Julia Chase

1. The article I am choosing to compare with is “The Limits of ‘Believe All Women,” written by Bari Weiss.
2. This article has a contradicting message to the article I read, “When Sexual Assault Victims are Charged with Lying.” My article discussed how women have been accused and prosecuted for lying due to the assumptions and judgements of law enforcement, and how damaging it is to victims who come forward. The article, “The Limits of ‘Believe All Women,” discusses how the phrase, “Believe All Women,” is taken too far. Bari Weiss argues that women should have their voice, but that gifting every woman the assumption of truth is a flawed response. I believe that Bari Weiss directly contradicts my article when she explains, “I believe that it’s condescending to think that women and their claims can’t stand up to interrogation and can’t handle skepticism. I believe that facts serve feminists far better than faith. That due process is better than mob rule”(Weiss 21). My article argues that women should not have to be interrogated when coming forward with sexual assault reports. One of the main arguments is that women should be listened to and not interrogated. I believe a part of this contradicts what Bari Weiss is arguing. Bari Weiss believes that we should indeed trust women, but we should also not hesitate to ensure their claims are true.
3. Bari Weiss’s article relates to a huge aspect of the #MeToo movement that we have been discussing in class. We have often touched upon why society doesn’t typically believe women. Bari Weiss agrees that since the beginning of time women aren’t believed, trusted, or respected in this way. However, she argues that the response to this shouldn’t be to simply believe every woman. She believes that women deserve to be treated as people, who all receive the same consideration and verification.

1. What are the actual questions these two articles are debating? Try to articulate what the debate itself is over

The article, “I’m Not Ready for the Redemption of Men,” discusses the redemption of men who have committed sexual assault, harassment, or abuse. The argument Amer Tamblyn makes is that men do not deserve redemption from sexual misconduct, they deserve a real punishment and for their behavior to not be tolerated. The article, “When #MeToo Goes Too Far” debates the need for a hierarchy in sexual misconduct punishments. Bret Stephens believes that the punishments for accusations of sexual misconduct may be too extreme, specifically in places of workplace harassment, Bret Stephens argues that men shouldn’t have their professional lives destroyed for something that could be handled by an apology and suspension.

1. For your assigned article, write a one sentence summary of the argument, followed by three supporting claims.

Bret Stevens argues that while the #MeToo movement has been important in spreading awareness for victims, it has led to unfair consequences and life-ruining punishments for men accused of any type of sexual misconduct.

1. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the argument being made in this article and why?

I agree slightly with this article, I do think it is unfair for a man’s life to be ruined. I believe people are capable of learning, growing, and moving forward. In the case of sexual harassment, I agree that “professional decapitation” may be an extreme consequence. However, I do believe that consequences and facing societal punishment is what it takes for anything more extreme in cases of sexual misconduct. As women have been disregarded for years, and sexual misconduct has been happening to so many, I think that it takes a greater scale consequence for men to realize that what they are doing is wrong, and to prevent them from doing it again. The large-scale accusations prove that this is not talked about enough, and not being prevented enough. Confronting men who have committed sexual misconduct is necessary to teach them and others that what they are doing is not okay. Overall, I do believe that people can learn from these consequences and grow as individuals. Careers and lives being ruined over this behavior in some cases is most definitely too extreme of a punishment.

Serano discusses the “predator/prey mindset” which is the source of the double standards in our society. The mindset determines that women are sexual objects and men are sexual aggressors. This leads to negative stereotypes for both men and women. It creates a stereotype that women raping men is simply not a thing, or that men can’t be victims to sexual assault or harassment. This mindset views women as “prey”. Women are not supposed to embrace their sexuality and if they do, they are subjecting themselves to be preyed upon. This turns the page into victim-blaming in situations of men sexually harassing, assaulting, or even raping women. For example, the often-asked question “well what was she wearing?” punishes women for embracing themselves and feeling empowered. It is used as an excuse for men who can’t control themselves.

I believe the film’s central premise that technology presents an “existential threat” to our lives is accurate to an extent. I believe these social media companies will do what they can to grow bigger and obtain more engagement in their businesses, using our psychology against us. I believe this has the potential to threaten our society, as social media has exacerbated the divide in society politically and economically. In the film, experts stated that a key issue within the world of technology was that these companies are self-regulated. There are no rules or regulations in place to protect human privacy. Putting new rules and regulations on these companies in place may be a step in the right direction. The financial aspect plays a huge role in this situation, as the motivation behind these companies is to gain money and power. Because of this, I believe taxing companies based on how much information they are accumulating could have an impact on the rate technology is breaking into our lives.

I believe Sherry Turkle’s concern that we are undergoing a “flight from conversation” means that humans are using technology to avoid face to face interactions, and even would prefer to interact with others online rather than in person. I agree with this statement along with her other arguments that digital conversations are impacting our lives because while technology can be helpful in creating connections, it is gradually overpowering human interactions. I notice a lack of empathy in online interactions, which doesn’t surprise me as a huge aspect of empathy is sensing tone and reactions, which can’t be achieved online. With people replacing face-to-face interactions with online interactions, there are less opportunities for empathy and even just the general sense of how others feel.