A Strategist’s Alternative to “Believe All Women”

Do we really need to believe all women? Is every man accused guilty? Does it matter?

In a society where over 99% of accused perpetrators of sexual violence go legally unpunished, it would seem that for the most part, the criminal justice system applies a “believe all men” approach to sex crimes. It is understandable that organized groups of victims and their allies would counter with a call to “believe all women.” That is what the #MeToo movement is asking us to do.

The #MeToo movement is asking us to believe all women in every circumstance — no matter how credible the accusation, who it’s presented by, or what the possible consequences may be.

And as understandable as this reaction may be, it is completely inappropriate.

It is true that on the whole, claims of sexual abuse and assault have been rejected when victims present them to the criminal justice system. It is also true, though, that sex based accusations have been weaponized in political spaces. This double-edged sword must be handled with a careful precision that an all or nothing approach does not offer. And unless these accusations are handled with consistency and caution, there is much damage that can be done to both victims as individuals and women as political entities.

We can’t allow sexual assault to be weaponized for political purposes any more than we can allow victims of assault to go unsupported. We need to be able to ask and answer the tough questions that prevent the traumas of survivors to be exploited for political gain. The following is an abbreviated list of questions that I explored in a previous article. It is designed to serve as a guide by which individuals and organizations can make informed decisions when being asked to act on sex based accusation.

Q1. Are you receiving the information directly from an accuser or through a political filter?

There is a difference between an accusation of sexual harassment or violence that is presented to you personally and one that is presented in the political arena.

If someone tells you personally that they were sexually harassed or assaulted — help them. You have a responsibility to help that person find the support and resources they need to move forward in the way that they see fit, both legally and emotionally. Full stop.

If someone is presenting an accusation in a political space, though, you have a responsibility to approach the information with a more cautious and critical lens. In an interpersonal space, you are being asked to support the victim. And you should. Without question. In a political space, though, you are not being asked to provide support, you are being asked to take political action.

Political actions have the potential to effect hundreds of millions of lives. The actions that you are being asked to take may not be commensurate with the accusation. The accusation may be unsubstantiated or deceptive. The actions demanded by the political actors presenting the accusation may serve to harm women in the name of protecting them.

It is possible to believe an accuser and still reject a call for political action. It is also possible to believe that an accusation is deceptive and stand in defense of the accused. It is not possible, though, to protect women by exploiting sexual traumas for political gain.

Q2. Is there a crime even involved?

Not all sexual behaviors are crimes.

In fact, the majority of sexual behaviors aren’t crimes. Sexuality is a normal, healthy, and integral part of both human development and social interactions. Sexual expressions should be expected, celebrated, and protected. Even when they are awkward. Even when they are uncomfortable. Even, at times, when they are offensive to certain individuals and groups.

If we don’t hold clear and strong boundaries between legal sexual behavior and the different levels of criminal sexual behavior, we leave the door wide open for political actors to use sexual morality as a guise to attack a political opponent. This tactic has been employed by conservatives to criminalize homosexuality, make it illegal for black men and white women to socialize, ban traditional indigenous dances, and prevent transgendered men and women from using public bathrooms.

Because of the historic use of sexual morality as an excuse to target and criminalize political opponents and groups of people, we have a responsibility to take a more critical approach to the accusation than we would if we were responding to an individual victim. To do so properly, we must be very clear on the boundaries between sexual behavior, sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape. These boundaries are delineated by the terms: violence, coercion, and intimidation.

If there is no violence, coercion or intimidation present in the interaction, there is no crime. The interaction can be uncomfortable, awkward, and even upsetting, but if there is no intimidation, coercion or violence, there is no crime. You can believe a woman felt uncomfortable and still believe that no crime was committed. In many cases, you have a responsibility to do just that.

Different Categories of Sex Crimes

All sex crimes are not the same. Different sex crimes inflict different amounts of damage to the victim. Different degrees of trauma require different services be offered to the victim in order to heal, and different pathways to take in the criminal justice system. In order to know what the healthiest course of action to take is both politically and interpersonally, it is important to know the difference. A clear understanding of the lines that separate sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape can also prevent us from making missteps that result when these lines are blurred.

Sexual Harassment

Sexual behavior is allowed in the workplace. It is not automatically illegal. And it is not uncommon. If the advances have no effect on conditions of employment, do not affect workplace decisions regarding the accuser, do not alter the ability of the accuser to do their job, or are welcome — there is no crime.

Whether or not an individual agrees with that definition is another thing, but the definition remains the same: , for example, is defined by the United States Equal Opportunity Commission as:

An accusation of sexual harassment that results from behaviors that do not meet these requirements is legally baseless.

