#MeToo Paradox: Movement Topples the Powerful, Not the Ordinary

Give women time because all men need to understand that Time's Up.

Unfortunately, the big news stories about groups of women making accusations against the rich, powerful, and famous re-enforce the belief that in order for a story of abuse to be true there must be multiple victims. Then the general belief is that the more victims there are the more true the claims of any one woman victim must be. One thing that was said of the Blasey-Ford claim was that there was no "corroboration" of her story. The implication was that if he didn't do it to many women he must not have done it at all. Although Congress members claimed that they thought that Dr. Ford was "credible," they noted that there was not corroboration suggested that she must actually not be telling the truth. That view, that multiple victims validates a woman's claim, means that most women know that if they are the only one making their claim they will be dismissed at best, maybe ostracized, denigrated, and even attacked by the accused, co-workers, family and others. Some decide the price is too high or that they will be the only one who ultimately pays a price for speaking out. They either endure in silence or walk away out of self-protection.

Let's not forget that the poster person, the leader of the meetoo movement, was Assia Argento, who threatened men in the audience at the Cannes film festival ("we know who you are" terror), while herself, the leader of meetoo, had a deal and paid out hush money for a statutory rape of a young man. Can women lie? You bet they can! And Argento lived with Weinstein for years, benefitted from the relationship, and then turned around to claim that she lived a Stockholm syndrome relationship, because the first time they had sex was a rape, and the four years of dating afterwards (benefiting plenty from Weinstein's position, money etc) him was fear and coercion. Such are the leaders of meetoo who accuse men of rape. Does that matter to anyone? Can any meetoo proponent answer this with straight face?

The worst cases of harrassment and bullying that my mother, sister, wife and daughter have experienced were from other women and girls, at work and at school. There was no point in trying to sue their tormentors in the civil courts – they had no money. The police wouldn't have been interested. The bullies acted with impunity because they had the backing of those in charge, or the bosses were indifferent. Middle-class women have it bad. But ordinary working-class women in particular, white, black and brown, suffer terribly at the hands of their employers, medical workers, the police, landlords, school authorities, and social services. At the top of the heap is usually a middle-aged, middle-class white man but typically he is aided and abetted by his underlings of both sexes, of all genders and all of ethnicities. We humans are just a nasty species.

I think the real problem here is the general powerlessness of women in society. For me the effect of and social reaction to Me Too really just confirms have bad things really are for women and how far there is to go. When I read about men who are now ‘too scared’ to have anything to do with women in the workplace and all the ‘precautions’ they think they need to take, I almost want to laugh and say welcome to my world. Except in our case, we face more than the small risk of a false accusation and we are expected to take precautions for our safety and are blamed if we do not. Further, in our case we face the risk of actually being raped and assaulted and then of being fired, victimised, threatened, socially shamed, called a liar and being sued in defamation just for telling our stories. It hasn’t taken long for the narrative to move back to the pre-Me Too presumption that women are fundamentally dishonest and unreliable. Yes, I know men are scared of women making things up just to take you down, but let me assure you there are very strong disincentives for doing so. No woman would do it just for fun. And in case you haven’t noticed, one woman’s word isn’t usually enough, it usually takes at least FOUR who are brave enough to come forward. Moreover, a history of sexual assault really won’t stop a man from becoming President or being appointed to the Supreme Court either. So my suggestion is to stop worrying simply treat women with respect. Period.

Yeah, but perhaps as an example to the ordinary.

There is money to be gotten from the "powerful." They are willing to pay up to avoid scandal, even when not guilty. Accuse on no ground and sue for profit. That is why no male university professor in sane mind ever closes the door during office hours. The professors do not have money but universities do. And the meetoo crowd knows that very well.

Surely another factor here is the obsession with fairly trivial offenses like Aziz Ansari's bad date. If the goal was stopping abuse for all women it seems like we (i.e. the media) would pick our battles a little better and not dilute the message with tawdry gossip about high-profile men.

What hurdles do MEN face trying to prove their innocence? Is it EVER possible that a woman might tell a lie? Is it POSSIBLE that a man might actually be INNOCENT of charges made against him? I only speak for myself but I will never give up my belief in someone's innocence until they are proven guilty, irregardless of how difficult it may or may not be for the accuser to come forward in a timely manner so that EVIDENCE can be collected to corroborate the alleged wrongdoings. This goes for those I personally disdain like Brett Kavanaugh, for gay men like Kevin Spacey, and for Virginia's Lt. Governor. EVERYONE in my book is innocent if they cannot be proven guilty and to make allegations that cannot be substantiated and that can RUIN a person's life is slander of the worst kind, period.

This piece does hit on a crucial dynamic in the arc (so far) of this (most recent) use of #MeToo, as part of the movement against sexual and intimate partner violences. Ms. Taub's analysis would be strengthened by engaging two points: (1) Ni Una Menos (as a protest movement) predates the current organizing around #MeToo, not to mention that the phrase itself (having originated in Mexico in response to feminicide in Ciudad Juarez) reflects a wide network of organizing , theorizing, and protest for several decades; and (2) #MeToo (in it's current iteration - let's not forget the tremendous work of Tarana Burke) doesn't stand alone, but builds on many decades of social movement organizing against sexual and intimate partner violence. I would love to see an article reflecting on #MeToo that also considers the impact of VAWA (and how its re-authorization has expired), or Title IX and sexual assault on college campuses (and how Ms. DeVos's changes to those policies on that affect students and limit options for those who are unable to seek assistance/justice through criminal justice means), or reflected on the long, complex history of (often feminist) organizing around these issues. How are the polices that we do have for creating a "reckoning for perpetrators" limited and how are they being actively weakened?

