What’s Beneath the Hair?

Times change and sometimes things that were once accepted behavior are no longer OK.   As such, I don’t think that someone should be held accountable by today’s standards for something that was considered normal, conventional, or customary at the time it occurred.  However, I do hope that someone who justifies past behavior on the basis that it was OK when done, would also review that behavior, realize that it may not have been appropriate, even if acceptable at the time, understand why, and perhaps feel some remorse for the past behavior.

This is how I am looking at the alleged, videoed, and admitted past acts of Joe Biden that seem to encroach on the personal space of a variety of women. 

First, let me say that in my experience and observation over the past 70 years, smelling someone’s hair has always been something considered a bit creepy, so I’m not sure how that could ever be justified as something that was once accepted.  Personally, my reaction to the photos and videos I have seen is that his touching and encroachment have probably not been acceptable since at least the late 1950s. 

But, assuming that Biden’s behavior was in some way acceptable at the time the actions were taken, his justification video today show that he does not get that there was, or even is, anything wrong with what he did or that the women might have felt uncomfortable.  He justifies it by saying politics is “hands-on” and that it is the way he “comforts” people.  He says he realizes his way is no longer accepted, that personal space rules have changed, so he will try to follow those rules, but will not change his belief in the necessity of politics being “hands-on.” 

There is no recognition, let alone any apology for causing at least some of the women who suffered his “hands-on” style to be uncomfortable or to feel in some way invaded.   He simply says times have changed and he’ll do better now.   That is not an apology.  That shows no understanding of why the behavior was or is offensive.

I don’t think anyone considers Biden’s actions to be overtly sexually motivated.  But what they reveal is that he saw (and still sees) himself to be somehow the One that could comfort and save these women (the traditional “weaker sex”) when they were in a situation that he assumed was difficult or stressful for them.  That is, he saw himself as somehow superior; he saw the women as individuals who could not make it through without him.

That belief, that women needed him to get through a moment that he thought would be too tough for them belies everything he says about his belief in women’s equality.  Has his proclaimed work for women’s causes been because he believes women are his equal, or because he believes they are inferior and therefor need him to survive?  That, I believe, is the more important question that people should be asking when they discuss whether smelling hair and invading personal space should quash his run for president.

That is, it is the underlying reason for his repeated acts that is key here.  Clearly the acts are not OK now.  Maybe the invasion of a woman’s personal space was more acceptable at the time.  But the real question is why was Biden repeatedly doing this – what does it tell us about what he really thinks of women?  And, does his response telling us he’ll try to be a better boy now indicate that he in any way understands why the actions might be offensive, both on the surface and for what they say about his real belief in women’s equality?  For me, I am not seeing Joe Biden as someone who views women as his equal.

The Costumed (Superficial/Shallow/Artificial/ Posturing) Society

People confuse appearances with deeper reality.  Perhaps it comes from misconstruing popular memes and sayings such as “If you believe it you achieve it,” “You can have anything you want if you dress for it,” or “If you want to be noticed, dress the part.”  Perhaps we are simply trained to focus on the superficial and to believe that if we get the superficial right, then we have succeeded in getting that which lies below the superficial right as well.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.

First example:

When someone has denied sexual allegations, does his resigning, being fired, or even committing suicide as a result of those unproven allegations make the women who made them feel empowered?  Perhaps it makes them feel momentarily powerful, but they are anything but empowered.  Instead, they have revealed a lack of empowerment in their absence from coming forward  or taking appropriate action at the time of the offense and more importantly in their inability to use the legal system or other procedural means that provide them the ability to prove their allegations definitively and receive true justice.  Instead of their own empowerment, they simply rely on the current nurturing of such claims by media and others, sometimes for their shock value alone and sometimes as a way of removing or destroying those whom are disliked.  That has nothing to do with true empowerment of women.

Second example:

People are encouraged if not often required by school, job, etc., to do some sort of good work and then broadcast their good works to others as if this is some sort of proof of their inner goodness.  It is not.  Yes, some people who do good deeds in the form of some sort of public or community service are good people within their souls, but that is not necessarily so.  Others may do good works because they are required to do so or because they believe that their good works are a way to advance their own agendas or simply their own popularity and acceptance.  That has nothing to do with true inner goodness.

You may ask “Really what difference does it make?  The “me too” allegations (even if some are less than accurate or taken out of context) are making people aware of the problem of sexual harassment and even good works done with less than good motives still serve the people to whom they are directed.” 

