Sunday, January 14, 2018

#Time's Up

#Time's Up    January 14, 2018    Dr. Roger Ray
It became a hashtag, a movement, a reckoning, but it began, as great social change nearly always does, with individual acts of courage.
Edward Felsenthal, editor-in-chief, Time Magazine. Jan. 5, 2018

2017 was a tumultuous year in very many ways but when Time Magazine editors sat down to choose the “Person of the Year,” the person who did the most to change the world in this amazing and heart-breaking year, they didn’t choose just one person. They chose a group of people, the silence breakers. The group of mostly women and some men who started to publicly identify with the hashtag, #MeToo… or what the French often call balance ton porc, which roughly translates into “expose your pig.”

It is a 2017 story that has been building for years, centuries, really. Millions of years of evolution embed impulses and appetites in all manner of life to reproduce through sex. Birds and reptiles and mammals of all sorts have nesting rituals so that their species will continue to reproduce but humans have complicated that process with what we call “civilization” but then we routinely fail to be civilized about it.

And the rules of engagement are different in different cultures and in different times. We Westerners are offended by the Muslim practice of insisting that women cover themselves entirely but those more conservative Muslims are shocked and offended by the way we pressure women into revealing clothing and makeup as if they were constantly on display for sexual purposes. What seems like freedom and liberation in the West looks like exploitation in the Muslim world and, to be honest, if often is.
And what looks like repression and control in the Muslim world in our eyes, is, in truth, exactly that. Both are, in some ways, right, and both are, in other ways, horribly wrong.

Twenty years ago I was scuba diving in the Bahamas and one of our dives was on the submerged airplane that was a set in the James Bond movie, Thunderball. When I came home, I rented the VHS tape of the 1965 movie to show my then 8-year-old daughter where I had been on vacation. In the opening scenes, James Bond engages in what could only be called a rape scene with a masseuse that sent me scrambling for the VCR.

I’m sure that I had seen the movie when I was young and the Bond character was designed for young men to be envious of 007’s swagger, his self-confidence, his success in seduction but what looked like over-the-top secret agent stuff in the 1960’s looked like rape in the 1990’s. That kind of confusion and evolution of how men and women engage in seduction produced the somewhat shocking result in the 1980’s when researchers asked women if they had ever been raped, the most common response was, “I’m not sure.” Sometimes that is because of alcohol or drugs, including rape drugs of the Cosby variety, but it also means that they had an encounter in which they felt that they had lost control of their ability to stop.

The silence breakers in the closing months of 2017 have helped to usher into the public a long overdue conversation that can help us to clarify the rules of appropriate conduct going into the future. We have had other moments of sexual revolutions and revelations. Most memorable for me was the Clarence Thomas hearings in 1991. Hearings that made an entire generation of men aware of how sexual harassment in the workplace has been a torturous and coercive part of women’s lives ever since it became common for men and women to share office space. Though the Senate ended up seating Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court and Anita Hill did not get personal validation in reward for her courage, she did wake up the world and started a whole industry of sexual boundary training in offices, universities, and even churches.

There have been other instances of forced awakening, such as when the Catholic priest sex abuse scandals began to break in the late 1990’s. But the most recent cascade of public revelations began with the case of Bill Cosby who, after years of fairly publicly discussed predatory sexual behavior, finally was formally accused and taken to court. More than 50 women came forward to report having been drugged and raped by the formerly wildly popular and influential comedian. The accounts went far beyond the category of “casting couch” exploitation into an arena that surely meant that he would spend the rest of his life in prison, though, so far, he is still free as a result of a mistrial.

But Cosby’s sins were still seen as being an outlier, almost too weird to have an impact on the garden variety of workplace sexual harassment. Politicians and corporate bosses sometimes make a splash in the news when they are found to have availed themselves of the services of male or female sex workers, or if their compulsive and lewd behaviors reach the level of the repeated offenses of the ironically named former congressman, Anthony Weiner.  

