What do the terrible #MeToo harassment allegations reveal?

Seven years after the #MeToo movement swept the United States and then much of the world, some of the movement’s biggest villains – Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby – have been terminated. Others are slowly returning to the public sphere. Still others endure even very serious accusations, denying the claims and settling the matter out of court. For a while, it seemed that rapper and music mogul Diddy fell into the latter camp: He was accused of rape, sexual assault, domestic violence and a number of other crimes, but he denied all accusations. He also reconciled with one accuser, singer Cassie Ventura (whose name is Cassie and is Diddy’s ex-girlfriend), and got her to agree to silence in exchange for a settlement.

But this month, CNN published video of Diddy attacking Cassie at a hotel in 2016. Diddy apologized – marking a sudden change of heart after his loud denials that he had ever hurt women, as well as a payback and a defense that those accusing him were actually greed-fueled gold diggers and opportunistic liars. He said he was disgusted by his behavior and was seeking help. This week, Rolling Stone published a damning investigation that reveals Diddy’s pattern of abuse stretching back decades. What will come of this remains unclear.

The #MeToo movement has never promised to solve the problems of sexual violence and harassment, or the problem of powerful men getting away with everything from sexist exploitation to serious crimes against women. It was just a space – an opening in time – where women could have a voice. And the chorus of voices that came fourth was so deafening that it was impossible to deny that there was at least a problem. There was a cultural shift and then the inevitable backlash. There have been lawsuits and victories, and now, years later, a few twists and turns. There were civil lawsuits and settlements, denials combined with payments. The fantasy that every bad person will get what is due to him, and that aggressive people will go to prison, and manipulative people will be considered persona non grata, has not come true.

However, if we understand justice as women having their claims at least partially heard (however imperfect they may be) and redressing their suffering (no matter how many liabilities may be attached to them), then a somewhat more optimistic picture emerges. #MeToo did not solve the problems identified. But perhaps it has opened up a few additional paths to justice – or at least greater clarity about what justice options entail. There are more people willing to take women’s claims seriously, and there is more pressure on men who have committed serious wrongdoing to pay a price.

Diddy faces criminal investigation: Earlier this year, Department of Homeland Security officials raided his property, although he has not been arrested. There is still a chance that multiple women and one man who accused him of harassment will face criminal prosecution.

However, several of them are already looking for their day civil court. Many are doing so under New York’s Adult Sexual Violence Survivors Act, which opened a time-limited window for survivors of sexual violence to sue people and institutions they believe committed the assault or helped cover it up , regardless of when the attack occurred. That window had already closed, but before the deadline, thousands of lawsuits were filed, including Cassie’s. Diddy may still come to terms with some of the people who alleged mistreatment, as he did with Cassie. He may also decide to continue fighting them in court.

Civil court is not an ideal remedy for acts of violence, which should be treated as serious crimes. Feminists have long argued that it is deeply unfair to treat domestic violence and violence against women as secondary interpersonal problems or private matters. Brutally attacking someone should land you in jail – whether it’s a stranger on the street or your girlfriend.

But the reality is more complicated. For many victims of rape or assault, the criminal justice process is devastating, painful, and even traumatic. The “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” standard of conviction is certainly high, but also difficult to meet in the absence of significant physical evidence, and in sexual assault and domestic violence cases, physical evidence is often limited. (Usually these cases involve two people who know each other and a frightened or embarrassed victim who may not seek immediate medical attention.) Good old-fashioned sexism can also play a big role, as juries may give accused perpetrators the benefit of the doubt, believe misogynistic myths about rape and molestation, or treat women who claim to have been molested to a higher standard than they would if, say, , the man testified about a brutal assault. Criminal cases often involve invasive investigations and interrogations that survivors of violence may find intimidating or intolerable.

And this happens if the accuser enters the courtroom at all. Not all police officers are Olivia Benson when it comes to treating survivors with sensitivity and dignity. Prosecutors can be overworked and need to maintain conviction rates; believing (rightly or wrongly) that sexual assault cases are difficult to win, they still refuse to prosecute many of them. Accusers may find themselves under scrutiny and seemingly in disbelief as to whether they had been drinking, whether they knew their attacker, or frozen rather than fighting back. And the number of rape convictions remains astonishingly low.

Taking a case to civil court is also not an easy task, but the standards for determining liability are not that high. A plaintiff doesn’t have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he suffered an assault, and while the defendant won’t go to jail for his wrongdoings, he may have to pay handsomely or suffer reputational damage when the evidence against him comes to light – all of which is no small thing, even for rich and influential people. In civil cases, it is possible to reach a financial agreement outside of court. This could certainly be a tool for powerful men to do exactly what Diddy did: lie about their own acts of violence and pay women for their silence. But it can also be a way to see through what has been sacrificed Some acknowledge the harm done to them without being so completely exposed to the prying eyes of the courtroom – or in the case of women accusing prominent men – the media and public opinion.

This may not fit the wider public’s vision of justice or the loftier goals of justice, which include redressing not only the victim but repaying the debt to society more broadly. But in a system that rarely succeeds in achieving such lofty goals, it’s hard to blame women (and some men) who choose to maximize potential compensation and minimize the potential for their own public vivisection.

In the years since #MeToo accusations rocked Hollywood, media and other industries across the country, no clear picture of post-MeToo justice has emerged. Significant obstacles remain for survivors seeking justice in criminal court. Convictions for sexual and domestic violence remain low. But something does it seems to have moved. More and more victims are reporting sexual crimes to the authorities. Sexual harassment is being punished more and more severely in the civil system. States, including New York, have provided opportunities for survivors to come forward and potentially obtain at least some justice, even if only financially.

None of this is a feminist dream come true.

But as a distraction it’s not bad. People who have experienced sexual or other forms of gender-based violence and harassment may now be more willing to come forward, may better understand the options available to them when they do so, and may find themselves working within systems , which are at least slightly easier to comply with their claims . It’s hard to look at Cassie’s lawsuit, Diddy’s denials, the settlement, and the subsequent emergence of undisputed video evidence as a perfect example of post-MeToo legal justice. But without the #MeToo movement, there would be no lawsuit at all and perhaps nothing resembling justice in All.