The #MeToo hashtag has been tweeted well over a million times in 85 different countries. #MeToo was broadly deployed by women and non-cisgender people in the wake of the Harvey Weinstein scandal to name and illustrate the ways in which entitled, violent, and unchallenged masculinism — the patriarchy — pervaded their lives. This was not just about rape, but also the mutually enforcing systems, attitudes, and behaviors around sexuality and gender structured against women and non-cis individuals.
Despite the obvious good intentions of those promoting and participating in the hashtag, the campaign was not without its detractors, even among feminists. One problem, highlighted by a number of commentators and social media users, was crystallized by a young woman cited in the Washington Post: “I’m wary and weary of people, mainly female-identifying, being asked to share their trauma in public, so it can be used to tip a scale of male belief that shouldn’t need tipping.”
These critics have a point: Why should the onus be on the people most oppressed by sexism to name and change them? Shouldn’t the bearers of male privilege be primarily doing the work of recognizing the damage the patriarchy wreaks in order to dismantle it?
The history of social change is not one of the powerful willingly ceding their own power.
If #MeToo is to graduate from moment to movement, however, this critique risks being unhelpful and historically misinformed. The work in this fight will, by nature, fall on the shoulders of women and of non-cis people. The history of social change is not one of the powerful willingly ceding their own power.
“Expecting men to do the work of toppling the patriarchy is like asking a dog to build a cat sanctuary — when you’ve already got it good, why work to change things?” Kim Kelly, a writer and organizer based in New York, told me.
The point here is not that the moral onus should be on women and transgender and gender nonconforming people to “bare their souls” and take on the historically feminized labor of teaching and healing while suffering. Nor is the suggestion that men should be let off the hook by virtue of the unlikelihood that they will take it upon themselves to undo their own privilege; indeed, the male enablers of rape culture also must be held to account. While the moral onus lies with men, the practical side of organizing a struggle lies with us.
Because history is told through turning points, we often get the impression that powerful actors hold prime importance in social justice struggles by granting certain rights and freedoms to the oppressed. We learn that President Abraham Lincoln emancipated slaves, and Lyndon B. Johnson passed the Voting Rights Act. Suggesting that these powerful figures had to be dragged into pushing these changes can even spark an outcry, if the suggestion is made at all.
The problem with this sort of selective, great-man history — and they are, overwhelmingly, men — is that it minimizes the necessary role oppressed parties play in fighting, often bloodily, for their own liberation.
That the burden of justice falls on the oppressed is one thing; whether certain campaigns work or, more specifically, what they work toward, is another matter.
Only a few years ago, a similar hashtag campaign in which women shared their experiences with male entitlement and violence, #YesAllWomen, garnered 1.2 million tweets in four days. The idea for #MeToo is not new, either — 10 years before actress Alyssa Milano popularized its use on Twitter, women’s advocate Tarana Burke posted the idea on her MySpace page. It’s no accident that celebrity involvement and endorsement of the hashtag fueled its recent virality. Accusations elevated by the #MeToo campaign have led to firings and industry bans in media, fashion, and beyond. Though the hashtag also has its shortcomings, such as the potential to leave behind the most marginalized, it’s highly relevant that wealthy, famous, and powerful women are saying “me too,” too.
“In the past five or six years, Americans have seen a dramatic increase in the volume of conversation about sexual harassment and sexual assault,” Moira Weigel, a postdoctoral fellow at Harvard and author of “Labor of Love: The Invention of Dating,” told me. “More specifically, we have seen an outpouring of first-person narratives by women testifying to the experience of these harms.”
Weigel wonders about the “positive (or salutary) political effect” of such sharing, pointing out that national studies looking at campus rape showed the same rates in 2014 as in 1985, with around one in four female respondents having had an experience that would count as rape or attempted rape under law. As Weigel put it, “If 30 years of using the stories of survivors to raise public awareness had not significantly diminished the scale of the problem, what other cultural work were these narratives doing?”
“If 30 years of using the stories of survivors to raise public awareness had not significantly diminished the scale of the problem, what other cultural work were these narratives doing?”
The political potential of #MeToo might not lie in the revelations of epidemic levels of assault and harassment — these are not new — but the way in which those using the hashtag are able to frame their experiences and relate to each other, and assign blame to attackers and complicit systems. The hashtag avoided a trap typical of sexual assault discourse, in which women and non-cis people must frame themselves as either the abject victim or the survivor who personally overcomes.
