As if sexual harassment, abuse and rape weren't invented until the '60s. As if women have not been screaming about this for decades. As if the solution weren't obvious.
There
is a a particularly repulsive footnote to the explosion of public
consciousness around sexual abuse and exploitation caused by the
Weinstein revelations. Religious social conservatives have been hard at
work arguing that Hollywood libertinism, liberal sexual mores and the
sexual revolution itself are to blame for the behavior of the Weinsteins
of the world. Bret Stephens’ much-lampooned New York Times op-ed hit the “Hollywood values” angle, while David French took on the full-throated promotion of Handmaid’s Tale theocracy this weekend in The National Review.
Let’s be very clear about something: conservative social mores aren’t about protecting women and never were. They’re about controlling women.
The
sexual revolution gave women options: the birth control pill allowed
women to control their reproductive destinies and have children at a
time of their choosing, which in turn gave them economic independence
and the ability not to become indentured servants to whatever man
happened to have sex with them and father children with them. The
revolution empowered women to make choices of sex partners based not on
the approval of their parents or the economic necessities of marriage,
but based on their own personality preferences and physical desires. The
revolution also allowed women to compete in previously gender-exclusive
industries and become primary economic providers for households. In
later decades it also allowed gay and gender-non-conforming people to
pick identities and partners entirely of their own choosing.
All
of this terrifies conservative men. Conservative white men have long
lived in a bubble where they were able to objectify women and use both
physical and economic coercion to force more talented, more capable and
more physically attractive partners to stay with them despite their own
gross deficiencies.
A
world where a woman had to marry the first man she had sex with, is a
world where superior women could be saddled for the rest of the their
lives with inferior men based on a single mistake. A world where women
were trapped at home with children while men dallied outside it, was one
where men could grope and fondle their secretaries in abusive
relationships while women had far fewer opportunities for relief from
their oppressive marriages and domestic prisons.
When
all else failed, the watchful eye of a patriarchal God would keep women
in line, subservient to their domineering marriage partners. This same
angry divinity did not, of course, prevent men from sexually exploiting
and harassing any woman unfortunate enough to be within their economic
power.
The
sexual and civil rights movements changed all that. Not only could
women pick their partners–and as many of them as they wanted–suddenly
the pool of potential partners opened to men (and, eventually, women) of
all races, too. Much of conservative resentment ever since, distilled
to that now-so-common “cuck” insult in Trumpian circles, has centered
around abject terror that white women would find men of color or other
women a more pleasant alternative to their own less attractive and less
interesting selves.
Which
brings us back to Harvey Weinstein. Liberal culture and Hollywood
values did not create Harvey Weinstein. Patriarchy and capitalism did.
Harvey
Weinsteins have existed ever since the dawn of civilization when rich
and powerful men have predated on exploited women in no position to
defend themselves, long before the sexual revolution and in eras
governed explicitly by strict sexual moral codes. Aflred Hitchcock did
it to Tippi Hedren. Thomas Jefferson did it to Sally Hemmings.
Supposedly Christian men from popes to barons have done likewise. Rape
and abuse of women by men is the norm in social conservative society,
whether in Christian Victorian England or Islamist Afghanistan; liberal
sexual mores are the cure.
Harvey
Weinstein isn’t just an alleged rapist and abuser. He’s a gross, wildly
unattractive man who used his financial position as a capitalist owner
and his patriarchal position as a man of power to force himself on women
who would never have been in his league voluntarily. Harvey couldn’t
compete for the affections of the women he wanted, and he didn’t bother
to try. So he used money and power to get what he couldn’t objectively
earn through charm, effort, grooming and good will.
This
is the conservative program in a nutshell: allowing mediocre white men
to use unjustly gained money and social privilege to earn rewards they
do not deserve, protected and enforced by arsenals of private firearms
and an angry, judgmental God. It’s a program that the sexual revolution
has done a great deal to destroy, but there remains much work left to
do.
May the work continue.
Fuckin A right.
ReplyDelete