The Munk Debates Podcast - Be it Resolved: The #MeToo movement has gone too far

Episode Date: December 28, 2021

Has #MeToo gone too far? On this episode of the Munk Debates Podcast recorded in June 2020, Harvey Weinstein's attorney, Donna Rotunno, and Jane Manning, a former sex crimes prosecutor, argue the motion Be it resolved the #MeToo movement has gone too far. SOURCES: MSNBC, Global News, thedailybeast, ABC News, CBSNBecome a Munk Donor ($50 annually) to get 72-hour advanced access to the full length editions of Friday Focus and Munk Dialogues. Go to www.munkdebates.com to sign up. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

There are options, and that's why we need to take this opportunity seriously. There's no way you can prevent global warming unless China is part of the solution. This is not normal male behavior. This is predatory behavior. We don't know how bad this bug is. We don't know what this bug does. All of that was thrown away in those eight minutes and 46 seconds, and that's the moment that I became an abolitionist. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Welcome to the Monk Debates. Every episode, We provide you with a civil and substantive debate on the big issue of the day to arm you, the listener, with enough information to make up your own mind.

Today we are re-releasing a debate recorded in June 2020, just after media mogul Harvey Weinstein was found guilty of sexual assault. This debate, as relevant now as it was then, took place between Weinstein's former lawyer and a sex crimes prosecutor. The resolution was, be it resolved. the Me Too movement has gone too far. I want to get right to the allegation made against you by Tara Reid. The former Senate aide accuses you of sexual assault. Would you please go on the record with the American people? Did you sexually assault Tara Reid?

No, it is not true. I'm saying unequivocally. It never, never happened. And it didn't. It never happened. Hello, I'm your moderator, Redier-Greve. That was Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden emphatically denying allegations that he sexually assaulted a former employee. President Trump has also been accused by numerous women of sexual assault and unwanted touching, allegations that he continues to deny.

Supporters of the Me Too movement welcome this cultural watershed moment for gender relations. They say the movement is forcing society to rethink traditional power relationships between men and women and provide a check on out-of-control male and entitlement and the silencing of women. Thanks to the Me Too movement, victims of sexual harassment have finally been given a voice and overdue justice. Have a listen to Rosanna Arquette, one of the accusers of disgraced Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein. Today is truly a landmark moment for survivors of rape and sexual assault in that the public is seeing that men, even a man, as powerful and famous as Weinstein, will be held accountable

for their abuse of women. It is also a watershed moment, a historic leap for the Me Too movement that Taranaburk began in 2006. For Me Too-Tractors, the movement has gone too far, such as the case of former Senator Al Franken who resigned after facing allegations of sexual misconduct,

which have never been proven in court or investigated by Congress. I just couldn't serve the people of Minnesota, but it really, you know, it really needed to have a process, but I just couldn't stay either. It was an awful. There was no good choices. To critics of the Me Too movement, the principal believe all women has led to the vilification of innocent men, the perpetuation of a victimhood mentality, and the victory of mob.

rule over due process and basic fairness. They argue it is time for a rethink of the Me Too movement by women and men who care about the future of the relationship between the sexes. On this installment of the Monk Debates podcast, we challenge the essence of these arguments by debating the motion, be it resolved, the Me Too Movement has gone too far. Arguing for the motion is Donna Ratuno. She recently defended Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein in court. He was sentenced to 23 years in prison. Arguing against the motion is Jane Manning, a former sex crimes prosecutor in New York City, a victim's rights advocate and director of the Women's Equal Justice Project. Donna, Jane, welcome to the Monk Debate podcast. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm really looking forward to this conversation today. We all know that the world is immersed in everything COVID at this moment, but it's important for us to step back and think about the big issues that have been gripping our society that predate this pandemic. Clearly one of those issues is the Me Too movement, its impact on gender relations, on the empowerment of women, on the fate of men who are accused of sexual misconduct. This is a vital cultural phenomenon for us to understand and appreciate and to have the opportunity to talk with both of you today to get your nuanced views and opinions into the state and future of the Me Too movement is a privilege indeed. So thank you both on behalf of our listening audience for coming on the Monk Debates podcast. Donna, what we're going to do is open this debate with short opening statements, two to three minutes each, arguing for and against our resolution. Be it resolved, the Me Too movement has gone too far.

