A column in the NT Times raises an issue I’d love to get more advice on.
As you may know, Matt Damon has said that with sexual harassment there are degress of seriousness and guilt. A pat the bum is not as serious as rape. Minnie Driver and many others disagree. There should be zero tolerance for any treatment of women’s bodies as available sexual objects to be used.
The Times’ column says:
All societies make necessary moral distinctions between high crimes and misdemeanors, mortal and lesser sins. A murderer is worse than a thief. A drug dealer is worse than a user. And so on. Gillibrand, Driver and others want to blur such distinctions, on the theory that we need a zero-tolerance approach. That may sound admirable, but it’s legally unworkable and, in many cases, simply unjust.
It’s also destructive, above all to the credibility of the #MeToo movement. Social movements rarely succeed if they violate our gut sense of decency and moral proportion. Insofar as #MeToo has made an example of a Harvey Weinstein or a Matt Lauer, most Americans — including, I’d bet, most men — have been on its side.
But zero tolerance is going to kill thesupport.
So what do you think? That is, how do you separate these competing claims into right and wrong?