At this point
I want to respond as a philosopher of education to one of
those early 21st century wakeup calls – or historical “jolts” –
and that is the Women’s March of January 21, 2017.
It was not
an accident, on January 21, 2017, the day after Donald Trump’s inauguration as
45th President of the US, that the largest single-day protest
in American history took place. Rather than passively stay on the sidelines,
thousands of women – individuals who had been mistreated by men, and many
others who cared deeply — stood up, organized, and were speaking out powerfully.
And there
were comparable protest marches in more than eighty
other countries – on every continent except
Antarctica! Women in France, for example, demonstrated against award-winning
film maker Roman Polanski — who had fled the US in the wake
of his appalling rape of a minor in the US decades earlier – older folks may
remember him – or you can check the online article about him in Wikipedia.
The 2017
Women’s March on Washington gave voice to their desire for a variety of
social changes. But I want to focus on one of those intensely
desired changes, namely, overcoming sexually predatory behavior –
including violence against women – by more than just a few men.
Those sorts of misconduct include impulsively grabbing women by their genitals
— like Donald Trump had bragged about in those Access Hollywood tapes
that became public during his campaign against the Democratic candidate for
president, Hillary Clinton.
A few of
the many other American men called out for sexual assault during
this period included comedian and TV star Bill Cosby, ex-Fox-TV news host Bill O’Reilly,
Hollywood movie mogul Harvey Weinstein, Trump nominee to the Supreme Court
Brett Kavanaugh, teacher, turned banker, turned financial consultant, multi-millionaire
(or billionaire), Jeffrey Epstein (who appears to have taken his own life soon
after being imprisoned), and many others. We
could mention the appalling, 2012 Steubenville, Ohio, High School gang rape –
widely disclosed with pictures on the internet.
Public allegations
by women against men for sexual harassment and assault became almost
commonplace.
Although
those 2017 women marchers were seeking a variety of specific objectives
– fairness in pay, freedom for young women athletes from abuse by certain male coaches
and doctors, etc. — probably all marchers were united in their desire for
such predatory male mistreatment – including violence against women — to stop.
And that concern
is the focus of what follows now.
*
* * * *
Readers, would you have wanted to be on
the receiving end of such treatment – or have your beloved spouse, or child, or
grandchild, or other loved one treated that way? No? Nor
would I.
Then do pause,
do reflect, and do notice: You and I have, in effect, just applied those
Ancient Imperatives ourselves; we’ve come out against sexual
assault — we’ve just judged sexual assault to be wrong — on
the basis of those Ancient Imperatives.
*
* * * *
Seems remarkably
simple, doesn’t it? Some – indeed many, (but not all) — important
recent and contemporary examples of misconduct really are morally simple –
are morally uncomplicated . . . and I believe you’ll find that
they’re easily and reliably agreed upon by those
who’ll reason and judge by those Ancient
Imperatives.
In 2017 those
many thousands of women marching in the US Capital may well have
believed that changes to our nation’s laws would
help bring about the changes they hoped for in the conduct of many men.
Washington D. C. is, of course, the nation’s law-making capital — not
just the White House home for that prominent “dis-respecter” of women, Donald
Trump.
(If you don’t
know about Donald Trump’s objectionable attitude toward women, for starters
try, for example, an internet search of the videos from the 17-year history
of Howard Stern’s interviews with Donald Trump. Or
search what Trump said in the infamous “Access Hollywood” tapes.)
HUMAN RIGHTS LEGISLATION
TO END THE VIOLENCE ?
Legislation aiming to empower women based
on an appeal to natural or human rights dated back at
least to the 19th amendment to the US Constitution, which gave
American women – actually, it gave white American women
— the legal right to vote.
The 19th amendment
was clearly an example of legislation that had brought important benefits to American
women – at least to white American women.
The 19th amendment has
made a big difference. And if as an American woman you didn’t vote,
it was not because there was any law preventing
it! You had that legal right, provided you were white.
But — Could
the enactment and enforcement of laws go far to
END the violent predatory behavior of
some men against women – the sorts of behavior that led many
thousands to take part in the Women’s March the day after Donald Trump was
inaugurated as President?
At the time
of that Women’s March there was already fairly
extensive relevant federal legislation on the books:
23 years
earlier — in 1994 — the complex
Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was the first comprehensive set of
federal legislative provisions designed to END violence against women.
