"Witch Hunt": What men think about sex scandals
"MANY OF US FEELS OURSELVES AS THE BUDT ATTACK US ATTACK and as if we should make excuses. Perhaps this is the way we should. But we will continue to talk ", - so behind the scenes of the Actor Guild Award William Macy over the weekend summed up the interim result of male participation in the debate on combating harassment, which unfolded in recent months in a public space. We decided to find out what men think in Russia about campaigns #MeToo and Time's Up and how to assess the risk that the fight against harassment can turn into cleansing objectionable - or, in the words of some, "witch hunt."
One of the most important consequences of the coup, which is happening now in gender policy, is that my opinion about him should not interest anyone. This feeling for a more or less white more or less cis-gender male is rather unusual, but useful. A running process will find its own limits; No essay on the topic "oh, what will happen to flirting / sex / courtly love" will not help and will not interfere (spoiler: nothing will happen).
At first glance, it may seem that the edge of the absurd in the current wave of revelations of influential men was groped with the help of a girl who wrote about her evening with Aziz Ansari - here the consensus seems to be that it’s just an extremely awkward date, and Ansari is unlikely to catch any consequences. But it is in this case, it seems to me, that the divide is generally not by gender, but by age: the generation of students, to whom the essayist belongs, has grown not just in a new paradigm of "explicit consent", but in a slightly weird culture spread on university campuses in which any discomfort is interpreted as aggression against the person who is experiencing this discomfort. This is also a subject for serious discussion, but not quite the one that is conducted in the context of Weinstein and the company, and a parallel one - right in the heart of which was the recent story by Kristen Rupenyan "The Catwoman", who unexpectedly read all of America in December.
The phraseologism "witch-hunt" has taken root tightly in the dictionary of the reactionaries, so even in some critical reflection I would abstain from it - the distance to social justice warriors, feminazi and androcid is too short. In addition, no hunt really smells: the conviction of Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey is symbolically important (especially against the background of how no one could really approach Woody Allen for decades), but at the same time hermetically locked into the framework of public discourse - hardly tomorrow or in a year, women will wake up in a world without invulnerable predator bosses, common rape and domestic sexism.
An appeal to “common sense” is useful, for example, when planning a family budget, but in a public discussion it disguises, at best, a fear of judgment. Always eager to reconcile all with all the rational man in the street - not an antidote, but rather a dark double of an embittered commentator with 4chan. Nobody really bothers you to firmly condemn Hollywood harassers and at the same time reject the charges against Aziz Ansari, while not denying that his behavior (and the behavior of his accusers) is not something “natural”, but a projection of subject-objective arrangements of patriarchal culture. Or reasonably denying.
I personally have a car and a small cart of doubts and questions about gender theory, identity politics and their media mechanics, but it’s quite possible to work with them outside the binary opposition to "subscribe to every word" - "stop the witch hunt." Another thing is more important: to the advocates of the sacred right of men "to grab someone for pussy" or to exchange resources for sex, there is no longer any question left.
This situation is complex, and it is important to keep this in mind when talking about it, not to generalize, not reduce it to a primitive confrontation. This is not just a story about "a group of people X, who was up against a group of people Y"; what is happening now is a tremendous shift in public ethics and morality, and this is also a few parallel processes, the United States is going its own way, something happens in Russia in the meantime. This process is, to some extent, transpersonal, that is, it exists separately from the people taking part in it. There is no Supreme Council of feminists who decide "well, here we are going too far, let's slow down on Twitter" or, on the contrary, "but this must be done - it deserves more punishment"; Imagine that something like an accelerated evolution is underway now - and individual members of the species in it make fewer decisions than you might think.
The main thing that you can influence is how you feel about all this and how you feel inside this process. And here, in my opinion, you need to take a deep breath, step aside and try to assess what is really happening.
Let's start with a simple one: "With an Ansari an inflection came out, he did not deserve such a punishment." And what kind of punishment? What happened to him? Any colossal damage to reputation? Not. Moreover, all participants of sex scandals (except for those whose business comes to court) are not that much suffering: with James Franco, for example, nothing terrible happened. Nevertheless, all these stories are very important for public discussion. "But what about the presumption of innocence! And if they blame a person who did not do anything?" The presumption of innocence works in court. You should not confuse morality and ethics with the right. When discussing behavior, you need to be on the side of the victim, because, say, rape is in principle very difficult to prove - but as a result of all this talk, there is a powerful development of ideas about morality. More and more people can understand how not to behave. "Why arrange a witch hunt / party meeting" - this is the most understandable moment. Sometimes the discussion of ethical scandals on the Internet does not look very reserved; it seems that the unfortunate perpetrators are truthfully lynched without trial. But, first, on the Internet, this happens with almost everything. People experience emotions - this is normal. About the eighth episode of "Star Wars" argue no less hot. Secondly, it has nothing to do with the legal field. Nobody makes verdicts, and “punishments” as a result of Internet disputes are much less severe than you might think. But then there is a discussion, and this is most important. Yes, on high tones, so what? You are afraid of "witch-hunt" because of how everyone began to argue emotionally - this is absolutely normal; just do not forget that the real benefits here more than harm.
