Racism and Redefining the Rules

Every statement you don’t like is not necessarily racist, and calling any person a racist who says or does something you don’t like solves nothing.

Donald Trump uses the name “Pocahontas” when referring to Elizabeth Warren.  While some might for some reason find that insensitive or stupid, it is not racist.  Racist is defined as: “showing or feeling discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or believing that a particular race is superior to another.”  While some would like to assume and proclaim that these are Mr. Trump’s personal beliefs, they need better proof than this reference to support their assertions.

Referring to Ms. Warren as “Pocahontas” in no way suggests discrimination against people of other races since Ms. Warren, despite her attempts to claim otherwise, is Caucasian.  Calling this racist is something that some choose to read into the use of the name simply because of their dislike of the one using it.  It is certainly not racist to call someone who claimed a false heritage for personal gain a name associated with the race which she claimed.  Indeed, her defense of her claim – that her grandfather had “high cheekbones” – is probably more racist (in the same way that characterizing Asians by the shape of their eyes is seen as racist). 

Now, many of Trump’s pet names for opponents may seem juvenile to some, even while they are often a shorthand way of pointing out a key flaw that is in some way relevant.   Used on the campaign trail they certainly are an effective sound-bite in an environment in which everyone, including the media, wants a short and pungent representation to capture a point, rather than any sort of in-depth discussion of an issue.

Sometimes these pet names anger those who would rather overlook the flaw that they point out.  To respond by calling the one using the name a bully or racist cheapens the real meaning of those labels.  Racism does exist.  Calling someone who falsely claimed herself to be a Native American “Pocahontas” is not racism.  To call it so is to redefine racism in a way that makes the terms racist and racism almost meaningless.  That is, terms with significant and legal consequence are redefined as simply a way to hurl insults at someone you don’t like or to deflect your being caught in some wrong-doing, not unlike the name-calling that happens on a first-grade playground.   (Perhaps we should remember the schoolyard chant: “sticks and stone will break my bones, but names will never hurt me.”)  First graders are still learning about civility, and how to discuss and deal with disagreements.  We expect grown ups to have matured. 

We also expect adults to have reached the intellectual level and mentality beyond the purely emotionally reactive – a level where they can distinguish a person from his or her views.  Many people do not like President Trump the man, finding him un-refined in a sort of nouveau riche sort of way, or have other reasons for disliking the man.  That does not mean that he is a racist.  It does not mean that every one of his policies or positions is in some way racist.  Even if he were a racist, it does not necessarily follow that the policies of his administration are all racist.  Neither does the fact that his policies are not yours make those policies racist.   And, it does not make every one of his supporters or supporters of his policies a racist. 

We could ignore all this if things like the response to his using “Pocahontas” was an isolated incident.  But it is not.  Many on the left – those still unable to accept that someone who does not hold their views was elected as president – would redefine much in this world simply to achieve their own desires.   So, they redefine what is racist in order to spew condemnation at their president.  They redefine “free speech” as speech with which they agree; they redefine “due process” to mean that simply being accused is sufficient “process” to find one guilty;  they would have lawmakers place the needs and wants of non-citizens and illegal immigrants above the needs of the citizens whom those lawmakers are elected to represent and whose needs it is those lawmakers’ duty to address;  they encourage a special prosecutor to well exceed the scope and limits of his authority; they redefine most any acceptable behavior as only that which furthers their own cause.   This is very dangerous indeed.

Rules are becoming meaningless.  There is a name for a society without clear rules:  it is called an anarchy and is defined as: “a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority” as well as “absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded [by some] as a political ideal.”  I would argue that those who see this as an ideal are those who have not matured past the first-grade playground and its emotionally driven and self-centered need for immediate gratification, without measured consideration or contemplation, and without civility or respect for others.

Instead of redefining or eliminating rules, instead of acting like immature children, we need to learn to slow down and think.  The first grader reacts to what he or she doesn’t like by name calling.  But the adult finds a better way to consider and correct the problem.  Calling Elizabeth Warren “Pocahontas” may make some people uncomfortable, perhaps primarily because it immediately points out her fraudulent claims.  The way to deal with that discomfort is not to scream racist, but to confront the underlying facts that gave rise to the name.  The way to address policies with which one disagrees is not to call those who support those policies racist, but to advocate for changes in the policies, explaining their shortcomings and working with their supporters to reach a mature and better compromise.  The way to make a better world is not to do away with rules, but to respect them and, when logic requires, improve them. 

Me Too Does Not Empower You

A recent survey shows that one third of young people believe it is usually sexual harassment when a man other than one’s partner compliments a woman’s clothing.  So then, was it sexual harassment when my male coworker complimented my new hairstyle?  I certainly didn’t think so at the time, but in today’s environment I would seemingly be justified in coming forward and saying, “me too.”  Did it matter that the coworker was gay?  We don’t need to spend time on that, because I also had a male heterosexual coworker compliment my new outfit: clearly, in today’s climate, a “me too” offense.   One fourth of these same young people surveyed believe it is always harassment when a man invites a woman for a drink.  If we were to put a stop to this sort of behavior it might mean that about half of my friends who are happily married would never have gotten to know the person who ultimately became their spouse.

