With just days to go until Election Day, Judge Amy Coney Barrett was sworn in to the nation’s highest court – solidifying a major pre-election partisan victory for the Republican-controlled Senate. The drama in Congress began well before Barrett’s nomination was formally announced, as Republicans and Democrats fiercely argued the political legitimacy in replacing Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat with a staunch conservative in an election year. With political tensions and heightened emotions in full gear, left-leaning publications emphasized that Barrett’s confirmation – on a nearly party-line vote – was an attempt to distract the American voters from the rapidly worsening coronavirus pandemic. While right-leaning media framed Barrett’s appointment to the Supreme Court as part of President Trump’s lasting legacy that will extend far beyond his first term.

On the campaign trail, Trump and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden hit crucial swing states in the run-up to Election Day. Both candidates traveled extensively this week, tailoring to voters who could cast potentially decisive ballots. As national polls show the democratic contender holding a sizable lead over Trump in 10 out of the 12 key battleground states – it’s important to note that the election polls did get it wrong four years ago in the 2016 presidential elections. Nonetheless, Georgia – a traditionally Republican-leaning state – came as the biggest shocker to politicians as it emerged as a key swing state. As Democrats argued that it’s the Peach State’s failure to keep up with its growing diverse population that is to blame, Fox News argued that the longtime red state could still be anyone’s game – highlighting that the two candidates remain deadlocked at 45% on the latest polls. 

The U.S. response to the coronavirus pandemic took over the political conversation, as many states reported a sharp uptick in new cases and hospitalizations. “He’s jealous of Covid’s media coverage,” said former President Barack Obama, fiercely criticizing his successor’s handling of the outbreak. As the U.S. set another single-day record, with over 97-thousand cases reported on Friday, Dr. Anthony Fauci warned the American people that a Covid-19 vaccine will not likely be available until next year. His remarks came as the White House released a statement taking credit for “ending the Covid-19 pandemic.” As Biden also took aim at the release, White House communications director Alyssa Farah attempted damage control telling Fox News that the statement sent from the White House science office was “poorly worded” – acknowledging that new cases are still on the rise. Nevertheless, President Trump continued to campaign through Midwestern battleground states seizing on a message that the nation has “turned the corner” from the devastating outbreak. In sharp contrast, Biden took a more somber tone warning Americans of some “tough days ahead” with the country surpassing 9 million total infections.

Meanwhile, social media giants Facebook and Twitter find themselves caught in the crossfire – yet again, in the presidential elections. Following mounting widespread pressure, Facebook announced it would ban new ads in the week before Election Day in an attempt to limit misinformation and curb harmful content. However, Facebook announced Thursday admitting that it “improperly” restricted some ads due to technical glitches. The Biden presidential campaign promptly slammed the social media giant, claiming that the glitch cost them $500,000 in fundraising. Facebook said the technical issue affected both presidential campaigns. In other social media news, the New York Post can tweet again – Twitter lifted its suspension of the newspaper’s account after a weeks-long standoff following the outlet’s move to publish an explosive report about Hunter Biden. Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey got into a heated exchange with lawmakers over the company’s decision, as Republican Senator Ted Cruz criticized the tech giant for censoring content to the American people. As chief executives of the largest social media companies continue to face heavy scrutiny in their efforts to police misinformation during election season – it’s important to note, if such a rubric does not exist in how to handle this difficult and pivotal task – can tech companies alone take on the responsibility to impartially moderate content online? 

 Cyberbullying v Freedom of Speech
 
There’s no denying that the cornerstone of any free and democratic society is the Freedom of Speech. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution safe guards this right — cementing an individual’s freedom to speak freely without fear of government censorship. But, can this unquestionable truth hold in cyber space? 
 