But the most perplexing of recent revelations was when the infamous Access Hollywood tape was made public just weeks before last November’s election. In the tape, Donald Trump literally bragged about trying to force himself on women.
He claimed to have committed assault in the most disgusting of language and even bragged of pedophilia in walking into the dressing room of teen beauty contestants while they were undressed. Honestly, I know people who are serving long Federal prison sentences on sex offender charges for much less than what Donald Trump confessed to, a confession we heard just before he was elected to be the President of the United States, an event that required the willing votes of millions of women.

The entertainer, Billy Bush, who was Trump’s host on the Access Hollywood event was promptly fired, basically for just listening to Trump’s foul story but Trump went on to occupy the Oval office as the most powerful person in the world. His inauguration, however, was very lightly attended by a disillusioned public and one of the largest protests in the history of the world took place the next day as the Women’s March brought women and men into the streets in cities, not only across America, but across the world.

Clarence Thomas is a Supreme Court justice, Bill Cosby is still free, and Donald Trump is, at least temporarily, the president of the United States, but change about sexual harassment and predatory behaviors is in the wind. If we don’t blow it, this is a time for real change, at least in America and Europe.

There are, I believe, two ways in which this movement could quickly fail and fade into memory before it can make any progress. The first is if we lose sight of the revolution and allow it to turn into revenge. The other is losing the moral high ground of an appeal for ethics by becoming indifferent about ethics.

Please allow me to explain: For many years, the world protested the system of apartheid in South Africa. It was obvious that the racial discrimination, violence, and oppression of the black majority in South Africa was wrong but the white controlled government kept reinforcing their military enforcement of the system of apartheid because, they feared, the moment that they took their boots off of the throats of the black Africans, they reasonably expected violent retribution.

The only thing that made it possible to bring apartheid to an end without the white minority fleeing the country and taking most of its wealth with them was to give leadership to the kind of people who recognized the need for a revolution that did not devolve into revenge killings. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission that allowed people to confess their sins and change their ways without unbearable retribution has not been perfect. South Africa is still one of the most violent nations in the world, but there was not a bloody civil war and that, in and of itself, is a miracle. They are making progress though progress rarely comes quickly nor does it always follow a straight line.

Though we are not likely to fall into a gender based civil war, we do run the risk of some bomb throwing that will have more innocent victims than targets. When the Harvey Weinstein case went public, we saw the seamy underbelly of the entertainment industry at its most creepy. Some of the complaints against him were for sexual harassment, some were out and out exploitation, and, in some cases, you would have to call it sexual assault or rape. So, an almost daily chorus of “me too” victims came forward to reveal a real monster.

Seeing that a titan of the industry could be brought down gave courage to others to file complaints against well-known personalities that, frankly, just didn’t seem like the type to me but that just proves how thick men can be about these things.
Mark Halpern, Charlie Rose, and Matt Lauer seemed to be as benign as milk toast but boy did they ever have skeletons in their closets. I didn’t find it hard to believe that Louis C. K. needed help and I would easily have believed anything about Roger Ailes and Bill O’Reilly. But I didn’t want to believe it about Kevin Spacey or John Conyers but the evidence seems to point towards guilt. And President George H. W. Bush grabbing women’s behinds from a wheelchair…that’s just pathetic.

In the past few months more than 50 very high-profile politicians, actors, producers, and musicians have been revealed and most have lost their jobs or their careers have been ruined. Some will surely see jail time. Still, this is not just a problem that has affected the Megan Kellys and Gwyneth Paltrows of the world. The familiar, household names of the news and entertainment world must open the door to the millions of complaints to be lodged by hotel maids, waitresses, migrant farm workers, and everyone who works for tips in any industry. Their stories must be heard and their demands for justice must also be recognized. And, of course, this is not just a matter of the powerful exploiting the vulnerable. Most sexual harassment does not happen between an employer and employees. Most of the daily, painful, comments, stares, and sexual suggestions come from fellow workers. It is the whole workplace environment that must undergo a meaningful reformation, from the shopping mall to McDonalds, the local Ford plant to the TV newsroom.

