The War in Vietnam by Ken Burns and Lynn Novice

Television Shows, War

 

Introduction

 

I have been watching a television series I will never forget. I don’t want to forget it either. I wish everyone would watch it. It really is deeply compelling. I don’t know if television gets much better than this.

The series is called The Vietnam War (2017) and it was produced by Ken Burns and Lynn Novick for PBS. The series gets all the credit. I just want to add my personal comments to those in the series from time to time.

I grew up during the time of the War in Vietnam. It is thus very personal for me. I started off as many others did at the time–I believed what I was told by the authorities. I believed it made sense for the Americans to be fighting a war on the far side of the world in order to keep the Communists at bay. I believed the propaganda I had been fed.

When I was in Grade 12 I made entered a public speaking contest in order to make money. I had a chance to win $40. That was a lot of money at that time. I selected as a topic the War in Vietnam and I urged the Americans to do their best to kill those Communists. I am not proud of the position I took. My only excuse is the ignorance of youth and the effectiveness of American propaganda.

Before I had completed the first year of University I had changed my views completely. I joined anti-war marches and could be heard chanting: “Yey, hey, LBJ How many kids did you kill today?”

Even though I had become an opponent of the war, I did not know much about it. What little I had learned convinced me that it was a horrible mistake. After watching the television series I have learned a lot more. Not all I have learned has reinforced what I once thought.  In part this was because the producers of the film wisely chose to give the point of view of all sides. They interviewed not just Americans, but also Vietnamese from the south and the north. As the producers have said, “There is no singled truth in war.”

I will deliver a series of reports from my viewing of the series, but I urge everyone to watch the series for themselves. It really is worth the trip.

Elites against Elites

Philosophy/Ideas, Social democracy,

 

The elites have many stunning “achievements” to their credit. One that really amazes me is the extent to which they have convinced ordinary people—workers, laborors, government workers and the like—that the neo-liberals represent them against the elites. They constantly criticize the elites, especially the elites in the media, academia, and “the east.”

One of the neo-liberal politicians in the U.S. dwho was most adept at this approach was Newt Gingrich. Just like he could persuade socially conservative voters that too him marriage was a sacred institution on which all of society was based, even though Newt was married 3 times and divorced twice, under morally dubious circumstances.

Gingrich clearly had the abilty to say, with a straight face that black was white and white was black. This was dialectics that the most fervid Marxist would be impressed with.

As a result he could say—convincingly say—that he was a staunch of opponent of those elites from down east. After declaring victory in the South Carolina primary in 2012, he announced that he was separate and apart from the “elites in Washington and New York.” “Those elites,” he declared, have no understanding, no care, no concern, no reliabilituy” and are trying to “force us to quit being American.” What an astonishing statement for him to make.

Such statements are not really that unusual. Especially in the United States such derogatory remarks are common. Richard Nixon often painted himself as an opponent of that same “Eastern establishment” even though he had been a New York lawyer. At least he always had a resentful chip on his shoulder. So did his Vice President, Spiro Agnew who attacked the media elites as the “nattering nabobs of negativity.”

Of course the most astonishing case was Donald Trump. He said he would drain the swamp of Wall Street barons on behalf of working people. After getting elected he decided instead to pick cabinet minsters and advisors from those Wall Streeters. He picked the wealthiest cabinet in the history of the U.S. Is that draining the swamp?

This has also often happened in Canada. We are hardly immune to political hypocricy. Stephen Harper in Canada made similar remarks about “Professor” Michael Ignatieff. Similar attacks were made by the Conservatives against the former Liberal leader, another evil high brow academic, Stephan Dion. After all these people might read books!

Yet it takes a lot of overly ripe gaul for someone like Newt Gingrich to play the role of an anti-elitist. After all he served 10 terms in Congress while rising to its highest position, Speaker of the House where he was 2 heart beats away from the presidency. He was not just near the top of eastern power. He was there. The elite of the elites!

As if that was not enough he receieved a $4.5 million dollar advance for a proposed book which he was compelled to refuse after a political storm that resulted in an ethical investigation of the transaction. Added to that, he wrote numerous books for which he was very well paid. His income always exceeded 1 million each year mainly from books and speaking engagements. If only the common man could do so well in America!

Moreover, Gingrich earned his fortune by giving “strategic advice” to businesses who wanted to learn how to influence government to work in their favor. In that capacity he earned $1.6 million from Freddie Mac, one of of the quasi-governmental companies that was an important force in the financial melt-down of 2008. Of course, Gingrich did not suffer from that financial collapse. The elites don’t suffer. Suffering is for the peasants.

