+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

Men, becoming Harvey Weinstein is not your destiny

No, men are not biologically programmed to terrorize women any more than women are programmed to invent accusations. Learned traits, in fact, can be unlearned.

Harvey Weinstein with his ex-wife, Georgina Chapman. On October 10, 2017, Chapman announced she was leaving Weinstein after numerous reports by actresses of alleged sexual harassment and sexual assault.

Harvey Weinstein with his ex-wife, Georgina Chapman. On October 10, 2017, Chapman announced she was leaving Weinstein after numerous reports by actresses of alleged sexual harassment and sexual assault. (Martyna Borkowski/Rubenstein CC BY-NC 2.0)

Revelations about Hollywood director Harvey Weinstein and others before him have sparked a curious backlash against the demand to treat women respectably in the workplace. It’s curious because the new norms haven’t even kicked in yet, as Weinstein proves. One of the prominent backlash arguments is that men now fear all professional interactions with women, lest they be arbitrarily accused of sexual misdemeanors.

I’m writing to spread the good news: men are not biologically programmed to terrorize women any more than women are programmed to invent accusations. I know this from personal experience.

* * *

He wasn’t just my first mentor – he was a lifeline. I put on a brave face when he hired me, but he probably had no idea how much the job meant to me. I was in my mid-20s and until then had suffered from a professional identity crisis that was actually a general existential crisis. Where I came from, what you do is who you are, and I had no idea. I knew my skills and passions, and I was willing to work very hard – but couldn’t for the life of me fit the jagged pieces together.

He was (and is) nearly 30 years older. He had catapulted to the top of his game – an international star, at the the top of a niche field. I landed the dream job – being mentored by the best to do work I knew I would love, for high stakes, with important clients. I even got international travel.

One night barely half a year in, we finished work late, around 11pm – in Greece. He wanted to go for dinner; we found a good restaurant, he ordered the best bottle of wine. He asked me what I thought of the work that night, how I liked my job in general. We talked politics, which is what we both love and do. With a loose tongue and the excitement of being away, I spoke freely, tested out my emerging analytic personality. I probably sounded completely immature but he encouraged me to talk, think, and think critically. It got late. We went back to our hotels — and went to sleep.

This was my mentor: he cited my work diligently in one of his books, though the insight came from a long-forgotten memo written in my earliest years as a lowly analyst. He supported my decision to scale down my work, despite all his grooming, and pursue a PhD instead; he advised me about topics and gave me a recommendation.

To this day, when we are in the same city, we try to squeeze in a meal, sharing lengthy analyses of the countries and projects we’re working on. More often than not, I am still asking for advice. He will always be my mentor, but as a person he made me feel like an equal. Nothing built my professional ego so early, for so long, and was so badly needed as this relationship.

How hard was that? It felt effortless to me, and I never saw him suffering.

It was a relationship entirely unburdened by the torment of whether or not to answer a late-night email. Ignore it and you are unprofessional; answer it and you are inviting unwanted advances. It allowed me to focus entirely on what kind of employee I wanted to be (answer: in my 20s, the kind who was dying to prove that I would respond at midnight). It allowed me to learn endlessly, free from the monumental waste of all my faculties on the difficulty of dealing with someone’s unwanted sexual advances. In a word, the relationship was simply motivating.

Without the cement block that falls over my mind and churns up my insides when I have to deal with sleaze, I have had fantastic collaborations with male colleagues and friends: co-writing articles, co-hosting a radio show, co-founding an organization. Yes, we also go for beers and dinner sometimes.

Are these relations hospital-level sterility? Of course not. There are flutters here and there. Compliments about looks have passed between us with impunity. But we have watched and listened to each other and correctly concluded that the relationship is at its best this way.

Maybe that’s actually all it takes: listening.

Who among us is a saint? Many years ago, a man I had met in a professional setting made advances. It could have been a classic harassment story. He was older and more powerful and considering hiring me for a project. I was less naïve by then, but still younger and more junior than him, still ever-ambitious. But in fact, there was an unspoken chemistry between us, and he was just reading the signs correctly. His proposition was a question, not a decision. When rebuffed he accepted it. Like a man. We remain friendly.

When men grumble that they’re afraid to have a private conversation with a woman at work, I have tried to entertain their confusion. But two decades of alpha-male work experience have brought this insight: if you look at the woman and see a human being, and listen to her instead of just listening to yourself, you’ll probably understand what kind of relationship is right for both of you.