You're arguing in favor of this motion. So let's have you speak first. Please, your opening remarks. Thank you very much. Most, I don't think, realize that the Me Too organization was actually founded more than a decade ago by a woman named Tarana Burke. Its original mission focused on girls and women of color from low-income communities who were actual survivors of sexual violence. Hashtag Me Too, as we know it today, had its inception in late 2017 after we all are aware that Harvey Weinstein was accused by reporters of sexual misconduct. The accusations against Harvey sparked a tweet by an actress, Alyssa Milano, and Alyssa urged women to tweet Me Too if they too had been sexually harassed or assaulted.

Me Too spread like wildfire, and this catch-all became an issue for a multitude of other issues that fell under what people were claiming Me Too, as in pay inequality in the workplace, biases of race, gender, class, things of that nature. The umbrella of Me Too expanded beyond its original mission and focus of sexual violence, which is much more serious than the more broad harassment that now falls within the purview of what we all know is hashtag Me Too. In July of 2018, the Atlantic had published an article citing that the founder of Me Too, Ms. Burke thought that the movement had become too big, too wide, and too far removed from its original mission. And these other issues that were then lumped in sort of minimized her original focus. Hashtag Me Too has allowed women to have a voice as they sit behind keyboards to make claims falling on a wide spectrum. The claims are not vetted, they're not investigated, they're not fact-checked,

and they potentially have the ability to ruin the lives, careers, and reputation of those who are accused with absolutely no way to rectify a false claim or defend oneself. If a man is accused of harassment or abuse in the stratosphere of what we know is the World Wide Web via social media posts, it will spread like wildfire in the form of a retweet or by pushing the like button by those not asking any critical questions, about due process or fairness. These very allegations are unbelievably dangerous if we take them as gospel without any further investigation. The hashtag Me Too movement has made men apprehensive in the workplace and has hurt women in that same environment.

Many of the attempts in this case, I think, have set women back in the quest to be heard, have women quashed their own opportunity. When we're looking at the original purpose and mission of Me Too, I believe it's unrefutable that the movement has gone too far. Donna, thank you for those opening remarks. You've certainly set up this debate for us nicely. Jane, it's now your opportunity. We're going to put two to three minutes on the clock for you to hear your views on why the Me Too Movement hasn't gone too far in your view. Thank you. The reality for survivors of sexual assault is that the Me Too Movement hasn't gone too far. In fact, it hasn't gone far enough.

When we have these conversations about Me Too, there are two different points of view that you might hear. The first is, a sexual assault survivor should be able to be believed when they are telling the truth. And the second is, we shouldn't allow a person's life to be ruined based on one person's word with no scrutiny and no due process. And here's the thing. Both of those statements are true.

And we don't have to choose between them. The Me Too movement is not about. creating a regime where a mere accusation can get someone fired or thrown in jail. It's about creating a culture and a justice system where reports of sexual assault are taken seriously and are judged after a thorough investigation based on their merits and without resorting to rape myths or prejudice. That approach to justice is not what we had in the past and it's not what we have now. And that's why Me Too still has a long way to go. So look for example, the criminal justice system. Just a few months ago, the Atlantic Magazine published a bombshell

article called an epidemic of disbelief. And it revealed that in 49 out of 50 rape cases, the perpetrator never serves jail time. We're having a national conversation right now about policing in light of police abuses that have been revealed. And there are a lot of calls to cut police budgets. But there's something else we need. We need more oversight of how those police budgets are spent because we are investing too much of our resources in policing people for nonviolent behavior and not enough on good quality investigations of rape and other harmful crimes. There are still too many cases with survivors who do come forward face too much prejudice and not enough actual search for the truth. And that search for the truth is how more of

