#MeToo Isn’t Going Anywhere

Two things might be inferred from the fallout surrounding what Caitlin Flanagan called “The Humiliation of Aziz Ansari.”

First: Ansari’s “apology” and subsequent self-identification with #MeToo fell somewhere in between Al Franken’s apology tour and Kevin Spacey’s fiercely rebuffed attempt to out himself.  Also, as Ansari has made his career criticizing the kind of behavior he allegedly engaged in, it makes him now somewhat of a Hollywood Jimmy Swaggart.   Ansari isn’t Harvey Weinstein, but he set himself up for this, irrespective of the legalities.

Second: like all “revolutions” [pace Flangan’s description], #MeToo might eat itself; not for nothing did Flanagan  “assume[] that on the basis of intersectionality and all that, they’d stay laser focused on college-educated white men for another few months”.   One can ask whether she meant that the movement risked caricaturing itself by falling into intersectionality, or whether she believes it should fall under that rubric; either way, not only has this revolution not “jumped the shark”, but it might even become the shark.

These are not necessarily unwelcome developments.

Female sexuality has been penalized long enough.  Aggressive male sexuality shouldn’t be criminalized, but it should no longer be either whitewashed or encouraged.  Certainly Flanagan shouldn’t be complaining that “destroy[ing] careers [] is now the punishment for every kind of male sexual misconduct”; there is misconduct that isn’t criminal but isn’t just “disappointing” which  certainly should be enough to end anyone’s career, even neglecting the aforementioned reasons why Ansari’s exile would be especially appropriate.

Additionally, why are #MeToo’ers pulling punches about men being afraid to hire women if this keeps up?  Since when are jobs about assuaging sexual tension, especially in men?  Is every office supposed to look like Cage & Fish?  Is every male boss going to turn into Mike Pence?  In fact, there is a twofold case of low-expectation soft-bigotry here.  The first, the fallback assumption and near acceptance of “boys will be boys” makes all men out to be predators with the office as an inevitable love nest.  [Maybe we can blame Helen Gurley Brown for that.] The second harks back to Flanagan’s intersectional dilemma: the fact that Ansari actually is college-educated and a probably rich celebrity [even if he isn’t white] notwithstanding, is Flanagan suggesting that anyone other than “college-educated white men” should get a pass?  

Talk about “disappointing”.

There is also no reason to fear a “sex panic”.  In the past some radical feminists were decried as the “New Victorians”: occasional declarations from eminences such as Catherine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin equating all heterosex with rape made that notion salient.  This movement just wants to make men behave.  Is that too much to ask?