Thought I'd post this since many seemed offended by Levitt's original post:
"For those of you who were offended by the post, the goal wasn’t to dehumanize anyone, but rather to a) show how not all economic analysis you read is correct, and b) get people thinking."
I'm a regular reader of both Freakonomics and Feministing, and personally I fall into the camp that does not believe Levitt's original post was derogatory: it was merely stating examples of a rare economic phenomenon. I can, however, appreciate the fact that many considered the little "contest" to be tacky.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Levitt explains prostitute/rice comparison.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11104
People's ability to be offended often reflects either a complete lack of education or just a little bit of education.
I encounter and have encountered people taking offense at very innocuous statements because a word that is used in a specific discipline may be used that has a connotation which is negative outside of that discipline.
Part of the reason I seldom bother trying to pad my statements any longer is that I've come to believe it's useless and that no matter how careful you are some well-intended twit will decide to take offense. The result is that I come off as slightly more offensive in my general statements but I'm also not frustrated after spending what I had felt was wasted time in trying to avoid offense in the first place.
If you're selling sex then sex is a commodity, the only people who de-humanize women or men for an act of prostitution are those who take offense at the act itself. To state otherwise is the same as stating that the cost of labor being linked or comparable to the cost of fuel is de-humanizing.
I actually enjoyed Levitt's article. I was not offended and actually found it to be intelligent example of myth busting. Having read the man's writing, I find him to be intelligent in general. Having said that, the contest was a bit tasteless.
I actually found several of the comments posted on this site to be offensive to economists. Also, I question the need to call Levitt names like "asshole" and to insinuate that he would not treat a sex worker with respect if he were to personally meet one with no proof troubles me.
Me sleepy... having trouble with grammar and punctuation.
Uh, no. Levitt asked what do prostitutes and rice have in common, and then called them both products/services. Prostitutes are not products or services. They're people. They provide a service, but they aren't the service, and they aren't products. While it wasn't Levitt's goal to dehumanize anyone, that's what he did. If anyone is bothered by people who believe people who have sex for money deserve to be respected and not compared to food, then maybe this isn't the site for you.
Maybe sites dealing with abstract economic concepts aren't the sites for some folks either.
That is true, but we're not talking about an abstract economic concept. We're talking about dehumanizing language.
Levitt used his words incorrectly. He should have said prostition rather than prostitutes, to refer to the trade rathe than the people who practice it.
But I really don't see how you can read from this that he is denying that "people who have sex for money deserve to be respected".
His language is potentially dehumanizing and disrespectful but that doesn't mean that's how he is using it. He may well be quite respectful of sex workers and all other women, but has not been educated in the importance of semantics.
Of course this means that he should be educated on the importance of word usage and how it effects people, as soon as possible. But to assume that a lack of specific-enough language means a corresponding dismissal of basic human respect is, well, not very respectful.
So how about we respond to him as "Hey, you seem to be otherwise pretty intelligent, but the way you phrased that really insults people in the sex trade. Here's a better way you could phrase that idea without hurting anyone"
...rather than calling him a sexist asshole, which we have no other evidence for?
Did you read what Levitt actually said? It doesn't seem like you did. Otherwise, you would know what I'm talking about. What he said, in my opinion, was disrespectful to sex workers. It doesn't matter if he meant to sound disrespectful. His words being "potentially" disrespectful means that some can find his words disrespectful. Just because some other people might not find his words disrespectful doesn't mean they must not be.
I don't feel bad about thinking of this man as a sexist asshole after he said something sexist, which makes him an asshole, and then gives an apology that doesn't really address the people he offended. All he did was try to explain himself further, talk about how creative the participants in the contest were, and then announce the winners of the contest! If he really thought he had disrespected sex workers, and if he really did have any respect for sex workers, he would have apologized to everyone who was offended, he would have expressed that he believes sex workers need to be respected and not compared to food, and he would have concluded that it would be disrespectful to post any of the sexist responses to his stupid contest. But he didn't do any of those things. He tried to make us believe that his words were reasonable and that comparing prostitutes to food is okay, which it isn't.
How many times does someone have to say something sexist before we're allowed to call that person a sexist asshole? You seem to think there's a magical number.
I've always thought of Levitt as a feminist, actually. I'm not sure if he'd call himself one but I'll never forget his research linking decreasing crime rate and legalization of abortion in the US. After you get past his somewhat shocking proposition, his conclusion was (and I semi-quote) when you give women control over their bodies, they'll make the best choices for themselves and, by extension, society at large will benefit.
Doesn't sound like he doesn't respect women to me.
On the other hand, there aren't a lot of people (even academics) who have had their consciousness raised about treating sex workers with respect. I've met women's studies profs who used dehumanizing language to talk about sex workers, so I'm not surprised that an economist might not be as enlightened as we'd like. I tammiamibutcher - it's far better to point out his poor terminology than to jump on calling him an asshole.