Tag: MeToo

I Don’t Believe All Women. I Do Support #MeToo. These Are Not Contradictions

On By Lorraine Devon WilkeIn Latest Thoughts

I don’t believe Kellyanne Conway, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Kayleigh McEnany, or Ivanka Trump. I don’t believe Judge Jeanine, Marsha Blackburn, Laura Ingraham, Susan Sarandon, the woman on Fox & Friends, or Jill Stein. Ann Coulter’s veracity is always suspect, as is Michele Bachman’s, and Ronna McDaniel is just plain ridiculous. Remember Sarah Palin? She saw Russia from her kitchen. And that’s just women in media and politics. I also don’t believe the PTA mom who told me vaccines made her son autistic, the nun who said I’d go to hell for having impure thoughts, or the cultist who insisted I had body thetans that threatened her life.

I didn’t believe the actress who exaggerated and sexualized every foible of every man in our theater production to the detriment of the entire company. I didn’t believe my former co-worker who claimed black men broke into the bar to assault her and steal the till before she admitted making it up. I was stunned to learn that a friend who’d claimed she’d been a victim of long-term paternal incest had created the story out of whole cloth.

I don’t believe all women.

I do, however, believe most women. On most things, certainly issues of sexual impropriety and body autonomy. That includes Lucy Flores, Anita Hill, Gretchen Carlson, Monica Lewinsky, E. Jean Carroll, all Weinstein’s victims, and every woman who’s alleged sexual assault by Donald Trump. I certainly believe women I know personally who’ve experienced rape, assault, harassment, inappropriate touching, or sexual abuse. My own ordeals in the arena inform me that most women don’t lie, don’t use the most painful, hideous experiences that can be inflicted on a woman for personal or political currency.

Contradictory? No.

My believing or not believing women (or men, for that matter) is determined by my ability to discern. To listen, assess facts, and make judgments based on behaviors, demeanor, expressed agendas, and prior actions. Much like juries in a trial, particularly in “he say/she say” cases, I note how the persons involved present themselves, their stories, their truthfulness and consistency. I pay attention and come to conclusions based on perceptions, gut reactions, and common sense. If we’re smart, we put aside our biases, politics and prejudices, to judge as objectively and fairly as possible in each individual case. I well remember the agony of having to accept that Bill Clinton, a man I’d voted for twice, behaved very badly in office.

But to base belief solely on gender without application of discernment would be to deny intelligence and rightness, which would insult the gravity and importance of an important movement. Despite lazy thinking from select journalists, political partisans, and those who want to weaponize #MeToo to suit their agendas, anyone with a working set of brain cells, an awareness of human nature, and an appetite for fairness knows this is true.

And #MeToo is an important movement. An essential movement. It’s also a new enough movement that it’s subject to evolution, to some clarification of terms, intent, and rationality. We’re watching that unfold right now, as some with very active agendas and opinions assert that anyone questioning Tara Reade’s claims against Joe Biden is not only politically motivated, but betraying the #MeToo movement. Some even insist that the very act of seeking discernment in this case “could potentially signal the end of MeToo,” (hyperbole from Stanford University law professor, Michele Dauber), or “damage #MeToo,” as journalist Arwa Mahdawi of The Guardian posits.

Yet questioning and investigating allegations is not only not a dismissal of #MeToo, it should be its standard operating procedure. Truth matters. As does the earned credibility of determining truth with clarity and an absence of knee-jerk acquiescence.The only way to damage #MeToo is to either blindly sanction allegations without proper vetting, or allow it to become a weapon for those with political, personal, or professional agendas. Given the fierce push of Reade’s allegations by many in the Trump and Sanders’ camps, as well as some in the media who exhibit clear bias, one suspects “agenda” is firmly in play. Recently, Cedar Rapids Gazette columnist, Lyz Lenz, took to The Washington Post to suggest that Biden, who she criticizes in her piece, step down, basically nullifying the outcome of the Democratic primary based on one unproven allegation that he’s adamantly denied. Is that really what #MeToo should be about?

As for its mandate — “Believe women” — let’s pull that apart a bit:

The intent of “Believe Women” was always clear to me: In a patriarchal society where women have historically been considered and treated like second class citizens, diminished and demeaned over centuries of limitation, bias, and discrimination, the notion of granting them belief as a default spoke volumes. It didn’t mean, “Believe everything every woman says without discernment or facts.” It meant “don’t blindly dismiss.” It meant listen without prejudice, investigate with respectful objectivity, determine based on evidence and truthfulness, not presuppositions or discriminatory opinions.