A female friend was in Starbucks earlier today, in line behind an elderly man.  The barista was having trouble figuring out how to put honey into the man’s tea, so the order was taking a while.  The man turned to my friend to apologize for how long his order was taking and they struck up a friendly conversation.  That is, until my friend was overtaken by the hysteria of the times and wondered if this could be interpreted as harassment, should she continue, and if she did was she bringing it on, and might the kindly gentleman be seen by someone as harassing my friend and then be accused?  So, my friend (who was enjoying the simple social interaction and was in no way offended) broke off the conversation, leaving the man to wonder what he had done to offend her (and indeed, he had done nothing).  Thus, sadly and badly ended a simple and kind interaction between two people.

Is this really where we want to go?  Will a smile and a hello on the street to a passing stranger soon be condemned?

Is this the new face of feminism? Or is there something else going on?

Feminism in the past has been an ideology manifested in social and political movements whose goal is to achieve political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.

MeToo does none of that.

What MeToo does is create victims.  It has become fashionable to be able to post “me too” on social media, especially when the alleged perpetrator of the “me too” act is a public figure.  Creating a class of victims is a way of un-empowering those placed in that class (see this blog’s posting dated 11/12/17).   One who claims, “me too” is labeled and enters the MeToo victimhood.  And the remedy given to this class of victims is nothing more than to scream “me too” and perhaps be used by others for their own political or power gain.   That is not a real remedy and it does not provide real power.  It does nothing to achieve equality. 

What would better give these alleged victims power would be to teach them what is and what is not harassment and how to respond to actual harassment or assault, both in the moment and after the fact.  It would be better to teach the real remedies for real harassment and how to pursue those remedies, for that provides a far better resolution than some 15 seconds of fame for screaming “me too.”

MeToo takes responsibility away from women, and in so doing gives them a false sense of power.  Yes, saying “me too” seems to provide a power to silence every type of male-female interaction which a particular woman might dislike, and it may seem to provide some sort of revenge against an individual against whom one has a grievance.  This is a momentary gratification, a momentary power.  In the end, it usually fades leaving one not with a real remedy but only with a question: “is that all there is?”

In conflating all affronts into the very same category, MeToo makes true harassment claims meaningless, thus demeaning and cheapening the real hurt and injury suffered by women who were truly harassed, assaulted, or raped.  In seeming to provide a resolution, it provides none while taking away real resolution from those women who deserve and do seek it. 

MeToo teaches that the way one resolves any affront is to run to the press to present a grievance rather than the proper authorities or other appropriate body to have it resolved and in so doing it makes the court of public opinion superior to the court of law.  By elevating a cry of “me too” to some sort of justice, we are negating the need to teach women about harassment, assault, and the legal remedies to which a woman afflicted by such acts is entitled.  There becomes no need for a woman to learn about normally interacting with a male, how to deflect unpleasant words, how to say “no” when she needs to, because all she has to do is let whatever happens happen and then, if bothered, say “me too.” 

There are some instances where the woman truly has no control, but there are many others where women do or could have some modicum of control or even those in which they either knowingly or unwittingly encouraged or consented to the complained of behavior. Women need to be taught that they have the right to decide what behavior is acceptable to them individually and then taught how to counter behavior that they have determined that for them individually is not OK. But MeToo encourages women to avoid making decisions, or to deflect any guilt for decisions they later regret by simply blaming another.   This is not the type of empowerment that the feminists have typically sought.  It is the sort of thing that powerless victims do.  While it does provide some power – to destroy others without due process, to seek revenge for real or perceived affronts, to perhaps give one a way to justify some behavior of their own of which they are now ashamed – it does nothing to give women the means to assert their individuality and equality and find the justice in the world that the women’s movement once sought.

The “me too” hysteria, while not empowering women, does reflect something very dangerous in our society today.  We have become a society in which we are carried by the sensational and hysterical emotion of the day.  Today it is the harassment claims that demand an end to all normal male-female conversation or interaction.  Before that it was Russia (and Russia is still with us, ready to become the hysteria du jour again when the harassment hysteria runs its course).  Before Russia it was white cops killing blacks, after every mass shooting it is gun control.   We get all worked up over the sensation of the day.  We vent.  But we do nothing.  The hysteria prevents real dialogue between differing groups or viewpoints.   We don’t really think deeply about the problem or what its causes are or how to rectify it.  That takes time and effort.  Instead, we move on to the next trending topic.

In the meantime, each hysteria gives rise to another group of victims.  Today it is the MeToo women.  Tomorrow it may be the MeToo accused.  Every group of victims reacts with anger and perhaps hatred towards those they perceived to have victimized them  (e.g. victims of gun violence against gun owners, people of color against white,  poor against wealthy, women against men).   This group vs. group is useful to and often encouraged by those seeking to use the victims and their group identity to further their own power.  It is not, however, useful to the victims themselves. 

And, this hysteria gives a false power along with fear of being able to destroy someone on your word, or the word of public opinion alone.  Democracy does not issue convictions on someone's word alone.  While the lure of media entertainment and hysteria existed before the Trump presidency (indeed, we can see it even in the Salem witch trials of the 1600s), it has become all encompassing since President Trump took office and his opponents and haters have sought one sensation after another as a way of de-legitimizing his presidency, removing his supporters from office, with an ultimate goal of removing him.  Now we are seeing “me too” resulting in politicians, entertainers, journalists, and others being removed from office or their careers ruined based only on someone’s word and the surrounding societal frenzy of the moment.  This court of public opinion is using its victims to remove and destroy all not in favor of the public outcry of the day.  Today it is any man accused of a “me too” violation.  Tomorrow….?

