FEAR AND LOATHING IN THE POST-WEINSTEIN ERA

I’ve been staying on the sidelines of the post-Weinstein #MeToo #BelieveWomen phenomenon, partly to observe its development and partly because I felt it was a conversation that didn’t really need my input – the objective seems to be more about women letting each other know they're not alone than letting guys know that the problem is more prevalent than they may be aware of.

So it seemed better to listen and hear than to respond – apart maybe from saying “I hear you and I believe you”. Which I do, if only because I have a number of female friends who confided in me ages ago of their own experience with sexual harassment, assault or full on rape. Plenty of other friends who hadn’t said anything to me before acknowledged it via #MeToo – and I wasn’t surprised at the percentage. In fact, I’m assuming that those who didn’t post the hashtag may be qualified to do so but declined to participate.

Now of course we’ve seen the list of men “doing a Weinstein” grow exponentially.

But in the broader context of #MeToo there’s an angle here I’ve been pondering – the notion of “innocent until proven guilty”.

This is what I think Oliver Stone was trying to get at (albeit not very coherently, it has to be said) with his Weinstein comments. I’ve heard this one pretty much since sexual harassment became a thing you could lose yr job for. To summarize:

If a man can be deemed guilty of sexual impropriety by the general public based on mere hearsay, then does that not defeat the purpose and ideal of an impartial justice system? If we jump to conclusions and don’t give the man a chance to defend himself (in public or in court), is that justice? And what would prevent a woman from exploiting that for spurious and whimsical revenge (otherwise known as the “but what if she’s lying” meme)? If a woman steps forward with an accusation, is it automatically safe to assume the accused is guilty and should be fired or jailed based simply on the accusation? And what happens if we apply that standard to all crime?

I’ve been thinking about this a lot in the past few weeks, because I myself have been critical of interwub lynch mobs who hear a story about someone allegedly committing some heinous crime, or saying something offensive, and declare the person guilty as charged and engage in digital campaigns to ruin their lives, often well out of proportion to whatever the alleged crime might be (and that they may not actually be guilty of). I’ve also felt that there’s a danger in punishing someone for transgressions based on someone’s say-so. (I’m not saying this necessarily applies in the current batch of cases – I’m talking about general principle here.) Also, let’s admit that Twitter mob justice is a serious problem, especially now that we know that something like half of the people on Twitter and Facebook are Russian trollbots. Etc.

But.

BUT.

The problem with the impartial-justice meme as applied to sexual harassment/assault and rape cases is that such cases are extremely difficult to prosecute. Heck, it’s difficult just to get charges filed or to get anyone to take yr accusations seriously, especially if the accused is an Important Person or a local sports hero, etc.

I totally get the need for an impartial justice system. But that system isn’t really capable of dishing out justice for crimes for which there is little evidence and for which a legally viable defense is “the victim shouldn’t have put herself in that position”.

In which case, perhaps we need to seriously rethink how such cases are handled. Because as society at large seems to be learning now, there are millions and millions of women who have to put up with this crap every single day, and they have had very little effective recourse – remember that most such cases aren’t even reported because The System tells women they’re wasting their time and the pain of even trying won’t be worth the emotional toll. And that’s if they win.

Post-Weinstein, more women are pushing back against that system, knowing that if nothing else they will finally be believed. I can’t say I blame them.

Obviously it’s possible to take this extrajudicial approach too far – perhaps even to Duterte/Dirty Harry levels – and that would be wrong. I’m just saying that it’s unrealistic and unfair to argue that we should let the justice system handle it “fairly” when the justice system has repeatedly proven incapable of doing so.

It also demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding on the part of men (even the nice ones) of the nature and severity of the crime in question. Most of us understand that rape and sexual assault are wrong, of course – what we miss is the emotional and psychological impact of these crimes, both in terms of the act itself and the social structures that empower the accused.

Serious advice: if you haven’t already, listen to the stories the #MeToo women are telling. I mean, really listen. Imagine being in that position and knowing how powerless you are to do anything about it. Imagine how that would feel. Imagine having to deal with it every day of yr adult life.

Look, it’s a complex problem with no easy answers. I certainly don’t have any. All I know is that the status quo has failed miserably, and #MeToo represents a rejection of it. Yes, rule of law and due process is important, but when they consistently fail to deliver justice, it’s hard to say to the victims, “Look, too bad sister, but we’re trying to run a democracy here.”

Anyway, I don’t know that this is the start of some major revolution to overthrow the patriarchy (as some people have suggested/wished). It’s always possible the news cycle will simply move on like it always does and most people will move along with it.

If nothing else, hopefuly #MeToo and the current wave of public naming and shaming will make men more fully aware of the problem and their role in either helping to fix the problem or at least stop being a part of the problem, which may at least result in fewer cases to report.

Think of it this way: If the result is that men have to stop looking at women as potential sexual conquests and actually have to try and view them as real human beings worthy of the same respect you give to other guys before you start advancing to something more sexually based, is that really such a bad thing?

Still, fat chance of that, given how deeply rooted institutional sexism is in various realms of life. Apart from the more toxic examples on the web (GamerGate, dudebros, men’s rights activists, etc), there are also all the guys who will ask the usual defensive questions: “But what if she’s lying?” “What if I didn’t know I was being a harasser?” “How am I supposed to have a sex life now?”

I’ll direct you to John Scalzi for that imaginary conversation because this is tl;dr enough as it is.

Having said all that, I do think we need to have a serious conversation about this – at the local, national and international level. It’s great that more women are stepping up and being believed, but we should be looking at the implications of how such cases are handled – ideally in a way that results in serious judicial reform, although I realize that would take decades.

There also needs to be a sense of proportion. I’m not convinced that a one-size-fits-all model should be applied – i.e. one transgression and you lose yr job forever, the end. There’s a difference between making boob jokes in the office and telling an employee, “Sleep with me or yr career is over,” for example. There’s also a difference between someone who does it once and someone who does it repeatedly.

I think this tweet sums it up nicely:

"Believe women" does not mean "abandon skepticism and rationality." It means "account for your bias against women." It means "trust, but verify" as opposed to "doubt, minimize, humiliate."

— Kate Harding (@KateHarding) November 13, 2017

I’m a believer,

This is dF