Nearly five decades of intense feminism and we get:
Harvey Weinstein.
After nearly five decades of intense feminist consciousness
raising about sexual harassment and we discover that, if anything, the problem
has gotten worse.
Feminists happily revolutionized the culture. They threw out
dating and courtship rituals. They rejected the role of housewife. They refused
to play along with the sexual division of labor. They discarded feminine
modesty and asserted their independence and autonomy.
Feminists declared that strong, empowered women did not need
to be protected by men. They did not need to receive overt gestures
that signified relative weakness. They threw out the rules and accepted
only one kind of protection: a condom.
Women have learned to lean in against men, to fight against
the patriarchy, to rebel against white male privilege. How did it happen that the war on men has not made things any better. Are relationships better? Have marriages
improved? Do men and women get along any better now than they did in the past?
If you read through the anguished accounts of sexual
harassment and sexual assault, you will conclude that men and women are now in
a state of semi-permanent conflict.
You’ve come a long way, baby!
In the absence of rules and customs for male/female
interaction, men and women sometimes go bump in
the night but their sex lives often resemble an alcohol fueled free-for-all.
The notion of having sex with someone you know seems to have been discarded with the rest of patriarchal customs.
Naturally, feminists think that feminism will solve all of
these problems. But, perhaps feminism is the problem, perhaps the feminist
attacks on men are producing a hostile environment.
The therapy
culture thrills to the fact that so many women have now overcome their sense of
shame and have come forth to denounce male sexual predators. But, haven’t we
been fighting against shame for decades now. Don’t we all believe that we
should just let it all hang out? What if the absence of a sense of shame has
produced the problem, not solved it. Not to be excessively vulgar, but the men
who are harassing and assaulting and exposing themselves to unwilling women
have also overcome their sense of shame. Is anything more shameless than whipping it out in front of an unwilling woman?
And besides, feminists want women to enlist in the feminist
cause. They want every incident of apparent harassment and impropriety to be
treated as a crime. They do not understand that women might have good reason not
to come forth. They do not understand that the moral issue is ambiguous at
least, because women also know that, in coming forth, they will be inviting
people to imagine them in undignified postures. In some cases the sacrifice is
worth making. In other cases women think long and hard before they want to
engage in such a public display. The world would be a better place if we
accepted that women are free to come forth or not.
Author Vanessa Grigoriadis offers her views of the problem of sexual assault on college campuses. Naturally, she believes that the problem can be
solved by instituting a police state through Obama administration policies that
allow colleges to deprive those accused of assault of due process of law. She does not understand that this level of unchecked empowerment will produce a hostile response.
Grigoriadis was unhappy when the Trump administration
suspended the requirement:
But in
September, pundits across the political spectrum approved when the Education
Department rolled back some Obama-era rules that had broadened
protections for college sexual assault victims, ostensibly because they robbed
accused students of their right to due process in campus courts. Obama’s rules
were already pro
forma at some colleges before his 2011 federal guidance, so I believe
the backlash isn’t truly about government policy, but discomfort about the
change in how students approach the problem of sexual assault today.
Note the word “ostensibly.” Many law professors and lawyers rejected the policy because it did deprive the accused of the right to
confront his accuser, the right to cross examine, the right to be judged by a
jury of his peers in a court of law, the right to an attorney.
Of course, Grigoriadis cheers the women who have overcome
their shame and have told their stories:
It
reflects a much more positive trend: Like today’s actresses, college students
are casting off the shame of victimhood to tell their stories.
Does anyone dare say that we live in a culture that reeks of
shamelessness, of exhibitionist behaviors where women where enticing and
alluring outfits, where they send pictures of their genitals to boys and men, where
far too many women participate in hookups with random men and where we spend an
inordinate amount of time discussing sexual matters.
She continues that women are becoming more comfortable
asserting their bodily autonomy. She does not understand that being autonomous
means being unprotected, thus more vulnerable. And yet, where has Grigoriadis
been: the insistence that women have bodily autonomy has been accepted dogma
for decades now:
Young
women are becoming more comfortable with asserting their bodily autonomy. Their
growing refusal to submit to nonconsensual encounters should count as progress.
How this plays out on campus is different from the Weinstein effect in key
ways, but the point is, students have been at the forefront of what it means to
be more outspoken about misconduct. They also offer us a preview of where the
country might be going next.
True progress would be: having sex with someone you know. True progress would be a return to dating and courtship. The better you know the person the less likely you are to miscommunicate.
Since America has been flooded with conversations about sex
for decades now, one is surprised that Grigoriadis thinks that it’s a good
thing to talk more about sex. In fact, flooding the culture with explicit
descriptions of sexual harassment puts ideas in peoples’ minds. It’s not as
though we have not tried. We recall the Anita Hill testimony about Clarence
Thomas. We recall the endless discussion of Bill Clinton and the cigar and the
semen stained dress. Did these tamp down the incidence of sexual harassment in
the workplace? By all accounts the enhanced consciousness made things worse:
In the
meantime, we should be reassured that there is very much a positive side to
this cultural upheaval: Kids in college are starting to talk about sex in a
more personal and open way than ever before, and not just as a matter of
politics but as a matter of pleasure. They’ve learned, as one female student
put it, that “sex is about me too. I’m supposed to be enjoying this. It’s not
all about you.”
The "Obvious" is "Banal"? Well, someone has a sense of humor.
ReplyDeleteWrong place, see above.
ReplyDeleteStuart: Are relationships better? Have marriages improved? Do men and women get along any better now than they did in the past?
ReplyDeleteThe divorce rate has dropped at least, if you're looking for a counter-indicator of your fears.
http://time.com/4575495/divorce-rate-nearly-40-year-low
If we're going to measure progress based on the end of all abuses of power, that perfectionism will always look like failure. Progress to me looks like men admitting their own bad behavior when called out, and it looks like we're getting closer.
But if the solution is to silence women, and keep them out of the public sphere, killing feminism definitely is the way to go.
It's certainly PART of the problem. How much, I know not.
ReplyDeleteThe problem. While female chauvinism addressed real, perceived, and created male chauvinism, it has meant a progressive setback for male-female relationships, human rights (e.g. abortion rites that deny human lives), women's agency (e.g. placing conception before choice), and due process (implying presumption of innocence and equality before the law). With social progress, civilized society has taken one step forward and two steps backward.
ReplyDeleteThat said, we should instead acknowledge that men and women are equal and complementary, and proceed to recognize and act upon a conservation of principles (e.g. individual dignity, intrinsic value, equality before the law), not succumb to the ideological pursuit of progress (i.e. monotonic change).