According to federal tax data in the US the average household income of the top one per cent in 2008 was $1.2 million. So Gingrich would fit in. Romeny of course would be in the upper echelons of that. In either case these two political leaders are a very long way indeed from the common man that they claim to represent against those awful elites.

Even though he characterizes himself as an outsider attacking those arrogant elites he also commony brags about how he helped Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton create jobs. How can he be outside the elites and do all that with such elites? The answer of course, is that he can’t. He is the elite! He is the quintessential elite. He has been at the heart of the eastern elite for decades. He is no common man. That is absurd.

Of course his main opponent is not outside those elites either. Mitt Romney’s tax returns, that he divulged only after enornous pressure, showed that he earned $20 million the previous year. His net worth was estimated at $250 million. How rich or how powerful does one have to be to be part of the elite? As the Los Angeles Times said, “Now, a multimillionaire private equity manager whose tax rate is about 15 per cent will compete with a mult-millionaire Washington politician who relishes his access to power. And the two will, amusingly, compete to convince voters that each is an authentic outsider with a common touch.”

If these are the best elite fighters the common people of America can muster they are in for massive oblivion. Deserved obliteration. Or perhaps even worse, Donald Trump.

 

My Kinda Rich Guy

Philosophy/Ideas

 

I like Warren Buffet even though I am jealous of him. It is hard to like someone you are jealous of, but I do. I wish I could be like him, rich, smart, and kind.

Buffet is famous for being rich. In American that makes you a star. But Buffett is more than a rich man. He is a thinking man. Those don’t always go together. Take a look at the current President of the United States and his sons (Trumps). Wealth and brains don’t always go together. In fact, more often than not they are mortal enemies as strange as that might sound.

I remember when Buffet pointed out how absurd it was that at Berkshire Hathaway, his company where he is President, his secretary pays tax at a higher rate than he does. And he is one of the richest men in America. In fact, he said, in his office he pays a lower over all tax rate than everyone else in his office. That is crazy. And Buffet unlike most rich men, knows that and is not afraid to say so. Most rich men think they are wholeheartedly entitled to their privileges and if any politician touches those privileges  he or she  had better look out. There is no better recent example than our Minister of Finance in Canada who has attracted astonishing vitriol by his suggestions that he would do that in Canada.

People who have privileges invariably see their privileges as inherently right and rational. They see any challenges to those privileges as completely irrational if not insane. It is very difficult to see the sense of anything that tends to undermine one’s  own  sense of privilege and dominance. Yet Buffet is able to do that.

I heard him say on television that the current theory of trickle down economics that is so beloved by rich Americans in particular, but actually rich people everywhere, actually makes no sense. According to this theory, the way to help poor people is to give more money to rich people! Then the rich people will spend that extra money in ways that benefit the poor people by creating jobs. The nonsense of such a position is difficult to ignore. Only people arguing in favor of a firmly held belief are able to do so. Buffet is able to see it. As he said on CBS’s Sunday Morning, “Trickle down is not working well. Wealth has gushed up.” Or as some pundit said, “The only thing that trickles down is piss.”

Anyone who looks at the facts of  how wealth has exponentially exploded in the hands of rich people while poor or ordinary people have seen their incomes flatten during the reign of trickle down economics in the US since its christening by St. Ronald Reagan in the 1980s will see that. People like Donald Trump will not see that because they are blind to what is against their interests. I love a rich man like Buffet who can see that. He is my kinda rich man.

Murder on the Orient Express: Why do we love Detective Stories?

Movies

I have always loved detective stories. I have liked every detective. So I am incapable of being critical about them. Though I hate it when they are not honest. By that I mean I hate if the author does not provide all the facts that allow us to figure it out. The facts have to be there so if we were as smart as the detective—which we never are—we could have figured it out to. Anything less than this is cheating. It is as bad as cheating at cards or exams or life. Sadly, this movie cheats. The detective Hercule Poirot is given facts that are withheld from us. How can we possibly compete? We can’t of course, the playing field, like the railway track on which the train is stuck, is not level.

This movie is based on a 1934 Agatha Christie novel in which her legendary detective Hercule Poirot is trapped  on a famous train stranded in the mountains by an avalanche with 13 other people. One of them gets murdered and all of the other 12, are suspects. The stage is set for a mystery to be solved. Just like Jesus at the Last Supper wanted to figure out who betrayed him.

