For #MeToo to Work, We Must Draw the Line Between Sexual Assault and Being a Jerk

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Gingersnap
    Resident stylistic consultant
    • Tuesday, October 1, 2013
    • 24058

    #1

    For #MeToo to Work, We Must Draw the Line Between Sexual Assault and Being a Jerk

    For #MeToo to Work, We Must Draw the Line Between Sexual Assault and Being a Jerk
    Accusations against author Junot Diaz are pouring in, but not all allegations are equal.
    Jesse Singal | July 9, 2018

    At its best, the #MeToo movement has smashed open what had been a closed, whispered conversation, mostly occurring between women, about the prevalence of male sexual harassment and assault. It has exposed serial violent predators like Harvey Weinstein and serial abusive creeps like Louis C.K., and it has apparently led at least some men to rethink their own actions and the boundaries of acceptable behavior. "The #MeToo era has changed my work," the psychotherapist Avi Klein wrote in a New York Times column. "If therapy has a reputation for navel gazing, this powerful moment has joined men in the room, forcing them to engage with topics that they would have earlier avoided."

    But with any movement, there's a point where the initial excitement and sense of shared purpose fades a bit. It's time to discuss exactly what the movement is for—what it's trying to accomplish and which goals it should seek. No set of #MeToo allegations better highlights the importance of answering these questions clearly than the story of Junot Díaz.

    An article by Mark Shanahan and Stephanie Ebbert, published last week in The Boston Globe, offers a useful summary of the Díaz case. For those unfamiliar with the saga, here's where we are: Since May, the Dominican-born, mostly-American-raised Díaz, author of This Is How You Lose Her, the Pulitzer-winning The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao, and a host of other celebrated novels and short stories and essays, has been accused by four women, all fellow writers or former writers, of several misdeeds. The problem is that these alleged misdeeds run such a wide gamut, from genuinely abusive behavior to what is little more than alleged being-a-jerk, that it should worry us that they are all being lumped under the #MeToo rubric.

    Two allegations involve acts that would certainly qualify as assaults. The novelist Zinzi Clemmons kicked off the allegations against Diaz when she confronted him at this year's Sydney Writers' Festival over a previous incident, but she didn't go into specifics. Later, she claimed on Twitter that six years earlier, when she was a graduate student, he had cornered her and "forcibly" kissed her, and that he had acted similarly toward other women. The other allegation comes from Alisa Rivera, described by the Globe as "a Los Angeles woman who wrote about an encounter with Díaz that left her in tears," who claimed that after an uncomfortable conversation in which he told her her skin was too white, Díaz "grabbed me by the wrist and pulled me onto his lap."

    In the immediate wake of the Australia incident, Díaz issued a somewhat vague statement that some interpreted as a mea culpa. But in his Globe interview, flanked by an attorney, Díaz flatly denied Clemmons' and Rivera's accusations. "I did not kiss anyone. I did not forcibly kiss Zinzi Clemmons. I did not kiss Zinzi Clemmons," Díaz told the Globe. "It didn't happen." ("He also provided a cordial email he received from Clemmons the day after the workshop that made no mention of a kiss," notes the Globe. "A Columbia professor also recalled encountering Clemmons after Díaz left the event and described her as delighted, not shaken.") Díaz denied Rivera's account with a similar vehemence, saying it simply never happened; that leaves the incident as a he-said-she-said, since neither side has any corroborating evidence.

    Whatever one thinks of the Rivera and Clemmons' accusations, they involve exactly the sort of behavior that #MeToo should be about. Just because the accusations in question don't center around penetrative rape or the years of horrific abuse of power described by, say, Weinstein's victims, doesn't mean they aren't serious and don't warrant investigation. (For what it's worth, the Globe notes that Díaz "is keeping his teaching job at MIT and his editing position at Boston Review after separate investigations found the accusations lacked 'the kind of severity that animated the #MeToo movement,' as Boston Review's top editors put it.")

    It's the other two allegations against Díaz where things get extremely fuzzy, especially given the extent to which these charges have been embraced by so many journalists and onlookers as bona fide instances of #MeToo-relevant abuse. These allegations severely blur the line between actual assault or harassment and simple disagreement between adults taking part in consensual conversational exchanges. Blurring that line further would be deleterious to the #MeToo movement.

