They defend a freedom to bother
Bien sûr, c’est normal. There are Christina Hoff Sommerses and Ella Whelans in France too, and they join their anglophone sisters in saying this has gone too far.
Just one day after Hollywood offered a show of support for the #MeToo movement on the Golden Globes red carpet and stage, a famous actress on the other side of the Atlantic lent her name to a public letter denouncing the movement, as well as its French counterpart, #Balancetonporc, or “Expose Your Pig.”
Catherine Deneuve joined more than 100 other Frenchwomen in entertainment, publishing and academic fields Tuesday in the pages of the newspaper Le Monde and on its website in arguing that the two movements, in which women and men have used social media as a forum to describe sexual misconduct, have gone too far by publicly prosecuting private experiences and have created a totalitarian climate.
“Rape is a crime. But insistent or clumsy flirting is not a crime, nor is gallantry a chauvinist aggression,” the letter, dated Monday, begins.
But the claim is not that “insistent flirting” is [necessarily] a crime, but rather that it’s one branch of the systemic subordination of women, that it hampers women at work, that it violates workplace rules, that it’s a form of bullying, and so on. The idea isn’t that all the harassing men should be thrown into prison, it’s that the harassing should stop.
(Also, “gallantry” – give me a break.)
“As a result of the Weinstein affair, there has been a legitimate realization of the sexual violence women experience, particularly in the workplace, where some men abuse their power. It was necessary. But now this liberation of speech has been turned on its head.”
They contend that the #MeToo movement has led to a campaign of public accusations that have placed undeserving people in the same category as sex offenders without giving them a chance to defend themselves. “This expedited justice already has its victims, men prevented from practicing their profession as punishment, forced to resign, etc., while the only thing they did wrong was touching a knee, trying to steal a kiss, or speaking about ‘intimate’ things at a work dinner, or sending messages with sexual connotations to a woman whose feelings were not mutual,” they write. The letter, written in French was translated here by The New York Times.
The only thing they did wrong was treat work colleagues who had the bad luck to be women as if they were merchandise laid out on a shelf for consumption. It’s several decades too late to pretend that men just have no idea that women at work want to be treated as colleagues rather than sexual opportunities.
They believe that the scope of the two movements represses sexual expression and freedom…
They continue, “The philosopher Ruwen Ogien defended the freedom to offend as essential to artistic creation. In the same way, we defend a freedom to bother, indispensable to sexual freedom.” Though the writers do not draw clear lines between what constitutes sexual misconduct and what does not, they say that they are “sufficiently farseeing not to confuse a clumsy come-on and sexual assault.”
But #MeToo doesn’t confuse a clumsy come-on and sexual assault either. It’s entirely possible to say both: an unwanted sexual overture is not assault, and an unwanted sexual overture is out of place in a work environment. A thing can be bad without being a crime; we can call things bad without thereby saying or implying they are crimes. I don’t think anyone has called for Charlie Rose or Leon Wieseltier to be prosecuted. That doesn’t mean what they did was harmless.
In concluding the letter, the writers return to the concept of self-victimization and a call for women to accept the pitfalls that come with freedom. “Accidents that can affect a woman’s body do not necessarily affect her dignity and must not, as hard as they can be, necessarily make her a perpetual victim,” they write. “Because we are not reducible to our bodies. Our inner freedom is inviolable. And this freedom that we cherish is not without risks and responsibilities.”
Dear god. That’s truly sad. That’s what people tell themselves in concentration camps – “my inner freedom is inviolable.” Women don’t have to put up with accidents that can affect their bodies; women are allowed to say no, stop treating us as if we were there for your sexual coffee break.
Deneuve is from France
The leader of France is 39…his wife 66.
I’m going to finance my retirement by investing in nunneries.
This is just the latest outbreak of that old Puritan revulsion of the flesh.
Calvinists, like Golden Globe attendees, wore black.
I other words the “only thing they did wrong” was to make themselves guilty of sexual assault and/or harassment.
Aparently not.