“#MeToo allows people to attest that we have suffered systemic harms without pressuring us into elevating this (sadly ordinary) fact into the defining feature of our identities,” Weigel told me. The hashtag allowed women to collectively name the scourge of sexual assault and harassment as part of their feminist struggle, not definitive of their individual identities.
It is too early to speak about a #MeToo movement — but that doesn’t mean it won’t become one or part of one. “This is an example of the emergence of the ‘new power’ of social movements in the age of the internet,” Winnie Wong, co-founder of the People for Bernie and a Women’s March co-chair, told me. “It will, I suspect, continue to have a domino effect.”
Wong is a main organizer for the Women’s Convention in Detroit this weekend — an organizing extension of the Women’s March efforts, which expects to draw 5,000 women. Tarana Burke spoke, and so did actress Rose McGowan, who has been among the most vocal about Hollywood’s complicity in her attacker Weinstein’s serial predation.
Their presence at the convention at least gestures at the possibility of bringing #MeToo beyond the confessional space of social media and into organizing platforms aimed at applying pressure on existing political systems with concrete campaigns and actions. During the convention, Wong told me she will be focusing on Medicare For All campaigns and plans around mid-term election battles. It places the sexual assault debate where it belongs — in the broader feminist struggle against all oppressive hierarchies that aren’t about to undo themselves.
Top photo: Actress Rose McGowan and Founder of #MeToo campaign Tarana Burke, embrace on stage at the Women’s March/Convention in Detroit on Oct. 27, 2017.
Why is the intercept censoring all comments critical of the article? Second time this has happened in the span of a week.
“patriarchy, cis-gender, male privilege, rape culture, marginalized” … all the hallmark terminology of a juvenile worldview, and the article definitely reflects that. The 1/4 college women being raped or suffering an attempt has been debunked many times. The author might as well manufacture stats based on the prevalence of the #metoo hashtag if her standard of proof is that low.
Hashtag trends will never make any lasting difference, much less when it is all about the unself-aware obsession about the lifes of celebrities and the confusion that their lives are just like ours (me too? are you all hollywood stars now?)
Right, because all these women stars benefited and became accomplices, in the sense, they did not say anything, walk away, deny any roles or money, and used to lecon taught and learned to pass on to the next generation of girls. When one of them made a film, of her orgasimc release to a luxury car— I would say she learned the lecon well. Stars are entertainment. No more no less. Certainly not moral compasses to lead within that framework. That is what they sell. They sold it well. Will they return all their monies? Will everyone get a refund? Donot pull the fantasy argument— it always starts in reality!
Good thoughtful article, I agreed. One way to reduce abuse across the board is to moderate the “life or death” career power of some “employers” have over their employees or applicants for a position or job. While maintaining the concept of the right to hire or promote to “management’s” desired skill set; such power can quickly degenerate (double entendre) to sexual desires. Softening the edges of power politics for some jobs in for example art actress or science post docs would lessen the pressure to conform or submit or lose your career, life and livelihood for both sexes.
True, but in the Private structure of things, this is what private is about. This is what private means. We donot hear of this goingson at npr? This all fits together in what America is?
Even in these commentswe can see what make rape culture, the disbelieving women, the inability to self reflect in men . Will be interesting to see how the intercept covers women’s issues or male supremacy or race . It took three weeks to have this , maybe the intercept has some male supremacy issues too
If you watch most Hollywood action films, you will see guns beyond anything most people in the NRA have seen. The Marvel Avengers, recently Kingsmen 2. Yet they shriek we all need gun control. (I’ll add they jet around the world preaching using too much energy causes climate change).
#MeToo is disingenuous on its face – they don’t name who assaulted them or any details. We had the Duke Lacrosse and Rolling Stone hoaxes, and the problems with Mattress Girl’s accusations. (Strangely, a 14 year old that called the police in an hour where they found blood was found not to be raped by two “dreamers”). Most of those screeching about sexual harassment or assault now had no problem voting for and supporting Bill Clinton though he raped Juanita Broderick – or Hillary that trashed the accusers.