While that may be true, it is also an acceptance that ends justify means.  But in this case the perceived ends are only that – a perceived reality that sees only a superficial and whimsical truth.  There is a huge difference between outer dressing and truly meaningful actions.  Just as fashions change, so too do societal trends; what is meaningful today may be insignificant tomorrow.  Women who are feeling powerful as they see their allegations have major impacts on the lives of the men accused may not feel so powerful when society takes a different view of such allegations.  But, if the focus of “me too” was instead to truly empower women with an inner strength that is not dependent on the whims of society or the strength of others, then that empowerment would remain regardless of the current posturing of society. 

Similarly, while any good works are helpful at the time they are done, if they are only done because that is the current fashion of society, then they can end when the designs of society change.  If we encourage good works only for superficial or selfish reasons we are doing nothing to create good persons within themselves who would choose to do good works regardless of the current trends and whims of society.  Hence those good works and their benefit to those served could easily end, whereas if we were more concerned with creating truly good people then those works would be far more likely to remain permanently ongoing. 

Posturing is not Being.  I can put on costumes that make me most anything, but who I am is the person with all the costumes removed.  It is who I am in my soul.  That inner being is what gives me strength, not the clothes I put on; it is what gives me whatever goodness I may have, not the clothes that I put on.  Yet, society seems to be dazzled only by the clothes, the costumes.  We think that they are the definition of whom we are.  We think that our costumes alone will define and sustain our world.  Yet, at some point those costumes fall away and we are all left with a deeper reality that we must face.

It seems that today so many fear facing that inner reality, and so they simply don more and more costumes, costumes that make themselves and others feel good, but which can be discarded anytime at their own or society’s caprice.  The souls of so many in society seem empty, yet they do not understand that superficial costumes and actions will not fill them up.  And so, society itself begins to lose its soul.

We all need to step back from the daily hysteria, posturing, and shallow if not artificial interests and behaviors of our society.  We need to take some time to focus on what lies beneath the surface, in ourselves, our children, and our society.  We need to forget our costumes and nurture our souls.  For it is only that inner and deeper truth that empowers us and our society, giving us all a better and more meaningful reality.

Critical Thinking - A Lost Art

There are plenty of topics for a blog in today’s news:  the bias of the top people in Mueller’s investigation; their special treatment of Hillary and their being instrumental in the initial allegations of Trump’s collusion with Russia; the use of the FBI by a sitting administration to conduct opposition research against political opponents;  whether the Mueller investigation has overreached; whether it has any legitimacy at all given the revelations of the past few days; Time’s choice of the hysteria-driven and victim-creating #MeToo as its person of the year;  recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel; the hypocrisy of the Democrats outcry against Trump moving the embassy to Jerusalem when they supported it in the past; Conyer’s retirement and who will take his place; what SCOTUS will decide about whether a cake artist can be compelled to create a cake that violates his religious beliefs and whether his refusal to do so is unlawful discrimination against members of the LGBT community; the Tax bill; immigration; the actions of the deep state; and on and on and on.

But, today, this being my 100^th blog posting, I will talk about something else.  Something more important than even the most hysterical hysteria of the day.  Something the lack of which underlies much of the hysteria and news-as-entertainment we see today.   Today I will talk about thinking:   deep thinking, CRITICAL THINKING.  This is something that seems to have been lost in our country, and without it I don’t see how we can ever stop the daily hysteria and the havoc it causes to our country and our lives.

Critical thinking is simply the ability to objectively analyze facts or evidence in order to reach a conclusion or form a judgment.  The key here is the word “objective” meaning unbiased, unprejudiced, impartial, detached, dispassionate, and fair.  Critical thinking is performed by the one reaching the judgment or conclusion.  It requires clear and rational thinking.  And, it is sadly lacking today.

Critical thinking means that one questions everything, even their own beliefs.  One does not accept something just because someone else said it was true, even if that is a someone whom one respects or with whom one always agrees.   And, it means that one is able to distinguish between people themselves and the positions that they hold.   (That is, one may find an individual repulsive, but that does not mean that the individual’s agenda is also repulsive). 

In the last few days I have heard from individuals who support Democrat policies that anyone who does not support those polices is not only wrong, but an idiot as well.  I have heard parents ask how to tell their children that their teacher is “wrong” when the teacher has expressed or explained a viewpoint that runs counter to the viewpoint of the parents.  I have heard people say they will not even consider reading new or opinion pieces from sources labeled as holding political views to the right or left of their own.  I have heard people explain that it is too time consuming to read even a full synopsis of an issue or controversy, so they simply read the highlights as selected by their favorite news source, even if things such as quotes are distorted or otherwise misleading and taken out of context.  And, I regularly hear people adopt the conclusions and judgments presented to them by their favored source without any further inquiry or research.

