The Ansari Aziz Rape Allegation

A few years ago my son, raised Jewish, turned atheist, married a practicing Catholic.  For my deceased father, a devout Jew who passionately believed in maintaining the unbroken chain of Judaism, the marriage would have been an existential crisis.  In contrast, I am heartened by the marriage as I know that my grandson will benefit from exposure to the wisdom of the bible and to the Judaeo-Christian values contained within.

Sadly, religious values and wisdom as a basis for behavior in civil society is gone, with no consensus on how to fill the void.  As with all voids, chaos and confusion reigns.  Consider the accusation of rape against the famous comedian, Ansari Aziz.  A first date with a woman, known under the pseudonym of Grace, ended awkwardly and painfully for her at Mr. Aziz’s apartment.  Kissing between them progressed to nude physical intimacy, heading towards intercourse.  Already uncomfortable with the level of physical intimacy, Grace said no to intercourse.  Mr. Aziz immediately stopped and arranged an Uber ride home for her.

At various stages of the date Grace felt pressured into sexual encounters beyond her comfort zone, and believed her nonverbal stop signals were ignored by Mr. Aziz.  Grace felt she was raped and made that accusation in the online publication Bee.net   Mr. Aziz dumbfounded by the accusation believed he never coerced or forced her into unwanted intimacy.  He perceived Grace as a willing partner in pleasure and perceived himself as a respectful partner, immediately stopping when she said no to anything further.

Following publication of the accusation, an online debate ensued regarding the definitions of sexual coercion and consent, and the responsible way to handle perceived sexual misconduct.  Grace’s supporters placed responsibility on men to tune into their partner’s feelings during sex.  Mr. Aziz's supporters placed responsibility on women to clearly voice there discomfort.   Many expressed concern that attaching the rape label to an ambiguous sexual encounter undermined the #MeToo movement.   

Lost in the debate is this simple truth.   When two complete strangers engage in the emotionally and psychologically intense act of physical intimacy, hovering close by are feelings of vulnerability and violation created by misunderstandings and miscommunication.  Mr. Aziz was unfamiliar with Grace’s body language or style of communicating.  Grace knew nothing of Mr. Aziz’s sensitivity level or attitudes towards women.  Neither knew the other’s views on sexual intimacy.  Neither knew the other’s expectation for the date -- a building block towards a relationship, or a one night stand.  Each was certain their perception of the evening was shared by the other.

In the religious world fences are built around interactions between men and women precisely because such interactions are fraught with misunderstandings and unwanted behavior.  Hence Vice President Mike Pence’s rule to always include his wife when attending a private social event with another woman, or the practice of Orthodox Jews to refrain from touching anyone of the opposite sex who is not close family. 

In the secular world these behaviors are dismissed as remnants of a patriarchal society not suitable for the modern understanding of gender equality.  Overlooked is the wisdom of creating fences to avoid emotionally painful interactions.  Instead of antiquated ideas, create fences with modern sensibilities.  Create them because, even in this modern world, communication between people is imperfect, and because, contrary to modern beliefs, fundamental human nature and basic emotional reactions are unchanged

 

Until next time 

Trump and the Politics of Branding

I recently returned from a trip to Hong Kong and Singapore.  While there, the eyes of the prawns were upon me -- cooked alive and served with eyes intact as a sign of freshness for restaurant patrons.  Those bug eyes disturbed the sensibilities of my kosher upbringing, so I ate mostly rabbit food as a palliative to my churning stomach.  The good news, I returned home without the dreaded vacation belly.

The bad news, I returned home to deja vu all over again -- the country in an uproar over Trump stepping on his tongue.  The pattern oh so familiar, Democratic leaders expressing outrage, Republican leaders voicing lipstick on a pig rationales, and the legislative agenda drowned out by the political noise.

Lost in the hub hub a disturbing trend, the increasing commercialization of politics.  Parties no longer defined by their philosophy or principals but by their branding.  Democrats brand Republicans as deplorable and Republicans brand Democrats as out of touch elites.  Opportunities to brand the other trumps legislative agendas, even bi-partisan ones.

Senator Dick Durbin’s actions a case in point.   After hearing the shithole comments in a private, contentious meeting with the President, the Senator could not resist the gift that Trump’s mouth keeps on giving.  He immediately disclosed the remarks to the press, creating the predictable shockwave across the country.   A reflexive action for political advantage, absent any reflection on what is best for the country or the Dreamers.

There is an important distinction between a President’s private and public comments.  Unlike private comments, a President’s public pronouncement are official views guiding policy.  Take LBJ as an example, with large disconnects between his private and public speech and policy.  LBJ’s potty mouth, positively Trumpian in private, regularly used the "n" word during cabinet meetings.   Publicly he advocated for sweeping civil rights legislation and at the signing ceremony spoke these stirring words, “Let us close the close the springs of racial poison.  Let us pray for wise and understanding hearts.  Let us set aside irrelevant differences and make our Nation whole.”

Senator Durbin, as a public servant, never considered the public good before talking to the press.  Lost, because of his act of political advantage, was movement towards a permanent bi-partisan solution for the sword of deportation hanging over the Dreamers, and impetus towards an overhaul of our outdated immigration policy.

Republicans are equally eager to play the political advantage game, with Nancy Pelosi as one favorite target.  Recently jumping on her comments after corporations announced bonuses to employees following passage of the tax reform bill.  Characterizing the $1,000 bonuses as mere crumbs, Pelosi was excoriated as a liberal elite, out of touch with employees living pay check to pay check for whom $1,000 is highly meaningful.  

The politics of advantage is a corrosive outgrowth of the extreme polarization of our two parties and the radical elements that form the base of each.  Each party is loath to support any legislation emanating from the other side lest it anger their base and provide their opponents with an advantage at the polling booths.  This was the Republican strategy when Democrats were in power, and now the Democrats are returning the favor. 

Nothing gets done in a bi-partisan way which severely restricts what either party does while in power.  Legislation addresses issues catering to the base’s views, while most Americans are middle of the road in their views.  This sets the stage for ping-ponging of governance, particularly at the Presidential level, as the party in favor loses favor with independents, where elections are won or lost.  A trend I fear is our future.

Such a downer to think about, I’ll end on a positive note.  Headed up north to visit with my mini me, now 17 months.  Last I saw him he was Mr. Destructo, taking repeated, and I do mean repeated, delight in lifting his large plastic fire engine on its head and then pushing it see which way it fell and how loud it crashed.   Clapping each time he performed the trick did not suffice for long.  Soon he began clapping prior to the performance and required all of us to join in.  My mini me definitely inherited my “look at me” gene.

Until next time.