Or the soft porn Hollywierd produces. 50 shades of Gray and its sequel? Where were the feminists? Oh, they were in the theaters since it was mommy porn. Isn’t everyone going to view the latest Clooney movie? Hey, just because Weinstein was a perv, no reason to deny him the megabucks!
Then there’s big Tech – the same evils are in Google, Facebook, Uber (uncovered!), Tesla, Amazon, Twitter, and Apple. Tim Cook is Gay, but if he raped a dozen male subordinates, you’d silll line up for the iPhone X. Google is taking down rightist videos, so any perversion, exploitation, or sexual discrimination, harassment, assault is forgivable, just don’t let everyone see Prager-U videos!
#MeToo will fail not because of anything in the article, but because they don’t want to hold anyone to account because they are leftists, so they can rape children but be sort of forgiven. Like Roman Polanski. Leftists don’t ask about what is evil or true, but if the person who did the monstrous act has sent money to support Planned Parenthood. You CAN get away with Rape in leftist areas by “supporting” the right organizations. Like the Clinton Foundation. Weinstein will return after writing a big check – Facebook wrote a check to the SF Gay Pride parade so the outing of Gay and Trans people was ignored and forgiven. You have no morals or principles, or they are bought too cheaply. That is the problem.
Some good truth here, but leftists, hell, your heat is on your left side and you aint doing without it! Yes, actrors and actresses who profited so well, gave example to generations should indeed not be casting stones!
“Expecting men to do the work of toppling the patriarchy is like asking a dog to build a cat sanctuary…..”
Actually there is a good possibility that some would do it, because
“Sweet dreams are made of this…”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a19BXd0WMiA
Please explain how this violates comments policy?
Wow it took 3 weeks for the intercept to break silence on this topic. But things will really start changing:
-When the 200+ men and women in entertainment that signed the petition in support of a serial abuser director publicly rescind their support.
-When the press right and left denounce equally abusers, instead of studiously avoiding mentioning people like Clinton, Letterman, and on the right, Trump.
-When abuse of young men, girls and boys is also included. For example more young males than females are rapped in the military. Little is said about the later but the former is completely covered up.
-When it’s considered inappropriate to be naked or nearly naked in the presence of people without their consent, irrespective of age, body type or gender.
-When rich actresses and actors as well as as those that fund media outlets like Intercept contribute to a no strings attached legal defense fund to sue those that abuse women in vulnerable situations, but also young men, girls and boys
Wow it took 3 weeks for the intercept to break silence on this topic. But things will really start changing:
-When the 200+ men and women in entertainment that signed in support of serial abuser director publicly rescind their support.
-When the press right and left denounce equally abusers: left leaning media studiously avoids mentioning people like Clinton, Letterman, and on the right, Trump.
-When abuse of young men, girls and boys is also included. For example more young males than females are rapped in the military. Little is said about the later but the former is completely covered up.
-When it’s considered inappropriate to be naked or nearly naked in the presence of people without their consent, irrespective of age, body type or gender.
-When rich actresses and actors as well as as those that fund media outlets like Intercept contribute to a no strings attached legal defense fund to sue those that abuse women in vulnerable situations, but also young men, girls and boys.
“Why should the onus be on the people most oppressed by sexism to name and change them? Shouldn’t the bearers of male privilege be primarily doing the work of recognizing the damage the patriarchy wreaks in order to dismantle it?”
Very strange thinking. This is not how liberation movements work; they’re always driven by those who most obviously stand to gain – even granted that we all stand to gain from a more just world. Just as a practical matter, any approach to justice will depend on women taking a very active role.
Enforcement against abusers will always depend on the victims calling them out and testifying against them, simply because they’re the crucial witnesses. The rest of us can try to build a more supportive enforcement system, but it will always depend on the witnesses.
And if we try to correct the imbalance of power that leads to these abuses, that, too, will depend on women practicing the solidarity required for a labor action (even in the midst of the notoriously cut-throat competition for scarce roles), as well as on powerful, successful women using their money and influence to change the production process. (I’m trying to write this to include music, as well as movies, as the same problem occurs there.)
Probably the most important thing men can do, if they aren’t directly involved in the industry, is go to movies that have a lot of women in them. Part of the problem is a lack of roles for women. That reflects the imbalance of power, but Hollywood responds very well to money. Vote with your dollars.
