Four weeks ago, I wrote a post about the frenzy of accusations of sexual misconduct that followed disturbing revelations about movie producer Harvey Weinstein. Already, allegations were swirling about men in politics, entertainment and professions engaging in various degrees of improper behavior, ranging from unwelcome comments to extortion to violent rape.
A month into this new era, the accusations show no sign of stopping, and the esteem in which some men have been held for decades has collapsed. Matt Lauer of NBC's "Today" show is the latest incident. Initially, the sudden firing of Lauer based on one woman's accusation seemed lacking in due process. But when details emerged of Lauer's offensive behavior and his use of his own celebrity and power to demand sex from subordinates, a sudden firing was clearly years too late and too little punishment.
I never watched the "Today" show (I don't turn the TV on in the morning) and knew nothing about Lauer, but the next accused offender was a hero of mine — Garrison Keillor. I began listening to "Prairie Home Companion" in the mid-1980s and was quickly enchanted by the imaginary town where "all the women are strong, all the men are good looking and all the children are above average." Keillor, who has written poetry and novels and is a well-known advocate for literature, presented a world as tangible as Narnia or Middle Earth. It was a world as wholesome as Mayberry and just a little funnier with characters who lived through failings and small triumphs — real characters.
The accusation against Keillor, at least as so far has been revealed, is that he placed his hand on the bare back of a female colleague beneath her shirt. He has said that he was seeking to comfort her and that his hand inadvertently touched her bare back. He said he apologized at the time and the two remained friends. But he is not appealing his firing by Minnesota Public Radio and the end of his "Writer's Almanac" daily feature. If that is all there is to this matter, perhaps a firing is too hasty. There is no equivalence between what Keillor described and the accusations against Lauer, and as these accusations pop up non-stop, the public and employers should be willing to distinguish between extorting sexual favors or physically attacking a woman and an inadvertent, unwelcome touch. The former should be punished by firing and, if possible, criminal charges. The latter may be offensive but is not criminal and should not be punishable by firing without warning or even a thorough investigation.
Showing posts with label sexual assault. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sexual assault. Show all posts
Thursday, November 30, 2017
Thursday, November 2, 2017
Weinsteiin and other males
Who's next? Since Harvey Weinstein was outed as a despicable sexual harasser, extortionist, rapist, groper, exhibitionist and other indecent things, there has been no stopping the names added to this disturbing list of men who abused women and the list of women who were threatened, offended or violated. The latest list is of men who harassed, groped or violated other men or boys.
Where will it all end? Whoever knew anything about Harvey Weinstein before all this? People you would never categorize as offensive or boorish are apologizing for past actions. The top guy at NPR News has resigned over inappropriate conversations with women. Dustin Hoffman apologized for an incident 20-some years ago. Former President George H.W. Bush has apologized for patting women's derrieres a long time ago.
Almost as striking as these admissions is the lack of any apologies or admissions from Bill Clinton and Donald Trump — men against whom plenty of evidence exists of their misbehavior.
All of these revelations come as college campuses cope with changing mores and expectations in male-female relationships. Campus rape has become a cause that has caught the attention of the U.S. Department of Education. Under the Obama administration, the department ordered colleges to take action against sexual offenders (usually male) and to base consequences on "trials" that deny due process by limiting the burden of proof, denying the accused access to legal counsel and the right to cross-examine their accusers. Some colleges created strict rules regarding consent to sexual contact, extending even to written permission to engage in Act A or Act B. A Trump administration review of the Obama administration rules has sparked a firestorm of complaints and worries about "rape culture."
What can we conclude from all this? Has society suddenly become more libidinous? Have males suddenly become more sexually aggressive? This seems unlikely, even though the ubiquitous access to online pornography certainly must be having some impact on social mores and perceptions of acceptable behavior.
Maybe society should admit that men are naturally boorish, aggressive, hedonist and eager to take advantage of any opening they might find. In past generations, social mores and economic rules kept these male tendencies under control (at least somewhat). Women were expected to be prim and proper and to not enjoy sex. Marital sex (the only kind allowed) was a woman's obligation, not a recreational pleasure. Only men took pleasure from such acts, and they had no obligation of providing pleasure to their mates. Women were protected by rules about dating, which was always with a chaperone or a group that would harshly judge intimacy.
As society has relaxed its rules on male-female behavior and as women have gained equality in education and work settings (they constitute a majority of college students), the natural male tendencies face fewer barriers. Men have more private encounters with women, and some men — apparently a great many — take advantage of these opportunities.
Society is not going back to the Victorian era, so if men truly are boorish and aggressive, other ways must be incorporated to protect women. The first step must be for women to protect themselves by avoiding risky situations and by speaking out against any sexual discrimination, assaults or misbehavior (touching or offensive language). Most of the Weinstein accusers kept quiet for years, even decades, allowing him to continue his extortions. We must also distinguish between misbehavior, which is unacceptable and punishable by loss of job or social status or other consequences, and rape, which is a criminal offense with harsh penalties. If we can agree that all these acts are offensive and that the most egregious of them should be criminally punished, we can go a long way toward limiting misbehavior and the vulnerability of women.
