MOS's post about Zephyr Teachout's attempt to set standards and guidelines for handling accusations of sexual misconduct has morphed into the Alabama jubilee, what the Democrats may be capable of and the burdens we lay on students.
I'd like to see us get back to monkey business because there are a few questions we are far from exhausting. Ms. Teachout has a hold on something that should bother all of us in what is fueling up indignation that supports something that is more like a witch hunt (wizard hunt?) than a sensible approach to a touchy and long-ignored issue. What has now become designated as sexual misconduct covers a range from inappropriate brushing to rape; encompasses victims who were under age, under the abuser's authority or should have been more careful, and abusers who planned their attacks or drank their way into the attack or thought they had a green light or just don't care.
Additionally it encompasses abusers who run their own business, who work for someone else and who work for the amorphous government. All the variations on those possibilities are pertinent because it is up to someone to police a safe workplace or suffer for neglecting that duty.
And I think it is safe to say the courts have not caught up with current understanding of the issue.
And once we have the categories straight, we should be able to mix and match them to get better than one-size-fits-all solutions. I, for instance, worry about a guy who came on too strongly once, has spent years regretting it and has never found a way and the guts to apologize. Instead of appearing in the newspaper going on leave for unspecified but credible accusations, I'd like to see a way for he and his victim to patch it up. The victim might have laughed it off, or she might have been hurt and feeling the pain for years. In the latter case, she needs the healing that might come from encounter way more than she needs revenge.
I dunno. But I think it is a lot more complicated than Sen. Gillibrand makes it.
I'd be curious to know what Zephyr Teachout thinks of Betsy DeVos's rolling back of the Obama Administration's standards for adjudicating campus rape accusations. Teachout's call for due process seems to be of a piece with DeVos's recommendations.
ReplyDeleteThere have been formal policies and awareness (supported by mandatory training) in corporate workplaces about sexual harassment, for a number of years - my recollection is that they were spurred originally by the Clarence Thomas hearings, which were quite a few years ago. The companies I've worked for are formally on top of the issue. And over the years, I've personally seen a couple of cases in which the policies have been enforced: a perpetrator fired, with the police literally waiting outside the door to arrest him.
I guess where I'm going with this, at least as it pertains to the workplace, is that policies already are in place, and I've seen instances in which it's actually enforced. What seems to be new is that, for whatever reasons, women were reticent to speak up before, whereas now they're finding it within themselves to call the creeps out. Whatever social or psychological barriers prevented them previously, seem to have come down now.
(I am sorry if I am coming across flippantly about those barriers. I am sure they are real and I have nothing but sympathy for women who have been subjected to harassment and abuse in the workplace.)
Have DeVos's regs been put in place? They may not be the answer, but the Obama rules were not perfect either. As I read some of these cases (in the newspaper only), it looked like they were putting pressure on colleges and universities to take claims of harassment, assault, etc. more seriously than they had been. In the few cases I saw, the outcomes still left big questions of due process.
DeleteShe said/he said among college students seemed to involve drinking (excessive sometimes), consensual sex gone wrong, mismatched sexual practice preferences (how else can I put it?). And then, there were the professors!
Unless a university permanently hires investigators and lawyers to handle these matters--or has them on staff, it's hard to see how they can adjudicate claims and counter-claims.
Calling the police may seem extreme in some instances (s/he touched my butt [which would get you arrested on the subway]), and seem a step too far for the students themselves. Once charged and found guilty, a lifetime sentence of sexual predator may follow.
If companies and corporations have figured this out (I would bet for white-collar employees only), I don't see why universities can't do the same, but clearly they have not.
I think the reason some find this complicated is because they don't understand what it's like for most women. In almost every encounter with a man, at work or not, they are weaker, smaller, and often at a power disadvantage. They have to take possible threats seriously because they probably won't be able to stop someone who doesn't ant to stop. To help men understand ... imagine yourself as a new prison inmate.
ReplyDeleteMargaret Atwood once wrote "Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them".
Stop please stop making women look like scared little bunny rabbits, Crystal.
DeleteIndecent behavior with young girls is wrong, and we need to support them.
But a grown woman who has a pair of vocal chords and bus fare to the nearest legal aid or ACLU office has the responsibility to say something right away.
Taylor Swift, God bless her, didn't dither when she hauled that radio host into court and nailed him. The trial clarified what happened, the severity of the crime, and appropriate penalties.
Men are counting on embarrassment and silence to get away with this.
There has to be some sort of due process. How many black men were lynched based on the lies of a white woman? Otherwise, it eventually becomes weaponized like accusations of child abuse have become in divorce proceedings.
ReplyDeleteThere is due process. There are laws. But in most of the cases in the press, men are not being charged with crimes and going to court and suffering legal penalties. They are either voluntarily quitting their jobs or being fired. Let's not compare this to lynching.
