Rich and Successful Men Do Not Have "Power" over Women
What MeToo culture, NIMBY, and nuclear safetyism all have in common
Note: I’ll be in San Francisco this weekend. Follow Substack Notes and X for updates on possible meetups. Also, if you’re able to host a meetup, get in touch, as it would save me some logistical work.
People argue against bosses sleeping with their subordinates on the grounds that such situations involve a “power imbalance.” Occasionally, they go a step further, and imply that some men are so rich and powerful that relationships with almost any woman can be presumed potentially abusive. Part of the hysteria about Jeffrey Epstein comes from the fact that many seem to assume that anyone that wealthy going out with a younger woman is somehow taking advantage of her, even though the more lurid accounts of what he was doing have never been substantiated.
All of this is completely backwards. While it is true that such relationships do have power imbalances, they’re clearly in favor of the woman.
Take the case of Eric Swalwell. One of the accusations that led to him dropping out of the California gubernatorial race was that he received oral sex from a staffer and “twice sexually assaulted her when she was too drunk to consent.”
Think about the state of affairs before Swalwell and his staffer hooked up. When going into any relationship, both parties understand that it might lead to hard feelings at a later point in time. Swalwell has to keep the affair a secret for the sake of his career and reputation. If he gets mad at his employee or she rejects his advances, he may fire her from a job that doesn’t pay all that well. In theory, he could perhaps wield his position to ruin her life in other ways, like trying to stop others from giving her a job. But usually powerful men don’t have the time or psychological incentive to do things like this. That’s simp behavior. Men who don’t have options are the ones most likely to become vengeful stalkers, while those with power can much more easily deal with rejection.
What about the woman’s perspective? Her leverage over Swalwell is much greater because he has a lot more to lose. We all saw what happened to his hopes of political advancement as a result of this affair and other indiscretions. Moreover, luckily for the woman, the media will believe and amplify her story regardless of the state of the relevant evidence or how she behaved at the time. It doesn’t matter if Swalwell has a hundred text messages of the staffer saying “I’m loving every moment of this. I happily give you my consent!!!” She is free to decide at any moment that she was a victim. Was a drunken hookup a memory she looks back on fondly or “sexual assault”? It’s up to her. No choice is final – she gets to change her answer whenever she wants. If they were both drunk, he might have sexually assaulted her. For Swalwell, being intoxicated compounds his crimes rather than excuses his behavior.
In fact, I was probably wrong when I just said that Swalwell can at least fire her if the relationship goes downhill. He has to be extra careful not to anger this woman. Swalwell should be expected to go out of his way to not treat her unfairly, knowing that she can destroy him at any time. This is true whether they have an affair or he simply makes a pass that is rejected. This might lead to a bias against other employees, though it is the woman who had the relationship who our society considers the real victim.
This is not a paywall. The rest of this article is available to free subscribers to the newsletter. Just leave your email below to continue reading.