There seems to be a heightened national consciousness in the intersection of free speech and safety on social media in the wake of a string of youth suicides linked to “cyber-bullying.” In response to the growing epidemic, a series of online censorship bills were introduced by lawmakers in Congress. By August 2017, forty-eight states have enacted laws to combat cyber-bullying, and forty-four states have criminal laws on cyber-bullying. While the move to restrict online harassment has been a compelling state interest, it is important to note that the language of these statutes in criminalizing cyber-bullying vary greatly state-to-state. It is this ambiguity and vagueness in defining “cyber bullying” that have critics challenging the legislative attempts under First Amendment grounds. Free speech advocates argue that these legislations are simply attempts to justify online censorship under the guise of protecting minors. As reprehensible as some online speech can be, critics say that the First Amendment protects the good with the bad – and the right to free speech, in all its forms, must be protected at all cost. But one must ask, why is cyber-bullying being addressed as a form of speech and not a form of misconduct? Certainly, there must be a line where protected speech becomes unprotected. It is the inconsistency in the law in defining “cyber-bullying” that is allowing online tormentors to hide behind the cloak of the First Amendment. In order for states to successfully crack down on cyber-bullying, there needs to be a legislation that is specific to the new digital age – there must be a universally accepted definition of cyber-bullying and what constitutes “protected speech” from “unprotected speech” in order for severe online harassment to reach the level of criminality. 
 
What is Cyber-bullying?    
 
“This is a new world where bullying, once confined in the school yard, now follows its victims wherever the internet goes. Before there is another tragedy, we need to treat cyber-bullying as the crime that it is.” – New York Senator Diane Savino
 
         On October 16th, 2006 thirteen-year-old Megan Meir committed suicide after a boy named Josh Evans – a sixteen-year-old she engaged in an online relationship with suddenly turned callous. After trading insults for an hour on the popular social networking website MySpace, Josh wrote, “The world would be a better place without you.” Megan’s mother then found her hanging in her closet from a belt. Six weeks after Megan’s death, her parents learned that Josh Evans never existed. He was an online character created by Lori Drew, an adult neighbor who lived four houses down the street and mother of one of Megan’s female friends. Drew was never directly charged with the girl’s death. 
 
Treating cyber-bullying as an age-old problem in a new form is having detrimental effects in responding to the issue successfully. Historically, bullying was not seen as a problem that needed attention but a natural part of childhood and adolescence. However, we must note that bullying in the digital space can cause more serious and long-lasting effects than those of traditional forms, and needs to be treated as its own separate epidemic. Lawmakers need to acknowledge that committing online crime is unique – it is an opportunistic medium for harassers because it causes harm with no physical interaction, and thus questionable liabilitu. The omnipresence of the Internet – given that it provides a more visible, public platform to ridicule, harass, or humiliate a victim –  could also increase the likelihood of harm to the target. The victim relives the trauma, the humiliation, and the pain of harassment every time he or she logs onto the Internet. As a result, home is no longer a sanctuary to escape the torment for victims of cyber-bullying.
With 7 in 10 young people reporting experiencing online abuse at some point, and one in three victims self-harming as a result -- one needs to ask, how much longer will abusers be handed a get-out-of-jail card before law enforcement treats cyber-bullying as a crime?
 . 

​It costs more to be a woman. A price tag of $1,400 a year thanks to gender pricing or the so-called “pink tax.”
 
The “pink tax” is not really a tax, but an up-charge on products from brands to lure in their female customers to cough up more money on items that are identical to the ones they offer men. If there’s pink on it, you better expect the price to cost significantly more.  
 
From bicycles for boys and girls, a pair of jeans for men and women, and even everyday basic essential items such as razors, body washes, and shampoo – there is a glaring price disparity based on one’s gender. And it’s a tax a woman pays from infancy until death. 

According to the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs, the “pink tax” impacts women and girls of all ages. In their study “From the Cradle to the Cane: The Cost of Being a Female Consumer,” the agency analyzed nearly 800 products in 24 different stores across five industries and found that women are paying on average 7% more than men on the same products. For instance, girls’ toys and accessories cost 7% more than items targeting boys. Women adult clothing cost 8% more than clothing for men. The most flagrant price violations came from women’s personal care products which cost a whopping 13% more. This life-long shadow of gender pricing even extends to the elderly; senior home healthcare products for women cost 8% more than the items catered to men.
 
