The recent avalanche of sexual misconduct—mostly among the
media and political class—has provoked much controversy and commentary over the
past several months, along with many imploded careers that will take years of
rehabilitation to repair, if it is even possible. This comes a little more than 25 years after sexual
harassment caught the public’s attention when Anita Hill accused Clarence
Thomas of sexual harassment during his Supreme Court nomination hearings. While Thomas was approved anyway, the shock
waves triggered a major readjustment of social norms and legal approaches
(“hostile work environment” became a thing).
Unfortunately, lots of different acts are being tossed
together in a single bucket, and I fear an overreaction that threatens to morph
into the New American Puritanism. If
what is going on in universities is any indication, we have much to fear. Just as 9/11 may have caused an
overcorrection manifested by the war in Iraq, we need to be aware or the risks
and costs of an overcorrection to the sexual misdeeds of the media and
political class.
I think it’s helpful, then, to break these things down into
separate categories rather than lump them all together, because then it will be
easier to discern the acts that should be scorned and punished by society and
those that should not. Social norms may
be moving again, but it is important to keep in mind that every time they move
to correct a perceived problem, costs are incurred and other problems are
created, often unforeseen and unintended ones.
As a (near) libertarian, and someone that thinks that a
little romance still has a place in our society, my starting point for sexual
behavior is that of most other behaviors—so long as the actors are of majority
age and are freely consenting without force or coercion, the things they do in
private are nobody else’s business, but that brings me to the first category of
misbehavior—the stupid.
The stupid.
No law will protect people against bad judgment, and social
media and the internet has raised the cost of it. It was, in fact, bad judgment that ultimately
cleared the path to the election of Barack Obama as president. In 2004, the divorce records of GOP opponent
Jack Ryan were made public, and revealed that he liked to go to sex clubs and
tried to talk his wife into engaging in public sex acts. The publicity led to Ryan’s withdrawal from
the race and Obama’s senatorial victory.
Ann Coulter at the time quipped, “It was the first time a politician was
undone by a sex scandal that involved wanting to have sex with his own
wife.” Likewise, Congressman Joe Barton
resigned after “revenge porn” pictures of him surfaced, although there were no
allegations that any of this was nonconsensual. I wrote a piece following the Ashley Madison
website hack, where married people trolling for hookups were exposed. This is an area in which I believe that we
have entered into an area of the New American Puritanism. In an era where social media, hacking,
revenge porn, and surveillance cameras are obsequious, the best bet if you
aspire to public life is to stick to sex only with your spouse, preferably
missionary position only.
The coercive or
threatening.
More reprehensible than the stupid is the coercive or acts
that drift into battery or sexual assault.
It is most serious in the workplace where someone has either supervisory
authority or otherwise has the power to affect a person’s career
trajectory. The crown prince of this
type of sexual misbehavior was Bill Clinton, whose relationship with a young
intern led to his impeachment, and there were other, more serious allegations
leveled at him. While Monica Lewinsky had reached the age of
consent at the time, she was in the direct line of Clinton’s authority. This makes any sexual relationship, I
believe, presumptively coercive. The
majority of the recent scandals have been of this type-- Harvey Weinstein, John
Conyers, Matt Lauer, Head of NPR Michael Oreskes, Roy Price at Amazon. Al Franken also belongs in this category,
although he initially attempted to move himself into the “stupid” category by
calling it all a joke.
Over the past 30 years or so our social norms have
moved. While we all agree that the acts
of louts such as Weinstein and Conyers are categorically unacceptable, the
presumptive position that sexual relationships within lines of authority in the
workplace are inherently coercive has, in some respects, imposed costs on our
society and have actually been harmful to some women in some respects.
In the 1950’s, 60’s and into the 70’s, it was fairly common
for men to marry their secretaries. Our
societal norms have now all but barred those unions. But one of the trends that has exacerbated
income inequality is the trend for people to marry at the same education
level. College grads marry college
grads, and so on. There is an effective
barrier in place that prevents noncollege educated women from marrying “up,”
and this, I believe, contributes to income inequality.
The second cost to women comes in the form of denying them
the opportunities to be mentored. The
majority of jobs in organizations that are at the seats of power or nearby are
still held disproportionately by men.
Much of mentoring takes place outside work or in informal settings. If men are at risk of attack from
accusations, they will be more likely to take a Mike Pence approach (who will
not have dinner with any woman other than his wife while alone). Mentoring, for the most part, is a purely
voluntary act. The mentor often gets
nothing out of it directly other than the psychic reward of helping a younger
person achieve more in his or her career.
The safest course of action for a male executive is to simply not mentor
women and not bother. I have no hard
data to support how pervasive this position is, but I have my suspicions about
it.
The third cost is simply depriving people of opportunities
to form pair bonds and marry. We all
know many people that initially met and grew fond of each other at work. How better to get to know someone than work
on a project together. You learn a lot
by seeing how someone reacts to stress and adversity and how they relate to
other people. I even know two former
bank examiners that had have had a long, apparently happy, healthy marriage and
raised very nice children, and that marriage grew out of an encounter at work,
and somebody took the initiative, right? If love and lust can blossom in the sterile hallways of a government regulator, they can take root anywhere. If the risks and costs to interaction between people of different
genders at the office are raised too high, these bonds simply will not occur,
and there is a cost to that.
Underage.
