What do you think?
Rate this book
傲慢的堡壘：重探性侵害的問題根源、問責制的未竟之業，以及追求性別正義的道路該如何前進？
這是性別運動革命最好的時代，也是最壞的時代。
然而，究竟之後我們該走往哪個方向？
【麥田Courant書系最新一彈！】
美國法哲學泰斗瑪莎‧納思邦 給當前女性主義、＃Me Too運動最深思熟慮的建言
對於當代性暴力議題，她提出深刻的詰問； 從法律的面向，她指出最根本的道德、哲學和實踐途徑
「抱最好的期待，做最壞的打算，我們必須更加倚賴法律，若非世界上存在許多邪惡之事，其實我們也不需要制度了。」——納思邦
在這本開創性的作品中，瑪莎‧納思邦為性侵害和性騷擾這類重大的社會挑戰，提供了法律學者的清晰視野，並取材自哲學的思考路徑，詳細闡述了驕傲與貪婪如何導致男性物化與支配他人。她亦犀利的指出問責制度的缺陷，導致某些大人物永遠都能免於司法制裁；以及，受害者報復的渴望，最終為何扭曲了正義的目標。
對於性侵害的問責，以及性騷擾在法律上的認定，長久以來，法界自有其清晰歷史脈絡，納思邦仔細爬梳這些脈絡，接著正面迎擊三座仍牢不可破的「傲慢的堡壘」：司法界、藝術界和體育界。她展示了法律知識界的驕傲特權，展示了藝術界裡那些從來都不受懲罰的自戀行為，以及美國大學體育界中的有毒陽剛氣概，和隨之而來的腐敗；她討論某些男性如何因自身「理所當然的資格」而對他人施行性虐待和性剝削。為了解決前述問題，眾人前仆後繼投入了各種努力，有的成功，有的失敗，而本書也對這此進行詳細的闡釋，並提出解決方案與可謂衝擊性的策略建言。
納思邦撰寫本書的用意，是藉由她擅長的法學和哲學分析去探討「傲慢」的後果。本書也強調正義所需要的技術，要如何細緻地去區分各種差異，也需要各種策略，才能把交戰的各方帶往公正和和平之所在，故而本書會有許多技術上（法律上）的分析，而不僅僅是情緒上的回饋和餵養。納斯邦認為，懲罰唯有奠基於法律之上，當細微的差異都被看見，並且根據罪行的嚴重程度進行了精確校準的情況下，懲罰才能實現其目標。
在這個#MeToo方興未艾的時期，很多案例的懲罰和指控可能過於粗糙，而大規模羞辱取代了程序正義，也生產出大量的「#MeToo」型敘事，這類敘事最後常因懲罰的勝利感而放棄和解。作為一位法學界的先行者，納思邦的視野看到了和解的重要性。本書提出了一個充滿希望的前進之路，打開一個可能性，讓人通向沒有惡意的真確問責制，以及不流於鄉愿、真正無悔的原諒。
【本書兩大目標】：
第一個目標，是揭露那些經常被忽略的故（敘）事，使其更廣為人知，尤其是在走向正義的道路上，那些未受關注的貢獻者所做的努力，而不僅僅是這幾年崛起的名人說法。
第二個目標，是分析三大領域（司法界、藝術界、體育界）拒絕改革的原因，因為即使「#MeToo運動」取得了更大的進步，但基本上，若要對各種性犯罪進行全面問責，門檻仍然存在。 對此納思邦提出建言：我們必須尋求其他類型的結構改變，例如修改對僱員監督的結構（司法界）、讓工會有更大的權力糾舉藝術界的性騷擾與虐待，並廢除一級聯賽的大學美式足球和籃球，轉而支持小聯盟系統，由法律和集體談判進行監督（大學體育界）。
納思邦論【權力支配】——「首先，支配者通常會有一個帶有缺陷的道德文化，將他們的支配在各方面合理化，尤其是靠著檢討被害人。其次，支配者通常會用來維持權力的另一件事，就是助長奴性、剝奪被征服者的自主權和勇氣。他們也會用殘酷的行為強加創傷，目的之一就是打擊被害者的精神。有時候他們是失敗的：人們有強大的韌性和洞察力，而且在最壞的環境中，也的確能夠像寶石一樣閃耀。但是有時候他們會成功，而他們的成功是支配者最深的道德犯罪。」
納思邦論【傲慢的特性與表現】—— （引用但丁）「映入他們眼簾的是一些外形像人的形體，但是這些『人』把自己彎得像一個箍環，所以根本看不到外在的世界或是其他人。他們的臉不是向外的，而是只往內看著自己，所以他們既看不到別人，別人也看不到他們。結果就是讓一頭霧水的但丁認為他們『看起來不像是人』。維吉爾告訴但丁：那是『他們所受處罰的沉重』，讓他們只能用對摺的方式站在地表。不過當然，但丁也深知他們所受的處罰不是要將外物加到他們現在或過去曾經是的那個人。這幅圖像就只是適切的表現出他們那發育不良的倫理狀態。他們雖然身為人，但是從來不曾正眼的看待其他人、承認其他人有完整的人性。他就只盯著自己看。」
納思邦論【女性主義者的憤怒】—— 「憤怒可以很強大而且有價值，如果它表達的是確實而有根據的憤慨，並且面向未來——提出帶有建設性的想法、拒絕以牙還牙的報復主義，而且（讓我們期待）還能夠徹底信任我們將合力創造出什麼。如果耽溺於直覺式的報復主義，憤怒就不是那麼強大和有價值了，我們也都知道陷入報復主義是人類共通的弱點。如果我們清楚看到了報復主義在死刑脈絡中的缺點─我相信大部分女性主義者也都看到了─還主張報復式的憤怒是女性主義的抗爭中不可或缺的，似乎就顯得很奇怪了。」
然而，究竟之後我們該走往哪個方向？
【麥田Courant書系最新一彈！】
美國法哲學泰斗瑪莎‧納思邦 給當前女性主義、＃Me Too運動最深思熟慮的建言
對於當代性暴力議題，她提出深刻的詰問； 從法律的面向，她指出最根本的道德、哲學和實踐途徑
「抱最好的期待，做最壞的打算，我們必須更加倚賴法律，若非世界上存在許多邪惡之事，其實我們也不需要制度了。」——納思邦
在這本開創性的作品中，瑪莎‧納思邦為性侵害和性騷擾這類重大的社會挑戰，提供了法律學者的清晰視野，並取材自哲學的思考路徑，詳細闡述了驕傲與貪婪如何導致男性物化與支配他人。她亦犀利的指出問責制度的缺陷，導致某些大人物永遠都能免於司法制裁；以及，受害者報復的渴望，最終為何扭曲了正義的目標。
