# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Michael Kimmel is a Professor of Sociology and Gender Studies at SUNY Stony Brook who has recently been embroiled in a controversy regarding sexual harassment complaints. He is well-known in disciplinary subfields as a researcher on masculinity who has written several books, including Guyland and Manhood: A Cultural History. Only very recently has he been accused of sexual harassment and professional misconduct - charges that are currently under investigation by the American Sociological Association. A desire to sort out the charges being levied, which are based on language as opposed to physical contact, prompted Kimmel to request a six-month delay of his receipt of the Jessie Bernard award from the American Sociological Association.

The first coverage of the charges against Kimmel was published on August 1 in the Chronicle of Higher Education, through which anonymous complaints about his professional conduct were made public. Then came the August 10 Inside Higher Ed piece, which was based on named complainant Bethany Coston's medium.com account of her interactions with Kimmel when she was a graduate student. Coston is now an Assistant Professor of Gender, Sexuality, and Women's Studies at Virginia Commonwealth University.

"What follows is a detailed and intimate account of my six or so years working for and in the presence of Michael Kimmel - noted Sociologist and famous "male feminist" - who was recently named as a sexual harasser." https://t.co/0dML8zw0Nl

- MeTooSTEM (@MeTooSTEM) August 11, 2018

I should preface the rest of this piece by saying that I have never met Professor Kimmel (I have also never met Professor Coston) nor do I know any students who have worked with him - a fact that should not be surprising since none of my work has focused on gender dynamics, gender equity, or masculinity. Further, recent events (unrelated to Coston's charges) indicate that Kimmel himself has been criticized for a lack of charitability that's strikingly similar to that of which he is now on the receiving end. However, we can still learn from his situation.

As my understanding of Coston's allegations is untainted by professional or personal familiarity, it is based exclusively on her medium.com essay. This puts me in a position to evaluate the evidence against Kimmel based solely on, what I understand to be, the most damning account currently available. I have no investment in the outcome and thus no incentive to side one way or another on the handling of claims - other than, of course, a preference that real predators be held accountable and that proportional justice is served. Last, sexual harassment is real and it can have lasting and damaging effects. That reality requires a judicious use of its invocation, lest the term itself become meaningless.

As I went through Coston's claims, and I have no reason to doubt their veracity, three troublesome themes emerge - each of which can be traced back to the lens of conflict theory. Each interaction and each event is viewed as an instance of labor exploitation, class struggle, or of Kimmel's perceived resistance to rising class consciousness. My strategy in what follows is to highlight the influence of conflict theory by presenting alternative plausible explanations that do not use that perspective.
Conflict Theory
Conflict theory has, since the 1960s, been one of the three most powerful perspectives that sociologists use to make sense of the world. It's difficult to overstate its influence as it has served as the foundation for critical theory, queer theory, postmodern theory, and others. With its roots in Marxism, conflict theory holds that the uneven distribution of power and resources between the working-class majority and the power-holding minority creates an unequal social order resulting in the development of a working-class consciousness and, ultimately, an uprising or a revolt - it is a way to view the world as a series of struggles between oppressor and oppressed that are situated within tyrannical hierarchies. To give a sense of its pervasiveness within sociology, C. Wright Mills is one of the sociological theorists most strongly associated with modern conflict theory; Mills is also responsible for developing the concept of "the sociological imagination", which is taught in introductory textbooks and encourages students to think about the applications of sociological thinking in everyday life. The union between the popularity of modern conflict theory and the widespread teaching of "the sociological imagination" provides a hint at the dominance of the former in the discipline broadly and in how students are taught specifically. Notably, for sociology graduate students especially, this worldview is sometimes why they self-select into sociology in the first place - that and an interest in pursuing an activist career either through research or in an applied manner - and it is continually reinforced in the classroom. It goes without saying that tyranny and oppression exist; however when students are encouraged to believe that this is the only way to see the world, all possibilities for nuance, an evaluation of competing factors, and an openness to a complex series of causes are lost. The recent case of Michael Kimmel can be understood as a real-life manifestation of the ham-handed, universal application of a conflict theory perspective.
Labor Exploitation
It's worth mentioning that, without a conflict theory lens, Coston's claims about the misuse of graduate student labor should be qualitatively distinct from an argument that forms the basis for allegations of sexual harassment or a hostile work environment. However, she includes them all in her essay, perhaps precisely because of this lens that unifies all of her examples.

