New Rules for Men ...Hands in Your Pockets and Mouth Shut!

It would appear that rapid changes are occurring for men and women in the workplace and elsewhere, as they grapple with issues of sex, speech and physical contact. And you guessed it…it’s not getting easier. The continuing rise in women’s power, variously dubbed “The Me Too Movement” or “Women’s Empowerment”, has made it clear of late that unwanted overtures by Men, (especially men in positions of influence), will not be tolerated, and their campaign has been extremely effective, by any measure. Men of almost incalculable wealth, power and influence have been toppled like bowling pins. Some have been forced to answer the allegations in a court of law. But the damage to their personal reputation and professional standing often begins long before any civil or criminal proceedings, by virtue of a news headline which may only describe one person’s anecdote of feeling violated in some way. 

In some cases, as in that of Harvey Weinstein, the disgraced movie producer, the accusations were proven true and are indeed deeply disturbing. They reveal a culture of temping young women into the producer’s lair through vague promises of fame and fortune. This was facilitated through the actions of various handlers, who worked on behalf of Weinstein to ensure a steady supply of feminine talent continued to enter the pipeline. And if any of the victims showed signs of blowing the whistle on the brute, another dark force of lawyers and bullies descended to ensure any such complaints never saw the light of day. This pattern of abuse apparently continued for years, and due to the producer’s fame and influence, it remained an open secret among even those highly placed in the industry. Finally, after perhaps as many as 80 women submitted detailed and corroborating evidence of his abuse and harassment, he was brought down. 

That was a watershed moment. Since then, at least 200 powerful men from all sectors of the economy have had their names besmirched and or their careers ruined by such allegations. But initially, the voracity of such allegations seems to be of secondary importance to the revelation that someone felt in some way harmed by the accused. The phenomenon of “trial by media” has played a major role in how quickly men go from being named a harasser to being dethroned and forever after considered a pariah. 

Further charging the potency of this movement, is the shaming of anyone who dares to cast doubt on such accusations. We are admonished to toss aside any notions of accusers being motivated by fame or profit, even though effective media campaigns and or legal actions can result in fantastic payouts for those willing to cry foul. 

That is not to say that influential men are never inclined to use their power in nefarious ways. Lord Acton indeed hit upon a truth about the human condition, when he opined “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. This therefore would tend to suggest that many accusations of misconduct on the part of men are indeed true, or at least, mostly so. And certainly, where women encounter disrespect, inequality, threats and actual harassment, action should be taken to educate men and if necessary, enforce standards of conduct. But as is so often the case, the pendulum may have once again swung too far in an effort to achieve equanimity. When and where anyone’s reputation and livelihood is at stake, shouldn’t all efforts be made to establish facts and determine the degree of culpability before an assumption of absolute guilt is established?

There is a phenomenon in psychology known as “suggestion”, whereby an impressionable individual may be exposed to innuendo and gossip about a person or persons wrongdoing, whereupon they begin to internalize it as fact. Furthermore, if those promulgating such allegations claim to have been harmed in some way by the accused, they may begin to influence others to believe that they have been similarly impacted. Is it possible that this very phenomenon is responsible for always causing additional victims to emerge from the woodwork each time a man is accused of overplaying his hand with the women in his sphere of influence? 

 

Here are some additional questions:

• Have we become so insular, so fearful and as a result, so easily influenced by the constant chatter emanating from our electronic devices, that we have inadvertently begun to abandon independent thought?  

• When did being perceived as “vaguely inappropriate” rise to the level of a shame worthy transgression? 

• And how might these new unwritten rules go on to alter the ways by which men and women coexist and communicate in the workplace and elsewhere?

Let’s take the most recent news story, (as of this writing), about Vice President Joe Biden. Throughout his career, politicians on both sides of the aisle saw Joe as a decent human being, though they might be diametrically opposed to his political views. Men and women from every cultural and political persuasion grieved with him through the loss of his son and have marveled at his continuing resolve to stay focused on public service. In response to the growing disillusionment over our current president, many have suggested Mr. Biden is the sort of principled, humane, paternalistic figure we need at the helm again. Someone who may be capable of returning our country to a position of enlightened leadership. As such, Mr. Biden has recently been dogged by questions from the media about whether and when he may decide to make a run for the democratic ticket in 2020. This has forced him out of the shadows and into the limelight, just as the first allegations of “inappropriate touching” were levied by a woman who suggests she was traumatized by his having kissed her on the scalp. 

