Once a month, Matt and I do a book club episode of The Argument podcast. In an upcoming episode this month, we are reading Bowling Alone by Robert Putnam. Read along if you are interested, and please comment with any questions or ideas you would like us to explore!
True freedom requires a person with a will — and a society that is organized to allow the expression of that will.
I can want something as simple as to walk my dog at night. But if roving gangs threaten my life, then my freedom to pursue that desire is only theoretical. Even worse is if the threat is so pervasive that I can’t even imagine walking my dog at night. In neither case am I really free.
This diminished freedom has long been, to greater and lesser degrees, the status quo for most women in most places.
Even in a society as egalitarian as the contemporary U.S., polling shows that women feel less safe to roam. Globally, “men are over 20% more likely than women to say they feel safe in their communities.” One paper about women in Delhi finds that women will choose to go to much worse colleges in order to feel safer while traveling, whereas men with similar choices will choose to attend the better colleges more frequently.
One researcher, Alice Evans, recently argued that “our analyses of progress towards gender equality still focus on economic activity and political representation, omitting a far more basic question: can women walk down the street alone at night and be at ease?”
It is not immediately obvious that women should feel less free than men: Men are much more likely than women to be victims of homicide and robbery. Of course, a big part of this is that boys are more likely to be in public spaces unsupervised in the first place.
The freedom to move in the world unburdened by the fear of violence and harassment is a fundamental prerequisite to basically every other freedom we care about: to say what you really think, to associate with whomever you wish. It can be hard to imagine a world where the average woman remains physically weaker than the average man and yet feels as free. But one thing gives me hope: If you were to describe the freedom enjoyed by many women in rich, low-crime neighborhoods in modern-day America to a woman living in the 1700s, it would become clear just how much legal, social, and cultural progress can be made.
#MeToo’s unfinished revolution
The slogan Me Too was first used in 2006 by the activist Tarana Burke to promote what she called “empowerment through empathy.” The idea was that victims of sexual violence and harassment often feel isolated by their experiences. Making people aware that there are others who have gone through the same thing plausibly makes them feel less alone.
But after the hashtag went truly viral in 2017, the slogan’s original purpose no longer seemed to meet the enormity of the task. The allegations against Harvey Weinstein and other abusive male power brokers were horrifying, and the veritable downpour of crimes revealed by women everywhere felt endless. We couldn’t wait for the broad social awareness being cultivated by the hashtag to trickle down into people’s behavior. Responding to stories of assault, harassment, and inequality with mere “likes” on social media was clearly not enough.
But the signal failure of #MeToo was that in seeking to counteract the norm of doubting women’s accounts, “accused” became nearly synonymous with “guilty.” More broadly, #MeToo, by highlighting women’s vulnerability, cast all men in the role of perpetrator.
In 2022, Burke wrote a retrospective in which she gave examples of the accomplishments of #MeToo. Besides removing “captains of industry” from positions of power, her examples were largely expressive:
“More than any law that has been passed or policy that has been changed in the past five years, this movement has created visibility and community.”
“The language we use is shifting, replacing words like victim with survivor.”
“We talk about mental health and healing.”
“[E]mployers are crafting thoughtful human-resource policies.”
“Consumers are more conscientious about the cultural content they consume.”
Consumers are “vocal about calling out rape culture.”
Burke, not totally comfortable with this accounting, quoted another feminist author, Imani Perry, who argued that “awareness is not a virtue in and of itself.” Burke expressed ambivalence about incarcerating more rapists and ended her piece by calling on the reader to do their part.
But what is their part? If awareness is not enough, and the goal is to effect mass cultural change without incarcerating a lot more rapists, what exactly should we be doing?
My cohost Matt Yglesias argued that the #MeToo movement was thin on specific demands and failed to accomplish very much, which is reasonable enough. Earlier feminist wins were concrete: Recognize our right to vote. Recognize our right to own property. Recognize our right to divorce our husbands and attend college.
The main problem is that both critics and supporters of the #MeToo movement tended to underrate just how radically society would have to change for women to feel as safe as men, or even to come close.
For starters, there is no specific legislative demand that could eliminate sexual harassment. And sexual violence is different from other serious crimes like murder or theft. There is often not dispositive physical evidence like there would be if someone shot you or broke into your house, and therefore cases are typically based almost entirely on witness testimony.
Moreover, victims themselves are often torn about going through the legal system. Sometimes they just want to move on rather than deal with a years-long process that may retraumatize them while hinging entirely on their perceived credibility as a witness. Sometimes the perpetrator is a friend, partner, or community member who they don’t actually want sent to jail.
And, of course, so much of what makes women and girls feel unsafe is not rape itself but the threat of sexual harassment that does not rise to the level of criminal activity.
True equality for women cannot exist in a world where girls are afraid to walk home from school alone and women have to remain on high alert while going about their normal lives. The unfortunate fact is that you can’t legislate freedom.
You can’t bar men from catcalling 13-year-olds, or from leering at women jogging at night. So, what do you do? I don’t think there’s an obvious answer.
Watch or listen wherever you get your podcasts.
The Argument. Libbing out.
The transcript will be after the paywall in this post for paying subscribers.
WATCH THE EPISODE ON YOUTUBE HERE
New episodes post every Thursday.
For an ad-free version and full transcript, subscribe at TheArgumentMag.com.
Corrections:
Around 19:00, Jerusalem says The Argument’s February poll found that “44% of Americans say it’s harder for men to socialize with women than they did 10 years ago, versus 14% saying it’s easier.” The true figures are 45% and 15%, respectively, and these are percentages of voters, not all Americans.