對於性侵害的問責，以及性騷擾在法律上的認定，長久以來，法界自有其清晰歷史脈絡，納思邦仔細爬梳這些脈絡，接著正面迎擊三座仍牢不可破的「傲慢的堡壘」：司法界、藝術界和體育界。她展示了法律知識界的驕傲特權，展示了藝術界裡那些從來都不受懲罰的自戀行為，以及美國大學體育界中的有毒陽剛氣概，和隨之而來的腐敗；她討論某些男性如何因自身「理所當然的資格」而對他人施行性虐待和性剝削。為了解決前述問題，眾人前仆後繼投入了各種努力，有的成功，有的失敗，而本書也對這此進行詳細的闡釋，並提出解決方案與可謂衝擊性的策略建言。
納思邦撰寫本書的用意，是藉由她擅長的法學和哲學分析去探討「傲慢」的後果。本書也強調正義所需要的技術，要如何細緻地去區分各種差異，也需要各種策略，才能把交戰的各方帶往公正和和平之所在，故而本書會有許多技術上（法律上）的分析，而不僅僅是情緒上的回饋和餵養。納斯邦認為，懲罰唯有奠基於法律之上，當細微的差異都被看見，並且根據罪行的嚴重程度進行了精確校準的情況下，懲罰才能實現其目標。
在這個#MeToo方興未艾的時期，很多案例的懲罰和指控可能過於粗糙，而大規模羞辱取代了程序正義，也生產出大量的「#MeToo」型敘事，這類敘事最後常因懲罰的勝利感而放棄和解。作為一位法學界的先行者，納思邦的視野看到了和解的重要性。本書提出了一個充滿希望的前進之路，打開一個可能性，讓人通向沒有惡意的真確問責制，以及不流於鄉愿、真正無悔的原諒。
【本書兩大目標】：
第一個目標，是揭露那些經常被忽略的故（敘）事，使其更廣為人知，尤其是在走向正義的道路上，那些未受關注的貢獻者所做的努力，而不僅僅是這幾年崛起的名人說法。
第二個目標，是分析三大領域（司法界、藝術界、體育界）拒絕改革的原因，因為即使「#MeToo運動」取得了更大的進步，但基本上，若要對各種性犯罪進行全面問責，門檻仍然存在。 對此納思邦提出建言：我們必須尋求其他類型的結構改變，例如修改對僱員監督的結構（司法界）、讓工會有更大的權力糾舉藝術界的性騷擾與虐待，並廢除一級聯賽的大學美式足球和籃球，轉而支持小聯盟系統，由法律和集體談判進行監督（大學體育界）。
納思邦論【權力支配】——「首先，支配者通常會有一個帶有缺陷的道德文化，將他們的支配在各方面合理化，尤其是靠著檢討被害人。其次，支配者通常會用來維持權力的另一件事，就是助長奴性、剝奪被征服者的自主權和勇氣。他們也會用殘酷的行為強加創傷，目的之一就是打擊被害者的精神。有時候他們是失敗的：人們有強大的韌性和洞察力，而且在最壞的環境中，也的確能夠像寶石一樣閃耀。但是有時候他們會成功，而他們的成功是支配者最深的道德犯罪。」
納思邦論【傲慢的特性與表現】—— （引用但丁）「映入他們眼簾的是一些外形像人的形體，但是這些『人』把自己彎得像一個箍環，所以根本看不到外在的世界或是其他人。他們的臉不是向外的，而是只往內看著自己，所以他們既看不到別人，別人也看不到他們。結果就是讓一頭霧水的但丁認為他們『看起來不像是人』。維吉爾告訴但丁：那是『他們所受處罰的沉重』，讓他們只能用對摺的方式站在地表。不過當然，但丁也深知他們所受的處罰不是要將外物加到他們現在或過去曾經是的那個人。這幅圖像就只是適切的表現出他們那發育不良的倫理狀態。他們雖然身為人，但是從來不曾正眼的看待其他人、承認其他人有完整的人性。他就只盯著自己看。」
納思邦論【女性主義者的憤怒】—— 「憤怒可以很強大而且有價值，如果它表達的是確實而有根據的憤慨，並且面向未來——提出帶有建設性的想法、拒絕以牙還牙的報復主義，而且（讓我們期待）還能夠徹底信任我們將合力創造出什麼。如果耽溺於直覺式的報復主義，憤怒就不是那麼強大和有價值了，我們也都知道陷入報復主義是人類共通的弱點。如果我們清楚看到了報復主義在死刑脈絡中的缺點─我相信大部分女性主義者也都看到了─還主張報復式的憤怒是女性主義的抗爭中不可或缺的，似乎就顯得很奇怪了。」
384 pages, Paperback
First published May 11, 2021
35 people are currently reading
610 people want to read
About the author
Martha C. Nussbaum
177 books1,364 followersMartha C. Nussbaum is Ernst Freund Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago, appointed in the Law School and the Philosophy Department. Among her many awards are the 2018 Berggruen Prize, the 2017 Don M. Randel Award for Humanistic Studies from the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the 2016 Kyoto Prize in Arts and Philosophy.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews
May 13, 2023
The book is strongest when laying out it’s ethical framework, no surprise given Nussbaum’s academic bonafides. Where it falters, and ultimately falls, is in its application to real world principles— perhaps also due to Nussbaum’s shelter in academia.
