Kamala Harris, widely regarded by critics as ineffectual in her role as Vice President, recently made an appearance on the Call Her Daddy podcast. Her comments regarding survivors of sexual abuse, despite their intended positive message, face scrutinization. Critics argue that her advice—asserting that victims should never blame themselves—proved insufficient in addressing the real and pressing issues related to such abuse.
Harris’ stance was clear: she emphasized that the blame lies not on the victims. ‘People need to talk about it,’ she stated, implying a general silence around the issue. However, many conservatives would argue that, rather than merely talking about these scalding issues, tangible actions and preventive measures should be prioritized.
As an example, Harris’ encouragement for victims to ‘speak out’ was not enough for Lisa Fontes, an academic specialized in abuse. Despite agreeing with Harris that raising awareness of situations involving sexual violence is essential, Fontes clearly stated that mere conversations would not alleviate or solve problems at hand.
It is a known fact shared by the National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC) that a staggering 81 percent of women face some form of sexual harassment and/or assault in their lifetime. However, critics have continually argued that Harris has done little to combat this widespread issue during her long-standing career, making the irony in her podcast appearance quite clear.
One could argue that it is quite disingenuous for Harris to present herself as a champion for sexual abuse victims when, as a prosecutor, her record could be described as less than stellar. Her true legacy, some critics might observe, is defined by token gestures instead of substantial reforms and impactful changes.
Her take on the personal story involving a close school friend who was also a victim of sexual violence rings hollow. Harris intends to paint herself as an empathetic figure, a protector, but has she done enough to address the structural issues leading to such violence?
Emma Katz, another academic specialized in coercive control, articulated the necessity for public engagement. She argued that the responsibility of calling out abuse should not rest solely on victims and survivors. While Harris echoed a similar focus, her words merely seem like lip service amidst the enormous challenge at hand.
Despite serving as the Attorney General of California and having had the opportunity to enforce significant changes, Harris’ approach to handling domestic violence cases has been lackluster. Critics argue that her initiatives barely scratched the surface of the systemic issues, focusing on improving administrative processes like data collection and officer training rather than on broad-scale, effective reforms.
One cannot help but mention the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), reauthorized in 2022 under Harris’ ostensible support. But has this Act really accomplished anything substantial? As part of this Act, law enforcement accountability was supposedly improved, but many argue that merely paying lip service to reforms does not equate to real progress for victimized women.
The inclusion of measures supporting marginalized groups, such as the LGBTQ+ individuals, tribal communities, and rural survivors, is another aspect of the Act. But the hollow promise of introducing initiatives to address cyberstalking and online harassment only adds weight to the critique of Harris’ leadership.
Fontes emphasized the need for early gender education to challenge damaging norms and standards. Yet, one has to wonder how much of this crucial preventive strategy was genuinely considered and implemented in Harris’ policy initiatives.
Ultimately, the launch of the National Plan to End Gender-Based Violence in 2023 is put under scrutiny. This plan discursively focused on prevention, supporting survivors, and holding offenders accountable. However, was it not merely another plug towards Harris’ seemingly ineffective political career rather than a concrete solution for the issue?
The housing assistance for survivors, reforms in the military to address sexual assault, and an online abuse task force slated for the National Plan have been met with skepticism. Critics argue that these initiatives remained largely ineffective and served as yet another instance of rhetoric void of any substantial, long-lasting impact.
In an ironic twist, Harris’ opponent, former President Donald Trump, was found guilty for allegations of sexual abuse. Notwithstanding his firm denial and dismissal of the verdict as a ‘disgrace,’ one should consider the paradox of both figures discussing gender-based violence.
Trump, albeit his guilt, painted himself as a ‘protector’ of women at a rally in Pennsylvania. This bold claim mirrored the contentious discourse around his and Harris’ stances on gender-based violence. Yet neither of them seems to have demonstrated a concrete track record of truly protecting women and combating gender-based atrocities.
To conclude, discussions on podcasts like Call Her Daddy are perhaps more a spectacle than a beacon of substantial progress in addressing sexual assault or harassment. One hopes for a political landscape less centered around such performative gestures and more rooted in tangible, substantial action.