These are all examples of the pervasive lack of critical thinking in our society.  Let’s look at these in more detail, beginning with the parent who thinks that he must tell his child that he is right and the teacher is wrong.  Not only is the parent not exercising critical thinking (not asking for details and context of what the teacher said), but the parent is not teaching or allowing his child to become a critical thinker.  Placing a child in an environment where one authority figure is always right does not teach a child to exercise her own mind and reach her own judgments.  A parent who expects a child to adopt all the parent’s beliefs unquestioned does not teach the child how to make her own judgments and decisions once the parent is no longer there.  In the instance where a parent finds a teacher or other pushing a viewpoint contrary to that of the parent, the better approach is to discuss, at an appropriate level for the child, the different ways of looking at the question. explain why the parents hold the belief they do, while accepting that others may hold other beliefs.  That allows the child to understand that there is more than one way of looking at something, that there may be a need to understand context or find further facts or evidence.  Even if the child is expected to accept and follow the parent’s view at that point in her life, it teaches the child about thinking, about the possibility of other views, and about tolerance of other views. 

Those are some notes for the parent, but I also have notes about the teachers and our education system.  From what I see, very little time is spent on teaching critical thinking skills.  Teachers seem to have no problem presenting their views and judgments as fact that the student either must accept, or will accept in order to please the teacher.   Emotional arguments and conclusions are accepted by teachers with no demand for logic or rational support.  Students are encouraged to express their feelings with little demand that their articulation be clear, organized, or well thought out.  Of course, logic, developing support, indeed, learning and thinking itself, are hard work.  There seems to be an aversion to the idea of work in school these days.  Rather, teachers want kids to have fun; they seem to seek friendship rather than respect from their students. And, we have placed upon teachers the burdens of parenting, social work, and other requirements that are not part of a teacher’s traditional duties or trained skills.

If we do not teach our children how to be critical thinkers, then we cannot expect to see critical thinking in our adult population.  If we train our children to simply accept the judgment of one or another authority figure then we cannot expect them to do otherwise as adults.  Thus, we have people who simply accept whatever superficial judgment sounds good to them without even seeing a need to do their own inquiry into the rationality and legitimacy of that position.   Looking more specifically at politics, we have people who support each and every position of their preferred party, without any thought or investigation.  We have people who support or oppose views simply because they like or do not like the individual who professes those views.  This is especially senseless in that it confuses an individual with an institution of which that individual is a part.   Every leader as an individual will have a variety of qualities that will generally be liked or disliked, but that individual’s administration and its policies should and will eventually be judged by different standards in the context of history (this assumes of course that those whose goal it is to erase history will not in the end succeed). 

Of course, the problem with all this is that we end up with two warring camps:  those who blindly accept the view of one side on an issue and those who blindly accept the opposing view.  Arguments about the issue devolve into calling the other side stupid, idiotic, or similar names because without critical thinking and its use to arrive at and thus understand the views one has adopted, one cannot really debate the issues themselves.  So, it becomes simply cults of personality and ad hominem attacks on those holding opposing views.

Sure, it would be easier to have clear cut right and wrong answers to every one of life’s issues.  But, life is far more complex.  And, in order to make sound judgments about the issues that face us as individuals and as society as a whole, we must be able to critically think about them.  We must take the time to fully learn the relevant facts and to fully educate ourselves about various and competing viewpoints.  We must each of us examine this body of evidence that relates to each issue upon with we have or would like to take a stand.  We must each arrive at our own understanding and our own conclusions, based on our own examination; we must not be content to simply accept that which we are told. 

When it comes to politics, our education must begin with a clear and objective understanding of the history and core principles of this country.  We must read and understand our Constitution as well as how it has been interpreted and applied throughout our history.  Before taking a position on a law or regulation we must fully understand if not entirely read the operative provisions of the rule and must understand the basis of differing views about the rule.  We must consider not simply the immediate effect or gratification but also the long-term consequences of what is done or not done.  And we must listen to full words and context when a politician speaks, not be content to have only the particular sound bite chosen by the nightly news or our preferred Twitter feed. 

