The #MeToo Movement started a revolution, the dominos (not the Pizza) came tumbling down and heads rolled.
Famous Men, once worshiped like Gods were stripped of their power and brought to justice.
Wonderful things happened, we saw Change, we saw people owning up to their shortcomings, we saw our Heroes fall and crumble; but then something changed.
Suddenly the movement that hoped to inspire change, also became a weapon of mass-destruction for anybody that dared to disagree.
Trial by Public Opinion became the popular forum and a behemoth of Guilty until proven Innocent charges began to appear.
Anybody that dared to use logic was labeled a denier, a hypocrite, a coward.
Since when did an Open-Forum that’s intrinsic purpose was to open up about Sexual Abuse become a forum was hunting people that one simply didn’t agree with?
I will provide a disclaimer at this point; if you’re wondering I too am a supporter of the #MeToo movement, I’m a man, and No I absolutely do not condone misconduct or violence of ANY KIND against ANY individual identifying with whatever gender they do so wish to do.
Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Bill Cosby, are just some of the few who have fallen from grace and have been exposed by the courage of the victims and an astounding support of heroic Journalism.
Whilst the movement has certainly opened a medium for individuals to speak out against inappropriate behaviour, it has also given rise to a rather dangerous flow of traffic.
Any conversation or movement towards change cannot be a One-Way Street. It needs a forum for an open argument.
So why was Matt Damon punished so brutally, simply because he had the courage to voice his opinion on the matter and dared to use logic?
Let’s go ahead and take a look at exactly what it was that Matt Damon said:
To put things into perspective, a similar argument was made by Tom Hanks (Often, if not always, associated with the term ‘The Nicest Man in Hollywood’)
Now, if you’ll allow me, let’s take a moment to first acknowledge that neither one of the above individuals ever discussed or undermined the psychological impact of the traumatic events the victims had had to endure.
The discussion was fairly rational, in a court of Law — there’s different degree to a crime. The reason for having established different degrees of punishment for said crime are based on the severity of the event and the damage it may have caused the victim; it’s also to establish a fair and legal method through which the accused are brought to justice and rehabilitated.
In Europe, the Maximum sentence for any crime is Twenty Years; which is the sentence that the culprit Anders Behring Breivik behind the terrible 2011 Norway Attack claiming 77 Lives at a Workers’ Youth Summer Camp (Mostly Children) received for his heinous crime against humanity.
But since movements, reach out to Public Opinion rather than a Court of Law for justice; it’s often very simple to create a cult-like formation from the followers — discarding all sense of logic and evidential analysis to form an opinion.
Here we reference The curious case of Mr. Morgan Freeman.
And for perspective, let me go ahead and allow you to review the clips below:
Does it seem in any way hypocritical to go ahead and accuse Mr. Morgan Freeman of Sexually Inappropriate behaviour when one of the ‘alleged’ victims cited within the article, Tyra Martin, denies the claims and has come forwarded in support of Mr. Freeman?
Or does it seem irrational to simply take a comment Mr. Freeman is making ,completely out of perspective, and use that as a primary defence for accusing a man for sexually inappropriate behaviour?
Go ahead, watch the CNN clip again of Mr. Morgan Freeman allegedly sexually harassing the CNN reporter whilst she was pregnant.
It seems rather plausible that Mr. Freeman was simply responding to a story Mr. Michael Caine was telling about how he once mistakenly congratulated a woman on being pregnant when she wasn’t.
Or is it more plausible that Mr. Morgan Freeman was be so blunt as to say ‘Boy, do I wish I was there..’ when the reporter remarks that she too is pregnant.
In what way, shape, or form, would that comment event seem logical?
Retracing back to Matt Damon, his argument was simply that there is a difference between Rape and Unwanted Touching, which is why there are different spectrums of Law established to provide justice to the victims and punish the accused.
If the #MeToo supporters wish to put both in the same spectrum than in retrospect the punishment for attempted Murder and First-Degree Murder would be exactly the same.
The same logic applied to the punishment for Regular Cocaine vs. Crack Cocaine; the key difference being one has Soda Powder and one doesn’t and that one’s quite expensive compared to the other.
Movements are great, and they do wonderful things — they open the world to change and knowledge. It appropriated behaviour that has been ignored in the past. It makes people more aware.
But it can also turn into a seemingly blistering story of ‘The Boy who cried Wolf’, it undermines serious cases of misconduct and pits them against cases of immaturity and a cult-like destructive force towards anybody that fails to agree with the methodology of the movement.