See, this is how it works.
Rather than talking about sexual harassment, we need to talk about the real victims: men, who might be falsely accused of sexual harassment.
Subject changed. No interest in actually stopping harassment, no need to discus harassment, no need to discus sexism, because we’re on to the really important topic, which is how to protect men.
I did say so. #METOO did not magically spring fully formed and roaring out of the gate because of one tweet as if till that point it had never occurred to anyone. And besides…I showed you…it is 11 years old so it really did not just appear a year ago, it just got a lot more attention a year ago.
Sufficient to lose your job, your reputation, get kicked out of school, quite possibly ruin a life.
If the central tenet of #MeToo is “believe women” then, by default, you are not believing the men if they deny the accusation.
On what basis have you formed that conclusion? Apparently no reason whatsoever other than because a woman told you so. Why? Because women do not lie about this in your worldview. Nevermind you have precious little evidence for that assertion. It is a lousy line of reasoning.
Are you arguing there should be some process by which we determine the truth? Nope. In your view it’s just what your gut tells you that decides it.
This is not a good form of justice. It never worked well in the past and there is no reason to think it will work well now.
You think so? Really? When the false accusation was made in 2006 and the murder was committed in 2011? Sheesh, a lot of people don’t serve that much time even for committing rape, much less falsely accusing someone else of committing it.
False accusations are not a significant problem. They don’t happen all that often, and we all agree they are despicable and should be punished.
There is also no one arguing for doing away with due process. The instances when such are alleged are generally about public opinion–which has never had due process. Sometimes it’s even used to mean “if they’ve not been proven guilty in court, you can’t think they are guilty.” But tons of criminals are never convicted, but we still think they did it.
Neither of these are problems with #MeToo. They are arguments created by those who don’t want to have to stop harassing women. They use these arguments to try and convince others. They prey on the current culture of disbelief of women to get people who are otherwise good to go along with them.
Then there’s the “dating has been upended” argument. This is repeatedly asserted, but I’ve not seen any indication of what’s no longer allowed that was before. The common protocol for dating for guys, as I understand it, is as follows:
Guy has friendly chat with girl. Guy asks for a number or tries to set up a date. The girl accepts or declines. If needed, guy calls to set up date. They go on the date, and flirt. Either on this date, or subsequent dates, you gradually increase intimacy, while watching to see if she reciprocates. If so, great. If not, you pull back. Eventually you either stay dating and become a couple, or go your separate ways. At any point in there, you may increase to the point of actual sex, assuming she reciprocates along the way.
Nothing in there requires going up to someone at work and making a sexually suggestive comment. None of it requires harassing someone or asking them more than once. None of it requires grabbing them or groping them. None of it involve catcalls.
But it sure seems to me like a lot of guys think that is normal. That this is what you do. That you start out pushing for sexual contact before you’ve gauged interest and given her a chance to back down. They you keep pushing after she has indicated a lack of interest.
So maybe you can’t do that anymore. But it’s not like the other method is new. I’ve seen it in books and on TV for decades. The basic idea is even in those PUA books, even thought they throw in some nasty stuff, too. It sure doesn’t seem to me that things have been upended. It seems like the things you were getting away with before aren’t going well.
It seems more to me that there are people for whom making #MeToo into a bad thing is useful to them, and that is why they push this narrative. Instead, we should be pushing a narrative of “It’s all right. It’s not all that different.”
And I say this as someone who had my own shares of missteps along the way growing up.
Well then we can easily fix your concerns if we don’t just blindly and always believe what a woman says and blindly and always disbelieve what a man says.
And since this is something that makes sense, you might be relieved to know that your standard is in widespread use! So your concerns having been addressed, what else can we help you with?
Post #72 and #73.
:rolleyes:
You guys keep saying that. But I’ve asked and never gotten a proper answer for this: when? Where is this big group of falsely accused who have had all this happen to them?
As far as I know, when an accusation is made, someone is generally put on leave of suspension, and the job or school does their own investigation. So you don’t lose that.
And I’ve never seen someone’s reputation destroyed by a false accusation. If we find out it’s false, then everything is forgiven. And if the accusation doesn’t sound perfect, then the majority of people ignore it.