The most severe punishment and reprobation must be reserved
for those that commit sexual acts with children. For the most part (although there have been
some exceptions), our society does not take kindly to sexual interactions with
children. Most recently, Anthony Weiner
was given a prison sentence for sexting with a minor when he knew of her minor
status. Former House Speaker Dennis
Hastert sits in jail for paying hush money to a man he allegedly abused during
his time as a wrestling coach. Now,
there are allegations against Metropolitan Opera conductor James Levine for
abusing teens decades ago. Yet Roy Moore may still win a senate seat and Robert
Menendez still hangs onto his despite allegations of patronizing underage
prostitutes.
In another area of public life--- sports, sexual abuse of
underage athletes appears to be more widespread than is commonly believed. In Illinois, Rick Butler, a nationally
recognized volleyball coach has had allegations leveled against him. Olympic team doctor Larry Nassar abused
Gabby Douglas and several other athletes.
We need to be vigilant about protecting our children and the
strongest condemnation should be reserved for the perpetrators of acts against
them.
The Problems That
Remain.
Social Media and
Technology
The author W. Somerset Maugham wrote decades ago, “My own belief is that there
is hardly anyone whose sexual life, if it were broadcast, would not fill the
world at large with surprise and horror.”
Today, social media provides the broadcasting mechanism that can make
our secret behaviors go viral in an instant.
The proliferation of phones with cameras and film taking capability,
along with surveillance cameras all over the place means that, for better or
worse, one’s behavior may be under scrutiny always. Retrieval of texts and emails is very easy
(unless you wisely use Bleachbit. Right, Mrs. Clinton?).
As always, technology cuts both ways. It can be an aid in establishing
evidence. Yet it has a dark side and can
also threaten to be the enforcer of the New American Puritanism. Hulk Hogan was able to kill Gawker for
posting his sex tape, but that is rare.
And in Chicago, a teen committed suicide when school authorities
threatened to put him on a sex offender list after he forwarded the audio of a
sexual encounter with his girlfriend.
Another deleterious aspect of technology is that it is
depriving young people of learning crucial aspects of social norms and
behaviors. A friend of mine, who is a
practicing pediatrician, chirped last summer that teen pregnancies and rates of
STD transmission are down. That is
undoubtedly good news, but it is an unintended consequence of something more
pernicious. Young people are interacting
and learning sexual behavior via smart phone, and not in person. There is a subtle, delicate balance that
needs to be learned about when a woman is receptive to a man’s advances, and in
my generation, it began the first time you tried to hold hands or put your arm
around a girl in the movie theater.
Girls and women emit a complex set of cues as to when it’s okay to
persist a little and when it is not. Boys
and men need to understand that delicate dance and it is not possible to learn it via text messaging.
Proof and Evidence
Proof and evidence of sexual misconduct will remain a knotty area for a number
of reasons, despite the proliferation of technology and social media. This is especially the case when allegations
are years, even decades old, and there is no physical evidence of any
sort. The alleged acts occur outside
the light of day and victims are often reluctant to come forward immediately,
especially when either there is a relationship that involves a disparity in
power and entrustment (i.e. the Catholic Church and recent athletic scandals
involving coaches), or alcohol.
But false allegations are also common. The case of Chicago Blackhawk Patrick Kane
is instructive in that respect. The
media had already crucified him (in part, because of his prior known bad
behavior), and even though there was physical evidence, it took months to clear
him. The Obama administration attempted
to shift the burden of proof on college campuses by issuing its now infamous
memo on the topic and created quite a mess.
It effectively empowered lots of women that had sex they regretted
having to get men that spurned them thrown out of school by depriving them of
normal due process, and now are facing a raft of lawsuits as a result.
Human Nature
When the Garrison Keillor’s statement that “A world without sexual
harassment would be a world without flirtation” surfaced, I was initially
appalled. But maybe it’s not as
outrageous as it appears on the surface.
Many people I know entered into long relationships and marriages after
the woman initially rebuffed the man’s advances, and the man had to show a
little persistence until she finally gave in and started dating him. We don’t always make spectacularly great
first impressions. Further, women often
LIKE men that show a little persistence and gumption—it is a trait that is
useful in many areas of life. One only
has to see the movie The Notebook and Ryan Gosling’s antics engages in to
attract the attention of Rachel McAdams to see what I mean. Most women think that film is a very romantic
and touching film, yet Gosling’s same behavior would certainly be classified as
“harassment” in many circles. Laura
Kipnis at Northwestern drew scorn and contempt when, at a workshop on sexual
harassment asked, “How do you know if an advance is unwanted unless you try?”
There are behaviors that are unacceptable and should never
be overlooked, especially in the workplace.
Yet when commentators like Stephen Marche in his recent op-ed “The
Unexamined Brutality of the Male Libido,” condemns our entire gender and
implores us to “accept our own monstrosity,” he fails to see that most men do
not harass or coerce women sexually, that they treat women as equals, treat
them with respect, and even reverence.
It’s this kind of hysterical and egregious overstatement that
contributes little to the conversation.
We absolutely should strive to be better human beings. Men have an obligation to do a better job
modeling behavior and teaching our sons how to respect women and where those
sometimes subtle lines need to be drawn.
But if we overcorrect, we risk losing part of what makes us human, and
risk turning our workplaces and communities into cold, sterile places, devoid
of normal human interactions. And this
is occurring at a time when our technology and lifestyles are also driving us
in that direction.
Former U.S. chess champion Bobby Fischer, the eccentric
child prodigy said a lot of crazy things later in life. But his last words on his deathbed were,
“Nothing is so healing as the human touch.”
None of this should be taken to dismiss or minimize the
behaviors of people like Franken, O’Reilly, or Conyers. But we should think about Fischer’s final
words, take care, and think through the complexities of human interaction carefully
when moving the goalposts of social norms.