Perhaps we have seen these price marks before at the local convenience stores and shopping malls. And perhaps we’ve been conditioned to think this is all very normal. But this sense of normalcy comes with a hefty price that accumulates by the year. By the time a woman reaches 30-years old, she’s paid $40,530 in “pink tax.” Just to spell it out, as we’re digesting the reality that women are earning less, they’re also paying more. 
​
So, let’s start with the obvious question. Why do products cost more for women than for men? Is it worth it to shell out a couple of bucks to buy the gendered-specific products? Industry experts say no. Advertisers are well aware of a commonly used marketing mantra called “shrink it and pink it,” a strategy retailers use to appeal to women by feminizing an existing male product by typically making them smaller and splashing the color pink. Sneaker brands are notorious for using this gimmick in designing footwear for women. As lawmakers point out pink kids’ sneakers are priced 62% higher than the same sneakers in black. But under the glitter and sparkle coating, can the function of the kids’ shoes really be all that different? The price hike is simply for the oh-so-pretty color. In most cases, there is no advantage to buying the women or the girls’ version.

What can we do about this blatant discrimination against women? I suppose we can stop liking pink. It’s possible the best way to avoid the “pink tax” is to simply start buying the products marketed to men. But the truth is the color isn’t the problem, it’s the system. Companies are abusing the idea that female shoppers are willing to pay more than their male counterparts. Some politicians are sounding off and saying it’s an issue of price gouging.

Congresswoman Jackie Speier says the answer is federal regulation which is why she introduced the Pink Tax Repeal Act in 2016. To make pricing fair for women, under this legislation companies will be prohibited from charging different prices on similar products simply based on gender. Unsurprisingly, this proposal hasn’t garnered much support. After failing to pass, Speier presented the bill again in 2018. But perhaps with a record-breaking number of women in Congress, this will be the year to see the law come to fruition.

It’s important to note passing the bill alone is not the solution. Because history isn’t exactly encouraging on that score. In 1995, California became the first state to ban gender-based price differences for services like haircuts and dry cleaning. New York State passed a similar law in 1998 requiring business owners to explain price differences that appear to be based on gender. In both states, however, the businesses’ compliance with the law has been spotty at best. In 2015, New York DCA inspectors issued 129 violations for gender pricing of services. Many of those barber shops and salons said they weren’t even aware that the gender pricing law was in effect. Not to mention the undercover reports that revealed gender price discrimination when a male producer and his female colleague requested the same service on nearly identical button-down shirts. The female producer was charged at least twice as much in more than half the venues visited. Sure, these shops aren’t listing gender on their price-lists, but they’re not enforcing gender-neutral rates either.
 

Clearly, there needs to be outrage. Place the responsibility on the manufacturers themselves. The “his” and “hers” versions of the same products obviously stem from a retailer’s bias in gender stereotyping. Charging women simply for being a woman for everyday purchases makes no sense. Quite frankly, we need to see more retailers put their money where their mouth is. We need to put pressure on retail giants like Walmart and Amazon to not only take a public stand against gender price discrimination but actively level the playing field for its female customers by negotiating the price discrepancies between the male and female versions of products or not restocking the item at all.






​So, the next time you see extra costs for women’s products tacked on – whether it be a pair of shoes dosed in that pretty pink color, a high-performance bicycle fit especially for women, or a price-hike at the cleaners because the shirts don’t fit the standard press –  ask yourself, rather than building on the standard for men and paying a fee, why not create a new one?

​There’s no denying the two-word hashtag #MeToo and the use of the Internet renewed a widespread consciousness of feminist ideas in the public sphere, shifting the cultural outlook of associating vulnerability as a sign of oppression to strength as women took off their veil of silence. But what we didn’t know was the global impact the campaign would have, #MeToo is igniting the fight for women’s rights flaring up calls for a new social norm all over the world.
​

As millions of women took the streets and held rallies standing in solidarity to mark International Women’s Day, one thing is clear – the personal is political. As the movement continues to cross racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic boundaries – it’s important to take a closer look at how the movement is being translated in different parts of the world.
​