    "During his tour for THIS IS HOW YOU LOSE HER, Junot Díaz did a Q&A at the grad program I'd just graduated from," Carmen Maria Machado, an award-winning writer in her own right, tweeted in May, in a tweetstorm that began as a quote-retweet of Clemmons' allegation of a forcible kiss. "When I made the mistake of asking him a question about his protagonist's unhealthy, pathological relationship with women, he went off for me for twenty minutes." In her subsequent tweets, she described him as "enraged" during the exchange, and accused him of having engaged in "bullying and misogyny." The experience, she wrote, was "a blast of misogynist rage and public humiliation." Naturally, these accusations, coming as they were in the wake of Clemmons', garnered a great deal of attention and intensified the spotlight on Díaz.

    But they're false. In June, someone posted a recording of the talk in question on SoundCloud. It reveals that at no point did Díaz become enraged or engage in anything that a fair observer would define as "bullying," misogynistic or otherwise. He responds to Machado's question with a lot of explaining about his writing, some of it, to be sure, a bit defensive-sounding, but none of it aggressive or abusive. Despite this audio, Machado subsequently stood by her accusations in a series of tweet, accusing doubters of "gaslighting": "You are entitled to quibble about tone," she tweeted. "But to say that what I said happened didn't happen is straight-up not true. If you think so, you probably aren't the best at reading subtext." So before the recording surfaced, Díaz's response was "a blast of misogynist rage and public humiliation"; after, it required "reading subtext" to understand why it was so bad it warranted a tweetstorm positioned as a followup to Clemmons' claims of a forced kiss.

    Then there's the accusation leveled by the writer Monica Byrne. In another tweetstorm that began as a quote-retweeted response to Clemmons' claims, she wrote that during a 2014 dinner party she and Díaz both attended, she had suffered a "verbal sexual assault." The Globe describes the exchange thusly:

    In an interview, Byrne said the conversation concerned the statistical disparity between male and female authors who get published and reviewed. Byrne told Díaz that The New Yorker had rejected an excerpt of her novel and she questioned whether that was evidence of gender bias. Díaz, who appears regularly in The New Yorker, responded by saying something like: "I don't know if you know how statistics work, but that's like saying if you haven't been raped then nobody's been raped," Byrne said.
    Byrne considered the comment "completely bizarre, disproportionate, and violent."

    Díaz recalled it merely as a "messy conversation."

    Both parties appear to agree on this version of events, though Byrne claims Díaz screamed the term rape during the exchange. If this is what happened, then Díaz, during a conversation between adults at a dinner party, used a sharp but accurate example to explain why it didn't make sense for Byrne to suggest that her story's rejection was, on its own, evidence of gender bias at The New Yorker. There may well be gender bias there, of course, though if so the situation seems to be improving—as of 2010, only about a quarter of the bylines appearing in the magazine belonged to women, but that number approached 40 percent in 2017. But Díaz is correct that a single person saying that X didn't happen to them has little bearing on how often X happens.
    More.

    Women really do need to stop using the language of physical violence to describe their emotional reactions to words or non-violent events. This cheapens descriptions of real assaults and makes normal people tune them out.

    Interpersonal relationships of any kind are loaded with real and wholly imaginary incidents that leave one party angry or sad and the other party confused and dismissive. Women do this to each other all the time. Men have plenty of horrifying stories about sexually/socially awkward women (which they laugh off).

    Anybody who ever attended a Q&A has seen authors/presenters vigorously defend their position when questioned in a manner they deem disrespectful, stupid, or troll-like. This is normal. Heck, coders do this and you would not think a Q&A about Java tools would be exciting.

    If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

    Reason
    "Alexa, slaughter the fatted calf."
  • Lady Marva
    Senior Member
    • Wednesday, June 17, 2015
    • 13321

    #2
    This going to backfire sooner or later when all man-woman conversation stops.

    Comment

    • Gingersnap
      Resident stylistic consultant
      • Tuesday, October 1, 2013
      • 24058

      #3
      Originally posted by Lady Marva View Post
      This going to backfire sooner or later when all man-woman conversation stops.
      That conversation will never stop since we are biologically hard-wired for it regardless of ideology or culture. The only difference is that women in Western cultures no longer have much to negotiate with in terms of male compliance.
      "Alexa, slaughter the fatted calf."