In these examples, the powerless graduate students are workers being exploited by the more powerful faculty adviser. For example, Coston reports that Kimmel asked his graduate students to collect his mail in Long Island and transport it two hours to Brooklyn. Other examples from Coston include answering "ridiculous emails", "finding new data on a particular topic", "making charts and tables because he 'didn't know' how", "printing hard copies of new reports", and "just generally supporting his ability to be profitable and prolific". She views these tasks as exploitative and, depending on the context and their frequency, they may indeed constitute an overstepping of the expectations of graduate students. However, as occasional requests, they might simply fall under the broad category of research assistance. With the exception of the mail, there's nothing among her examples that doesn't have a minimal research component to it, leaving it open to interpretation. The fact that Coston apparently thinks that additional detail isn't necessary to make her case is precisely because of the conflict theory lens in place.

Consider the following example where Coston refers to Kimmel's unwillingness to include an update in his book on what she considers to be outdated information on the sexual practices of same-sex female relationships. Coston writes: "I all but begged him, in my empirical comments, to update the studies he used (including the one about monogamy, which had been updated and found little to no differences between straight and not-straight people)." She views this as evidence of Kimmel's devaluation of her contribution and of his investment in maintaining power and perpetuating sexual stereotypes. However, again, there is more than one possible reason why he might have neglected to update his citations. Kimmel might have questioned the validity of the work that was being put forth or simply not found it convincing - a possibility that's far from remote given the broader issues that limit much interdisciplinary work.
Class Struggle
Coston views disparities as resulting from class struggles and as rooted in discriminatory practices against marginalized groups, a hallmark of the conflict theory view. For instance, she writes "[Kimmel] sent men graduate students to conferences - all expenses paid - even expensive trips to conferences in other countries, while expecting women and non-binary students to stay back and continue being glorified secretaries." There is more than one reason why this could occur - where only one of those possible explanations smacks of discrimination. One might reasonably ask, is it the case that each student was comparably productive and competent? Were they producing work of like quality? These factors would and should matter when an adviser is considering how and where to allocate limited resources. So while it could be that discrimination was at work here, more information is needed to persuasively adjudicate this. However, under conflict theory's expectation of equal outcomes, anything less is seen as de facto injustice.
Rising Class Consciousness
Some of the most frequent accusations against Kimmel come from a perspective of rising class consciousness and, in these instances, an insatiable need for inclusive language, as defined by Coston. It appears that Coston sees Kimmel's efforts to meet this need as unsatisfactory, which can be viewed as further evidence of the class struggle against oppression. For instance, Coston writes, "I find Michael and his perspectives to be securely rooted in a benevolent sexist, second-wave feminist, trans-exclusionary frame of reference, which relies so heavily on stereotypical understandings of the gender binary that it also necessitates a homophobic understanding of sexuality" - clearly believing this to be fairly incriminating.

As an example, Coston writes that Kimmel refers to trans men as "almost men", in a letter he wrote to the Chronicle in 2014 concerning the ultimate title of his book, Guyland. Supposedly more damning given that it's presented with extra incredulity, Coston writes: "He even once said that "'TUGS' are the new 'LUGS'," LUGS meaning "lesbian until graduation," and TUGS meaning "trans until graduation".' She goes on, "Even more troublingly, he writes that trans folx "are the quintessential social constructionists". He doesn't know how to spell genderqueer and he thinks that "gender-queer people seek to inhabit an intermediate zone, not unlike Pat on SNL or intersexuals.'" Or that "Michael told me he could understand why I'd find that [being in a relationship with a woman] more appealing ("you know, more caring and nurturing I'd bet")." These examples represent precisely the kind of semantic and linguistic authoritarianism that have made people such as Jordan Peterson famous (for resisting it). The reality is that there is no broad social consensus at this point on how to approach and understand these linguistic issues.

One of Coston's claims regards explicit sexual talk in the classroom and with graduate students. We can probably assume that, as she's trying to make a case for herself, the most egregious and offensive examples of Kimmel's behavior are included in the essay - including talking explicitly about one's sex life in the classroom, telling attractive women they'll have to work harder to be taken seriously, and saying he didn't think porn is bad. Most of us would grant that these comments are probably in poor taste. Although it is worth asking whether these rise to the level of a hostile work environment. Maybe they do. Although, as with most things, the devil is in the details - how often were the comments made, did anyone ever raise the issue with Kimmel directly, what was the context of the conversation, did students reciprocate with stories of their own sexual escapades in a way that sent a confusing message? That last part is not to pass blame - it is simply to understand the context and be mindful of the goal of eliminating the undesirable behavior. However, when seen through the lens of conflict theory, the case seems open and shut.
The Future of Sociology
James Damore once tweeted the question of whether we should have insensitivity training in addition to sensitivity training in the workplace and on campus. The idea is that we would all be better off if people did not immediately impugn the intentions or motives of others. I can imagine an argument, based on some of Coston's remarks, that sociology should be pilot testing such a program. A conflict theory lens is at its strongest when accompanied, as it usually is, by an unwillingness to allow for a more charitable interpretation or for the complexity of multiple competing factors.

