Megan Mulls It Over

+JMJ

This post is Part 2 of a train of thought that I began with my September 20 post on Sally Field’s response to Samantha Bee’s calling Ivanka Trump the “c-word.” As I mentioned then, my opinion of Sally Field has historically been mostly neutral, until two recent incidents caused that opinion to go way down. The first was her “c-word” response and the subject of the first post. The second was her disparaging remarks about Burt Reynolds, which will be the focus of this post.

I said in the first post, and I’ll say it again here: I am fully aware of Field’s revelation that she was sexually abused by her stepfather. I am sorry that she experienced that, but I am not sorry for thinking that she has attempted to cope with her victimization in some destructive and hurtful-to-others ways. And I am “not sorry not sorry” (my alternative to “sorry not sorry”) for expressing those thoughts on this blog.

In case you missed Field’s remarks about Reynolds, she accused him of using his fame “as a way to control” her. She also drew a connection between her sexual victimization and her relationship with Reynolds, saying that in being with Reynolds, she was “blindly” falling “into a rut that had long ago formed in my road, a pre-programmed behavior…”

I think it’s great that she recognizes that her victimization contributed to her making unhealthy relationship choices. But I think it’s a little unfair for her to say things that could be construed as, “I got away from my creepy stepfather and ended up with creepy Burt.” Especially since I have seen nothing that indicates that Reynolds’ behavior in their relationship rose to the level of a reasonable person’s standard of “abusive.” If anyone knows differently, please feel free to share in the comments here or IRL if we know each other offline.

Unless I find out new information about their relationship that changes my mind, I am going to continue believing that this is yet another example of how our society is broadening the definition of “abuse” and “victim.” There are lots of articles floating around that classify garden-variety relationship issues as “abuse” or otherwise blow them out of proportion. Is your husband uncomfortable with you having a separate bank account? He’s controlling. Did he forget steps 25-30 from that Cosmo how-to article you made him read? He’s insensitive to your needs. (And quite possibly a rapist. You should call the Snowflake Hotline and run through their 10-point Consent Checklist to verify.)

These cognitive distortions are a natural consequence of the “Every woman is a victim of every man” mentality, a mentality I first alluded to in my October 10 post, “Wokeness and Its Follies.” And some of you might remember the part in my earlier Sally Field post where I shared that I do not identify as a feminist. The “Every woman is a victim of every man” mentality is a big reason why. And I differ from a lot of other theologically conservative Catholic women my age in that I believe that this mentality is found in every form of feminism. It may be present in differing degrees, but it’s still present.

And if your personal worldview is one that doesn’t include this mentality in any way, shape, or form, I would argue that it is not a feminist one. And I think there are a lot of feminists who would agree with me.

This victim mentality is especially maddening in light of the fact that feminists claim to be all about “empowering” women. This blog post could just as easily have been titled “Sally Field Doesn’t Know How to Stop Being a Victim.” I don’t doubt that she is doing her best to cope with her past, but I invite you to consider the following, especially if you think I shouldn’t have said that because she’s an abuse survivor.

Past victimization does not give a survivor the right to disregard the rights of others in the present.

This is something that many in our society have a really hard time accepting. And this attitude doesn’t discriminate along party lines either. Most liberals don’t understand that surviving a school shooting doesn’t give you the right to trample on the Constitution. And too many conservatives fail to recognize that surviving the Holocaust doesn’t give you the right to build a settlement wherever you want at the expense of the American taxpayer. But I digress.

Field’s comments about Reynolds were not as extreme an act as gun-grabbing or land-grabbing. They didn’t infringe upon any fundamental right. But I feel like they did show a selfish disregard for the feelings and reputation of someone she claims to care about. It is a real shame that our society’s current motto about others’ feelings seems to be: “Don’t admonish the sinner if it will hurt his feelings. But feel free to publicly trash your ex about all of the ‘abuse’ that you suffered while you were with him. Even if said ‘abuse’ is a nothing burger compared to actual abuse.”

We have it backwards. We should never allow a person’s feelings to determine whether or not we share a “hard truth” when we feel prompted to do so by our conscience or the Holy Spirit. Their feelings should be a factor when we’re deciding how to speak this truth, but they shouldn’t get veto power over whether or not we speak it.