In South Korea, the movement has taken a surprisingly strong hold in the socially conservative nation. Much like the United States, a series of high-profile sexual assault allegations against some of South Korea’s most prominent politicians, entertainment figures, and professors have incited calls for gender equality and a new social norm. The watershed of accusations began when female public prosecutor Seo Ji Hyun accused former South Korean ministry of justice official Ahn Tae Geun of groping her during a funeral in 2010. Seo’s claim opened a flood of similar revelations, including allegations against rising political star Governor Ahn Hee-Jung of South Chungcheong province, filmmaker Kim Ki-duk, and poet Ko Un –  a prominent literary figure revered as a potential Nobel Prize recipient. The unexpected rapidity of the #MeToo movement was a stark reminder that the country remains a male-dominated society with deep-rooted societal bias against women, but it’s also important to note the boiling rage of public outcry made it clear South Korea is a famously adaptable nation.
​
The new dynamic and momentum in the discourse surrounding women’s human rights is beginning to be reflected even on the policy level. A record number of women hold cabinet positions in South Korea. Though only 30% of President Moon Jae-In’s administration is female, it is the highest figure in South Korea’s history – no doubt, a signal towards gender parity. Clearly, there is an appetite on the global stage for leaders to apply a more gender-conscious decision in appointing key leadership positions; and in time, we will see how the gender-sensitive moves will be reflected in Korea's greater social structure.
​

In contrast to its Asian neighbors, the #MeToo movement has barely registered in Japan.

​The dialogue remains largely absent in the public sphere and Japanese sociologists argue it’s in part due to the weak representation of women in the Japanese media. According to Mari Miura, a political science professor at Sophia University in Tokyo, in a patriarchal society such as Japan where speaking out draws criticism rather than sympathy – even from other women – female victims try to forget sexual assaults rather than seeking help and justice.
​

In one case, Japanese journalist Shiori Ito broke her silence and accused prominent TV newsman Norijyk Yamaguchi of drugging her and raping her only to receive death threats and criticism from the public. A victim-blaming rhetoric ensued online criticizing Ito for being a “publicity hound” for speaking out, looking too seductive, and ruining the life of a revered public figure. Japanese lawyer Yukiko Tsunoda, an expert on sex crimes, says the stigma of rape victims is even embedded in the Japanese language itself. In Japan, sexually assaulted women are traditionally called “the flawed” – clearly illustrating why rape victims tend to shy away from going to court. According to a 2014 government survey, nearly three quarters of rape victims say they had never told anyone, and only 4% file a report with the police.
​

With men dominating the upper echelons of political and corporate life, women are reluctant to break social norms and reveal instances of sexual harassment. My hope is that in the year 2018, #MeToo will apply a more global, intersectional lens to detect racial and economic divides that had deprived the women’s rights movement of unity in past waves. That way, the movement can adjust its framing to include the voices of women in more patriarchal societies.    ​

Motivational speaker and self-help guru Tony Robbins publicly claimed the #MeToo movement is all about victimhood and women are using it to “get significance.” If that wasn’t enough, he then followed up his statement by saying in the era of #MeToo, attractive women may be penalized for their good looks.
​
The controversial remarks were shared in front of thousands of attendees of Robbin’s giant “Unleash the Power Within” event in San Jose, California. A woman in the audience named Nanine McCool — who identified herself as a sexual abuse survivor — challenged the life coach’s claims by saying, “So, I think you misunderstood the MeToo movement” and accused Robbins — as a leader and an influential man — for doing a disservice to the whole campaign by making such disparaging claims. But instead of backing down, Robbins doubled down by sharing an anecdote of an unnamed “famous” acquaintance who had passed on hiring an attractive woman: “I was with someone the other day. Very famous man, very powerful man. He’s saying how stressed he is because he interviewed three people that day. One was a woman, two were men. The woman was better qualified, but she was very attractive, and he knew, ‘I can’t have her around because it’s too big a risk.’ And he hired somebody else. I’ve had a dozen men tell me this.”

Of course, it didn’t take long for the 11-minute exchange posted on the YouTube Channel to go viral. The video included tense moments in which Robbins got in McCool’s face and towered over her. The Atlantic vividly described the scene as “the hulking man with the hulking grin, physically pushing the small woman who dared to question him.” Robbins issued a public apology but many critics — including #MeToo founder Tarana Burke — were quick to note that the apology was only offered to protect his reputation. Burke condemned the video as “gross” and “deplorable.”
​

