{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019101123595505618, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.97986577181208, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Sexual Politics of Sneakers

A recent debate between Nike and its critics was published in Organization & Environment. The debate included an introduction in which it was claimed that the debaters reached four points of common ground. Agreement on the four points is imputed regarding human rights improvements at Nike’s subcontract facilities. The author suggests that this common-ground approach is problematic in several ways. First, some agreement stories are open to alternative interpretations. Second, the privileging of a few areas of agreement is accomplished at the expense of much larger areas of disagreement. Third, all the topic areas on both sides of the debate are in dire need of more research to verify the opinions of the debaters. Finally, the author concludes that there is an absent referent spoken about but missing from the debate—namely, the workers themselves.