In failing to truly appreciate the realities of women who do not share her class, race, and privilege, Nussbaum tosses out potential changes to the legal framework of gender violence so uncritical as to be absurd. She casually suggests rape survivors can lay blame, in part, on their rapist’s prior victims for not reporting. And now that things have changed so much for the better, she thinks, for women who report rape, perhaps we should institute mandatory reporting laws for adult victims of sexual abuse. She barely touched on the myriad of reasons people do not report: economic dependence on an abusive partner, the horror of the American carceral system, and a very rational fear of reprisal to name a few.
Later, when describing the sexual harassment allegations leveled against opera virtuoso Placido Domingo, Nussbaum speculates that Domingo probably wasn’t violent with his victims because one of the author’s own (unnamed) friends who also works in the industry just didn’t think he was that kind of guy.
Yes, really. After describing a widely reported working environment where young women were warned not to be alone with Domingo, for their own safety, Nussbaum concludes that he can’t be that be all that bad if her friend said so.
Nussbaum is clearly a very brilliant student of philosophy, but in terms of feminist theory this book reads as though it was written 20 or even 30 years ago. It is not her finest moment.
In failing to truly appreciate the realities of women who do not share her class, race, and privilege, Nussbaum tosses out potential changes to the legal framework of gender violence so uncritical as to be absurd. She casually suggests rape survivors can lay blame, in part, on their rapist’s prior victims for not reporting. And now that things have changed so much for the better, she thinks, for women who report rape, perhaps we should institute mandatory reporting laws for adult victims of sexual abuse. She barely touched on the myriad of reasons people do not report: economic dependence on an abusive partner, the horror of the American carceral system, and a very rational fear of reprisal to name a few.
Later, when describing the sexual harassment allegations leveled against opera virtuoso Placido Domingo, Nussbaum speculates that Domingo probably wasn’t violent with his victims because one of the author’s own (unnamed) friends who also works in the industry just didn’t think he was that kind of guy.
Yes, really. After describing a widely reported working environment where young women were warned not to be alone with Domingo, for their own safety, Nussbaum concludes that he can’t be that be all that bad if her friend said so.
Nussbaum is clearly a very brilliant student of philosophy, but in terms of feminist theory this book reads as though it was written 20 or even 30 years ago. It is not her finest moment.
July 27, 2021
Martha Nussbaum is freakishly clear and elegant in her writing, and manages to present complicated arguments about challenging social issues just very well. She's very efficient in summarizing arguments fairly, without ignoring nuance, and generally charitable to those whose arguments she disagrees with. This book synthesizes her work on philosophy of emotion (which was genuinely pathbreaking when she first did it, and has been developed in interesting directions) with her interest in philosophy of law, particularly with sexual harassment/sexual assault law. Her basic argument is that deformed or excessive pride is at the root of sexual assault or sexual harassment (it leads to a misogynistic dehumanization of people--mostly but not always women--as objects to be used), and that some industries/professions are "citadels of pride" because they have such disproportionate rewards for success, and absence of transparency, accountability, and limits on power. The three industries she focuses on are the performing arts (particularly opera/classical music), college athletics, and the federal judiciary. Her indictments of the weaknesses of institutional guardrails is compellingly done in all three cases, but I found myself not entirely persuaded by the grounding of the argument in pride, not least because her arguments were never connected to the possibility of pride used as a positive incentive or inducement (I'm thinking here of Kwame Appiah's compelling work on honor as an ethical nudge). In other words, a discussion of rules that's disconnected to norms reads as significantly incomplete to me. And second, her deliberate decision to frame the argument abstractly, as she announces in the introduction, means that the role of racism, homophobia, and economic class get really minimized in the discussion, which seems deeply problematic given some of the cases. (She refers to it when talking about college athletics, but not when, say, talking about sexual harassment in classical music. The overwhelming whiteness of classical music, I suspect, means that racism is problematic there *too*, but not attended to.) This is still a great book to read, because it so efficiently covers important ground, and it doesn't shy away from making clear proposals for improvement (though my single favorite suggestion about improving the appellate judiciary is immediately walked back as unrealistic).
June 18, 2021
Wherein Nussbaum starts from a partially-Kantian system of ethics…
… to explore recent legal developments towards equality, and the pride-based obstacles that remain.
Partially-Kantian, because it turns out Kant drew a slave morality conclusion that Nussbaum (and other feminists) found to be not only disenfranchising, but ultimately destructive:
This quote well explains Nietzsche’s disdain for Kant. But rather than draw from the obviously misogynistic Nietzsche, Nussbaum instead points to Enlightenment philosophers (who, in any case, predate Nietzsche) John Stuart Mill and Mary Wollstencraft (mother of Mary Shelley, incidentally), who make the same point about the corrosive consequences of servility. Drawing an example form the arts, Nussbaum also points to Euripides’s Hecuba as a work that demonstrates how abuse can “corrode the virtues themselves”.
So anger over injustice is necessary, but can come with tragic cost for the victims, who try to maintain their integrity through retributive justice. Nussbaum is wise to pair Aeschylus’s Oresteria with Euripides’s Hecuba:
What is the solution? As the Greeks demonstrated, there tragically doesn’t seem to be one. Instead, Nussbaum splits the difference by focusing on what can be done to circumvent future injustices, through law and policy.
