The ONLY people so far with any legitimate reason to fear the #MeToo movement are abusers, harassers, gropers, rapists, and other violators of consent. I’ve seen no spate of false accusations ruining the lives of innocent people. These fears are based on hypothetical notions. And meanwhile, hundreds of millions of victims and survivors haven’t gotten justice, and countless abusers and violators remain free to continue to abuse and violate. The latter is far, far more frightening.
I foundthis articleinteresting in relation to some of the supposed “victims” of #MeToo who’ve “done nothing wrong”, like Ansari and Ghomeshi. I did at the time, and I still do, especially in light of some of the commentary on this thread.
Sure, those guys may have done nothing criminal. That doesn’t mean they’ve done nothing wrong.
Wolfpup,
You mock women for being too timid to “show agency” but you also mock them when they go to the police, saying that they are over-reacting by sending a man to prison for “being a boor”. You seem to be suggesting that because the law might “fail to make a distinction” a woman shouldn’t tell the police she’s been assaulted because it might result in consequences you think too severe. And I don’t buy “it depends on the culture”. That’s the whole problem–there are too many places where victimization of women is treated as just “culture”.
Let me clarify my question: At what point do you think groping, goosing, pinching, fondling, stroking becomes criminal? At what point do you think the law should become involved, and legal consequences should be imposed? That can’t be “cultural”.
And sexual predators are very, very good at finding victims who can’t show agency–either because they are too shy and anxious, because the predator has power over them, because they don’t feel confident they will be believed. If a man decks another man in the copy room and says “it’s because he touched my junk and I felt threatened”, no one is going to say 'Well, do you have proof? Why would he do that?" They will believe the victim because why would he lie? Why would he admit to something like that if it wasn’t true? But if a woman slaps a dude and makes the same claim–especially if he’s well-liked–people will doubt her, accuse her of “misunderstanding”, suggest she’s “looking for attention”.
You misunderstand me. Your question was about where to draw the line on what I interpreted to be the legality or morality of different kinds of sexual contact, and I answered that it depends on things like culture and historical timeframe. This is factually correct. I was also very clear in saying that in the contemporary context in the modern democracies in which we live, none of the actions you mentioned should be acceptable. I didn’t mock women at any point. I was mocking those who claim that they lack agency.
As a side note, I myself am so shy that in a social context I wouldn’t even speak to a woman I didn’t know. How I ever got married is a mystery, which I attribute to the pervasive influence of mutual friends. 
So no, I have no interest in defending horndogs who are causing all these problems.
First of all, laws always reflect the contemporary culture of the jurisdiction in which they’re enacted. It has apparently been culturally acceptable (if not necessarily legal) to kill female babies in India because male heirs are the more desirable. Laws and culture, in any case, are always inextricably intertwined. I think I’ve already answered your question, but to make it more clear, the point at which it becomes criminal is the point at which the woman feels she has been physically violated. The guiding principle here is intent and common sense. If your project team just won a major contract and you give your female project manager a big embrace, should you spend the rest of your life in jail?
What I see in social media these days, to the extent that I pay any attention to it at all, is that self-proclaimed victims of sexual misconduct really do get an enormous amount of sympathy and attention in the #MeToo era. You may disagree with this or even get angry about it, but I’ve personally witnessed it and it’s very common. In the case of Chris Hardwick, I don’t know if Chloe Dykstra was specifically attention-seeking when she wrote her essay, but she certainly achieved it.
What if a woman feels physically violated by a man patting her butt? You already said it was unjust to make that a crime.
“I only stole a dollar from you. Why are you making such a big deal of it?”
Yet you *do *defend them, every time you call them horndogs rather than sexual assaulters.
Exactly. Being horny isn’t a problem. It’s natural. It doesn’t cause assault.
“You stole a dollar from me! You should lose your job and no one should ever hire you again and you should never be able to show your face in public and people should picket your house.”
Regards,
Shodan
I’m really confused as to why you think a hug devoid of ANY other questionable actions (no secret butt-grabbing, no insisting even when the other person doesn’t want it, etc) would end in being in jail for the rest of anyone’s lift. Rather than, say, a talk in the office. Hell, RAPE doesn’t get someone imprisoned for the rest of their life, unless they happen to be especially old or happen to die in prison.
I also don’t think anyone here ever said a man should be imprisoned forever for a simple hug, so where did that even come from?