Why then do we love detective novels so much? Not everyone does, but enough do. Apparently Christie sold 2 billion copies of her books putting her nearly on par with God. That is pretty good company. The detective encounters a scene of devastating chaos with a blizzard of clues. There is mayhem, murder, and inexplicable violence. It is chaos in other words. The murderer could be any one of the 12 disciples.

It is the detective’s job to make sense out of the chaos. He must bring order out of the disorder. He must make the world right again. The detective has to be the one to do it because he is the only one capable of doing it. As the detective says, when asked who he is, “My name is Hercule Poirot and I am probably the greatest detective in the world.” The detective is clever, diligent and implacable. He can never be turned from his purpose. The detective must do it “because God is always busy.” The detective finds the chaos that we all encounter. He is not afraid to enter into it even though it is dangerous.

Poirot is the central character in the movie. It all revolves around him. He is not afraid. He demands order. He sets out in search of the truth because we must be ‘better than murderers’. Poirot  sets out impeccably attired and adorned with the most improbable and flamboyant of moustaches, and demi-goatee beneath his lower lip, both waxed to perfection of course. When he is served 2 eggs they must be equal. Exactly equal. There can be no imbalance. When Poirot steps into shit on the street of Jerusalem he abhors the imbalance of having it on one shoe  only. So he steps into it again this time with the other foot, to balance the shit. He will not tolerate the imbalance. If he sees someone with a tie askew he is upset, so he points it out. Poirot demands the world be set to right.

In the film the body is seen from the classic God’s eye view—above on high. That technique, I think was invented by that master of cinema Alfred Hitchcock and Kenneth Branagh who directs the film and plays  the leading role  pays homage to the master.

Into the darkness the detective brings only one tool—his powerful mind. He brings the power of reason and in that way shows that the world is still subject to reason. He brings order out of disorder. The detective shows that no matter how chaotic the world appears, ultimately in the end it all makes sense. The detective brings reason and observation and skill to the task at hand and in that way draws out justice from the injustice and chaos.

Hercules sets out to find the “fracture in the soul” where evil lurks. Like Leonard Cohen who says there is a crack in everything, that’s how the light gets in. In the end the detective discovers the meaning in the world. Until then we are like dogs in a library. The detective brings meaning back to the world and for that we are eternally grateful. I think that is why we love detective stories—whether in films or novels. We are very uncomfortable with the absence of meaning and we love to see it restored to the world.

The final revealing of the truth by God’s immortal agent is staged in a setting in the train tunnel with the 12 suspects all arrayed on a long table exactly like the 12 disciples in Leonardo da Vinci’s immortal painting of the Last Supper. The resemblance is no coincidence. Poirot is Jesus and like Jesus he wants to find the one who betrayed him. Despite the strange staging, Poirot says as if he means it, “You will have to answer to two people: Your god, and Hercule Poirot.”

In the end when the holy truth is revealed and justice should be restored at last, in this case, Poirot finds he cannot accept that truth. Instead he says, for reasons I cannot reveal as it would spoil the movie, he “will accept the imbalance.” Even though that goes against every grain in his body. Sometimes murderers go free and there is no apparent justice. But perhaps that lack of perfection is in some cases, like this one, good. Perfection, as we know, can be the enemy of the good.

Children that Don’t Come Back        

Fat Opinions, Indigenous Issues

 

The stories of Canada’s colonial history keep popping up and invariably it seems, they reveal horrendous treatment of Indigenous People in Canada by the dominant society. The latest that I heard about was the story of the Atikamekw First Nation in remote northern Quebec near Wemotaci. The story was shown on CBC National News.

In the 1970s children who needed medical attention in that First Nations Community had to be taken off reserve to southern hospitals a 100 km. away or more. Unfortunately a number of these children were taken away “never to return again.”

Alice Petugauy was a mother of 15 children. She said she was able to take care of all of her children except one—a daughter Diane. Diane had pneumonia and had to get health care that was not available in their community. She was taken away to the hospital but did not return. When her mother inquired of the authorities what happened to her daughter she was told, “Don’t worry about it. You have other children.”

Alice Petugauy was not satisfied with this response and made further inquiries. It took her a long time to get more information. Eventually, years later, she learned that according to provincial records Diane  had been “abandoned.” Of course this was not true. Alice learned that she had signed a document that gave up custody of her child. At the time she signed, the document had been translated into her language by a local priest, because she could not read French. She thought she was consenting to health treatment for her daughter. She was actually saying good-bye to her daughter.