Around 49:30, Matt says Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, in response to the New York Post article about Sen. Ruben Gallego, “did a tweet, and she was like, ‘this is wrong because of the extreme power differential that exists.’” While Luna did tweet about the article, the tweet that used the power imbalance argument came from Rep. Lisa McClain.
Show notes
She Said, film about the Harvey Weinstein investigation: IMDb page
“Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police,” June 2020 op-ed by Mariame Kaba: The New York Times article
Sexual Harassment of Working Women: A Case of Sex Discrimination, 1979 book by Catharine MacKinnon: Goodreads page, Amazon page
“#MeToo Has Done What the Law Could Not,” February 2018 op-ed by Catharine MacKinnon: The New York Times article
Disclosure, 1994 film about a sexual harassment allegation: IMDb page
“I was harassed at the New Republic. I spoke up. Nothing happened.” article by Sarah Wildman about Leon Wieseltier: Vox article
“Leon Wieseltier: A Reckoning,” article by Michelle Cottle: The Atlantic article
Twitter and Tear Gas: The Power and Fragility of Networked Protest, book by Zeynep Tufekci about social media launching mass movements: Goodreads page, Amazon page
Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women, book by Susan Faludi debunking antifeminist talking points: Goodreads page, Amazon page
The Right to Sex: Feminism in the Twenty-First Century, book by Amia Srinivasan that includes an essay on power dynamics in professor-student romances: Goodreads page, Amazon page
“Swalwell pal Sen. Ruben Gallego had sexual relationships with two House staffers, sources reveal to The Post,” article about Gallego’s relationships with staffers in other offices when he was a representative: New York Post article
“The Glass Floor: Sexual Harassment in the Restaurant Industry” report on how restaurant servers often have an economic incentive to ignore sexual harassment, which garnered much coverage: ROC and Forward Together report
Off Campus, the “straight Heated Rivalry”: IMDb page
Heated Rivalry, the “gay Off Campus”: IMDb page
Peer review: “Dynamic Individuals, Static Neighborhoods: Migration and Earnings Changes in Poor Neighborhoods,” article by Andrew Garin, Ethan Jenkins, Evan Mast, and Bryan Stuart about why poor neighborhoods stay poor: NBER working paper
“What’s Causing Black Flight?” article by Jerusalem Demsas about the decreasing Black share of urban populations: The Atlantic article
“You don’t actually want to buy a house,” podcast episode about homeownership: The Argument podcast
“Was Jane Jacobs the first NIMBY?,” podcast episode about The Death and Life of Great American Cities: The Argument podcast
The Death and Life of Great American Cities, book by Jane Jacobs that formed the central topic of a previous episode: Goodreads page, Amazon page
Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, book by Robert Putnam that will form the central topic of an upcoming episode: Goodreads page, Amazon page
An year or so ago, I was at a bar with a (male) friend, and we somehow ended up having an extended argument over metoo that basically boiled down to “was this a good thing?” He was on the “no” side and made some of the same arguments as Matt. It was an eye opening experience for me because I basically took the “goodness” of metoo for granted, and trying to figure out a way to argue for it, especially quantitatively, was not straightforward. Your conversation touched on similar topics.
I think: 1) you can plausibly argue that, of all the plausible ways a society-wide reckoning over sexual harassment and inequality could go, what happened in the US in the mid-2010s was below the median in terms of whatever outcome you prioritize. But arguing that no reckoning is better than reckoning is a bigger and more challenging claim. 2) I think Demsas touches on this but if you could somehow freeze the definition of sexual assault and sexual harassment to what the average person considered it to be in 2014, and then measure that, and that only, through 2026..I hypothesize that it would have declined materially, and been driven by metoo. And that would be the clearest benefit of metoo. But this is a hard analysis to execute. 3) The loose and hard-to-quantify benefits of metoo are difficult for me to grapple with as an otherwise fairly quantitative lib who likes to follow the evidence. I think conservatives or people who are anti metoo could understandably accuse me of hypocrisy and say that when an issue touches on my personal prejudices and I don’t have the evidence to support my claims, I default to arguments like the above, and show that my commitment to evidence and data and reason is BS. To this, all I can do is shrug. It’s a reasonable objection.
It's understandable why this conversation focused mostly on the workplace, but (as someone roughly Jerusalem's age) I felt like #MeToo and 2010s feminism more generally went much further than that, and there really were a lot of attempts to shame and stigmatize what I would consider benign or, at worst, mildly inconsiderate dating and romantic behavior. Especially in feminist blogs, Tumblr, and Twitter at the time.
Behaviors like hitting on women in purely social contexts were attacked and shamed, as were like, misreading the vibe and going in for a kiss on date when she didn't want it. I admit I'm on the more terminally online side of things, but this discourse really messed with my head in my teens and early-20s, and many of my male friends had similar experiences.
The Aziz Ansari article is one example.
There was also a big cultural shift away from the idea that you should hit on or date women in hobby groups.
Another example is this article that went viral in 2013 (though worth noting the author has since apologized for it) where a man asking for advice on how to overcome approach anxiety at a social event is told he *should* feel anxious: https://web.archive.org/web/20170206164140/https://captainawkward.com/2013/04/20/476-i-have-anxiety-that-women-will-have-anxiety-about-me-approaching-them/
This SlateStarCodex article covers this genre of feminist writing well (see section III for a bunch of examples) where unhappily single men are mercilessly mocked and shamed: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/31/radicalizing-the-romanceless/