Much of this book’s guidance follows case studies, but I really enjoyed an early passage that simply enumerates how objectifiers treat their objects (which I think she credits to Catharine McKinnon):
This aside, here are a few other interesting points to be made:
“Sexual assault and sexual harassment are dealt with extremely differently, through different parts of the legal system” (assault:criminal::harassment:civil, resulting in different standards of evidence, and different defendants (often, the defendant for harassment cases is normally the employer, because it’s a form of discrimination wherein the firm has been negligent).
The definition of rape was astonishingly narrow until the 1970’s/1980’s (the test was: “did the victim offer physical resistance in the face of immediate danger?” if not, then not rape), and allowed an awful amount of coercive behavior that nobody today would find acceptable. Nussbaum notes how at odds this definition was as contrasted with property crime, for which a crime is identified even if the victim was unaware of the theft at the moment of the crime.
Nebraska was the first state to abolish the marital exemption to rape in 1976.
“No means no” is still not the principal test for rape in 23 states, who “still require force more than is necessary to complete the sexual act, or the threat of such force” as their test.
An interesting mechanism for enforcing better accountability of sex crimes on-campus would be for universities to give every entering student an insurance policy that pays out in the event of their sexual assault or harassment. And, rather than only targeting the university for compensation, victims could target the organizations (e.g., Fraternities) most responsible for their victimization. Insurance assessors would price every organization based on their risk, which would create strong financial incentive for good, proactive policy setting.
And, finally, the best law professor shade I think I’ll ever see thrown… Nussbaum discusses the Supreme Court case Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, which was about sexual harassment in the workplace:
Pride, as I’ll define it, is the vice that consists in thinking that you are above others, and that other people are not fully real. This vice can be found at the source of several of the deepest problems in our national life, including racial superiority and privilege, and indifference and disdain on the basis of class. One place where pride surely has ruled is in relations between men and women… sexual abuse and sexual harassment… are abuses of power by people encouraged to believe that they are above others, and that others are not fully real.
… to explore recent legal developments towards equality, and the pride-based obstacles that remain.
Partially-Kantian, because it turns out Kant drew a slave morality conclusion that Nussbaum (and other feminists) found to be not only disenfranchising, but ultimately destructive:
Kant says that even if the good will has no chance at all to accomplish anything, “yet would it, like a jewel, still shine by its own light as something which as its full value in itself. Its usefulness or fruitlessness can neither augment nor diminish its value.”
This quote well explains Nietzsche’s disdain for Kant. But rather than draw from the obviously misogynistic Nietzsche, Nussbaum instead points to Enlightenment philosophers (who, in any case, predate Nietzsche) John Stuart Mill and Mary Wollstencraft (mother of Mary Shelley, incidentally), who make the same point about the corrosive consequences of servility. Drawing an example form the arts, Nussbaum also points to Euripides’s Hecuba as a work that demonstrates how abuse can “corrode the virtues themselves”.
So anger over injustice is necessary, but can come with tragic cost for the victims, who try to maintain their integrity through retributive justice. Nussbaum is wise to pair Aeschylus’s Oresteria with Euripides’s Hecuba:
Aeschylus’s moral is that a political community must abandon the obsessive pursuit of revenge and adopt an idea of justice that is both law-governed and welfare-oriented, focusing no on hunting one’s prey but on deterring future bad behavior and producing future prosperity. Euripides’s moral is the inverse: moral trauma can cause the collapse of trust and he other-regarding virtues, producing a revenge-obsessed parody of real justice.
What is the solution? As the Greeks demonstrated, there tragically doesn’t seem to be one. Instead, Nussbaum splits the difference by focusing on what can be done to circumvent future injustices, through law and policy.
Much of this book’s guidance follows case studies, but I really enjoyed an early passage that simply enumerates how objectifiers treat their objects (which I think she credits to Catharine McKinnon):
1. Instrumentality: … a (mere) tool of their purposes.
2. Denial of autonomy: … lacking in autonomy and self-determination.
3. Inertness … lacking in agency, and perhaps also in activity.
4. Fungibility: … interchangeable with (a) other objects of the same type, and/or (b) objects of other types.
5. Violability: … lacking in boundary integrity, as something that is permissible to break up, smash, break into.
6. Ownership: … something that is owned or ownable by someone, that can be bought or sold, or otherwise treated as property.
7. Denial of subjectivity:… something whose experience and feelings (if any) need not be taken into account.
This aside, here are a few other interesting points to be made:
“Sexual assault and sexual harassment are dealt with extremely differently, through different parts of the legal system” (assault:criminal::harassment:civil, resulting in different standards of evidence, and different defendants (often, the defendant for harassment cases is normally the employer, because it’s a form of discrimination wherein the firm has been negligent).
The definition of rape was astonishingly narrow until the 1970’s/1980’s (the test was: “did the victim offer physical resistance in the face of immediate danger?” if not, then not rape), and allowed an awful amount of coercive behavior that nobody today would find acceptable. Nussbaum notes how at odds this definition was as contrasted with property crime, for which a crime is identified even if the victim was unaware of the theft at the moment of the crime.
Nebraska was the first state to abolish the marital exemption to rape in 1976.
“No means no” is still not the principal test for rape in 23 states, who “still require force more than is necessary to complete the sexual act, or the threat of such force” as their test.
An interesting mechanism for enforcing better accountability of sex crimes on-campus would be for universities to give every entering student an insurance policy that pays out in the event of their sexual assault or harassment. And, rather than only targeting the university for compensation, victims could target the organizations (e.g., Fraternities) most responsible for their victimization. Insurance assessors would price every organization based on their risk, which would create strong financial incentive for good, proactive policy setting.
And, finally, the best law professor shade I think I’ll ever see thrown… Nussbaum discusses the Supreme Court case Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, which was about sexual harassment in the workplace:
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Oncale’s favor, with Justice Scalia writing the opinion. Justice Thomas added a one-sentence concurrence.