Modern society will never again see women as fragile and helpless, not when they are leaders and managers and admired role models. The Victorian era's responses to sexual crimes — rape was punishable by execution or justifiable homicide, and consensual sex might be followed by forced marriage — are not coming back. A modern balance to the "battle of the sexes" will look realistically at both males' natural aggressiveness and females' independence and capabilities. That aggressiveness must be curtailed, and women's capabilities should be honored and encouraged.
Where will it all end? Whoever knew anything about Harvey Weinstein before all this? People you would never categorize as offensive or boorish are apologizing for past actions. The top guy at NPR News has resigned over inappropriate conversations with women. Dustin Hoffman apologized for an incident 20-some years ago. Former President George H.W. Bush has apologized for patting women's derrieres a long time ago.
Almost as striking as these admissions is the lack of any apologies or admissions from Bill Clinton and Donald Trump — men against whom plenty of evidence exists of their misbehavior.
All of these revelations come as college campuses cope with changing mores and expectations in male-female relationships. Campus rape has become a cause that has caught the attention of the U.S. Department of Education. Under the Obama administration, the department ordered colleges to take action against sexual offenders (usually male) and to base consequences on "trials" that deny due process by limiting the burden of proof, denying the accused access to legal counsel and the right to cross-examine their accusers. Some colleges created strict rules regarding consent to sexual contact, extending even to written permission to engage in Act A or Act B. A Trump administration review of the Obama administration rules has sparked a firestorm of complaints and worries about "rape culture."
What can we conclude from all this? Has society suddenly become more libidinous? Have males suddenly become more sexually aggressive? This seems unlikely, even though the ubiquitous access to online pornography certainly must be having some impact on social mores and perceptions of acceptable behavior.
Maybe society should admit that men are naturally boorish, aggressive, hedonist and eager to take advantage of any opening they might find. In past generations, social mores and economic rules kept these male tendencies under control (at least somewhat). Women were expected to be prim and proper and to not enjoy sex. Marital sex (the only kind allowed) was a woman's obligation, not a recreational pleasure. Only men took pleasure from such acts, and they had no obligation of providing pleasure to their mates. Women were protected by rules about dating, which was always with a chaperone or a group that would harshly judge intimacy.
As society has relaxed its rules on male-female behavior and as women have gained equality in education and work settings (they constitute a majority of college students), the natural male tendencies face fewer barriers. Men have more private encounters with women, and some men — apparently a great many — take advantage of these opportunities.
Society is not going back to the Victorian era, so if men truly are boorish and aggressive, other ways must be incorporated to protect women. The first step must be for women to protect themselves by avoiding risky situations and by speaking out against any sexual discrimination, assaults or misbehavior (touching or offensive language). Most of the Weinstein accusers kept quiet for years, even decades, allowing him to continue his extortions. We must also distinguish between misbehavior, which is unacceptable and punishable by loss of job or social status or other consequences, and rape, which is a criminal offense with harsh penalties. If we can agree that all these acts are offensive and that the most egregious of them should be criminally punished, we can go a long way toward limiting misbehavior and the vulnerability of women.
Modern society will never again see women as fragile and helpless, not when they are leaders and managers and admired role models. The Victorian era's responses to sexual crimes — rape was punishable by execution or justifiable homicide, and consensual sex might be followed by forced marriage — are not coming back. A modern balance to the "battle of the sexes" will look realistically at both males' natural aggressiveness and females' independence and capabilities. That aggressiveness must be curtailed, and women's capabilities should be honored and encouraged.
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
College sexual assault echoes earlier scandals
The explosive expose about a ghastly gang rape in a University of Virginia fraternity house, as reported by Rolling Stone magazine, has some holes in it. Rolling Stone has issued an apology for failing to ask the right questions and interview all involved — practices that are fundamental to good journalism.
Whether "Jackie" suffered a horrific assault by a gang of fraternity brothers, as the magazine reported, has now been called into question. Some of the details of the allegation, as reported, do not appear to be substantiated by facts. Even some of "Jackie's" supporters have some doubts about the veracity of her tale.
So why would a major national magazine be so slipshod in its reporting on such a volatile and potentially defamatory allegation? Rolling Stone seems to have been allured by the notion that any allegation of sexual assault must be true. After all, any woman willing to tell about such a humiliating assault must be telling the truth! So why do the basic reporting of corroborating allegations, allowing persons accused of crimes or misbehavior to respond to charges, and checking details provided by an accuser?
One can only conclude that sexual assault on campus has become the 21st century version of the child sexual abuse crimes of the 1980s and 1990s. For about a decade, police and prosecutors accepted as divine truth the claims that preschool children were being sexually abused by day-care workers and other care-givers. Police added specialists trained to ferret out the sublimated memories of horrible abuse. Many were very successful in coaxing tales of abuse from children who were properly prompted to tell outlandish stories.
