It’s been about two and a half years since the #MeToo movement made major headlines (at least in the US) with the Harvey Weinstein accusations, and there have been several major figures implicated, with a few very prominent individuals (Cosby and Weinstein, most prominently) being convicted of felonies. At the same time, various others have faced purely professional consequences (e.g. Matt Lauer, Louis CK, and others), while many have faced zero consequences at all (Donald Trump is the most prominent example).
There has been progress – the link at the top discusses studies that show that, according to surveys, sexual harassment and related behavior appears to have gone down (at the same time, however, gender harassment has increased, perhaps as a backlash). Women appear to feel more empowered to speak up.
But IMO, the overall progress has been rather disappointing. A few assholes in high positions being held to account isn’t nearly enough. A bit of tweaks to statistics isn’t nearly enough. Additional training in big organizations isn’t enough. I still believe something like a “Truth and Reconciliations committee” is needed to ensure that absolutely everyone feels safe to come forward and tell their story, whether industry-by-industry, or nation-wide. I understand this is a tall order, but this is such a monumental series of injustices that massive, sweeping action is warranted, IMO. Rapists, assaulters, and harassers should be terrified, and I see little evidence that they are, by and large.
What experiences have other Dopers had in terms of how things have changed between then and now, whether personally, in organizations they work for or interact with, or otherwise? What else can or should be done?
I work on sexual assault and harassment cases, mostly Title IX over the last few years. Reporting definitely went up because of MeToo; a number of people said they were reporting specifically as a result of the movement. That included a few very old, like decades old, cases in which the person reporting had essentially lived their entire adult lives believing that there’d be no point to reporting, and then came forward because they felt like times were changing.
So those things are positive.
It certainly has not changed, as far as I can tell, the perspectives of the people you’re saying should be terrified, except to harden the (omnipresent) belief that they’re the victim of a witch hunt, political correctness run amok, etc. They have that just as a built-in excuse now from square one. Even the ones who have said they now had a heightened awareness that the ‘times had changed’ did so in the way of a lamentation, not anything like an acknowledgment: I realize now you just can’t be warm to people, kind of thing. The people whose behavior had changed in that way would be less likely to be involved in a harassment case by virtue of that change, so maybe they’re out there, though.
It is my sense that an approach like the one you’re calling for would have catastrophic consequences, simply because I don’t think “we,” collectively, think sexual harassment, even assault, is that big a deal. There’s a much longer way to say that, but that’s what it amounts to. Even if awareness goes up, even if reporting goes up, even if by and large we do believe the victims more, we still don’t really think it amounts to a “monumental series of injustices.”
Thanks for sharing, especially considering your expertise.
What do you mean by “catastrophic consequences”? I agree that the collective “we” still don’t appear to see sexual assault as a monstrous crime (or sexual harassment as more than just a nuisance or “boys being boys”), and that’s a shame. Do you mean that those powerful assholes would resist much more strongly? If so, that strikes me as an obstacle that we necessarily need to overcome.
It is an obstacle we need to overcome, and that’s a good point.
I suppose that the kind of consequences that come to mind for me are dependent on who is empowering this commission, and to do what specifically.
As I understand commissions like this, they basically get a charter to inquire into a specific time period, regarding specific crimes. Within those parameters, they have a sort of quasi-judicial status and they’re allowed to compel evidence and so forth.
So, my concern would be, on the one hand you could look into only criminal behavior, in which case you’re more likely to be given authority to do so. But then your hands are tied when it comes to 97% of the conduct of even an open and notorious Weinstein type, because it’s not a crime. So you’re going to collect all these facts but you’ll be bound to conclude in your report that so much of it was inappropriate but not criminal, which of course can be interpreted by bad actors and their supporters as “Total Exoneration.” This is a problem in all such cases, of course, but the public and determinative nature of a commission like this aggravates that problem in my mind. It’s not really restorative justice if the perpetrators walk away equipped to declare victory.
On the other hand, you could inquire even into conduct not necessarily of a criminal nature. Now you’re much freer to attack the problem, but you’re going to run into more criticism about being “sex police” and so on, because you’re subject to varying interpretations of what a violation of another person’s rights really is. The narrative of a grand inquisitor summoning people to shame them for private legal conduct is so easy. Even efforts to enforce existing laws about sexual misconduct are vulnerable to this. So you’re less likely to actually be granted the authority to fact-find in the first place, for one thing, but then you’re also much more likely to issue a report and call for measures that many, maybe even most, people think is completely punitive and unfair to the perpetrators.
When I say catastrophic I’m thinking of the survivors. Maybe that was hyperbolic. But as you know, it’s nearly impossible to avoid victims being put on trial during any examination of what’s been done to them. A major effort to find the truth about, for example, what Epstein and pals did to their many victims, which resulted in a commission report, but no functional change in the disgusting habits of the uber-rich predator class, would be really damaging. I think it would kill people. You’ve got these powerful scumbags explicitly oppressing people with the fact that they’re untouchable, then you convene this tribunal to get to the bottom of those abuses, and then nothing happens, confirming the narrative of the oppression all over again.
