this is why women can't report bad things

the un-conviction of harvey weinstein.

Harvey Weinstein’s landmark 2020 rape conviction has been overturned because *checks notes* too many women testified against him.

Because the judge on the original case allowed testimonies from women who were not named in the specific case (but who were also accusing Weinstein of similar sex crimes) a new judge decided to throw the whole case out, horrifying survivors across the globe. To flatly reverse the decision of the first and perhaps most famous case in the #METOO movement, hours after SCOTUS debated about how much women should suffer before receiving health care is RICH.

Photo by Annie Spratt on Unsplash

While women’s sexual history has often been used against them in rape trials, the judge decided that testimonies from other survivors was like the second half of Taylor Swift’s new album, a little much. I guess this finally puts the whole “iF oNLY wOmEN rEporTED mEn mOrE!” trope to bed. Even when we gather the strength to go public and face our accusers, we’re told that we should have respected rules that the men who are accused of hurting us, themselves evaded.

But here’s the thing.

If we had a justice system that was equipped to handle gender-based violence, it would be biased NOT to take into consideration the fact that one hundred women have the same story about Harvey Weinstein. If our system was built with survivors in mind, it wouldn’t be considered conflicting evidence— it would be considered crucial evidence. If the penal code actually cared about preventing sexual assault, it would recognize that most rapists are serial rapists, and that if a man did it to one woman, you can sure bet that he probably did it to others (or will unless you stop him). No wonder most rapists won’t spend a day in jail, and no wonder most women never report, because even when we do, we’re told that we did it wrong.

The former Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr. said that he was flabbergasted by the decision and the message it sent to Wenstein’s accusers. “I am deeply grateful to and humbled by the survivors who came forward in the brightest glare of a public courtroom to tell their stories at great personal cost and trauma,” he said at a press conference. “The judicial system, in my opinion, has let them down today.” Tarana Burke, who is the founder of the #MeToo movement also had powerful words. She said that the case had given so many people hope that change was possible, and that the conviction being overturned would reverse that optimism and transform it into rational apathy.

But are you ready for the real kicker?

Apparently, Weinstein heard about his conviction evaporating from a news report he saw in jail (where he’s serving another rape sentence which could now also be weakened) and he reportedly cried tears of joy because “someone is finally listening to him.” That’s according to his lawyer Arthur Aidala who also called the judge who axed Weinstein’s conviction a “real hero for women” because “you can’t convict someone based on their entire life.”

Give me moment, while I quietly hurl.

It’s hard not to see a parallel with Donald Trump’s hush money trial, which is ironically unfolding simultaneously. In both cases where we’re supposed to be concern about the “fairness” of a trial for men who have openly bragged about giving the middle finger to it. While I understand that legal concepts of objectivity have to be respected, it’s embarrassing to see us bend backwards and forwards to apply those principles to people whose entire existence is to defy them.

The major difficulty in the Trump case, was that the court struggled to find an “objective jury” because so many people already have pre-conceived notions about the inflammatory former president. It’s hard to find someone who feels neutral about Trump because of his own belligerent conduct. But honestly, that doesn’t sound like a court system problem, it sounds like a Donald Trump problem. If he doesn’t conform to social norms, why should we as a society spend time and money making sure he doesn’t deal with the consequences of that? He has no respect for the process (he’s literally failing asleep during his proceedings and threatening judges), so why are we concerned with guaranteeing the integrity of his experience of an institution that he is actively trying to dismantle? Why do chauvinistic men who consistently break the social contract get to go through the world where others treat them with the dignity they never show us?

If our justice system can’t hold men like Donald Trump and Harvey Weinstein accountable, maybe instead of doubling down on the rules that got us here, we should have the courage to amend them instead. The system is broken— why are we pretending like it’s not? At which point do we stop letting people who don’t play by the rules, demand that the rules that they don’t respect apply to them?

I’m sick of watching women complain about a justice system that can’t help them. I’m tired of seeing men be impotent in protecting them from it. When an objective predator like Harvey Weinstein or Donald Trump can’t even stay fully convicted, what hope do other women have that their accuser will? Most survivors don’t have the luxury of having one hundred other women behind them, and a media ecosystem that for once in history, decided to pause and listen. If Harvey Weinstein’s accusers can’t get him convicted, what hope is there for the rest of us?

There’s no doubt that Weinstein’s un-conviction will make the #MeToo movement stronger. Let’s hope our court system gets a feminist makeover too.