Hmmm......

Now, it's John Conyers.  He's apparently denying, "vehemently," all charges of sexual harassment that have been alleged by a number of women.  (That number seems to be growing by the day.)  I have a couple of thoughts about this latest outrage.

I've been around a long time.  I remember John Conyers being the first black auto dealer owner
 (Conyers Ford) in Michigan, if not the US.  I recall his efforts to subdue the early mobs of the Detroit race riots.  One thing I don't remember is that he is "a civil right icon."  Maybe I missed some things.  Maybe I have a different definition of "icon."  (It, "icon," is tossed around far too liberally, as is "classic.")  Yes, he's the longest-serving Member of Congress right now and the longest-serving black Congressman in history.  Does longevity create an "icon?"  Again, I understand that I could be wrong about Conyers, but......

Several members of the Congressional black caucus have urged him to step down, to resign from the House.  That leads me to wonder.  What do they know?  Why aren't they pushing him to fight the charges, to demand proof (if there can ever be any in cases like these), to confront the accusers, etc.?  I just keep thinking that these folks know this has been going on for a long time, that only the accusations are recent.  Maybe not; again I might be wrong.  But why wouldn't they back their "icon" and fight along side of him on this? 

And, if what I suggested above is true, what does that say about members of the Congressional black caucus (among others)?  So, I guess, they thought such behavior is OK as long as nobody really knows about it, as long as nobody complains publicly?   Is this yet another example where the real crime is not the sexual harassment, but making that public?

Sort of in the same vein, I keep thinking about the Hollywood-types, the women, who have come forward.  (I see another actress made another claim in today's newspaper.)  By opening up now, instead of 20 or 30 years ago, what does that say?  OK, I understand that careers and livelihoods were likely on the line; they could be crushed.  But, on the other hand, was being groped or harassed or molested or even raped not as bad as long as "I got the role?"  Why didn't these women speak out then?  Why didn't they scream and run away from the rapist jerks?  Why did they submit?  Were they physically prevented from doing so?  If not.....?  Was the role/job, then at least, worth the harassment, groping, etc.?  Were the roles/jobs that important?  No, I'm not condoning the behavior of these men.  I think they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, if statutes of limitations don't apply.  Even if there are restriction relative to time, these men should become social pariahs.  How about boycotting their works?  We seem to want to boycott so many other "wrongs" in society.

I see that Murder She Wrote actress, whose name I can't remember, spoke up about this.  She didn't blame women for being attacked, like some knee-jerk reactions claimed.  She did say, though, that women should be careful with their own behavior.  For instance, she asked about how and why women dressed the way they do.  Again, she did not say someone who dresses like a slut should be raped; she didn't say that at all.  She did ask women to question how they dress.  Why do women try to make themselves attractive?  There's nothing wrong with that.  Clothes, hair styles, accessories......  Of course women dress to make themselves look better.  So do men!  But do women think they have have their boobs hanging half out to look attractive?  No, they don't.  Yet, take some time out to watch the boob tube.  That dancing competition show that Karen watches.  Do the dancers think that baring more skin than wearing clothes makes their dances better?  (For that matter, what very little I've watched, why do the male dancers, too, sometimes take off their shirts or even start without them?) 

For too many decades our cultures has stressed "if it feels good, do it."  We've engaged in moral relativism, situational ethics.  We've covered for obvious indiscretions, even criminal behavior, by some people, but not others.  (And why, say, Martha Steward went to prison, but Bill Clinton did not, well, explain that one to me!)  So now, year later, after people (men) "did it because it felt good," like they were told, after they saw others in positions of power and influence get away with blatantly bad behavior, society wants to crush them?  (I think they should be crushed.  I just asking why, when "if it feels good, do it" was the mantra, the norm, suddenly "it" is being lambasted.)

All this is very confusing to me.  Things that I was brought up to believe were wrong, suddenly were not "wrong." And now they are "wrong" again.