Finally, teaching to distrust if not dislike or even hate men  (about half of our population) is not healthy nor is it rational biologically (though perhaps it is a way to further destroy the deteriorating family structure, but that is a subject for another post). People need to be able to trust those unlike and with differing views than their own so that they can have an open and honest dialogue and begin to understand one another.  With understanding of differing viewpoints, desires, values, and needs comes true steps towards equality.  Teaching distrust and hate does nothing but interfere with the tools necessary to equality as well as our democracy.

So, how to empower the “me too” women?  Teach them about our democracy and how it works.  Educate them about their rights.  Believe that they can think for themselves and expect them to do so.  Allow them not to be victims or tools that support the latest media sensation, not tools of a political agenda, but real people entitled to real justice provided by our democracy, its laws and their enforcement in our courts of law.  Help them to stand up for their real rights and demand that they perform the duties necessary to those rights.  Teach that dialogue and understanding are powerful tools.  And help them to understand the difference between a simple societal pleasantry, even if delivered awkwardly or creepily, and real harassment for which they have real remedies beyond the 15 seconds of “me too” fame. 

Remembering Lady Justice

This morning on ABC’s This Week, George Stephanopoulos took what seemed like forever repeatedly asking a White House spokesman whether President Trump believed the Roy Moore accusers.  I kept thinking to myself “what difference does it make what the President’s judgment is on this?”   But then, the round table discussion on this and other Sunday morning news shows all seemed to be in agreement that the president must take a stand on whether the women are telling the truth.  With that stand is an implied judgment of the guilt or innocence of the accused.  And they all sound like school children, demanding that everyone take sides.

Since when was it the president’s job to judge such disputes or to take a stand on every allegation of wrong claimed by one person against another?  I realize that President Obama made a practice of it in his rush to judgment in cases when a minority claimed to be aggrieved.  For example, he found the shooter of Treyvon Martin guilty, and similarly called out the police officer who responded to a burglary call and arrested a Black man he saw breaking into a residence.  In most cases the rush to judgment has proven incorrect.  There was no guilty verdict against Martin’s shooter.  The police officer was fairly doing his job when he arrested the apparent intruder and the charges were dropped when it was shown that the accused was breaking into his own home.  There have been many similar incidents and incorrect emotional judgments made without benefit of the facts.  And, when it comes to sexual allegations, we seem all too eager to rush to judgment without full facts (consider the college rape allegation/sensation published in Rolling Stone in 2014, that later proved false but not before ruining the lives of several young men.)

Such rush to judgment is harmful by anyone, but it certainly isn’t the president’s job to act as jury in these types of disputes.  Neither is it the job of the press to try and judge every case that raises public interest and emotion, yet that is what we seem to have these days:  public outcry replacing deliberate and reasoned justice.  And now, we demand the president also rush to judgment or be condemned for not doing so.

Today this is in the context of sexual assault allegations, but it could involve whatever is the current fancy of the public.  Let me just suggest a hypothetical to demonstrate the ridiculousness as well as the danger in demanding a rush to judgment.  Suppose a woman states that her boss entered her office and in discussing something she was working on that was displayed on her computer screen he came around to her side of the desk and leaning over her left shoulder towards the computer screen he placed his right hand on her right shoulder.  She complains, telling her story, perhaps tearfully, and believably.  The question is:  Is she telling the truth?;  and, the implication is that if so, then she was a victim of sexual harassment. 

Now let’s consider just some of the many possible scenarios and contexts for this incident that additional facts might provide, none of which attack her credibility in the statement that the man put his hand on her shoulder, but many of which provide very different interpretations of the event:  Perhaps she asked him to come around to look at the computer, had asked him to do so on previous occasions, and knew that when he did so he usually leaned his hand on her shoulder; perhaps they had previously dated and, following a break up she tells of this event; perhaps she is angry at her boss for not giving her a raise or a promotion, and a complaint about this act is a way of getting back at him or of excusing her own failure to move up the corporate ladder; perhaps he was fully focused on the information on the computer and simply needed a place to rest his hand and steady himself as he leaned forward to read the information more clearly; perhaps the event happened years ago and the actual memory is no longer clear, but over the years the woman has thought that maybe he placed his hand on her shoulder and her memory of it happening that way has become more and more certain over the years until that version has become the absolute truth in her mind; perhaps she is making the whole thing up, but has convinced herself that the incident did in fact occur; perhaps she thought nothing of it when it happened, but in today’s “me too” climate has now come to the conclusion that this was after all an act of harassment; and, perhaps the man’s whole intention was indeed to harass the woman, maybe even continue to slide his hand  forward until he could grab her breast, but she was able to stop him before he did so. 

Now, in each of the above scenarios the woman is telling the truth when she says the man placed his hand on her shoulder.  But, while some of the additional contexts might support his guilt of some level of harassment, all do not.  Yet, the current climate is that the woman asserts the act, society demands we believe her, and that we also therefore find the man guilty of harassment.  And those who will not outright affirm their belief in her statement will also be condemned for supporting the (as yet unproven) heinous acts of the accused. Then we simply move on.  And, if perhaps, the man is ultimately acquitted, we nonetheless continue to believe in his guilt while finding the woman has failed to receive justice and perhaps finding a systemic failure against women in the same way that when a police officer is acquitted for taking complained of action against a minority he is still often hounded as if guilty and there are often claims of systemic injustice against that particular minority group.  While this all may be very entertaining to some, and may provide some level of gratification to actual victims, it is not justice in any way whatsoever.

