A friend shared this essay recently on Facebook, highlighted by “The #MeToo moment has now morphed into a moral panic that poses as much danger to women as it does to men.”

Wow. What a mess. This author is jumping all over the place with a thesis that changes every few paragraphs. It’s hard to disagree with because she hasn’t really settled on an actual point.

One implied thesis here is that the complaints against Louis CK are somehow invalid because his comedy act serves as a warning. I suppose that could have some merit, but that’s not the same argument as the “moral panic” argument she starts out with.

But with her side discussion about Michael Oreskes, now the argument is that people should be allowed to kiss coworkers? At work? Even if they don’t already have a kissing kind of relationship? First off, that’s batshit. Second, even if it weren’t batshit, it doesn’t support her claimed thesis that men can’t possibly know where the lines are. She just has a screwy idea of where the lines should be.

So… there’s not a consistent thing being argued here. It’s all puff and sleight of hand. It doesn’t add up to a conclusion. Or if it does, then about half of the article isn’t on point.

Aside from the confusion induced by the rapidly moving rhetorical target here, I’m following one specific line of argument. The writer here is straight up arguing that if a man kisses a woman at work, and she didn’t expect it or welcome it, and he faces negative job consequences over that, that consequence is a bad thing.

Because, as we see previously in the article, work is “dreary” and getting hit on is amusing. And kissing someone is “an early stage of courtship” even if you’re not mutually engaging in a social situation that resembles a “date” in any way.

What the hell. All I can say is what the hell.