our resources need to be spent so that good cops and there are many of them have the resources in training they need to do top-notch investigative work. In our civil justice system, many of the same problems apply. The obstacle to justice are formidable. They are more so for the most vulnerable survivors. Those most vulnerable survivors are the women and girls represented by Taranaburk. And I think it's really important to go back and read what Taranneberg actually said in the Atlantic article that Ms. Retino is referring to. Because what she actually said is she didn't want issues like, for example, pay inequality getting lumped in to the Me Too hashtag. She said those are important issues, but Me Too is about sexual violence and that's what I want to focus on. Never has Taranaburke

said that the Me Too Movement has gone too far. Our culture at large is still too skeptical of sexual assault reports to a degree that's way out of a portion to the actual incidents of false reports. The Me Too movement is about fixing those things and it's also about stopping police brutality and racism. Because women of color and especially black women tell us, I can't go to the police if I have to be in fear of them. So the work of undoing racism is the work of the Me Too movement, too. And most of all, Me Too is about prevention. It's about changing the culture so that all young people grow up in a culture where they can develop healthy sexuality. We have a long way to go towards all of those goals, and that's why the Me Too movement has a lot more work to do.

Thank you, Jane. Let me just for the benefit of our listeners just kind of sum up, again, two excellent, succinct opening statements. Donna, your assessment here is that the Me Too movement's gone too far because of the extent to which seemingly unfounded allegations can wreck people's careers without due process, without any kind of substantive investigation of the facts. You believe that it's really changed the fundamental relationship of men and women outside of the legal setting to the detriment of women, and I assume the detriment of men too. Jane, you're painting a picture here of the Me Too movement as, yes, focused tightly. on issues of sexual violence around women, but a movement that has broader ambitions to deal with issues of gender injustice as they relate to women of all communities and women who are facing a justice system that at times doesn't listen to their particular plights.

So let's move on to rebuttals. This is an opportunity for both of you to respond to what you've just heard. So Donna, please, what did you hear from Jane that you'd like to rebut for our audience? Well, I think when Jane makes her two points saying that, you know, women need to be believed when they're telling the truth. I think that's the first issue that we need to talk about. How do we know when someone is telling the truth? We know if someone is telling the truth by a vast majority of either statements that they've made in the past, statements that have changed, actual evidence, physical evidence, and problematically, sometimes those things don't exist. So then the question, becomes. We have a he said, she said circumstance. And what we have done with movements such as Me Too and hashtag believe all women is we have given women an indicia of truthfulness and reliability that should not exist without actual vetting of facts and circumstances. And when we look at the second portion of her argument that she talks about saying, you know, men's lives can be ruined And that's not the intent of Me Too.

I don't know what that other intent could be when someone has the ability to take to social media and begin to express their beliefs and what they believe are their truths and put statements and comments out there that name people that talk about the way they perceive situations that happen with another person. and they have this ability to have a one-sided forum where there is not due process. And that's why there's a difference between what we talk about in a criminal setting versus a civil setting, which is when you can actually enter a courtroom and be able to defend yourself, which is completely different than what is put out into the world via social media with hashtags, where you do not have that due process. And then if you get to a point of being able to walk into a police station or a courthouse, your ability to defend yourself has already been tainted by what has been put out into the

stratosphere. My biggest concern is what we put out into the media, what we put out into the social media or internet world, and then we think that those actions don't have a consequence to a person who is trying to defend his or herself. Thanks, Donna. Jane, let's have you reply. You can rebut what you've just heard from Donna. You can return to her original opening statement. This time is yours. So I don't know any men who have actually had their lives destroyed by a tweet. There are lots of men in the course of the Me Too movement who have been toppled from positions of power after first a public outcry, but then a thorough investigation and a thorough fact-finding proceeding and a trial at which proof was. offered. The question, how do we sort out true from false reports is a great question because there are false reports of sexual assault. And as feminists, we can't be afraid to talk about that.