May 22, 2024
Though I agree with her point of view that sexual abuse and the objectifying of people comes from a place of arrogance and self importance by the establishments, I didn't think her offered solutions are in any way innovating nor very helpful. Nothing more is offered than listening to women, set rules and guidelines to keep everyone in check, and that's basically it. Oh, and for victims and women to not retaliate. I also thought the author was biased. The "citadel" of judges can be saved, but the "citadel" of college sports should be abolished completely. She doesn't care about sports, but she is a philosopher with law as specialty. Also, the way she speaks about Martin Luther King and the way she kind of makes it seem his fight only supports "her theory", instead of her belief of reconciliation is inspired by people like King, gave me the ick. This whole book to me was a reflection of Nussbaum's feelings of self-importance, and I didn't like her normative and somewhat preachy style.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
November 20, 2022
Citadels of Pride is in three parts. The first part is an anatomy of the pervasive toxic culture behind men's abuse of women. The second part reviews the history of American laws about sexual assault and harassment. Finally, the third part investigates the "citadels of pride," the recalcitrant areas where powerful men remain above the law: federal judiciary, the performing arts, and big-money college sports. Each part of this book is focused, sharp, and readable.
Nussbaum first discusses objectification, which she calls "a linchpin of feminist analysis." Two central features of a full human being, she points out, are autonomy and subjectivity. Human beings should be enabled to make important life-defining choices for themselves, and they are centers of deep inner experiences. Sexual assault and harassment cut deep because they violate autonomy and subjectivity in profound ways and dehumanize women as objects. What's behind objectification, Nussbaum argues, is the trait of pride, which makes someone think they are above others and that other people are not fully real. In this sense, the fundamental issue is not sex; it is power. As in her previous books, she adroitly quotes classical literature (this time Dante's Divine Comedy) to bring her theory to life.
In the second part, Nussbaum switches into law historian mode. I learned that US state laws used to require rape victims to show they have faced the use of physical force, and that they have resisted "to the utmost" or tried "earnest resistance." Only since the 1980s, states started to establish the "No Means No" standard. Yet, 23 states still require the use or threat of force in the definition of sexual assault. She also contends that we should further stop supposing that silence expresses consent, just as we believe a doctor should not go ahead with a colonoscopy without the patient's explicit and informed consent.
Because most US criminal laws are state laws, the change of sex assault laws happens at multiple places. In contrast, the legal revolution in sex harassment occurs at the federal level and centers around interpreting the Civil Rights Act. Unexpectedly, I heard Nussbaum mention contributions from Scalia, Gorsuch, and Posner. The story of this revolution is inspiring, and I cannot summarize it better than Nussbaum herself:
The third part of the book turns to case studies of male pride and offers practical remedies. While reading, I was petrified by certain distinguished performing artists' cruelty and filled with indignation after knowing many college towns systematically cover up for elite sports players' sexual misconduct. Following lawyer and NBA commissioner Adam Silver, Nussbaum proposes dismantling Division I college football and basketball and replacing them with professional minor leagues and "learning academies" for players. The proposal sounds radical given people's craze in college sports, but Nussbaum offers sound and convincing arguments.
While praising the MeToo movement, Nussbaum also criticizes the new tendency to punish allegedly errant men by public shaming (primarily through social media) rather than by due process (whether legal or social). She warns us against retributive anger and argues that we should instead focus on building a shared future between men and women.
Overall, I would recommend this book to every man, because:
More quotes:
Nussbaum first discusses objectification, which she calls "a linchpin of feminist analysis." Two central features of a full human being, she points out, are autonomy and subjectivity. Human beings should be enabled to make important life-defining choices for themselves, and they are centers of deep inner experiences. Sexual assault and harassment cut deep because they violate autonomy and subjectivity in profound ways and dehumanize women as objects. What's behind objectification, Nussbaum argues, is the trait of pride, which makes someone think they are above others and that other people are not fully real. In this sense, the fundamental issue is not sex; it is power. As in her previous books, she adroitly quotes classical literature (this time Dante's Divine Comedy) to bring her theory to life.
In the second part, Nussbaum switches into law historian mode. I learned that US state laws used to require rape victims to show they have faced the use of physical force, and that they have resisted "to the utmost" or tried "earnest resistance." Only since the 1980s, states started to establish the "No Means No" standard. Yet, 23 states still require the use or threat of force in the definition of sexual assault. She also contends that we should further stop supposing that silence expresses consent, just as we believe a doctor should not go ahead with a colonoscopy without the patient's explicit and informed consent.
Because most US criminal laws are state laws, the change of sex assault laws happens at multiple places. In contrast, the legal revolution in sex harassment occurs at the federal level and centers around interpreting the Civil Rights Act. Unexpectedly, I heard Nussbaum mention contributions from Scalia, Gorsuch, and Posner. The story of this revolution is inspiring, and I cannot summarize it better than Nussbaum herself:
"To use a term from Rawlsian political thought, we might call current legal norms an "overlapping consensus" that can be embraced by people with various different "comprehensive" views of what gender relations ought to be—as is hardly surprising, given that key moments in the doctrine were articulated by Catharine MacKinnon, by liberal justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, by moderate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, by textualist justices Antonin Scalia and Neil Gorsuch, and by libertarian pragmatist judge Richard Posner. What do all these figures have in common? They have all faced squarely the reality of women's (and men's) workplace situation, embracing the ideals of Title VII and courageously seeing in the vague text possibilities for extensions of the rule of law."
The third part of the book turns to case studies of male pride and offers practical remedies. While reading, I was petrified by certain distinguished performing artists' cruelty and filled with indignation after knowing many college towns systematically cover up for elite sports players' sexual misconduct. Following lawyer and NBA commissioner Adam Silver, Nussbaum proposes dismantling Division I college football and basketball and replacing them with professional minor leagues and "learning academies" for players. The proposal sounds radical given people's craze in college sports, but Nussbaum offers sound and convincing arguments.
