It is impossible to say too often or loudly how important a moment this is, when many women feel brave and empowered enough to speak up about being sexually assaulted or harassed by powerful men.
It feels like a watershed, like something is fundamentally shifting.
But the greatest measure of fundamental change will be when everyday offenses by everyday people are also named and shamed, the trickle down of speaking up.
That is the opening of the Monday New York Times column by Charles M. Blow titled This Is a Man Problem, which as should be clear from the words I have already shared a must read piece.
There are organizations that try to address the issue among ordinary folks: every public school system in which I have worked (5 in two states) has had mandatory sexual harassment training every year for all staff.
We are now in time when awareness of how serious a problem it is has perhaps finally penetrated the national consciousness. It should have long ago, and it seems almost inconceivable that it did not with the release of the Access Hollywood tape of Donald Trump last year, but this year’s spate of celebrities being accused has MAYBE finally forced us to BEGIN to truly address how pervasive the issue is.
Blow points out that most of those who are affected by harassment will not get a lot of attention even if they come forward, because those who harass them are not major figures, and thus their tales are not fodder for the news organization — or the amplification that social media gives charges against celebrities.
These who have been harassed will still be faced with the conundrum that it is still rare that the benefits of speaking up will outweigh “the possibility of negative consequences” as Blow puts it, before he adds this cogent paragraph:
That is where the majority of this battle must be waged, among the ordinary, the powerless, the invisible. These women (and some men as well, it must always be noted) are the true Silent Majority of victims.
There is a middle section to this piece where Blow, after having made clear his support for sexual activity between any two consenting adults, goes through a litany of things NOT included in that support, starting with rape. Consent is NOT present in rape (and I might note legally cannot be give in situations covered by statutory rape).
Then there is this paragraph, which is as blunt as it can be:
Rape is not sex; it’s rape. Unwanted touching is not sexy; it’s assault. Sexual advances in a professional environment, particularly from a position of power, are highly inappropriate and could be illegal.
To which I might add whether or not illegal, they are an imposition upon another human being and as such are and should be considered unacceptable and in the eyes of good people immoral.
But all of this, and much more, is actually preface to what Blow really wants to address, which is that
We have to focus on recognizing an imbalance of power during sexual dynamics so that men better understand the implicit “no” even when women don’t feel empowered to articulate a “no.”
I cannot easily summarize what Blow writes next, so I won’t even try. I cannot quote because I am already pushing fair use. Besides, the next section is so well written it should be read in its entirety and in the context of the entire piece.
Nor will I quote the final paragraph, because that will rob it of the power it carries when read at the conclusion of the final piece.
I will quote two more brief statements that lead to it.
First is this:
Women are not responsible for men’s bad behavior. The idea that horny men can’t control themselves is a lie!
For too long women have been blamed — by how they dress, for example, or for accepting a drink as if that carries with it a total surrender of the right to say no. Too many men assume that because we feel the impact of the hormones in their bodies that they are therefore licensed to act in ways to relieve that sexual tension regardless of the will — or in some cases the inability to have a will — on the part of the person to whom they want to direct their sexual attentions, whether those attentions be verbal or physical.
One can be a male and be strong and forceful without imposing oneself by force upon another.
Which leads to the last words I will quote from Blow:
Men have been so conditioned against emotional intelligence — that’s for women, we are told — that they are blithering idiots at reading the subtleties of allure or aversion.
To this I might add something I do not see in Blow’s piece, at least not directly. Too many women are at least partially socialized to accept the kind of behavior from men that results from the idiocy just described. But let me be clear — in saying that I am not blaming or shaming women: it is a result of how much the definitions of socialization are still controlled by men for their own benefits.
I hope you will read — and pass on — the column from Blow which inspired me to write this post.