Because the truth is, we don't want a world where every accusation is taken at face value. We want a world where the true ones are believed and the false ones are or not. So how do we get there? How do we sort them out? The answer in part is by responsible journalism, like we've overwhelmingly seen in the course of Me Too, and also by well-resourced and modern law enforcement units capable of excellent investigations so that juries can rely on evidence and not myths and stereotypes in their fact-finding. And too often, that's not what's happening now. In too many cities, special victims units are badly understaffed. In New York City, we're talking about the size of the police force, which is 30,000 police officers. Fewer than 300 of them are allocated to

investigating all reports of sexual assault and all reports of child abuse. The Harvey Weinstein case was a well-investigated case because it was very well-resourced and there was plenty of evidence to prove him guilty. But this question of one witness against another, Donna Retino refers to it as he said, she said, which I think is a terrible term, but the issue of witness credibility, how do we evaluate it? Because the truth is that a witness's testimony is evidence, but it's up to a jury to decide is this credible evidence and is it enough to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt? How do they decide? The way the Me Too movement wants them to decide is not by some of these very outdated old school ideas and rape myths. If there's a delay in reporting, she's lying. If it

happened in a hotel room, she's lying. Those aren't good way to decide whether a rape happened or not. Better criteria are things like, does she have a genuine motive to lie? Was the witness is forthcoming? Did she tell the good and the bad? Is the witness's testimony consistent in its essentials? Is it also consistent with the surrounding evidence and the surrounding facts? Those are fair and good criteria for assessing credibility. And we ask jurors to do it and they work hard to do it. Donna, I'm sure you've got some views on this. I think the audience would like to to hear your reply to what Jane said regarding, yes, they start with accusations, but they lead to processes that have standards of evidence that have requirements for both the witnesses and the accused and that there is a process

that the Me Too conversation embraces and that's part of its culture. First of all, we are talking about all of these issues and sort of a conflated way. We're talking about the court system, which of course is different on the criminal side versus the civil side. We're talking about what happens to people in employment circumstances, which of course is different standards of evidence and proof than what happens in a criminal case. And when we talk about someone like Matt Lauer, Matt Lauer was not afforded a court process. Breaking news for our viewers at West, as you mentioned, NBC's Matt Lauer has been fired over reports of inappropriate

sexual behavior in the workplace. The chairman of NBC, Andrew Lack, saying in a memo, there were specific complaints from a colleague reported on Monday, and they have reason to believe it was not an isolated incident. Matt Lauer was not afforded the ability to have a jury determine whether or not he should have lost his job. Matt Lauer had a relationship with a woman and that relationship continued for years and she comes out later and makes claims that he denies. Jane, do you want to come back on a few of Dono's points here? Matt Lauer was fired not based on one allegation by one woman, but multiple women who complained about the fact that Matt Lauer created a hostile workplace for them. Let's talk about what really happens in a real-life workplace case.

I have a survivor who reported being sexually assaulted by her boss. The assault was so violent that her jaw was dislocated and had to be wired shut for nine months. The district attorney in that town didn't charge the defendant with a crime, even after six other women in that same workplace came forward. These were women who worked in an energy company. They had absolutely nothing to gain by coming forward and complaining about abuse within their workplace because their jobs were otherwise very good jobs. And yet they came forward and still there were no charges.

We do not have a situation where a witness, a person makes a single allegation and someone is fired based on that. That's just not what happens in the real world. Donna, I think it's important to talk about the Harvey Weinstein case. He was your client. Why do you feel that he didn't get a fair trial on the basis of all the resources that he could command for his defense? You still feel that the movement, the Me Too movement, tipped the balance of justice in his case. I'd like to hear your reasoning for that.

