Are we all guilty?
What will be the legacy of the extraordinary expression of solidarity that has unfurled with the #metoo social media miracle? Information technology was launched on the dorsum of the allegations by actress Alyssa Milano of corruption by Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein—but has travelled a long way from these celebrity elites. It has been clear, even from a cursory glance at comments on Facebook, that for some women information technology has been a life-changing pace from the darkness of isolation into the light of understanding, as they realise that they have non been the only ones to experience unwanted sexual advances from men. Every kind of abuse has this isolating consequence—of making the victim think 'Am I going mad? Am I the simply one who thinks this is not adequate? Am I the only one who sees the world this style?'
If there has been a alter of solidarity for women, and so there has been an accompanying claiming to men—and they accept responded in dissimilar ways to this. I tin but agree with Martin Saunders' assessment: that men need to have a deep jiff, consider the experience of half the man race, and be committed to doing something about it:
I personally received a lot of criticism when I suggested than all men should feel at least a piddling ashamed in the confront of all the #metoo stories. Shaming an entire sex isn't the answer, I was repeatedly told. I respectfully disagree. I think we should feel some reflected sense of shame, because that not merely acknowledges that we're part of the problem, only too that we could course part of the solution.
At the same time, many have felt quite serious reservations about the way that the hashtag has been used, including many women I accept spoken to. (The power of social media is a two-edged sword, and information technology can practise as much damage every bit good at times.) In office this was because it began to movement into portraying all women every bit victims; in part considering both the serious and trivial were being grouped together without distinction.
Is awareness-raising such as this useful in and of itself? I felt, yesterday, the same vague despair I feel at the proliferation of "Let's Talk" campaigns and journalism around mental affliction. What began, in that example, as a well-intentioned encouragement to do away with personal shame around your diagnosis, transformed eventually into a slick and meaningless catchphrase which puts the burden on the sufferer to heal themselves without any resource.
A articulate instance of this was the list a journalist compiled of offences committed past MPs in Parliament. Not just did information technology juxtapose serious offences with actions of no event, past attributing names which were and then blacked out information technology perfected the fine art of trial by media, with no court of entreatment. There is petty that anyone can do who is named on such a list. We might be less concerned about the reputations of powerful men—until we read of the tragedy of Carl Sargeant, the 49-twelvemonth-sometime male parent of two who took his own life equally a issue of allegations made against him.
Former Plaid Cymru AM Rhodri Glyn Thomas said Mr Sargeant "clearly felt he had been found guilty earlier he had a risk to defend himself. "So I think we demand to develop a system which is fair to everybody, which defends everybody, just doesn't place people in a position where they feel they have no opportunity whatever to fight their cause."
As Marking Forest highlights, Christians have a ameliorate story to tell about wrongdoing, accountability and forgiveness. Nosotros should be unafraid to call for justice—but equally unafraid to offering hope to both sides:
Let's be clear: no one can justify Weinstein-like behaviour, in Hollywood or in Westminster. But anyone tin can denounce evil. The Church is chosen to go farther: to telephone call sinners to repentance, and to offer the full and free forgiveness of Christ to all who want it. It's difficult to contend for mercy when the whole world is howling for vengeance, but that's what we're for.
Simply this whole episode has raised so many issues nigh debates in contemporary culture that I have struggled to go my head around them—and most commentators have passed over them. Mayhap the near obvious concerns our cultural narrative nigh the virtues and vices of men and women. It is well established the most violence against women is perpetrated by men—but then is most violence perpetrated against men. I was physically assaulted twice when I was a teenager, once seriously enough to need medical attention—but have never actually talked nearly this before. It was striking that the (rather weird) Newsnight debate on this was titled 'The Problem with Men' and suggests that men are, largely, viewed as problematic in many of our cultural narratives. In an earlier post on the differences betwixt men and women, I cited the intriguing thought experiment suggested by Roger Olson:
Epitome a world without females. (There are at least a couple of novels that practise this.) Only male humans exist in this imaginary world and cloning is the means of reproduction. What would be missingalso breasts, internal genitalia, etc.? No one I know thinks this would be a adept globe; it would exist missing some very essential qualities. I recollect everyone agrees with that. What would those missing qualities be? I suspect we don't fifty-fifty need to answer that; everyone has his or her list.This is why there is such a button in academic circles to get girls and women into STEM disciplines and careers—because those professions (it is said) will be "improve" with more than women in them. Womenas women contribute much to the world and every profession in it. I have never met anyone who would argue with that other than patriarchal "complementarians" (neo-fundamentalists).
Now imagine a world without males. (Again, there are a couple novels that do this.) Only female humans exist in this imaginary world and some means has been discovered for reproduction without males. What would be missingbesides external genitalia and Adam'south apples? I call up many people think this could be a perfectly good earth; it would not exist missing any essential qualities. And those who think it would exist missing some essential qualities are reluctant to say what they are. I am—because the push back can be very harsh (in my world).Could this be why nobody is saying that any field of study or profession would be "better" if more than men were in them? At to the lowest degree I have never read that inThe Relate of College Education or whatever other journal or article or book about gender in academia and the world of careers and professions.
What Olson is highlighting is that, every bit we have moved from a culture which has, for centuries or more, imagined that the male person of the species is normative, and the female person is a poor derivative, the corrective response to that has not been to re-establish equality between and an equal appreciation of the two sexes, but more oftentimes to reverse them. The female person is often seen as normative or even virtuous, and the male is a poor fake.
