A question was recently asked about why discourse,
particularly on social media, was becoming progressively angrier. Many ideas
were put forward, but I would like to suggest another one . . .
demographics. More people are reaching
their senior years, they are retiring and they know how to use a computer and
smart phone. They bring with them the
anger, disappointment and prejudices of many years, and now they have an
opportunity to vent those feelings on the world. They also bring a social conservatism and
nostalgia for the past. And they have
enough voices to silence those with a more optimistic and liberal outlook. Just watch how many times phrases such as
“liberal elite” and “sheeples” show up.
*
I’m no longer comfortable even shaking hands with a woman
any more. The extent of actions and
words that can now be construed as sexual harassment has become very fuzzy in
the last few months. Anyone with an eye
or an ear knows that sexual innuendo, harassment and assaults have been around
for a long time. So why did the dam
burst only when Harvey Weinstein’s accusers came forward? Some of the allegations against him and many
other prominent men go back years. Why
were they not identified years ago when the assaults and exhibitionism were
taking place? Even Bill Cosby’s misdeeds
did not unleash this level of disclosures.
*
While we are on the topic of sexual misconduct, this seems
to be the only type of activity that brands a person as guilty unless proven
innocent. One or two allegations come to
the fore and the alleged perpetrator is immediately fired, demeaned and assumed
to be guilty with no opportunity to have the matter adjudicated in any forum
but the press. It also leaves open the
question of what reasonably can be considered sexual misconduct. If Bill Cosby is found guilty in court of
multiple examples of sexual misconduct, it will be obvious what constitutes
serious cases and a crime. Note that
Bill Cosby is the only alleged sexual predator whose case is before the
courts. But what about the other end of
the spectrum, assuming that a spectrum of activities is allowed? As an example let’s take the case of Garrison
Keillor who was fired despite the fact that his only apparent action involved
touching a woman’s back while trying to console her. And who can forget the
case of the Canadian MP a few years ago who was invited into the hotel room of
a female MP from another party, was given a condom and was then accused of
having uninvited sex. Is this and even
more innocent acts to be taken as the new norm of sexual misconduct? Is it any wonder that some men, like me, now
find it uncomfortable to be around any woman who is not their wife? Having a wife, daughter, daughters in law and
female grandchildren, I certainly do not condone any sort of sexual assault or
harassment. But I do think that men who
are accused of such activities deserve the opportunity to have their cases
properly heard and adjudicated.
*
Is it scary to think that the fate of the world is in the
hands of four world leaders? This is, of
course, not the first time that a few presidents and potentates have held such
power, but it may be the first time that none of them have been rational.
*
I see that Mr. Trump has got a massive tax cut through both
houses of Congress. The major cuts will
benefit the rich and big corporations on the premise that goodies will be
passed down through the food chain to the average American. But trickle-down economics did not work for Presidents
Reagan, Bush senior or Bush junior and it will not work for Mr. Trump. Each time it has been tried, the gap between
rich and poor has only gotten greater.
*
The views expressed in
this and other blogs are solely my own, but I welcome feedback, criticism or
debate on any of them. jgf
No comments:
Post a Comment