      Comment

      • Newman
        Behind the Iron Curtain
        • Friday, November 1, 2013
        • 25814

        #4
        Originally posted by Gingersnap View Post
        That conversation will never stop since we are biologically hard-wired for it regardless of ideology or culture. The only difference is that women in Western cultures no longer have much to negotiate with in terms of male compliance.
        This post confuses me.

        Isn't it in those cultures that clearly suppress women, including forcing them into arranged marriages, that women don't have much to negotiate with?
        • "I'm a hell of a lot smarter than most of you guys." — Joe Biden, at Jesse Jackson's funeral, March 2026.​
        • "That's all I do in my life. I make deals. I'm really good at it." — President Donald Trump, Oct. 13, 2025.
        • “Inside every progressive is a totalitarian screaming to get out,” — David Horowitz.
        • "We [Democrats] are all willing to work with anyone who is serious about doing the work of censoring the American people, and advancing progress."​ — Ayanna Pressley, explaining progressives.
        • ​​"Florida is where Woke goes to die." — Ron DeSantis.
        • "No one is above the law, and everyone has the right to a trial to prove innocence." — Nancy Pelosi, explaining Lawfare.
        • “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”​— Ben Franklin, who got it right.
        • "The way I see it, there's always, c'mon, there's always money. It's there." — Elizabeth Warren, explaining socialism.
        • "The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasn't originally a climate thing at all.... We really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing." — Saikat Chakrabarti, then AOC's Chief of Staff.

        Comment

        • Gingersnap
          Resident stylistic consultant
          • Tuesday, October 1, 2013
          • 24058

          #5
          Originally posted by Newman View Post
          This post confuses me.

          Isn't it in those cultures that clearly suppress women, including forcing them into arranged marriages, that women don't have much to negotiate with?
          No. At least not in the long term. When women in the West had something men wanted (sexual access, children) men were more motivated to marry and support women and their children.

          Sex is now over-supplied in the West and some fewer men are interested in family life with children. There are a lot of sexual hook-ups but fewer men interested in committed family life which is why we see 35+ women complaining that no men are interested.

          Some are but they are dating 28 year olds.

          Biology is an awesome force.
          "Alexa, slaughter the fatted calf."

          Comment

          • Newman
            Behind the Iron Curtain
            • Friday, November 1, 2013
            • 25814

            #6
            Originally posted by Gingersnap View Post
            No. At least not in the long term. When women in the West had something men wanted (sexual access, children) men were more motivated to marry and support women and their children.

            Sex is now over-supplied in the West and some fewer men are interested in family life with children. There are a lot of sexual hook-ups but fewer men interested in committed family life which is why we see 35+ women complaining that no men are interested.

            Some are but they are dating 28 year olds.

            Biology is an awesome force.
            I certainly agree with that last bit. In fact one of my favorites quips is, "When we reach puberty hormones whack us upside the head, and we spend the rest of our lives trying to regain our balance."

            And fact is, I always suspected I intuitively understood the guy (in black) in this famous silly picture from Evergreen College:

            2017-Evergreen_State_College.jpg



            As for your first part, I don't have any stats at hand, but I think men get around to wanting children a lot later than do women. (Not counting the "baby daddy" braggadocio thing here.) And modern birth control makes it easy for women to accommodate them, even as their own biological clocks wind down.

            Meanwhile, per this thread, the perversity of this kangaroo court stuff baffles me. It's hard for me to understand that sentient grown-ups who run the damn schools can't see the downside of this. When I asked a professor friend about this (around the time of the Rolling Stone fiction) I got an impatient answer that ran, more or less, "Those cases you read about are rare exceptions. The new arrangements protect women and empower them to speak out without being humiliated."

            Not buying it. That old maxim of jurisprudence, "Better to let 10 guilty men go free than convict on innocent man," has been neatly turned on its head: "Better to convict 10 innocent men than to free one guilty one."