In America we have a strong and principled justice system.  It is not perfect and we can all find anecdotal evidence of times that justice has failed.  But, by and large it is a good system and more often than not it prevents injustices.  In the above hypothetical, in a court of law in which both sides present their evidence and all the relevant facts come to light, there would probably be a far fairer verdict than simply finding guilt based on the initial complaint alone.  There would likely be evidence of the hand being placed on the shoulder, supporting the woman’s allegation as truthful.   But additional facts would then determine whether or not this act, in its particular circumstances, constituted harassment and if so, to what remedy the woman was entitled.  That is justice.  It may not be as exciting or entertaining as rushing to judgment in the media, but it is far more fair and far less dangerous.

The symbol of justice wears a blindfold and holds a balance scale.  She is not swayed by media and public emotion, but instead weighs all the facts and evidence fairly.  The sword in her other hand, held lower than the scales, signifies that the evidence must come before any punishment, but when it does come that punishment will be both swift and final.   She does not support lynch mobs, but rather looks to the fair and reasoned deliberation of a jury.  She seeks truth and fairness, not immediate and emotional gratification.  And, when punishment is required, her goal is not to provide revenge, but to finds a way to appropriately recompense victims of wrongdoing in a way that allows them to move forward with their lives. 

Today, while there is focus on women, we seem to have forgotten the wisdom of Lady Justice.  We do not need rush to judgment about every allegation, nor do we need a rush to judgement about whether the president or anyone else believes the complainant is telling the truth.  What we do need is education about where one should take their complaints (to the courts, not social media and the courtroom of public or political opinion).  Ignoring the wisdom of our courts and our justice system is dangerous not only to individuals involved in disputes, but to our very democracy and way of life.   Everyone just needs to calm down, get over their need for immediate gratification and opinionating, and let Lady Justice do her job.

It’s All About Feeling Good

Taking cans out to the mailbox today to be picked up by the mail carrier for the local food bank, I kept thinking how foolish this is:  it would be much smarter, more efficient, and better for those in need, if instead of providing a few cans I and others were instead giving that cash to the food bank.  The few dollars spent by each of us for the few cans would go far further if the plain cash were combined and used by the food band to buy in bulk.  Mother Nature Network on 11/18/17 estimated that food banks pay about 10 cents a pound for the same food that costs shoppers about $2 per pound.  According to an NPR Talk of the Nation piece in 2011, for the same amount of money spent on buying cans for a food drive, donors can feed 20 times more families by providing cash as opposed to cans. That would create a far greater stock of food for those in need. 

So, why are we asked to donate cans and not money and why do we do it?  I think in large part because the tangible act of holding the cans and handing them over makes people feel good, like they are doing something.  It’s easy – maybe you have some old cans of beans in the back of the cupboard – pull them out, put them in the bag, and feel good as you get rid of them.  And look:  everyone can see your bag of cans by your mailbox – your neighbors will see you are doing good.  All public, positive, and immediate reinforcement – much more so than writing a check and mailing it off where no one sees your good deed and any benefits to you in the form of tax deductions will not be seen for months.   The bottom line is we donate the cans – to the mail carrier, to the bring a canned good to the ballpark day, to the school drive, etc. – because it makes us feel good.  Yes, it also benefits those in need, but this particular act of charity seems to be more focused on making the donor feel good than on providing for the recipients.

Nothing wrong with feeling good, unless it becomes the primary and driving force of all our actions.   And isn’t that exactly what seems to have happened in our society.  We do things because they make us feel good.  And part of that feeling good seems to be a sort of sophomoric popularity that goes along with defining the feel-good acts to be done.   Hence, we had those in the entertainment world doing more and more outrageous acts that felt good and in those circles made them more and more popular, until recently when the tables turned, and they have begun to be called out for their acts, acts which are no longer approved by the populace.  Now we have the “me too” crowd purging their hurt or hatred while being applauded for stating “me too.”  But, while this may make everyone feel good as they pat themselves and others on the backs for simply coming forward, just as giving a can is less effective than giving a dollar, saying “me too” or asserting a stand against all the accused is not really very effective beyond a momentary good feeling.

Looking at the “me too” movement, I see very little good in it.  And I ask myself what is it teaching our daughters, and our sons?  We  should be teaching that when people are aggrieved, rather than simply posting their grievance on some social platform,  they should take their grievance to a proper authority who must listen without judgment, assume that the aggrieved is not lying, will investigate further, and take appropriate action.  The aggrieved must also understand that they very likely will not get immediate gratification, but that in most cases in the end they will see justice.  And, we all should be taught that because each and every one of us perceives facts differently that all people involved in any incident need to be heard.  We also need to know that sometimes we absolutely believe something to be true, even though that does not match the factual reality.  That does not make a person a liar, but it also may mean that they will not get the particular relief for which they hoped.   And, when it comes to sexual harassment and assault, just as with most other wrongful behaviors, there are different forms and levels and all are not equal.  A lewd glance or remark is not the same as a momentary unwanted touch, and neither approach the level of actual rape. 

What “me too” teaches is that if you claim to have been a victim you will feel good.  Regardless of the severity of your harm, people will applaud you, giving you loving attention. You will be a welcomed member of the “me too” victimhood group.   You may feel good for calling out the one who affronted you in the way that revenge makes one feel good.  What does that teach?  Simply that victimhood and revenge are good.  It does not teach anything that might stop the cause of the victimhood.  And, it leaves out the important concept of justice.  Some may think that because the accused is immediately and publicly shamed that will stop others from behaving in the same way.  I doubt that.  Capital punishment has not yet stopped the sorts of heinous crimes for which it is a punishment.  And, to continue the analogy, innocent people are sometimes put to death, just as I suspect that public conviction upon a mere assertion of “me too” will result is some innocent people being wrongfully shamed.