In this case, although she doesn't use these words, Coston appears to conceptualize many of the examples she provided as microaggressions associated with oppression, where their accumulation has a long-term harming effect. Notably, Scott Lilienfeld, John McWhorter, Bradley Campbell, and Jason Manning have all raised concerns, with respect to the claims of the harm of microaggressions. There's variation in their concerns to be sure: some are based on the lack of dignity in focusing so heavily on these incidents, some are based on the prevalence of victimhood culture and its implications, and some are based on an analytic question of whether the people who feel harmed in this manner differ psychologically in a way that is consistent with a heightened sensitivity to certain types of comments.

In the end, the indignation seen in Coston's essay stems from an expectation of a degree of progressive consciousness and a focus on equality of outcome that sit at the center not just of conflict theory, but also of claims of a free speech and viewpoint diversity crisis on campus. The Kimmel case shows us that the response to a lack of meeting these expectations has now risen to the level of exhortation and, apparently, public humiliation. Without a conflict theory lens, there's nothing in Coston's piece suggesting that, in terms of the work environment he created, he's done anything other than make a few off-color, crudely thought-through remarks and that he may have performed poorly as a mentor. However, under the belief that conflict theory completely describes the nature of today's society, outrage seems a fitting response.

Kimmel might well be a cad. As I said, I've never met him. Based on Coston's description, perhaps he grew too comfortable in his role as arbiter of all things masculine and, over time, the line between personal life and thoughts and professional conduct blurred. This strikes me as something that could be solved with a serious sit-down conversation between Kimmel and his department head after complaints had been made internally - that it is not necessarily worthy of a reputation-destroying outing, certainly not as part of a first attempt. Last, and this is worth saying out loud, referring to people exposed to this type of talk as "survivors" is a gross overapplication of the term.

There is clearly a wide range of online reactions to Coston's claims. This is seen in the few comments that are present at the end of her medium piece. There's the incredulous:

"Not exactly a great catalogue of crime is it?"

and the sarcastic:

And "Wow. So brave.........?"

But, there's also:

"Thanks for posting. Tough stuff to come forward with. Tough stuff to read. I'm tired of the bullying culture in academia that makes abusive behaviours from treating grad students as free labout [sic] to enhance one's own career through to the sexual abuse you detail above. We need to find ways to fight it. Getting it documented is one of the first steps so good on you. I'll be writing to the ASA (I'm a sociologist in Australia) asking that they address this fully and remove the reward."

I don't doubt the sincerity of the people who have come forward saying that they were made uncomfortable by Kimmel. But sociology has encouraged students to see the world in this manner and to see themselves as victims.With the dominance of conflict theory and its offshoots, the discipline has taught and reinforced the belief that society and interactions can be thought of as a series of small battlefields between oppressor and oppressed, and has moved students to tackle problems accordingly. They have been trained to be indignant and to out any situation in which the circumstances might possibly fit into this framework - even if it would be better understood, and therefore solved, with a different, more nuanced and complex understanding. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that sociologists should erase all traces of conflict theory from their instructional material. It should be taught as one of many ways to see the world and society, just not as the only one.
Ilana R. Akresh is an Associate Professor in the Sociology department at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. You can find links to more of her writing on the importance of viewpoint diversity and free speech here and you can follow her on Twitter @irakresh.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Kimmel and Conflict Theory: Sociology Turns Its Lens onto One of Its Own - Quillette

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Michael Kimmel is a Professor of Sociology and Gender Studies at SUNY Stony Brook who has recently been embroiled in a controversy regarding sexual harassment complaints. He is well-known in disciplinary subfields as a researcher on masculinity who has written several books, including Guyland and Manhood: A Cultural History.

# data[].attributes.headline
Theorist talking about the #MeToo Movement 

# data[].attributes.subject
Theorist talking about the #MeToo Movement 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Image

Credit Credit Illustration by Najeebah Al-Ghadban/The New York Times; Photographs by Getty Images

They call themselves "the nine." They are nine women, eight scattered around the United States and one in France, each with accusations of having been sexually harassed or assaulted by a former mentor, the playwright Israel Horovitz. Last fall, they chose to speak out publicly against him, adding their voices to the chorus of women proclaiming #MeToo.

None of these women had met one another before they told me their stories for an article published in The New York Times in November, detailing alleged misconduct spanning 30 years. Eight months later, they are in near-constant contact. They text, they call, they email, pulling someone out of a hole when one of them spirals. Recently, they coordinated a letter-writing campaign to have one of Mr. Horovitz's plays stricken from the lineup of a repertory theater in Sharon, Mass. (Mr. Horovitz, in a statement to The Times, apologized to "any woman who has ever felt compromised by my actions.")