And, so — as the video is still being shared and retweeted by many in vexation and anger — we need to address how the #MeToo movement can process Robbins’ criticism in a healthy manner that will be constructive to the campaign itself. Trust me, I too want to simply vilify Robbins on the Internet for his insensitive choice of words and harrowing demonstration — but perhaps there is a chance he does not know how to be part of the solution. There’s also a chance the #MeToo movement is missing out on a critical dialogue Robbins is suggesting.
Unfortunately, there is some truth to Robbins’ controversial remarks. According to research, it’s unlikely that Robbins’ dozen friends are the only men practicing this type of gender discrimination. In March, the Harvard Business Reviewreported that many men in finance have begun avoiding, hiring, and managing women. In order to avoid #MeToo going down in history as the “Battle of the Sexes” campaign, the conversations in addressing the emerging realities post #MeToo need be shared on the public stage.
​
Yes, it is both illegal and unethical to hire less qualified men over a highly qualified woman, attractive or not. And it is not OK for a public figure of Robbins’ stature to minimize a movement and fueling the same victim-blaming rhetoric. When Robbins stressed that he’s not mocking the #MeToo movement but he’s mocking “victimhood” — he should be fully aware as the nation’s most well-known life coach that 90% of adult rape victims are female. So, by blaming victims he is in a sense blaming women. The movement needs to see more men in influential positions standing as a proud ally.

But what’s worse, simply dismissing a whole argument because it is an opinion with which we disagree with. In an Op-Ed piece for CNN, author Peggy Drexler offered a solution to those taking part in the #Metoo narrative: “It’s OK to be skeptical of a movement. A good movement will stand up to those criticisms and be stronger for it.” Robbins is certainly not the first public figure to criticize the movement, nor will he be the last. Plus, silencing criticism wouldn’t lead to sustained, lasting change in implementing new gender norms, it’ll only cause even bigger problems.

It’s important to focus on the how when it comes to the conversation of including men in the dialogue for #MeToo. The truth is, in order for substantial social change to take root both parties need to use their voices to influence and to become part of the solution.
​
A crucial and under-reported reality of the #MeToo viral episode in October is the fact that it wasn’t just women who shared experiences of sexual harassment – men also took to social media to share their own experiences of assault. Director and actor Alex Winter posted the hashtag writing: “While my story isn’t public, those that need to know are aware. But speaking up wasn’t easy so please listen, acknowledge & accept.” Actor Terry Crews also shared his story of being groped by a “high-level Hollywood executive” at an industry function in 2016. While Crews said he reached out to colleagues he decided not to “take it further” out of fear of being “ostracized.” And they’re not alone, a new landmark study looking at sexual harassment and assault in the U.S. revealed 81% of women and a stunning 43% of men reported experiencing sexual misconduct in their lifetime. The revelation is crucial because historically people perceive sexual harassment and domestic violence as women’s issues, but perhaps it is necessary for a change in the framing of the #MeToo movement to illuminate that it is indeed a men’s issue as well.

Author and educator Jackson Katz offered a suggestion in the change of the framing: “Instead of focusing on men as perps and women as victims – or women as perpetrators and men as victims, or any combination – it focuses on everybody in a given peer culture as what we call a bystander, which is a friend, a teammate, classmate, a colleague, a co-worker.” While, I don’t agree with his statement of taking away the gender title in addressing #MeToo – since patriarchy and the power structures that mandate misogyny is a central force in the narratives of #MeToo – I do agree that there is a role to play in being an active bystander and responding to sexual violence.

Joyful Heart Foundation and A CALL TO MEN, a violence prevention organization, partnered to launched the #IWILLSPEAKUP campaign – a movement specifically asking men to support survivors of sexual assault, abuse, and harassment by speaking up. According to A CALL TO MEN cofounder Ted Bunch, “Only men can end men’s violence against women.” Bunch said until men are aware and understand that “they are the solution” they can then “turn that awareness into action and that action into lasting change as we create the next generation of manhood.”
​
Leading Hollywood men Andre Braugher, Tate Donovan, and Anthony Edwards are at the forefront of the pledge starring in a PSA titled “I’ll say something next time.” Though there’s no denying how imperative it is for women to lead and spearhead the conversation of #MeToo, it’s crucial that the movement incorporates male activists in their network because both parties are needed in establishing lasting social change. Male colleagues need to know the importance of the #MeToo movement so that they can shoulder some of the work of stopping harassment and do their part to de-normalize a culture of sexual harassment at work.