He has to say stuff like that because he doesn’t have a position that can be defended honestly.
…“you stole a dollar from me! That’s three strikes, we are going to throw you in prison for the rest of your natural life.”
The history of black people in America.
Pretty much. But it doesn’t count when it’s a real example because those people clearly deserve it. It’s only ridiculously hyperbolic hypotheticals that we need to take action against.
I acknowledge that sexual abuse is a horrible and pervasive problem, though I do think #MeToo has made more progress than you think. I admitted earlier that I had underestimated the extent of the problem, which I acknowledge and which perhaps reflects my naivety about the issues. But I have to tell you that demands for “massive, sweeping action” in a justice system that for the most part works pretty well is something I find scary. And the idea that “Rapists, assaulters, and harassers should be terrified” is even scarier. It’s not the purpose of the justice system to “terrify” anybody, but to try them fairly and according to the rules of evidence. You know who was “terrified” in modern history? Black Americans, and the Jews in Nazi Germany.
There has already been a backlash where women are losing mentoring and networking opportunities because men are afraid to be alone with them. Maybe it’s just a temporary adjustment phase, but the stats show it was worse last year than the year before. I did lots of mentoring in one of my jobs that involved young interns of both sexes. In fact that WAS my job – to run a kind of “skunkworks” operation that produced great software products at low cost outside the mainstream of the bloated development hierarchy, and it was very successful. It was a small group so there was lots of informal socializing, going out for lunch or going to a sports bar type of place for dinner, or occasionally one or two or all of them coming over to the house. There was lots of opportunity for late-night bar-hopping because we often worked long hours. Whatever. I never gave it a second thought. But that was before the Age of Hysteria. Today I’d have to be much more formal, and consequently the whole environment would be much less fun.
My problem was just putting it in the same category as much more serious offenses, including rape, and subject to the same horrendous criminal consequeces like jail time, criminal record, and sex registry listing. Common sense needs to prevail. While not directly on topic, in case you missed it, this is a prime example of the absence of common sense.
In your specific example, there are plenty of ways that companies can deal with it internally, or they can involve the police if they feel it necessary. Outside of a corporate environment, there are various options depending on the circumstances. I read a case recently where some horndog in a restaurant did something similar (though I think it qualified more like “goosing”) to a passing waitress. She called the police, and he was arrested. I have no problem with that. I don’t know what he was eventually charged with, although repeated offenses should bring increasingly severe penalties.
How is that “defending” anyone? I use the term “horndog” because it encompasses the whole range of offenses from minor to major that we’re talking about, whereas “sexual assaulter” is something much more specific, IMO. If the teenager I described earlier who was helping a woman fix her car and accidentally touched her breast was a “sexual assaulter”, then we’re redefining the semantics of the English language.
It was simple hyperbole. But if the woman happened to be hypersensitive about such things, a criminal charge would be plausible.
Did you just ignore the day-care sex-abuse hysteria story? Most of the convictions were bogus. Any moral panic is always dangerous. This is remarkably similar to the old saw, “If you haven’t done anything wrong, why would you be concerned about privacy laws? Or about warrantless searches? Or about the government tapping your phone line or internet connection?”
“It is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer”. – Benjamin Franklin
So your understanding of the evidence is that the judge didn’t understand that survivors of sex crimes sometimes don’t behave in stereotypical ways, despite the fact that he went out of his way to explain that he understood precisely that. And you conclude that the women weren’t dishonest despite the fact that they provably lied about material evidence multiple times while under oath – facts materially relevant to the case. For example, one of them claiming (IIRC) that she was so disgusted and afraid of Ghomeshi that she never wanted to see him or work with him again, failing to mention the fact, brought out later by the defense, that she went out with him and had sex with him again. This is not the sort of thing that you easily get confused about. It’s the sort of thing that you lie about when trying to get somebody convicted, the strategy about which two of them apparently spent a lot of time plotting on social media. I’m not saying Ghoemshi was innocent; I’m saying the evidence shows the accusers were engaged in an organized campaign to prove him guilty which backfired badly, and that you’re making judgments based on your preconceptions. I fully expected him to be found guilty, and frankly was hoping he would be. But the justice system worked exactly as it should, and I can’t think of any way of changing it without undermining the principles of fundamental justice and the public’s faith in it.