This idea is trotted out a lot, but it doesn’t seem to have much behind it. Just a lot of repetition, and repetition leads people to believe there is a big problem. When, in fact, the problem goes the other way, of rapists getting off scot-free.
We have a very good reason. The fact that most rape accusations are not false. You are the one with very little reason, since you have little to no evidence of significant harm of false accusations.
Plus, even your worst-case scenario is not nearly as bad as the consequences of rape. It’s nowhere near. Rape victims experience everything you mentioned, and then tons of stuff on top of that.
So you have something that rarely happens versus something that happens to 80% of women. And your worse consequences with false accusations is nowhere near as bad as just a normal rape or sexual assault situation.
Any rational risk scenario would tell you that believing women is the better option.
WTF are you talking about? We all still 100% support investigations and trials. We regularly advocate for investigations rather than something being swept under the rug. So we do in fact have a process for determining the truth.
The things you are saying do not resemble the #MeToo movement. They resemble the strawman version created to attack it. The actual concept–that you shouldn’t sexually harass, assault, or rape people–is so unassailable that people have to attack positions we don’t hold.
And you are using statements of supposed problems without proof. It’s just accepted that false accusations are a huge problem. But that doesn’t work.
Edit: and your cites do not contradict anything I’ve said so far. The last one, at least, actually supports it, since you cite campus investigations, and that there wasn’t enough evidence to move forward, meaning nothing happened to those people.
Well hey - as long as the main concern is not the 81% of women who suffer from sexual harassment or the 25% of women who suffer from rape, but rather the X% of men (no number has actually been given, which I personally find not the least bit surprising) who suffer from being falsely accused of rape.
Benjamin Franklin was talking about the legal system. The legal system has the power of the state behind it, and as such requires a very stringent standard of evidence. Jobs don’t work like that. If you get accused of doing something wrong on the job, the standard of evidence required by your boss is not and never has been “proven to a jury of your peers beyond all reasonable doubt”. Rather, it varies greatly, depending on who your boss is, and, interestingly enough, whether they like you. In some states, the legal standard is “by the boss’s whim” - if you don’t like that, HurricaneDitka, I’d be surprised, as I have never seen you complaining about “Right To Work” statutes.
It’s a common tactic to demand a legalistic burden of proof in non-legalistic settings to try to discredit victims of sexual harassment. It’s totally nonsensical - if a friend confided in you that they were raped by another friend, if you would respond by saying, “Can you prove this to me beyond all reasonable doubt?” then I shouldn’t have to explain how backwards or tactless that is. But the tactic sounds convincing to many, and as jobs or friendships often tend to lack things like subpoena power or the ability to test rape kits, the result is that we, collectively, in every context, do absolutely nothing about rape, harassment, and assault.
No, you didn’t. I’m not contradicting you about the existence of Burke’s campaign with that phrase starting in 2007, but it’s absurd to think that the 2017 #MeToo viral phenomenon is simply the same movement that “just got a lot more attention”, when most of the recent #MeToo participants were never even aware of Burke or her work.
Again the same melodramatic but vague and unsubstantiated whining. Who here is saying that a mere unsupported accusation should be “sufficient” to inflict any of those things upon the accused? Do you believe that what happened to Franken and Lauer, for instance, was due to nothing but an unsupported accusation?
:dubious: I think maybe you’re finding that maxim a little too subtle for you. It’s simply an exhortation not to automatically suspect, dismiss or ignore a woman who says she’s been sexually assaulted or harassed.
As I’ve pointed out before, it would blow people’s minds if the level of disbelief commonly applied to women’s complaints of assault or harassment were routinely applied to people complaining about, e.g., being robbed or pickpocketed:
“Believe women” ultimately just means “stop subjecting women to this automatic systemic disbelief”.
Of course. For the nth time, nobody here is saying that we should abandon the legal process by which we determine the truth or abrogate the legal rights of the accused. That is why you haven’t been able to cite any specific examples here of posters saying that, despite being repeatedly asked for such cites.
:rolleyes: It’s a good thing that nowhere except in your resentful imagination is anybody in fact advocating that “what your gut tells you” should actually replace due process as a “form of justice”.