ReplyDeleteInsofar as lies can harm innocent people, I WILL compare it. I've seen it happen. At close range.
ReplyDeleteHere is Terry Crews talking about being a black man experiencing sexual assault. I think he exemplifies the shock someone feels after this experience as well as the appropriate response. https://www.npr.org/2017/12/10/569682236/terry-crews-on-his-sexual-assault-lawsuit-this-is-about-accountability
ReplyDeleteTaylor Swift is a powerful rich celebrity who was standing up to a nobody radio announcer.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, Domestic Violence: Nearly Three U.S. Women Killed Every Day by Intimate Partners
You don't have to be rich to file a police report.
ReplyDeleteIt also costs nothing to say, "Geez, would you want someone feeling up your daughter like that?" Or "Does your family know what a creep you are?"
That often has a quelling effect. So does a can of mace.
To imply that we can't say anything because men might kill us is ridiculous.
You seem to believe that all women have the power to stand up to those who prey on them. That is not true.
ReplyDeleteI am not trying to blame women here.
DeleteBut I see sexual harassment as a symptom of a larger labor problem. Workers are terrified of losing their jobs, and the demise of unions and "right to work" laws give management the upper hand. Women put up with too much when many if them should be kicking butt and taking names.
Nothing changes if you don't say something. In the two unionization efforts I was involved with, women were far more willing to sign union cards. Pay inequities and sexual harassment were on their list of complaints.
Not everyone has a union. Some people's jobs are so low pay that they can be fired for making any waves, like waitresses who need to get along to get tips. And then there are the undocumented workers who are afraid of being deported.
ReplyDeleteHere was a segment from the PBS NewdHour about sexual harassment in low wage jobs.
Crystal, the problem is that hardly anyone has a union. And that's one of the problems with the Democrats over the last 25 years. They turned their backs on the unions. And "they" includes the Clintons.
ReplyDeleteSo, Crystal, what's the answer to the sexual harassment problem? If it's not speaking up or calling the cops or unionizing, what?
ReplyDeleteWe seem to have no common ground here.
I hear women in the radio blabbering on about how we must believe women and "start conversations." The "conversation" started decades ago. Men didn't listen.
I think women deserve more concrete solutions to the problem such that they can't be accused of trying to "get even" with some creep years after the fact or disbelieved because the political timing is suspicious.
So instead of showing me why women don't speak up or why they feel powerless, tell me what to do.
Yes, I think there should be laws against harassment and the laws that already exist should be enforced. Women should speak up and a better climate for speaking up should be created by workplaces and women's groups.
ReplyDeleteWhat's happening now is a good thing. Forever men have been taking advantage of women and other men they had power over. This wave of accusations is like a wake-up call to perps, law enforcement, and other women and I think it's necessary to flip the attitude that has been so pervasive up until now.
But some people seem to be saying that this is an over-reaction, that women always had the choice to speak up, that men are being "lynched" to quote Stanley. I think this is wrong, and the fact that all this harassment has been going on all this time without being addressed is the proof of that.
I tend to believe all the allegations at this point. But then it becomes a reflex public reaction and then becomes weaponized as did child abuse allegations. As a divorce weapon, a woman has only to claim child sexual abuse and the wheels of Injustice start turning, sometimes to the tune of tens of thousands of taxpayers money for nothing, not to mention what it does to the child(ren). As I've said, I've seen it.
DeleteThe Latest Twist: "Female House candidate withdraws over sexual harassment claim." The Great Wheel Turns.
ReplyDeleteShe says: “In its rush to claim the high ground in our roiling national conversation about harassment, the Democratic Party has implemented a zero tolerance standard,” Ramsey said in a statement Friday. “For me, that means a vindictive, terminated employee’s false allegations are enough for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) to decide not to support our promising campaign. We are in a national moment where rough justice stands in place of careful analysis, nuance and due process.”
http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article189932394.html#storylink=cpy
Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article189932394.html#storylink=cpy
Maybe there is a technological solution to some of this problem.
ReplyDeleteOne of the advertisements on the web is for the SafeSoundPersonalAlarm, which emits an ear piercing 125 db sound.
No need to get the courage to scream; just press the bottom.
Image Matt Lauer pressing his secret button, the door beginning to close, followed by an ear piercing sound! The woman could have the option of saying after she has been rescued that she just "accidentally" pushed the button.
Might give women a lot of options in many situations. Maybe in some office situations, displaying one of these attached to one's iPhone might be all the deterrence needed.
My last word in this topic: Salma Hayek wrote about Weinstein in the NYT. She shows clearly how sexual harassment is snarled up with pay inequities and, in her case, artistic interference. Hayek is hardly a shrinking violet, but she underscores how many concessions she had to make and underscores the need for women to speak up ... and lawyer up. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/13/opinion/contributors/salma-hayek-harvey-weinstein.html
ReplyDelete