(Since these are powerful guys I am writing about, let’s get the legal stuff out of the way: the now ex-head of the IMF, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, is currently facing charges for sexual assault in New York City, but these charges have not been proven in a court of law. Former U.S. President Bill Clinton settled the sexual harassment lawsuit brought against him by Paula Jones out of court, but he was not found guilty of harassment in a court of law. And the sexual harassment allegations made against U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas were never examined in a judicial proceeding, and they have not been proven in a court of law. Whew! Now, with that stuff out of the way, we are ready to begin our blog!)
This past week Dominique Strauss-Kahn was arrested for allegedly sexually assaulting a hotel maid in New York City. And despite some of the rather paranoid suggestions that this incident was some sort of politically-motivated set-up designed to entrap Strauss-Kahn, a grand jury saw fit to indict him on the things he is accused of doing – which include attempted rape and forced oral sex.
Am I surprised that someone as prominent as the head of IMF could be accused of such a heinous act? Not really. Because I pay attention to the news, I have grown all too used to the reality that men in positions of power sometimes behave disgracefully in their private lives.
But even though I am no longer surprised at such bad behavior, I always feel disappointed when I hear of these things. I expect a lot more of men. Of all men, prominent or not.
Attacking the complainant. What I was also disappointed by (but again, not terribly surprised by) was the nearly instantaneous attack on the credibility of the woman who came forward and reported her story to the police. One of the first to lash out was the renowned French Philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy, who upheld his friend Strauss-Kahn’s character while simultaneously attempting to cast great doubt not only on this woman, but also upon yet another woman who came forward again to say that Strauss-Kahn tried to rape her ten years ago. Lévy suggested that this second woman, a journalist, was merely waiting for her “golden opportunity” to level a complaint.
Just what Lévy meant by “golden opportunity” he does not say. But it certainly implies cashing in.
Lévy is either unaware of – or is purposefully ignoring – the fact that this other woman actually mentioned Strauss-Kahn by name as her attacker in a 2007 television interview. Fearful of a slander case, the t.v. network at that time bleeped out his name.
Startlingly for a renowned philosopher, Lévy commits a rather immense error in logic as he urges us to keep in mind his friend Strauss-Kahn’s presumed innocence while at the same going out of his way to cast suspicions on the motives of the female accusers. (This piece of rather remarkable intellectual dishonesty can be found here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-05-16/bernard-henri….)
The world has tended to think of Bernand-Henri Lévy as a pretty smart guy. I’m not really seeing it. But maybe he is in fact intelligent, and in this case it is just that his sexism is interfering with his ability to think rationally.
After all, sexism always clouds a man’s ability to think rationally.
A clear pattern of behavior. Another thing that disappointed me about the week’s events was the emergence of clear evidence that Strauss-Kahn’s problematic behavior has been well-known to many people for a long, long time. He has allegedly been behaving in a predatory manner toward women for years – and his aggressive behavior seems to have gone largely uninterrupted.
According to Time magazine (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2072205,00.html#ixzz1MkDJ…), when Straus-Kahn was a prominent politician in France, he could often be spotted at a bar being “too pushy” with young women. In 2006, two journalists published a book that included a chapter about his boorish behavior, and in 2007, a blogger for Libération wrote: "Strauss-Kahn's only real problem is his behavior with women. Too pushy, he often narrowly escapes [charges] of harassment. This fault of his is well known by the media, but no one speaks about it."
(And also in 2007 was the aforementioned television interview with the young woman who named Strauss-Kahn as her attacker, only to have the name suppressed by the network.)
So Strauss-Kahn’s alleged pattern of sexual aggression toward women was well known. But the powers that be kept it quiet. Until a second woman was brave enough to come forward. And what is the response to this woman from far too many people? Groundless assertions that the woman is not credible. That she is conniving. An evil temptress, perhaps. A manipulative woman setting out to snare a famous, wealthy man. A wanton, lustful woman who suddenly regrets what she did with him sexually.
I think the most offensive phrase I encountered associated with this story was when one male commentator referred to the woman complainant as “a honey trap.”
A what?