It seems to me that when people talk about “new puritanism” and “danger of overrun”, this is reminiscent of the talk of taxi drivers who don’t wear themselves out so that they don’t cut them in half - “it’s better to jump out of the window through the window.” At the same time, it is clear that in reality the belt and airbag are hundreds of times more reliable, but anecdotal cases of cutting in half still frighten more. So here, some fantastic case of false accusations and the ensuing obstruction seems much more dangerous than the road to open conversations about the norms of permissible and discussion of specific cases. Ansari case is perfect in this respect from all sides. There are two discussions here. First, can this be considered just a bad date, or did Ansari behave absolutely unacceptable and de facto abuser. I don’t have an answer to this question, first of all because I am not a woman and it’s hard for me to imagine the emotions of that girl, but it’s great that this discussion itself goes on, that other women share their emotions about it and this eventually leads to a greater understanding parties.
The second discussion is that if Ansari did nothing criminal, how ethical is it to condemn him at all. And here comes the idea that "it is better to release ten guilty than to convict one innocent." And this is already a fundamentally wrong approach, because it transfers everything that happens to the field of law, but it has never been there. The words "court", "presumption of innocence", "guilt" in the notion of criminal - everything is all by (except for the case of Weinstein, of course). Of the hundreds of stories that are now emerging and discussed, the court ended up with less than a dozen so far, and there we are not just talking about "harassment", but about specific violent actions.
Otherwise, this is not all about the legal right, but about how people communicate with each other, how not to harm each other and how to create conditions in which women can really feel safe and with equal rights (again, not in the constitutional or legal, but in a purely public sense). The worst thing that can happen now with Franco and Ansari is that they will lose a couple of roles, endure a few months of negative press and earn in 2018 not one hundred, but ten million.
The most terrible thing that can happen if these cases are not discussed is that thousands of women will continue to go on dates, after which they will stick their fingers in their mouths and, though softly, will force them to have sex, or sign contracts in which shooting is naked. simply because everyone is doing it (and it doesn’t matter that they don’t really want it). That is, it is not about putting a couple of innocent people into prison, but about making a couple of people make life harder, so that later on a couple of millions will have it easier. And, by the way, Franco and Ansari themselves also understand this, and let both, apparently, do not consider themselves particularly guilty, for the sake of this big goal they are ready to step aside and at least not to argue.
I have not lived in Russia for five years, so I’ll talk primarily about the United States, where the #MeToo campaign began, and France, where I live. In addition, the scale of Russian gender problems is such that people in Russia would not be good at arguing what they like or dislike in the #MeToo campaign, but focus on resolving issues of domestic violence, impunity of rape, discrimination in the workplace, and so on.
Although the engines of the current campaign are primarily women, it is not “against men” or “in defense of women” - it’s enough to remember Kevin Spacey. Initially, this is a campaign against abuse of power - abuse of power, - and especially in the sexual area. There is nothing new in this formulation of the question: the inadmissibility of the sexual relations between the professor and the students or the supervisor and the subordinates was realized at least thirty years ago. Now these rules have naturally expanded from the level of university campuses and large companies to Hollywood and the entertainment industry, where some sexual promiscuity has traditionally reigned. It seems to me that with such a question, neither men nor women can have two points of view: what Harvey Weinstein did is unacceptable, and even those who have never been molested at work can only support the #MeToo movement.
However, further abuse of power, harassment in public places and simply unsuccessful sex or tactless behavior were mixed up in one pile. Like any blurring of boundaries, this frightens me a little - and that’s one hundred French women think that the similar #MeToo campaign’s turn is wrong. At the same time, the lively controversy around the unacceptable in sexual relations signals: before our eyes the boundaries of what we call "violence" or "consent sex" are shifting. That was already the case - let's say, now the concept of “marital rape” exists, and half a century ago there was no such thing (and even today some state laws consider that rape is forced sex of a person with whom the rapist is not marriage).
