). Thus one might think the university was the “court” one might appeal to in the former case, while the police and the actual court system would be the resort in the latter. Since most rapes on college campuses are “college rape” in the sense I’ve indicated, it would then make sense for most women who think themselves victims to go to the university, as indeed they do.

This theory, whatever you think of its plausibility, has obviously not been proven and may not be provable at all. And yet it still might be true.

As to why women don’t report these incidents to police but seem willing to report them to their Universities, I think we might be overestimating the number of women who report them to Universities as well. That being said, I can think of a couple reasons that going to the school’s disciplinary board might seem a less daunting/painful process than going go the police. This, however, is my own personal speculation.

At least at our school, we have an organization that exists primarily for the purposes of providing victims with someone to talk to (SHARE). Providing an outlet who is trusting, open, and who is usually about the same age as the victim might make that victim feel more comfortable with going to the University because the organization (SHARE) itself is a part of the University. In this way, going to the disciplinary board of Princeton might feel more “personal” and less daunting than going to the police. The victim might feel more a part of a campus community that she or he feels a part of the broader community. She or he might, reasonably, feel that their experience will be dealt with with more sensitivity or with a less degree of visibility, which the victim might be wary of. Again this is all personal speculation, but I absolutely do not think it has anything to do with the victim feeling that he or she would be able to more easily get away with a false accusation.

Thanks for your comment. Although we have been conversing in a sarcastic tone before, I would like to set all sarcasm aside for my response.

First off, I like to think that my “brand” of feminism is my own. Just as the category “Christian” does not mean that all “Christians” share the same beliefs or practices, “Feminism” is likewise not a monolithic set of beliefs to which one subscribes, although it is, in my opinion, founded upon the belief that men and women are equally human. The diversity of feminists, feminist thought, and feminist “brands” must be acknowledged. So when you respond to me, I hope that you will respond to exactly what I have said and written, not to what you believe my “brand of feminism” would say. Likewise, I respond to your comments as an individual, and I would not go so far as to group you into an entity and then argue against what I conceive to be that entity’s beliefs.

I don’t recall making any statements about “femininity” versus “masculinity” or “men” versus “women” in any recent posts or comments, except to address yours. Personally, I find these categories to be problematic and as a rule of thumb carefully avoid them. My most recent posts have been about LGBTQ issues and representations of femininity, which I encourage you to read and explore. In your response, you are referring to what *you* believe my “brand” of feminism to be, and have subsequently applied that impression to my writing. It’s not a matter of which “Brenda” I am but a matter of acknowledging that I, as a “feminist”, do not necessarily subscribe to the gender categories in the way that you described.

As such, my remark that I must be “hypermasculine” was sarcastic and intended to highlight how you associate “natural masculinity” with “having a career” and being “accomplished”, even though I myself am quite naturally career-driven and accomplished. Indeed, if these are truly “masculine” qualities and I value them over “feminine” qualities, then I must be a misogynist as you correctly rationalized for privileging the “masculine” over the “feminine”.

I do not believe that “having a career” and being “accomplished” is an inherently masculine faculty. Nor do I believe that all societies across time have been patriarchally organized. I don’t believe that there is a “better” or a “worse” behavior. I would never assert that being “career-driven” is morally better than not; rather, I think people should have the freedom to express and explore their identities, regardless of whether their behavior, in their minds and in the eyes of society, is linked to gender expression.

And you highlight a very relevant problematic that feminism attempts to address in many ways. Women who are go-getters (like myself) are often considered to have “masculine” personality traits. This is why I think your last paragraph is especially rich and striking. The application of the category “masculine”, and the valuation of this trait as “better”, simply and only because it is considered “masculine”, is a misogynistic application of gender norms by society. And there, I think you would be in agreement with very many feminist authors and thinkers, so I encourage you to continue thinking about these issues and the meaning of gender categories, hierarchies, and sources of “power” in our culture.

You and I are having a discussion right now that is outside the constraints of a formalized binary debate, where we would be called upon to sympathize with one camp or the other. The category that you might call “feminists” includes very different and diverse views on pornography. Maybe I’m not a debater, because I believe in the diversity of opinions that can exist outside of the restraints of binary identities. But yes, I can’t argue that debate is not a recognized and institutionalized format of discourse. I just wouldn’t agree that it is always the *best* one. I assure you that my opinions and perspective are potentially very different than other writers here on this blog. And I’m sure you have opinions and perspectives to contribute on the topic as well, which you are certainly more than welcome to share with us.

I claimed that the interest in, roughly speaking, “having a career and being accomplished” was/is traditionally masculine cross-culturally, and I indicated why that might be the case. So I’m happy to allow that you’re more masculine with respect to your personality than most women are, just like I would say that a female bodybuilder is more masculine with respect to her body than most women are. But just as I don’t see why having a lot of muscles would necessarily be better than having a softer body, I don’t see why behaving in a masculine way is necessarily better than behaving in a feminine way. Perhaps you could explain that to me. (Seriously, I would appreciate it.)

It really doesn’t matter if you reject my evolutionary explanation, although I see no reason why you should. Even if you just say that “masculine” and “feminine” are aspects of “traditional gender roles” (presumably “culturally imposed”, right?), you know the traits that the terms refer to. So my question is why say that the traits “assigned” in the past to men are better than the ones “assigned” in the past to women? Because that strikes me as more than a little misogynistic.

2) No one’s claiming that Anscombe is the only contrasting opinion, or at least I didn’t: “Or, you could debate students who disagree with you and are not in Anscombe–of whom there are plenty, I assure you.” For example, I disagree with you and am not in Anscombe.

3) “parade”: I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

4) You will concede that formal debate is *a* legitimate form of discourse. The reason people engage in it is that it’s a structured way of articulating one’s views and explaining why a rational person should believe them. Two sides of the argument are represented, both get equal time to speak their minds, no one can talk over the other, and there are some basic standards e.g. no name-calling. Formal debates have been going on for a long, long time and it’s pretty much standard practice for people who want to intelligently argue about some disputed issue. With all these things to recommend it, I can’t imagine why you wouldn’t want to debate someone, maybe Anscombe, maybe not, as at least *one* method of “engaging in discourse”. If people don’t hassle Anscombe about not debating their opponents, it’s probably because they’re fully ready to have such a debate anywhere, anytime. Why aren’t you?