A local social worker, Diane Beliveau, said that it was common in the Atikamekw community for children to be apprehended by Child Protection Services without good reason. Little or not evidence was needed to justify the apprehension. Authorities were predisposed to apprehend.

Many of these children never returned but surprisingly Diane did. She returned as an adult many years later and was reunited with her family including her twin brother. However, by then she could not speak the Atikamekw language and had lost the culture completely. As she said, “Something is missing in me. Something I have lost and will never be able to get back.”

I know that some Canadians are getting tired of hearing apologies from their Prime Minister. They want the Prime Minister to be more like George W. Bush who said, “I am not an apologizing kind of guy.” However, the actions of provincial authorities and all who acquiesced in such actions are despicable. The cultural leaders of the colonizing people—us white guys—have a lot to answer for. Will one more apology be needed? What is much more likely is that many more apologies will be needed.

I know that many white guys feel no personal responsibility. They did not do it. yet us ‘white guys’ are the people who have benefited from this system of white suppression of indigenous people.  We are privileged because of that system. At the very least we should make it clear that we object to that system and we are sorry that others who were not so fortunate as we were suffered as a result of that system.

 

 

 

 

 

August 25, 2017 London England to Steinbach Manitoba: It was worth the trip

2017 European River Cruise, Philosophy/Ideas, Travel,

            We all have our reasons for wanting to go home. I am rarely ready to go home. I love to travel,but eventually I want to go home, but it takes some time. Once I am ready—once I am on the way—then I wish I was home at the touch of a button. This is particularly true of air travel which has become increasingly brutal. It used to be much more enjoyable. Those days are long gone Sally.

The most interesting part of the trip home was the Heathrow airport in London. That sounds crazy. It is crazy. What made it interesting was Shoheha. I hope I spelled her name right. She was a crazy Iranian woman we met in the airport. Chris and I were sitting in the airport waiting for our flight to begin. This is not usually the most pleasant task, but a book always makes it bearable. Shoheha was sitting next to us. She had a broken arm and was carrying a large carryon bag with the good arm. She asked me where I had purchased my cup of coffee and after I pointed out the kiosk nearby, she ambled off carrying her massive bag. Chris, being much smarter (and better) than me, told me to go and help her buy coffee. It would be impossible for her to carry the bag and coffee with one good arm. Dutifully, I got up to help. I offered to carry her bag while she bought coffee. Chris said a real gentleman would have bought her coffee. Right again. When I carried her bag I was astonished at the weight. It was HERAVY! Shoheha explained that she had been visiting her family in Iran and was going back home to Ottawa. Her mother—like mothers everywhere—insisted on filling her bag with Iranian culinary treats that you can’t get anywhere except from moms. And like all moms, she brooked no objections from her daughter. It did not matter how heavy the load or inconvenient the huge bag, Shoheha had no choice but to take it back home to her family who would no doubt be overjoyed at the treat bag. Easy for them to say.

We were stuck in Heathrow for an extra hour and half, while what the airline called a simple electronic problem that would be fixed soon” was dealt with. Assurances that the delay would be brief vaporized into the ether like such assurances usually do. Thankfully, we have a pleasant conversation with our new friend from Iran.

Naturally we missed our connecting flight in Toronto and managed to text our friend Garry who was picking us up, that we would be delayed while we waited for the next flight. We were very happy there was a next flight that day. A couple of hours late was no biggie. Our friend disconcertingly advised us he would wait for us in the bar. He might be intoxicated, but he would be there he assured us.

Annoyingly the flight to Winnipeg from Toronto varied between stifling hot and bone-chilling cold. No one would call it a pleasant flight.

We did arrive in time completely exhausted ready for home where, to quote Simon and Garfunkel,  all our words would come back to us like emptiness in harmony. But we were filled with joy. It is always great to travel; it is always great to come home.

I love to travel. I think I inherited this from my mother and father. They loved to travel. I am like that and my children are like that. Chris got infected with it the first trip we ever made with my parents to Grand Forks North Dakota .

I often try to figure out why we love to travel. What is so special about it? I think travel is learning. We learn about new places and new people that we would not encounter back home.

Mark Kingwell that great philosopher from Toronto (yes we have them there) got it right. He said travel was like a drug, not just because it is addictive, but also because it alters our consciousness. It affects the brain. It can challenge our routine way of thinking and, as a result, it can change us. One is not the same person after a trip as before.