Yes, this all asks a lot.  Making informed decisions takes time and effort.  But no one said that being a responsible citizen and a responsible adult is an easy task.  It is, however, a serious and a critical task.  Without critical thinking we are governed by emotion alone and our world becomes less rational and more angry.  Teachers and parents together must insure that children learn the skill and the joy of deep and critical thinking, and then as adults we must demand of ourselves and of others that we use those skills in making the important decisions and judgments that affect all of our lives.

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. 

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.

Not Me Too

I have been wondering what has been bothering me about the #MeToo campaign.  Certainly it is not the fact that it is bringing to light the number of people who have been or believe they have been the subject of some form of harassment.  Certainly it does not bother me that this may bring about some form of dialog about how we do and how we should respect one another as individuals.  So, what is it then that troubles me?

The problem with the #MeToo trend is first, that it is just that:  a popular trend (more about that below).  The second and more troubling aspect is that this trend seems to create and then celebrate victimhood.  Yes, the (mostly) women who are posting or tweeting or just shouting “me too” suffered some form of harassment or assault and so are indeed a victim.   But, if we think that just saying “me too” is enough, then aren’t we actually saying that it’s just fine to be a victim?  And, the fact that this seems to be a socially popular trend is making it not only OK, but indeed popular to be a victim. 

Harassment and assault are serious.  The focus should be on the crime and the violation as well as the demeaning disrespect that such acts reflect.   And, if we are going to identify individuals, shouldn’t the focus be on the who that perpetrated the act rather than on the me who became the victim?

I realize that there are a variety of reasons why an individual who suffers some form of harassment choses to or to not come forward.  These are very personal incidents and the decisions that each victim makes about their aftermath and how to handle it is also very personal.  I do not condemn those who choose to keep it hidden, nor do I condemn those who choose to make the incident public or to bring charges against the perpetrator.

But what I do find troubling is that so many have suddenly jumped onto the “me too” bandwagon, that regardless of when their “me too” incident occurred they have suddenly chosen to proclaim that they are victims.  But victims of what?  The “me too” is the proclamation of the rape victim, but also of someone who has been whistled at while walking down the street.  Are these really the same? Do we want them to be?  Because what we seem to be doing is simply creating a giant class of victims, of people who are proud to proclaim their victimhood and be done.  Are we really going to have any sort of meaningful dialog about this when the point seems to only be to say what huge number of people can post “me too”?   And those who post the phrase are now part of the fashionable group upon which others will focus attention and sympathy until the next exciting news story comes along (perhaps this is their 15 minutes of fame).

None of this solves the underlying problem that creates the ability of so many to post “me too.”  That, alone, is not good.  But what is dangerous is that it glorifies victimhood.   Moreover, it just seems to be another short act in the series of superficial acts and outrages that almost pass as entertainment today.  And this seems to cheapen and further demean the very real claims and hurt of those who can claim “me too.”   Social media or the news media or some other similar force starts a trend and all the trendy people jump on board. (I am not saying that everyone who in this instance posted “me too” was doing so just to be trendy; I realize that for some even that proclamation was deeply troubling as it recalled seriously hurtful incidents).  The trends don’t last long, boredom or over-indulgence sets in, and so the masses move on to the next subject of hysteria.

What we need instead, and certainly in regard to the underlying culture that allowed so many to have a “me too” event in their life, is a real consideration and discussion of the issue.  In this case, why do so many men seem to feel that it is OK to treat women in a demeaning and disrespectful manner?  Are some women overly sensitive to or resentful of what others might see as normal flirtations?  Do men also suffer similar forms of disrespect, in the workplace or elsewhere? Are behaviors sometimes misinterpreted?  Is the victim always blameless, and, if not, should that matter?  Do people sometimes use their victimhood as an excuse?  These are all uncomfortable questions, but ones that should be part of any discussion.  But, beyond these questions which focus on the currently newsworthy harassing behavior towards women are the even deeper questions that should be part of any conversation.  Questions such as: why do people not respect one another’s humanity?  What causes some people to believe they have a right to demean others, or to believe that they are in some way superior with an accompanying right to take advantage of those they see as inferior?  Why do some who are demeaned feel that they must keep it hidden; why do they fear coming forward with their complaint?

The underlying causes of the “me too” posts are complicated and cannot be solved in a day or a week or even a year.  But what we could do, rather than just making it trendy to claim victimhood and move on, is to open the discussion, teach those who are victims that they have both rights and power beyond victimhood and help them to overcome that victimhood.    I  wish for a day when no one would have cause to post “me too”; but, until that day comes I would like to see people encouraged not to claim victimhood but instead be empowered and encouraged to find both the inner and outer strength and courage to proclaim “I have overcome.”