Accidents? An accident is losing your grip on a cup of coffee and having it hit the floor in a splashy, clattering mess. People don’t “accidentally” send out dick pix or “accidentally” “steal a kiss” as they put it in the letter above (though the concept of theft and wrongdoing is right there in the phrase). How long would these behaviours be tolerated and apologized for if they were being forced upon men by other men? They would be considered inappropriate and unprofessional. They would be an unwanted, unneccesary nuisance and hazard, like secondhand smoke. How does allowing this in the workplace help the workplace function better? How does it enhance the performance of one’s colleagues? That some people in positions of power leverage that power gradient to treat those below them as some sort of all-you-can-eat buffet is not usually part of one’s job description. Nor is it “accidental.”
How many of perpetrators are using these “accidents” are experiments to see how far they can go, how much they can get away with, knowing that their targets may be unwilling to endure the gauntlet that comes with reporting? The fact that this “moment”of mutual support of victims and exposure of unethical behaviour is so highly publicized shows that it is new and strange. The more this moment expands into a permanent fixture on the landscape, the more likely victims of this sort of behaviour will have confidence in reporting to those who might be in a position to do something about it. It’s hardly surprising that there are those who want to stop this new development in its tracks, before it gains too much of a foothold.
And again, if this behaviour is prevented or discouraged, this somehow goes against “sexual freedom.” If one refrains from unwanted and inappropriate comments, actions or advances, whose sexual freedom does this interfere with? Isn’t the marketplace supposed to work against dishonest actors? By getting rid of quack doctors and sleazy lawyers, the practice of medicine and law are improved for both clients and practitioners. Don’t professional associatios police their own for the sake of their own reputations? If we remove abusive, coersive, skeevy behaviour from the repertoire of acceptable interactions, how does that reduce anyone’s sexual freedom?
I suspect that, being French, they’re using “accidents” in the philosophical sense, mostly because the sentence seems to make more sense that way.
For crying out loud. Insistent flirting, even if that can be done without crossing into harassment, isn’t the same thing as rape, sexual assault, not giving women equal pay and opportunity, damaging a women’s career because she didn’t stroke your ego (at the least), or just generally treating women like shit. The claim that the #MeToo movement is a new Puritanism is laughable on its face.
The names I recognise speaking out in these letters fall into two camps. Those who have made a career lambasting feminism and those who have made a career projecting an image of not just sexuality, but passive sexual availability. One might suggest an interest in entrenching the current system under which they have succeeded.
John@1, I’m unclear what point you think you’re making. The Macron’s relationship is extremely unusual, indeed eyebrow raising, even for France. It’s hardly symptomatic of any deep respect and equality for women in that country. I’ve yet to see any evidence that the actresses speaking out in favour of #MeToo have renounced sexuality and installed dry sticks in their vaginas. So again, laughable. Coming from a country where black is practically the national colour, I can assure you that there is no modern relationship to Puritanism.
Wikipedia:
Ooh.
Yes, that. Thank you, Rob.
Why do these sorts of pitfalls only come to women? Why aren’t women constantly stealing kisses from men, or sending men “pussypix”? Why don’t men have to put up with unwanted sexual attentions as the terms of them being a part of the world as a whole? I think the answer is obvious – because men are respected and valued, and women are not.
As for whether this stuff is a crime – well, some of it may not be, but there are definitely statutes against non-consensual sexual behavior even if it does not reach the level of actual penetration or “legitimate rape”. Groping, ogling (which is probably not violation of any statute), lewd remarks or jokes, aggressive flirting, or even the issuing of silly nicknames (something I’ve suffered with at pretty much every job I’ve ever had!) makes work like an obstacle course that women have to hurdle, while men can just go ahead and do their work unmolested. It makes work difficult, exhausting, and at times close to impossible.
And when you’ve committed something inappropriate and discomforting that falls short of a crime – you’re still properly on the hook for exposure and condemnation that falls short of criminal punishment. If someone’s been lynched for being a bit uncomfortably, obnoxiously forward (while being white and powerful), that’s gotta be the example to be bringing up all the time and unforgettably if you’re going to condemn #MeToo for creating such an environment.