It is not enough to send Bill Cosby to prison and kick Kevin Spacey to the curb and stop reshowing House of Cards. It is not high-profile revenge that will satisfy these centuries old injustices, it is change, change in the way powerful people use their power and change in the way that both men and women, gay and straight, go about the intricate dance of pairing. No means no. Derision is not flirtation. Lewd suggestions are not jokes. Unwanted sexual attention is harassment. Period.
The second issue is more complicated and possibly more dangerous for a straight man to talk about but I will beg your indulgence to allow me to say a bit about ethics. You cannot meaningfully simultaneously air your grievances for ethical violations while insisting that ethical violations against others are inconsequential.

Bill Cosby, Bill O’Reilly, Harvey Weinstein, and Charlie Rose were evidently sex offenders on a criminal scale. People like Anthony Weiner, Mark Halpern, and Louis C. K. seem to me to be mentally ill and deserving of treatment. But do Al Franken and Garrison Keillor deserve to be tarred with the same brush as these rapists, predators, and exhibitionists? Is George H. W. Bush a predator or just a sad case of being given too much latitude in his old age?

Everyone deserves to be heard but not everything you hear will be true. I’ve done marriage and divorce counseling for nearly 40 years and I can tell you that almost everyone tells their story in a way that portrays themselves heroically and their enemies as monsters. Very many of those stories are exaggerations and some are fabrications. In some cases, we will never know the truth.

At least eight women came forward to accuse Judge Roy Moore of inappropriate sexual harassment or outright pedophilia but none of them had evidence that would make much headway in a courtroom. Eight women, regardless of what my brother said about it, does not add up to hearsay. But eight accusers still doesn’t become a criminal conviction though it certainly makes for a persuasive case. For centuries women have been ignored and that was wrong, very wrong, terribly wrong, but it would not be right to assume that everyone who has a story to tell is telling the truth. Victims deserve to be heard and the accused deserve the right to defend themselves.

I would not argue that Al Franken was innocent. In fact, he clearly was not. I would say that he didn’t get a fair hearing and that his life and political career was sacrificed in one of the most ridiculous examples of hypocrisy that I have ever witnessed.

In a civilized society, we know that some offenses deserve a warning, some a fine, some incarceration, and there are some crimes for which society even chooses execution but we don’t execute everyone who commits a minor offense. Ethics demands that the punishment fit the crime. And I know that there are very many victims, numbering in the hundreds of millions, who don’t feel much sympathy for the innocent people who will be ruined in this revolution but let me warn you, the substantive change accomplished in the revolution will depend, at least in part, in the credibility and fairness of the process.

It could all backfire, you know. Rather than being granted an equal role in the workplace, employers might choose not to hire women, especially not young women. Executives might not include junior executives who are women in their business travel or Saturday golf rounds where networking takes place and where promotions are born. We want for men to respect women but not to fear them. We want those who are guilty of offenses to be appropriately punished but we do not want to punish every man for being male even though there is a long history of punishing nearly every woman for being female. Revenge has a certain appeal but, I submit, revenge is its own worst enemy.

Somewhere between the Hooters uniform and the hijab, somewhere between the Playboy mansion and the celibate monastery, is a rational, compassionate, and fair place where men and women can be fully who they are and yet where everyone can work, engage in commerce, and even meet their future significant other in a safe environment where everyone is respected and where no one has to sacrifice either their bodies or their self-respect and that is the place where we must get to because nothing less is acceptable.

We owe a debt of gratitude to the silence breakers who have set this reformation in motion. Let your applause today be for these brave heroes who have set us in the path of justice.





