"Pretty much every man over 30 has to really look and start thinking about their part. And I guarantee, lots of it is unconscious. When you’ve been in a privileged position where you haven’t had to look at your part, you didn’t 100% understand you were in a bubble. It’s an interesting time for men.
"I have two sons (ages 16 and 19), and I know their perspective," she continued. "They go to a great school that has put them through the wringer about what consent is, what is humanism, what’s integrity. I just wish my generation had the benefit of that, and that everybody had the benefit of that."
Well.
Where do I begin?
In the law there is such a thing as broadness, for which a statute can be stricken because it is overbroad, meaning that it affects people or actions beyond the stated goal. An example of this, ironically in this case, is President Trump's initial immigration executive order which, in truth, needed to be scaled back -- and it was, rightfully. That doesn't mean the law as originally intended was bad, only that its reach affected too many people or actions incorrectly.
The same holds true here. Foster's point -- that men should take a look at themselves when it comes to their behavior with women -- is a valid one. Where she goes off the rails is by stating that "pretty much every man over 30" has to really look at himself and the part in sexual harassment. Really? Pretty much every man over thirty?
I don't know how many men in this country are aged thirty or older and I'm too lazy to find the latest numbers on that. But let's stipulate that there are a few millions out there of men that fit into that category. How do we quantify "pretty much every man" of that group? If we assume there are fifty million, does pretty much equal forty-nine million, forty-eight million? And if that's the case, how are we do know that those forty-eight or forty-nine million men are truly deserving of our condemnation? Do we know that they have either been actively engaged in sexual harassment or complicit by their silence in such behavior? Come to think of it, how do we even know that "pretty much every man over thirty" has been engaged in such conduct?
This is a typical liberal ploy. We see it most notably when there's a shooting. Despite the fact that there are over 300 million privately-owned firearms in this country (or at least that's the figure I saw most recently), only a minute fraction thereof are used in mass shootings, yet gun-control advocates' arguments range from the total confiscation of privately-owned firearms to background checks and other rules that would make private ownership nearly impossible. Here, there are countless men who combat sexual harassment or do not countenance it on a daily basis, yet Foster believes that we're unconscious men guided by our penises and not our minds. To suggest that this is patently offensive is obvious, because were a man to make a statement that when distilled suggested women were guided by their vaginas there would be a hue and cry so loud...
...but I digress. The next part of your statement that's severely flawed is the part about being privileged. To what exactly are you referring when you say that men are in a privilege position? Is that being an executive? Or is it simply by being male we're in a privileged position? If it's the latter, how non-white men feel about being lumped into the privileged group, especially when there's an argument about white privilege? Should non-white men over thirty be subtracted from this equation? If so, does that render the "pretty much" portion of your argument null?
I'm not sure what living in a bubble even means. Is that like living in Hollywood, where surreality is the new reality? Or how about attending an Ivy League school? Is elitism a bubble? To just what kind of bubble are you referring?
The most egregious portion of your proclamation is the second paragraph of the quote. Because you have two sons who are attending a "great school" (is that a bubble?), you know their perspective. If that's true, good for you. But logically, because you have no idea about my origins, about how I was raised and about my Mother, you have no frigging clue about me or how I treat women to make the statement that lumps me in with sexual harassers. It's patently offensive for you to claim the moral imperative when you know nothing about me or my situation. And the same goes for virtually every one of those men over thirty whom you've lumped into the same category with Harvey Weinstein, Matt Lauer and Roger Ailes. That you can't see the logical inconsistency in your own statement puts your Yale degree to shame. Just because I didn't attend a "great school" doesn't mean I wasn't taught the necessary virtues of consent and integrity. Because I didn't attend Yale, I eschew the notion of humanism and replace it instead with a word that is notably absent from your screed: Respect. I was raised by a Mother who taught us to respect every person regardless of social standing. It's something that's sorely lacking in every sector of society, but it's something with which I was imbued and have never forgetten, despite the fact I went to public schools after graduating from Catholic grade school. This notion that only those under thirty years of age have been raised with a solid grounding is ludicrous. It is entirely possible that men over the age of thirty were raised with the same lessons as those under the age of thirty and, for various reasons, eschewed them, just as it's possible that there are those under thirty who will do the same. After all, look at those men who have been caught, finally: Weinstein, Lauer, Ailes. One thing they have in common is great wealth. Is that not a lure for some people to do wrong?
But one glaring omission from your lecture is the glass house phenomenon. Have you lectured Hollywood? I mean, Meryl Streep's protestations notwithstanding (is cognitive dissonance a required class at Yale...?), it is well-nigh impossible for people in your industry to have been so ignorant of the misdeeds of such powerful men. Don't women share secrets? Where are the newly empowered women of the world standing up and demanding justice and equality? For what did Anita Hill risk her career if not this very mistreatment? That took place over twenty-five years ago, yet that fellow Yalie's strength was wasted on you actors. Whether she was right, she stood up for her beliefs. Where was Meryl Streep when her pal Harvey was denigrating fellow actresses left and right? What part did the women of Hollywood, many of whom have now come out of the woodwork to tell their own horror stories, not glean from Ms. Hill's bravery? If anyone had something to fear by telling her story, it was a black woman in a predominantly white male industry. Yet, it is incumbent on millions of American males, many of whom know not privilege or bubbles or conduct similar to that displayed by Weinstein, Lauer and Ailes, among others, to look in the mirror and ask what role, if any, they have had because a pampered, elitist actress fails to do the same thing?
It seems you and the Hollywood elite feels that the glass house analogy doesn't apply to you because your houses are made of bulletproof glass.
For as much obliged as I may count myself to have received your lecture, I'll take a pass. I was raised by a Mother who preached respect, not just for elite people but for the lowest of the low. I was taught to respect women and treat them as ladies. I was raised to behave like a gentleman, not a privileged cretin entitled to act on troglodytic impulses.
And I was taught to spot a hypocrite from miles away.
(c) 2017 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
No comments:
Post a Comment