If you don’t have an example like that – if there isn’t – then there isn’t a case.
Additionally – if you’ve perpetrated an offense short of a crime, and like any decent sort, you don’t want to be offensive, then having it made very clear that that is NOT OKAY is a favor, for which you should be humbly grateful. No one is doing you a kindness telling others to keep their mouths shut. No one is watching your back – or your integrity – trying to keep you spared from finding that out. They’re just holding the door open for you to continue and maybe sail right into downright criminal behavior.
iknklast:
Bingo. I’ve seen people try to weasel their way around this interesting disparity by appealing to the “men are just like that, and women are not” trope. Framed this way, the story becomes “feminists hate male sexuality. ”
But men wouldn’t like being treated like walking dick dispensers, either.* When it does happen to them–as it sometimes does–they really don’t like it. Oh, some joke that they’d love that, but the unspoken premise of the joke is that the predator is a young and beautiful member of the jokester’s preferred sex.
We can buy the “men are just like that” excuse, or we can notice that this sort of behavior has something to do with power and expectations.
It isn’t Puritanism to demand to be treated with respect.
* It would be interesting to set aside a day for women to goose, grope, and catcall men. To flirt “awkwardly” and “insistently” with them at work. Of course, this lesson in how the other half lives would work better if women could magically become bigger and stronger than men for the day.
Another thing these people don’t realize is that you can lose a job for behavior that falls far short of criminal. If you are an embarrassment to your employer, for instance. Or violate their rules for behavior towards other employees, as long as those rules are themselves within the legal definition of what employers can require of you. If your behavior toward other employees makes those employees have a difficult time getting their own work completed, because they are constantly dodging your hands or hiding under the desk when you come by or taking time out of their work day to deal with your “insistent flirting”, they might not be as productive as they might be if left alone, and the employer then is losing money. That gives them plenty of reason to fire you, even if you have not committed an out-right crime.
iknklast @8:
Yes, and more specifically, sex is seen as diminishing a woman’s value, while enhancing a man’s, and men are allowed (if not assumed) to be insatiable when it comes to sex. Therefore, a man who grabs a woman colleague’s ass just because he can is excused as just a bit of a rascal — like a hungry kid snatching a cookie, you can hardly blame the poor thing! (Why did you leave the cookies out to begin with? What did you expect would happen?)
But a woman who does likewise is regarded as pathetic — can’t she find a man who wants to have his ass grabbed by her?
Lady M @10:
I think you’d still have the double standard to reckon with. The Golden Rule doesn’t work very well here, I think, because for most men, being treated as a sex object would be a pleasant novelty, at least at first.
I can’t see how anyone could draw a line from the Macron’s marriage to Puritanism… A fifteen year old declares his intention to marry a woman, and ten years later does so. This may be many things, but it isn’t exactly whit-picket fence Yankee Protestant sex-negativity.
Accepting the exchange of power and status for sex as ‘normal?’ Ensconcing perpetual male aggression as a minimum requirement for heterosexual sex to occur at all?
I don’t think the French have much claim to Advanced Sophistication compared to us Anglophones.
If every sexual come-on is to be seen as an ‘agression’ ( cuz that’s where this ultimately ends up) then why not just cut to the chase and establish ground rules and regulations for societal gender segregation? When people have become too savage to control their sexuality and too dull to express it with any titillation whatsoever, then what can we do?
If porn soused males are now rendered too stupid to seduce women, and if women whom awkward men no longer know how to seduce see every sexual trial balloon ( Doug Murray’s “sexual opportunity”) as an aggression, then that’s all that’s left to be done.
Most people attending the Golden Globes( the oh-so Catholic, cradle-robbing Susan Sarandon may have been an exception!) aren’t really adults at all. They’re silly little (pussy-grabber) boys and silly little ( pussy hat) girls…trapped in the bodies of adult males and females.
Waaa! Waaa!
