End of #metoo?

And so it has come to pass. The first standard bearer of the #metoomovement falls ignominiously. Who would have thought it would happen so soon? Italian actress Asia Argento has been exposed for her monumental hypocrisy. Her disservice to women who need to speak out about the injustices done to them cannot be overstated. The next time a well-known woman speaks out about being sexually assaulted and is not believed, the blame should be placed at Argento’s door for having damaged the most important aspect of any campaign — its credibility.

The flaws in the #metoomovement were always visible to all but the blindest believers. The vicious abandon with which male celebrities’ lives were wantonly destroyed, as though mere flies were being swatted. The indiscriminate use of a brush that was far, far, too broad in the way it set up a false equivalence between a harmless piece of flirtation and a serious sexual offence.

The whiff of a witch hunt was there from the outset. Then, the hypocrisy (Harvey Weinstein assaulted me but I was fine with partying with him later, being photographed with him and exchanging affectionate emails). Argento herself, after Weinstein allegedly forcibly performed oral sex on her, remained friends with him, accepted gifts and later had consensual sex with him.

Now Argento has admitted finally, privately, that she had sex with former child actor Jimmy Bennett when he was 17 in 2013 and she was 37. Perhaps she wasn’t aware that he was underage? Just as actor Kevin Spacey, whose life’s work, dignity, future prospects, and status in society, were destroyed in a flash by accusations that he groped an underage boy at a party, wasn’t aware that he was underage?

Perhaps Argento failed to realise how unwelcome her advances were to Bennett, just as comedian Louis C K, whose life has been smashed by accusations that he masturbated in front of a female friend (who presumably was unable to get to her feet and walk out) did not realise that his actions were unwelcome to her? Louis C K’s offence — if true — is far less serious than a 37-year-old woman forcing herself on a 17-year-old boy.

Some of the accusations went back to events so old that the accused had no recollection of them. Even if they had, they were allowed no defence because no due process was followed. Without in any way condoning rape or sexual assault, it is a fact that sexual relations are characterised by fluidity and dynamism, where moods can change in a fraction of a second and where subtle shifts in inclination and desire can occur, making it possible for one person to misread the other’s desires.

Between consent and lack of consent lies a vast grey area. Yet some of the women in the movement were so carried away by selfrighteousness that such considerations were not even entertained, forget swept aside. They treated some accusations that were light as air as proofs of holy writ. If anyone raised a dissenting voice, such as Germaine Greer, they were silenced by the “pure revolutionaries” of the movement who would not let Greer’s ambiguities or subtle distinctions sully their absolute certainty.

There were other problems with the #metoomovement as well. It was too broad. Instead of focusing on a specific goal, such as getting Weinstein behind bars and cleaning up Hollywood, it allowed every wannabe with any kind of claim to jump on the bandwagon, diluting its credibility.

At one unbelievable point, British Defence Secretary Michael Fallon was forced to resign last year because —15 years earlier — he had placed his hand on the knee of a journalist sitting next to him. That was a low point in the movement when it was clear that this was a free-for-all, that anything went, that any man could be vilified without restraint.

Its methods — releasing names of alleged abusers on Facebook or, as in the case of Raya Sarkar, the academic based in California who published a list of Indian academics who had allegedly abused their students — were the modern equivalent of the stocks.

The campaign lacked a sense of fair play. Events that happened 20 years ago — and that’s a long time in culture, long enough for values and codes of behaviour to change beyond recognition — were placed alongside events that happened a few months earlier.

Perhaps worst was the disingenuousness and hypocrisy of it. It goes without saying that actresses in Hollywood should not have to submit to Weinstein’s sexual advances in order for them or their films to be successful. But their coming out passionately to stand for a principle struck a hollow note when it emerged that some chose to go along with his vile behaviour and kept quiet about it in order to advance their careers.

That’s a perfectly valid choice. But it was not, as educated, well-connected, rich women, the only choice available to them. One consequence of such a choice — of not speaking out, of not standing up for a principle — is that it does rather shrink the amount of space you can legitimately claim on the moral high ground.

Not for a moment do I blame the women who chose to play along with Weinstein. The prospect of having to give up one’s dreams — by refusing to submit to him — is a choice that would have been horribly unfair and harrowing. All they had to do was to be a little less self-righteous. If they had, Argento’s spectacular fall would have caused less damage to a cause which every decent man and woman can only endorse whole-heartedly.

Every week, Eye Culture features writers with an entertaining critical take on art, music, dance, film and sport