Source: NYMag
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.
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.
RSS Feed