By:
Kaethe Morris Hoffer
I
enjoy (many) Woody Allen movies,
even though I've long believed he molested his daughter. I sing along when I
hear Michael Jackson on the radio, even though I think he was a pedophile. I'd
even vote again for Bill Clinton, even though I've always regarded the women
who accused him of sexual harassment and assault as credible.
It's not that I think there shouldn't be consequences for abusive sex--I just
believe that we should be able to hold predators accountable while still making
space for them in our society. Condemning someone's worst acts simply doesn't
require that we stop acknowledging their humanity or talents. Allen,
Clinton, Jackson: I think all these men engaged in some monstrous acts of violation. But I don't think they are
monsters, and the idea that only monsters engage in sexual violation is a myth
we need to reject.
I
am the Executive Director of the
Chicago
Alliance Against Sexual Exploitation, an organization whose mission is to
create accountability for sexual harm and eradicate sexual exploitation. I've
spent the better part of the last twenty years standing with individual
survivors of rape and prostitution, urging police and prosecutors to believe
victims and initiate prosecutions, and filing civil lawsuits to create
accountability when the criminal system fails to act (which is very often).
But does vilifying those who engage in sexual predation actually help
survivors? To begin with, the more we insist that being decent or admirable is
fundamentally incompatible with engaging in sexually abusive behaviors, the
more difficult we make it for individual survivors who are abused by people whose
humanity and/or talents are undeniable. While most people never engage in
sexual abuse, most of those who do have good qualities that are plentiful and
undeniable.
The monster myth isn't only a problem because it increases hostility and
skepticism towards victims who report being harmed by apparently or otherwise
decent men (or, rather less often, women). Extreme rhetoric and draconian
penalties also discourage violators from taking responsibility for their
actions: admitting to a sex offense is tantamount to declaring oneself an
irredeemable degenerate. The legal consequences include lifetime pariah status
and never-ending career and housing limitations pursuant to sex offender
registry laws.
When
Dylan Farrow recently
wrote about being sexually violated as a child, she
challenged readers to name their favorite Woody Allen film before and after reading a description of the sexual
abuse he inflicted on her--quite explicitly endorsing the idea that it is not
possible (or acceptable) to celebrate a person's talent and believe they
engaged in sexual abuse. I can't blame her. An unwillingness to acknowledge
that individuals can be capable of both extreme good and extreme bad is not
unique to her, and our entire culture bears responsibility for the fact that
she regarded celebrations of Allen and his work as a
personal rebuke to her—a message that she should be silent and "go
away."
So
I understand that admiration for Allen feels like a slap
in the face to his accusers. But still, I don't think that standing with
victims requires adherence to the view that only evil men engage in rape. This
view is far too simplistic, and it promotes the idea that evidence that a man
is capable of kindness, love, respect, or gentleness, somehow constitutes proof
against allegations of him engaging in sexually violating behavior. Just last
week, for example, Barbara Walters implied that she could not believe Dylan's
allegations because she has personally seen Allen be a
loving and attentive father.
As a society, we must stop acting as if there are only two legitimate responses
to an accusation of sexual violation: either choice A) "He is a
monster" or choice B) "She is lying (or mistaken)." We must stop
this because as rape victims quickly apprehend, most people quickly gravitate
towards option B. For as long as those victims who do speak up are mostly
disbelieved and disregarded, the great majority of victims will continue to
nurse their wounds in silence, and that minority of men who engage in sexual
predation will have little incentive to change their ways.
To prevent sexual violation from occurring, we must be willing to see that
otherwise good people might be perpetrators. Consider, for example, what Woody Allen
said to People Magazine in 1976: "I'm open-minded
about sex. I'm not above reproach; if anything, I'm below reproach. I
mean, if I was caught in a love nest with fifteen 12-year-old girls tomorrow,
people would think, yeah, I always knew that about him." I find this
quotation chilling, but it is not proof that he is a monster. Despite this
quote—which rather clearly suggests a sexualization of pre-teens--I imagine
that the majority of people in his inner circle--people who were exposed, as
Barbara Walters has been, to his genuine capacity for loving and attentive
kindness--viewed him as someone who "couldn't" be a man who would
sexually violate a seven year old.
For as long as our rhetoric about sex offenders continues to be as
extreme as it is, accusing someone of rape will continue to be taboo
(perhaps more taboo than engaging in sexual violation).
And expectations that only 'monsters' are capable of rape will continue
to limit our ability to acknowledge or respond to conduct that violates
dignity and integrity--let alone attitudes or comments which suggest
that an adult is inappropriately sexualizing children.
Posts