While praising the MeToo movement, Nussbaum also criticizes the new tendency to punish allegedly errant men by public shaming (primarily through social media) rather than by due process (whether legal or social). She warns us against retributive anger and argues that we should instead focus on building a shared future between men and women.
Overall, I would recommend this book to every man, because:
"Most men will deny that they are complicit in such crimes, and insist that they love and respect women. However, to the extent that they support and profit from a legal and social power structure that systematically denies women a full measure of consideration for their autonomy and subjectivity, they are passive misogynists, enforcing an inequality of power and privilege out of which these abuses grow."
More quotes:
"MacKinnon insists on a further point: objectification is so ubiquitous that for the most part women cannot help living surrounded, even suffused, by it. In a striking metaphor, she states that "All women live in sexual objectification the way fish live in water"—meaning by this, presumably, not only that objectification surrounds women, but also that they have become such that they derive their very nourishment and sustenance from it."
"Unlike Kozinski, however, these distinguished artists show us something profoundly sad about human beings: that deep and subtle insight, and the ability to illuminate our lives in areas of the most profound human importance, can coexist with a warped, narcissistic, and utterly compassionless character. If Alex Kozinski dropped off the face of the earth, we would probably not feel that our world was lacking in any profound insight that he supplied. James Levine and Plácido Domingo, by contrast, contribute such beauty and illumination to our world that we must also reckon with the legacy of their work, once we acknowledge their diseased treatment of others."
"And because that potentiality is sometimes impossible to see, we should also be people of practical faith, and of a trust that is to some extent as yet unjustified and unjustifiable. Even where hope cannot be supported by reasons—and really, hope can never be fully supported by reasons—feminists should be people of hope: hope that the relationship between women and men, so long based upon domination, might enjoy what Lincoln called "a new birth of freedom," as mutuality and respect for autonomy gradually displace pride."
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
July 25, 2024
短评：前半部分提及概述性的描述还是挺好的，但越到后面，越感觉有点偏题了...
1.“物化”
2.傲慢助长了对于女性完全平等的诋毁
3.性骚扰构成了基于性别的歧视
4.性虐待和性骚扰都是对权力的滥用，而这些滥用权力的人受到鼓励，相信自己凌驾于他人之上，且他人并不是完全真实的
5.性虐待和性骚扰应被看作与基于种族或阶层的权力滥用极为接近的行为
6.性虐待有时候攻击的是在权力体系中处于较低位置的男性
7.女性尤其容易遭受性虐待，如果她们同时也成为基于种族或阶层的权力滥用所针对的目标的话
8.一个完整的人应具有自主性和主体性
9.在现代民主国家，良好的社会和政治制度是有职责保护人们的自主性和主体性。一个健康的民主社会是可以让人们有机会在关键领域为自己做出选择(信仰、言说、政治观点、职业、交往、性与婚姻等)，由此来保护人们的自主性。同时它认可人们需要空间来形成自己的信念(信仰和言说自由等)，需要空间来寻获情感上的满足(交往自由、新婚与交友权利、性同意保护等)，由此对人们的主体性加以保护。
10.性侵犯与性骚扰深刻地破坏了人们的自主性和主体性。它们往往无视甚或肆意践踏女性表达同意的能力，或是通过威胁而强行要求女性做出某种“伪同意”，它们将女性视作为男性提供满足的便利物品，认为她们的决定无足轻重。同时，性暴力将女性的情感与想法看成无关紧要的东西，仿佛只有占据支配地位的男性的欲望才是真实的、重要的，更糟的是，有时候这种无视女性思想和感受的态度产生了极其深远的影响，以至于女性被灌输了一种虚假的“主体性”，一种与男性的愿望完美契合的“主体性”，比如“嘴上说不心里愿意”。这种观念认为女性其实很喜欢他们所遭受的、强制性的性屈从。
10.男性并不满足于控制女性的身体，他们想要的是心甘情愿的服从，因此他们用尽各种方法来奴役女性的心灵。女性从很小的时候起就被教导着认为，她们的理想品格是“不要固执己见，不要靠自我控制来自我管理，而是要屈从，要听从他人的控制”。她们学到的是，只有那些关于自我克制的情感，对女人来说才是合适的，唯一能对男人产生性吸引的方式，就是培养自己“柔顺、依从，放弃所有的个人意志而完全交由男人做主”。女性可能因此而形成了我们会称为“反自主”的思维倾向，在某种意义上也形成了一种反主体的主体性，这告诉她们，自己的经历和感受并不是真正的重要，申明或坚持表达自己的观点是不对的。有时候，女性甚至会将自身变成商品和令人愉快的物品，成为男性凝视的对象。
11.对女性基本权利的否认是由某些性别歧视的信念导致的，但从更深层面而言，其实是一种强权压制：男性采取性别歧视的修辞来树立屏障，阻止女性充分地进入社会，始终利用她们来为自己提供服务和资源，尽管他们非常礼貌且温和地谈论女性需要庇护和保护。