I don't agree with the slant of this article. Mine is a not a popular position for NY Times readers. The Me Too movement goes too far. What makes us a nation of free people is partly the Bill of Rights, which includes the right of the accused to due process. What happens with Me Too accusations is that the trial is replaced by media shaming. Not only that, but women are encouraged to make unsupported claims, that cannot be proven or disproven. It is maintained by feminists that women never lie. That seems preposterous. But people don't need to lie when the alleged crime is the giving of consent. How can one be sure that consent was given? Can it be removed after the fact, if the woman concludes that dishonesty was involved? And aren't people dishonest when they try to appear better than they are when dating? On the other side of the coin is the vast number of men that are in US prisons. 94% of state felony convictions are the results of plea bargains, 97% of federal convictions. Many of those convicted most likely were not guilty of the crimes they were accused of. There are more than 2 million in America's prisons, most of them male. Many of these are the result of crime policies that were pushed by liberals. The US per capita rate of incarceration is the highest among large nations. It is 14 times that of Japan, for example. Moreover, there are other problems besides sexual harassment, eg higher death rates because poor don't have access to medical care.

For powerful men with a lot to lose, the accusation itself is the punishment: no proof of wrongdoing is required. Men of a humbler station, whose income doesn't stem from celebrity status, can be punished only by legal means, which requires real evidence; and this is not what #MeToo is about.

It's surprising that this article doesn't mention "Time's Up", which is the attempt by women with more power to help their harassed, less powerful, sisters with legal aid. I think the writer missed an opportunity to promote positive changes that are happening to make a difference and bring change forward for more women and for our society.

I don’t see a single measure in the opinion piece that could be used to either support or contradict the Author’s viewpoint. No data or studies are listed. There are multiple anecdotes included but nothing that actually points to the author’s conclusion. I can’t say one way or the other if the #metoo movement is changing society, but I think this should be a facts based discussion. Depending on generalizations and feelings about the impact of a movement on society gives us no clear answers.

I think the New York Times should start writing instead about the issue of the accusation alone. Why would men want to mentor a woman if the accusation alone can destroy a man's life ? So, for me... The answer is simple. Avoid women at all costs.

If women in a workplace want to fight sexual harassment by superiors, they are unlikely to succeed unless they band together in an employee association or union. It is too easy for a supervisor to get rid of a lone subordinate. If that employee association also includes the men in the workplace, and they are fully supportive of women complaining about harassment, the effort is more likely to succeed in making changes. There are lots of bad reasons for unions; this is a good one; sadly many existing unions are uninterested in fighting sexual harassment because they are led by old men who are often serial harassers themselves.

The issue is that no one cares about the restaurant manager rubbing up against a waitress. That get filed under "creepy" and the world moves on. When it is someone high profile, though, the chattering classes are able to rev up the outrage machine and draw attention to the problem. But high profile people are not relatable to most of us, and therefore the connection to daily life is not made. Furthermore, if a manager gets fired for harassment, he can just go get another job down the road with little consequence, whereas someone who lives in the public spotlight loses their social capital.

I fear the inevitable backlash is beginning. How can a movement be a critique for both Al Franken and the perpetrators of femicide? For Matt Lauer's remote door lock for underlings and Justin Fairfax's consensual hotel room encounter? Excoriate Meryl Streep for not doing more against Weinstein but cheer Hillary Clinton who stood by her husband?

From a man's perspective the unintended consequences of #MeToo can be serious. Is it safe for a man to have a business dinner or a private meeting in his office with a woman? Can a man date a woman of lower rank in their workplace without facing negative consequences if the dating relationship ends badly? What is someone tells on off color joke to a friend and it offends a nearby female listener? What about the male boss who decides to discipline, demote or fire a subpar female employee, is he endangering his career? These are examples of the potential inhibiting effect that fear of being accused of sexual harassment can have on men who would never abuse women. The sad part is this can be more harmful to women than to the man who is afraid. Until the culture as a whole changes, as we have about smoking for example, I fear that the benefits of #MeToo will cause more stress for those of us who are not powerful influential celebrities and less improvement in helping men and women get along at work.

I didn't realize that men in the average workplace are being forced out of their jobs because of bad behavior toward women. Instead of going to HR to complain, why not just tell the guy to STOP IT and then go to HR and tell them what happened and then follow the behavior from there.

Important article. But it seems to miss the most important (and pretty obvious) impediment to an ordinary woman who's thinking about whether to "speak out against harassment by a supervisor." It's not that she fails to hear some anthropological consensus among similarly situated women, and it's not that she'll face the possibility of being driven from her home like Dr. Blasey Ford was (by the backers of a powerful demagogue like Dr. Trump -- something not likely faced by an ordinary woman worker). Rather, it's the brute fact that she'll lose her job and likely have a difficult time finding another. And our legal system doesn't and probably can't intervene in a way that will protect her from those immediate, ruinous costs. What she needs is a labor union that would protect her against harassment and retaliation in the first place, as most collective bargaining agreements now do. Our employment laws are effectively unenforced in non-union workplaces, but are better enforced in unionized workplaces. The empirical evidence is quite strong on that fundamental fact.