What is the matter over? The boundaries of the permissible will be redefined, and everyone will continue to live about the same as before. For some people - both men and women - part of the charm of sex is the ability to play around established boundaries. The boundaries will move, but the possibility of the game will remain, and those who wish will play these games - so it seems to me wrong to say that "sex will disappear" or "there will be no more flirting." Flirt persists, but will change - we do not flirt like in the XIX century? So our children will not flirt like in the twentieth, but in a different way. But the abuse of power will be less, and narrowed the scope of permissible violence.
But there are a few moments, and they are more ideological than practical. The first is about the interaction of public opinion and the law. This is what Margaret Atwood writes about in her letter. Indeed, people lose their reputation, and then work without a trial and the opportunity to justify themselves. And although this is a common thing during the period of the revolutionary revision of borders, this can not but alarm me - not because I am a man, but because I know all too well from the history of Russia what revolutionary justice and sense of justice are.
The second point is about sex. Historically, the United States is a Puritan country, with a strict system of sexual prohibitions and a rather high level of hypocrisy in this area (of course, we compare the United States with European countries, and above all with France — if compared with Iran or the USSR, then this is, of course, a country of tremendous sexual freedoms). This American Puritanism is noticed by any European who lived in America or even traveled there for a long time. Actually, any American notes the French "promiscuity" - for example, in how erotic comics are sold or what magazine covers are displayed in kiosks. Anyway, any film from the series "American in Paris" demonstrates a set of stereotypes on the theme of American and French culture. There is no condemnation in my words: we must not forget that in many respects it was the Puritan values that made America a great country and world leader. The countries are different, and the values in them are different, this is normal.
The sexual revolution of the sixties made a dent in American Puritanism - but further, starting with the HIV / AIDS epidemic in the eighties, the Puritan approach began to take revenge: sex may have ceased to be a sin, but it became very dangerous - first for life and health, and then for reputation and career, first on campus and in large corporations, and now it seems everywhere. The key point of this danger is that at the time of redefining the borders it is not always possible to understand whether tomorrow what was normal yesterday would be normal - and therefore it is easier to refrain from unnecessary erotic contacts than to guess what will be reprehensible in five years. A side effect of the #MeToo campaign is devaluation of sex and revenge of puritanism, French women are worried (and not just men). And because of the leading position of the United States in the world, it will inevitably affect other countries - including those in which sex is easier to treat than in the States.
The third point about which they write in the same letter is much wider than the current campaign. The struggle for the rights of any affected or discriminated groups pushes onto the media surface the characteristic figures of the "victims" - that is, people injured by one or another incident, people who are unable to fight back violence. Of course, the sensitivity to injury is different for different people: someone's hand on the knee is trauma, and someone after the rape will shrug and will live as before. And the society wants to protect the injured people - hence the “culture of the victim”. But a side effect of this is that the victims receive more attention and support than those who resist. This is the most disturbing moment: “the culture of the victim” is a powerful trend that affects the whole world and which is difficult to resist.
For the first time, this problem became clear after the creation of Israel. On the one hand, its appearance was largely possible on the wave of understanding the crimes committed by the Nazis against the Jews, and the conversation about the Holocaust brought to the fore the figure of the Jewish victim. But Israel, a young country in the ring of enemies, was not fit for such a model, and the Israelis argued that many Jews fought Nazism and died heroically.
It is important that when we talk about Jews who resisted, or about Jews who went to death without reproach, we do not for a moment justify the Nazis. Similarly to the controversy surrounding the current campaign: the objections of Catherine Deneuve and other signatories are not reduced to justifying Harvey Weinstein or other rapists, but to the fact that they would like to talk more in the media space about women who find the strength to say no! " or to fight back in a different way than about women who feel that their lives have been destroyed and they have suffered a serious injury from someone's harassment.
Actually, the main thing that we can oppose to the "culture of the victim" is the education of children not only so that they do not take the side of violence, but also so that they strive to be heroes and fighters, not victims. By the way, a lot has been said about this in the Russian culture of the twentieth century - from the famous performance of Brodsky in Ann Arbor to the “Archipelago Gulag” of Solzhenitsyn.
However, within the framework of Russian culture or any other, but I am convinced that it is necessary to teach this anyway - in the end, the winners in this life will always not be those who, faced with injustice and violence, give up and then curse until the end of life виновников, а те, кто сражаются, оставаясь хозяевами своей жизни и сами отвечая за всё, что с ними случится.
Photo:laboko - stock.adobe.com (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)