But I think the feelings of others should play a much greater role (up to and including veto power) in our decision to have a moment of public catharsis while we are working through personal issues. Especially if what the other did was not illegal or gravely immoral. And especially if we still care about the other (or claim to). Ironically, in speaking of her memoir, Field said about Reynolds, “This would hurt him” and “I felt glad that he wasn’t going to read it…” Hmm…so you realize that it’s hurtful and you’re glad that he’s not going to read it, but neither of those feelings made you decide against such public sharing. Interesting.

Field’s choice to make these public remarks is also problematic to me in light of the fact that Reynolds is dead. Don’t misunderstand me – I don’t think that a person’s being dead should shield him from criticism. We speak ill of Hitler and Mussolini all the time. And no, I don’t think someone has to be on their level before we have the right to publicly call out some bad behavior on his part. But I do think that the bar for that should be higher than “I’m still processing my feelings about our relationship decades after our breakup.”

Field’s comments also illustrate the gender-based double standards that many feminists have regarding male and female anger. The full version of the “I felt glad” quote is shown below (emphasis is mine):

“I felt glad that he wasn’t going to read it, he wasn’t going to be asked about it, and he wasn’t going to have to defend himself or lash out, which he probably would have.”

Interpreting the written word without hearing the speaker’s oral expression of it is always a risky endeavor. But I will attempt it anyway. I hear in that statement a condescending subtext of “I’m so glad that I’m saving Burt from himself and his anger problem.” Here’s the thing: feminists get butthurt all the time when men criticize them for expressing anger, but they often don’t see anything wrong with implying that every angry man is a potential Stanley Kowalski.

Obviously I would feel somewhat different if I knew that Reynolds had actually been angry to the point of physical violence during their relationship. But as far as I know, he wasn’t. And even if he was, I would still stand by what I’ve said in this post and also add as a tip for Sally, “Next time lead with ‘He hit me’ rather than ‘We were a perfect match of flaws.’ “

Instead of applauding women who have the “courage” to blast ex-boyfriends decades after the breakup, we need to be encouraging women who are in bad relationships to talk to their partners about their concerns and/or get out of those relationships. This point parallels my biggest problem with the #MeToo movement.

Growing up in the 1990s, I remember that the message given to young women regarding sexual harassment and assault was one of “resist and report.” I also remember that liberal feminists were an integral part of promoting this message. Granted, you often weren’t going to be allowed to resist with anything stronger than a can of pepper spray, but it was still far superior to “Do what feels right in the moment and then report him to social media years after the fact.” (And it included explicit support for some form of imprisonment for criminals. This was far superior to the lunacy of the prison abolition movement that is becoming so popular among feminists now, in large part due to the influence of Angela Davis. For more of my thoughts on Angela Davis, see “Wokeness and Its Follies” and stay tuned for future posts.)

I think one reason for this switch from self-defense to helplessness is the current dominance of sex-positive feminism in our society. You know that old feminist adage about a woman needing a man like a fish needs a bicycle? Well, sex-positive feminism believes that the fish does need the bicycle. It is, after all, something to ride. Ok, so that was kinda tacky. But it did illustrate the point that sex-positive feminism has been a major contributor to “fornication culture” in our society. Which, as I mentioned in my first Sally Field post, is something that I believe feeds directly into “rape culture” (to the extent that “rape culture” exists).

This is not to say that earlier feminism upheld sexual morality. Quite the contrary. But there was a greater recognition among earlier feminists that pornography and sex work are inherently degrading and harmful. Despite all the holes in her philosophy, you never heard Andrea Dworkin spouting off about how “Sex work is real work!” (That Awkward Moment When the Anti-Feminist Kinda Sorta Praises Andrea Dworkin)

I would like to close by saying that I really hope that Sally Field and other professional victims will find a way to get out of the cycle of professional victimhood. Again, it was not my intention to sound insensitive to her feelings about being a victim of sexual abuse. My intention was to illustrate how I believe that she has allowed her victimization to negatively affect the way that she treats others.

If you feel that I went about it the wrong way, feel free to discuss that with me or with anyone else. This blog is not a “safe space.” Ergo, it is a “legit safe space” for open discussion. I won’t stick you in what I refer to as the “Milo Corner,” or, more accurately, “Milo Potter’s Field” over a nothing burger. And yes, that was a reference to Milo Yiannopoulos, and yes, I am a sometimes-fan of his. If you can’t handle that, you’re probably going to have a bad time on this blog. (But I hope you won’t.)

Verso l’alto,
Megan