Then-Senator Joe Biden had led in getting that legislation enacted into law.
It has been re-authorized since then.
Its most
controversial provision gave American women – for the first time — a legal
right they had not previously had:
It allowed victims of gender-based violence to sue their
attackers in a court of law.
Surely most
women and girls – well aware that men
tend to be bigger and stronger than girls and women — want and hope
for much more than freedom from violence in their various dealings men!
The very
fact that the 2017 Women’s March even took place showed
plainly that that 1994 legislation had not even come
close to ending male violence against women.
For that
law – or any such law — to work, men would need to have some knowledge of
the law, and fear the consequences of violating it.
But plenty
of American men didn’t know a thing about that law. Even among those
who did know about the law – or who should have known – it’s
obvious that many were not deterred by the prospect of legal
punishments — perhaps because they believed: “I can get away with it;
chances are I won’t get caught. And if I’m caught I’ll escape punishment,
because I’ll find a lawyer who’ll successfully defend me. It will be
worth the cost.”
And very
importantly, that new 1994 legal right for her to sue her attacker came
with a heavy cost to the woman who tries
to exercise that right, who tries to bring the force of law down on her attacker, to
“make him pay:”
Even if the
attacker is identified and caught – perhaps with the help of DNA evidence —
the wheels of justice often turn very slowly and painfully,
forcing victims of sexual abuse to endure costly, long,
seriously uncomfortable, embarrassing waits, even mortifying public disclosures,
in order for legal justice to be done – in order for her to get what she has a
legal right to – that is monetary punishment and/or incarceration for the
perpetrator, and perhaps some financial compensation for herself.
How many
assaulted women will want to endure court cases in which often well-paid trial lawyers
compete for victory in her case? How many women – in order to exercise their
“new,” 1994 legal right — will want to undergo
a lawyer’s cross-examination that aims to undercut the evidence that her legal
team presents?
It’s no wonder that, despite
that 1994 Violence Against Women Act, many women who’ve been sexually assaulted
would instead choose to quietly get along as best they can without
speaking up, without seeking legal justice, without seeking
their new legal right.
What About
a New Educational Emphasis, instead of relying
mainly on Laws, Courts, and Lawyers?
Women (and,
I’d like to believe, a large majority of men) rightly want male
abuse of girls and women to stop. But, instead of focusing entirely on
human rights, legal rights, legislation, courts of law, and on lawyers to address
their desire for male abuse of women to stop, I believe that Education that effectively
stresses character, and stable, mutually beneficial
human relations of all sorts — should
be the focus.
I believe – and I think that, after a closer look, common sense
agrees — a great deal of the predatory behavior of those men toward
women is rooted in ignorant selfish concern
for their own sensual pleasure — but certainly not rooted
in informed and loving regard
for the other person’s immediate sensual
pleasure before, during, and after sexual relations – let
alone the other person’s happiness, their flourishing, their
thriving, afterwards.
Such men’s
conduct is often emboldened by impulsive approval and support from similarly
ignorant and selfish males.
1.
An Education that’s rooted in – and respects — our human nature
The kind
of education I’m advocating is rooted in both our innate self-love and love of
others (chapter 4). Because of that, it’s education that
promotes character and conduct in
accord with those two Ancient Imperatives: Love your neighbor as
yourself, and Treat others the way you’d want to be treated. (chapter 2).
The sort
of education I’m advocating is also rooted in our natural desire for what’s pleasant,
and our natural desire to avoid what’s painful. (chapter
2)
It’s education
that takes seriously the importance of the information that’s critical in
order for human agents to gain those benefits, and to avoid
those harms: It’s education rooted in our desire to know,
and to avoid being deceived and misled.
(chapter 2)
I’m advocating an
educational emphasis on taking explicit note of
conduct that is mutually beneficial – even the
often-heard “Thank YOU” from a TV interviewee who has just been thanked by
the interviewer or host.
(2)
Such education draws students’ attention to mutually beneficial (“win—win”)
human conduct. Bear in mind: We are certainly not
born with that knowledge, nor can we count
on all the more important examples being acquired informally, and it
is often humanly very important.
Such education points
out to all learners the benefits that commonly
flow to those who make choices – to agents themselves — from
the many kinds of action that can be very beneficial for recipients.
