Tony Judt on the restrictions that came after 'the sexual revolution' and its consequences on the interactions between men and women
Since the 1970s, Americans assiduously avoid anything that might smack of harassment, even at the risk of forgoing promising friendships and the joys of flirtation. Like men of an earlier decade—though for very different reasons—they are preternaturally wary of missteps. I find this depressing. The Puritans had a sound theological basis for restricting their desires and those of others. But today’s conformists have no such story to tell.
Nevertheless, the anxieties of contemporary sexual relations offer occasional comic relief. When I was Humanities dean at NYU, a promising young professor was accused of improper advances by a graduate student in his department. He had apparently followed her into a supply closet and declared his feelings. Confronted, the professor confessed all, begging me not to tell his wife. My sympathies were divided: the young man had behaved foolishly, but there was no question of intimidation nor had he offered to trade grades for favors. All the same, he was censured. Indeed, his career was ruined—the department later denied him tenure because no women would take his courses. Meanwhile, his “victim” was offered the usual counseling.
For some reason, I don't think that there was ever a sexual revolution. America is suffering from the fact that it has religionized both sex and gender more than any country in what some call condescendingly the modern world. Sexual harassment has nothing to do with sex, but solely with that conviction that some have that they are entitled to sex because of who they are, what they represent or whatever else. Judt is missing the point, by trivializing the issue in order to address the fact that to America, good sex is an oxymoron and therefore has to be cleaned and taken away from the environment where children, young people are learning.
Comments