I'd rather casually remarked in a recent post that I thought it was good that MN senator Al Franken was resigning due to accusations that he had sexually harassed several women, though he said he hadn't, or not really, or not much, or, anyway, he was sorry if he had.
Or something.
I wrote that it was good because I was happy––relieved––to see someone in power, anyone, choose to stand on some moral and ethical ground in this bubbling slough, to hear someone say that women are telling the truth and that there should be repercussions, even if that means they themselves take a fall.
It resonated for me theologically, that someone should be a ... a sin-eater. You know those? People who take on the sins of others, to serve the greater good of the community.
Not to say Franken is a pure-white sheep. I don't know whether Franken is as not-guilty as he claims, but his accusers are not claiming he is guilty of anything like Roy Moore trolling malls for teenage girls.
(I know the term "sin eater" from the British novel The Sin Eater, by Alice Thomas Ellis.)
[Digression]
In the movie Calvary (2014), an Irish Catholic priest (Brendan Gleeson) faces the choice of playing the role of a sin eater, accepting or not the burden of guilt for priestly child rape of which he is not personally guilty.
Calvary was directed by John Michael McDonagh, brother of Martin McDonagh whose recently released movie Three Billboards outside Ebbing, Missouri deals with similar issues--collective guilt and collective responsibility---and contains a sermon (delivered by the excellent Frances McDormand, who makes you overlook just how very preachy it is) about how you are guilty of the reprehensible acts of your gang, whether you did the act or not.
(May I just interject here that while Three Billboards tells a terrific story, the director's earlier film In Bruges is a much better movie, as a movie?
However, Billboards has STUFFED ANIMALS in it!!!)
[End of Digression]
BUT . . . .
First, I'm not sure Franken was choosing to make that sort of sacrifice, which takes the moral force out of it.
Looks like he was mostly bowing to pressure from his party, right?
And, politically & secularly more important,
I'm concerned that reports of sexual misbehavior from mild to horrific are taking effect willy-nilly.
This is bad.
There should be some due process for handling this flood of accusations of sexual abuse. They should be taken seriously, not swept under the rug--and that means they should be investigated.
My default is certainly to believe the accusations of sexual misbehavior and abuse of power (because I know how normal such behavior is).
And yet, why should Franken resign when there has been no investigation?
His behavior seems to have tended toward sophomoric rather than criminal, while others who proudly wave their slimy paws blithely carry on---but that's not the point:
My point is, EVERYONE should get due process, whether I like them or not, and no matter how slimy and how believable the accusations against them are.
Because that's how we get civilization to work.
Otherwise we're back to blood vendettas... And gratifying as those may be, they leave the ground slippery for everyone.
Due process is most important for elected representatives.
The entertainment industry does not represent me---if the muckety-mucks in Hollywood & Co. want to fire people, as if they're shocked by behavior they've ignored for decades, well... that's more of a... um...
Well, actually, I think there should be due process there too, but the burden of proof is different for people who work in the private sector than for public lawmakers.
Uh, yes.
So . . . while theologically and artistically I like the story of the sin eater, I don't actually want my civilization to run on those lines.
I want all that rational stuff the US Constitution set up: checks and balances and juries of peers, not bloody ruminants cast into the wilderness.
Or something.
I wrote that it was good because I was happy––relieved––to see someone in power, anyone, choose to stand on some moral and ethical ground in this bubbling slough, to hear someone say that women are telling the truth and that there should be repercussions, even if that means they themselves take a fall.
It resonated for me theologically, that someone should be a ... a sin-eater. You know those? People who take on the sins of others, to serve the greater good of the community.
Not to say Franken is a pure-white sheep. I don't know whether Franken is as not-guilty as he claims, but his accusers are not claiming he is guilty of anything like Roy Moore trolling malls for teenage girls.
(I know the term "sin eater" from the British novel The Sin Eater, by Alice Thomas Ellis.)
[Digression]
In the movie Calvary (2014), an Irish Catholic priest (Brendan Gleeson) faces the choice of playing the role of a sin eater, accepting or not the burden of guilt for priestly child rape of which he is not personally guilty.
Calvary was directed by John Michael McDonagh, brother of Martin McDonagh whose recently released movie Three Billboards outside Ebbing, Missouri deals with similar issues--collective guilt and collective responsibility---and contains a sermon (delivered by the excellent Frances McDormand, who makes you overlook just how very preachy it is) about how you are guilty of the reprehensible acts of your gang, whether you did the act or not.
(May I just interject here that while Three Billboards tells a terrific story, the director's earlier film In Bruges is a much better movie, as a movie?
However, Billboards has STUFFED ANIMALS in it!!!)
[End of Digression]
BUT . . . .
First, I'm not sure Franken was choosing to make that sort of sacrifice, which takes the moral force out of it.
Looks like he was mostly bowing to pressure from his party, right?
And, politically & secularly more important,
I'm concerned that reports of sexual misbehavior from mild to horrific are taking effect willy-nilly.
This is bad.
There should be some due process for handling this flood of accusations of sexual abuse. They should be taken seriously, not swept under the rug--and that means they should be investigated.
My default is certainly to believe the accusations of sexual misbehavior and abuse of power (because I know how normal such behavior is).
And yet, why should Franken resign when there has been no investigation?
His behavior seems to have tended toward sophomoric rather than criminal, while others who proudly wave their slimy paws blithely carry on---but that's not the point:
My point is, EVERYONE should get due process, whether I like them or not, and no matter how slimy and how believable the accusations against them are.
Because that's how we get civilization to work.
Otherwise we're back to blood vendettas... And gratifying as those may be, they leave the ground slippery for everyone.
Due process is most important for elected representatives.
The entertainment industry does not represent me---if the muckety-mucks in Hollywood & Co. want to fire people, as if they're shocked by behavior they've ignored for decades, well... that's more of a... um...
Well, actually, I think there should be due process there too, but the burden of proof is different for people who work in the private sector than for public lawmakers.
Uh, yes.
So . . . while theologically and artistically I like the story of the sin eater, I don't actually want my civilization to run on those lines.
I want all that rational stuff the US Constitution set up: checks and balances and juries of peers, not bloody ruminants cast into the wilderness.
I am made very uneasy by the "Me Too' movement. I don't see it ending well, there need to be specific regulations which are observed and reported on in the workplace as far as sexual intimidation.
ReplyDeleteWhen I see that photo of Franken, the woman looks like she is a asleep, and he looks like a jackass (who maybe watched the film "Animal House" a few too many times at an impressionable age). It strikes me as more degrading to him (intentionally self-deprecating?) than insulting to her. But, also depends on whether you think his hands are touching relevant surfaces, which will, of course, be a matter of individual preference/prejudice.
My original point in that the instinct to pile on in a big group contending, questionably, to have had identical experiences may not bring about social change. Sheryl Sandberg's suggestion that there may be a backlash has some merit.
ReplyDeleteSPARKER: A huge yes to your call for SPECIFIC REGULATIONS----yes! As I say, checks and balances, RULE OF LAW!!!
ReplyDeleteYeah, I guess one of the Top Words of 2017 should have been "problematic."
Good ideas for liberation and truth-telling sometimes go off the rails...
Not sure how this one's going to go.
Still, I wouldn't want people to go back to tacitly tolerating guys who operate like Weinstein---better to put up with a little backlash--Civil Rights movement got backlash too...
Sigh. The humans. I always think we are a good argument against the existence of God---what kind of god would invent such fuck-ups as their best work???