Those guys who have been my mentors, friends and colleagues never lived in fear of accusations because they didn’t have to. If you fear being alone with a woman for that reason – my guess is that she’s the one who should be worried.

And when you learn the radical option of having a dialogue with an equal rather than behaving like a pre-verbal hominid, you might discover a new world of relationships with women, relationships that are not coercive, calculating, violent and exhausting. You will probably enjoy them much more.

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • LEAVE A COMMENT

    * Required

    COMMENTS

    1. JeffB

      Hi Dahlia. In terms of your article. I just have a strict rule I never even think about it with direct or diagonal reports. Rules are way too strict and the conflicts of interest are impossible to navigate.

      Getting back to a I/P related topic (though not one from +972) I thought your comment in your recent video talk regarding bring the religious from both sides into the next round of discussion was excellent. Really good idea and you were absolutely right on this helping to legitimize the process and also open up potentially new avenues for compromise.

      Reply to Comment
      • carmen

        And after the obligatory salutation, you jumped in with both feet to discuss anything but the topic she wrote about. And the first comment, which was nothing at all, more hot air. When will you learn JeffBee – or are you as slow as Harvey Weinstein?

        Reply to Comment
      • Ben

        “I just have a strict rule I never even think about it with direct or diagonal reports. Rules are way too strict and the conflicts of interest are impossible to navigate.”

        What does it mean? Another obscure language concoction, a nonsense construction, a weird absence of contextual cues or clarity. What does it mean? I really don’t think you understand what a mystifying and oddly unclear writer you are. How did you get through college? Seriously. Did none of your teachers ever sit you down and explain to you that you have a problem? Perhaps over a nice bottle of wine at a nice restaurant to humanely ease the blow and then you went back and slept in your own separate beds?

        Reply to Comment
        • JeffB

          @Ben

          Direct and diagonal reports is American business speak. Dahla (to whom this was addressed) knows the terminology. I have no idea what the Hebrew equivalent is. I’d have to ask the Hebrew speakers do you use “ניהול מטריציוני” and what is the term you use boss / subordinate in such a relationship?

          Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            So funny! Let me explain:

            You hide behind your supposed insider privy-ness to business jargon but we all can understand well enough what the phrase “direct and diagonal reports,” by itself, means and yet we STILL can’t figure out what on earth you mean in the sentences you deploy it in!:

            “I just have a strict rule I never even think about it with direct or diagonal reports. Rules are way too strict and the conflicts of interest are impossible to navigate.”

            LoL. What does it mean? That is so JeffBee-like. Drone on about some supposedly arcane insider’s jargon that, if we understood it we’d understand the larger point he is trying to make. But it doesn’t work! Just as, if we only understood his private, idiosyncratic, magical definition of “occupation” we’d all say “oh now I get it JeffBee, how right you are.”

            JeffBee–I have to hand it to Carmen for that brilliant nickname.

            Reply to Comment
          • JeffB

            @Ben

            You are once again being too rude to talk to. “supposedly arcane insider’s jargon” how about standard American business conversation for discussing reporting structures. “Never think about it” means never even consider relationship / sexual possibilities.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            1. It depends on what we mean by “rude.” Being squarely confronted is what I think you have a problem with. I happen to think that casually advocating the Belorussian and French Huguenots solutions for millions of people because they are not of your in-group is extraordinarily rude.

            2. Oh, “it” was *that*, was “it”? So you think that your “it” and your “with” standing by themselves in that sentence meet even a minimal standard for clarity? That astonishes me, but at least we have established your standards and mine.
            Once again JeffB you miss the point entirely. “Direct and diagonal reports” was not the problem. Your problem is the way you use the English language in sentences, the way you use words like “it” and “with” in ways guaranteed to obscure and make the reader puzzle to understand what these parts of speech refer to and what you mean. There is a larger point here. You know, a good writer puts himself in his reader’s place and asks himself if a person outside himself will understand what he means. Your seeming inability to do that is quite interesting. I will make a connection to your inability to put yourself in the Belarusians’, Huguenots’ and Palestinians’ position and ask how it would look to them to suffer the proposals you chirpily advocate for them and ask yourself if you were a Palestinian how would you feel about it and how you would behave. (Even Ehud Barak is quite capable of strategic and tactical empathy—he honestly admitted what he would have done had he been born a Palestinian child.)

            Reply to Comment

The stories that matter.
The missing context.
All in one weekly email.

Subscribe to +972's newsletter