Sure. I think that there's a couple things that I can talk to in that vein. Me Too had its inception in 2017 when the New Yorker article came out. And when that article came out, people started coming forward and saying, you know, hashtag Me Too. I had an issue with Harvey. And those issues span from a variety of different types of encounters, some workplace encounters only having nothing to do with sexual allegations. He threw a stapler at me or we got in an argument at work. And the spectrum of those was very vast.

and the articles were written and written and written. And this was before Harvey was ever charged with a crime. So the media had already labeled Harvey a sexual predator before he was ever charged. Once he's charged, there was not one positive story written about any potential argument on the other side. And we, as his attorneys, had many conversations with the media. And we would provide the media with information, proof, evidence, and their response to us was, there's no appetite for that right now. When I was involved in it personally, watching how skewed the stories were and how you would

sit in a courtroom and watch a trial happen all day long, and you would only hear about the direct examinations of the witnesses and not the cross-examinations of the witnesses. And if they talked about the cross-examinations, which were extremely fair questions that are asked in any sexual assault trial, and respectfully, those questions were berated for being vicious or wicked or wretched. And it didn't allow Harvey to walk into that court-reacted. And it didn't allow Harvey to walk into that courtroom from day one and have anybody be able to say they could actually view those cases fairly. Every single potential juror that walked in that room and we interviewed thousands of people, not one did not know who he was, not one had not read stories about it.

So trying to pick a fair and impartial jury was an absolute impossibility from second one. And I blame in many aspects the media for pushing a narrative that really was not backed up by the evidence. But at that point, it was too late. We are following breaking news right now. A verdict has come down in the sex assault trial of Harvey Weinstein. And right now, Attorney Donna Ratuno is speaking about this verdict. I think it has shown a pattern in this case from the very beginning. Mr. Weinstein really never had a fair shake from day one.

and I'm not here to say, poor Harvey. But what I am here to say is we were looking for fairness and we didn't get it. So, Jane, let's hear your reply. I mean, this is an argument that, you know, the Me Too movement convicted Harvey Weinstein in the court of public opinion and that as a result, justice was denied to him as a result of the amplifying effect of the Me Too movement on the public conversation around his case and arguably, I guess, around the cases of many others who are accused. Harvey Weinstein's case wasn't decided in the court of public opinion.

was decided by a jury, and many potential jurors were excluded when they said they weren't sure they could be fair. The only people allowed to serve on the jury were people who swore under oath that they would be fair. And the facts show that that's what they really worked hard to do. They did not rush to judgment in this case. They deliberated for days. They asked for testimony to be read back. They asked for clarification on the law. They talked back and forth about what the judge had instructed them. And at the end of the trial, they issued a verdict where they convicted him on some counts, they acquitted him on some counts.

Everything about the way the jury went about this business shows the opposite of a rush to judgment. It shows that they wanted to return a fair verdict based on the evidence. And let's talk about what that evidence was. There were six women who testified in this trial. and they testified to remarkably similar patterns of sexual assault by Harvey Weinstein. He would pick a vulnerable young woman. He'd dangle a job opportunity. He would test a boundary.

He would request a work meeting. He would isolate the victim. He would demand a massage. And then suddenly there would be this escalation to overwhelming force. That was the pattern of his attacks. And there was corroboration. The six women who testified at the trial were. only six of the 90 women who have accused Harvey Weinstein of sexual assault, sexual violence,

sexual harassment, not stapler throwing. And the jury ultimately listened to those six women and it scrutinized their testimony, but at some point it also scrutinized Harvey Weinstein's behavior. And it said there's a pattern here that's too strong to ignore. Thank you, Jane. Maybe, Don, I'm going to give you an opportunity to just quickly respond to that. I mean, it was the case you were sitting there leading the defense table. So let's get a quick response to you. And then I want to kind of advance our discussion. Yeah, there's no quick response to that. This was a trial that lasted two months, hours and hours and hours of preparation and witness testimony. I mean, one person testified for three straight days. There's no quick response. This conversation is about whether or not