But, back to feeling good.  There will be little permanence in a society that uses that as its guiding force, especially when it is defined by the values and mores of the day.  That is, feeling good as a response to external factors is a superficial way to find meaning in life.  And, as with anything superficial (that is, of the surface), it can easily be washed away.  If one chooses to be led by feeling good, let that feeling be guided by internal forces and values of goodness.  Yet, here is the problem:  as a society we seem to have lost those internal and constant values that used to guide us.  The superficial feeling has replaced those deeper internal beliefs. 

This need for and elevation of superficial gratification, especially gratification without difficulty and with public affirmation, would seem to lead to a selfish and often hateful populace.   A populace in which feelings eclipse all else:  facts, historic and religious values, respect for others, education, thinking, self-fulfillment, independence, justice. Let’s just look at a few of these.  Grade inflation makes students feel good as does passing a child forward whether they are competent in their grade level or not.  Tests, homework, hard work are not fun/do not make the students feel good, so we will dismiss them even if it means our students do not learn as much or do not learn to think deeply.   Facts can get in the way of feelings, so we will just ignore the facts we don’t like or alter them to our liking.  Hence we have competing “factual” accounts of most everything in the news – even whether the president properly fed the fish in Japan.  If one’s own feelings are most important, then they will outweigh feelings of others and this leads to disrespect for the others and their views.  Independence and the freedom to speak one’s views have become less important than conformance with the asserted group-think, and with that comes a government that is more and more intrusive into people's lives and hence their independence and ability to be who they are as individuals rather than a cog in the wheel of a power structure that may or may not have their best interests in mind.

Feeling good.  It can be momentarily pleasant, even helpful.  But it is far from the best guiding principle with which to lead one’s life or one’s country and society.

This Is Getting Ridiculous

Do you now or have you ever [been a member of the communist party] behaved inappropriately toward a woman?  The hysteria is incredible, and it really is getting ridiculous.  Today’s accused, to the delight of some and dismay of others, is Al Franken.

Let me first state that I am a woman and yes, I have been harassed in the past.  But, let me also declare that was the past and based on the circumstances of the time I chose to or not to make formal or informal complaints.  I certainly do not consider myself a victim today.  Let me also state that I am not particularly fond of Al Franken, as a legislator or in his previous role as a comedian.  But, like so many other of the delayed complaints, I find the complaints against him to be ridiculous at this time.

Let me also note that I am not making judgment about the acts complained of.  At the time of the acts that so many women are now complaining of against so many men, the acts may actually have been reprehensible and inexcusable and perhaps criminal.  But, perhaps they were not.  And that is not an attack upon the women now making the claims.  (It is frightening in itself that any words that might be seen as an questioning the “me too” victims are seen as attacks and quickly silenced.) 

The many allegations that newly surface every day are usually from many years ago.  To use the most recent Franken allegations, they are from around 10 years ago.  Now, if we take a single act alone and in a vacuum, it may have a very different character than when looked at in the context of its circumstances.  For example, if I told you I forcefully yanked a child’s arm you might think that bad, but if you learned that it was done to pull him out of the way of a speeding oncoming car you might think differently.  And, what if the child, now an adult, came out and complained that years ago I had hurt him by yanking his arm.  If I or others were not allowed to provide context, might not an injustice result?

Similarly, we cannot just absolutely accept every isolated act reported now as some form of punishable harassment.  To take Franken again:  there are some pretty ugly photos now surfacing of him grabbing women’s breasts. There are reports of his crude jokes in which he talks about assaulting women.  In isolation these acts or words are certainly offensive. But, Franken was a comedian at the time who used this form of comedy and this sort of comedy was generally found funny by many of his followers (indeed, you can still find this sort of infantile humor performed on a variety of comedy shows and by many comedians today).  Perhaps Franken would not use this humor today and perhaps the audience would not today find it so funny, but the alleged actions did not take place today; they took place at a time when that sort of humor was routinely accepted.  That does not make it right, but it also does not merit the horror and hysteria that is being voiced today.

One must wonder why suddenly so many come forward with age old stories of harassment.  Yes, the climate for reporting is different today, and hopefully that means that women who are harassed or assaulted today will come forward today with their complaints.  But such complaints are far different from suddenly finding one’s voice over something that one until now had been content to live with for years and which occurred at a different place in life, both societally and individually.

Are we going to search everyone’s life back to the day of puberty to see if they ever did anything that today we would find offensive? And are we going to judge yesteryear's acts by today's standards? Because that seems to be what we are doing.  That is really unfair because times and circumstances are different today than 10 or 20 or 30 or 40 or 50 years ago.  If something was acceptable at the time it occurred, is it really fair to find someone guilty years later when a particular act or behavior is no longer considered acceptable?

Time passage is important.  People’s memories change over time.  People may now perceive an interaction in a completely different light than they did at the time of its actual occurrence.  In most instances there are statutes of limitation for these types of complaints and there is a reason for those limits.  Similarly, courts and legislatures generally do not apply new laws and prohibitions retroactively. 

But, in the court of public opinion, media allegations, and politics there are no such limitations.  One only need to come forward with a decades old allegation, claim that they felt harassed, demeaned, or humiliated and the alleged harasser is immediately condemned.  Those who question the complainer are also condemned for not believing her or seen as condoning the types of acts complained of.  This is a real danger.  And, it is approaching some sort of mob rule.