[ Read more: How saying #MeToo changed their lives.]

"This group of nine women ground me," said Laura Crook, an actor who lives outside of Boston. She created small pendants - nine delicate stones and a pearl with "x9" engraved on a silver bead - for each of the women. "It's like we have spun our individual pain into solidarity."

It's a strange sisterhood that perhaps could exist only in this particular moment. But these small networks are one of a number of ways that the conversation around #MeToo has shifted to: What's next?

In the 1960s and '70s, feminists had a saying: The personal is political. The idea was that when women shared their individual experiences, their struggles - the ones many believed they were alone in facing - suddenly became collective. A slight by a boss became about a system of slights; a problem that seemed insurmountable was less so with the power of the group behind it.

It's difficult to assess a movement while it's still happening. Yet nine months after the allegations against Harvey Weinstein were first published and "#MeToo" became a rallying cry, one of the most sobering revelations - and one of the most powerful - has been the sheer universality of it.

There's a range of statistics about rates of sexual harassment in the United States and the world over, some as high as 81 percent for women and 43 percent for men. But recorded or not, nearly every woman seems to have a #MeToo story. Harassment is pervasive in professions like finance and technology, as well as workplaces like restaurants, factories and hotels. It doesn't spare you if you're old, or rich, or privileged, or powerful.

And it is not just about an array of abusive men. There is a system that perpetuates it: an elaborate "machinery," as Jodi Kantor, among The Times reporters honored with a Pulitzer Prize for their reporting on the subject, has put it.

It is a machinery that has long protected powerful men and prevented women from coming forward. It includes hefty payoffs and inept human-resources departments; complicit bystanders who include women and men; as well as a culture that, for a long time, simply did not accept that a woman coming forward to accuse a man could be telling the truth.

"If survivors of sexual violation were believed and valued, across culture, society, and law, that in itself would be a major transformation," said Catharine A. MacKinnon, the legal scholar who, in 1979, first laid the groundwork for sexual harassment law and went on to argue it before the Supreme Court.

In a recent column in The Times, Ms. MacKinnon noted that #MeToo had done for society what the law could not - eroding one of the biggest barriers to prosecuting sexual harassment, which was "the disbelief and trivializing dehumanization of its victims."

"Women have been saying these things forever," she wrote. "It is the response to them that has changed."

If there are phases to this movement, it feels like we've cycled through a number of them: First it was just a few women, then it was an army of them, followed by the collective recognition that perhaps those women should be believed. That was accompanied by - and still is - the staccato of men toppling, one after the next, and of proclamations of #MeToo around the world: #YoTambien in Spanish, #BalanceTonPorc ("expose your pig") in French and #quellavoltache ("that time when") in Italian. It was peppered by worries of a backlash.

Then, seven months in, the image of Harvey Weinstein in handcuffs - led, restrained, into his arraignment by a female detective - symbolized a new stage: the possibility of real, criminal consequences for alleged perpetrators, even the most powerful among them.

"I have to admit I didn't think I would see the day that he would have handcuffs on him," the actress Rose McGowan, one of the first women to speak out against Mr. Weinstein, said on "Good Morning America" on the day of his arrest.

But consequences are not prevention. And when it comes to preventing sexual harassment, there's not a whole lot that has been proven to work.

" Over and over again, all these reports say that the best predictor of sexual harassment is 'culture,'" said Anita Hill, the law professor who famously testified during Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's Senate confirmation hearings that he had harassed her. "So we're working on things like bystander training, but also training for managers so that they understand that everyone has a role."

"This is a long-term project," she added. "There's no magic one thing that's going to change an entire industry, whether it's Hollywood or Silicon Valley or the Ford Motor Company."

There has been some progress. In recent months, state resolutions have been proposed in New Jersey and California - as well as one that will take effect this month in New York - making nondisclosure agreements and forced arbitration clauses, which often prevent employees from speaking out or filing legal action, unenforceable against victims of harassment and discrimination. Some companies, like Microsoft, have done the same - eliminating forced confidential arbitration for employees who make sexual harassment claims. ("The silencing of people's voices has clearly had an impact in perpetuating sexual harassment," Brad Smith, Microsoft's president, said at the time.)

The European Parliament recently convened a special session on sexual violence, while France has made catcalling and other forms of public harassment a punishable offense. In May, Sweden became the 10th country in Western Europe to acknowledge, in the eyes of the law, that sex without explicit consent can be rape.

"These first nine months have allowed us to start seeing the magnitude of the issue," said Tarana Burke, the activist who first coined the phrase "MeToo." "Now, the months and years ahead have to be focused on solutions."

Pockets of collective organizing are sprouting up. At Nike, a covert survey by female employees - inquiring whether their female peers had faced sexual harassment or gender discrimination at the company - recently found its way to the chief executive's desk, leading to the resignation of a number of top executives.