On the high school level, I think the attitude toward girls and sexual harrassment has changed dramatically, and for the better. It’s not like it’s gone, but administration takes things seriously that they (and, honestly, I) would have blown off as “stupid boys being gross” ten years ago. The girls and the boys feel much more empowered to speak up and to acknowledge that it’s not just a little uncouth to sexually harass girls, it’s actually wrong. I also think the boys are much more reflective about their own behavior than was the norm ten years ago.
THAT SAID, we still have problems, and as I am in a school with no sports, and hence no jock culture, I know my sample is skewed.
What do you advocate be done? If this isn’t the answer, could collective social action, similar to boycotts, be effective? Work with journalists to identify the bad actors, and shun them from polite society as much as possible? If it’s a CEO, boycott the company until he’s gone. If it’s a movie producer/director/actor, no one works with them. Etc.
I’m sure that would be a monumental task to get all the decent people working together on this, but what other options are there?
We’ve had women at work step forward with complaints they probably would have shrugged off five years ago. These are things like off color comments, jokes, etc., etc. rather than more serious accusations of groping or quid pro quo situations. I’m glad they stepped forward as it’s better to stop that kind of behavior earlier rather than later. And, no, for those who might be concerned this didn’t ruin anyone’s career.
I don’t have much to say, as I don’t really have any experience out in the real world with this stuff.
But I did think of one thing that might be relevant at a conceptual level. Is it possible that, though we hit some walls going back and addressing all but the worst of past wrongs, that we still improve significantly for future wrongs?
The one experience I do have is that I see a lot more people talking about enthusiastic consent when discussing stuff online. I don’t know if that’s as much #MeToo or just that I hang out in more places where this gets discussed, though.
I think big corporations are making significant changes. In some sense, the “cogs in the machine” attitude toward employees makes top-down enforcement easier. In my company, we can directly report problems to our direct supervisor, their boss, contract management, human resources, and ethics enforcement. No escape from the machinery. Large companies also have a lot of liability for each bad employee.
Smaller organizations are more susceptible to bad actors since there’s fewer alternatives when reporting problems.
I’m a fan of all those things – very pro-cancel. Truth is an absolute defense. Just don’t shoot anybody.
I think that’s already having an effect, which is part of why, like BigT suggested, I think the outlook for 15-20 years from now in terms of sexual harassment is really positive. I don’t think future generations will have ANY of that old guy who has spent his entire life non-controversially putting his hands on women and talking about them like furniture, as compared to the scores of men (basically anyone who had any power at all, and wanted to act like that) alive today.
I do fear all of those guys who are still walking around out there have effectively gotten away with it at this point. Unless they egregiously overstepped what boundaries did exist, like Weinstein or Cosby, there’s not much will to hold them accountable. I’ve had cases with powerful men who had multiple complainants come forward with very credible evidence of harassment, where it was basically indisputable that yes, you did all this. Usually what happens, unless they’ve done something of a higher degree of shock value or violence, is some kind of golden parachute – maybe ‘voluntarily’ lose access to some kind of sinecure or whatever, but nothing more than that. They don’t get fired; they ‘retire.’ The people whose buy-in would be required seem to generally take the view of, well, they’re very powerful people and they’re from a different time, this is how it is, this has really shaken him up already, he didn’t mean to hurt anyone. That won’t be the case in 20 years.
I think similar strides have been made with assault, but it’s going to take longer. DV I’m not so sure those strides have been made.
I feel we shouldn’t downplay the importance of a handful of prominent men being punished for sexual harassment. I think a lot of potential sexual harassers saw this and were scared by it. It may not have led to genuine remorse and an change in attitude in most cases but even if there was just a change in behavior based on a fear of the possible consequences, that’s still a change for the better.
Veering off into the political, the Democrats need to beat this drum this year. They need to remind everyone that the Democrats kicked out one of their own when he was accused of sexual harassment while the Republicans have protected rapists like Trump and Kavanaugh and put them in positions of power. Every voter, both women and men, should go into the voting booth knowing that the Democrats are the party that opposes sexual harassment while the Republicans condone rape. This is, in my opinion, the most powerful issue that Democrats have on their side.
If we take as assumption that the McCarthy hearings outed numerous actual Communist sympathizers, yet also falsely stigmatized numerous others who were not sympathetic to the cause, do we also accept that a Truth and Reconciliation Committee to out sexual abusers would have a similar effect?
For the record, I am in no way suggesting a moral equivalence between support of Communism and sexual predation. If my bluntness comes across that way, forgive me. There is no crime in being a Communist, though I certainly disagree with its prescriptions. There is nothing worse than to take advantage of another sexually.
Back to my point - what I am attempting to express is that, in strikingly similar fashion, merely being accused of a MeToo offense carries a lifelong stigma that can be ruinous to one’s career and reputation, much as accusations made during the McCarthy hearings were ruinous to (invariably) some who were falsely accused. Once that accusation is levied, a measure of irreparable damage has been done.
