If she is willing to play the victim
For years, decades, workplace sexual harassment goes unreported and unprevented, then one big perp is outed and the dam breaks – so naturally the next step is the move to say repair that dam right now. Spiked came up with several women prepared to say this has gone much too far – not the routine harassment but the reporting of the routine harassment.
Lionel Shriver is one.
In the complicated dance of courtship, someone has to make a move, and the way one conventionally discovers if one’s attraction is returned is to brave some gentle physical contact and perhaps accept rebuff.
Actually it’s not. There are many other “moves” in that complicated dance; physical contact is not the first step. Also, the workplace is not a dating agency, and it’s a bad idea to treat it as one. The issue isn’t just groping in general, it’s mostly groping at work and how it can handicap women.
Julia Hartley-Brewer is one.
Women who put up with sexual harassment and keep quiet about it for years, protecting the perpetrators, are hailed as heroines and strong, powerful feminists. Yet, bizarrely, women who speak out and deal with sexual harassment forcefully at the time, and then happily move on with their lives as I and millions of other women have done over the years, are derided as ‘victim-blamers’ or even ‘rape apologists’. It’s almost as if a woman is only ‘the right kind of woman’ if she is willing to play the victim.
Horse shit. Women didn’t “put up with sexual harassment,” they had it forced on them and weren’t able to speak out and deal with it. Some did speak out but got nowhere; some did speak out and got fired or blacklisted. Apparently Hartley-Brewer had better luck, which is great for her, but it’s far from a reason for her to accuse women who had worse luck of “protecting” the perps. Situations differ; perps differ; outcomes differ.
This is not what feminism was supposed to be about. It was supposed to be about empowering women, not infantilising them.
The top fave libertarian trope – oppressed groups must never discuss their oppression, because that’s “playing the victim” and being “infantilized.” They have to suck it up and move on, take responsibility and tough it out, be empowered. There’s no such thing as structural oppression, it’s all just random incidents between Free Individuals, and the strong will survive.
Feminism was too so supposed to be about structural oppression. Hartley-Brewer is confusing feminism with the self-help movement.
She ends by saying with emphasis that it’s a witch hunt.
It’s all like that – typical libertarian talking points, Living Marxism morphed into Droning Randism.
I don’t have vast dating experience, but never, not once, have I ever attempted to initiate the process of finding out if the other person was interested in taking a relationship further by physical contact. How could anyone possibly think going from nothing to physical contact in an instant is a good idea? What happened to eye contact, smiles, vocal intonation? The gradual ebb and flow of such signals or, if you’re in a hurry or confident, an outright question? Sheesh.
Right? Just a gentle squeeze of the bum by way of saying “Interested?” That’s the way adults do it, yeah?
NO.
Why is Spiked infantalizing men?
Look. This dance between the sexes is as old as time. The lingering glance. A bit of friendly banter with a flirtatious edge. He cops a feel. She tells her supervisor. Human Resources gets involved. It’s all a part of an ancient, glorious tapestry without which the species would quickly vanish.
If a man is accused of inappropriate sexual behavior at work, he must defend himself. Do Ms. Shriver et. al. believe men are incapable of vigorous self defense? Do male Spiked readers really need to hide behind the skirts of lady libertarians? I know a man who was unjustly accused, once. He went straight to his department head, and did a great job exposing the holes in his accuser’s story. Then he moved on with his life. He didn’t spend the next twenty years whining about “witch hunts” like some professional victim.
We need to empower men, not treat them like delicate flowers who cannot hold their own if someone they goosed at the office Christmas party cries foul.
‘Yet, bizarrely, women who speak out and deal with sexual harassment forcefully at the time, and then happily move on with their lives …’
Oh, so THAT’S how it went for Anita Hill?
And the Flintstones projections onto evo-psych ‘human nature.’ Just pointless and horrible.
Thanks for mentioning Living Marxism. Once again the random nihilism of the pseudo-left has segued into the Randroid far right without missing a beat. Horowitz, Bannon, how many more?
Lady Mondegreen, you’ve left me with a big grin. Thank you. Who knew that these defenders of rights were such delicate snowflakes? But, now you’ve pointed it out, it’s so obvious.
Oh, you know those men. They’re so emotional and illogical. Must be all those male hormones clouding their thinking.