Angelo Codevilla has a unique perspective on the current
rash of sexual harassment accusations. Having worked for years on the Senate
staff he was well place to witness the trade… in sex for power. And he points
out that this trade took place because many female staffers found powerful men
to be attractive. In some cases they happily offered to trade their intimacy
for power.
Under the circumstances any man who tried to force an unwilling
woman to do his bidding was, by definition, a loser. Or, has to be as unattractive as Harvey Weinstein.
In the current frenzy this perspective is often elided. So,
here’s Codevilla:
During
my eight years on the Senate staff, sex was a currency for renting rungs on
ladders to power. Uninvolved and with a hygroscopic shoulder, I listened to
accounts of the trade, in which some one-third of senators, male senior staff,
and corresponding numbers of females seemed to be involved. I write “trade,”
because not once did I hear of anyone forcing his attention. Given what seemed
an endless supply of the willing, anyone who might feel compelled to do that
would have been a loser otherwise unfit for survival in that demanding
environment.
Senior
female staffers were far more open than secretaries in describing their
conquests of places up the ladder, especially of senators. There was some
reticence only in talking about “relationships” with such as John Tower
(R-Texas) and Max Baucus (D-Mont.) because they were the easiest, and had so
many. The prize, of course, was Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.)—rooster over a veritable
hen house that was, almost literally, a “chick magnet.” Access to power, or
status, or the appearance thereof was on one side, sex on the other. Innocence
was the one quality entirely absent on all sides….
In the
basic bargain, the female proposes. The power holder has the prerogative to say
“no,” or just to do nothing. By a lesser token, wealthy men need not offer cash
to have female attention showered on them. Money is silver currency. Power is
gold. A few, occasionally, get impatient and grab. But taking egregious
behavior as the norm of the relationship between power and sex willfully
disregards reality. Banish the grabbing, and the fundamental reality remains
unchanged.
Its a useful perspective to remember, and probably as a warning to anyone who enters the arena of power. And male stupidity can explain a lot, selling their integrity far too cheaply. And outside of the feedlot of ambition, we know women spies are not picked just for their intelligence. As best I can tell asexual Ralph Nader was the only almost-insider who resisted and said "no" when the car companies tried to lure him in some compromising photos.
ReplyDeleteIn contrast this opinion piece completely ignores the power-sex connection, except to see men take advantage of it, but offers some good advice at the end.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/25/opinion/sunday/harassment-men-libido-masculinity.html
----
let’s start with a basic understanding that masculinity is a subject worth thinking about. That alone would be an immense step forward. If you want to be a civilized man, you have to consider what you are. Pretending to be something else, some fiction you would prefer to be, cannot help. It is not morality but culture — accepting our monstrosity, reckoning with it — that can save us. If anything can.
----