So it seems that this is what far too many of us think about women who come forward to report male sexual violence: slutty until proven innocent.
A common pattern. Unfortunately, this pattern is not new: a woman comes forward with an allegation of sexually abusive behavior by a prominent man, and she is loudly attacked while the man is immediately proclaimed to be an innocent victim. But then a closer analysis strongly suggests that sometimes the man in question seems to in fact have a prior pattern of doing exactly the things that he is currently being accused of. But these supporting elements of the woman’s story are ignored or suppressed, and the whole thing gets framed as a “he said/she said.”
This is just what happened when Paula Jones accused Bill Clinton of sexual harassment, and also when Anita Hill was called to testify against Clarence Thomas for his alleged sexually harassing behavior. When Paula Jones sued Bill Clinton for sexual harassment she was called every misogynist name under the sun, and, because of her working-class background, she was also often called “trailer trash.”
(A quick reminder of what that lawsuit was about: while Clinton was Governor of Arkansas, Jones said, Clinton met Jones – a state tourism employee – at a convention and invited her up to meet him in his hotel room. When she arrived, she claims, he dropped his pants, displayed his genitals, and propositioned her while State troopers stood guard outside the door. It was in defending himself against this lawsuit that Clinton lied under oath about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky – and then faced impeachment.)
At the time Paula Jones was widely mocked and vilified. But then others began to come forward. A former White House volunteer, Kathleen Willey, said that when she went to Clinton’s office to ask him for a paying job, Clinton kissed her, groped her, and took her hand and placed it on his genitals. Subsequently, a woman named Juanita Broaddrick came forward and said that Clinton had sexually assaulted her in a hotel room decades before, during his first campaign for Governor of Arkansas.
Asked why she did not come forward earlier, Broaddrick replied: "I just don't think anyone would have believed me."
Justice’s denial. A similar pattern occurred during the U.S. Senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Anita Hill, a reluctant witness who was called to testify about her experiences of having been harassed by Thomas, was vilified in the press, and many still doubt her version of events to this day.
Hill was depicted as a man-hater. As a jilted lover. As a tool of the left who despised Thomas. During the hearings she was as much on trial as he was – if not more so. She was hated. The New York Post saw fit to refer to both Paula Jones and Anita Hill as “sisters in sleaze,” and Anita Hill was called “delusional” by t.v. commentator Fred Barnes.
While the press, politicians, and pundits were busily maligning Ms. Hill’s character and motivation, what went largely unnoticed was that there were four other witnesses brought to Washington who were fully prepared to testify – but who were never called by the committee. These people included Angela Wright, who had been Thomas’s press secretary (and who had never met or worked with Anita Hill), and had testified privately that Thomas had repeatedly pressured her for dates, asked her about her breast size, and often made remarks about the bodies of other women. She also reported that Thomas showed up at her apartment uninvited one night and again pressed her to go out with him.
A woman named Susan Hoerchner was also prepared to testify that Hill had complained to her at the time about Thomas’ harassing behavior, and that he said things to her like: “You know I’m your kind of man, you just refuse to admit it.” Hill’s boyfriend at the time of the alleged harassment was also prepared to testify but was never called by the committee. Not called, either, was American University law professor Joel Paul, who tried to recruit Hill for a job. Asking her why she’d left the job she had held under Clarence Thomas, Hill had reported to him that her departure was due to Thomas’ sexual harassment.
Getting unstuck. So the pattern here seems relatively clear. A woman makes an allegation of sexually abusive behavior against a prominent man. People run to his defense while they race to damn her. Then it comes to light that there is possibly a longstanding pattern of unacceptable behavior on the man’s part. It is no longer his word against hers. It is his word against theirs. It shifts from “he said/she said” to “he said/they said.”
How can we change a pattern that allows allegedly assaultive and harassing men to hurt woman after woman before he is finally stopped?
First, we can start by not automatically rejecting every allegation of abuse that we hear. Allegations need to be investigated fairly and impartially.
Second, we must stop heaping abuse on women who come forward. Reporting violating behavior is difficult enough. These women do not need our scorn. These women deserve to be treated as if they too are innocent until proven guilty.
