It is clear to me now, given Tania Modleski's misreadings of my essay, that my initial presentation of the unintended but, in my view, dangerous and foreseeable effects of the new turn in sexual harassment policies was far too condensed. While the unpacking I offer here may not satisfy Modleski, I yet hope that I may at least provide a clearer picture of why the expansion of sexual harassment policies to cover consensual sexual relations and to empower third-party sexual harassment claims is a remedy that may effect more harm it cures.

Modleski chastises me (and Jane Gallop) for "making it possible for the norm to remain the norm" (p. 594). She makes abundantly clear what this norm I am charged with refortifying is: male superior, female subordinate. How have I done this? According to Modleski, by "condemning policies prohibiting teacher-student sex" (p. 594). She seems to be arguing that we--that is, feminists--need these policies in order to prevent or, if we cannot prevent, offer remedies for truly awful situations such as the ones she describes. A female student mistakes her male professor's sexual overtures for romantic interest; she thus consents to terms that do not apply. Ultimately, he escapes with a private reprimand; the student, unable to face her former professor, drops out of school. An employee is subject to retaliatory measures from her supervisor after she breaks off a consensual sexual relationship; she seeks redress in the courts, but her complaint is dismissed.

Now, I agree with Modleski that such situations are tragic, all too common, and beg remedy. I also agree that feminists ought rightly to be concerned about such cases. What's more, I hardly think that feminists seeking to prevent abuses like the ones she describes are "victim feminists" (p. 593). This is Modleski's addition to my argument, not mine. That said, Modleski and I do likely differ, perhaps profoundly, as to the question of remedy.