Alfred Lord Tennyson on the other hand got it backwards I think when he said, “I am a part of everything I meet.” I rather think that everything I meet is now a part of me. I carry a small part of Luzerne Switzerland, Kőln Germany, Strasbourg France, Amsterdam, Paris and London with me. And I will carry them with me forever. I think that makes me a better person. I know others will say, not good enough. They are right. Never good enough.

The essential lesson is to heed the wise words of that children’s book many of read when we first learned to read: “Stop, look, and listen.” That is what it is all about. If we do that, we will enjoy the travel for we will experience something we cannot experience back home. It is not there no matter how much we love our homes. As Robertson Davies said, “People are very very hungry for some kind of contact with a greater world than the one they can immediately perceive.” This is true in more than one sense.

We do not travel to see new things, or new places, or even new people. Henry Miller was correct when he said, “One’s destination is never a place, but a new way of seeing.” We want to see things, places, and people differently than we did before. We want to change. We want to become better.

Steinbach has this crazy motto: ‘It’s worth the trip.’ Every place is worth the trip. If we see nothing worth seeing that does not mean that we went to the wrong places. It means we were not worth the trip. We did not bring our minds to the trip and then the trip is worthless. Then it is not worth the trip, but we have no one to blame but ourselves. Henry David Thoreau that great American thinker said, “It is not what you look at that matters, but what you see.”

Thoreau’s friend, Ralph Waldo Emerson, also a great thinker, said, “If we meet no gods, it is because we harbor none. If there is grandeur in you, you will find grandeur in porters and sweeps. He only is rightly immortal, to whom all things are immortal.”

To do that we have to be open to new experiences. Sometimes that is difficult. But we will be rewarded if we do. One of my favorite philosophers, Albert Camus, who haunted one of the cafés we passed by on trip in Paris, understood this well. He said, “All of a man’s life consists of the search for those few special images in the presence of which his soul first opened.” We want to open up our souls. That’s why we travel.

And once our souls are opened then we can truly see. Then we are able to appreciate what we have back home. It is special too. It also is a place of wonder. If we have learned something on the trip then we can bring that new knowledge to our old home. As T.S. Eliot wisely said,

 

We shall not cease from exploration

And the end of all our exploring

Will be to arrive where we started

And know the place for the first time

 

Then we are able to see the extraordinary in the ordinary, which to my view is what great art is all about. Finding the miraculous in the common. I hope I found this on this trip. I think I did. It was truly worth the trip. I can hardly wait for the next trip.

 

August 24, 2017 London: A walk along the Thames

2017 European River Cruise, ,

A Panorama of Thames by Tower Bridge

It was our last real day in London. It was the last real day of our holidays. The sun was peaking through clouds in some places. You would still not call it a sunny day, but it was better than yesterday.

Our guidebook said that cruising down the Thames was one of the most interesting ways to experience London. We decided to accept that advice. We also got advice from our Monogram guide on how to do exactly that. He suggested we should take a boat that we could get onto just outside our hotel. We were one block away from the river, so we took that advice as well. As a result we hopped on to the Thames Clipper

The Thames River has been the main artery for London since about the time the Romans invaded. The river is jam packed with historical sites and the wonderful reconstruction of the Globe Theatre. Added to that there are numerous famous bridges, each with its own stories.

The most popular and best served area for boats is between Westminster Bridge and Tower Bridge. That is exactly where we sailed. On the way we tried to sign up for a ride on the London Eye but it was all booked up. That was a shame for we heard the view from there was wonderful. Next time.

We hopped on the boat watched the river, building along the bank, and most important, the people. Until World War II the north side of the river was the side of wealth and the south side belonged to the lower classes. After the war, the festival of Britain in 1951 began the resurgence of the south bank, which now has some of the most interesting modern buildings.

The south side had some fine looking pubs, County Hall, Tate Modern, the Globe theatre, and a stunning new City Hall. The north side has the Parliament Buildings, The Ministry of Defence, Somerset House, Temple and Inns of Court, Fishmongers Hall, Custom House and the world famous Tower of London near the Tower Bridge.

The Thames River looked murky, but it is clean. 100 species of fish have returned to the river since it was cleaned up. In fact, salmon have returned to the Thames and they are picky fish that only come to clean water. That is a remarkable cleanup considering how polluted the river was before. A whale even came up the river and was beached. The hearts of many children were broken when that happened. Even dolphins have even been spotted in the river.

