Andrew Cuomo case proves #MeToo is not enough | Catholic National Register

COMMENT: The only way to free the workplace, the movie studio, the sports arena and even the Church from sexual misdeeds is to reject once and for all the toxic ideology of the sexual revolution.

I feel like I wrote this column before. Yet another prominent man has fallen into public disgrace because of predatory sexual behavior. This time, it was New York Governor Andrew Cuomo who resigned amid sexual harassment charges.

I wrote a version of this column about then Cardinal McCarrick and Harvey Weinstein. I wrote another version on Jeffrey Epstein, Harvey Weinstein and Theodore McCarrick. “What’s the point that you think you need to keep making?” You might ask. Just this: the #MeToo movement is not enough. Holding particularly powerful men accountable for their sexual misconduct is not enough. The only way to free the workplace, the movie studio, the sports arena and even the Church from sexual misdeeds is to reject once and for all the toxic ideology of the sexual revolution.

The New York attorney general’s office last week released a 165-page report accusing the outgoing governor “of engaging in behavior constituting sexual harassment” against at least 11 women. Debra Katz, lawyer for one of Cuomo’s accusers, said her resignation is “a testament to the growing power of women’s voices since the start of the #MeToo movement.”

I do not agree with this assessment. The #MeToo movement is weak. A few high-profile cases of publicly humiliated and punished predatory men are not enough.

Gender policy, opposing men and women according to a “feminist” scenario, is not an authentic solution to this problem either. The difficulties of proving the charges, the pain of enduring the harassment in the first place, the long-term trauma often arises as a result of sexual victimization: women shouldn’t have to endure all of this. Women suffer far more than a few successful prosecutions or indictments can fix. In addition, the purely “man against woman” “feminist” scenario cannot make sense of the many male victims of homosexual predation.

No, the real problem is the sexual revolution itself. I am going to give you a brief statement that sums up the philosophy that I believe is responsible for the sexual havoc in our lives.

Reproductive health can be defined as a state of well-being related to sexual and reproductive life. This implies that people are able to have a satisfying and safe sex life and that they have the ability to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when and how often to do so.

“What’s wrong with this statement?” You might ask. Doesn’t everyone support “reproductive health”?

Here’s the problem: this statement and others like it never tell us who is responsible for providing everyone with a “safe and satisfying sex life” to which we are all supposedly entitled. When pressed, advocates of “reproductive health” say this applies to consenting adult partners.

But “consent” is too thin a defense against devious and manipulative behavior. The appearance of “consent” can be manipulated. This part of the #MeToo movement is deeply true. The caveat of “consent” is simply not enough to save this definition of “reproductive health”.

Who believes they really have the right to a “safe and satisfying sex life”? Who is the rapist? This idea of ​​sexual rights covers predators and disarms victims. (Come to think of it, I wrote this column before too. The poor girls whose lives were ruined on PornHub couldn’t bring themselves to criticize pornography. They wanted to be seen as “sex positive.”)

By the way, where does this definition of “reproductive health” come from? It is surely some sort of straw man argument that has been concocted in a fit of exasperated exaggeration.

I found it on the United Nations Population Fund’s FAQ page: “What is reproductive health? The original document usefully refers to paragraph 7.2 of a “United Nations Program of Action”, adopted in Cairo in 1994, and never, to my knowledge, modified on this particular point.

Behind documents like this lies the philosophy of the sexual revolution created by people like Alfred Kinsey and Wilhelm Reich. Kinsey is the author of statistical studies on sexual behavior purported to show that “everyone does it.” It was supposed to cure people of their sexual inhibitions and blockages.

Wilhelm Reich was an Austrian doctor of medicine and psychoanalysis. He wrote the book The sexual revolution in 1936. He had the idea that sexual activity was necessary for a healthy life, even for children. He taught that sexual taboos were psychologically more harmful and dangerous than any problem that unlimited sex itself could cause.

This philosophy has given us a generation of addicts and sexual predators. The #MeToo movement, like many others in the world today, would like to be against sexual predation and always remain “sex positive”. They want to accept the premise of the sexual revolution but draw a line against non-consensual and predatory sex. We have enough experience to show that this line will not hold up. The revolution creates incentives and excuses for predation. You cannot invent enough punishments after the fact to protect women, and even men, from sexual predation.

The future former Governor Cuomo is accused of having created a “toxic workplace”. But, in fact, the sexual revolution created the toxic workplace. The sexual revolution issued hunting permits to predators.

Too many men have internalized the revolutionary message that they have the right to have sex as often as they want, with whomever they choose. Until that changes, we will continue to have these issues. Shameless men will continue to prey on vulnerable women and men under their power.

This is why the #MeToo movement is not enough.

Source link

Comments are closed.