Sexual Assault and Rape

Sexual assault and rape are two more distinct categories of criminal sexual violence. Their distinction from each other and from sexual harassment should not be taken lightly. These acts are violently traumatic and require extreme sensitivity and clarity when approaching.

Sexual assault and rape are separate from sexual harassment in that they involve criminal sexual acts. These acts are defined as:

Sexual assault and rape are defined as follows:

The lines between sexual harassment, sexual assault and rape are clear. Political actors, though, intentionally blur these lines in order to persuade the public to take actions they wouldn’t otherwise take. By being very clear on the lines between the categories of sexual behavior and criminal sexual behavior, we can avoid falling for deceptive political tactics. Further, if these lines are being blurred in a political space, we can accept that deception is being employed and we can engage in a more cautious and critical analysis.

Q3. Where is the accusation coming from on the political spectrum?

There are people that argue that sexual harassment, assault, and rape are crimes that extend beyond politics. They argue that sexual allegations are not Republican issues, and they are not Democratic issues. There are people that argue that left and right have nothing to do with it, and that sex crimes affect everyone equally.

Those people are wrong.

Of course, sexual violence and sexual assault is a serious issue for women, men, and children regardless of what side of the aisle they reside on. But this is not an interpersonal discussion. This is a political discussion. They ways that women’s rights and sexual violence are treated in political spaces by Democrats and Republicans varies dramatically.

The Republican Party has made the repeal of women’s rights and protections an open and proud part of their party platform. They have protections, programs and rights provided to women by the federal government and then systematically targeted, repealed, revoked, or reduced them through tactics such as funding restrictions, budget cuts and tax reform efforts. These revocations and rollbacks include Title IX protections for victims of sexual crimes on college campuses and the repeal of the 2014 Fair Pay and Safe Workspaces Act which protected women in the work place.

The GOP has also openly denounced and attacked women that have come forward with accusations against members of their own party, mocked the severity of sexual assault, actively supported a pedophile in his race for a Senate position and weaponized sexual assault claims with the assistance of organizations such as Project Veritas and individuals such as Roger Stone.

The Democratic Party, however weakly, stands in opposition to these tactics and maneuvers.

They, in fact, have taken a completely different strategic approach. They have called for members of their own party to step down from Congressional positions based on unsubstantiated and uninvestigated claims. They have not moved to prevent legislative attacks on women’s rights, protections, and programs; however, they are the party that secured their existence in the first place. And they do not accept “locker room talk” and misogyny as core components of their political rhetoric and branding.

It is important to understand the patterns of how each party approaches women’s rights and claims of sexual assault as part of their regular culture and platform. This understanding allows us to gauge whether or not an accusation is entering the political space as part of a commonly used political strategy, or if there is a true call for action in the best interest of the nation. Currently, calls to take political action based on accusations made by the Republican party must be critically analyzed in light of their historic efforts to weaponize political assault. Calls from the Democrats must by analyzed in light of their tendency to apply arguments based on moral high-grounds rather than due process to eliminate competition within their own party.

Q4. Are political tricks being used?

Politics involves deception. It is a field of study under the umbrella of strategy theory. You can even receive advanced degrees in the field. There are ways to implement deceptive tactics. And there are ways to counter them. There is no way to make a sound political decision under the assumption that these deceptive strategies and tactics don’t exist.

There are three deceptive tactics that are often used in politics that are helpful to use when assessing sexually based allegations presented on the political field. They are: criminalization, conflation, and deflection.

Criminalization. Strategic criminalization occurs when one political entity attempts to create legal penalties for the socially accepted behaviors of another group. Attempts to outlaw indigenous dancing, homosexuality, and interracial marriage stand as strong examples of this tactic. I frequently refer to this as the Footloose tactic.

When analyzing a sexually based accusation in the political field, any attempt to criminalize behavior that does not involve coercion, intimidation or violence should be labeled as deceptive.

Conflation. Strategic conflation occurs when a lesser charge is equated with crime in a similar category, but one that carries harsher penalties. For example, in the 1950’s it was considered sexual assault for a black man to flirt with a white woman (whether it happened or not). A very normal behavior was conflated with a very serious crime under the guise of sexual morality. At that time, due process was often turned over to the court of public opinion and lynching was a punishment celebrated by this system of “justice.” I frequently refer to this as the Till tactic. (Click here to learn more about Emmett Till)

Understanding the distinct boundaries between normal sexual behavior and criminal sexual behavior can help us avoid falling for the traps of conflation while simultaneously giving us the power to identify when this deceptive tactic is being employed. If conflation is part of the accusation presented on the political field, it should be labeled as deceptive and approached accordingly.