And members of Time's Up, the organization formed by Hollywood creatives and executives to combat harassment, which includes a multimillion dollar legal defense fund, recently wrote an open letter condemning years-old accusations of abuse against the pop star R. Kelly, prompting Spotify, the streaming behemoth, to stop promoting his music.

"This movement has galvanized people into a community," said Ms. Hill, who now heads the entertainment industry's Commission on Sexual Harassment and Advancing Equality in the Workplace.

"I had the letters people wrote me, but there was no organizing around the letters. I think this is how social change occurs."

The ripple effects have extended beyond sexual harassment.

In Hollywood, Frances McDormand's call in her acceptance speech in March at the Academy Awards for " inclusion riders" has led at least one production company to adopt one.

There has been new attention on topics like wage equality and pregnancy discrimination, as well as a spirited national discussion about the treatment of N.F.L. cheerleaders. Even the Miss America pageant plans to remove the swimsuit portion of the competition.

In every walk of culture, it seems, #MeToo has made us question: How did we ever think this was O.K.?

"Cultural revolutions don't happen quickly," Gretchen Carlson, the former Fox News host who is now board chairwoman at Miss America, told me a few weeks ago. (She took over after the chief executive was forced to resign over lewd comments.) "The idea that we're seeing so much happen in real time so quickly is really amazing. It's my greatest hope that there's no turning back."

In her 2017 book, "Butterfly Politics," Ms. MacKinnon, the legal scholar, delved into a concept from chaos theory in which a tiny motion of a butterfly's wings can trigger a tornado half a world away. Under the right conditions, she argued, small actions can produce major social transformations.

So too, it seems, with the women who first spoke out against Mr. Weinstein - and a world that may be profoundly changed.

"When I embarked on this thing, when I decided to speak out, I was worried I was going to feel more alone than when I started," said Ms. Crook, one of the Horovitz nine. "And to feel the opposite of that is pretty remarkable. We're one cell of this new organism."

JESSICA BENNETT, the first gender editor of The New York Times, investigated allegations of rape and misconduct by nine women against the playwright and director Israel Horovitz.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
They call themselves "the nine." They are nine women, eight scattered around the United States and one in France, each with accusations of having been sexually harassed or assaulted by a former mentor, the playwright Israel Horovitz. Last fall, they chose to speak out publicly against him, adding their voices to the chorus of women proclaiming #MeToo.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A year after the Harvey Weinstein story first broke, India's own #MeToo movement is finally taking off and spreading like wildfire. Working women are coming forward on social media with stories and details of various forms of sexual harassment and misconduct. These stories, painful as they are to process, are necessary to read so as to engage with some important questions that they raise: what is it that keeps the perpetrators of sexual harassment and misconduct continually in positions of power? What keeps victims silent? And above all else, what steps need to be taken to remedy this?
Harassment as an economic problem
One frame of reference to keep in mind while responding to these questions is that of economics. Understanding sexual harassment as an economic problem is crucial: it is no coincidence that many of the allegations being raised are pointed at members of society with extensive economic influence and power over their victims. Many of the (carefully curated, often hedged) responses by companies linked to these individuals can be interpreted both altruistically and as an attempt to mitigate an impact to the bottom line.
Also Read: Dear Men of #MeToo: Abuse Is Behaviour, Not a Symptom of Mental Illness
It is also no coincidence that victims have often been unwilling to use the legal and political frameworks that exist to protect and enable them to come forward. There are economic relations that exist between everyone involved: between alleged perpetrators and victims, between victims and the economy at large and between the public and the companies that employ alleged perpetrators. These relations encompass a number of power dynamics that help keep victims silent and perpetrators in power, as the experiences of the American media in connection with the Weinstein allegations show.

Understanding how these relations played out in the year since that story (and the resultant flood of allegations) broke go a long way towards explain what India can expect of its own #MeToo moment and how we can go about fighting back.
The disparities between perpetrator and victim
The current economic power that a perpetrator often has over their employee or colleague is extensive, particularly at a time when patterns of employment are changing and future financial stability is in question. Employers and entrenched senior figures have more power than ever in determining the future prospects of young professionals. The media industry is particularly vulnerable to this fact: jobs are made or broken based on how hierarchical higher-ups review and recommend younger professionals. Being blacklisted for not "playing ball" can be career ending. When this is coupled with an industry that has always had cultural issues with how it treats women, it comes as no surprise that women were still willing to meet with Weinstein despite being informed of his background and then later chose to keep silent. Often, the only real choice apart from "playing ball" was to simply leave the industry altogether.

