I am fascinated by the central entitled assumption of men, who have been accused of particularly intrusive behaviours, about their own importance. This is such a busy day that I don't have time to properly craft what I want to say about this, and in fact, it's a movable feast of not really knowing how to put it, and new things keep happening, so I am basically unable to see where I am in the whirlwind, but I'm thinking in the vein of, Craig McLachlan crying in a TV interview (I haven't seen it, should probably watch), Robert Doyle crying in a (radio) interview (so I couldn't watch if I wanted to), and so on. That said, Matt Gaetz, a whole different kettle of fish, made me write this.
So the idea is that a middle aged man's importance is more important than other people's. But I am also very clear, having grown up as I have over the time period I have, that men of my age, and definitely older, and also probably also definitely younger, have always been told, by men and women around them, how important they are and what an impact they can and should have on the world. I am not saying therefore they are permitted to encroach on other people's liberties, or anything like that. I'm saying that the aftermath of what they've been accused of is, well, I'm still really valid. That's what interests me, and obviously also that's the attitude that arguably causes the original problem, too.
I'm not for one second saying that men who harass women (or anyone) deserve a free pass by dint of their upbringings and/or social attitudes, they still should have enough awareness to not abuse their status (it might also be true that people who seek celebrity/develop certain skills and talents, like acting or being a politician for instance, are people we should be slower to revere and quicker to be suspicious of - maybe these aren't callings for a lot of people, and more like outlets for a particular personality type we shouldn't be encouraging). (To be fair to the world, I think that's a big part of the stereotype around both those careers, so it's not like it hasn't been previously identified!). Once again I'm really just interested (sorry to be so glib about a serious social issue) in the way accused men behave in the aftermath.
It's actually odd when you think about it that after Grab'embythepussygate, Trump didn't say 'geez, I've always been told this is fine' (when obviously, he had been) but that it was 'locker room talk', which is apparently what men do with other men. This leads me to another strand in my slow and foolish coming to grips with shit. I have had to contend with what I believe to be bad behaviour (by others) in the workplace in the past and I have never been satisfied with the outcome i.e. particularly gross men have not been made to bear consequences for their actions, as far as I'm concerned. What I've been given insight into has been small beer compared to what makes the news, or at least, the people involved have not been actors or councillors, but the reality of it has been much the same as far as I'm aware. Ironically I was brought back to square one on this kind of thing because it's not me talking about my experience - it's me trying to shed light on others' experience and famously, for obvious reasons, women won't come forward and/because when they do, they are not taken seriously.
I bit off more than I could chew here. I'd love to see what Arthur Horner would do with today's 'tall poppies'.
No comments:
Post a Comment