Sunday, January 7, 2018

From Silence Breakers to Culture Changers: Power and Potential in the #MeToo Movement

Click here to see the video
Dr. Nicole Plyler Fisk      January 7, 2018
This is the first in a series of talks about the #metoo movement — a movement
created by social activist Tarana Burke in 2006 and made popular by actress Alyssa Milano in October 2017, a decade later.
Each Spring, I teach a Rhetoric & Composition course and talk to my students about a rhetorical term called kai-ross, which is the opportune moment to make your argument; or, as professor Eric White describes it: the
“passing instant when an opening appears which must be driven through with force if success is to be achieved.”
In other words, Tarana Burke’s idea ... conceived, as she’s said, after she heard a 13-year-old girl’s story of sexual abuse and wanted to offer support, to be able to connect her somehow with other victims of similar trauma, so she wouldn’t feel so alone ... was a good and worthwhile idea. Eventually, she founded a nonprofit, Just Be Inc., and used the phrase “me too” to indicate the pervasiveness of sexual harassment and/or assault against girls and women.
Then, in October of this past year, in light of the Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations, Alyssa Milano tweeted a call to women who had been victims of harassment or assault, asking them to use their social media platforms to say “me too.” Millions responded. That, as Professor Eric White would no doubt say, is “a force” — I’d add, one of Star Wars-styled galactic proportion.
It is fitting that Time’s 2017 “person” of the year wasn’t President Trump, despite his insistence that the publication had said it would “probably” be him — but rather, “the silence breakers”:
women who speak the truth to power ... not unlike those nineteen women who openly accused President Trump of the type of sexual misconduct he bragged about on that now infamous Access Hollywood tape.
Like so many other women, I responded to Alyssa Milano’s call, although it was difficult — not because I have a problem with sharing my experiences, but because ... as Veronica Ruckh articulates so powerfully in her essay, “Literally, Why Can’t I Say #MeToo?” ... “I just...somehow...feel like my experiences weren’t ‘bad enough’ to say #MeToo.”
I finally settled on this:
                  
Me too ... whether being pressured to strip by an older boy while in elementary school; or subjected to vulgar taunting in middle school math class; or snatched in the middle of a routine during my brief stint on high school cheer squad; etc. — none of it was okay, then or now.
After I posted it on my Facebook page, my mother commented that I wasn’t even in kindergarten for that first part. I was four.
Still, I hesitated posting, because I felt so lucky to have only experienced harassment; or for the assault-part to be limited to an unknown teenage boy catcalling me before grabbing my wrist and pulling me towards him only for a moment before I broke free and people intervened.
This hesitation is, as Ruckh explains, part of the point:
my attitude, my feelings, and my self-doubt are part of the problem. I consider myself to generally be a strong, educated, feminist woman with a decent platform where my voice can be heard. Yet I have trouble identifying these things, and further excuse them when they happen to me. That’s not good. It doesn’t have to be ‘bad enough’ for it to count. And regardless of whether I’m comfortable or you’re comfortable saying #MeToo, we all need to admit that we have a problem.
The problem that women and their allies are pushing up against is a sexism that’s systemic — and the only way to bring it down is to find and destroy its roots.
There are many, but one institution in which sexism is rooted ... and I’m tackling this one both because (1) I speak from experience and (2) because of my setting ... is the church. However, this particular building and the ideology of those within it offer a model for what conservative Christian churches could become, if they’d only stop being so fearful of change; so dismissive of science-based knowledge; and so suspicious of “others.”
I grew up in a Methodist church, which — though conservative in many ways — wasn’t, at least, Southern Baptist. In other words, I remember a string of ministers growing up, women as well as men; and I was encouraged to deliver the sermon, myself, whenever we had “Women in the Pulpit” Sunday, which was (and maybe still is?) actually a thing.
I wasn’t even aware of the differences between denominations when I joined the Baptist Student Union my freshman year in college, but I learned quickly, because there were any number of men eager to tell me that I could teach children in
church, or sing, but was absolutely forbidden to be in a position of leadership over men.
Even my male best friend from high school, who came with me to college, seemed shocked that I thought women could be ministers if they wanted to. We had never talked about it. But I’ll never forget the morning he took his seat beside me in a geology class we were taking together and handed me a piece of paper filled with verses designed to put me in my place. I had anticipated as much and was prepared: I handed the list back to him, without even looking at it, and said:
“Galatians 3:28: There is neither Jew nor Gentile, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
I told him that my verse (which suggests God doesn’t see male or female) made his verses void.
He said “it doesn’t work like that” ... (and, for the record, finally unfriend-ed me on Facebook years later) ... but it does, doesn’t it? Because here’s the thing: we get to choose. That secret they never told us in Sunday School? We’ve always been able to choose.
There are verses in the Bible that seem to justify slavery and ethnic cleansing as well as verses that denounce it. There are verses that demonize women, and gay people, and anyone outside the tribe, but there are also verses that not only condemn such demonization strongly but also provide words of encouragement and hope and love to the most vulnerable and marginalized communities. There are conservative voices in the Bible, and there are progressive ones. Just like today.
There was one guy at Baptist Student Union who, when I asked what he thought about women ministers, said, “I don’t see a problem with it.” And I called my mother to tell her I’d met the man I was going to marry, because that seemed so crazy-feminist and awesome at the time; the bar was set so low, y’all. Seriously, though: he’s sitting right back there, and we’re here, and I know that what I recognized as worthwhile that day ... specifically, someone who, despite having been raised Southern Baptist, recognized that he could choose differently ... is not only worthwhile but essential if we want to make the world better.
Because here’s the truth: evolving is hard, messy work. It’s much easier not to think ... to, instead, let others choose for you ... to forget that we have both a choice and a responsibility to be good humans. (And despite what the churches in which most of us grew up would have us believe, Christianity does not have a
  