Adults jumped aboard this freight train of good intentions and demanded that investigators "Believe the Children," in the words of an often-used picket sign. They demanded that the courts accept the children's stories as true, even if the stories included mutilations, murder, magical animals, secret rooms (which could never be found) and trips on space ships. Nearly the entire staff of the Little Rascals day care in Edenton, N.C. were indicted, and two were convicted in the frenzy to protect children from sexual predators disguised as day care workers, cooks and clerks. In the end, all of the day-care sexual predator convictions were discredited, although the ruined lives could not be restored to the innocent accused.
Claims of how many women are raped on college campuses have taken on the sacrosanct aura of the "Believe the Children" demonstrations. Colleges and advocates for women's safety have created a dilemma. They want to stop sexual assault, but they don't want to turn the allegations over to professional law enforcement, and they don't want assault allegations to be judged in the harsh light of a criminal court. When any boorish or offensive behavior can be labeled sexual assault, the numbers of incidents are astounding, especially among young males and females at the peak of their sexual interest and with easy access to excessive alcohol stimulation.
Sexual assault is a crime that should be prosecuted in criminal courts, not in student-led "honor court" without legal standing, constitutional protections or the authority to impose the kind of punishment sexual assault warrants. At worst, a student court might sentence an offender to expulsion from school. Big deal. There are other schools and other women. Conviction in a criminal court, however, carries more serious consequences — a long prison term and a lifetime label as a sex criminal.
Keeping sexual assault bottled up in student courts diminishes the seriousness of the crime. Today's students will not remember that 50 years ago, conviction of rape could be punished by execution in many states, including North Carolina. Would the victim's advocates now demanding greater regulation of sexual contacts on college campuses be willing to have student courts sentence a collegiate offender to death?
Deciding that in the relationships between men and women on college campuses, there is only one side to the story, as Rolling Stone apparently did, does not advance women's safety or an honest assessment of the seriousness of sexual assault.
Whether "Jackie" suffered a horrific assault by a gang of fraternity brothers, as the magazine reported, has now been called into question. Some of the details of the allegation, as reported, do not appear to be substantiated by facts. Even some of "Jackie's" supporters have some doubts about the veracity of her tale.
So why would a major national magazine be so slipshod in its reporting on such a volatile and potentially defamatory allegation? Rolling Stone seems to have been allured by the notion that any allegation of sexual assault must be true. After all, any woman willing to tell about such a humiliating assault must be telling the truth! So why do the basic reporting of corroborating allegations, allowing persons accused of crimes or misbehavior to respond to charges, and checking details provided by an accuser?
One can only conclude that sexual assault on campus has become the 21st century version of the child sexual abuse crimes of the 1980s and 1990s. For about a decade, police and prosecutors accepted as divine truth the claims that preschool children were being sexually abused by day-care workers and other care-givers. Police added specialists trained to ferret out the sublimated memories of horrible abuse. Many were very successful in coaxing tales of abuse from children who were properly prompted to tell outlandish stories.
Adults jumped aboard this freight train of good intentions and demanded that investigators "Believe the Children," in the words of an often-used picket sign. They demanded that the courts accept the children's stories as true, even if the stories included mutilations, murder, magical animals, secret rooms (which could never be found) and trips on space ships. Nearly the entire staff of the Little Rascals day care in Edenton, N.C. were indicted, and two were convicted in the frenzy to protect children from sexual predators disguised as day care workers, cooks and clerks. In the end, all of the day-care sexual predator convictions were discredited, although the ruined lives could not be restored to the innocent accused.
Claims of how many women are raped on college campuses have taken on the sacrosanct aura of the "Believe the Children" demonstrations. Colleges and advocates for women's safety have created a dilemma. They want to stop sexual assault, but they don't want to turn the allegations over to professional law enforcement, and they don't want assault allegations to be judged in the harsh light of a criminal court. When any boorish or offensive behavior can be labeled sexual assault, the numbers of incidents are astounding, especially among young males and females at the peak of their sexual interest and with easy access to excessive alcohol stimulation.
Sexual assault is a crime that should be prosecuted in criminal courts, not in student-led "honor court" without legal standing, constitutional protections or the authority to impose the kind of punishment sexual assault warrants. At worst, a student court might sentence an offender to expulsion from school. Big deal. There are other schools and other women. Conviction in a criminal court, however, carries more serious consequences — a long prison term and a lifetime label as a sex criminal.
Keeping sexual assault bottled up in student courts diminishes the seriousness of the crime. Today's students will not remember that 50 years ago, conviction of rape could be punished by execution in many states, including North Carolina. Would the victim's advocates now demanding greater regulation of sexual contacts on college campuses be willing to have student courts sentence a collegiate offender to death?
Deciding that in the relationships between men and women on college campuses, there is only one side to the story, as Rolling Stone apparently did, does not advance women's safety or an honest assessment of the seriousness of sexual assault.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