Deflection. Strategic deflection occurs when the accusation is redirected to the other party, most frequently the party making the accusation. For example, accusations stemming from sexual assault claims made about Donald Trump presented to the Republican Party are often met with deflections that point to sexual misconduct during the Clinton Administration. Accusations made against the GOP’s relationship with Russia are often deflected with accusations against Hillary Clinton and her relationship with Uranium One. I frequently refer to this as the Kellyanne (Conway).

Knowing when someone is attempting to discuss a sex based accusation on the political field, attempts to deflect to another argument should be notes as an attempt to deceptively misdirect the conversation and approached accordingly.

Criminalization (the Footloose tactic), Conflation (the Till tactic), and Deflection (the Kellyanne) are all deceptive maneuvers that are used in the political field. By identifying when they are in play, we can better assess whether or not the accusations presented truthfully call for the political action demanded to be taken, or if a political entity is intending to deceive the public for political purposes. Sexual harassment, assault and rape accusations are no exception. We can believe the accusations presented while simultaneously identifying deceptive tactics and refusing to act on the basis of lies. In fact, to protect individual victims and women on the whole, we have a responsibility to do just that.

Q5. What’s at Stake?

There are many political battlegrounds in which grey zones do not exist, and stark contrasts can be seen between Democrats and Republicans. Approaches to gay marriage, climate change, civil rights and women’s rights are just a few of these areas. Additionally, one of the most dramatically divided lines between Conservatives and Liberals stems from the willingness to weaponize claims of sexual harassment and assault against an opposing party or political actor.

Conservatives have weaponized sexual accusations, pushed a pussy grabbing white nationalist into the Oval Office, supported a known child molester’s race for the Senate, and simultaneously attacked victims speaking out about their interactions with Donald Trump and his co-conspirators. They actively repeal rights for the LGBTQ community and protections for victims of sexual harassment, assault, and rape. And they are the party that seeks to give more protections to perpetrators and fewer rights to women.

When the Republican Party presents an accusation of sexual misconduct in a public space, they are not asking you. Do you Believe the Woman?” The question that is really being asked is: Do you believe this argument is strong enough for you to take political action on behalf of the Republican party?

And the answer to these two questions do not need to be the same. You can believe a woman’s claims and still reject taking further political action.

Currently, the Republican party is demanding that the public attack and reject accusations made against conservatives while simultaneously call for the removal of all Democrats that have been accused of any sexual misconduct at any level, whether or not evidence of deception exists. The Democrats, under the guise of the #MeToo movement’s “Believe All Women” mantra have inexplicably adopted the GOP’s position to begin removing politicians from office regardless of intent, evidence, or political consequence.

Neither approach honors, protects, or advances the causes and concerns of women facing sexual harassment and violence. Speaking as one of those women, I emphatically argue that we deserve better.

Failure to defend women and our Democratic representatives from deceptive Republican attacks does more to advance the dismantling of our rights and protections than it does to secure justice for victims of sex crimes. Insistence that believing all women means that we take political actions that go against our own best interests serves to take our political authority away in the name of women’s empowerment. Forcing women to use their own traumas as an excuse to advance agendas that risk handing more power over to the pussy grabbers and pedophiles of the Trump Administration and the Republican Party is an act of political force that should not be tolerated — especially in the name of victims and survivors.

When the Republican Party presents an accusation of sexual misconduct in a public space, they are not asking you. Do you Believe the Woman?” They are asking you: Do you believe this argument is strong enough for you to take political action on behalf of Donald Trump?

The stakes could not be higher.

As a woman of color living with disabilities, a survivor of sexual violence, a mom, and a professional strategist I have used these questions to navigate a number of political decisions I’ve made in regard to sexual harassment an assault. These decisions include the confrontation of organizations that have systemically victimized women and those that have used false accusations for their own benefit. It is difficult to navigate the intersections between personal and political actions.; but if we cautiously and critically move from #MeToo to #NotInHerName, we can better protect women from predators in both personal and political spaces.

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

In an article I previously wrote about sexual accusations in the political space entitled, “Al Franken Resigns: Democrats Fail the GOP Sexual Harassment Test. Again.” I outline the 5 questions presented in this article and offer my personal responses. We have the right to answer these questions according to our own judgement. If you are interested in how I respond to them personally and professionally, click here.

To learn more about Dr. GS Potter and the Strategic Institute for Intersectional Policy (SIIP), visit: http://strategycampsite.org/v2/

For more articles related to recent sexual accusations, visit:

There’s Nothing Stopping the Next Weinstein

A Survivor’s Defense of Al Franken

The Real Reason Why We Can’t Just Believe All Women

Al Franken Resigns: Democrats Fail the GOP Sexual Harassment Test. Again.