We have a justice system that provides remedy for wrongs.  That system assumes someone is innocent until proven guilty.  It also assumes that those complaining are being truthful.  When the two sides disagree suggesting that one of the assumptions is incorrect, then the law provides a way of presenting relevant evidence in order to arrive at the truth of the matter.  When we not only allow but encourage people to come forward with allegations and then judge them in the media without a full hearing of all relevant evidence we are denigrating our justice system and by implication our way of law and government.

I am glad that women feel that they can come forward now and be believed about their reports of harassment, but I am not sure that it is really wise to encourage the rush to judgment about incidents that allegedly occurred long ago.  We are creating a class of victims in all the “me toos” but beyond that we are encouraging a belief that all one has to do is say “me too” and they will get vindication – without any actual proof, without the hearing of the other side of the story, without any due process at all for the accused. 

And, so, what then happens when someone does make up an allegation? What happens when allegations become nothing more than political tools, perhaps a way of removing an opponent?  And, what happens when the full facts and circumstances would suggest that the accuser was not wronged in the way she now believes or perceives? We will never know the answers to these questions, because we are not allowing for this sort of rational consideration of each allegation.

The most written about allegations on this particular day involve Roy Moore and Al Franken.  I don’t particularly like what I know about either man, but I also think that neither should be railroaded based only on allegations of incidents that occurred years ago. This is not fair to the men, nor is it fair to their accusers who have a right as well as a duty to have their allegations solidly proven. I am also disturbed by the way that both are being used for political gain by the men’s opponents.

I do not think that it is disrespectful to question an accuser, even one who is accusing someone of sexual crimes or harassment.  And I do not think that it is unreasonable to wonder whether the plethora of such allegations coming forward is not perhaps to some extend a sort of social media way of belonging.   And, I am skeptical that simply a mass of people coming forward because it is the thing to do right now is really a way of empowering women to come forward when the time is not so ripe for such allegations.

Women who are harassed should come forward with a timely complaint.  They should be believed and allowed to present their case against the accused.  The accused should be presumed innocent and allowed to present their view of the alleged events. Honest and reasonable questions about either’s story should not be viewed as attacks.  Judgment should occur without hysteria and only after a full and fair hearing of all the facts.  This, of course, is easier when the facts are not decades old, forgotten, or altered by faded memories.

I began this post by changing the words of the McCarthy hysteria to the words of today’s sexual harassment hysteria.  The hunt for Communists was not good then, and the hunt for harassers is not good now.  The hysteria is out of control and mob mentality along with media “trials” and rush to judgment, while perhaps cathartic for some, are not healthy for our democracy.

Victimhood, Group-think, and Identity Politics: “MeToo” for Everyone

I have been thinking a lot about victimhood lately.  I have come to believe that we in large part encourage and have indeed become a society of victims.  This victim mentality seems to have merged with identity politics and together they seem to be pushing us to a place of superficial group-think that is a danger to our democracy.  Let me explain:

A victim is someone who is harmed or injured as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action.  We have all been victims of something at some time in our lives.  There are many ways that one can deal with victimhood.  One can ignore the harm or injury completely – hard to do if it is much more than a stubbed toe.  One can seek an appropriate remedy for the injury – legal recourse, medical treatment, perhaps just an apology – and then move forward.  Or, one can bemoan one’s hard luck for a day, a week, or perhaps even a lifetime.   It is when one chooses to assume that permanent label of victim that they begin to demand attention beyond that which the actual injury merits. 

There are individuals who relish their victimhood; perhaps they emphasize or even exacerbate it simply as a way to get attention and special treatment (we will leave it for the psychiatrists to determine what was lacking in their childhood or their psyche that gave them this need for attention).  I suspect that these individuals are not very happy; I know that they can disrupt as well as make demands on the happiness of those with whom they interact.   But, what happens when we have a whole group, if not a whole society, filled with victims?

Identity politics seems to have co-opted the victim mentality.  Every group has its grievance and that grievance, they believe, gives them a permanent victim status with rights of special treatment for past wrongs. This does not mean that the original harm or injury was not real or that an identifiable group did not suffer some particular harm.  But, what groups seem to do is to choose not to seek redress and then move forward, but instead to assume the permanent label of victim seeking continuing and ever-more redress.   All those within any particular group are required to buy into the victim hood of the group or be cast out from that group identity.  Thus, we have blacks or gays or women who choose not to proclaim permanent victimhood being condemned by their respective black or LGBT or feminist groups. 

This group-think is important to the politics of identity, as is the inherent victimhood.  If one wants to use a particular class of people to one’s own advantage, one way to do so is to make those people unite in dependence on you and in opposition to some enemy.  This is a classic technique of community organization:  rile a particular community up against a caricatured evil enemy, make the community a victim of the oppressor.  Identity politics labels people according to group.  One must think and behave exactly as all members of one’s identified group.  Thus, group-think becomes required within the groups one supports and is assumed of all members of groups which one opposes. And, if a particular leader is seen as the advocate or savior of the aggrieved group, that group’s dependence on that leader will sustain the leader’s power.

Group-think is certainly an easier way to approach interactions with others than getting to know individuals.  It is also far more superficial and in the end very dangerous.  Victimhood combined with group identity and its incumbent group-think completely destroys dialog between individuals; it does not allow for differing viewpoints.  When one disagrees with a victim, they are often accused of challenging or attacking the victim.  This becomes a way for a victim to assert his or her position and/or demands without any push-back.  Because the victim is a victim their every need should be acknowledged, believed, and attended to.  Facts become irrelevant as the victim’s feelings become all important.

