If you are surprised by the news that Harvey Weinstein of Miramax fame, a man well-known for profane tirades and physical altercations, is also the sort of charmer who loafs around seminude while asking subordinates for “back” massages, then you can be surprised by just about anything.
Weinstein’s response to The New York Times’ impressive investigatory work was to issue a statement promising to spend even more lavishly on liberal causes. The mogul’s assumption seemed to be that the right political commitment can cover over piggishness and vice.
Does it? Probably not.
Maybe his overdue exposure shows that the world has changed, and progressive industries are finally feminist enough to put their old goats out to pasture.
But it might just show that a certain kind of powerful liberal creep only gets his comeuppance when he’s weakened or old or in the grave. The awfulness of Ted Kennedy, at Chappaquiddick and after hours in D.C., can be acknowledged only now that he’s no longer a liberal lion in the Senate. The possibility that Bill Clinton might be not just an adulterer can be entertained now that he’s no longer protecting abortion from the White House. The sins of Woody Allen … well, I’m sure Hollywood will start ostracizing him any day now.
Last Sunday, I wrote a harsh obituary for Hugh Hefner, which noted that he represented a certain style of liberalism — progressive and yet chauvinist, liberationist and exploitative — that perdures in our society to this day.
In the real life of liberalism, Hefnerism endures as the effective philosophy of many liberal men, for whom sexual individualism justifies using women and caddishness blurs into predation when power differentials permit. Meanwhile, feminism struggles to find norms that check this kind of behavior, swinging between a facile sex-positivity and attempts to police the hookup scene.
Here it would be nice to say that cultural conservatism offers an alternative, one that welcomes female advancement while retaining useful ideas about sexual difference and restraint. But in the age of Donald Trump and Bill O’Reilly, “pro-life” hypocrites in Congress and the “alt-right” online cesspool, the right is its own sort of cautionary tale.
So I’ll say something more modest: If liberals want to restrain the ogres in their midst, a few conservative ideas might be helpful.
First: Some modest limits on how men and women interact professionally are useful checks on predation. It would not usher in the Republic of Gilead if it were understood that inviting your female subordinate to your hotel room, Weinstein-style, crosses a line in a way that a restaurant lunch does not.
Second: Consent alone is not a sufficient guide to ethics. Caddishness and predation can be a continuum. If you cheat on your wife, you may be more likely to harass subordinates.
Third: You can’t ignore moral character when you make decisions about whom to vote for or work with or support. This was something conservatives used to argue in the Clinton years; under Trump, many have conveniently forgotten it.
The truth is that while not everyone knew exactly how Harvey Weinstein treated women, everyone knew what kind of man he was. The women he harassed didn’t have the power to restrain him, but plenty of powerful people did.
They didn’t use it. They should have. But Hollywood and human nature being what they are, they will have plenty of opportunities to do better.