The Atlantic: Sex or power. Biology or culture. Inevitable or changeable. These are the dichotomies embedded in the debate around the #MeToo movement. On one side are those who tend to say that power is the issue: Harvey Weinstein abused his status in ways that lay bare larger structural inequalities that should be rectified. Others ask whether the problem isn’t just that Weinstein was a special kind of creep whose alleged crimes do not, perhaps, require a comprehensive referendum on gender and other cultural hierarchies.
2 comments:
I have read too many articles on the “Me too” movement… but they never cease to horrify me. Maybe at this point our outrage and horror ought to have settled into acknowledgment and expectation (though certainly not acceptance or indifference), but for me it has not. I think I find the documented abuses so shocking because they seem so ridiculous. It seems that no one in today’s world would think they could get away with the abuses which have been exposed, but apparently they do. More strikingly, apparently they have been right for quite a while, and are still largely right. News articles seem straight out of movie plots; were the abusive executive to play the role of villain in the next episode of a tv show, it would certainly seem believable. But for those scenarios to play out in real life, and to play out repeatedly, seems surreal. That we not only live in a world where these crimes can happen, but one where they do happen is terrifying, and I hope I never get used to it.
The scary thing is that blacklisting is an all too real threat for those who speak out and blow the whistle. "Blacklisting is, of course, an expression of control. It relies on the blacklister having immense influence and sway across an industry." Often times, these men have survived after such appalling behavior simply due to the fact that they have the power to destroy a woman's career. Further, the idea that "Moonves might still exit his post with a $100 million payout and an advisory role at CBS indicates how entrenched, how nearly untouchable, a figure like him can be" is just appalling. In what world does it make sense for this man to walk out with a payout of any kind? Even worse, how can CBS even consider including him in an advisory role? At what point will we be able to stop dealing with these monsters? The article ends with the chilling but all too real summation of the damage these men have enacted on women. "How many careers—women’s careers, especially—have been destroyed for failing to show deference and obedience to a boss whose importance makes him or her seem invulnerable?" At what point are we going to actually have a system that isn't compromised by the powerful elite who use it to harm others?
Post a Comment