Me Too is detrimental. This is not a conversation about the Harvey Weinstein trial. I'm more than happy to do that at another time. But while an appeal is pending, I'm not going to get into those individual facts. I will say that I disagree with every single word that came out of her mouth, and I'm more than happy to address all of those issues at a different time. Understood, Donna. So let's advance our discussion here a little bit and talk about gender relations in the age of Me Too, because it's something, Jane, that Donna raised in her opening statement, this idea that the Me Too movement has created an anxiety amongst men regarding their interactions with women, especially in the workplace, and that this is potentially having detrimental effects on women

in terms of opportunities for mentorship and learning. And that it's also, for men, it's created a series of challenges for them to work collaboratively with women in the workplace. Do you buy that view of the Me Too movement? I don't buy that view of the Me Too movement. The Me Too movement is not a movement against men. Men are some of the most wholehearted supporters of the Me Too movement. When Harvey Weinstein was convicted, his former employee, Irvin Ryder, said, when I heard it was seven men on the jury, I said, good, because most men are appalled by this behavior. And I can vouch for that in my own life. The men in my life, my husband, my sons, my uncles, my cousins, people who have no problem disagreeing with me when they do, they were cheering

Harvey Weinstein's conviction because men of all people know this is not normal male behavior. This is predatory behavior. The evidence shows that perpetrators of sexual assault are only a small minority of men, but they tend to be repeat offenders and harm victim after victim. Researchers at Case Western University referred to some of these repeat offenders as one man walking crime waves. That's what Harvey Weinstein was. He was a path of destruction over 40 years harming dozens of women, and some of whom were teenagers. As to this idea of men being afraid to work with women, there was plenty of discrimination in the workplace

before the Harvey Weinstein verdict. And in my view, if there are men who are unwilling to work with women now because Harvey Weinstein was convicted, those men were probably not very good bosses for women to begin with. The Me Too movement is a women's rights movement because sexual assault disproportionately targets women, but there are men who are survivors as well. There are young men and boys who are abused by sexual assault and who were supported by the Me Too movement.

There are fathers and brothers of survivors whose lives have been changed forever by what has happened to the women in their lives who they care about. So what we're looking for in the Me Too movement is not to hurt all men. It's to stop those small numbers of men who prey on people. Donna, let's have your reply to this question about how the Me Too movement has affected relations between the genders. That's the problem. Jane has not answered that question. She continues to talk about Harvey Weinstein in a criminal trial, and that's not what we're here to talk about. We're here to talk about whether the Me Too movement has gone too far. And the question is about how men and women now get together in the workplace. And I've spoken to many men in positions in corporations that have to make a decision about hiring. And they have very candidly said to me, if I have two qualified candidates, sitting in front of me. In today's day and age, I'm going to hire the man. And I'm going to do that because it puts me at less risk. And these are the questions we really have to start talking about. It is clear, if you look at the numbers, most major corporations have canceled or changed the way

they do holiday parties and gatherings. They don't want to put themselves in situations where they could be accused of making advances toward women that they do not want. And I think oftentimes, men and women are still men and women. Although we should be and are equal, we are also different. And in order to be able to celebrate our differences, if someone says, you look nice or that's a nice dress, you shouldn't have to be afraid to make those comments. And what's happening is this movement is making men fearful, whether they should be or not. It's making men fearful of how they interact with women. I walked into a courthouse and a dear friend of mine for 20 plus years, I was wearing a blue

dress and he said to me, that's a beautiful dress. And he paused and he said, can I say that? I mean, we shouldn't live in a society where we have to worry about every word that comes out of our mouth. And that's, that's the issue about Me Too going too far. Me Too is not only about bringing someone to justice. Me Too is not only about criminal cases. Me Too is not about firing people. Me Too has bled its way into interactions between men and women, whether it's at work, whether it's out on a date. And those are completely different conversations than talking about criminal or civil cases in courtrooms. Jane, let's hear you come back.

