In “Ambiguities and dilemmas around #MeToo: #ForHow Long and #WhereTo?,” Kathy Davis suggests that feminists should “cultivate ambivalence” regarding #MeToo. She writes,
[T]he #MeToo movement is showing just how widespread sexual harassment is and how it affects countless women (and men) across the globe. This is a welcome development in feminist struggles for more gender justice and a more equitable social world. However, I think that a moralizing discourse which evaluates, judges and sanctions, all in one go, may not be the best way to address the problem. Instead I think our task may be a more difficult one – namely, directing our attention to the murky and complicated ambivalences in which sexual harassment and the #MeToo movement itself are embedded. (8)
What do you think of Davis’s argument? Do you agree with her characterization of #MeToo rhetoric as “a moralizing discourse which evaluates, judges and sanctions, all in one go”? Why or why not?