CSotD: Exploitation
Skip to comments
Steve Sack steps above the partisan divide that has, almost inexplicably, enveloped the Harvey Weinstein et al controversy to put before us what ought to be a priority, but may be becoming simply a momentary distraction.
It's the et al, which he captures on the page of that newspaper, that should pierce through everything else, because the strength of that flood of #MeToo postings was the recognition that it wasn't just Harvey Weinstein, and it wasn't just Hollywood, and it wasn't just the famous women who came forward.
Nor is this anything new, and, in fact, I said so quite specifically back in January, 1990, in a long Sunday business cover on the topic.
And I cite the date not so much to establish my bona fides on the topic, but because the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill confrontation did not happen until a year and a half later.
It has always stuck in my craw that the article, of which I was quite proud, earned not so much as an honorable mention in the 1990 awards, when it would have been top of the charts had it been written after Hill's emergence.
Hence my frequent snarl that "Plaques are for Haques," because awards nearly always go to hot-topic coverage, while lesser-known issues stay submerged.
I've thrown out all my old plaques anyway, and I certainly wasn't the only person writing on the topic back then.
Never mind that. This is what matters:
What if the Thomas hearings had sparked an honest and ongoing reappraisal of the topic?
What if they hadn't simply been the skyrocket of the moment, exploding colorfully against the sky, then fading out against the darkness as the show ended and the circus moved on?
Hill was interviewed on CNN recently, and said this about the incongruity of Weinstein and Ailes being fired for their abuses, while Trump and Thomas were able to deny everything and go on untouched:
How far have we come to equality? How close are we if, in fact, women are having to endure this kind of behavior in their day-to-day lives, in the workplace and on the street? And if we ask ourselves that question, we need to also ask, today, for our leadership, whether it's in the public or private sector, to step up and tell us what they're going to do to stop the problem.
The quick, cynical answer is "Not much."
Clarence Thomas employed the OJ defense before OJ invented it: Simply deny the obvious evidence.
His honorable response might have been, "I was going through a divorce at the time and didn't realize how badly I was behaving. I deeply regret the things I did during that painful portion of my life."
I'd have bought that. I was divorced, too.
But having powerful Senators and a conservative media conspiracy to buttress your denial also works.
So those accusations sank into distant history and the Access Hollywood tapes didn't matter, and conservatives have now decided, as Clay Jones notes, that Weinstein is a villain but that Roger Ailes and Bill O'Reilly are not.
As he notes in the column that goes with his cartoon:
I’ve seen about two dozen cartoons on Weinstein from people who never touched the stories on conservatives, while liberal cartoonists haven’t held back on Weinstein. Donald Trump Jr. tweeted about Weinstein, momentarily forgetting he’s the son of a man who brags about assaulting women, barging in on teenage girls while they’re undressing, and openly cheated on Jr’s mother.
So now what? Should we all just dress our daughters and granddaughters in niqabs and hide them away in purda, or should we just accept that one day they'll join in the chorus of #MeToo?
Or might we hope something will change?
I see in this morning's news that women have come forward about another Hollywood mogul, and this guy hasn't got half the power of Harvey Weinstein, which suggests that, while it won't make as much of a splash, he won't come out any cleaner.
With luck, the two of them will only be the beginning of a trend.
But let's not get overconfident.
Reilly has now embraced the OJ defense: He didn't do it, it never happened, they're all liars.
And, as the old accusations against him resurface, Trump has gone the same direction.
Will anyone believe these bald-faced denials of credible testimony?
Short answer: Yes.
The longer answer: Yes, but how many?
It's plain that simply laying out credible testimony will not be sufficient, which brings up the depressing possibility that, if denial continues to be effective, if injustice remains the default, and if Weinstein remains the exception, we'll just sink back into silence.
So let's have Kirk Anderson completely depress us with this interesting neuroscientific takedown on the biological differences between the Deplorables and the Liberals. This is only one panel; read the whole thing here.
I'm hoping the research he cites turns out to be like that right brain/left brain thing, which was eventually revealed to be piffle, though that one, despite being discredited by anyone who knows anything about the brain, is still very much around.
The theory at least offers an explanation of why, as Pat Bagley notes, some people, confronted with obvious, indisputable facts, simply reject them.
The moral response remains: We owe our children a better world.
Our daughters, and our granddaughters, and our manchildren, too, deserve happier lives, and happier songs, than this:
Where is hope while you're wondering what went wrong?
Why give me light and then this dark without a dawn?
(Evil is sweet in your mouth
Hiding under your tongue)
Show your face!
(What a long fall from grace)
Help me understand!
What is the reason for your heavy hand?
(You're stumbling in shadows
You have no name now)
Was it the sins of my youth?
What have I done to you?
That you make everything I dread and everything I fear come true?
Comments 4
Comments are closed.