Alyssa Milano, who’s been pilloried for daring to question Reade while continuing to support Biden, echoed my own opinion in her response to those castigating her for “#MeToo hypocrisy”:

“Believing women was never about ‘Believe all women no matter what they say,’ it was about changing the culture of NOT believing women by default. It was about ending the patriarchy’s dangerous drive for self-preservation at all costs, victims be damned.”

Exactly right.

Consider it, too, in this light: When #BlackLivesMatter first hit the zeitgeist with its assertive message, many people got confused and responded with, “But don’t all lives matter?” To which my dear friend and #BLM activist, Regina, responded, “Of course they do, but in our case we actually have to make the point!”

Believing women enough to take their words seriously should also be a given, but we, too, have to actually make the point. Perhaps a more accurate phrase would have been, “Listen and respond to women without preconception and bias,” but that wouldn’t have fit as well on a banner.

And the demand to “believe women” was needed to shake off the noxious defaults of those who might ask, “What were you wearing?” or “Were you drinking?” or “Did you flirt with him?” Or offer blithe dismissals like, “Boys will be boys” or “It’s just locker room talk.” Or tip the scales so football captains stayed on the field while raped cheerleaders left school in shame, or CEOs got wrist slaps while harassed secretaries were demoted to lower floors, or serial predators became president while over twenty-five assaulted women languished in legal purgatory.

But while “believe women” sets a standard, it does not mean that ALL women, ALL allegations, ALL circumstances are equal and interchangeable, requiring no unique, specific investigative judgment based on the particulars of that unique case, that unique woman, that unique circumstance. To believe that would be unintelligent. To presume so would be discriminatory. To proceed as if that’s true would be a generification of each and every woman’s unique experience.

Christine Blasey Ford is not interchangeable with Tara Reade. Nor is Anita Hill. Nor is any other woman. Each case comes with its own set of facts, each woman with her own experiences, states of being, background, agenda, and veracity. As does each situation and each involved man. Neither Joe Biden, Clarence Thomas, or Brett Kavanaugh came to the table with equal or even comparable degrees of public exposure, prior vetting, or personal baggage. Each scenario was (and is) unique in all aspects, and to conflate them, as many are at this freighted moment, is not only folly, but deflective and inappropriate.

I’m not going to parse Tara Reade’s allegations here, her believability, or her potential political or personal motives. All have been, and continue to be, investigated, analyzed, and prodigiously covered by countless people on all sides. I have done much reading on it, from many different angles, and have come to my own gut sense of what resonates as true. I‘m sure you’ll do the same without any push from me.

But what I will conclude with is this statement with which I agree, offered by former prosecutor, Michael J. Stern in USA Today:

“We can support the #MeToo movement and not support allegations of sexual assault that do not ring true. If these two positions cannot coexist, the movement is no more than a hit squad. That’s not how I see the #MeToo movement. It’s too important, for too many victims of sexual assault and their allies, to be no more than that.”

I will always be on the side of what “rings true,” the side of both courageous truth-tellers and courageous truth-seekers… no matter what gender.

That’s not “betraying” #MeToo. That’s not hypocrisy. That’s not “destroying the movement” or “shaming victims.” That’s being a discerning, responsible adult. If you believe otherwise, please check your own agenda.

Photo by Alexa Mazzarello

Visit www.lorrainedevonwilke.com for details and links to LDW’s books, music, photography, and articles.

Time’s Up: Why America NEEDS a Female President. Now.

On By Lorraine Devon WilkeIn Latest Thoughts3 Comments

Here’s an indisputable fact: There will always be qualified men. Always.

There’s no shortage of them, they’ve been around for ages. Able, intelligent, wise men who know their way around a political campaign, who exude charm and charisma (or don’t), who have the skill set to stir the masses (or at least their fanbase), and who can surely lead the country with the verve of a bona fide, passionate leader. We all know men like that. A few have been our presidents. In fact, all our presidents have been men. It’s the norm. The tradition. The way we do things here in America.

Ah, I love the smell of patriarchy in the zeitgeist.

