…and recants. [Hat tip: Instapundit]:
In [a NY Times] op-ed Friday, written [by Bialik] in response to allegations of sexual assault against Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein, the observant Jewish actress said she has long made decisions that she considers “self-protecting and wise.”
“I have decided that my sexual self is best reserved for private situations with those I am most intimate with,” Bialik wrote. “I dress modestly. I don’t act flirtatiously with men as a policy.”
Social media users said that Bialik was insinuating she had not been sexually harassed or assaulted due to her choices and that she was contributing to victim blaming. The op-ed was published as countless women around the world recounted their instances of sexual harassment and abuse using the hashtag #MeToo.
On Monday, Bialik defended her column in a Facebook Live video event with the Times. But on Wednesday she changed course, writing on Twitter that she was “very sorry.”
“What you wear and how you behave does not provide any protection from assault,” Bialik wrote, “nor does the way you dress or act in any way make you responsible for being assaulted…I support…women as we seek out and demand accountability from the only ones responsible for for assault and rape: the people who perpetrate those heinous crimes. I am truly sorry for causing so much pain, and I hope you can all forgive me.”
I doubt that will be sufficient groveling for Bialik to earn forgiveness from the mob.
Unfortunately, I’ve already read my allotted NY Times articles this month and so the full text of Bialik’s op-ed is behind a paywall for me. Therefore I can’t read the whole thing, as I usually like to do if I write about something. But with that caveat (and helpful quotes from various articles about the brouhaha) I’ll soldier on.
Bialik is an actress who has described herself as an “aspiring” Modern Orthodox Jew as well as a feminist. What she has stumbled on here is an old, old issue that has to do with much more than Harvey Weinstein or the conditions faced by Hollywood actresses who were assaulted by him. The issue is whether there is anything women themselves could or should or can or cannot do that would make them less likely to be sexually harassed and/or sexually assaulted.
The answer to that question has changed over time, and is also different in different societies. There are—as even those women who were angry at Bialik must be aware—societies on earth today (mostly Muslim) in which women are supposed to cover themselves in shapeless sacks with only slits for their eyes, in order both to demonstrate their own modesty and to refrain from inflaming the desires of men who might pass them on the street. There are also nudist camps (existing in very different societies), with rather different rules. And there is just about everything in-between, including the mores of my own youth, in which about 50% of the women walking around today would have been considered to be dressed in a very provocative manner.
I suspect that many modern feminists would answer the same question by saying that any woman should be able to walk down the street naked at high noon and run no special risk—with nary a criticism either—and that Hollywood actresses should be able to appear nearly-naked in public and trade frankly on their sexuality in terms of getting roles, without anyone ever getting the wrong idea and hitting on them.
And that would be nice, too, but it’s not the way life works. At least, not 100% of the time.
That said, it’s obvious that any man who rapes or otherwise assaults, or acts as Harvey Weinstein did, bears 100% of the responsibility for his actions. Funny thing, though, Bialik actually stated as much in her original op-ed, the one that caused all the furor:
While she acknowledged that “nothing””absolutely nothing””excuses men for assaulting or abusing women,” she also continued to suggest, “We can’t be naé¯ve about the culture we live in.” And in an especially self-righteous line: “As a proud feminist with little desire to diet, get plastic surgery or hire a personal trainer, I have almost no personal experience with men asking me to meetings in their hotel rooms.”
So Bialik is actually saying two things. The first is that a man (or any person, actually) is responsible for whatever rapes and/or assaults he commits. The second is that if you look like Bialik (who is not your average Hollywood babe, and who dresses modestly as well), you’re not going to get propositioned all that much by the Hollywood executives.
These are actually quite separate thoughts, and both are true. But the second one is apparently unconscionable to modern feminists. I don’t see why. Are they actually suggesting that Weinstein’s attacks were completely random, and had zero to do with age or attractiveness? And do they really think that Bialik was saying that if you dress modestly you’ll never be attacked? Of course not.
A great many feminists wish for a certain a world, a world in which human sexuality and male aggressiveness bends to their will. It lies quiet and remains peaceful when they want it to be quiet and peaceful (that’s what civilization is all about, after all, and I’m all for it, too). But they want it to be activated on their behalf when they summon it up, when it’s desired by them and they give the signal (that sounds like a good idea, too, and I second the motion).
But funny thing, humanity isn’t at our beck and call, and sometimes glitches occur. I wrote about the yetser ha-ra yesterday, and I urge you to read what I wrote if you haven’t already. In just about every society that ever existed, both sexes have standards of behavior that attempt to harness the awesome power of human sexuality so it does the least harm while retaining enough of its driving force so that such a society remains viable. The rules are sometimes very rigid and restrictive and sometimes rather lax, and sometimes they fall more heavily on one sex and sometimes on another. But they always exist, and they exist for both sexes.