This feeds into the second reality that this issue highlights: men are different from women. (Delight notation that any statements of this kind demand to exist treated in the same way as the merits that 'Men are taller than women'. It does not mean that every human is taller than every women. Information technology means that men as a grouping are taller than women as a group, and therefore that the average human being is taller than the average woman.) This was 'front and centre' of the Newsnight discussion, where Evan Davies introduced the programme by saying 'It'southward hard to put it any other way—but there is something fauna when information technology comes to men and sex'. For Christians who believe in the 'traditional' view of marriage as betwixt one man and one adult female equally the correct place for sexual intimacy, this is non-trivial. It is not areason for believing such a view, but it is an importantconsequenceof it. Office of the negotiation of male person-female marriage is (typically) the negotiation between differential interests in sex activity. As Glenn Stanton put information technology on theFirst Things blog:
Women settle men down. Other men practice not.
If men are (fundamentally?) different from women in this regard, then aforementioned-sex sexual relationships are going to be (fundamentally?) different from other-sexual practice sexual relationships.
The third reality is about differences in power. With his customary eloquence, Will Cocky lamented (on Sunday's Point of View) the failure of the 'first wave' feminism of his mother to have actually 'reclaimed the nighttime'.
The simply reason that I can walk downward the streets of London without fear, and others cannot, is that I accept a penis.
That is not quite true. The reason that he can walk without fright is that he is very tall and, as a homo, has something like xl% greater upper trunk force than the typical adult female. Sexual harassment is an issue of power every bit much every bit annihilation else, and it is no coincidence that it is powerful men who are most ofttimes guilty of sexual set on. They are in positions of power, and then have the opportunity—and they are highly motivated by ability (else they would not exist in the positions that they are in) and so have ample reason.
It seems if yous give men huge amounts of power, whether the ability of celebrity (in Trump's self-confessed case), or the power to destroy careers (Weinstein), or power in the workplace (O'Reilly, Fish), or just plainly male privilege, nosotros will abuse information technology. Charles de Montesquieu in one case said, "Feel shows us that every man invested with power is apt to corruption information technology, and to carry his potency as far every bit it will get."
Hear that? Equally far every bit it will go.
Seventy-six women take come forward to charge Harvey Weinstein with harassment or assault. The next worst offender is moving picture managing director James Tobak with 31 women going on the record (although the Los Angeles Times claims he has been accused of sexually harassing over 300 women). That's the unchecked power of men who experience they can human activity without consequences. We simply can't exist trusted with impunity. Requite an role player, a director, a film producer, a reality Telly star, a publisher, a politician, or a minister of religion, power with impunity and they'll exploit it.
In the neoliberal economics of the West at the present time, we appear to exist happy living with massive inequalities of power. As long as that is the example, then we will exist faced with the offence of abuse. Volition Self highlighted the concerned in feminism with the 'male gaze'. But with the all-pervasive power of the internet, we have provided men with the opportunity to indulge that gaze more than ever. Where is any regime in the West who is prepared to take on the distribution of pornography on the net? Over again, information technology appears to come downward to power—the ability of lobbying, the ability of commerce and taxation, and the power of PR, in that no government wants to be seen to restrict freedoms.
But Mike Frost'south observations about power include a pointed challenge: if womenwere like men, would they be whatsoever different?
And in proverb this, I'm non suggesting the abuse of power is only a male person issue. Would women treat men this mode if we lived in a matriarchal system where women had significantly greater power than men? We haven't had a chance to discover out. But since I'm pretty skeptical near near gender stereotyping, I'm inclined to think that, aye, they would.
When nosotros speak near the inevitability of the abuse of power we ever apply male language or male person examples because men have had all the power. But if Lord Acton'due south old precept that "Ability corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" is true, then information technology ought to be applicable to both men and women.
This points us to another miracle in our cultural narrative: the universality of human corruption. Even the Queen, information technology seems, is non above minimising her tax bill with some borderline off-shore practices. Next time yous mind to the news, and hear tales of dishonesty, greed, selfishness and corruption, it is perhaps worth having Romans 3 to hand:
There is no one righteous, non even i; there is no 1 who understands; there is no one who seeks God. All take turned away, they have together become worthless; in that location is no one who does good, non even 1." "Their throats are open up graves; their tongues do deceit." "The poison of vipers is on their lips." "Their mouths are full of blasphemous and bitterness." "Their feet are swift to shed blood; ruin and misery mark their means, and the way of peace they do not know." "There is no fearfulness of God before their optics."
Paul is being polemical, simply he is using this catena of OT verses to highlight a pervasive reality of the human status: 'All have sinned'…and so the gracious offering of God'due south forgiveness is of relevance to all. He is, of course, very clear that this polemic is not one that can be used by 'the righteous' to bespeak to others—it includes us all. Only it is striking how hands we talk of human sin in others, and much we all resist the reality of human being sin in ourselves. Are nosotros all guilty? #metoo
In ane online discussion, a friend of a friend asserted 'The Church building has nix to say on this until it gets its ain firm in society'. That is incorrect on two counts. First, the Church (or any institutional expression of Christian faith) will never be perfect, and so if we wait for this we will be waiting forever. 2d, though we demand a apparent testimony of change, in the end we are not pointing to ourselves, but to another—1 who never abused power or sex, and who laid down his life for us. Our own failings should never make us hesitate to point to him.
Follow me on Twitter @psephizo.Like my folio on Facebook.
Much of my piece of work is washed on a freelance ground. If you have valued this post, would you consideraltruistic £1.20 a month to support the production of this blog?
If you lot enjoyed this, do share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you take valued this post, you can make a unmarried or repeat donation through PayPal:
Comments policy: Good comments that engage with the content of the post, and share in respectful debate, can add real value. Seek first to understand, and so to exist understood. Make the nearly charitable construal of the views of others and seek to learn from their perspectives. Don't view debate as a conflict to win; address the argument rather than tackling the person.
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/life-ministry/are-we-all-guilty/
0 Response to "Are we all guilty?"
ارسال یک نظر