Achieving armistice in the "Battle of the Sexes?"

Critical moment: 🤔
Almost daily we see announcements of male executives being fired, displaced and facing the end of their careers as a result of accusations of "inappropriate sexual conduct" usually but not always in relation to professional settings. The multitude of claims being brought forward attests to the pattern and practice of sexually predatory behaviors and intimidation employed in the business and professional world. The floodgates have been opened, and women [and men] previously too fearful of coming forward are now feeling empowered to tell of their experiences. At this time, there is an increasing disposition to consider such allegations seriously and as credible. That these stories are being told is an important cultural moment that exposes and illuminates power structures and imbalances that have impeded economic and professional progress for those exploited. On social media, there are multiple calls for an all out assault upon "men" and a calls for women to "take over" from a male dominated power structure. Apparently, this is the solution advocated for elimination and prevention of sexual exploitation in economic and professional contexts.

The problem with "revolution" is that, by definition, it almost always replaces one form of oppression with another. Patriarchal and gender based exploitation need to be dismantled, certainly. Sex and sexuality as surrogate for power MUST be called out, regardless of who holds power and against whom it is used. This is not an apologia for sexist behavior in any setting, for such conduct IS inappropriate, problematic and wrongful. Some careful and critical thought should be given, however, to how that problem might be addressed.

Thought should be given to the desired "end game." The current reckoning is understandable, and probably necessary, to dislodge power structures and mindsets. And perhaps we are not yet at a point where critical and thoughtful examination as to strategies can be entertained broadly. After a wave of justified indignation, retribution, vengeance, recrimination and bloodletting, what will stand? Will it be gender equality or a type of intractable conflict [e.g. Arab-Israeli]? If the former is a goal, how do we get there? I don't have the answer, but do believe that the question needs to be addressed.

As a person of color, the complexity of the constellation of problems is not a new phenomenon. How can race [as a social construct] and ethnic diversity or diversity of skin color and physical features exist without being employed as a "power tool" of exploitation and oppression? This is the simply stated, but chronically resistant problem to be resolved. In the race-related civil rights and social movements, we have seen in my lifetime several phases. There have been various calls to a public social conscience regarding discrimination and oppression, periods of open and public anger to both defend people of color against racial violence and to seek vengeance for racial injustice, movements for affirmative action to seek to redress systemic imbalance and promote an equalization of opportunity, and illusory claims of a "post-racial" society. The peaceful protests, change to claim dignity for people of color "by any means necessary," and the "kill whitey" exhortations have yielded some progress and also the assassinations of Martin Luther King, Jr., and Malcolm X. Even whites, including Bobby Kennedy, who resisted the racialized power structure were not safe. Yet we still see almost daily reports of continuing racially motivated violence and exploitation, much of it "official" and systemic, against people of color in the United States and elsewhere. So, the "me too" movement and the "down with men" calls might be seen as a phase in a much broader process of social transformation. As such, the question is not whether it should take place, but rather what will these phases achieve?

Without serious, rational and critical examination, these public outcries and outpourings are not likely to yield constructive progress or solutions. I doubt anyone really believes that ALL males who have ever engaged in "inappropriate" behavior in their lifetimes will be summarily removed from positions of power and responsibility. Also, to claim that an offensive remark or innuendo of a sexualized nature is the moral equivalent of a rape or physical sexual assault may be misguided. It is similar to equating a racial slur to a lynching. Both are wrongful and should lead to accountability, but failure to distinguish is unproductive and could undermine the moral force of the exposure. There ARE varied circumstances and contexts which should lead to varied outcomes toward elimination of exploitation and abuse of power. Change in power relations, not just vilification ought to be a goal. In the employment law context, I have seen careers destroyed and opportunities foreclosed for employees of color based upon racial animus and systemic discrimination. I have also seen instances in which tenuous race discrimination claims were asserted by persons of color to mask substandard performance or for vengeful motives. A just result and constructive outcome can rarely be achieved without critical examination of the distinctions.

If we are to reach any form of constructive solution or "armistice," there may also need to be a critical examination of the fact that the problem is "relational." In other words, the problem is not a unilateral process, like using a hammer to crush a rock. The problem is a product of interaction, a form of symbiosis. That is not to say victims should be blamed for the abuse of a power differential or exploitation. Yet calling out sexism and sexual impropriety should be thoughtful, evidence-based and reasonable to achieve credible progress. An environment that receives and listens to such concerns must be created and fostered. Another Anita Hill incident, in which her credible public stand against Clarence Thomas was dismissed as "female fantasies," should never again be allowed to take place. Had the mechanisms and environment for her to express those concerns at an earlier stage could have prevented recurrence and avoided the painful Senate hearing confrontation. Indeed, those conditions would have precluded the nomination of Thomas. Roy Moore should never have been allowed to hold an office of public trust, nor should he be allowed to advance for a variety of reasons, including misogyny. And comments by women suggesting reflection on ways that men AND women both contribute to a dysfunctional symbiotic relationship should not be dismissed by women, as were Anita Hill's arguments by men. In a heated argument, no amount of assigning blame for who started the conflict, or who is victim, will actually resolve the conflict. Both participants will have to change the dynamic of the interaction to achieve peace. Constructive solutions are unlikely to be achieved without change by ALL participants in the relational dynamic. Power will exist and be exercised in any context, but the balance and sharing of that power, along with effective prevention of abuse should be the goal. And the shift will not take place overnight. Reaching an armistice in the "Battle of the Sexes" will require a transformation, not a revolution.