on that. So if there is a boss who has a preference for hiring men over women, qualified men over qualified women, there's a name for that, and it's called job discrimination, and it's illegal. If there are men who are afraid to have a holiday party because they don't understand the difference between a holiday party and sexual assault, they think you can't have one without the other, I don't really need to party with those men. And if there's a man who's afraid to compliment me on my blue dress because he's afraid of the Me Too movement, I don't need that compliment on my blue dress. What women want and need is to be safe from violence and to have equal opportunities in our workplace. Hi, Rudyard Griffiths here, your host and moderator. I have a favor to ask you,

please consider becoming a monk member. Membership is free and you get access to a series of great benefits, including a 10-plus year library of some of our best debates, dialogues, podcasts. You also get a free monthly newsletter featuring the debates that we're watching around the world. And you get a specially curated Friday weekly monk members only podcast that focuses on the big international events and trends shaping our world. All of that, again, free at www.w.munkdebates.com. I hope you'll consider joining and becoming part of our community. Now, back to our Donna, as we move towards the end of this debate, I think it's important to talk about women and how the Me Too movement has impacted them. You've been on the public record as saying that the Me Too movement has created a renewed sense of victimhood amongst women and girls. And I think the audience would like to hear why you feel that way. Give us your analysis. Sure. I feel like women want to be equal in every aspect of life and they should want to be equal.

But in order to achieve true equality, women have to be willing to take on levels of risk. And historically, men have taken on risk, and women have been able to sort of play both sides from the middle. And I don't like the notion that only men can be bad and only women are victims. Women can be manipulative. Men can be manipulative. Women can be sexually deviant. Men can be sexually deviant. Women can be unkind. Men can be unkind. What I believe Me Too has done, it has created this idea that only men can be bad and only women are victims. And I think what that does is that removes women's ability to gain true equality. You know, someone making an advancement or asking someone out on a date is completely different than sexual assault or sexual violence of any kind of. or even sexual harassment. And I feel like what we've done is we have sort of made all of these issues that really lie on a very vast spectrum. We've equalized them in many ways. And I think in many ways, men don't understand what's okay and what's not okay. Women have not had that conversation

with them. And I think if women were willing to stand up for themselves and say, you know what, I don't want to go out with you or that's not okay and be able to move on, without creating this culture that allows women to say, oh, this happened to me again, or, oh, I was treated like this again. I think at some point, women need to say, we are equal, we are going to treat situations as equal, and that's how women gain the power. Jane, I'm sure you've got some thoughts on them. So Donna talks about taking equal risk. What women are trying to get away from is the unequal risk and the unequal harm that is imposed on women and other. vulnerable populations, LGBTQ communities, communities living in poverty, the unequal risk that is imposed

on us by sexual violence. We don't believe that only men can be bad and that only women can be victims. What we do believe is that sexual assault disproportionately targets women and is overwhelmingly committed by men. Those are just the facts. And this unequal distribution of violence against one part of the population stands between us and full equality. The vast majority of women have no interest in being portrayed as victims. Drew Dixon, one of the survivors who speaks out in the brilliant new documentary on the record, talks about this. She said, you know, when I spoke out, I had just graduated business school.

I was starting a new business. I was excited about where my life was going. And that has all been derailed now that I decided to become part of this major high-profile me too story. She said, but I had a choice. When another woman spoke out, I could choose. I either let her twist in the wind alone or I stand by her and I say me too. And that's the choice that I made. The vast majority of victims that I speak to, for them, there is nothing to be gained in coming forward with these stories. They speak up because they are looking to protect other women from harm and it is an act of courage. Thank you, Jane. Let's go to closing statements. This has been a

rich and nuanced and substantive conversation. And thank you both for your insights and the expertise that you've shared with us. So Donna, we're going to do this in the reverse order of the opening, just to be fair to everyone. So if we could have your summing up of our last period of time together here, what are the key messages that you want to take out of this conversation? What do you think needs to be highlighted as we think about the future of the Me Too movement and its impact on all the issues that you care about? I think the ideals behind hashtag Me Too received a big blow this year in 2020 when Tara Reid, former Stafford of Joe Biden, accused him of sexual assaults from an incident stemming from previous decades, which he has denied. Many Me Too supporters and media

