Meerkat Prompts: Modesty and Lust, and Exploitation
Time for another revived post, and one inspired by my pal Bruce Gerencser. I had once written a post that delved into discussions of modesty and lust, and two years later, these topics remain pertinent. A recent discussion over at Insanity Bytes highlighted – for me at least – how there are some… let’s just say unusual takes out there. The original post that Bruce referred to has been deleted, but thanks to the Wayback Machine it can still be found. For the moment though, let’s consider this subject in more general terms.
Modesty
To be modest in the sense of this post, I am speaking of how people dress. A number of cultures – inspired by religion – place directives and instructions on people – usually women – as to how they should dress. The idea is that people – again usually women – should cover up their bodies as much as possible in most circumstances, so as not to tempt others – usually men – into sin.
What with the concept of modesty going back millennia, and being deeply ingrained on both the Christian and Islamic worlds, conventional cultural norms have told us that women are responsible for whether or not men treat them in inappropriate or even harmful, dangerous ways. It has been commonplace for judges and juries in rape cases to ask ‘what was the victim wearing?’ This should be considered entirely irrelevant, but sadly it is still something that some judges and juries are swayed by when convicting and sentencing rapists.
Through this concept comes a wider approach as well. ‘What was the victim wearing’ becomes ‘was she flirting? Was she doing something to lead her accuser on?’ These sorts of questions seek to shift the fundamental responsibility for sexual violence onto women. Society as a whole is starting to challenge this perception, but it is more of a glacial process than it should be.
There is another problem with this approach. It assumes that men are base creatures, incapable of rational thought in the presence of a woman who is even remotely showing skin. This provides another layer of an excuse to men, but is also demeaning to men as well. Apparently we are helpless slaves to our impulses, destined to force ourselves upon women who have the audacity to dress in something that hints at their skin and shape. What a great way to absolve ourselves of responsibility, and make ourselves seem hopeless at the same time.
Lust
Lust is a perfectly natural, normal feeling to experience. We all go through our adolescent years, and we all experience natural biological changes and urges. None of us are compelled to act upon them, and most of us have enough of a brain between our years that we can control what goes on between our legs. When we are young (and indeed when we are older) we may desire sex, but this does not mean we are entitled to it, irrespective of whether we are lusting after it or not. It is up to us to control ourselves, and to not assume that just because someone is dressed in a way we consider provocative, it is an invitation for advances, or worse, outright permission to touch and grope.
Exploitation
One of the themes of Insanity Byte’s recent post was around the relationship between Democrat presidential candidate (and current Vice-President) Kamala Harris, and Willie Brown, a so-called kingmaker within Democrat circles. Back in 1994, he and Ms Harris had a relationship. There might have been genuine affection, or it might have been a case of Ms Harris being taken in by someone said to be flamboyant and charismatic. Either way, this relationship has been seized upon in certain conservative circles as inappropriate, and there has been a suggestion that Ms Harris basically ‘slept her way upwards’.
Given the general reality of the world, particularly some 30 years ago, and indeed throughout human history, and also given Mr Brown’s apparent womanising tendencies, it seems to me it’s more likely that Ms Harris was swept up with the suggestion and promise of political influence, if she got into a relationship with him. It is even still possible it was a genuine romance, that happened to coincidentally be between someone positioned to help another’s career. If we dismiss the latter, it means the former situation is one of exploitation.
It should not be a part of the world that women have to use sex in any way shape or form to reach their goals. Unfortunately it still happens, and it is entirely plausible that Ms Harris was victim of a system that treats sex as a form of currency. It is a lot rarer that men feel the need to use sex for their career advancement.
What can be Done?
It certainly seems as though Tom of Citizen Tom hints at sexual segregation as a means to solve the problems associated with sexual exchanges of power. He cites his military experience in the comments at Insanity Bytes, and cites the differences between genders, as a reason why women should not serve in combat units. Leaving aside his specific example (and leaving aside how women have historically proven themselves as competent fighters), Tom seems to lean on defined gender roles and ‘tradition’. Perhaps he views the Harris/Brown situation as a symptom of what happens when women and men work in close proximity? Maybe he thinks it is inevitable that there will be ‘encounters’ when men and women work closely, with men being led astray by the tantalising possibility of bedding a colleague? Is it possible Tom believes that men are so clouded with lustful thoughts, that they would suggest the opportunity of career advancement for sexual privileges?
Tom would have to answer those questions for himself, and to give him his due he goes on to say he does not favour the idea of generally segregating the sexes, but in the course of our conversation he did not offer up solutions to the problem of exploitation; he offered only criticism over apportioning blame, when in fact, it is merely reality that tells us men are more likely to exploit women. With that in mind, why would anyone consider removing women from the working environment? If it is primarily men who lack impulse control and good judgement, why should women be moved aside, or forced back into the stereotypical roles that many religious conservatives believe is their solemn duty?
Of course, sweeping monolithic punishments would hardly befit the real world. People are individuals, and should never be reduced to stereotypes of gender, or otherwise. It is also obviously very impractical to remove all men or all women from the working world; I doubt national economies would handle such a measure very well! The question is how to introduce or improve methods that relate to sexual misconduct in the workplace.
The bottom line would be to make sure that actions have consequences, at every level of a business or institution. Women often don’t report harassment or abuse out of fear. Their jobs, reputations and perhaps even lives can and do get placed at risk if they speak out. If they speak out, they are often implied to be homewreckers, or harlots trying to damage a man’s reputation for their own gain. Whilst some in conservative circles would argue that women lie, it is worth noting that men lie too, and women can tell the truth and not be believed, because even in the 21st Century, a man’s word means more.
‘What of celebrities cancelled over misconduct? What of woke culture and Me Too damaging man’s reputation?’
What of it? Despite the high publicity of these cases, there are countless other occasions where men stay in power, despite allegations and accusations. Look at Donald Trump. There are numerous allegations concerning his inappropriate behaviours towards women, including accusations of rape. He has been recording saying he can grope and touch women without their consent, simply because he is a star. He has admitted entering the dressing rooms of beauty pageants unannounced, catching women in various states of undress. Despite these behaviours, Trump was once elected President, which seems to prove, rather conclusively, that cancel culture is not the all-encompassing force conservatives often claim. Instead of facing consequences for his behaviour and statements, Trump got away with them. It is ironic that he is fronted by many conservatives as a beacon for their goals, when he does not respect the idea of modesty, clearly lacks self-control where lust is concerned, and exploited the young women at these pageants.
I have digressed. What can we do about this sort of thing?
Well, for one, I do not agree that a man – or anyone else for that matter – should be automatically punished on the basis of another’s word alone. Businesses – and the law – have due processes and these should be respected. That said, I do not believe we should automatically cast doubt on the victim either. We should be working towards a work where women – and also male victims of sexual abuse – feel they can come forward, without judgement or preconditions. We should not be asking ‘what were you wearing?’ We should not imply, in any way, that the victim is at all responsible for the actions of their abuser, attacker or manipulator. When we are, as a society, prepared to judge the facts and not the victim, we may find that justice is more readily attainable.
