- Joined
- Dec 16, 2015
- Messages
- 45,244
- Reaction score
- 6,619
No article here, but if you have one that touches on this idea I'd like to read it.
It's wisest and most moral to start off by recognizing that the recent claims of these women are, by and large, true. Too many men have taken advantage of a tilted system for a very long time, and the remnants of acceptable sexual harassment and work discrimination (even in nontraditional environments like Hollywood) need to be snuffed out. The women who were abused and who felt they couldn't speak up at the time should be heard, and their claims should be evaluated fairly. The mass outing of sexual predators and misconduct is proper and good for the future.
However, granting the claim that this is a systemic problem is also an admission that the responsibility is spread throughout the system. In this case, the system is the entire American work environment. When problems are systemic, individual punishment and responsibility must be adjusted accordingly. Those most in control of their environments and affecting the most people, and who do the most harm, are the people who should be judged the most harshly. This includes the Harvey Weinsteins and the Roy Moores. The "ringleaders" who set the example from their positions of authority and influence.
But as we move down to the Charlie Roses (unless more has come out since I last checked) and the Louis CKs, we encounter less serious offenses, but they should still be aired- the women deserve to be heard. There should be some consequences. But they also deserve a chance to straighten up.
We need a period of clemency. In exchange for the fair hearing of the complaints, and the recognition that the system is undergoing necessary change, men should from this point backwards be judged a little less harshly for their indiscretions. And from this point forward, judged by the stricter standards that have all but become the norm in the workplace. There is something genuinely unsettling about holding full court on every bad act from 1985, or even 2005. It's not a witch hunt, but it's also not quite striking the chord of justice that it should.
There isn't any way to institute this idea, but it should still be argued for. That means that men shouldn't be calling this a witch hunt, or reacting in some other cynical way, and it means accepting the terms of today in good faith going forward. It also means that women shouldn't expect their harassers (in most instances) from five, ten, or thirty years ago to lose their jobs.
If the problem is in the system, the responsibility exists throughout. Can't have it both ways. If you want to maximize individual accountability, you must lower the blame against the system. If you want systemic change, you must lower individual accountability. Forgive, and forget if it's appropriate, but you have to forgive.
It's wisest and most moral to start off by recognizing that the recent claims of these women are, by and large, true. Too many men have taken advantage of a tilted system for a very long time, and the remnants of acceptable sexual harassment and work discrimination (even in nontraditional environments like Hollywood) need to be snuffed out. The women who were abused and who felt they couldn't speak up at the time should be heard, and their claims should be evaluated fairly. The mass outing of sexual predators and misconduct is proper and good for the future.
However, granting the claim that this is a systemic problem is also an admission that the responsibility is spread throughout the system. In this case, the system is the entire American work environment. When problems are systemic, individual punishment and responsibility must be adjusted accordingly. Those most in control of their environments and affecting the most people, and who do the most harm, are the people who should be judged the most harshly. This includes the Harvey Weinsteins and the Roy Moores. The "ringleaders" who set the example from their positions of authority and influence.
But as we move down to the Charlie Roses (unless more has come out since I last checked) and the Louis CKs, we encounter less serious offenses, but they should still be aired- the women deserve to be heard. There should be some consequences. But they also deserve a chance to straighten up.
We need a period of clemency. In exchange for the fair hearing of the complaints, and the recognition that the system is undergoing necessary change, men should from this point backwards be judged a little less harshly for their indiscretions. And from this point forward, judged by the stricter standards that have all but become the norm in the workplace. There is something genuinely unsettling about holding full court on every bad act from 1985, or even 2005. It's not a witch hunt, but it's also not quite striking the chord of justice that it should.
There isn't any way to institute this idea, but it should still be argued for. That means that men shouldn't be calling this a witch hunt, or reacting in some other cynical way, and it means accepting the terms of today in good faith going forward. It also means that women shouldn't expect their harassers (in most instances) from five, ten, or thirty years ago to lose their jobs.
If the problem is in the system, the responsibility exists throughout. Can't have it both ways. If you want to maximize individual accountability, you must lower the blame against the system. If you want systemic change, you must lower individual accountability. Forgive, and forget if it's appropriate, but you have to forgive.