12.物化方式包括:①工具化：将其看作实现其目的的工具②否认自主性③无生气：认为其缺乏能动性④可替代⑤可侵犯⑥所有权⑦否认主体性：被看作是不需要考虑其经验和感受的物品⑧噤声
13.网络和社交媒体文化放大否认了女性所具有的自主性和主体性。
14. 性别傲慢使得他们将凌驾于女性个体之上的个人权威联系起来，并且也与婚内使用性暴力的倾向联系在一起。他们会否认女性具有充分自主性的同时善待她们，就像对待他们所钟爱的孩子。
15.在所有社会中，女性一直都是投射性厌恶的目标，因为男性将自身界定为能够超越的存在，而把女性界定为无法脱离出生、性活动以及死亡的存在。因此，一种将女性束缚在这种位置中的方式就是反复提到那些月经、母乳、性体液和排泄物等东西。
16.有一种阻碍女性寻求法律正义的方式被人们反复利用，那就是将她们描绘成肮脏的、污秽不堪的存在。
17.她们遭受着系统性的指责，这是在否认他们支配本身对屈从群体造成的伤害。
18. 直到1993年，才从法律判决中去除“尽全力反抗”的概念。
19. 为什么一位医生决定进行治疗需要病人明确的知情同意，而一位女性选择是否进行性行为却不能得到同样的尊重和礼貌？
1.“物化”
2.傲慢助长了对于女性完全平等的诋毁
3.性骚扰构成了基于性别的歧视
4.性虐待和性骚扰都是对权力的滥用，而这些滥用权力的人受到鼓励，相信自己凌驾于他人之上，且他人并不是完全真实的
5.性虐待和性骚扰应被看作与基于种族或阶层的权力滥用极为接近的行为
6.性虐待有时候攻击的是在权力体系中处于较低位置的男性
7.女性尤其容易遭受性虐待，如果她们同时也成为基于种族或阶层的权力滥用所针对的目标的话
8.一个完整的人应具有自主性和主体性
9.在现代民主国家，良好的社会和政治制度是有职责保护人们的自主性和主体性。一个健康的民主社会是可以让人们有机会在关键领域为自己做出选择(信仰、言说、政治观点、职业、交往、性与婚姻等)，由此来保护人们的自主性。同时它认可人们需要空间来形成自己的信念(信仰和言说自由等)，需要空间来寻获情感上的满足(交往自由、新婚与交友权利、性同意保护等)，由此对人们的主体性加以保护。
10.性侵犯与性骚扰深刻地破坏了人们的自主性和主体性。它们往往无视甚或肆意践踏女性表达同意的能力，或是通过威胁而强行要求女性做出某种“伪同意”，它们将女性视作为男性提供满足的便利物品，认为她们的决定无足轻重。同时，性暴力将女性的情感与想法看成无关紧要的东西，仿佛只有占据支配地位的男性的欲望才是真实的、重要的，更糟的是，有时候这种无视女性思想和感受的态度产生了极其深远的影响，以至于女性被灌输了一种虚假的“主体性”，一种与男性的愿望完美契合的“主体性”，比如“嘴上说不心里愿意”。这种观念认为女性其实很喜欢他们所遭受的、强制性的性屈从。
10.男性并不满足于控制女性的身体，他们想要的是心甘情愿的服从，因此他们用尽各种方法来奴役女性的心灵。女性从很小的时候起就被教导着认为，她们的理想品格是“不要固执己见，不要靠自我控制来自我管理，而是要屈从，要听从他人的控制”。她们学到的是，只有那些关于自我克制的情感，对女人来说才是合适的，唯一能对男人产生性吸引的方式，就是培养自己“柔顺、依从，放弃所有的个人意志而完全交由男人做主”。女性可能因此而形成了我们会称为“反自主”的思维倾向，在某种意义上也形成了一种反主体的主体性，这告诉她们，自己的经历和感受并不是真正的重要，申明或坚持表达自己的观点是不对的。有时候，女性甚至会将自身变成商品和令人愉快的物品，成为男性凝视的对象。
11.对女性基本权利的否认是由某些性别歧视的信念导致的，但从更深层面而言，其实是一种强权压制：男性采取性别歧视的修辞来树立屏障，阻止女性充分地进入社会，始终利用她们来为自己提供服务和资源，尽管他们非常礼貌且温和地谈论女性需要庇护和保护。
12.物化方式包括:①工具化：将其看作实现其目的的工具②否认自主性③无生气：认为其缺乏能动性④可替代⑤可侵犯⑥所有权⑦否认主体性：被看作是不需要考虑其经验和感受的物品⑧噤声
13.网络和社交媒体文化放大否认了女性所具有的自主性和主体性。
14. 性别傲慢使得他们将凌驾于女性个体之上的个人权威联系起来，并且也与婚内使用性暴力的倾向联系在一起。他们会否认女性具有充分自主性的同时善待她们，就像对待他们所钟爱的孩子。
15.在所有社会中，女性一直都是投射性厌恶的目标，因为男性将自身界定为能够超越的存在，而把女性界定为无法脱离出生、性活动以及死亡的存在。因此，一种将女性束缚在这种位置中的方式就是反复提到那些月经、母乳、性体液和排泄物等东西。
16.有一种阻碍女性寻求法律正义的方式被人们反复利用，那就是将她们描绘成肮脏的、污秽不堪的存在。
17.她们遭受着系统性的指责，这是在否认他们支配本身对屈从群体造成的伤害。
18. 直到1993年，才从法律判决中去除“尽全力反抗”的概念。
19. 为什么一位医生决定进行治疗需要病人明确的知情同意，而一位女性选择是否进行性行为却不能得到同样的尊重和礼貌？
August 29, 2021
I thought some parts of this book were more interesting than others. Overall I think it was a bit dry but it was always gonna be a serious book of course.
In the first part Nussbaum takes on the topic of abuse from a philosophical perspective, conjuring Kant and Dante among others.
The second, and for me least engaging parts deals with the (American) legal history of abuse and accountability, recognizing and praising some of the pioneers in the field. A good reminder on how bad things used to be, how hard it was to get recognition or accountability as a victim of abuse not at all that long ago.
In part three, the most interesting for me, Nussbaum looks at three recalcitrant citadels of pride; the judiciary, arts and sports. Why is it that in these area's abuse is a recurring theme and accountability is elusive. Discrepancies in power of course are one factor and all three area's have characteristics that play into a culture where accountability is hard to obtain.
Not an easy read but interesting nonetheless and of course important
In the first part Nussbaum takes on the topic of abuse from a philosophical perspective, conjuring Kant and Dante among others.
The second, and for me least engaging parts deals with the (American) legal history of abuse and accountability, recognizing and praising some of the pioneers in the field. A good reminder on how bad things used to be, how hard it was to get recognition or accountability as a victim of abuse not at all that long ago.
