The Third Party

I would rather be accused of murder than sexual assault.

A murder accusation requires investigation; the gathering of clues and evidence.  It requires a grand jury of peers to determine whether the evidence gathered is sufficient to bring formal charges against the accused.  It affords the accused legal representation if he or she cannot afford it, and the opportunity to bring evidence and witnesses to corroborate his or her’s defense.  Finally, a murder charge requires a public trial overseen by an impartial judge, where both side present their cases, and a guilty verdict is handed down by the unanimous vote of a jury.

A sexual assault verdict requires no investigation, no grand jury, no evidence, and no trial.  A guilty verdict in a sexual assault accusation requires only the accusation.

The Metoo movement has provided a platform for women to come forward and accuse their alleged assailants without judgement of their own behavior, and without fear of repurcussion.  This is a wonderful thing.  A culture of male repression of women has existed on planet Earth for all of recorded history, and even the bible has contributed to it.  Of course women who feel they have been sexually assaulted should be able to say so without judgement and get their day in court.  But their are problems.

For one thing, the nature of sexual assault is such that often it is impossible to prove or disprove, especially years after the alleged event has occurred.  This is an unfortunate trait of the crime, but as such is true, it should be acknowledged, and allegations should be viewed as objectively as the denials.  Today, Metoo has evolved to the point where not only are denials of the accusations immediately dismissed, but to mount a defense or question the credibility of the accuser is considered heresy.  This is wrong.

There is also the problem of definition.  What is sexual assault?  It seems it could be anything from “unwanted sexual advances” to rape.  It could be groping a person who doesn’t want to be groped, or a perceived slight for repelling an advance.  It could be exposing oneself to another or even crude or suggestive remarks or behavior.   The issue is in its vagueness, and Metoo has helped perpetuate the problem.  If a man attempts to kiss a woman and she rejects him, is this assault?  If a man tells an awful, pornographic joke at work, is this assault?  If two people are engaged in a sexual encounter and one of them is rougher than the other would prefer, is this assault?

Maybe.  But maybe not.  So much about sexual assault seems subjective to individual personality and perception.  What one person feels is receptiveness to aggressive sex, another feels trapped and awkward.  This is sometimes the problem.

I am not furthering the view that men are victims in the Metoo universe.  They are not.  But proponents of Metoo would do well to acknowledge that even an allegation can ruin a person’s life; that a person is innocent until proven guilty; to at least feign objectivity until enough facts are discovered to make a determination about what happened.

And if there aren’t enough facts to make that determination, that is very unfortunate and possibly tragic.  But it is the fair thing and it is the law that a person should not be destroyed if their alleged misdeeds can’t be proven.

Wouldn’t happen with a murder.

 

The vast majority of what has been written about the women’s U. S. Open tennis final last week, where Serena Williams lost to Naomi Osaka in a match punctuated by 3 code violations issued to Ms. Williams by referee Carlos Ramos, has been generally to side with Ms. Williams.  Mr. Ramos, after all, is no stranger to clashing with players during matches, having past run-ins with the likes of Rafael Nadal and Andy Murray.  The first code violation he issued to Ms. Williams (for coaching) was petty, and the second – for Ms. Williams throwing her racket – was inconsistent with his past rulings of allowing numerous players to mistreat equipment without recourse.  Watching at home, I thought Mr. Perez acted arrogantly and insecurely, inserting himself as the major player in the match.  In any sport, conventional wisdom says that at an umpire, referee, or any official is doing his best job if he (or she) goes unnoticed.  At best, Mr. Perez failed miserably at his job last week.  At worst, he had underlying motives to do so.

Ms. Williams, for her part, understandably lashed out.  An intense competitor, she railed at Mr. Williams, lost her cool, threw her racket, demanded apologies, called Mr. Perez names, and threatened him – and this was DURING the match!  Afterward, she called him a sexist, incompetent, and…she even played the race card.  She claimed there is double standard in tennis; that men get away with more than women when it comes to umpires, and that her stand is a stand for all women.

Most have said Ms. Williams was justified in her actions.  Its not fair!  This referee was terrible!  She cost Serena the match!

These people would be wrong.

They are right about some things of course:  it was definitely not fair.  The referee was definitely terrible, and Ms. Williams may be have been justified in her actions.  But Mr. Perez did not cost her the match – she lost because of the choices that she made.

If you have competed, then you probably have a genuine distaste for officials – those frustrated non-athletes who seem above accountability.  And you know how it feels to be so angry at a referee (basketball in my case) that you literally want to physically harm them.  You hate them.  But you can’t beat them.

The goal of every athletic contest is still to win.  Bad officials are part of every sport, and have been since the beginning of sport.  When confronted with a terrible, unfair official that you want to physically harm, you can either go “Serena” on them, or you can keep your cool, continue playing hard and give your self a chance to win.  “Suck it up!,”my dad would say, “Don’t give [the ref] the satisfaction!”  Would any of us tell our children in youth sports that it is appropriate to handle a poor official the way Serena handled it?  Of course not.  I hope mine weren’t watching.

Serena is the best ever.  She is a great champion, and a great ambassador for the sport.   She could use this moment to teach:  “I thought the umpire was unfair, but either way, I lost my cool and it cost me the match.”  Instead, she’s teaching my 11 year old that its ok to be a big baby.