outlets claimed the accusation lacked detail, specificity, witnesses, and reliability. Also, potentially charged with many motivations, possibly political. This is where Me Too falls apart. You can't apply it to the HWs, Harvey Weinstein's, Donald Trump's, Matt Lowers, Brett Kavanaugh's, and Bill Cosbys of the world, and then say, oh, but wait, I must now give due process and fairness to the guy who's running for president because he may be my best political hope. It's hypocritical, and it minimizes the mission. of Ms. Burke's original Me Too plans.

Me Too has become a way for people to mold their ideologies to the social media cause of the day. I believe that it minimizes its original intent. I believe it has gone too far. Thank you, Donna. Well, Jane, we're going to give you the last word in this debate. Please give us your closing statement. So the allegations against Joe Biden don't show that the Me Too movement has gone too far. are. They show that we're coming close to a point where allegations can be assessed on their merits

rather than on assumptions. Unlike other high-profile Me Too stories, Tara Reid's allegations were published before there was a thorough investigation to back them up, and that was not a favor to her because as details have been published little by little about the story, there are some things that support her allegations and others that don't. It doesn't mean she's lying, but it has given people pause. I think if the Biden allegations were as solid as some of the other high-profile men accused in the Me Too movement, he wouldn't be the nominee right now. And the fact that he is shows that people are not saying every accusation is taken at face value. They're not assuming judgment and they're not assuming guilt. And isn't that, after all, what we want? What the Me Too movement really wants

is a world where sexual violence doesn't happen at all. A world where young men grow up seeing women and girls as equals and understanding that sex is only sexy when there is true and meaningful consent. And I don't know if we'll see that world in my lifetime, but a world where we stand with survivors and hold predators accountable in the justice system is a step towards that goal. So think about a justice system where every complaint is taken seriously and investigated. Think about investigators who are expertly trained and given the resources to find out all the facts. Think about defendants being given genuine due process where an accusation gets judged by the facts and not by who has the power to buy his way out of trouble as Harvey Weinstein did

for so many years or where racial bias tilts the playing field. But rather, decisions about guilt are based on evidence and information and understanding of the actual dynamics of sexual assault. That's the justice system we're working for. And that's what everyone should want. But that justice system is only a step towards our real goal, a world without sexual violence. And think about what that world would be like. Think about the pain prevented, the lives that would flourish, the girls and the boys, all young people, being able to grow up in full and confident possession of their sexuality and in respect for others. And that's the world that we're working for. And in building that world, the Me Too movement has only just begun.

Thank you, Jane. Jane, Donna, this is a difficult, contentious issue. And you've both brought hard-won insight, wisdom to our conversation today. And you've put yourself, most importantly, into service of our audience, helping them understand and grapple with the Me Too phenomenon. So on behalf of a Monk Debate podcast listeners, thank you both very much for being part of this conversation. Thank you. Thank you so much for including us.

Well, that wraps up today's debate. I want to thank our participants, Jane Manning and Donna Retuno, we're coming on and having a challenging conversation about an important and difficult subject. They certainly gave me a lot to think about. While the Monk Debates podcast is that special place for civil and substantive debate on the big issues of the day, to listen to more debates on everything from climate change, to religion, to geopolitics, to the future of human progress, visit our website. monk debates.com. You can also find show notes on today's debate. Thank you for helping us bring back

the art of public debate one conversation at a time. I'm your host, Rudyard Griffiths. The Monk Debates are produced by Antica Productions and supported by the Monk Foundation. Rudyard Griffiths and Ricky Gurwitz are the producers. Abbey Rojasia is the associate producer. The Monk Debates podcast is mixed by Reza Daya and the president of Antica Productions is Stuart Cox. Be sure to download and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. And if you like us, feel free to give us a five-star rating. Thank you again for listening.