Finally, we need to uproot and destroy the oppressive and offensive attitude that a woman who reports a sexual violation is herself some kind of seductive temptresses.
Reporting the abusive behavior of a powerful man makes a woman gutsy, not slutty.
Let’s break the pattern.
This past week Dominique Strauss-Kahn was arrested for allegedly sexually assaulting a hotel maid in New York City. And despite some of the rather paranoid suggestions that this incident was some sort of politically-motivated set-up designed to entrap Strauss-Kahn, a grand jury saw fit to indict him on the things he is accused of doing – which include attempted rape and forced oral sex.
Am I surprised that someone as prominent as the head of IMF could be accused of such a heinous act? Not really. Because I pay attention to the news, I have grown all too used to the reality that men in positions of power sometimes behave disgracefully in their private lives.
But even though I am no longer surprised at such bad behavior, I always feel disappointed when I hear of these things. I expect a lot more of men. Of all men, prominent or not.
Attacking the complainant. What I was also disappointed by (but again, not terribly surprised by) was the nearly instantaneous attack on the credibility of the woman who came forward and reported her story to the police. One of the first to lash out was the renowned French Philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy, who upheld his friend Strauss-Kahn’s character while simultaneously attempting to cast great doubt not only on this woman, but also upon yet another woman who came forward again to say that Strauss-Kahn tried to rape her ten years ago. Lévy suggested that this second woman, a journalist, was merely waiting for her “golden opportunity” to level a complaint.
Just what Lévy meant by “golden opportunity” he does not say. But it certainly implies cashing in.
Lévy is either unaware of – or is purposefully ignoring – the fact that this other woman actually mentioned Strauss-Kahn by name as her attacker in a 2007 television interview. Fearful of a slander case, the t.v. network at that time bleeped out his name.
Startlingly for a renowned philosopher, Lévy commits a rather immense error in logic as he urges us to keep in mind his friend Strauss-Kahn’s presumed innocence while at the same going out of his way to cast suspicions on the motives of the female accusers. (This piece of rather remarkable intellectual dishonesty can be found here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-05-16/bernard-henri….)
The world has tended to think of Bernand-Henri Lévy as a pretty smart guy. I’m not really seeing it. But maybe he is in fact intelligent, and in this case it is just that his sexism is interfering with his ability to think rationally.
After all, sexism always clouds a man’s ability to think rationally.
A clear pattern of behavior. Another thing that disappointed me about the week’s events was the emergence of clear evidence that Strauss-Kahn’s problematic behavior has been well-known to many people for a long, long time. He has allegedly been behaving in a predatory manner toward women for years – and his aggressive behavior seems to have gone largely uninterrupted.
According to Time magazine (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2072205,00.html#ixzz1MkDJ…), when Straus-Kahn was a prominent politician in France, he could often be spotted at a bar being “too pushy” with young women. In 2006, two journalists published a book that included a chapter about his boorish behavior, and in 2007, a blogger for Libération wrote: "Strauss-Kahn's only real problem is his behavior with women. Too pushy, he often narrowly escapes [charges] of harassment. This fault of his is well known by the media, but no one speaks about it."
(And also in 2007 was the aforementioned television interview with the young woman who named Strauss-Kahn as her attacker, only to have the name suppressed by the network.)
So Strauss-Kahn’s alleged pattern of sexual aggression toward women was well known. But the powers that be kept it quiet. Until a second woman was brave enough to come forward. And what is the response to this woman from far too many people? Groundless assertions that the woman is not credible. That she is conniving. An evil temptress, perhaps. A manipulative woman setting out to snare a famous, wealthy man. A wanton, lustful woman who suddenly regrets what she did with him sexually.
I think the most offensive phrase I encountered associated with this story was when one male commentator referred to the woman complainant as “a honey trap.”
A what?
So it seems that this is what far too many of us think about women who come forward to report male sexual violence: slutty until proven innocent.