There is a much worse aspect to the above quote: it perpetuates traditional feminine passivity. You’re seriously going to wait for some guy to do it? That isn’t liberation. It’s direct sabotage of the movement.
This is great. This may actually be the article that puts Trump over the top for a second term. And the continued use of the word “marginalized”. One in four. Laughable.
This article frustrates me. Flowing oddly, it – more upsetting – also seems to be primarily interested in naming who is allowed to participate in the “moment” and who can’t be part of the “movement,” complimented by a few quotes hatcheted in. To me, it seems like this article was written for the sake of having ‘a take on the issue,’ not because it was particularly thoughtful or thought-provoking.
Unpacking it, I get: Men have the onus but women must lead. No big-men/women, thanks. This hashtag has been used before. This hashtag is good because you can target people and political systems. This is about changing political and social systems and norms but especially about allowing women to have a voice where that voice doesn’t define them….
To the first couple — who cares about who or how positive change comes; this issue, like so many before it – distilled – is that one must treat another equally and fairly, in public and in private. Whoever or however that argument is presented, as long as it is understood, embraced, and adopted, is extraneous.
From the paragraph beginning, “Only a few years ago, a similar hashtag campaign” and onward the information is somewhat boring, unrelated or subjective; in fact, I would argue it could be cut down to that one line from Weigel.
I dunno, all I see is a bunch of overpaid women scrambling to avoid the appearance that they might owe their rise to stardom not solely for their acting talent.
How about thinking about all those women whose names we don’t know that might have been up in lights had Hollywood’s culture been different?
I agree. When Angelina Jolie and Charlize Theron were building their career and aiming the big bucks, Weinstein attitude seamed a fair price to pay. But now that they havewhat they wanted and the guy is in the gutter, kicking him in the head seams beneficial. Why is that Saddam Hussein and Donald Rumsfeld shacking hands back in the 80’s come to my mind right now, I don’t know!
My friend Audre Lorde said: “The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.”
This whole moment to movement talk is just that: “talk” and it is cheap talk. Change, in order to affect the community in a positive way, has to come from inside to the outside. Reason anchored in the heart.
Upon reading the interviews of the black women that initiated the feminism movemnt, one realizes that it was hijacked by white feminists and it was misrepresented and made into a”choice” issue.
Not once there was a serious campaign to place women financial independence in the fore front of the movement. It was and it has been about sexual identity, body representation and academic achievements..The most important thing for me, as a black woman, is the ability to be economic independent. Achieving that I can deal with any other matter. I can get good education, good health, present myself as hetero, lesbian, bi-sexual, asexual, have children or have no children.
Like the people in position of authority, the feminist movement and all liberals (with few exceptions) opt for supporting issues which are secondary to keep people independent and capable of caring for themselves.
Anything to keep us all distracted.
Spot on, amen.
I just deleted my Intercept bookmark. One unsubstanciated, feeling-driven, postmodernist article too much.
Objectivity is a tool of the patriarchy evidently.
The “movement” needs to include everyone and it needs to address these problems by encompassing a systems view of our society instead of going at it from an individual level, case-by-case. This is really a fight against a system rather than a certain individual, although individual cases can be instructive and bring needed awareness.
Under our current system, psychopathy is REWARDED, bullying is necessary to keep people in line with the corporate agenda… it is beneficial to be able to step on others without any guilt as you get yourself to the top of the hierarchy. So it should be no surprise that we often find such gross, rapacious characters in positions of power. Also, our current system requires that people exploit others, exploit the environment and animals, for their own monetary gain. And when just FIVE men own as much wealth as half the WORLD’s population (that’s 3.5 billion people as just over 7 billion in total live on Earth currently) that means MOST OF US—whether women, or Hispanics, or Blacks, or yes, even white men on the bottom of the totem pole—are at risk of being exploited in order for someone else to get their needs met, whether that be actual needs like the necessities of life or their need to wield their power in a way that threatens others so they can feel bigger and better. This whole “rape culture” and its persistent cover-ups is directly linked to our exploitative, abusive, inequitable capitalistic system. There is a better way and once we all can get ourselves there, there will be less people who will hurt others just to hold power over them because there won’t be a systemic impetus to do so in the first place. And certainly there’d be no covering up of abuses as there’d be no reason for that kind of protectionism.