Since #MeToo and sexual harassment became a national conversation last fall, there’s no denying what’s been noticeably missing from the cultural reckoning are the voices of men. For instance, at the 75th Golden Globe Awards in January as several actresses – including Meryl Streep and Natalie Portman – walked the red carpet with activists and donned “Times Up” pins to address the issue of sexual violence in their acceptance speeches, male actors did not play a role in the conversation. In an interview on CBS author Jackson Katz who gave a TED Talk titled “Violence against women – it’s a men’s issue” explained why he thinks men are reluctant to speak out on the topic: “I think a lot of men don’t know what to say. I think a lot of men haven’t ever heard other men say this, so they haven’t seen it modeled. I think a lot of men are afraid of stepping in it.” Historically, yes domestic violence and sexual harassment has long been perceived as solely a women’s issue, but Katz emphasized that in order for real change to take effect men need to part of the conversation.

But the question remains how when the #Metoo movement isn’t framed to be inclusive to men. Many notable male stars in Hollywood including Liam Neeson and Michael Haneke have criticized the #MeToo movement as being a “bit of a witch hunt,” expressing concern for their peers who have been chastised for what they feel are comparatively minor offenses. After a controversial article accusing comedian Aziz Ansari of sexual misconduct was posted on the Internet, many raised fear that the movement has gone too far. In an article for The Atlantic, Caitlin Flanagan dismissed the allegations against Ansari: “Apparently there is a whole country full of young women who don’t know how to call a cab, and who have spent a lot of time picking out pretty outfits for dates they hoped would be nights to remember. They’re angry and temporarily powerful.” These remarks frame men and women as being locked in a Battle of the Sexes, mistakenly assuming that if women are suddenly empowered, men suffer.
​
It’s important to note that this mindset is not just felt in Hollywood, the #MeToo movement seems to be causing a negative backlash at work. A new survey reveals that the number of men uncomfortable being alone with a woman at work has doubled since the heightened awareness around the issue. Male managers are also three times more likely now to say they are uncomfortable mentoring women. Sheryl Sandberg, the founder of LeanIn.Org – a nonprofit that conducted the survey – says the results are alarming because when mentoring becomes selective, women miss out on opportunities to advance their careers.

In order for the #MeToo movement to successfully address the contours of systemic sexism and the traditional legal justice system that has repeatedly failed them, the conversation for due process is a call that solely belongs to the victims. Not the office of Human Resources, not the men in power, and frankly not the President of the United States.

It’s clear a new paradigm is on the horizon in the wake of the #MeToo era. Victims are reclaiming their narrative, calling out on the patriarchy and the misogyny that has plagued our culture for too long. Through the use of the online medium, victims have managed to disrupt the cultural hegemony by taking control of the often male-dominated communication spheres by removing their veil of silence. According to Hester Baer’s Redoing feminism: digital activism, body politics and neoliberalism,the narratives behind the feminist activist hashtags offer a personal local context of systemic sexism: “These actions reveal the pervasive, structural nature of sexual violence, linking this specific, local stories of individual women to larger narratives of inequality.” It is through the social media platform that women have managed to bring private, personal accounts into public spaces and is demanding tangible legislative and social change – all the while keeping their hands on the wheels of the narrative. And it is excruciatingly crucial that they do not lose that control.

The problem with the call for “due process” is that it seems to be coming from the mouths of skeptics of the #MeToo campaign. It’s almost become synonymous to calling foul of the women who now carry some weight to smear and ruin a man’s reputation by going public with claims of abuse. Roy Moore is the ultimate example of the use of “due process.” And President Trump is facing his own set of sexual assault allegations. More than a dozen women have accused the President for sexually abusing them or behaving inappropriately. So, one cannot ignore the fact that perhaps this call for “due process” may be more personal than it is for just legal standards. Lenora Lapidus and Sandra Park’s piece on The Atlantic also raises the argument that it is the unfair processes of the traditional legal justice system that has kept too many women silent for so long: “In the employment context, women bringing sexual harassment claims face tough battles to satisfy difficult legal standards and overcome juror skepticism.” Historically, women have been disbelieved, ignored, and even punished. Even with the enactment of rape shield laws, victims have been forced to answer to questions pertaining to their sexual history, which were then used to discredit their claims. It is within this framework of understanding rape culture and the social norms that allow for sexual assault to occur, that the conversation of due process needs to take place.