An associated phenomenon is that of senior figures protecting their colleagues and fellow perpetrators. The question is often asked: why did no one around Weinstein speak up? A simple answer is that there was little short-term financial incentive for those in power to do so. Miramax Films, which Harvey Weinstein and his brother founded, was a profitable business, as was The Weinstein Company in its initial years; for Weinstein's colleagues to have spoken out as individuals at the height of his success would have meant jeopardising their own financial and job security. At the same time, attempting to use mechanisms that are designed to hold senior figures accountable (such as the board of directors) would have been a hard sell because the primary motive (i.e. creating profits) was still being met.

Being blacklisted for not "playing ball" can be career ending.

Both of these examples go a long way towards explaining the various instances in India's #MeToo allegations where both victims and colleagues kept quiet.
The economic compulsions for victims to remain silent
The relation that many victims have with the larger economy is equally important in explaining why they don't speak up and why they are unable to leave situations of harassment. A November 2017 report commissioned by the Centre for American Progress details how harassment is not only a broad-based socio-economic problem, but that lower-wage workers often face stronger power dynamics that allow employers to harass them without retaliation. They are unable to speak out because to do so could risk retaliation in the form of job loss or wage cuts, both legally and illegally.

In a country like the US, where falling back on social security is often seen as a weakness, it is no surprise that victims were reluctant to just quit or try to speak out. To do so would risk placing them in an economically vulnerable situation. Putting up with harassment was seen as the better choice.

In India, where a more robust social security net exists, the reluctance to come forward is is also attributable to cultural and caste dynamics, but the economic compulsions still cannot be discounted.
The manipulation of the public by businesses
Once allegations of sexual harassment are made public, the big question that arises is how the companies and businesses associated with alleged perpetrators will react. Do they cut ties? Do they attempt to ignore the problem until it goes away? Do they come out in support of their clients, who represent significant revenue streams for them?
Also Read: M.J. Akbar, Minister and Former Editor, Sexually Harassed and Molested Me
What steps these businesses take is as much a function of economic expediency as it is ethical decision making. It is based on their relationship with and (perception by) the public at large. Progressive politics is currently good business, but companies have proven themselves more than willing to take steps that are progressive for gender in appearance rather than in substance.

In environmental marketing, this is known as "greenwashing" - a form of spin where companies portray themselves or their businesses as being eco-friendly while actually simply providing lip-service to environmentally sound practices and focusing on retaining profits and maintaining status quo. "Pinkwashing" is the equivalent term for companies who do the same with regards services and products that are ostensibly intended to be LGBTQIA friendly.

The rapid-breaking nature of social media campaigns like #MeToo mean that this could happen in the industries hit by these allegations as well. This could take various forms, such as publicly firing lower-ranked perpetrators while retaining the toxic corporate cultures that allowed them to act with impunity or creating products that are gender-progressive while internally maintaining wage and power disparities.

Thus, the decision by Hotstar to cancel AIB's latest season of its show 'On Air with AIB', can either be seen as a genuine first step in reflecting on how it enabled negative work environments or could simply be a way of satiating the public's demand for some form of justice and maintain its existing production systems. That would be determined by the steps Hotstar takes next in evaluating its own role in enabling harassment both in its own structure and in the media industry that surrounds it.
Using the economy to fight back
Understanding how economic structures and systems enable sexual harassment is one thing; counteracting them is another. How do we use the knowledge of these structures to begin dismantling and negating their effect?
Also Read: Editorial: The Indian Media's Moment of Reckoning
We first need to generate more research and data on sexual harassment, particularly in India. The need for more data to help guide discourse and public policy was voiced by various organisations following the Weinstein story, as most of the data on the economic costs of sexual harassment was either outdated or scanty (one major study being used to discuss the economic costs of sexual harassment was conducted in 1988).

We first need to generate more research and data on sexual harassment, particularly in India.

Particularly important (and sadly very challenging) is the need to gather data on the direct and indirect economic costs of ignoring sexual harassment, both to businesses and the economy at large. Sexual harassment costs companies in terms of lost hours and employees, legal costs, fines and public perception. Putting a rupee value on these costs would go a long way towards encouraging companies who are profit motivated to restructure accordingly. There's always a risk that the resulting rupee cost would actually be acceptable to the company, but that is where (as Kaushik Basu suggested in a 2003 paper) political and legal willpower would need to step in. Greater data would also help inform lawsuits and legal cases, ensuring some modicum of justice occurs to those who are able to follow through with legal action.

The next step should involve looking at ways in which to widen and strengthen the social security nets and other systems that will encourage victims to come forward without risking their financial stability. These same systems need to be developed to make the economic costs of maintaining status quo in companies far outweigh the benefits, to encourage those in power to speak up when they should.

