There’s a new detailed account of how New York Times reporter Glenn Thrush repeatedly would fondle or kiss journalistic colleagues after hours, or take home inebriated women. But you have to read about 3,000 words to learn one detail: He’s married.
Even then, that fact is mentioned only once, in passing, in a quote. And the lack of care for that fact is the norm. A separate Vanity Fair story on Thrush this week is 1,300 words and it never mentions his marital status.
This is the pattern in #MeToo reporting, as my colleague Emily Jashinsky laid out in January. For instance, the Washington Post’s story on former Rep. Pat Meehan’s hitting on a young female aide never mentions that he’s married. Jashinsky added other examples.
When I tweeted out Jashinsky’s story, quite a lot of the responses I got amounted to “who cares?”
Some of these were stupidly reductive “sexual assault is sexual assault, period.” It’s the sort of thing that feels good to say, but ignores the universally accepted fact that legally, morally, and emotionally the same action in different contexts can have different levels of harm and culpability. Some were perverse: Maybe it’s an open marriage, so who are you to judge?
Jashinsky was merely reporting the omission, and since many readers didn’t see the marital status of the perpetrator or alleged perpetrator as relevant, I wanted to make a case that it is relevant, and journalistic accounts (without naming or picturing the wife) ought to mention marital status.
1. There’s a second victim here: the wife.
Trying to pick up a staffer, or making out with a colleague in the bar after work counts as infidelity to one’s wife. If we’re concerned about women who are victims of men’s sexual misconduct, the woman being cheated on is a victim.
I understand that the more sexually progressive of my readers will object, You don’t know that, maybe it’s an open marriage! Maybe infidelity isn’t bad for them! This is not a good defense. First, in my own humble, conservative opinion, a marriage in which a man is free to cheat on his wife is probably exploitative of his wife. Second, it’s making a mockery of marriage, which has historically been understood as a monogamous and (at least ideally) permanant union. Let’s not normalize infidelity by assuming it’s a viable option that compels reporters not to consider the cheated-on wife a victim.
2. If the dude is married, he is more clearly simply using the other woman as a sexual object.
Now to focus on the primary victim of the sexual misconduct incidents. Some incidents are clearly or borderline rape or groping, in which case this point doesn’t really apply.
In some cases, though, the accused or his defenders have decribed the actions in question as “romantic gestures” or a “come on.” Obviously, these “gestures,” actions, and words can also be scarring for a woman, particularly in a professional setting — or what she thought was one.
You could imagine an unfortunate and ambiguous case where a guy has an interest in a girl. They happen to be in the same industry and he happens to be senior to her. He thinks there are sparks. He asks her out, or makes some other advance. From his perspective, it’s how a potential romance either begins or doesn’t. From her perspective, a mentor has just, out of the blue, made it clear that he wants a sexual relationship, and it’s terrifying.
That defense, though, evaporates if the guy is married. Grabbing the girl’s thigh, if it could ever be interpreted as a first expression of interest in a personal and intimate relationship, cannot be so considered if the guy is already married. It’s clear he just wants sex. It’s 100 percent clear he’s not treating this woman as a person, but as simply flesh.
Now, that’s probably true even in the cases where the guy wasn’t married, but at least in those cases the I was merely seeking a relationship defense needs to be considered.
3. Old married guys are supposed to be safe.
I can only imagine that being an attractive young woman means often worrying whether every male who is being friendly to you, who wants to spend any time with you, who takes an interest in your interests or your career or your struggles — whether every such guy is really just seeking a romantic or sexual relationship with you. Even if it’s unavoidable, that has to be exhausting and disheartening.
One safe harbor would be finding female confidants. But if you want a boss, or an older mentor, the sad fact is there are a lot more guys in those roles of power than there are women.
Another safe harbor ought to be old married dudes. A young female actress or journalist ought to be able to let her guard down if the dude she’s talking to and sharing with has a wife, lives in the suburbs, and has gray hair. He’s not supposed to be on the prowl.
That means a woman might make herself more vulnerable when meeting with or talking with such a guy. That makes his improper actions that much more disturbing and violative.
The foregoing three points are all pretty conservative and old-fashioned, I know. But maybe the #MeToo horror stories have shown us that a little bit of old-fashioned stodginess is a good safeguard against the terrifying force of the male sex drive.