Meanwhile, Mark Wahlberg ( sporting a me-too button) gets 1,500,000$ for re-doing( a week’s work)his scenes with Chris Plummer.
His me-too button-decked co-star Michelle Williams got 1,500$ for the same work. Now THAT’S something to bitch about.
John @14,
citation needed.
Speaking of inevitable, who didn’t see this Dear Muslima coming? On a scale of 1 to 10 Dawkinses, I estimate it at 6 Dawkinses. Really could have used a reference to genital mutilation or something else violent to up the stakes.
Not so much “citation needed” as “John that’s complete bullshit.” He seems to specialize in it.
John @14, firstly, that’s a lot of ifs in your half hearted attempt at a reducto ad absurdum. Secondly, throwing a whole lot of unsubstantiated and irrelevant shit against the wall isn’t even interior design, let alone cogent argument. Thirdly, you quite rightly point out the obscene pay gap between Wahlberg and Williams, but the turn it into a boiled cabbage of a Dear Muslima.
I suppose it gives you a low paying trifecta, but is that really all you’ve got?
I suppose it gives you a low paying trifecta, but is that really all you’ve got?
Look, I know how you detest white working class people and all ( deplorables!), but could you…just for a teensey weensey moment…imagine what would have happened to Harvey Weinstein had he tried to pull a Rose Mcgowen on Tonya Harding?
She’d have triple-axeled Harvey’s scrotum…because she’s REAL.
The sexual revolution has destroyed romantic love. There’s nothing left but vulgarity; men and women can no longer sexually police themselves properly, so that job will now have to be done by the judicial system.
I’m quite sure the next phase in our ‘liberation’ will consist of a slow, incremental establishment of society-wide gender segregation.
When Truman took the King of Saudi Arabia to a barn dance in Greely Colorado back in ’48 the poor king was utterly shocked and disgusted to see adult males and females mingling freely, dancing together and thoroughly enjoying each other’s company. thorough.
To quote that excitable ‘Mary McGregor’ Character from Miss Jean Brody; “They were KISSING!”
Harvey Weinstein, Tonya Harding, Truman, Jean Brodie (Brodie, not Brody) – what are you babbling about?
John, don’t keep dropping in at random moments to free associate, ok? I could just stop approving your comments but you’ve been around here for a long time so I don’t like to – but this kind of doc dump from your recent reading is pushing it.
John, what the hell are you on about? That’s still an incoherent, inconsistent and unargued pile of dross.
As for me hating the white working class, what? And, how would you know? I hate misogyny, racism, inequality, poverty, ignorance, etc. These are all things that disproportionately harm and negatively affect the working class. Are you saying that these are characteristics that define working class people? Because I don’t think so. I’m happy to share the following about my background. My grandfathers were a plumber and a cabinet maker. As was common in those days their wives didn’t work. None had schooling past the age of 13. One of my grandmothers lived in a dirt floored lodge stone cottage in an area where winter temperatures could be as low as -18C and summer as high as 40C. The others had it better, but not by much. Both my parents started out in working class jobs before putting themselves through University, in my mother’s case over her parents objection (what would a woman do with a man’s education?). Things didn’t go entirely to plan and I was raised in conditions that working class folk looked down on. I worked as a cleaner to put myself through University.
So, I understand working class just fine. It’s far from the monolithic bloc ideologues of any flavour try to make out. Coming from one of the whitest areas of mixed race New Zealand I also almost completely lack ‘white guilt’, while acknowledging that it is clear historical wrongs were committed that need to be addressed in an appropriate way.
In short, if you’re going to try and argue that attitudes, beliefs and behaviours that are deplorable and despicable are characteristics of the working class, come visit me and I’ll be happy to punch you in the nose, then bandage it for you.
What a coincidence, I’ve just had someone else telling me off (on Facebook) for not [insert everything here] the white working class. What is this white working class shit? Besides electionspeak? Why are we supposed to focus on the white working class and not the other kind? Why are we supposed to chop it into segments in the first place?