Finally, there need to be concerted efforts to encourage consumer choices that align with gender-progressive companies. This is arguably the most challenging step to take as it not only involves individual action at a large scale but also because it requires information about actual steps taken by companies (to thus avoid gendered "pinkwashing"). In addition, it's a step that lends itself predominantly to upper and middle class households. Still, consumer activism remains a viable low-effort individual step.

There are many more steps that need to be taken, of course. Only addressing some of the economic disparities that enable harassment will not mean that harassment will stop. Indeed, an over-reliance on an academic approach to something that involves real, human people and real, human emotions is dangerous.

Ultimately, sexual harassment and the #MeToo movement generate difficult questions and no easy answers; they involve an interplay of power structures, cultural issues and other dimensions and all indications point to a long, painful process that may not yield any actual meaningful results. Economics is neither the only nor the most important lens with which to view and understand why sexual harassment remains a systemic issue, particularly in a country like India. Still, in the long arduous path to a more progressive society, we need to use all the tools we can get our hands on.
Karthik Manickam is a research scholar at Jawaharlal Nehru University.
You can follow The Wire's extensive coverage of Indian media's Me Too movement here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Economics of #MeToo and How to Fight Back Against Harassment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A year after the Harvey Weinstein story first broke, India's own #MeToo movement is finally taking off and spreading like wildfire. Working women are coming forward on social media with stories and details of various forms of sexual harassment and misconduct.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
MONTREAL -- The number of sexual assault complaints filed with police and classified as founded increased sharply in Canada after the #MeToo movement went viral in October 2017.

The increase was most pronounced in Quebec, a study published Thursday by Statistics Canada.

Researchers compared two periods -- before .MeToo from Jan. 1, 2016 to Sept. 30, 2017, and after from Oct. 1 to Dec. 31, 2017.

Quebec saw the largest increase in sexual assaults reported to police, rising 61 per cent after .MeToo. The rate jumped to 20 complaints per 100,000 population from 12.4.

Newfoundland and Labrador saw the second highest increase, rising 36 per cent, and Manitoba was next at 27 per cent. The other provinces and territories were below the national average increase of 24 per cent.

Nationally, the figures show an average of 74 sexual assaults reported to police per day after .MeToo, compared with 59 per day before.

The study looks at sexual assaults reported to police that were subsequently deemed to be a founded criminal offense. It does not include all complaints, and the accusations have not necessarily led to criminal charges.

"This sharp increase in police-reported sexual assaults following the #MeToo movement does not necessarily reflect a rise in the prevalence of sexual assaults in Canada, but is likely attributable to a combination of factors, including an increased willingness of victims to report to police," the study's authors wrote.

Other factors include heightened awareness of what constitutes sexual assault, public messages from police forces urging victims to come forward, and changes in police practices when it comes to classifying sexual assaults as founded or unfounded.

The rise was most marked in Quebec, where several high-profile cases of alleged misconduct led to sustained media and police attention.

"For example, in October 2017, the Montreal Police Service implemented a dedicated hotline for reporting sexual assaults in the wake of #MeToo and high-profile accusations of sexual assault and harassment, both internationally and within Quebec," the report stated.

Marie-Christine Michaud, the spokeswoman for a crime victims' assistance centre, said the movement played an important role in encouraging victims who had previously been reluctant to come forward.

"The message that was sent, people felt that if they denounced or went for help, we would believe them," she said.

The report noted that 2017 recorded the highest-number of police-reported assaults since 1998, due in large part to the spike in reports in the last three months after #MeToo began.

And contrary to assumptions that most complaints stemmed from long-past incidents, three out of four complainants were reporting incidents that had occurred within the previous month.

The biggest rise in complaints occurred in urban areas, with Quebec City topping the list with a 78 per cent increase. Sherbrooke, Que. came second, while Brantford, Ont. recorded the third-biggest hike.

Nine out of 10 victims were female.

And the number of reported assaults on school campuses -- while still a minority of reported cases -- rose by 59 per cent.

What was the impact of the #MeToo movement in Canada? Our new Juristat article compares police-reported sexual assaults in Canada before and after #MeToo: https://t.co/pCadVcBy52 pic.twitter.com/44azF8JO3Z
- Statistics Canada (@StatCan_eng) November 8, 2018

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
After 'MeToo' Canada sees sharp increase in sexual assault complaints

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
MONTREAL -- The number of sexual assault complaints filed with police and classified as founded increased sharply in Canada after the #MeToo movement went viral in October 2017. The increase was most pronounced in Quebec, a study published Thursday by Statistics Canada. Researchers compared two periods -- before .MeToo from Jan.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
TORONTO - In the wake of the Me Too movement - sparked by sexual misconduct allegations surrounding Hollywood heavyweight Harvey Weinstein and dozens of other prominent men - a spotlight has been placed on workplace behaviour and the equal treatment of women.

