Sexual Misconduct and Assault Confronted: Dealing With Sexual Misconduct Before It Happens10/18/2017 The Harvey Weinstein sexual misconduct and assault revelations have captured the attention of Hollywood and the rest of the entertainment industry, which means the story has captured the attention of the American People and much of the developed world’s population. Sexual harassment, assault, and related misbehavior are now in the spotlight. It is a cause with the full backing of celebrities from around the globe. Celebrities are outraged and ready to fight for victims of sexual misconduct and assault, but what they are against is difficult to define and what they should do is difficult to determine. Unless the star power is quickly channeled into a meaningful project, the momentum will be wasted on near-meaningless PR stunts.
When someone is raped, sexually assaulted, or even used for sex, that person is being treated as nothing more than a living object. While sex is simply an act of pleasure to some, most individuals view it as a personal and emotional experience that defines part of their individual identity. Being objectified can destroy someone’s sense of identity, personal security, and self-worth for this very reason. As such, the harm of sexual violence stems from the victims' loss of security and confidence in society's ability to shield them from those who harmed them. Sexual assaults are not simply about the physical act of sex. These crimes steal the ability of victims to make intimate choices while violating the victims' sense of security in one of the most personal aspects of their lives.
Comments
The Harvey Weinstein sexual misconduct and assault revelations perfectly reflect the troubling narrative advocates for sexual assault victims and women have spent decades discussing. Originating out of Hollywood, instead of Washington, and revolving around a “liberal lion,” instead of political Conservatives like Roger Ailes, the Weinstein story cannot simply be written off as a political attack. There is no easy way for Weinstein and his allies to distract the public from his wrongs. A rich man was using the promise of fame and lucrative work to coerce women into sex. Like the Stuart Hall and Jimmy Savile scandals in Great Britain, the Weinstein revelations have exposed the secrets of an industry corrupted by sexual predators.
The Weinstein revelations are, however, only a cover story for a much broader set of issues. Weinstein is a man who abused his position as a studio executive, and gatekeeper to an exclusive industry, to proposition women for sexual liaisons and silence those who might speak about his overt attempts to manipulate victims into sexual encounters. Long ago, the US decided that no one should have to trade sex for a work. Not only has Weinstein showed complete contempt for the US legal system and common decency, he has demonstrated his and his industry’s abusive nature. Based on the accusations, Harvey Weinstein is a pervert and sexual predator, but he is also the product of an industry that caters to the abusive whims of the rich and influential. A Nobel Prize for Behavioral Economics: The Change of Understanding Human Economic Behavior10/13/2017 Public policies, especially economic policies, tend to fall short of expectations due to one inescapable reality: their success depends on the actions of people. Because economics is a field, which traditionally bases all of its theories, models, and paradigms on the assumption that humans are “rational actors who make rationale economic decisions,” there is often a mismatch between theoretical expectations and reality. Given a large enough population, sound economic theories will be accurate over a long enough period of time. These criteria, however, make it very difficult to predict the behavior of individuals and small groups of individuals while limiting the real-world, real-time applications of economic models.
Psychologists, or at least behavioralists, fully recognize that animal and human behavior is based on immediate, versus long-term, consequences. In other words, individuals make perceived rational decisions based on what they personally feel is an appetitive or aversive consequence for a given decision or action. Planning, or the lack thereof, for the future is a consequence of whatever an individual can rationalizes, not the logical conclusion of sound economic calculations as traditional economic theory assumes. The field of economics is, however, changing to address its shortcomings. The 2017 Nobel Prize in economics, for example, has been awarded to Richard Thaler, a highly acclaimed behavioral economist who has had a major impact on his field and public policy. Nuclear threats from North Korea, the faltering Iranian Nuclear Deal, and the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize, which was awarded to the anti-nuclear weapons group ican, demonstrates how heavily the threat of nuclear annihilation weighs on the minds of the world’s population. Since the end of the Cold War, the threat of nuclear war has waned while fears of a nuclear confrontation had largely disappeared. The primary concern became the proliferation of nuclear material, which could be used by extremist groups or rogue states to recreate the nuclear threat. When the US and Russia clashed over the Russian seizure of Crimea and the broader Ukraine Crisis, however, the prospects of a nuclear war suddenly become a realistic nightmare.
Given Russia is estimated to have 7,000 nuclear weapons and the US is estimated to have 6,800 nuclear weapons, along with the 215, 300, and 80 nuclear weapons of close US allies United Kingdom, France, and Israel, tensions between Russia and US present a global threat. Sporting 140, 130, 270 nuclear weapons, perpetual rivals Pakistan, India, and China create a very real and pressing threat to Asia as well as the rest of the world. In comparison, North Korea’s arsenal of an estimated 10 nuclear weapons and Iran’s zero nuclear weapons does not appear to pose much of a threat. It is not, however, the numbers that drive fears of a nuclear confrontation. It is the attitudes of those who control nuclear arsenals and those who seek to build nuclear arsenals of their own. Columbus Day has been part of the calender since 1937 when it was recognized as a Federal holiday. First celebrated in 1792 as part of an effort to commemorate the 300th anniversary of Columbus’ rediscovery of the Americas, Columbus Day became a vehicle for promoting patriotism by 1892. During that time, Columbus Day also became a day for Italian Americans to celebrate their heritage. The lesser known “Indigenous Peoples’ Day” was first recognized by the City of Berkeley, California in 1992. It was, however, born out of the less heralded Civil Rights movement to protect the rights, cultures, and dignity of “native” Americans, i.e. individuals belonging to one of the many American tribes, in direct protest to Columbus Day.
Framed as a day to celebrate US history and/or a day to celebrate the contributions of Italian Americans, the effort to replace Columbus day with Indigenous Peoples’ Day seems fairly infantile. It is, after all, possible to honor both causes with two separate holidays. Opponents of Columbus Day, however, are also denouncing European Colonialism as well as the abuse and disenfranchisement of indigenous Peoples. While it is easy to call proponents of Indigenous Peoples’ Day revisionists, there is a clear and compelling argument against glorifying a cruel and evil man like Christopher Columbus. If that argument can be accepted, proponents of Columbus Day and Indigenous Peoples’ Day can actually find common ground. |
Read old posts
April 2020
|