The credibility of survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault is still at stake even in the current, more receptive #MeToo moment. Lapidus and Park argue that the allegations against men in power seem to depend on the corroboration by multiple victims or undeniable evidence. According to the article, the words of a victim cannot stand on its own unless there are a number of women coming forward to reach a breaking point: “Still today, the scale seems too often tipped in favor of ‘he said’ until there are multiple ‘she saids.’” I agree with this argument that even in this MeToo era, the words coming from a man in power seem to hold more weight than a testimony from a single victim. But I also believe we are at a pivotal moment where we are seeing the beginning of a culture of accountability. Though it may take a collective rather than a single voice to establish credibility, we are seeing a reaction – and that is a productive start.
​
All in all, while it is true this lack of providing opportunity for a person accused of wrongdoing doesn’t seem to offer any semblance of fairness, it is fair to say that the call for ‘due process’ should not be coming from the mouths of men in power. The movement would then be re-centering the narrative to address the concern of men not the needs of the long-silenced victims. The last thing the movement needs is men in power attempting to take back that control of the narrative.

 While the President’s remarks triggered a great deal of controversy, the truth is questions are being raised about what “due process” those accused of sexual assault and misconduct are entitled to. There’s no doubt the #MeToo movement has not only given a voice but some power to once silenced and defenseless victims. The narratives behind the movement doesn’t just reveal the criminal behaviors of sexual misconduct, but it’s also shedding light to the traditional legal justice system that has repeatedly failed victims. The cries that were long ignored in the office of corporations are now being acknowledged by the court of public opinion on social media. After more than 100 men in high-profile positions have fallen from grace, and as more figures face consequences – one needs to ask, should we address the fact that there may be some error in this rush to judgment and accepting all accusations at face value?
​
First, we need to acknowledge that those who are calling for “due process” in the wake of the #MeToo era are misusing the term. It is a legal principle, a protection against arbitrary government action invoked only when the government acts. Due Process, as enshrined on the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution states “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” But corporations are not courts of law. Hollywood, Neflix, the “Today” show, and Fox News are not government entities. Due process does not apply to private employers or the press. And it most certainly doesn’t apply to the court of public opinion.

But if we’re speaking colloquially –  yes, it’s true that an accusation is not itself proof. Many critics – even within the feminist movement – say the rapidity and fury of the #MeToo movement in upending the careers of men need to be addressed in order to achieve long-lasting social justice. In an Opinion piece to the Chicago Tribune, 77-year old Dorie Chaille Tiseth, who has been a member of the National Women and the American Association of University Women championing for women’s rights for 50 years, compared the #MeToo movement to the Salem witch hunt. She said, “For the sake of equality for women, we must demand that those accused can face their accusers or the fight for equality for women will become impotent.” In a separate article, Jeanine Tobine – a public defender and a self-proclaimed feminist in her 70s – agreed with Tiseth’s stand and stressed the need for a better way to redress sexual misconduct than throwing the concept of due process out the window: “As a retired public defender, I have seen more than my share of shaded motivations on both sides of sexual issues. I remember more than a few juries where criminal accusations by “girlfriends” against males were heard and defendants ultimately exonerated. Other juries have found defendants guilty.” She argues that “due process” is for the innocent and guilty alike – every accused individual deserves a trial before coming to a verdict of guilt or innocence.

​However, I’m not entirely sure what “due process” would look like in our current circus atmosphere of media coverage. Because unlike the court room, non-legal charges as well as cases that are beyond the statute of limitations can get considerable time in the limelight. The media and the press isn’t a medium that can be censored due to a lack of facts or evidence. At the same time, some critics say that there should be more ethics practiced amongst journalists. Alexandra Lahav, a law professor at the University of Connecticut argues, “As I understand it, reputable journalists do attempt to hear the other side. They seek confirmation of their stories and solicit a response from the person accused.” But it’s important to note that it’s not just journalists that are reporting on the #MeToo movement. The Internet has created a media platform for any users to sound off and share their stories with a use of a #hashtag. However, this new wave on the Internet is different than previous waves because they have a medium to address criticism as it’s being addressed to them, offering an opportunity to expand feminist debates. Perhaps it’s time for feminists – with its generational and ideological differences – to use the digital space to start the conversation of “due process.” Because after all, it is a call that only belongs to them.