In part three, the most interesting for me, Nussbaum looks at three recalcitrant citadels of pride; the judiciary, arts and sports. Why is it that in these area's abuse is a recurring theme and accountability is elusive. Discrepancies in power of course are one factor and all three area's have characteristics that play into a culture where accountability is hard to obtain.
Not an easy read but interesting nonetheless and of course important
June 13, 2023
I enjoyed Citadels of Pride.
I was surprised at what was left out. I recall hearing stories about the abuse of Congressional pages. I wonder if their experiences parallel those of judicial clerks. Although collegiate football and basketball were explored, the activities of the wrestling team doctor at Ohio State University and the gymnastics doctor at Michigan State University weren't mentioned; however, those activities followed the abuse of power scenario. It is however disgraceful that neither university possessed the strength of character to follow up when complaints were made.
I fully support your suggestions regarding collegiate football and basketball. The world would be a better place of those suggestions were adopted.
I was surprised at what was left out. I recall hearing stories about the abuse of Congressional pages. I wonder if their experiences parallel those of judicial clerks. Although collegiate football and basketball were explored, the activities of the wrestling team doctor at Ohio State University and the gymnastics doctor at Michigan State University weren't mentioned; however, those activities followed the abuse of power scenario. It is however disgraceful that neither university possessed the strength of character to follow up when complaints were made.
I fully support your suggestions regarding collegiate football and basketball. The world would be a better place of those suggestions were adopted.
July 22, 2025
Retributive anger punishes wrongs without reconciling the parties of abused and abuser. Furthermore, it can overreach justice by attacking men as if they’re all equally guilty, without due process. Nussbaum is a feminist driven by love and transformative anger that helps men reach their potential to be at peace with women by teaching them to live justly through a philosophy and law that achieves justice between them. Nothing more or less than mutual respect for each other’s personhood: agency and subjective experience. Treat other persons as you would want them to treat you, and promote a society that keeps everyone accountable to this ethic, including those who have a lot of power, judges, or who make a lot of money in entertainment: music, acting, and sports.
August 16, 2023
📖 Citadels of Pride: Sexual Assault, Accountability, and Reconciliation by Martha C. Nussbaum💡
👉M.C. Nussbaum is one of the nowadays philosophers, which I greatly admire. This book is no exception of her sharp evaluation and discussion about sexual assault, mysiogamy, and violence against women.
💡Thou lots of content is related to American society, law, and history, the main message remains strong in any context: "the women, no matter what, has the right to say no. Even if she was a whore, it doesn't matter, because she said no."💡
Some experiences in the book are hard to read about. But this is the world 🌎 we live in...
👉M.C. Nussbaum is one of the nowadays philosophers, which I greatly admire. This book is no exception of her sharp evaluation and discussion about sexual assault, mysiogamy, and violence against women.
💡Thou lots of content is related to American society, law, and history, the main message remains strong in any context: "the women, no matter what, has the right to say no. Even if she was a whore, it doesn't matter, because she said no."💡
Some experiences in the book are hard to read about. But this is the world 🌎 we live in...
Read
December 8, 2021"An examination of one of the important issues of our time, sexual violence and intimidation, and an examination that draws upon multiple disciplines. It connects the problem to the emotions and shortcomings in the law, and it offers a path forward that would recognize individual dignity."
- Thomas J. Miles, Dean, Clifton R. Musser Professor of Law and Economics
- Thomas J. Miles, Dean, Clifton R. Musser Professor of Law and Economics
March 25, 2023
A clear narrative on the history of sexual assault and harassment, as well as a depiction of what U.S. legal protections have been given and suggestions about which further protections will be needed in the future.
July 12, 2023
Un análisis de ciertos vicios, en especial la soberbia, desde un feminismo sensato y una ética de las virtudes
July 16, 2023
Incredibly important work. Detailed information with easy to read discussions and explanations. Very engaging text considering how much is packed into these pages.
April 18, 2024
如果对影视、体育界热点的性侵性骚扰me too感兴趣，经常在社交媒体参与此事，读这本书就再合适不过了。本书从哲学、法律、政治的角度分析了性暴力行为存在的原因，介绍了一些性和平的制度与文化对待方式，很有启发性。它能够让我们很平和理性关怀的引导性暴力事件我们的情绪进入更有益的轨道。
June 30, 2024
3.5 ⭐️
September 15, 2024
I hated how unidate states-centric its is, but at the same time I understand why to do a better analysis it has to be centered.
Still the world doesn’t revolve around the USA
Still the world doesn’t revolve around the USA
Read
January 11, 2025比預期的好讀很多，即使對美國法律制度一無所知也無礙閱讀，感謝譯者的文筆，但看到舉報還是感到遺憾。喜歡作者在書末說的，女性主義者的首要之務是成為一個有愛的人。
Read
October 11, 2025yesss read this too
January 17, 2022
Having watched the politics and prose interview with Nussbaum I have decided not to purchase the book - Nussbaum comes across like another out of touch academic who lives in her head. She seems more concerned with her image of being "above" the riff raff who have actual emotions than with empathizing with suffering human beings. The most offensive thing she said was that parents who've had a child murdered are often "obsessed" with the death penalty. She claims this reaction is "understandable" but "unhealthy". Who is she to say to that? Is she a trauma therapist? Is she a grief therapist? I am opposed to the Death Penalty but I would never make such a cruel judgmental statement about grieving parents who lost their child in such a brutal and traumatic way. Her hubris and arrogance is insane. Nussbaum also opposes victim impact statements, claiming that such statements, however factual, have no place in the criminal justice system. This cold snobbish woman dismisses real human suffering while claiming to stand for "love". She even quotes Dr. King, as if he would dismiss the impact statements of victims of racism. She came across as cold, arrogant, and out of touch with human suffering. What a smug ass.
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews