Self awareness is apparently too much to ask
Topical alert!
I tend to not write too much about the topic of sexual harassment mostly because there are a lot of people way smarter and more articulate than me covering it. But an op ed in Sunday's New York Times and another in The Atlantic have got me all manner of fired up. The pieces, written by feminists, may qualify as the most egregious bad-behavior apologist pieces yet in the #metoo movement.
The subject at hand is a story about Aziz Ansari and the reactions to said story.
1. The accusation:
A piece recently published on babe.net (heads up babe.com is porn as I ruefully found out while at my desk at work) details an evening that a regular ass chick had with movie and comedy star Aziz Ansari. Now, I will admit, I find Ansari attractive. If he weren't always making a noise like a kazoo I would probably have a crush on him. If given the chance I would probably go on a date with him. Or I would have, before reading the article, which you can do here.
Now, the article is problematic for a few reasons There are some details that come off as whiny - Ansari gives "Grace" white wine. She prefers red but is not asked what her preference is. Now, if someone is giving me free wine I am not usually so stuck up about it that I complain that it isn't the wine that I like. Also as a wine snob I enjoy wine across the color spectrum and anyone that prefers just one kind, in my opinion, is a philistine with an unrefined palate. Also, fuck, a celebrity is not going to be pouring you some fucking two buck chuck from Trader Joe's. It was probably decent wine. That being said, every time I have had a first date that involves me serving wine I always ask what my counterpart likes unless I have a really great bottle of something that I want to share. So, at worst this was a thoughtless move on Ansari's part but at best she drank a wine that cost more than one of her student loan payments. Later, she is displeased with how quickly Ansari asks for the check after dinner. She does not like how quickly things escalate once back at this apartment. Basically all the trappings of a bad date with a "nice guy" - something that many women have experienced and not in any way newsworthy. Where the story turns to consent, however, is where the encounter becomes actually problematic.
Throughout the article it is very clear that Ansari is in it to get laid. He goes through all the requisite moves that "nice guys" use to initiate the sex transaction. Fancy drinks, conversation, dinner. An invite back to the apartment. This is where "nice guys" expect women to complete their part of the transaction: putting out. In Grace's interaction with Ansari this was so expected that there was no conversation about it. He assumed that was where the night was going.
2. The Op-Eds
Two days later, this Op Ed in the NYT came out. While I agree with some points - like that women have agency and that its necessary to reshape culture so that women do not feel pressured to be a part in transactional sex and men do not feel entitled to it, I find the overall theme to be more damaging to the #metoo movement than the original post. The author calls what occurred between Ansari and Grace "bad sex" but ultimately claims that what Ansari is guilty of is "not being a mind reader." She claims that Grace should have expected that Ansari wanted sex.
There is also this article in The Atlantic that joins the tome of "what did she expect?" and additionally accuses Grace and the "hit squad of college educated white women" for going after a brown-skinned man.
3. My take
Both the Times and the Atlantic make the argument of "Why didn't she just leave?" - an argument used time and time again by rape apologists to undermine the stories of victims. It is a question I myself have been asked. But that should not be the question here. We should be asking ourselves, "Why didn't Aziz Ansari ask the woman if she wanted to have sex with him?"
The Op Ed author claims that as a feminist she wants to see a society in which we communicate more and feel entitled less when it comes to sexual encounters.
"Aziz Ansari sounds like he was aggressive and selfish and obnoxious that night. Isn’t it heartbreaking and depressing that men — especially ones who present themselves publicly as feminists — so often act this way in private? Shouldn’t we try to change our broken sexual culture? And isn’t it enraging that women are socialized to be docile and accommodating and to put men’s desires before their own? Yes. Yes. Yes.
But the solution to these problems does not begin with women torching men for failing to understand their “nonverbal cues.” It is for women to be more verbal. It’s to say: “This is what turns me on.” It’s to say “I don’t want to do that.” And, yes, sometimes it means saying piss off.
The single most distressing thing to me about Grace’s story is that the only person with any agency in the story seems to be Aziz Ansari. Grace is merely acted upon."
Yet at no point does the op ed author hold Ansari accountable for NEVER ONCE asking Grace if he COULD kiss her. If he could undress her. If he could put his fingers in her mouth. Never does he ask her what turns her on. I agree that women can and should advocate for themselves sexually, but it is extremely difficult to do that when the sexual encounter is initiated in a way that makes clear whether we even want sex is not considered. "Hi I know you didn't ask me if I wanted to have sex and you keep making me touch your dick but can we have a conversation about what I like because you seem like you are totally open to considering my feelings?" Why do we expect the woman in the encounter to be clearly articulating her thoughts and feelings when the man is not?
The Atlantic article is even more egregious in accusing Grace of starfucking, hurt feelings, and in turn, revenge porn. She also contextualizes it through a racial lens, which at best damages some of her arguments and at worst invalidates white women who may accuse a man of color of sexual misconduct (which is what happened at first with Bill Cosby).
"I thought it would take a little longer for the hit squad of privileged young white women to open fire on brown-skinned men. I had assumed that on the basis of intersectionality and all that, they’d stay laser focused on college-educated white men for another few months. But we’re at warp speed now, and the revolution—in many ways so good and so important—is starting to sweep up all sorts of people into its conflagration: the monstrous, the cruel, and the simply unlucky.
Aziz Ansari is not unlucky. He claims to be a feminist and ally in the #metoo movement. Consent is a topic covered in his show and there is no way he is unaware of it. To delve into a sexual encounter in a manner in which he does not communicate with his words his expectations is anathema to the public persona he projects. Can we fault his date for expecting more of him?
It is my opinion that the woman in the story gave more than enough indication to Ansari that she was not into their sexual encounter. It is also my opinion that Ansari was too hellbent on getting a return on that evening's investment to notice. I don't think he is guilty of sexual misconduct, I think he is guilty of being an entitled man. Did Ansari have to be a mind-reader to understand his date's discomfort with his behavior? No. He simply had to be human, and at that he failed miserably.
Do better, men.
I tend to not write too much about the topic of sexual harassment mostly because there are a lot of people way smarter and more articulate than me covering it. But an op ed in Sunday's New York Times and another in The Atlantic have got me all manner of fired up. The pieces, written by feminists, may qualify as the most egregious bad-behavior apologist pieces yet in the #metoo movement.
The subject at hand is a story about Aziz Ansari and the reactions to said story.
1. The accusation:
A piece recently published on babe.net (heads up babe.com is porn as I ruefully found out while at my desk at work) details an evening that a regular ass chick had with movie and comedy star Aziz Ansari. Now, I will admit, I find Ansari attractive. If he weren't always making a noise like a kazoo I would probably have a crush on him. If given the chance I would probably go on a date with him. Or I would have, before reading the article, which you can do here.
Now, the article is problematic for a few reasons There are some details that come off as whiny - Ansari gives "Grace" white wine. She prefers red but is not asked what her preference is. Now, if someone is giving me free wine I am not usually so stuck up about it that I complain that it isn't the wine that I like. Also as a wine snob I enjoy wine across the color spectrum and anyone that prefers just one kind, in my opinion, is a philistine with an unrefined palate. Also, fuck, a celebrity is not going to be pouring you some fucking two buck chuck from Trader Joe's. It was probably decent wine. That being said, every time I have had a first date that involves me serving wine I always ask what my counterpart likes unless I have a really great bottle of something that I want to share. So, at worst this was a thoughtless move on Ansari's part but at best she drank a wine that cost more than one of her student loan payments. Later, she is displeased with how quickly Ansari asks for the check after dinner. She does not like how quickly things escalate once back at this apartment. Basically all the trappings of a bad date with a "nice guy" - something that many women have experienced and not in any way newsworthy. Where the story turns to consent, however, is where the encounter becomes actually problematic.
Throughout the article it is very clear that Ansari is in it to get laid. He goes through all the requisite moves that "nice guys" use to initiate the sex transaction. Fancy drinks, conversation, dinner. An invite back to the apartment. This is where "nice guys" expect women to complete their part of the transaction: putting out. In Grace's interaction with Ansari this was so expected that there was no conversation about it. He assumed that was where the night was going.
2. The Op-Eds
Two days later, this Op Ed in the NYT came out. While I agree with some points - like that women have agency and that its necessary to reshape culture so that women do not feel pressured to be a part in transactional sex and men do not feel entitled to it, I find the overall theme to be more damaging to the #metoo movement than the original post. The author calls what occurred between Ansari and Grace "bad sex" but ultimately claims that what Ansari is guilty of is "not being a mind reader." She claims that Grace should have expected that Ansari wanted sex.
There is also this article in The Atlantic that joins the tome of "what did she expect?" and additionally accuses Grace and the "hit squad of college educated white women" for going after a brown-skinned man.
3. My take
Both the Times and the Atlantic make the argument of "Why didn't she just leave?" - an argument used time and time again by rape apologists to undermine the stories of victims. It is a question I myself have been asked. But that should not be the question here. We should be asking ourselves, "Why didn't Aziz Ansari ask the woman if she wanted to have sex with him?"
The Op Ed author claims that as a feminist she wants to see a society in which we communicate more and feel entitled less when it comes to sexual encounters.
"Aziz Ansari sounds like he was aggressive and selfish and obnoxious that night. Isn’t it heartbreaking and depressing that men — especially ones who present themselves publicly as feminists — so often act this way in private? Shouldn’t we try to change our broken sexual culture? And isn’t it enraging that women are socialized to be docile and accommodating and to put men’s desires before their own? Yes. Yes. Yes.
But the solution to these problems does not begin with women torching men for failing to understand their “nonverbal cues.” It is for women to be more verbal. It’s to say: “This is what turns me on.” It’s to say “I don’t want to do that.” And, yes, sometimes it means saying piss off.
The single most distressing thing to me about Grace’s story is that the only person with any agency in the story seems to be Aziz Ansari. Grace is merely acted upon."
Yet at no point does the op ed author hold Ansari accountable for NEVER ONCE asking Grace if he COULD kiss her. If he could undress her. If he could put his fingers in her mouth. Never does he ask her what turns her on. I agree that women can and should advocate for themselves sexually, but it is extremely difficult to do that when the sexual encounter is initiated in a way that makes clear whether we even want sex is not considered. "Hi I know you didn't ask me if I wanted to have sex and you keep making me touch your dick but can we have a conversation about what I like because you seem like you are totally open to considering my feelings?" Why do we expect the woman in the encounter to be clearly articulating her thoughts and feelings when the man is not?
The Atlantic article is even more egregious in accusing Grace of starfucking, hurt feelings, and in turn, revenge porn. She also contextualizes it through a racial lens, which at best damages some of her arguments and at worst invalidates white women who may accuse a man of color of sexual misconduct (which is what happened at first with Bill Cosby).
"I thought it would take a little longer for the hit squad of privileged young white women to open fire on brown-skinned men. I had assumed that on the basis of intersectionality and all that, they’d stay laser focused on college-educated white men for another few months. But we’re at warp speed now, and the revolution—in many ways so good and so important—is starting to sweep up all sorts of people into its conflagration: the monstrous, the cruel, and the simply unlucky.
Aziz Ansari is not unlucky. He claims to be a feminist and ally in the #metoo movement. Consent is a topic covered in his show and there is no way he is unaware of it. To delve into a sexual encounter in a manner in which he does not communicate with his words his expectations is anathema to the public persona he projects. Can we fault his date for expecting more of him?
It is my opinion that the woman in the story gave more than enough indication to Ansari that she was not into their sexual encounter. It is also my opinion that Ansari was too hellbent on getting a return on that evening's investment to notice. I don't think he is guilty of sexual misconduct, I think he is guilty of being an entitled man. Did Ansari have to be a mind-reader to understand his date's discomfort with his behavior? No. He simply had to be human, and at that he failed miserably.
Do better, men.
Comments
Post a Comment