If anyone is interested in exploring the idea of a different system—one which is sustainable and equitable and beneficial for all humans—I’d recommend looking at the following lecture video and a book that expands on the ideas presented there, thank you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9FDIne7M9o&t=74s
https://www.amazon.com/New-Human-Rights-Movement-Reinventing/dp/1942952651/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1509170469&sr=8-1&keywords=the+new+human+rights+movement
The media tells me that McGowan says she was raped by Weinstein in 1997. Yet the Daily Mail have a picture of her pressing her bosoms up against him in 2004. ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4961282/Rose-McGowan-hits-monster-Weinstein.html )
If there’s a moral to take from this, it’s don’t expect lovely Paige to give you that kind of attention outside of your adolescent fantasies. Weinstein might be monster, rapist, abuser, whatever, the pariah of Hollywood, but he is still 10000,0000 times better than you. He was born that way and he will die that way. His relative rank in Hollywood might change but you’ll never have one. Give it up and move on.
Oh, I don’t doubt that town is more crooked than the mind can imagine. When I see an actor or an actress, whether it’s a lovely woman or a five-year-old boy, I assume he’s sucking producer pepperoni to be there, unless there’s some even more sordid quid pro quo worked out with a third party. And I bet they all know that’s the game before they even get started playing.
really?
A five year old “knows the game”?
Lay off the porn Harvey.
Thank you for exemplifying the problem. When I hold the means to you making a living in your chosen profession, I hope you are as happy with everything I demand of you, which includes smiling as you do it, & that you blame yourself for my tyranny, instead of me.
I think that should be “bare their souls” unless you’re suggesting their souls are a burden. I read the Intercept a lot and I think this the first time I’ve read a story that leaves me with a heavy sigh and a who the fuck cares. There are laws. There are courts. The pendulum swings. Just remember that the harder you push shit like this the harder the push back will be. How do you think Trump got to be in office? I lean left but there are plenty of obnoxious try hard self-righteous snowflake SJWs full of their own conceited bullshit on this side of the fence, which are every bit as odious as the alt-right Nazis just a different flavor of the same ice cream; extremists sure they’re right who want you to live in their world and no other.
I’m not sure why the headline asks if #metoo can graduate into a political movement. It is already the dominant political movement in the United States.
The dictionary definition of ‘me-tooism’ (the political philosophy of the #metoo movement) is “the adopting of policies, methods, products, etc., similar or identical to those of a peer, rival, or competitor”. This is currently the motivating dynamic of the two major political parties in the US. Is it really necessary to have a third #metoo party? That could be a slippery slope. What would stop a fourth, fifth or sixth #metoo party?
No. Two #metoo parties is two too many.
That really doubles me up, which in normal human terms means that I am six times your size. So-me too- I second that emotion.
And, I bet I can beat you to the stove for thirds, and fourths, and….
BTW: Have there been any good lawsuits recently where the ADL could grab some headlines and talk about how it trains and militarizes the US police in “the business of HATE?”
And maybe, if such could arise, they could talk about how mowing down and murdering, primarily men, could eventually cut the population in half so that your theory of doubling could ease us into a state of affairs where males could be further chopped down to size-say 1/10th the population?
Then, we’d all be safe from Harvey Weinstein-but probably not bullying, rapist cops and ADL spies
BTW-was the ADL ever criminally prosecuted for spying on activists?
Hahahahaha. NO.
http://www.fakehatecrimes.org/
Et tu benitoe?
Movie stars, swimming pools. Seems like every Tom, Dick and Harry on the TV is a rich and famous ‘pussy grabber’ these days!?
*i’m just glad I’m not afraid to wear jewelry with a low-cut blouse.
*o/t Gruan reporting Mueller has flushed a covey, arrests expected mon. .. ish.
““If 30 years of using the stories of survivors to raise public awareness had not significantly diminished…”
If those 30 years of using stories did not exist this would has been a blip in time. Those 30 years have helped change attitudes, helped to attune people, young people, students, the new generations, to prepare society for #metoo. It’s the system that needs to catch up now and definitely on campus.
It will probably take a few generations or more before the hashtag can be archived, it has taken centuries to create it. It will demand a huge cultural shift, one that patriarchy will refuse to see the benefits of without a battle. But women will not give up this new found freedom. For the first time in centuries it is abusers and their accomplices, those who are complicit who will be afraid.
