Monsoon

The drip, drip of revelations of sexual harassment and abuse in the entertainment industry and politics has turned into a torrent and may turn into a monsoon. Reaction, particularly of the sort intended to do damage control has taken a variety of different forms, from denial to indifference.

Denial

Probably the most famous example of denial in recent American political history was a response to a charge of sexual misconduct: “I did not have sex with that woman…Ms. Lewinsky.” Nearly all of those accused from Harvey Weinstein to Charlie Rose have denied any wrongdoing as their immediate reaction to allegations.

The complication in all of these denials is that some of those accused may actually be innocent of wrongdoing. Some are so obviously guilty I don’t know why they bother.

Times Have Changed

One of the most common reactions to the allegations is that “times have changed”. I think that’s actually a form of deflection.

I don’t think that times have changed that much. Harassment and abuse were thought to be wrong 40 years ago, 10 years ago, and they’re thought to be wrong now. What’s different is people, mostly women, coming forward. That may be because times have changed or that circumstances have changed. I hope it’s the former but I fear it’s the latter.

Maybe I’m particularly scrupulous but I do not ever recall dating a coworker, someone who worked for a customer or someone who worked for a vendor or even attempting to. It has been considered risky behavior for as long as I can recall.

Special Pleading

“Special pleading” means drawing distinctions where none exist, to justify (or condemn) someone. IMO the most egregious example of special pleading has been Roy Moore’s statements to the effect that he’s never dated anybody without their mothers knowing about it. That doesn’t make any difference. The conduct is still abusive by virtue of his age, position, prominence, etc.

Deflection

Deflection is taking so many forms in this matter it’s hard to keep track. As noted above “times have changed” is a form of deflection.

But so are “everybody does”, “all men do it”, and “it’s a problem with men”. Maybe I’m mistaken but I think that all of the revelations to date have been in entertainment (or infotainment, part of the same thing) and politics. IMO the profile of risk and reward and the prevalence of risk-taking behavior in those areas are distinctive. Maybe the problem is a lot broader but we should keep our attention on the wrongdoers actually accused rather than casting a wider net.

Indifference

There are many forms of indifference as well, ranging from “it’s just sex” to “who cares?” to “we need his vote to enact tax reform”. All of these say that the speaker has a hierarchy of values and that sexual misconduct just doesn’t fall high enough in the hierarchy to count. IMO no one should need to engage in sexual behavior to keep his or her job.

I have filed this post under a category of which you may not be aware: “O tempora o mores“, Cicero’s ancient plaint “Alas for the times and the manners”.

14 comments… add one
  • PD Shaw Link

    The constant drip-drip of these stories left me compelled to find an opening to mention to my family that I never did anything like this. This is not reflecting well on men, or at least men in positions of power. (OTOH, one of the stories I read today mentioned powerless men acting crass and gross presumably because they had nothing to lose)

    Under “indifference” I would add a variant I recall from the election in which a Trump supporter explained that grabbing women’s body parts was what any red-blooded man would do and any that would deny it should be ashamed of themselves. Pro-active indifference?

  • Perhaps that falls under a similar classification with “blaming the victim”.

  • PD Shaw Link

    re Times Have Changed; there are so many different stories out there I don’t want to overgeneralize, but:

    a. I know of too many bosses that married their secretaries, including divorcing their wife in the process, that I do think that this was a thing at one time, say in the 50s and 60s and presumably before. Before the 1970s there was a legal recognition that the relationship btw/ an executive and his secretary was personal — while it was a breach of his duty of loyalty to solicit employees of his current job to join him at a new job he was taking, the duty didn’t apply to his personal secretary, i.e. his work wife.

    b. A lot of things illegal today regarding sexual conduct simply weren’t illegal 40 years ago. Consent was not the cornerstone of rape laws, it was force (physical resistance). Special duties for people in authority didn’t exist, and the statutory rape laws were riddled with defenses. I don’t think law and morality are the same, but the impression is that certain attitudes were within the grey area of acceptance .

  • PD Shaw Link

    re the Trump supporter, it may be important that she seemed to be in her sixties, working class, perhaps worked at a diner most of her life or tended bar. It was a men-will-be-boys and I’ll take care of myself attitude. I probably should have mentioned her gender because I think it makes a difference.

  • Gustopher Link

    I know that Bill Clinton is considered the root of all evil, but the Clinton-Lewinsky thing is not the same at all as the current wave of sexual harassment claims — by all accounts, Lewinsky very eagerly consented.