            This injustice has been building a lot longer than the #MeToo movement per se, however, and I'm not sure they should be linked.
            • "I'm a hell of a lot smarter than most of you guys." — Joe Biden, at Jesse Jackson's funeral, March 2026.​
            • "That's all I do in my life. I make deals. I'm really good at it." — President Donald Trump, Oct. 13, 2025.
            • “Inside every progressive is a totalitarian screaming to get out,” — David Horowitz.
            • "We [Democrats] are all willing to work with anyone who is serious about doing the work of censoring the American people, and advancing progress."​ — Ayanna Pressley, explaining progressives.
            • ​​"Florida is where Woke goes to die." — Ron DeSantis.
            • "No one is above the law, and everyone has the right to a trial to prove innocence." — Nancy Pelosi, explaining Lawfare.
            • “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”​— Ben Franklin, who got it right.
            • "The way I see it, there's always, c'mon, there's always money. It's there." — Elizabeth Warren, explaining socialism.
            • "The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasn't originally a climate thing at all.... We really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing." — Saikat Chakrabarti, then AOC's Chief of Staff.

            Comment

            • scott
              Go-to Guru
              • Tuesday, October 1, 2013
              • 15799

              #7
              Originally posted by Gingersnap View Post
              Some are but they are dating 28 year olds.
              Ouch!

              "Faith is nothing but a firm assent of the mind : which, if it be regulated, as is our duty, cannot be afforded to anything but upon good reason, and so cannot be opposite to it."
              -John Locke

              "It's all been melded together into one giant, authoritarian, leftist scream."
              -Newman

              "Grievance groups are playing King of the Hill."
              -Newman

              Comment

              • Gingersnap
                Resident stylistic consultant
                • Tuesday, October 1, 2013
                • 24058

                #8
                Originally posted by Newman;147290

                Meanwhile, per this thread, the perversity of this kangaroo court stuff baffles me. It's hard for me to understand that sentient grown-ups [I
                who run the damn schools[/I] can't see the downside of this. When I asked a professor friend about this (around the time of the Rolling Stone fiction) I got an impatient answer that ran, more or less, "Those cases you read about are rare exceptions. The new arrangements protect women and empower them to speak out without being humiliated."

                Not buying it. That old maxim of jurisprudence, "Better to let 10 guilty men go free than convict on innocent man," has been neatly turned on its head: "Better to convict 10 innocent men than to free one guilty one."

                This injustice has been building a lot longer than the #MeToo movement per se, however, and I'm not sure they should be linked.
                They are linked because much of #metoo is also just emotional venting rather than specific actionable crimes. Colleges are terrible at this because they have no real investigative or interrogation ability. No technique. Which is why any alleged crime like this should be handled by the local police (not campus security/HR/Student Life or whatever.)

                Maybe the police will get it wrong but there is at least a clear legal process to address that.

                And fragile women have to put on their big girl pants and face their opposition like all the rest of us do in court instead of making accusations that either can't be proven or result from normally awkward adult situations.

                Women aren't doing themselves any favors by adopting Victorian reactions while they are simultaneously demanding to use male transactional sex norms. This is stupid. Either commit to transactional sex and live with it or avoid it and all the problems that can come from it.

                But decide.
                "Alexa, slaughter the fatted calf."

                Comment

                • Celeste Chalfonte
                  apostate
                  • Saturday, October 5, 2013
                  • 27897

                  #9
                  Originally posted by Gingersnap View Post
                  No. At least not in the long term. When women in the West had something men wanted (sexual access, children) men were more motivated to marry and support women and their children.

                  Sex is now over-supplied in the West and some fewer men are interested in family life with children. There are a lot of sexual hook-ups but fewer men interested in committed family life which is why we see 35+ women complaining that no men are interested.

                  Some are but they are dating 28 year olds.

                  Biology is an awesome force.
                  Biology is an awesome force. Which is why your other statements in this post are so much recycled hay and horse kibble. Sex is not a fungible commodity like potatoes or #2 pencils. There cannot be an "oversupply" of sex, because men don't get married just for sex. We know that, whatever they SAY they like, men are attracted on a primal level to women with good genes, and women are attracted to men with what were good genes in a more primitive time.

                  Of course no one was keeping records of such things back then, but I'd bet that marriage rates for the most part are probably pretty much what they were before the great social experiment that resulted in the serf/peasant classes being seen as fully human. If a man owns nothing and, in fact, is essentially chattel himself, what does it matter where he sleeps and who bears the next generation of chattel?
                  "Since the historic ruling, the Lovings have become icons for equality. Mildred released a statement on the 40th anniversary of the ruling in 2007: 'I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, Black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.'." - Mildred Loving (Loving v. Virginia)

                  Comment

                  • Newman
                    Behind the Iron Curtain
                    • Friday, November 1, 2013
                    • 25814

                    #10
                    Originally posted by Newman View Post
                    I certainly agree with that last bit. In fact one of my favorites quips is, "When we reach puberty hormones whack us upside the head, and we spend the rest of our lives trying to regain our balance."