Not to diminish the importance of this, but it would be helpful to have the facts correct.
1 in 4 women being raped or having attempted rape is an absolute falsehood. The number would be more correct if you count unwanted attention, advances, harassment etc. that are bothersome but not an actual attempted sexual assault.
According to the DOJ, 1 in 40 women are raped or have an attempt. Now, we know that women often don’t report so that number is high.
I don’t have it handy, but the largest reputable survey shows 1 in 10. However, that conclusion was deemed high as women who had been assaulted would be more motivated to respond.
A best estimate would be 1 in 15 to 1 in 20 woman are raped or have an actual violent attempt.
WELL YES BUT DUH! LIKE, DUH! These critics have a point: Why should the onus be on the people most oppressed by sexism to name and change them? Shouldn’t the bearers of male privilege be primarily doing the work of recognizing the damage the patriarchy wreaks in order to dismantle it?
Are males who are the victim of sexual assault in the movie industry allowed to post a #MeToo? This article makes no mention of male victims. And–
“indeed, the male enablers of rape culture also must be held to account. While the moral onus lies with men, the practical side of organizing a struggle lies with us.”
So Corey Feldman and other males who’ve been abused and/or raped shouldn’t organize a struggle? Or be stuck on their own to do it themselves?
Apparently you don’t want #MeToo to include male victims (is that right?)
I support #MeToo whether or not it allows cis males to take part, or whether or not it recognizes cis males can be victims. But if so, that should be made clear.
#MeToo was broadly deployed by women and non-cisgender people in the wake of the Harvey Weinstein scandal to name and illustrate the ways in which entitled, violent, and unchallenged masculinity — the patriarchy — pervaded their lives. . .
Yes, true enough. So, in terms of strategic and tactical responses, what next?
You want to hit them where they’re vulnerable, do you? I can help with that. That’s my area of expertise, strategic and tactical approaches. But, it’s rather obvious, isn’t it? Took about 15 seconds:
http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/world/the-15-richest-producers-in-hollywood/
I mean, why not ask these people to go on the record about Harvey Weinstein? Why not send the paparazzi to their doorsteps? We’ve got names: Kevin Feige, Martin Scorsese, Judd Apatow, John Lasseter, Ridley Scott, Kathleen Kennedy, Harvey Weinstein, Brian Grazer, Joel Silver, Michael Bay, Peter Jackson, James Cameron, Jerry Bruckheimer, Stephen Spielberg, and George Lucas.
Call them up, ask them if they’d go on the record about the Hollywood meat market. Simple as that.
“Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Notice how the big money players are not being asked the difficult questions? Welcome to the plutocracy! Tender young flesh for aging plutocrats. . . Nothing new about that, is there?
Tell you what. Give me $1 million, I’ll go ask them these difficult questions. Well, I might need another $10 million to pay bribes and so on. Any takers? You couldn’t get a Hollywood movie for so cheap!
Spot on!
And the reason why no one is asking the plutocrats the hard questions is the reason nothing changes for better. Bankers, arms manufacturers, drug magnates, politicians, they never have to answer for anything. Scandal! Crisis! Headlines! And then just business as usual.
I wonder when Hillary Clinton will come clean regarding the cruel ways she treated all the women her husband sexually abused over the years?
As long as women are finding the courage to finally speak out regarding their sexual mistreatment by men, I believe it is high time for Mrs. Clinton to apologize publicly to her husband’s prey.
Thank you so much for this! How many predators have wives who maintain relationships with them? I’ll bet most do. Trump, Clinton etc. Women excuse/pardon male creepy behavior all the time. How many women voted for predators or the wives of predators?
A congresswoman recently commented that women have to accept some responsibility for harassment. While she wasn’t referring to wives of predators I think in a broader way women do have responsibility. Women are programmed to constantly be appeasing, pretty and acceptable. We’re terrified of appearing unattractive. It’s bullshit that women lay on ourselves and one another…
Tiny personal example…was recently at a bar where a man put his hands on my hips. My response, “Get your effing hands off of me!”. The woman I was with admonished me as though I had done something wrong. As women we need to look at ourselves in countless ways. The human pathology does not only lie with the male. Women enable patriarchy too. Women marry men who objectify women via porn etc…it’s far more complex than women simply being victims. And what is more empowering…being a victim or knowing your threat and countering it at every angle?