I was hate-reading the Guardian for a quick laugh and to see what the average cosmopolitan lefty will be talking about in the coming month or so, when I ran across an interesting article. Not interesting for the reason the writer (a pretty, fairly young and determined looking Indian woman) would hope perhaps, but interesting nonetheless.
"A New Study Suggests" has been a favorite way for those invested in the leftist grand-design to shut down valid criticism for years now. Makes sense, how could one assail such scholarly work as Feminist Geography proving maps are sexist with science, Intersectional capture of Philosophy proving that it's all Men's fault, and Marxist History teaching us that Marx wasn't wrong at all he just missed "this," "that" and "these?" it's easier than ever to make that study say what you want. As long as "what you want" is to further transfer power from that damn old whitey to the new diverse world, the justice of said power transfer be damned.
That brings us to this article, the study that informs it and the absolute obliviousness of its author to the nuances of power, hierarchy, and the conservation of such. For the sake of argument and because it is entirely beside the point, I will grant her that the study is entirely correct and that both men and women know very clearly what constitutes harassment. Even if this was true, when she characterizes the right-wing position on the matter as "nobody even knows what sexual harassment is any more! Men are afraid to even shake a woman’s hand in case she thinks it’s harassment! Easier to just avoid contact altogether!" is when Ms. Mahdawi really loses the plot. Perhaps this would be a good counter to your drunken uncle, the one still wearing a MAGA hat in 2019, the one that is fine with every overreach of the Trump administration... Good job I guess, but countering my boomer uncle is not countering the right wing itself, just as Ben Shapiro "owning" a hysterical college student is not cause to pack up and stop looking into the validity of left-wing ideas.
So let's get to the meat of the matter, and being frank it's tough for me to even type seeing as I was genuinely brought up to see people as individuals and avoid speaking of race in polite company, but the left has decided this is "a conversation" we need to have and I'll be damned if I won't bring up relevant information out of social conditioning. In fact I felt compelled to mention the author's race, age and gender early in the blog to mentally "break the seal" on this analysis.
The author is a brown woman... "Duh," I hear you say. Perhaps you hear the rings of "you're a fucking white male!" if you're a conservative, or see me as a literal demon if you're progressive. I don't blame you, just hear me out. Tell me dear reader, is it any wonder that a leftist woman "of color" could have no conception of the anxieties of men, especially white ones? More accurately I should say she has a concept of the anxieties of men, a Feminist concept of such, and in the Feminist conception of male anxiety/inadequacy/anger the outcome will always be the punishment of women. So is it any wonder that when the writer sees that "19% of men would be reluctant to hire an attractive woman." she takes it as a "lashing out" against women? Perhaps to some extent it is, the bullied nerd can now turn down his cheerleader classmate for a job, but I'd bet anything it's mostly simple caution on the part of hiring that leads to this. Tell me, why would I hire the bombshell who I feel attraction to? 1. To be fair and 2. not face a discrimination suit. Why NOT hire the total knockout over the average looking woman if all is equal? 1. Dodge the bullet of sexual tension for myself and anyone under me 2. avoid any possible awkward situations down the line 3. avoid hierarchy shake-up with the women currently in the organization 4a. Assuming I am married, a new pretty young woman I just hired is like catnip for rumors and potentially damaging lies about scandals and affairs that arent happening 4b. Assuming I am single, why would I want to put this beautiful woman in a position of subordination to myself in the company when that assures I will never be able to make a romantic advance or risk discipline/firing? Of course none of this would come to miss Mahdawi's mind. When she is asked, the answer will be "a lot of men aren’t so much afraid of being accused of anything as they are they are angry that #MeToo ever happened. They’re angry that they’ve been made to think about their behavior, made to interrogate power dynamics they always took for granted, and they are punishing women for it by refusing to interact with them." A statement dripping with delicious honeyed irony if I ever did see one. Has Ms. Mahdawi ever interrogated herself to find how things might go were she to take a false complaint to HR about a male co-worker she had travelled with? Could go either way is my bet, but the man's life would be upside down until proven innocent. Now what of Ms Mahdawi as that boss? Would her life be flipped upside down were a male subordinate to make the same accusations? Experience says not to the same extent. Why would a pretty brown woman assault a male? We all know who does the harassment, media and our public education taught us that they will be the very proud owner of a penis, in all likelyhood one of low melanin content. So what self-respecting man in a position of power wouldn't safeguard himself? It doesn't really matter if the stats don't bear out the danger. Imagine being a 60 year old man, one of impeccable morality and character at the peak of his earning power and influence. For at least 40 years that man watched HR move in, harrassment be taken more seriously, he cannot fall on back-slapping white men to save him anymore. This is good to him, he is happy to see women have equal rights and pay in the wokplace, to have their concerns taken seriously. During this time he would still have seen the climbers, would he not? The unscrupulous ones, the men and women willing to do anything to get ahead. Why would this perfectly moral man not want safeguards in place? His invisible safeguards, the fabled "boys club" is gone, so it must be replaced with ones that appear obviously discriminatory but are in reality more practical and fair.
For Ms. Mahdawi her "boys club" does not look the same or include boys, but it only gains in power by the day. She has never had to confront it or watch as it falls away. The power base of her identity has slowly become so strong that one is considered wrong or bad for not wanting to actively increase it. Ruminate on that for a moment. So much power that your ideology is considered default "good." So much power that you never have to recognize it for a second. I am reminded of a couple of Intersectional sayings I used to see on Tumblr before 2016 "equality feels like oppression to those in power" (or something along those lines.) and "privilege is invisible to those that hold it" (again, paraphrasing but the point remains.) So It is up to the right to offer a critique that the left will never give itself, just as it is up to the left to corral the worst impulses on the right. Ms. Mahdawi has much more power than she will likely ever know, but maybe someone will read this and glean some greater understanding of soft-power that can be carried forward to a better definition of power and influence, and how it is expressed in the modern world. Thank you for reading. Stay tuned