A common pattern. Unfortunately, this pattern is not new: a woman comes forward with an allegation of sexually abusive behavior by a prominent man, and she is loudly attacked while the man is immediately proclaimed to be an innocent victim. But then a closer analysis strongly suggests that sometimes the man in question seems to in fact have a prior pattern of doing exactly the things that he is currently being accused of. But these supporting elements of the woman’s story are ignored or suppressed, and the whole thing gets framed as a “he said/she said.”
This is just what happened when Paula Jones accused Bill Clinton of sexual harassment, and also when Anita Hill was called to testify against Clarence Thomas for his alleged sexually harassing behavior. When Paula Jones sued Bill Clinton for sexual harassment she was called every misogynist name under the sun, and, because of her working-class background, she was also often called “trailer trash.”
(A quick reminder of what that lawsuit was about: while Clinton was Governor of Arkansas, Jones said, Clinton met Jones – a state tourism employee – at a convention and invited her up to meet him in his hotel room. When she arrived, she claims, he dropped his pants, displayed his genitals, and propositioned her while State troopers stood guard outside the door. It was in defending himself against this lawsuit that Clinton lied under oath about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky – and then faced impeachment.)
At the time Paula Jones was widely mocked and vilified. But then others began to come forward. A former White House volunteer, Kathleen Willey, said that when she went to Clinton’s office to ask him for a paying job, Clinton kissed her, groped her, and took her hand and placed it on his genitals. Subsequently, a woman named Juanita Broaddrick came forward and said that Clinton had sexually assaulted her in a hotel room decades before, during his first campaign for Governor of Arkansas.
Asked why she did not come forward earlier, Broaddrick replied: "I just don't think anyone would have believed me."
Justice’s denial. A similar pattern occurred during the U.S. Senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Anita Hill, a reluctant witness who was called to testify about her experiences of having been harassed by Thomas, was vilified in the press, and many still doubt her version of events to this day.
Hill was depicted as a man-hater. As a jilted lover. As a tool of the left who despised Thomas. During the hearings she was as much on trial as he was – if not more so. She was hated. The New York Post saw fit to refer to both Paula Jones and Anita Hill as “sisters in sleaze,” and Anita Hill was called “delusional” by t.v. commentator Fred Barnes.
While the press, politicians, and pundits were busily maligning Ms. Hill’s character and motivation, what went largely unnoticed was that there were four other witnesses brought to Washington who were fully prepared to testify – but who were never called by the committee. These people included Angela Wright, who had been Thomas’s press secretary (and who had never met or worked with Anita Hill), and had testified privately that Thomas had repeatedly pressured her for dates, asked her about her breast size, and often made remarks about the bodies of other women. She also reported that Thomas showed up at her apartment uninvited one night and again pressed her to go out with him.
A woman named Susan Hoerchner was also prepared to testify that Hill had complained to her at the time about Thomas’ harassing behavior, and that he said things to her like: “You know I’m your kind of man, you just refuse to admit it.” Hill’s boyfriend at the time of the alleged harassment was also prepared to testify but was never called by the committee. Not called, either, was American University law professor Joel Paul, who tried to recruit Hill for a job. Asking her why she’d left the job she had held under Clarence Thomas, Hill had reported to him that her departure was due to Thomas’ sexual harassment.
Getting unstuck. So the pattern here seems relatively clear. A woman makes an allegation of sexually abusive behavior against a prominent man. People run to his defense while they race to damn her. Then it comes to light that there is possibly a longstanding pattern of unacceptable behavior on the man’s part. It is no longer his word against hers. It is his word against theirs. It shifts from “he said/she said” to “he said/they said.”
How can we change a pattern that allows allegedly assaultive and harassing men to hurt woman after woman before he is finally stopped?
First, we can start by not automatically rejecting every allegation of abuse that we hear. Allegations need to be investigated fairly and impartially.
Second, we must stop heaping abuse on women who come forward. Reporting violating behavior is difficult enough. These women do not need our scorn. These women deserve to be treated as if they too are innocent until proven guilty.
Finally, we need to uproot and destroy the oppressive and offensive attitude that a woman who reports a sexual violation is herself some kind of seductive temptresses.
Reporting the abusive behavior of a powerful man makes a woman gutsy, not slutty.
Let’s break the pattern.