Ahead of the one-year anniversary of the movement, talent organization theBoardlist Canada and U.S. research firm Qualtrics surveyed more than 100 Canadian board members, venture capitalists and executives and found women are still reporting mistreatment at the office and that many companies are still not taking action after Me Too.

The online survey conducted between May and June 2018 found:

- 41 per cent of respondents said they have experienced sexual harassment, misconduct or assault in their careers

- 8 per cent said allegations of sexual harassment or inappropriate behaviour have come to light in their offices

- 53 per cent of respondents who sit on boards said the company is reevaluating its policies in light of Me Too

- 52 per cent said their company has not taken action as a result of Me Too

- 32 per cent of respondents said their board was considering discouraging drinking and partying at company events following Me Too

- 7 per cent said they had noticed backlash at their company as a result of the Me Too movement

- 83 per cent of respondents said their company has discussed Me Too, allegations of inappropriate behaviour and gender discrimination

- 70 per cent of venture capital respondents said they are advising their investment portfolio companies about appropriate behaviour and sexism

*NOTE: The polling industry's professional body, the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association, says online surveys cannot be assigned a margin of error because they do not randomly sample the population.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
New survey sheds light on Me Too movement in Canadian workplaces

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
TORONTO - In the wake of the Me Too movement - sparked by sexual misconduct allegations surrounding Hollywood heavyweight Harvey Weinstein and dozens of other prominent men - a spotlight has been placed on workplace behaviour and the equal treatment of women. Ahead of the one-year anniversary of the movement, talent organization theBoardlist Canada and ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Police-reported sexual assaults in Canada before and after #MeToo, 2016 and 2017

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This Juristat article analyses changes in the volume and characteristics of sexual assaults reported to and substantiated by police before and after the #MeToo movement went viral on social media. Using 2016 and 2017 crime records provided by police, analysis by month of reporting to police is undertaken to provide a more granular understanding of how the widespread #MeToo movement impacted police-reported sexual assaults in Canada.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Get The Facts

What is gender equality?

UN Women explains it as "equal rights, responsibilities and opportunities" for all genders. It doesn't mean that everyone should be the same. It means peoples' rights, responsibilities, and opportunities shouldn't depend on their gender. It implies that the interests and needs of everybody, in all their diversities, are important. It's not a "women's issue." It's everyone's issue, and it makes life better for all of us.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Facts: Gender Equality and Gender Justice Canadian Femicide Observatory for Justice and Accountability, 2021 Statistics Canada, 2019 RBC Economics, 2021 Statistics Canada, 2019 McKinsey & Company, 2017 Benchmarks gender-based gaps in economic participation/opportunity, educational attainment, health, and survival, and

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Main menu
Skip to primary content

17-YOUNGER

12 percent of transgender youth report being sexually assaulted in K-12 settings by peers or educational staff

17-YOUNGER

One in four girls and one in six boys will be sexually abused before they turn 18 years old

51 - 70+ years old

In a study of elderly female sexual abuse victims, 81% of abuse was perpetrated by the victim's primary caregiver. 78% was perpetrated by family members, of whom 39% were sons.

51 - 70+ years old

About 76 percent of elder sexual abuse victims have had their incident witnessed by another About 67 percent of elder sexual abusers were members of the family, according to the National Elder Abuse Incidence Study.

51 - 70+ years old

About 80 percent of the time, the perpetrator of elder sexual abuse was the caregiver to the elder.

51 - 70+ years old

About 27 percent of victims of elder sexual abuse occurred in either the elder's own home or in the perpetrators home.

51 - 70+ years old

About 83 percent of victims of elder sexual abuse reside in an institutional care center, such as a nursing home.

51 - 70+ years old

Only about 30 percent of elderly victims of sexual abuse over the age of 65 years actually report the abuse to the authorities.

TRANSGENDER-MALE TRANSGENDER-WOMAN

One in two transgender individuals are sexually abused or assaulted at some point in their lives

WOMAN-IDENTIFYING

51.1% of female victims of rape reported being raped by an intimate partner and 40.8% by an acquaintance

MALE-IDENTIFYING

Only 16% of men with documented histories of sexual abuse (by social service agencies, which means it was very serious) considered themselves to have been sexually abused, compared to 64% of women with documented histories in the same study

MALE-IDENTIFYING

A 2005 study conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, on San Diego Kaiser Permanente HMO members, reported that 16% of males were sexually abused by the age of 18

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Skip to primary content 17-YOUNGER 12 percent of transgender youth report being sexually assaulted in K-12 settings by peers or educational staff 17-YOUNGER One in four girls and one in six boys will be sexually abused before they turn 18 years old 51 - 70+ years old In a study of elderly female sexual abuse victims, 81% of abuse was perpetrated by the victim's primary caregiver.