Now, that’s not an insult to the qualified men; it’s a statement about how patriarchy works. It makes the ascendency of men to positions of power seem the inarguable norm, the expected outcome, the “way it’s always been” reality. It demands our fealty to the notion, without second thought, that these qualified men are, have been, and will continue to be “what presidential is,” asking: “Why would you want anybody else?”

“Anybody else” being anybody who isn’t a man.

That exact question proved such a conundrum in 2016 that a huge faction of Americans were more comfortable voting for the male candidate with no experience, no integrity, a history of vile, sexist behavior, and well-documented criminal bent, than the hyper-qualified, profoundly experienced, and “most admired” public servant who, as the media and others made sure we believed, wasn’t likable enough, had a screechy voice, used a private email server, and, most notably, was a female.

We don’t do female in America’s White House.

Not behind the desk of the Oval Office. Not leading the American military. Not executing “executive orders” like so many PTA memos. Oh, they can be First Lady; they can change the drapes, handle the caterers, run interference between the male president and the media. But president?

Nah.

Patriarchy is and always has been an exacting social mandate, one that repeatedly reminds us that all these qualified men floating around are perfectly capable of handling the job without intervention from any outside contingent: Women. Sticking with the guys is neater, it’s more palatable, it’s what we’ve always done, so “don’t you gals worry yourselves, we fellas got it covered. Just step aside and let men do men’s work.”

Sure. We’ve seen how well that’s gone over the last two+ years, a debacle that’s especially galling in light of the assault-and-battery of Hillary Clinton, but, hey, you guys go ahead and make America great again, right?

Putting aside quips and sarcasm, a real question emerges: Why is it that, out of over 70 nations around the world, some of which are less politically progressive than America, we have never elected a female president? Beyond the cultural umbrella of “patriarchy,” under which all anti-woman “isms” reside, what are the specific bugaboos for why we remain entrenched in such antiquated, sexist views of who gets to be POTUS?

I thought this was an interesting take from the New York Times in “Over 70 Nations Have Been Led by Women. So Why Not the U.S.?“:

Some scholars say that European democracies may view women as more suited to high political office because their governments are known for generous social-welfare programs, something that seems maternal. In contrast, the president of the United States is primarily seen as commander in chief, which is a frame more difficult for women to fit into.

“America is still seen as the policeman of the world, the guardian of the world and we still have a very gendered version of what leadership means,” said Laura A. Liswood, secretary general of the United Nations Foundation’s Council of Women World Leaders, a network of current and former female prime ministers and presidents. “Not only do we have to be liked, we also have to be tough.”

Sue Thomas, a senior research scientist at the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation in Santa Cruz, Calif., said that unlike political leadership posts elsewhere, the American presidency “is seen as a very masculine institution that for historical reasons is extremely hard for a female to approach.” [emphasis added by me]

That last sentence there, the one I put in bold? That’s patriarchy. That’s sexism. And after the systemic, overwhelming catastrophe that has been the Trump administration, particularly in that “very masculine” role of Commander-in-Chief, the bottom falls out of that argument with the force of a landslide.

But let’s go back to my posit, “there will always be qualified men so we don’t really need women to run” meme. If you think I’m being overly harsh, let’s look, for a moment, at what’s currently happening in the Democratic primary:

Even after the 2018 Midterms, when a battalion of strong, diverse women not only stormed the castle but claimed historical victories in every region; even after the early declarations of brilliant, accomplished, experienced, and viable female candidates like Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, and Kirsten Gillibrand, even after all that, what is happening? A slew of very qualified men are slowly  jumping in, one-by-one and after these women already declared, implicitly stating that they’re the best person for the job. Them, the qualified male.

And sure, why not? Why shouldn’t they jump in? The primary is a wide open field, everyone’s invited, and some of these are very appealing men. But, still, the message they convey by not getting behind one of the female candidates, by not endorsing and showing their support, is, quite simply, this: “You’re all great, and in another world I might get behind you and work like hell to get you elected, but even, and despite, my desire to change the gender gap so my daughter may one day run for president, I’m not going to coalesce around any of you because I think what I bring to the table is more viable.”

Because they’re a qualified man.

I don’t care about these qualified men. I mean, I care about them as people; I wish them well, thank them for their service (if that applies), look forward to their future endeavors, and hope they’ll use some of their political capital to change the archaic narrative in this country that says, “Women are not American presidents.”