The prospect of ending slavery terrified slave-owners. The Civil Rights movement terrified white supremacists. As it should have, at least until they changed their vile views. The Nuremberg Trials terrified Nazis. As it should have. Good action terrifies the bad guys, as it should. This is a positive good thing.
Of course there will be a backlash, with so many high-ranking men stuck in old ways of thinking. Every step of progress faces some level of backlash.
So far no innocent people have been convicted. Your fears are “hysteria” – there’s no basis for them. And meanwhile, hundreds of millions of women and girls face present and future abuse, and most of their abusers face no consequences. Why doesn’t that scare you?
They didn’t all “provably” lie – that requires mind-reading. When you’re stuck in the old ways of thinking, perhaps errors or even apparently conflicting behavior can seem like lies. For example:
Where’s the lie? People choose do things they don’t want to do all the time, especially women and girls facing powerful and abusive men. She never wanted to see him again… yet she saw him, even had intimate contact with him. Those aren’t in conflict. In this profoundly irrational society, sometimes apparently irrational behavior is really quite rational.
This society is fucked up, and you still seem to think that everything’s okay, or close to okay. It’s not.
“Organized campaign to prove him guilty” sounds like the kind of behavior that it’s entirely reasonable for legitimate victims to engage in. The Cosby and Weinstein accusers and prosecutors were certainly in an “organized campaign to prove him guilty” – and GOOD! Surprisingly, it worked! Sometimes, in this society that treats women and girls like dogshit, it doesn’t work, especially when they accuse powerful men.
It’s entirely possible that this was a conspiracy of dishonest people to harm Ghomeshi… but you haven’t presented any reason to believe this is so. Maybe there was no perfect action for the judge, but accusing these women of lying was entirely unnecessary and wrong, and is harmful to future prospects of a just society in which women and girls feel perfectly free to speak publicly about their experiences if they choose to, even if this involves accusations against powerful men.
You’re excusing sexual assault as just a consequence of male libido. That is very much a defense.
No, it doesn’t. Nobody would call a rapist a horndog, for example. Get real.
A little while ago I went to spate of professional training events with a male subordinate colleague of mine. After most, we would head to the bar for a quick (alcoholic) drink afterwards - we had/have a good rapport and it was a nice way for us to unwind.
A few months ago I attended a similar training event with a female subordinate (she in her early 20s, me in my late 30s). I did not even consider asking her if she fancied a quick drink at the bar afterwards - we went our separate ways straight away.
I am pretty certain that I did not ask the latter if she felt like a drink because I could not think of a way to ask that might not have been interpreted as my being sleazy. Okay, I have a friendlier relationship with the former (so we would have been more likely to go for a beer anyway, regardless of gender) - but she and I could have hit the bar - we have a good-enough relationship to have done so - I swerved it out of fear of a) how the event might have been re-told and b) her misinterpreting the question as a creepy come-on. Pre-#metoo, I don’t think that would have happened (I’d have asked her if she fancied a beer, with no creepy ulterior motives nor fear of being accused of having any).
Of course, on its own this isn’t exactly earthquake-scale stuff - but I’m sure that lots of male managers are making little judgements like this all the time, holding female staff a little more at arm’s length socially than the men. I’m not particularly happy (or proud) about this situation. Should I have asked her if she fancied a quick drink at the bar? Or should I not have asked the male colleague? Don’t know…
This seems strange that you would put this much thought into this.
You: “Hey, I’m grabbing a beer at the bar, you want one?”
Her: “Sounds great!”
You each have a drink and then you say “I gotta go, see ya tomorrow!”
or
Her: “No I don’t think so”
You: “That’s cool. Well, I’ll see you tomorrow!”
Is it really more difficult than that?
You should be thinking twice about such situations with co-workers, but you should apply the same result regardless of the sex of the other person. In other words, if you would think twice about asking a woman if she wants to get a drink in the same situation, you should think twice about asking a man. You should be treating them equally.
Same here.
I have male and female employees reporting to me. When I am around the former there is a sense of ease; we occasionally joke, hang out, etc. I am extremely cautious and “on guard” when I am with the latter. Even then, I am still susceptible to a false allegation, and such an event would be the end of my career. (I have witnessed this firsthand on two occasions.) So as a result I try to minimize my interactions with the females who report to me. I won’t even say anything about their tardiness or substandard work; it’s simply not worth the risk.