We've all had a satisfying shout at sleazeballs, now let's bring about change.
Since the Harvey Weinstein scandal there has been a lot written saying men are sleazy and rapey and women have been subject to appalling abuse. "I hate men" was one headline this week. Well, sorry, sue me, I still like men. And I think we're missing something here.
One Hollywood writer said the fundamental predatory nature of Hollywood was based around young attractive females putting themselves in front of men to be judged, appraised and chosen.
She was right. So you can harangue those men to stop groping the women they are judging, but it doesn't change the fundamental business, this "dark equation", in which a woman is appraised as a product, not a human being.
And it's not just Hollywood. It's everywhere. Every day, women move around in a culture that does its best to make us dissatisfied with what we see in the mirror.
What I want to suggest is that now that we've all had a satisfying shout at men for being sleazeballs, perhaps we could focus on changing this underlying equation?
Because until we stop judging people's worth as if they were a product. the power game is still the same: sexual relationships are a commodity to be traded.
And it's not all men's fault. Women participate in this objectification, part of which is a sort of "beauty sickness", and teach it to our daughters. We teach them that they have sexual power and no one has the right to take it from them, but it's still a currency to haggle with.
So far, the Weinstein scandal has led to the message "Don't touch the merchandise!" But until we stop thinking of people as shiny objects, sex and relationships are always going to have a transactional nature.
Adam Smith said man is an animal that makes bargains. We do, of course. But I'm not sure that is where our deepest humanity is to be found. We are also creatures who are uniquely wired to connect, just because.
It's uncomfortable to admit, but I think part of the culture that created the Harvey Weinstein problem is in all of us, because of the way we construct our relationships. All of them, at work, with our kids, not just sexual ones.
We are brought up to see relationships as sort of tit-for-tat transactions. You do this for me, I'll do that for you. This is so normal to us we don't even notice it.
It's how we bring up our kids. Two minutes ago, I just explained to my daughter what quid pro quo meant. If she unpacks the dishwasher I'll help her with the fluffy cat she is sewing (once I've written this column). We've got a little enlightened about hitting kids.
But the mainstream view is still that bad behaviour has "consequences" rather than punishment and good behaviour has rewards, which include love and approval.
This is wrong. The real world is not a predictable Skinner box where every time we push the lever we get a pellet. It's more like quantum physics, which views the world as dynamic, wild and undetermined. You can be virtuous and there is no guarantee anyone will even notice. A man who boasted about sexual assaults got voted into the White House.
Sometimes I buy my kids Lego for no particular reason. Not because they've been "good".
I want to teach them love and approval are there for them regardless, not rationed out according to how pleasing and compliant they are. I want to teach them we all deserve love, just for existing. It doesn't have to be earned.
Instead of thinking of relationships like a businessman doing a deal, I hope in future generations we will think of relationships, particularly with our kids, more as a creative collaboration.
By that I mean the relationship is an artwork that you and the other person are making together. Yes, I know, maybe the world does not need more interpretive dance or bad pottery, but the analogy is helpful.
An art collaboration is a messy, risky process but you try to say yes to whatever comes up. You move apart and come together again. You accept it won't be perfect and that you have to write shitty first drafts. You can't go straight to clever, sometimes you have to go through dumb first. You accept that to create anything remotely interesting you need to train yourself to handle, or even enjoy, criticism. And sometimes you get stuck. But there is a generosity. You give, without expecting to get an exact return. You don't estimate how much the other person gives and then apportion out how much you'll give back.
This kind of relationship is not a contract. I will do this if you will do that. It's a covenant.
It means you make a promise to take a journey together. To be there for the other. Not to be there as long as the other is "good" or does what you want. Because love is not about control. And now if you'll excuse me, I have a fur cat to sew.