Again, the reason you keep on repeating these vague dolorous whines about unspecified posters expressing “dismissal and contempt of due process” in some unspecified way is that you can’t find any specific post here where a specific poster is in fact arguing against due process, because there aren’t any.
Well there you go…thread winner! So succinct, so incisive. So utterly lacking in content it really says it all about the poster’s quality of thought.
As for the actual topic of this thread: the problem is not #MeToo, but these boneheaded reactions. Discriminating against women over this is not an acceptable reaction. The solution is for these people who will now cost the company due to lawsuits for unequal treatment of women to be disciplined or let go.
The solution is not to stop #MeToo or in any way pretend like it is the cause of the problem. It is their reaction to the problem.
And since nothing has changed legally, anything they reasonably do is something they should have been doing anyways, and #MeToo changes nothing about that. It just means they’re more likely to get caught. That’s like having sympathy for people when we decide to crack down on corruption.
If you were trying to do what’s right from the beginning, this wouldn’t be a huge change.
No, you got that because you chose to bring up quotes from before whose problems had already been shown.
And now you are using it to avoid dealing with what people already said. We’ve all said words, not just emoticons. Address our words.
It remains it is disingenuous to suppose #MeToo is merely the result of the zeitgeist crystallizing into a snappy slogan. It was building to it long before that as the 2007 woman who actually coined the term proves so pointing out what is happening on campuses is relevant.
It is also curious why you will not address what is considered by many legal experts to be a real problem and a serious abrogation of due process as regards men and accusations of sexual harassment?
You claim I am “whining” and “melodramatic” with “vague and unsubstantiated” fears of men yet I show you it is a rampant problem at US colleges and…crickets. Doesn’t count because it started before #MeToo. Why does that matter even if true is beyond me.
Not melodrama. Vague only inasmuch as universities are very tight-lipped about it all. Certainly not unsubstantiated. You’re like an anti-vaxxer who manages to avoid any evidence that does not fit your dogma.
That is not what it says. If that is what they meant they should say so. Why should the mantra be subtle? Why not just say that? Something like, “Take all accusations seriously!” Still pithy.
I 100% agree if an accusation is made it should be taken seriously and investigated.
Because we both know no one here would actually say, “I think due process is dumb and we should not do it,” and we both know that.
But people here are content with #MeToo as it is which, I have already showed, runs roughshod over due process.
I did. Before you even posted. Your post ignored what I already said so I just pointed you what I wrote that contradicted your post.
To which you have both replied with…nothing (although you did at least use words).
Whack-A-Mole, name one time that someone was convicted of a crime in the legal system without a trial showing guilt beyond reasonable doubt as a result of #MeToo.
You are again trying to apply a legal standard in a non-legal context.
Ah…tricksy (but not tricky).
My issue here is the person is having extrajudicial punishment imposed on them. At the behest of the government no less.
So, instead of the government having to deal with messy sexual harassment cases it writes a “Dear Colleague” letter which foists the problem onto universities. The universities, not beholden to any pesky legal rules, just runs roughshod over any sense of justice. No rules really…they can do what they want and the damage inflicted can be severe and lifelong.
As my cite above showed legal scholars are questioning this process. As noted in one cite you have no right against self incrimination so if you keep your mouth shut they can expel you. If you try to defend yourself they can turn that over to law enforcement.
Even if not in a court why should we not try to apply legal rules which were devised specifically to try and see justice was done?
But hey…they are not actual real courts so are not subject to due process rules which I am sure you know full well in an effort to win an internet point with your hyper-specific parameters.
No cookie for you.
Again, anything to distract us from talking about sexual harassment, and get us talking about the real problem which is the epidemic of false harassment accusations sweeping America.
Good thought. Let’s tell the MRA snowflakes to stop whining because the rest of us don’t want to hear their bullshit.
There are reasonable concerns about due process in sexual abuse allegations in the context of universities. If that’s what you’re talking about, you probably have some kind of point. It’s not really what this thread was talking about, though, and I guess I missed the context clues. In the context of business or private life, applying the legal standard to such allegations would be fairly unique.