American Clarity Essays political, philosophical, and theological from an American romantic.

A high profile sexual misconduct case is oftentimes tragic whether or not the accused is actually guilty, as recent episodes in the lives of Justin Bieber and Herman Cain plainly display.  But this article does not concern whether or not Justin Bieber or Herman Cain are guilty of sexual misconduct; there are plenty of other highly-skilled investigators who have already accomplished quite a bit in that regard.  Rather, this article intends to analyze the laws pertaining to sexual harassment, both social and state-enforced, the need for such laws, and why both kinds desperately require reform.

To begin, it must be reminded that sexual harassment (in the workplace) has only become a household term in recent decades, the previous eras not having much use for such a concept or a law.  Most women, entrusted with the care and discipline of their own children (an institution essential to conservative republican government, and opposite to the principles of Communism), did not enter the workforce for most of American history, and thus production and political processes were entrusted to men.  And homosexual harassment, an odious concept held in great disdain by previous generations, was such a taboo pursuit that laws were unnecessary.  American men, not yet castrated by secular postmodernism, were a largely virtuous lot, ensuring by their collective morality that the law need not enter where order had already established herself firmly.

But yet, as leftism began its advance, and as women, being swindled out of their families and homes in search of man’s glory, entered the workforce, sexual mores also began to deteriorate.  In the years preceding, public courtship gave way to dating, and dating gave way to a love which was anything but free, being bought with disease, broken homes, and the abandoned child’s security. Men and women, once having kept their distance, were brought close together in all aspects of life, and the boundaries within which they once interacted, no longer being socially or publicly enforced, or even mutually defined, suddenly became something not unlike the Wild West.  America was reduced to sexual anarchy, and, naturally, the more aggressive sex acted as it only could in a nearly lawless environment: it took inordinate pursuit.  And men having already been established in nearly all positions of business authority, they began demanding from many remaining virtuous, innocent women, that the women exchange their chastity for security, a bargain as old as humanity itself and as vile as rape.

It would not take long before noble men, firmly understanding their duty to protect the fairer and more vulnerable gender from sexual assault, were in a panic persuaded to adopt laws in defense of womankind’s right to chastity. Having already abdicated by social contract the right to defend their daughters, wives, and sisters with a legitimate personal force — oftentimes the only respect a dishonorable man knows — they quickly granted women a power which was not properly assessed, and subsequently violated principles known by faithful Christians and Jews to be essential to the cause of liberty.  To women was granted the right to accuse a man, without substantial evidence, of sexual misconduct, and end his career or destroy his company.

It must never be misconstrued that women, being placed in such a compromising position, should have been content with their vulnerability; nor must it be implied that sexual harassment is not itself an injustice.   But if Americans truly are concerned with the cause of justice — that is to say, that men and women alike should only be penalized if they are guilty — they must know, on some level, that the current privileges granted to women exist beyond any sensibility.  For the Creator has of course endowed humanity (particularly men) with a natural inclination — an instinct, one might say — toward the protection of women, something which serves a necessary role in the survival and civilization of the human race.  But yet, if man’s tendency is to protect women from men, and oftentimes to assume guilt, we must also be careful that such an instinct is not empowered by the sword of the state unless men can receive fair trials.  For though it is oftentimes sanctimoniously quoted that “it is better for ten guilty men to go free, than for one innocent to suffer,” perhaps nowhere is this principle more egregiously violated than when pertaining to male-female relations.

The question, then, in light of instinctual tendency and ridiculously ambiguous sexual harassment laws, concerns whether or not men and women actually can ever be equally protected under the law, both having the right to a fair trial.  One should not pretend that the sexes should always receive equal treatment under law, as many obvious differences exist between the genders which require a judicious and sober segregation of rights and duties (viz, women should not be sent to the front lines of battle, or placed in prison cells with men); but yet if the rights become too imbalanced as shown by false and successful accusations of sexual harassment, injustice will also prevail.  Therefore, approaching the situation delicately, below is proposed a relatively simple solution to the injustices of sexual harassment, requiring a reformation in individual virtue and legal structure, without abusing man’s instinctual tendency toward protection or placing women in compromising positions.

To begin, there is no political chance of repealing the current laws entirely, and there should not be.  An uncivilized people who refuse even common virtues will find a sea of impracticable laws waiting to strangle them at the end of their debauchery, the unavoidable result of any widespread dissolution of morality.  Yet, without repealing the current laws, there is a way for a righteous man to avoid most false accusations, and it begins with a policy of personal and corporate responsibility, practiced by wise and virtuous men for many years.  That is to say, whether a man is in a position of authority or not, he must make a public policy of not allowing himself to be alone in a room with any woman who is not his wife or his relative.  If corporations are to avoid expensive lawsuits, it would be wise to instate that policy in the workplace for every person in leadership, thereby protecting every honorable man from false accusation, and every woman from sexual assault.  Its adoption may perhaps be cumbersome, especially at first, but it cannot be any more debilitating than the frivolous and expensive litigation which burdens our economy, cheapens the testimony of actual victims, and makes war upon innocent lives.

Secondly, if the laws are to be reformed (and they should be), it should be instated that a woman must take legal action within two years of the incident, have a second witness — which will ensure her interest in not being left alone with her employer –, and if it is found that she falsely accused her employer, she and the second accuser must receive whatever penalty they sought for him.  And lastly, all should be guaranteed the right to have another person of their same gender (and perhaps even sexuality, in our morally impoverished age) present during all briefings, reviews, and other issues which generally require closed doors. Within these boundaries, society can be assured that accusers will bring only serious matters to court, and that men who otherwise have impeccable records will not be slandered with testimonies miraculously and suspiciously convenient to political rivals.

In conclusion, while Justin Bieber and Herman Cain’s woes very plainly display the power of mere testimony, in effect an imbalance of power which favors women, there are sensible defenses which can be employed against fallacious claims, and ways to reform the current legal flaws without placing women in jeopardy.  Many will certainly object to the above proposals, claiming that to do such would reduce the legal power of women and “regress” Americans to a past era of intersexual relations, and in both they would be correct. Regarding the first objection, women should never have been granted the power to ruin others without a fair trial, and regarding the second, it is time that both sexes learn to respect women and behave with accountability and civility.  Some would call such a proposal a return to traditional morality, but even a libertine can recognize its value in self-defense.