"Holding men accountable"

I want to summarize something that Kate Harding wrote for the Washington Post about how she would like for the Democrats to respond to Sen. Al Franken's admitted inappropriate sexual behavior when he was still a comedian.   Harding identifies herself as a feminist and author of a book on rape culture;  but she does not think Franken's resigning from his position is the consequence that's best for American women.

She acknowledges that cynics will presume it's because both Franken and she are Democrats;  but, she writes, "it’s meaningless to say it’s because I am a Democrat without asking why I am a Democrat . . . [and] why it might not make the most sense to demand Franken's resignation."

Yes, Franken's replacement would be made by a Democratic governor;  but it would set a precedent, and other cases to come might be replaced by Republican governors.  Harding continues: 

"I am a Democrat because I am a feminist who lives under a two-party system, where one party consistently votes against the interests of women while the other sometimes does not. . . .  I am a realist who recognizes that we get two viable choices, and Democrats are members of the only party positioned to pump the brakes on Republicans’ gleeful race toward Atwoodian dystopia.  Meanwhile, I recognize that men’s harassment of and violence against women is a systemic issue . . .  Its roots lie in a patriarchal culture that trains men to believe they are entitled to control women’s bodies —for sex, for sport, for childbearing, for comedy.

". . . .  Sexual harassment and assault are simply too widespread for Democrats to respond to Franken’s offense with only Franken in mind . . . .  [If Democrats] set this precedent [resigning] in the interest of demonstrating our party’s solidarity with harassed and abused women, we’re only going to drain the swamp of people who, however flawed, still regularly vote to protect women’s rights and freedoms." 

Then the legislative branch will simply remain in the control of "old, white Republican men who regard women chiefly as sex objects . . . and we’ll show them how staunchly Democrats oppose their misogynistic attitudes by handing them more power."

Harding is in no way suggesting that they not hold Franken accountable, only that "we think in terms of consequences that might actually improve women’s lives going forward."

She then outlines a plan:   Franken should announce that he will not run again in 2020, then go on a listening tour in his state to learn what women want him to work on during the rest of his term -- and then "go to the mat for their needs."   She then adds that she would like to see him "support a qualified progressive woman . . . to run for his seat. . . Don’t just apologize and drop out of sight. Do penance. Live the values you campaigned on. Be a selfless champion for women’s rights."

Harding points out that this would set a pattern for handling other cases among Democrats -- and maybe force Republicans to take the problem seriously.  She does put limits to this plan:   if there is a credible accusation of violent assault or if the alleged abuses involve their work in politics, an immediate investigation and resignation would be in order.   She wrote this prior to the second complaint against Franken.   And she concludes:

"[In] a sharply divided political climate where toxic masculinity knows no party, yet is only ever acknowledged by one, we must think about how to minimize harm to women. One more empty apology and resignation . . . will not make American women safer or better off. Powerful men lifting up women’s concerns and supporting progressive women candidates, however, could be a real step toward changing the culture that makes victims of so many of us."

*     *     *     *     *

New York Times columnist Charles M. Blow  focused on our cultural learning about roles and relationships.   He writes:

". . . . Something far more fundamental has to take place.  We have to re-examine our toxic, privileged, encroaching masculinity itself. . . .  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' . . . .

"Society itself has incubated and nourished a dangerous idea that almost unbridled male aggression is not only a component of male sexuality, it is the most prized part of it.  We say to boys, be aggressive.  We say to girls, be cautious.  Boys will be boys, and girls will be victims.

"We say, almost without saying it at all, that women are the guardians of virtue because an aroused man is simply an unthinking mass of hormones, raging and dangerous  We say that men in that condition are not really responsible for their actions, so it is up to women to do nothing to put them in that position. . . . These are the rules of the road.   This is the outrage.

". . . . [But] Women are not responsible for men's bad behavior.   The idea that horny men can't control themselves is a lie! . . .  This kind of bulldozer, pelvis-first mentality is the foundation of the more aggressive, more intrusive behavior, and until we recognize that, we will count on the courts to correct something that our culture should correct."

*     *     *     *     *

As I write this on Monday night, eight women have accused TV interviewer Charlie Rose of inappropriate sexual behavior.   Both CBS and PBS have suspended him.   I'm sure there are many more exposures that will come out about other men.   Meanwhile, the president of our country stands accused by fifteen women, with one lawsuit pending, of some of the same things he admitted to doing on the Access Hollywood tape.   Republicans are in a bind.   The local Alabama Republican party stoutly defends Roy Moore, while national Republican leaders (McConnell, Ryan) call on him to step down.    But they remain silent on the leader of their party, as he remains silent on Roy Moore.

We live in interesting times.

Ralph