We disembarked the Clipper near the Tower of London. It is not really a tower at all. The Tower of London was deeply feared for most of its 900-year history. William the Conqueror built it. People who committed treason or threatened the crown were held and often tortured in its dank dungeons. A few lived in luxury in the Tower, but most were abject prisoners. The crown jewels are housed in the Jewel House of the Tower of London. The largest diamond there is 530.2 carats (106 g.). Nearby was a sign that extolled the days when Kings and queens kept lions at that spot. The royal beasts roared at people entering the tower. We did not spot any such beasts.

We also took a number of photos of the Tower Bridge. This bridge was built in 1894. It is a flamboyant bridge with a roadway that can be raised. When the bridge is raised it is 135 ft. (40 m.) high. It has pinnacled towers with a linking catwalk. It is a sensational bridge. Apparently the American who bought the London Bridge and moved it to Arizona, thought he was buying this much more spectacular Tower Bridge.

After a brief visit to this area we found a restaurant/bar for dinner. The Waiter mistook us for Americans and we strongly rebuked him for his mistake. We enjoyed a gourmet burger because it was Burger Day. I enjoyed a burger with a Northcote beer.

After that we took a leisurely walk along the north shore of the Thames. We crossed the Millennium Bridge and caught the boat back to near our hotel.

For supper we returned to the Red Lion because we heard it was Churchill’s favorite. Not really. We were getting lazy. Tired and ready for the end. I again had fish n’ chips sans crushed peas. Chris had steak and Stilton pie. A double Jameson was enjoyed as well. The meal was completed by banoffi pie.

So ended a fine short stay in London.

Man bad; Woman Good

Philosophy/Ideas,

 

A friend of mine once told me that every newly married man should learn one very important principle. This principle is so important that once learned a married man will be able to lead a fairly tranquil life. Without that principle every married man is bound for serious grief, he suggested. That principle is this: Man bad; woman good. Once he learns that principle every married man will realize that in disputes with his spouse that principle will quickly direct the married man to understanding what needs to be done to bring tranquility into his life. After that life is simple. Such a principle, my friend claimed, had saved his marriage. It helped him learn that it was important to compromise with his female spouse. Everyone needs to learn that.

Of course that principle  was offered in a spirit of jocularity. In fact, it was obviously a sexist remark.  He did not really mean it. At least not entirely. Lately however I have been thinking that this statement is absolutely true. Men are bad; women are good (at least in comparison to men).

The year 2017 has so far been an astounding year of revelations of sexual assault and sexual harassment one after the other. Nearly every day another celebrity is revealed as a cad or a predator. Are all men cads, or worse?

Many of us have got distracted by discussions about whether Al Franken, one of the men who allegedly has seriously mistreated women and perhaps even assaulted them, should resign. We spend time arguing whether or not Roy Moore should be rejected by the Republican Party in Alabama as a suitable candidate for the U.S. Senate because of allegations of impropriety with very young girls. We even debate whether or not the President of the United States ought to resign as a result of admissions of sexual assault that he made , corroborated, later by numerous women. All of these are important issues. However there is an even more fundamental issue that is rarely discussed.

What is becoming clear—if it was ever opaque—is that we live in a society suffused with male dominance and privilege. It is so prevalent that it has become entirely invisible. It is everywhere. As more and more men are revealed to be harassers if not predators, it is clear that men have not understood this. It is difficult to process that one’s privileged position is not earned. It seems natural. Everyone who is in a position of dominance tends to see any challenges to that dominance as irrational, or worse. Men are exactly like that.

Dominance seems so natural to men that immediately upon reflection the man who is “outed” realizes he has been morally blind. I am not here to say that I am entirely blameless. I wonder if there are any blameless men. That power imbalance is so pervasive that it has been difficult for any man to escape taint. All men seem infected. That is a humbling thought.

Men have so often failed to understand that the woman in front of them is a person. A real live woman. Not an object for jokes in poor taste. Not an object that can be treated disrespectfully. Not an object for unwanted advances. For decades—no forever—men have dominated women and they have not been able to see the sense of anyone who challenged that power. Challenges did not make sense. It is time for men to see what they have done. They have created a society that is deeply unfriendly to women.

Until the culture of dominance is exposed for what it is, this power imbalance will never be successfully challenged. How can we change? How can men learn that they have been bad? What can be done about it? This is the deep underlying issue that we should be talking about. Until we do things won’t change.

It is not entirely true that man is bad and woman is good, but there has been enough male misconduct that has been starkly revealed that men should start to presume that they are bad until proven innocent. Men have a lot to atone for. But first men must learn. Then—perhaps—they will be able to see. Only then can they deny that men are bad.