But right now I don’t care about their charm, their platforms, ideas, experiences, and cult fandom. Not enough to negate and, once again, put aside what I believe is a much bigger, much more culturally relevant and urgent issue: the essential and unequivocal breaking of the glass ceiling for (very qualified) American women in regards to the presidency.

It should have happened last time. By all accounts it did happen last time, but patriarchy (and a few other noxious elements) swept in to tilt the playing field, and millions have suffered since.

Someone asked me recently: “Is it just a gender thing for you, a feminism thing? Doesn’t your single-minded focus on electing a female president almost scream of affirmative action?”

You know, it does… because it kind of is. But before Susan Sarandon comes at me squawking about how I’m voting with my vagina, let me assert my rationale. We’ll start with this, an excellent definition of affirmative action:

Affirmative Action is a program of positive action, undertaken with conviction and effort to overcome the present effects of past practices, policies, or barriers to equal employment opportunity and to achieve the full and fair participation of women, minorities and individuals with disabilities found to be underutilized in the workforce based on availability.

The purpose of affirmative action is to establish fair access to employment opportunities to create a workforce that is an accurate reflection of the demographics of the qualified available workforce in the relevant job market. Affirmative Action policies and programs are tools whereby additional efforts are made to recruit, hire and promote qualified women, minorities and individuals with disabilities. [emphasis added by me]

I could basically highlight and bold that entire thing.

Because there is not “fair access,” the presidency is not an “accurate reflection of the qualified available workforce in the relevant job market”; there is certainly not a level playing field for women running for public office.

We already see it in the way media is covering the current race; while they gush over Pete, get starry-eyed about Joe, and titter about Bernie’s fate, they’re castigating female candidates for how they eat, what they wear, how they manage their staff, who they marry, what their heritage is, what music they listen to and when. Sadly, I don’t expect that to change much as things ramp up. Patriarchy rules the media, too.

Another fact? An incredibly salient, pertinent, critical fact in this Trump era of caustically stupid leadership? Women are better managers, better leaders. That’s not just me saying that; it’s been documented.

During the 2016 campaign I wrote an article on the  topic, You Say You Want a Revolution? I Do Too. It’s Why I Support Hillary Clinton, and since quoting oneself is unseemly, let me at least re-share this paragraph from the Harvard Business Review study that found, by a comprehensive list of metrics and significant percentages, that women were better leaders, better managers of staff:

“Specifically, at all levels, women are rated higher in fully 12 of the 16 competencies that go into outstanding leadership. And two of the traits where women outscored men to the highest degree — taking initiative and driving for results — have long been thought of as particularly male strengths.”

Yet, as of 2019, those strengths and competencies have been given short shrift in presidential politics. Time’s up.

Much like ethnic and racial minorities yearn to see themselves represented fully and fairly in every facet of culture, so do women, particularly in the arenas of business, academics, and, certainly, politics. The “old boys’ club” legacy found in the vaunted halls of political power is as dated and regressive as sexist attitudes and behaviors from the pre-#MeToo era. As cultural evolutions and a changing zeitgeist dismantle the tolerance around those issues, so do those influences change the acceptance of patriarchy, misogyny, sexism, and gender negation. Women have worked long and hard to take their rightful place on a level playing field, but until that field is, indeed, level—which it is not—a form of affirmative action must step in and demand it.

Which means, at this moment in time, that every man throwing his hat into the Democratic presidential ring must reconsider.

That every man who cares about uplifting society, who desires a world in which girls can aspire to the highest office without fear of personal evisceration and political annihilation; every man who wants to provide the world, the country, with the very best leaders, the very best managers, the most compassionate, empathetic, inspiring communicators, must pull their hat out of that ring, take a step back until another time; put their political egos in a lockbox (remember that?), and jump full-bore into supporting one of the supremely qualified women running for president.  To help ensure that she wins and, in doing so, inexorably change the face of American culture.

Will you help us accomplish that, you progressive, thoughtful, qualified men? We’d appreciate it. And, hey, being VP of the very first female president in American history has a nice ring to it too.

Three women photo by rawpixel on Unsplash
Girl with flag photo by Joe Pregadio on Unsplash

LDW w glasses

Lorraine’s third novel, The Alchemy of Noise, has an April 2019 pub date, with pre-orders currently available at Amazon and elsewhere.

Visit www.lorrainedevonwilke.com for details and links to LDW’s books, music, photography, and articles.