Here is an example from current events.  A woman claims she was a victim of sexual assault by current Senate candidate Moore when she was 14, nearly 40 years ago.  When Kellyanne Conway suggested in an interview by Martha Raddatz that we should wait for and look at the evidence, she was accused of calling the woman a liar and the conversation effectively ended.  Yet, one should be able to question allegations and seek further evidence without that being an attack of the person claiming victimhood.  This is especially true when the event alleged is 40 years old.  It is common science today that our memories are memories of memories.  One can fully believe that their recollection is accurate and as such it is true for them, but facts could prove otherwise.  That is, our memories can and do alter historical reality.  We are in a very dangerous place if the mere claim of victimhood means that anything one says or does must be accepted as true and tolerated without challenge or even discussion. (And this is so for either side in a he said-she said situation).

Permanent victims claim an inability to handle not only the past harm, but any and all future harms.  They become overly sensitive to any real or perceived words or actions that might harm them or that they find in some way offensive.  Because there is no opportunity for dialog about this, because we instead are asked to cave into every demand of the victim, we instead provide safe-spaces, trigger warnings, and try to avoid even the least micro-aggression.  We all walk on egg-shells trying to protect the victim from future harm or upset of any kind.   This does nothing but encourage more victimhood.

In our group-thinking identity groups every member of the group is encouraged to proclaim their own victimhood.  They are on the look-out for the slightest affront to which they can proclaim “me too.”  Thus we have women finding solidarity with their sisters who were raped by claiming “me too” for a cat call heard when walking down a crowded street, or a person of color claiming “me too” when they were looked at a little too long by a store clerk, thinking this gives them solidarity with a black man unjustifiably beaten because he was black.  This group-think victimhood has become a way of belonging, of joining the in-crowd instead of being left on the sidelines. 

And what this group victimhood does is perpetuate the group’s status as victim, creating anger, fear, and hatred against those outside the group who are the perceived victimizers.  Must all women hate all men because some women have been victims of sexual harassment or assault by some men?  Must all people of color hate all whites because some people of color have been victimized by some whites?  Must all Muslims be feared and hated because some Muslims have committed atrocities?  The list goes on.  But identity politics tends to force an affirmative answer to these questions. 

Those groups and those answers are useful to those seeking power through politics.  And that is why this culture of victimhood combined with identity politics is so dangerous.  Our democracy is based on education, dialog, and compromise.  All of these require free speech and none of these are possible when speech is foreclosed because someone might be upset by it.   In addition to ending the dialog necessary for democracy, victimhood can lead to a frightening police-like state that allows punishment based only on a victim’s claim, effectively destroying our justice system.  Again, Martha Raddatz in her interview with Kellyanne Conway urged an articulated standard of guilt it the court of public opinion.  Apparently, from Raddatz and other political and media urging in regard to the allegations against Moore, the claim of a victim alone should be enough for a verdict of guilty. Imagine how this can only encourage false claims of all sorts in order to remove individuals from positions of power (this is not meant to imply that the claims against Moore are necessarily false).

Group-think victimhood and its silencing of dialog and free speech also results in a superficiality that perpetuates rather than solves problems.  Take gun-control for example.  Every time there is a mass shooting the claim is for gun control, as if simply taking away the guns will solve the illness within our society that is the ultimate cause of the ever-increasing numbers of killings within our country.  We have become a society of victims and with that victimhood comes an alarming increase in hatred of those outside our victim-group, those seen as our group’s victimizers.  Taking away guns won’t fix this, though those who perceive themselves as possible victims may nonetheless believe they have the safe space they seek.

So what do we do?  First, let us stop encouraging victimhood.  Think of the child learning to walk who falls and scrapes his knee.  His mother can pick him up, brush him off, add a bandage if necessary, give him a hug, and then encourage him to get up and move on.  Or, she can fall all over his victimhood, teach him to never run again lest he be hurt again, and essentially send him the message that he is sadly unable to run like other children and needs a safe space along with all the benefits that those who are able to run, who are not victims, have.  Of course, that might be easier than getting back up and learning to run, but which would you choose for your child? 

In our society there are many individuals who have suffered a variety of wrongs.  In some instances, these individuals can be identified as belonging to a group – for example, Blacks descended from slaves who did suffer the injustice of slavery or women who have been denied equal pay.  There were unquestionably injustices and victims involved.  But permanent victimhood is not the way to respond.  And encouraging victimhood as a way of belonging to a group is also not the way to respond.  Looking for a safe and protected space where one will never be hurt again is also not useful (and probably impossible).  Better is to help victims to deal with their victimization appropriately and in a timely manner, resolving the situation, and then moving forward.  In the case of individual harm, this might mean a lawsuit, a complaint of some sort, medical attention, etc.  In the case of an injustice directed at a particular group, for example refusal to pay women equally, the remedy may involve both individual and class lawsuits, lobbying for laws or regulations, etc.  But in all cases the point is to promptly deal with the harm and then move forward, not wallow in one’s victimhood.

If society consists of perpetual victims always looking for their next injury, no matter how slight, then we will be stuck in a world where all dialog is silenced for fear of affront, where everyone demands their own safe space, where feelings, especially feelings of hurt are the driving and ruling forces, countered by fear and hatred between groups.  The individual will become lost in the group-victimization-think, as will our intellect, reason, and judgement.  Easier as it may be to fall and cry for others to pick you up while crying “woe is me,” it is more rewarding to pick yourself up and move forward.   Politicians seeking power would rather keep others as victims so that they will be dependent upon the politician’s power to carry them.   We need to see the danger of all this and stand up, each and every one of us, and refuse to support a society of victimization and divisive group-think.  Instead of crying “woe is me” we need to scream “we can be” – we can be ourselves, we can be problem solvers, we can work together with those unlike us, we can listen, we can think, we can be!   In the democracy that is America, the democracy that gives us our individual freedom, the “me too” victimization and group-think of identity politics is not for everyone; indeed, it should not be for anyone.