                    And fact is, I always suspected I intuitively understood the guy (in black) in this famous silly picture from Evergreen College:

                    [ATTACH=CONFIG]1723[/ATTACH]



                    As for your first part, I don't have any stats at hand, but I think men get around to wanting children a lot later than do women. (Not counting the "baby daddy" braggadocio thing here.) And modern birth control makes it easy for women to accommodate them, even as their own biological clocks wind down.
                    The rest of my reply looks to be responding to a different thread:

                    Meanwhile, per this thread, the perversity of this kangaroo court stuff baffles me. It's hard for me to understand that sentient grown-ups who run the damn schools can't see the downside of this. When I asked a professor friend about this (around the time of the Rolling Stone fiction) I got an impatient answer that ran, more or less, "Those cases you read about are rare exceptions. The new arrangements protect women and empower them to speak out without being humiliated."

                    Not buying it. That old maxim of jurisprudence, "Better to let 10 guilty men go free than convict on innocent man," has been neatly turned on its head: "Better to convict 10 innocent men than to free one guilty one."

                    This injustice has been building a lot longer than the #MeToo movement per se, however, and I'm not sure they should be linked.
                    I invoke the Roseanne Roseannadanna clause.
                    • "I'm a hell of a lot smarter than most of you guys." — Joe Biden, at Jesse Jackson's funeral, March 2026.​
                    • "That's all I do in my life. I make deals. I'm really good at it." — President Donald Trump, Oct. 13, 2025.
                    • “Inside every progressive is a totalitarian screaming to get out,” — David Horowitz.
                    • "We [Democrats] are all willing to work with anyone who is serious about doing the work of censoring the American people, and advancing progress."​ — Ayanna Pressley, explaining progressives.
                    • ​​"Florida is where Woke goes to die." — Ron DeSantis.
                    • "No one is above the law, and everyone has the right to a trial to prove innocence." — Nancy Pelosi, explaining Lawfare.
                    • “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”​— Ben Franklin, who got it right.
                    • "The way I see it, there's always, c'mon, there's always money. It's there." — Elizabeth Warren, explaining socialism.
                    • "The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasn't originally a climate thing at all.... We really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing." — Saikat Chakrabarti, then AOC's Chief of Staff.

                    Comment

                    • Lady Marva
                      Senior Member
                      • Wednesday, June 17, 2015
                      • 13321

                      #11
                      Originally posted by Gingersnap View Post
                      That conversation will never stop since we are biologically hard-wired for it regardless of ideology or culture. The only difference is that women in Western cultures no longer have much to negotiate with in terms of male compliance.
                      Sex is only one thing. Male recruiter or hiring authority- female resumes gonna go in the round can. Or there will be a 5 minute cursory interview to fulfill EEOC documentation. Why take the chance on hiring a female who can turn accusatory?

                      Will potentially spill over into other areas of life. If I'm a male physical trainer or therapist - would I risk taking on a woman? Etc.

                      Comment

                      • Lady Marva
                        Senior Member
                        • Wednesday, June 17, 2015
                        • 13321

                        #12
                        Originally posted by Gingersnap View Post
                        Sex is now over-supplied in the West and some fewer men are interested in family life with children. There are a lot of sexual hook-ups but fewer men interested in committed family life which is why we see 35+ women complaining that no men are interested.

                        Some are but they are dating 28 year olds.
                        No need to be. Gubmint has taken the place of baby-daddys and husbands.

                        Comment

                        • Lady Marva
                          Senior Member
                          • Wednesday, June 17, 2015
                          • 13321

                          #13
                          Originally posted by Newman View Post
                          Not buying it. That old maxim of jurisprudence, "Better to let 10 guilty men go free than convict on innocent man," has been neatly turned on its head: "Better to convict 10 innocent men than to free one guilty one."
                          Agree. If Myself were a male college student- wouldn't go anywhere NEAR a female by myself- only n groups with witnesses. Not even sure I'd speak to a woman in a class with 200 hundred other students around. Sure would think twice about sitting next to one.

                          Comment

                          Working...