Lucy Flores, a one-time nominee for Nevada lieutenant Governor, stated that the incident in question took place at a rally for her campaign in 2014.

She was grateful that he offered to make an appearance at her event. But, as an excerpt from the Washington Post states: ‘That feeling changed, she said, when Biden approached her from behind as she was getting ready to address the crowd. She wrote that she felt the vice president place two hands on her shoulders before moving closer to her from behind. Then, she says, Biden kissed her on the back of her head. He proceeded to plant a big slow kiss on the back of my head. My brain couldn’t process what was happening. I was embarrassed. I was shocked. I was confused’. She is clear that this was not a sexually charged encounter, but rather one that was “blatantly inappropriate”, according to her.

In response, Biden posted a Twitter video, where in he attempts to address this vague allegation by correctly pointing out that the notions of personal space have shifted over time and that what used to be considered supportive, reassuring and affectionate is now viewed by many as an unwelcome invasion. 

There are most certainly bad actors out there who take advantage of those under their influence. But are we not in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater when we indiscriminately accuse even our most decent and enlightened leaders of stepping over some fuzzy line that is clearly not sexual, but still vaguely inappropriate? And when did this hypersensitivity arise? A recent survey finds major shift in attitudes about what women consider unacceptable. A large percentage of young women would now find commenting positively on their appearance or asking for a date more than once to be a form of sexual harassment. So how are average men supposed to respond to this new paradigm? Their actions and motives have never been under more scrutiny and as a result, when opening up with each other about the challenges of working in close proximity to women, they’re confused and frankly scared that a poorly received look, comment or gesture might get them fired or even cause them to be named in a sexual harassment lawsuit. 

[When an oversensitive minority of individuals begin to redefine everything as harassment that may have the counterintuitive effect of making all such claims seem less credible].

We have laws to address sexual harassment in the workplace and elsewhere. And where those laws are clearly broken, prosecution should be swift and consistent. But when someone decides to go public with their subjective impression of inappropriate touching or speech, that accusation should not immediately be considered, criminal or even actionable. We have a system of justice in Western society that assumes the accused to be innocent until proven guilty. Why are we so quick to suspend that right to due process when someone alleges only that they feel their subjective 'personal boundaries' were exceeded? 

Such a rush to judgement runs the risk of filling the harassment balloon so full that it bursts under the pressure and the consequences of that are unpredictable. When an oversensitive minority of individuals begin to redefine everything as harassment that may have the counterintuitive effect of making all such claims seem less credible.

How has this new paradigm affected dating?

This shift in attitudes about what speech or actions may be tolerated between men and women is clearly having an affect on dating as well. Men are now concerned that their expressions about a woman’s attractiveness may be interpreted as overtly sexual, or at the very least 'inappropriate'. They’re reluctant to be demonstrative with affection and anxious about how early is too early to express interest. No man wants to be labeled as creepy, or worse…a predator.

[Biology has burdened males with the responsibility to initiate any potential romantic connection. And as a man I can tell you, it’s rarely fun.]

So let’s step back a minute and remember how we all got here. Sex. If Freud is to be believed, sex is unconsciously the motive behind many decisions both men and women make every day. And like it or not, biology has burdened males with the responsibility to initiate any potential romantic connection. And as a man I can tell you, it’s rarely fun. It’s uncomfortable and sometimes downright scary to run the risk of rejection. The result of all that doubt and fear is often a jerky, awkward attempt to appear cool or nonchalant. This nervousness is probably contagious and may serve to repulse more than attract, which is not in and of itself a crime.

But if men continue to feel that they may not only face rejection but potentially run the risk of public rebuke or legal action as a result of anything they may say or do, women may no longer have to wonder why it is men seem unwilling to approach them in public places, opting instead to view them longingly, from a safe distance. 

Remember, the law of unintended consequences is always present, threatening to undermine even our best intentions. 

-Shane Eric Mathias