The last year of #metoo frenzy essentially created a zero tolerance atmosphere, where single allegations are enough to kill someone’s professional career, and even the tiniest things are taken out of proportion. I mean it is not unexpected; there AREsexual predators, especially in closed, affluent communities like Hollywood and the political establishment (although not as many as you would think), but it also fits into the culture of offence that is very much the staple of the so-called progressive movement lately. I say so-called because it is –as most things directed by social media, and the outrage machine of the mainstream media designed to generate clicks- it has been taken over by the fringe, and taken to the extreme.
It’s also interesting that everyone in the media, politics makes it out as a male vs female issue… any bouncer, bartender or even female stripper could tell you that women can be just as horrible as men when it comes to everyday acts of sexual misconduct-and in case of women they actually get away with it. I’m not drawing a false equivalencies –men do commit more of these offenses. But it’s not as black and white as The Guardian –and a lot of my friends on facebook- would like to believe. As with everything, the picture is not as simplistic as presented.
This is similar to the (related) issue of domestic violence. It's not so simple as the nasty men victimising women. Yes, women are overwhelmingly suffer from it, but, as study after study has found, women are actually quite likely to commit it as well –and male victimshave nowhere to turn to (or get blamed). The perpetrator usually don't get as much hate from the media, either. It does not mean we should somehow equate the two things; obviously a 60 kg woman needs more protection from a 80kg man than vica versa (although makeshift weapons, such as knives are readily available…), but the present narrative which depicts it as a simple gender issue of men beating women is not only wrong, it is dangerous. It denies a huge portion of the victims any sort of justice (or protection), it can easily lead to men on women violence down the line (when the man finally snaps), and it ferments a very unhealthy us-vs-them atmosphere which is not conducive to adult conversations about difficult issues. And these conversations we do need to have –but these will not bring in clicks, so the media makes sure we won’t be having them. (Dan Carlin talked about it a lot by the way.) It will lead to simmering resentment, but it’s fine; Trump’s victory had nothing to do with sneering at blue collar white people, after all. (What I’m trying to say here is that looking down and stigmatizing entire portions of the population –especially if they are a HUGE voting block- might not be a smart move even if it’s convenient. It might sound better since you don’t pick on a minority group, and hence you can do it easily because nobody will care about political correctness. On a long term you probably better off with picking on minorities to be honest.)
The other issue is that a certain type of feminists see this as a zero-sum game: they cannot allow male victims to be acknowledged because it would somehow mean the female victims will not get attention, or it would somehow invalidate their suffering. (Ironically domestic violence is the most problematic in lesbian relationships, but these victims are also ignored as they don’t fit into the agenda of “men beating women”.) Or, alternatively, these people simply are vengeful and petty, and engage in a gender war they feel they are winning. Unfortunately this is a war that will have no winners as their (future) sons will attest to that. Weirdly enough some people see the point.
So here we are at the end of 2017, with a mob of social justice warriors jumping on every allegation, happy to condemn anyone, tar and feather these filthy men (and it’s always men), suggest castration, when suddenly they find that the monster they helped to create devours one of their own, who is quite possibly one of the better people of the corrupt establishment we call the “two party system”.
What is their reaction? It’s actually quite hilarious and sad at the same time. My friends on facebook are desperately trying to white-wash Franken. (Personally, I think, ifit’s still about that stupid posed photo of him appearing to grab someone’s boobs, it’s a non-issue. But apparently not for “progressives”.) They engage in furious whataboutery ("but those pesky Republicans are worse"), they come up with theories of paid trolls accusing him of misconduct... So essentially the progressives are suddenly engaging in victim-blaming, shifting blame and doubt on the poor, violated women – which is incredibly ironic if you think about it.
Allegations of rape were enough to make people’s lives hell; but now we entered the era when a simple misguided act can have the same result; the storm is getting stronger and stronger feeding on the manufactured outrage and the more and more outrageous offshoots of identity politics. Mensplainingis quite common, too, when these social justice warriors write about men –although it’s not clear how you call it when a woman does it. Perhaps, just perhaps the term is sexist and stupid because it seems like both genders can be condescending gits.
Allegations of rape were enough to make people’s lives hell; but now we entered the era when a simple misguided act can have the same result; the storm is getting stronger and stronger feeding on the manufactured outrage and the more and more outrageous offshoots of identity politics. Mensplainingis quite common, too, when these social justice warriors write about men –although it’s not clear how you call it when a woman does it. Perhaps, just perhaps the term is sexist and stupid because it seems like both genders can be condescending gits.
And so it goes. Instead of self-reflecting, and realizing the mistake –what mistake, the sin- of engaging in this stupid identity politics, and seeing how this whole issue was blown out of proportion, everyone keeps the machine going. Politicians declare that domestic violence is gender based violence (although they did put in an acknowledgement that men can be victims, too), focusing on solely on one side of the issue. Self-righteous articles are published about how men need to feel bad, and how the Democrats have themoral high ground now that Franken resigned. (Do we still remember Hillary, Bernie and the whole primaries? High ground indeed.) Fists are shaken. Wagons are circled. And the show continues. (Apparently murder, war crimes –but only if you’re not a Western politician-, and grabbing someone’s ass have no statute of limitations. And one of these things don’t need to be proven, either.) It is really sad and hilarious at the same time watching these “progressives” do the same things they accused “rape apologists” to do. Not to mention if you dare to step out of the line, they will tear at you even more than at their "enemies". Tribalism at its finest. Progressive? No. Human nature? Sure thing. But it is still hypocritical as fuck.
I think a lot of this would need a much more delicate handling and a bit more perspective. Obviously creeps like Weinstein who force themselves onto others cannot be tolerated. Casual grabbing of body parts are also something that needs to be stopped- but I do feel it should be between the two parties, and only if one can’t stop himself (or herself) should formal processes be triggered. But how do you treat a young actress (or actor) as a victim who fucks their way to success? Is she or he really a victim, even if the act was voluntary? Where is the line between coercion and seduction? Are we really want to create an atmosphere where everyone needs to be on the watch 24/7 not to do –or say- something that might insult someone? Are we really such delicate snowflakes to create an oppressive culture to protect ourselves from it without recognizing that there is a continuum between bigotry and offhand humorous comments, and that the same can be said about relationships? Is it really about power? If we can’t let people with very different power do whatever they want in their bedrooms, where do we draw the line? Boss/subaltern… OK I can see why it is dubious. But even this is not as clear-cut as you would like to be. What else? From now on we won’t let higher earning dudes dating poor women/men? Are we going to apply the same standards to women as well? Do we need a certificate from the government about our earnings which would enable us to choose people in the same band?
More importantly: why do we solely focus on misuse of power when it sexual in nature? Power is abused if you have it, and -it will shock many feminist justice warriors out there- women abuse their power just the same as men do. They also make improper remarks when their situation allows; just ask any male nurse or primary school teacher. So why do we focus on sex only? This is not a sex issue; it’s a power issue. Is Mariah Carey so much better because she verbally abuses her white bodyguards, and makes frankly racist remarks, just because she does not force them to sleep with her? Or is it acceptable because she is female, and not white? Would a white guy get away with this? Or a white woman?
These questions are quite important and pressing.
Too bad nobody will bother.
There are several things wrong with this article.