    You can quibble on propriety and all that, but Bill Clinton did not sexually assault that woman.

  • My working life started more than 50 years ago. Even back then dating your secretary was considered slightly transgressive. Maybe that didn’t apply to the CEO. I wasn’t interacting with big company CEOs 50 years ago.

    However, I was 40 years ago and it was definitely frowned on then. I suspect there were regional differences and differences based on industry and company. I can recall that my boss (director level) at Honeywell where I worked at that time started dating a coworker who didn’t report to him and it was looked at with raised eyebrows.

  • You can quibble on propriety and all that, but Bill Clinton did not sexually assault that woman.

    Proper or not it was inherently abusive and considered as such 25 years ago. Consensual is what Weinstein is saying, too. It’s abusive.

  • Gustopher Link

    Harvey Weinstein may claim that everything was consensual, but that’s not what the women are saying. Monica Lewinsky has been very clear on many occasions that she was eagerly consenting, and that she was the pursuer.

    And, since Clinton was not her direct supervisor, or her direct supervisor’s direct supervisor, the question of whether it is abusive is pretty up in the air. I think that if you were to look at corporate policies, you would find that such a relationship is generally allowed assuming both parties consent, and there is no quid-pro-quo (he’s not involved in her performance reviews, or her assignments, so no liability to the company).

    You might claim that the age difference makes it inherently abusive, but Monica was an adult, responsible enough to make her own mistakes (and, boy did she make mistakes)

    It may have been icky and unwise, and it was definitely cheating on his wife, but it wasn’t harassment or abusive.

  • the question of whether it is abusive is pretty up in the air

    Baloney.

    I think that if you were to look at corporate policies

    Not in any company I’ve ever worked for. Name one. Produce evidence.

  • PD Shaw Link

    @Gustopher, “Monica Lewinsky has been very clear on many occasions that . . . she was the pursuer.”

    No that’s Clinton’s slut-shaming version of the story.

    “He could have made it right with the book,” the newspaper quoted her as saying. “But he hasn’t. He is a revisionist of history. He has lied.”

    Lewinsky, now 30, the former White House intern whose affair with Clinton led to his impeachment trial, said his description of their relationship in his just-published My Life made it sound like the dalliance came only at her initiative and was purely physical.

    “I really didn’t expect him to go into detail about our relationship” in the memoir, she said. “But if he had and he’d done it honestly, I wouldn’t have minded. … I did though at least expect him to correct the false statements he made when he was trying to protect the presidency.

    “Instead, he talked about it as though I had laid it all out there for the taking. I was the buffet and he just couldn’t resist the dessert,” she was quoted as saying.

    “That’s not how it was. This was a mutual relationship, mutual on all levels, right from the way it started and all the way through. … I don’t accept that he had to completely desecrate my character.”

    Link

  • Andy Link

    Here’s Lewinski in her book:

    “Sure, my boss took advantage of me, but I will always remain firm on this point: it was a consensual relationship. Any ‘abuse’ came in the aftermath, when I was made a scapegoat in order to protect his powerful position.”

  • Andy Link

    “And, since Clinton was not her direct supervisor, or her direct supervisor’s direct supervisor, the question of whether it is abusive is pretty up in the air. I think that if you were to look at corporate policies, you would find that such a relationship is generally allowed assuming both parties consent”

    Ha! I, too, would like to see an HR policy that says you can bone anyone you want as long as it’s not your subordinate or subordinate’s subordinate. For a CEO-level executive, that leaves the field wide open! For a President, that means it OK to shag any federal employee as long as they aren’t at the cabinet or sub-cabinet level. No problem, it’s all A-OK!

  • Guarneri Link

    Do yourself a favor, Gus. Give it a rest. Do you really want to be the defender of the staining of carpets in the Oval Office by the President of the United States and a star-struck intern?

    Really?

  • PD Shaw Link

    I think Gustopher is referring to rules by which companies can be strictly liable for sexual harassment committed by their management, even if they are unaware that it is going on. It doesn’t mean sexual harassment didn’t occur, its just whether liability will extend to the company. The supervisor, plus one level, rule though for mid-management. The rule for high level management is strict liability for people whose actions can be deemed the actions of the company, such as directors, CEOs, Presidents . . ..

    Lewinsky owns her claim and has not made one, but sexual harassment involves the workplace environment and includes claims made by peer employees. Third-party claims can stem from consensual sexual relations due to employment advantages or favors. The EEOC has substantial guidance on the topic of sexual favoritism.

Leave a Comment