I suppose what I really mean to express is a fear that such a commission becomes a circus of accusations, given the veneer of credibility a government commission provides. If given the opportunity to “come clean” without repercussion, as apparently occurred during the South African TRC, how many men would actually do so?
The idealist in me wants to believe tremendous good could come from it. I know men who have acted wrongly on these matters. The cynic within me sees not a one who would ever come clean, along with ruinous opportunism lurking in the flank.
Right now, our society treats women who speak out about their experiences like absolute dogshit, for the most part. Especially if they speak out against a prominent man. I’m saying this is an ongoing and continuous atrocity, and thus drastic action is needed. There was no significant communist threat in America. On the other hand, now, most women and girls have been or will be harassed, groped, assaulted, and/or raped, and most of the time, the perpetrator won’t face any consequences. The possibility that some might be unjustly accused is real, but it pales in comparison to what actually is going on out there for women and girls.
I disagree with the first sentence, though I fully agree that there has been a huge problem with abuse of women and the #MeToo movement has done a lot to address it. I was frankly astounded at the extent of the abuses that it uncovered. Yes, it needed to happen, and I agree that more needs to be done. But it needs to done right, done carefully, and done within the principles of fundamental justice. So I’m going to take a slightly contrarian view of some of what you’re saying.
First of all, in everything I’m seeing, women who come forward with accusations are now in a social environment where they are supported by their peers and by new social mores for which #MeToo is largely responsible. I don’t see the “treated like dogshit” angle at all today. Those who have used their power to threaten their careers have been justly called out for it; I’m sure that some of it still goes on, and must be stopped. But I want to particularly discuss that last sentence, “The possibility that some might be unjustly accused is real, but it pales in comparison to what actually is going on out there for women and girls.”
Communism may not have been a real threat in the 50s, but most people thought it was, and the result was a kind of mass hysteria that led to the ruination of a lot of innocent talented people and their careers. We need to be deeply concerned about unjust accusations fuelled by similar hysteria, and about losing sight of the role of fundamental justice and the rule of law in a civilized society being subtly displaced by mob rule. I talked about Chris Hardwick in another thread as an example of someone who was unjustly accused, but fortunately he had the resources and corporate faith in him to be independently investigated and fully exonerated. Not everyone is that lucky. Yet you still find essays about him calling him a piece of garbage (is that better than “dogshit”?) who has no business being back on the air.
A specific example I want to bring up here is Woody Allen, in which I’m going to make an exception to my rule about not duplicating posts and do some partial cut and paste from my other thread in the Pit. I’m not trying to defend him as neither I nor any outsider knows all the facts, but just trying to provide some perspective. I read the entire judgment of the famous 1993 trial in which Allen tried to gain custody of Dylan, Satchel, and Moses (scroll down for the full document). It’s a well-written ruling that probably provides a more balanced perspective than any of the personal rants written by the different participants and their supporters.
The trial was notable not just because Allen lost, but because he lost devastatingly. The judge seemed to think of Allen as a self-absorbed neurotic who was terrible at parenting. Not only was he denied his custody request, he was also denied visitation rights to Dylan and Satchel for the immediate future. His entire custody suit was termed “frivolous” and he was required to pay Mia’s full legal costs. The judge’s ruling was described as “scathing”. So I’m not defending Allen as the model of the ideal human being. But is that a prerequisite for being a world-class writer and director?
As for the allegations of abuse of Dylan, investigations failed to find any conclusive evidence, and as the judge stated in his ruling, “we will probably never know what happened”.
My position on this is that I don’t know and I don’t see the point in speculating or making assumptions. It’s not like Allen is a threat to anyone. What I do know is that in the intervening 25 years since these events, Allen has made roughly that same number of movies, in addition to the incredibly funny early ones, and many A-list actors have been desperate for the privilege of being in them, some of them working to scale just for the opportunity to work with Allen. Not all his movies have been gems, by any means, but many of them really were, and some others less than stellar but still quite enjoyable.
And now? Many actors are distancing themselves from him, I believe Amazon canceled financing for his latest film, and Hachett is now refusing to publish his new book after many of the staff walked out in protest. The only thing that’s changed over that time is the rise of the #MeToo movement, which has done many good things (may Harvey Weinstein rot in hell) but I wonder if it may be becoming such a strong social force that it’s overwhelming our fundamental principles of justice and balanced judgment. The fact that there’s still lots to be done in the area of women’s rights does not justify attacking the problem with such a blunt instrument that it leaves a trail of collateral damage.
Which leads me to these two key questions:
What useful, objective purpose is served by cancelling the movie and the book? Is the idea to have a figurative lynch mob shut down Allen’s career?
Remember Jordan Belfort (the “wolf of Wall Street”)? A true scumbag, thief, and drug addict who was sentenced to 4 years in prison and fined $110 million for securities fraud. He published not one but two books about his exploits, most of which were criminal and some of which were just sexually perverse, and was then a consultant on a major movie about it starring Leonardo diCaprio and directed by Martin Scorsese. Why was it OK for a convicted criminal to profit from the story of his criminal career, but not OK for Allen to publish a book or make a movie?