Making sense of ‘me too’

Exploiting power for sexual favors has always been wrong

Jumping into the “me too” issue at this point is like diving into a pond where one has seen a bump appearing above the surface, not knowing whether it is a log or a crocodile’s snout. What is for sure is that the issue is more complicated than some commentators seem to grasp.

The fundamental element in most of the stories is the injustice of hierarchy. It is categorically wrong for one party to use his or her power to demand sexual favors. On that basis, Alabama senatorial candidate Roy Moore preying on teenage girls, if he did, and they say he did, is not only wrong, but sick.

Then there is former President Bill Clinton. Not only did he diminish the integrity of the American presidency in going after intern Monica Lewinsky, he almost certainly damaged his wife’s 2016 campaign for the presidency by making a Clinton return the White House a somewhat unsavory prospect. There were jokes that Ms. Clinton would have put the First Lad in charge of the White House intern program. The continuing contention that his liaison with Ms. Lewinsky was consensual just flat out doesn’t hold water given the yawning gap in power between a president of the United States and ayoung intern.

Ask yourself, would you want your daughter working in the White House if Mr. Clinton were wandering the halls?

Then, try another question: Would sexual predator Donald J. Trump have been elected president in 2016 if Mr. Clinton had been forced to resign as president for his offenses? Or, again, would you want your daughter working as an intern in the White House now with Mr. Trump as president? In any case, Mr. Clinton should have been pushed out of the Oval Office, or perhaps not even nominated in the first place, given his track record with women when he was governor of Arkansas.

The hierarchy question can get complicated, though. I have worked in schools, consulates, embassies, universities and now a newsroom. I don’t necessarily see workplace romance as a problem — as long as it isn’t a question of supervisor and subordinate. I also wouldn’t presume to judge the impact on society of the dating services young people patronize today, although I confess they vaguely horrify me. But the old-fashioned venues to meet — schools, clubs, religious congregations and the like— include workplaces.

I look around me at married or dating people who met at work. Also, how manytimes have I heard, frequently with reference to a successful marriage, if we can figure out what that is, “He/she was his/her assistant or secretary.” The new “me too” phenomenon has certainly added an element of danger to that phenomenon, although it always was one potentially fraught with career or social damage to the individuals involved.

Of course, women usually end up on the raw end of these transactions, as they do in general, starting with wages and promotions. It is also true, but less frequently brought to light, that men are propositioned as well, by both gay and straight workplace colleagues. Hierarchy also sometimes poisons these transactions.

But why is now the “me too” moment? Sexual assault and harassment have been going on since the beginning of time. Perhaps one reason the issue is rearing its head is the confluence of Ms. Clinton’s husband’s past and Mr. Trump’s present as the 2016 election still looms over us. Neither Mr. Trump’s grubby, grabby habits nor the prospect of Bill Clinton back in the White House were death blows to either candidate, but it might be that the plethora of charges and confessions coming to light now is in part a reaction to the lack of reaction during the electoral campaign.

I suppose it is possible that Americans don’t care these days about the sexual peccadillos of candidates. On the other hand, they certainly care about hypocrisy. Look how fast Rep. Tim Murphy of Western Pennsylvania went down when he, a longtime anti-abortion advocate, turned out to have urged what he believed was a pregnant out-of-wedlock companion to have an abortion. Hypocrisy, of course, can be at the core of sexual importunings. So, where do we end up? Clearly the monkey ends up usually on the back of us men. It is simply wrong for a man to push himself on a woman on the basis of a hierarchical relationship. “Courtship,” “seduction” or whatever one would like to call it is a delicate ballet, performed as a pas de deux, which is to say, a two-partner dance. If a man can’t figure out when his opening moves are not welcome, he should just lay off. If he wants to up his game with more sophisticated tactics, fine, as long as he does so with equal sensitivity. A potential partner should, of course, also send clear signals.

The institutions of marriage and partnership are in enough trouble in our society. The ongoing revelations of appalling events that have occurred and are occurring should not, however, result in one more St. Sebastian-like arrow being fired into what is already the threatened, alwayschanging process called courtship in America. I guess we do want our people to continue to reproduce themselves, although sometimes I wonder when I look at what we as a nation do around the world.