For example,
a comfortable, affordable, safe vehicle can be beneficial
to all involved, from those who provide its raw materials,
to its designers and producers, to sellers, to those who regulate its use, and to
those who use, and those who maintain the vehicle. That’s also true for a wide
array of things people prize. Such a web of
interactions can be an “everyone wins” web.
And over time, although it brings new challenges, it enables significant
human progress.
Childhood is the time to begin to
learn about the unfolding array of fulfillments (pleasurable
activities and experiences) – whether old or new, whether calm or exciting,
whether “freestanding” pleasant experiences – or joys that are clearly
fruitful, consequential, — that are available to those who use their
power of choice – their agency — in accord with those Ancient
Imperatives.
(3) Such
education also points out in age-appropriate
ways some of the serious harms that selfish conduct
by older teenagers and adults, and by adult organizations, can
cause on the grand scale, including price-gouging for
necessary medications and fuels.
Reader, do
you want to be on the receiving end of those things? Or be
subject to police brutality, or mob violence? No? Then help provide
education that takes that pair of Ancient Imperatives seriously!
(4)
The kind of education I’m advocating for self-love and other-love, and against selfishness,
will square well with standard dictionary definitions, which say
that selfish persons are those who are [Merriam-Webster
and others] “concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself:” seeking
or concentrating on one’s own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without
regard for others. To say that someone is selfish is to convey that
they “lack significant consideration for others,” and are “overridingly concerned
with their own profit or pleasure, etc.”
Do
notice: To say of someone that they are selfish, or that
they acted selfishly, is not to neutrally describe (as
when we mention, say, eye color or blood type on a driver’s license
application), but, as the definitions themselves indicate, to say some person
is selfish – although it does describe
— it does more than describe; it
criticizes: it expresses the speaker’s disapproval by
attributing a fault – it finds fault.
(5)
Examples:
In the natural,
genetically-based pursuit of pleasant experiences — of fun — young children, often those
who are bigger or stronger or craftier than
others in a group, will sometimes act selfishly. For
example:
They may
stingily refuse to share their playthings (or the playthings that have been provided
to their group), or
Insultingly
engage in name-calling, or
Grab (or
stealthily take away) the belongings of other children – or
Carelessly
damage the playthings that belong to the others (or that have been provided to the
group), or
Encourage
the exclusion of kids who lack companions, or are different, or
Without provocation,
physically attack others, or
Cheat in
order to win a game by breaking the rules . . .or
Exhibit hostility
toward competitors (and competitors’ fans) in games.
Such examples
illustrate selfish behavior, selfish conduct, by children.
Such actions
are obviously at odds with desirable relationships among
those involved – the amicable, pleasant relations toward which our DNA instinctively
inclines us, and which our personal experience normally rewards.
(6)
Failing to address Selfish Acts
Sometimes
a selfish act on the part of a child goes
unnoticed, or if it is noticed, it may be ignored by
whoever’s supposed to be supervising. So the selfish actor “gets
away with” what they did. When selfish actors (kids and grownups) succeed –
when they “get away with it” . . . and when they find it rewarding,
and learn that “it pays” . . . they are likely to repeat,
and to make a practice of those, or
similar, acts. They seem likely to associate with and to embolden like-minded
people.
Such uncorrected selfish
conduct promotes selfish character.
There’s a superabundance of material online about character
formation. Books for children emphasizing
character written by widely recognized author Joy W. Berry should
not be overlooked.
Selfish actions and character – because they
“lack significant consideration for others,” and are “overridingly
concerned with their own profit or possessions, or their own pleasure, etc.” — obviously
conflict with desirable, amicable, friendly
relationships among those involved.
Selfish actions
and character clearly conflict
with BOTH mindful self-interest (mindful self-love),
and the mindful love of others that’s necessarily involved
in treating others the way we’d want to be treated – that is, in loving our
fellow human beings as we love ourselves.
This retired
philosopher of education is urging parents and other teachers not to
overlook emerging selfishness in the young.
Instead,
I’m urging them to make a point of teaching the
young both: mindful self-love and loving
one’s fellow human beings as oneself – treating others the
way they’d want others to treat them, pointing out the benefits likely
for all.
If those
Ancient Imperatives are a strong, clear focus of the education of the young, the
benefits will include less violence against women, less rape,
and a reduced need for a repeat of the Women’s March, January 21, 2017.