Mayim Bialik Should Apologize for Apologizing

With the Harvey Weinstein scandal all over the news recently, many people have come out on social media to speak on sexual harassment and assault. Obviously, the vast majority of sane humans is against such atrocious behavior. But probably the most important outcome from all this is increased awareness of just how pervasive this behavior is throughout our society, particularly the workplace.

Adding her own two cents and sharing her experiences on this hot-button topic, actress Mayim Bialik penned an opinion piece published in The New York Times. In it, she describes how her "self-protecting and wise" choices and behavior have contributed, along with what she terms her "non-traditional" physical appearance, to her steering clear of the kinds of encounters suffered by women who may dress provocatively and "act flirtatiously."

Naturally, there was a backlash by victims of sexual harassment and assault and their advocates who make the most important point of all: sexual harassment and assault is always the perpetrator's fault and never the victim's fault. That is 100% true. Period. Full stop.

But while asserting that victims are always blameless is certainly a valid point, that doesn't mean that Ms. Bialik's point is not valid. In fact, in her essay, she points out how "women should be free to act however they want" in a "perfect" world. And that's true! In a perfect world, anyone and everyone should be free to act however they want: free to walk down a dark alley in a crime-ridden neighborhood in the middle of the night; free to wear blue in Bloods gang territory; free to pet a rattlesnake. Sure, in a "perfect" world, we should be free to do any of those things. But the fact is, our world is far from perfect, and while a woman does not deserve to be sexually harassed or assaulted no matter how provocatively she dresses or how flirtatiously she acts, engaging in certain behaviors can certainly be misinterpreted by men blinded by hormones, wealth, power, or a lethal combination of all three.

So, in essence, Mayim Bialik should apologize for apologizing. Or rather, she should not have apologized at all, because the points she made in her opinion piece are perfectly valid and appropriate. 

Gun Violence vs Gun Rights

In the wake of the horrific mass shooting in Las Vegas, we find ourselves, as a nation, once again grappling with the same questions that arise way too frequently: How do we stop the gun violence plaguing our country? How do we keep something like this from happening again? Naturally, these questions usually come up when the hurt is still fresh and the grieving is in full force, but also while the powerful gun lobby continues to look out for its own bottom line and decent law-abiding citizens seek to preserve their right to bear arms. All too often, these opposing forces create an environment where people are talking past each other rather than coming together to find common sense solutions. What typically ends up happening, as a result, is nothing much.

I don’t pretend to have all the answers. I’m just another concerned citizen who believes that our right to “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” is assaulted in a very real sense every time one of these brutal attacks occurs. But perhaps by sharing my interpretation of the Second Amendment, I can make at least a tiny positive contribution to the conversation about how best to solve an extremely serious problem.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution reads as follows:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The very first part of the amendment is where the greatest trouble lies. Based on the incredible amount of gun violence in our country, it is clear to any rational person, regardless of where they stand on gun laws, that the “well regulated” part of the Second Amendment is utterly failing. One of the NRA’s most famous slogans is: The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Without getting into the merits or validity of the slogan itself, we can interpret it to mean that any regulation of guns should strive to keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys while not taking guns away from the good guys. The question then becomes, how do we determine who the good guys are and who the bad guys are? For our gun rights to be “well regulated,” the answer to that question becomes, very literally, a life and death matter.

The next word in the amendment, “Militia,” is also not without controversy. A militia is basically a civilian military force. Based on this definition, civilians may indeed possess military style weapons. However, the possession of these weapons by civilians must be “well regulated.” Therefore, ownership of these weapons should be severely restricted based on the qualifications of the civilian and the weapon’s degree of deadliness. In other words, the deadlier the weapon, the harder it should be to acquire. For civilians to possess military style weapons, they should have to exhaustively prove their physical and mental fitness, as well as receive the proper training on how to handle, use, and safely store such weapons.

The phrase “being necessary to the security of a free State” that follows in the amendment is important because it outlines the purpose of the militia. Broadly, we can interpret this to mean that armed civilians secure the “free State” by doing everything from fighting off an invading force (not very likely) to protecting their own homes and family from a burglar (much more likely).

Finally, the Second Amendment ends with “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This phrase enshrines in the Constitution our right to have guns, which brings us back to square one: How do we stop gun violence in the United States? Certainly, neither the spirit nor the original intent of the Second Amendment has anything to do with the devastating events unfolding across our nation on a seemingly regular basis. For that reason, we must demand that Congress respect the Constitution and ensure that our right to bear arms is “well regulated” by passing sensible laws that will safeguard our gun rights while helping to prevent these national tragedies.

ADDENDUM (10/05/2017):

I don't customarily make changes to my blog posts once they're published (with one notable exception), but I felt a certain uneasiness with this one almost as soon as I finished it. I realized that I spent a large part of the post addressing gun violence and gun rights through my interpretation of the Second Amendment, but I didn't address the social aspects of gun violence. I failed to bring up what are probably the most important questions of all: How can someone feel the need to commit such a horrible deed against other human beings? What would drive someone to act so violently?

Like I wrote before, I don't have all the answers. But taking a broad view of our social structure might offer some insight. While some may argue that we do not explicitly encourage such violence as a society, there can be little doubt that, at the very least, we pave the road by which these awful incidents travel, as we can see by taking a look at our nation's values.

The United States has the world's largest economy. We also spend more on the military than the next several nations combined. These two telling facts are a basic reflection of the values of our society. The most important things to us are wealth and power. We believe in accumulating untold riches. We also believe in strength, force, and domination. That's it! Long and healthy lives for our citizens? Forget it! We rank #42 in the world in life expectancy. A smart, well-educated populace? Please! The U.S. lags far behind many other countries in reading, math, and science while many of our teachers earn virtual poverty wages. Our values, once again, are money and might. Period.

So, how do we expect our mentally unstable citizens to react when they feel powerless? When there is such a stigma on mental illness? When we look down with disdain, starting with our own president, on those whom we perceive as "weak?" When our multi-billion dollar entertainment industry constantly bombards us with violent movies, TV shows, music, and video games, then uses their own people to hypocritically lament the acts of violence that happen in the real world? When it is so easy to get a deadly firearm with which to rain death upon fellow human beings? When the idea of strength is equal to wanton destruction in the eyes of certain twisted individuals?

We can't keep turning a blind eye to the effect that our own values play on our society. We can keep believing the people profiting from the violence, whether it's the entertainment industry telling us "it's just art" or the gun industry telling us "it's your Constitutional right." While we're at it, we might as well believe whatever the tobacco industry wants to tell us about cigarettes or whatever the fossil fuel industry wants to tell us about climate change!

Wealth and power. Those are our values. We either change our values, or we keep living (and dying) with the consequences.