Abstract

This article is the first in a two-paper series, which offers a comprehensive and systematic review of, and response to, various anti-MeToo arguments made by MeToo skeptics. Taking the U.S. and China as examples, the first section overviews the local contexts of anti-sexual-assault/harassment movements, and the respective issues and challenges they each confront. It then summarizes the three primary objectives of the MeToo movement (accountability, empowerment and reform) and the three ideal-typical critiques advanced by MeToo skeptics (the Mobs Critique, the Damsels-in-Distress Critique, and the Puritans Critique). The second through fourth sections will address various versions of the Mobs Critique and the fifth section the Damsels-in-Distress Critique, whereas the Puritans Critique will be left for the forthcoming second article in the series. More specifically, the second and third sections of this article discuss how MeToo skeptics misappropriate the notions of “presumption of innocence” and “trial by public opinion” respectively. As it turns out, the caricature of the MeToo movement (as well as other movements aiming at swaying the public opinion) as the tyranny of mobs jeopardizing the rule of law reflects nothing but the skeptics’ own misconceptions of what the rule of law is and what we should learn from our historical experiences. The fourth and fifth sections respond, respectively, to the “argument from false accusations” and the “argument from self-victimization.” By reviewing conclusions of existing empirical researches and analyzing the conceptual and normative confusions underlying those arguments, I show how sex and gender biases distort implicitly yet systematically our cognitions of sexual assault and harassment. Because of the systematicity of such distortions, isolated resistances cannot effectively address the problems of sexual assault and harassment; by contrast, public opinion movements, such as MeToo, are exactly the kind of collective action crucial to the transformation of sociocultural ideas, and to the development of new institutions of effective remedy. 本文是计划中一系列两篇文章的上篇，旨在对MeToo运动质疑者的各种常见观点及论述加以较为全面系统的辨析及回应。第一节以美国与中国为例，梳理反性侵扰运动的地方脉络，及在各自脉络中发展出的问题意识与面临的挑战；在此基础上，总结MeToo运动追责、赋能与促变之三重诉求，并将质疑者的论调归纳为三大类型：“群氓批判”、“弱女子批判”与“道学家批判”。第二至四节针对“群氓批判”的不同版本做出回应，第五节着力批驳“弱女子批判”，至于“道学家批判”则留待系列的下篇再行讨论。 具体而言，第二、三两节分别澄清质疑者对“无罪推定”与“舆论审判”概念的滥用与误用，指出为何质疑者将MeToo运动（以及其它公共舆论运动）视为践踏法治的群氓狂欢，乃是基于对法治原则的错误理解、以及对历史经验的错位应激。第四节与第五节各自通过对质疑者“虚假指控论”与“自我受害者化论”的剖析，包括对相关经验研究的总结讨论、以及对此类论述中概念与逻辑的抽丝剥茧，揭示性别偏见如何隐蔽而深入地扭曲着我们在性侵扰问题上的认知。恰恰是由于这种扭曲的系统性，导致我们无法以散兵游勇的方式有效反对性侵扰，而必须动员起MeToo这样的公共舆论运动，以集体行动的方式促成社会文化观念的变革，并在此基础上建设起新的救济制度。