It’s Not About Guns

I don’t know why, but yesterday’s church shooting really got to me.  A small town, people together in church worship.  How can someone walk in, look in their faces and shoot?  I don’t care what the anger or perceived injustice or justification, how can someone look into the eyes of a child or a grandmother or a family and just shoot them all? This was not a rifle from a high-rise being shot across a field, or a truck driven into an anonymous crowd.  This was up close and personal.   There had to be a complete emptiness in this killer’s soul, a lack of all things that we associate with humanity, or at least those things that we used to believe made us human.

Senseless violence.  It happens every day in America.  Sometimes we notice, because it is record-breaking, like yesterday’s church shooting.  Sometimes we don’t, like when it is just a black kid in a Chicago ghetto, or a mother who sells her daughter for drug money, or a man who rapes a child.  But, everyday this country is flooded with acts of inhumanity by someone who calls him or herself human but who has lost the soul that makes them so.

How did so many lose their souls?  How did America lose her soul?  For isn’t that the real problem. We will of course hear the calls for gun control.  But taking away everyone’s guns (even if that were possible) will not heal this broken soul.  Those bent on evil will find ways to carry out their evil intents, whether they have a gun or not.  Tightening gun laws is not a solution (indeed, the church shooter was denied a Texas gun permit, but somehow had a gun anyway).  Guns can be replaced: with knives, with Molotov cocktails, with homemade bombs, with trucks, with any manner of evil and mass destructive devices, directions for which are easily accessible on the internet.

Guns are nothing more than a symptom; they are not the cause.  We tend to look for easy solutions:  get rid of guns; if not guns, then just improve care for mental illness; tell everyone to say something if they see something; etc.  These are all superficial solutions and it is their very superficiality that belies the real problem:  our society has become one of superficiality and in losing depth it has lost its soul; it has become a place where there is a belief in one’s entitlement to immediate gratification, an entitlement to always feel good with a right to act out all feelings, negative and positive.  It has lost its core values, it has lost its soul.

If we really want to stop the violence, not just the mass shootings, but the everyday violence, along with the everyday hatred and anger that we all experience throughout our daily lives, then we need to look beyond the surface.  We need to look beyond the actions to what is causing them.  We have to ask:  What has happened to our soul?  How is it that we are teaching and accepting that feelings and personal gratification are more important than life itself?  What are we teaching and what are we not teaching our children?  What happened to America?

I have a few thoughts.   First, we seem to have lost our belief in anything beyond ourselves.  This is often stated as having lost our belief in God.  But it goes beyond a defined religion to a belief that there is something (whether a defined being or simply some force) that is greater than we humans.  With such a belief comes some sort of value system that among other things instills a respect for life.  Such value systems are more similar than different across nearly all belief systems and can often be in part boiled down into the golden rule:  do unto others as you would have others do unto you.  Implicit in such a belief is a respect for human life.  (Worth noting is that the Texas church shooter was an avowed Atheist who advocated for Atheism).  Beyond the respect for others, is the idea that when there is something more than what we know then life itself tends to take on a greater meaning and with such meaning comes hope.  When there is nothing more, and when life is hopeless, then there is seemingly little to prevent someone from destroying it.

I think that there is an enormous emptiness in many, an emptiness that they try to fill with various forms of gratification and consumerism.  But that emptiness cannot be filled with tangible superficialities.  It needs instead to be filled with intangible faith which with it brings hope and love.  Faith also brings with it a code of conduct that values human life and teaches respect and understanding of others.  This would do far more to end our inhumanity to one another than even the toughest gun laws imaginable.

We exacerbate the loss of a belief in something larger than oneself with the values that we do honor and teach our children.  Self-restraint and responsibility for one’s own actions are largely missing from our moral codes.  Instead, feelings have become a driving force:  competition and striving to do one’s best are often looked down upon because with winners there are losers and losers might have their feelings hurt and no one should ever feel bad.  Of course, if no one should feel bad, that means everyone must feel good.  Restraints on one’s behavior restrict that good feeling, so we become a do whatever you want society.  Thus, we have the current sexual exploitation in Hollywood – both on and off screen.   We have mothers who won’t tell their children NO because it might upset them and make them feel bad.  We have children who are passed from grade to grade without learning because holding them back would hurt their feelings.  We have people who are drug addicted because drugs make them feel good. 

And we have a society that always finds someone to blame, a society in which no one can seem to simply take responsibility for their own actions but rather will find a reason why they are somehow justified – that is, will always find somewhere else to place the blame.  In the same vein we have a large part of society that expects someone else to fix all their problems.  They place the responsibility for their very existence on someone else.

So, where is the responsibility for yesterday’s church shooting.  First and foremost, squarely on the murderer.  Not on the murderer’s weapon of choice.  If we want to stop these sorts of things from happening again, the answer is not simply gun or health care laws, nor is it simply crying for the victims as the media shows their photos, tells their stories, and plays at our heart strings.   We have had guns since the founding of this country; we rarely had mass shootings or the number of senseless non-mass but daily shootings and other violent acts that we have today.  If we want to really change things we need to look deeply within our souls and within the soul of the country itself and ask ourselves what is missing.