corner on that market. The Golden Rule, or treating others as we want to be
treated, appears in nearly all world religions and ethical traditions.)
One of the problems that the MeToo movement is seeking to correct is that women have historically not been treated as well as men and to change that requires a fundamental rebranding of a masculinity that has become toxic.
We’re talking about changing culture here. Fortunately, there are people who have been working on this already, with young people as their audience, which means that the up-and-coming generations have the potential to be so much better than us.
I teach freshman composition classes at my state university that are themed around popular young adult series, so I’m going to talk briefly about two famous women who seem to be asking us to grapple with different types of masculinity:
Suzanne Collins and JK Rowling. [People ... and it’s almost always men, by the way ... love to make fun of me for teaching cultural studies (e.g., “What is the English department coming to?!” “Why don’t you teach Shakespeare?!”) [Yep ... that article’s about my class; don’t read the comments]
But we’re going to take a few minutes to see what these women — who have sold millions of copies of books that have been translated into dozens of languages — have to say that might be worth hearing. And, side note: we still have Shakespeare classes. I just don’t teach them.]
In The Hunger Games series, Collins has her heroine choose between Peeta (an artist, a baker, and a boy who — the night before he’s thrown into a fight-to-the- death competition — is consumed not with fear of dying but with fear of losing his “purity of self,” of being turned into “some kind of monster that [he’s] not”; and Gale (the hunter, the soldier, and a boy whose parting idea to Katniss is that there’s really no difference between hunting animals and hunting people). [Here are the actors who played each part; the books were better.]
Gale is the one who makes bombs to kill his enemies; Peeta is the rhetorician, the one who uses words, and whose words have, as Collins writes, “the power of an exploding bomb.” More often than not, he looks for a different and better way to play the game. He’s ultimately the heroine’s, and he should be our, choice.
In the Harry Potter series and the new Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them spinoff, Rowling asks us to consider Harry Potter and Newt Scamander.
     
