As I mentioned the other day, I recently read Josh Glancy’s column where he is basically re-evaluating the need for a moral code in a post Weinstein world.
He suggests that men are examining their conscience and history with uncomfortable results. It would seem that what they were once quite happy with they are now concerned about.
It reminded me of something I read a few weeks back by a female writer – don’t now recall who it was – she was protesting against someone saying that rules have changed as to what is or is not acceptable. It was NEVER acceptable, was her stance.
Well, what was never acceptable to the recipients of unwanted behaviour, was in fact accepted by the majority of society. Public ideas of what is right and wrong have changed. Whether that is because individual opinions have changed or just because of which opinions are being heard, I wouldn’t like to say.
Being interested in motives, it all makes me wonder what it is that informs people’s individual ideas of right and wrong. Why are men now uncomfortable about things in their past that never used to bother them? Do they now really think that what they did was wrong or are they simply afraid of people crawling out of the woodwork to make accusations?
Somehow, it doesn’t seem quite fair to retrospectively judge people by standards that weren’t in force at the time. And yet the other side of the coin is what about justice for those who suffered precisely because those standards were not in force?
Well, there’s plenty more that could be said – indeed, the first draft of this post did ramble on a lot more without anywhere near covering the subject – but I think it had better wait for another time.