As Emma Lord explains in her article, “On Newt Scamander, Toxic Masculinity,
and the Power of Hufflepuff Heroes,”
Newt tears up in wonder as a baby [bird] hatches, and tenderly refers to himself as "Mum" to a group of them. When Newt's privacy is violated by [Quennie], his reaction, though he is feeling "angry and embarrassed," according to the screenplay, is merely to say, "Please don't read my mind,” ... When Newt's beasts — the very nearest and dearest creatures to his heart, and the purpose of his entire life's work — are threatened, he doesn't try to lash out or fight or punish anybody. His pleas for [the Magical Congress] to see reason are entirely an appeal to their emotions, an attempt to reason not just with their heads, but their hearts: "No, no, don't hurt those creatures — please, you don’t understand — nothing in there is dangerous, nothing!”
Newt Scamander takes every trope we know about the Male Hero — the toxic tropes that we have grown up with, that are so internalized in traditional narratives that we don't even blink at them anymore — and flips them on their head.
In an ordinary narrative (traditional Harry Potter narratives included) the idea of a Male Hero manifests very differently. See, if Newt were the hero we were used to, he would still defend those creatures, but out of some profound, Gryffindor-like sense of indignation and rage, which he'd use to justify whatever extreme means he'd employ to protect them. If he were the hero we were used to, he would have lashed out at Queenie, and we would have accepted it. Men's pain is traditionally considered weakness, and her exposure of his would open up a plot point for him to expose his manly fury. And the "manlier" thing to do when Newt's beasts were compromised was, no doubt, to hurt anyone and everyone he could ...
[Lord continues:] Also essential in Fantastic Beasts's changing this narrative of men being weak for showing their emotions are the reactions of the people around Newt in the film. The supporting cast of characters, both men and women ... are all at some point or another surprised by his sensitivity, but foster a safe environment for it. The people who react poorly to it are clearly the "bad guys," and through this, the movie retrains its audience to see this hero through a different lens.
Lord concludes with hope that the world is “ready to embrace new archetypes for heroism — heroes who are honest, vulnerable, and unafraid to feel.” I hope so too, but you would be surprised at the kickback I get in the classroom from young men as I present these ideas.
  
Some of them feel compelled to shout out, “Gale is better than Peeta!” or “Harry is better than Newt!” And then I have to qualify, explaining that I feel empathy for Gale who has been conditioned to see violence as his only option; that I still (deeply) love Harry who definitely has his moments ... he’s strongest when he engages Newt-style with his emotions rather than stifling them, when he allows himself to be overwhelmed by love. For Sirius in Book 5. For Dobby in Book 7. Only then is he able to block Lord Voldemort. And that’s a magic we all have.
If my male students continue to protest (and they do), I adapt a favorite line from David Wong’s “Six Ways to Keep Terrorists from Ruining the World."
Wong condemns answering violence with more violence and addresses the kickback from presenting nonviolent resistance strategies (most often this kickback, he explains, takes the form of “What about Hitler?!”); he tells us this:
The more important question for that person is, why do you have a knee- jerk reflex to roll out the Hitler example any time the need for violence is questioned? Why is it that you even feel a touch of anger when doing it? Why do you feel the urge to be dismissive or snide in the process, implying the questioner is weak or naive? Why are you defending the use of violence as if it's sacred to you?
Why, I ask my students, are you defending toxic masculinity as if it’s sacred to you?
This MeToo moment is an opportunity. We’re at that crucial point in the story when — if we’re brave enough and committed enough to “unlearn what [we] have learned” — we can choose differently than we’ve chosen in the past.
Boys will be boys; or boys will be good humans?Throw like a girl as a bad thing? Or, throw like a girl as a good thing?
PLEASE PLAY LINK: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjJQBjWYDTs
If you don’t think those choices matter, I’ll tell you this. The first time I showed my class Always’s #LikeAGirl PSA, back in 2014, one of my female students had tears rolling down her face by the end of it.
Moving forward, we need to remember that we do a disservice to all of us, men included, when we don't treat one another with equal compassion, kindness, and respect. Boys are not naturally predatory; girls are not naturally servile; although
      
we’re all affected by the water in which we swim. The good news is that we’re in charge of the water; we can make it less toxic. And I know that’s intimidating to think about in the age of Trump — but that only makes it more important. We just have to remember that we get second, and third, and fourth chances — b/c we get to make choices over and over again, every day, that show our children exactly what we value.

And, speaking as a woman to my male allies, I need you to talk to younger men about their options: Gale or Peeta? Harry or Newt? If you hear a guy say, “Boys will be boys!” you say “Boys will be good humans.” If you hear a guy say, “You throw like a girl!” you say “That’s a compliment.” Because right now, many of them need to hear about their choices from you rather than me ... but, if enough men support the work that we’ve been doing ... I look forward to the day they’ll take my word for it.