# This whole sexual accusation thing – a perspective I’ve not heard discussed **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [December 2, 2017, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-whole-sexual-accusation-thing-a-perspective-i-ve-not-heard-discussed/803295 "2017-12-02T02:24:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 18
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2017, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-whole-sexual-accusation-thing-a-perspective-i-ve-not-heard-discussed/803295/341 "2017-12-21T04:57:51Z")
Any comments about [this bit](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/20/opinion/metoo-damon-too-far.html?ribbon-ad-idx=4&rref=opinion&module=Ribbon&version=context®ion=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&pgtype=article) from today’s NYT? > [@](#): > > … Don’t we have the moral capacity to distinguish between aggressive sexual predation and run-of-the-mill romantic bungling — between a pattern of abusive behavior and a good man’s uncharacteristic bad moments? … > > … It will not serve the interests of women if #MeToo becomes a movement that does as much to wreck the careers of people like Henderson as it does to bring down the Weinsteins of the world. Nor will it do much to convince men that #MeToo is a movement that is ultimately for them if every sexual transgression, great or small, vile, crass or mostly clumsy, is judged according to the same Procrustean standard. > > Now to the inevitable rejoinder: You’re a guy. What do you know? Or, as Minnie Driver told The Guardian: “The time right now is for men just to listen and not have an opinion about it for once.” > > Listening is always essential. But one-way conversations go down about as well with most men as they do with most women, and #MeToo isn’t going to succeed in the long run if the underlying message is #STFU … ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2017, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-whole-sexual-accusation-thing-a-perspective-i-ve-not-heard-discussed/803295/342 "2017-12-21T05:27:00Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Any comments about [this bit](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/20/opinion/metoo-damon-too-far.html?ribbon-ad-idx=4&rref=opinion&module=Ribbon&version=context®ion=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&pgtype=article) from today’s NYT? …I’ve never heard of Henderson. How was his firing as a result of #metoo? What are the specifics (not Henderson’s version) of the firing? Perhaps he deserved to get fired? This was an editorial by a friend of Bret Stephens: so forgive me if I take it with a grain of salt. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2017, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-whole-sexual-accusation-thing-a-perspective-i-ve-not-heard-discussed/803295/343 "2017-12-21T13:43:03Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …I’ve never heard of Henderson. How was his firing as a result of #metoo? What are the specifics (not Henderson’s version) of the firing? > … The otherwise publicly available [specifics](https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2017/12/15/detroit-free-press-stephen-henderson-terminated-misconduct/956319001/) that are not his version are that he was fired for unnamed and unspecified allegations. Only that they “dated several years back”, that they were “inconsistent with company values and standards”, and that “There were no accusations or evidence of sexual assault.” Since it is all the same and all as bad does it matter if it was something else? ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2017, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-whole-sexual-accusation-thing-a-perspective-i-ve-not-heard-discussed/803295/344 "2017-12-21T19:44:01Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > The otherwise publicly available [specifics](https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2017/12/15/detroit-free-press-stephen-henderson-terminated-misconduct/956319001/) that are not his version are that he was fired for unnamed and unspecified allegations. Only that they “dated several years back”, that they were “inconsistent with company values and standards”, and that “There were no accusations or evidence of sexual assault.” …yeah I’ve found all of that. Henderson was fired for inappropriate behaviour. So what? > [@](#): > > Since it is all the same and all as bad does it matter if it was something else? All as bad as what? This isn’t as bad as Weinstein. This is somebody I’ve never heard of who had two people complain about his behaviour, it was investigated, and he was fired. Henderson is disputing the reason he was fired. Is there something extraordinary about this story that you want to talk about? How does it relate to #metoo? What should have happened here? Should the two employees have not come forward? Should Henderson’s bosses not have investigated? What was wrong with the process here? How do we know that his behaviour was “uncharacteristic?” Maybe Henderson just deserved to get fired? ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2017, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-whole-sexual-accusation-thing-a-perspective-i-ve-not-heard-discussed/803295/345 "2017-12-22T03:31:03Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > … Is there something extraordinary about this story that you want to talk about? … No. I’m not really interested in that story at all. The NYT link is pertinent to the discussion regarding what Damon said and reactions to it. I posted it wondering there would be reasoned comments to the points made by the writer about that. You had no reasoned comments to make in that regard and instead asked a question about what is known about the Henderson case that the writer used as an illustration. I tried to answer that question. You also felt it relevant to make an ad hominem attack on the writer rather than to address any of the points made. My question about your question was in the context of the writer’s reacting to Driver’s comment that “[t]here is no hierarchy of abuse”… if so then why does it matter what any individual accused is accused of? He is accused of doing something that offended someone. No hierarchy; what he did (and he admits to doing something offensive) is therefore immaterial. Why was the question of what he is accused of of interest to you? Do you think the main point of the bit was the specifics of the Henderson case? Such was not my read. ---
**Author:** ![Tee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@Tee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tee)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2017, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-whole-sexual-accusation-thing-a-perspective-i-ve-not-heard-discussed/803295/346 "2017-12-22T04:01:04Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Any comments about [this bit](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/20/opinion/metoo-damon-too-far.html?ribbon-ad-idx=4&rref=opinion&module=Ribbon&version=context®ion=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&pgtype=article) from today’s NYT? Sure. The little bit I was able to read before the subscription wall came up had a quote from Minnie Driver that said there is no hierarchy of abuse. I assume that’s what led to this: > [@](#): > > .. Don’t we have the moral capacity to distinguish between aggressive sexual predation and run-of-the-mill romantic bungling — between a pattern of abusive behavior and a good man’s uncharacteristic bad moments? … > > It will not serve the interests of women if #MeToo becomes a movement that does as much to wreck the careers of people like Henderson as it does to bring down the Weinsteins of the world. Nor will it do much to convince men that #MeToo is a movement that is ultimately for them if every sexual transgression, great or small, vile, crass or mostly clumsy, is judged according to the same Procrustean standard. One, we’re not going to use Harvey Weinstein as the benchmark for bad behavior, and then defend lesser offenders because they aren’t Harvey Weinstein. That’s ridiculous. Just wanted to get that out of the way. Two, in my experience the term _hierarchy of abuse_ is used in counseling victims of abuse and assault, and it has less to do with the perpetrators than the habit of victims in minimizing their own suffering. It belongs in countering “It wasn’t that big of a deal”, “I should be a stronger person” and “it’s not like I was raped (beaten, starved)…” Victims often don’t feel as though they have a right to be _this_ upset over what happened, whatever it was. And so you explain that what matters right now is that something did happen and they feel strongly about it, and we’re going to look at those feelings and not be all judgy about why they have them. And more often than not you’re going to hear some heinous shit that cannot, in any way, be mistaken for someone’s innocent bungling, and it’s been buried in self-blaming and “it wasn’t that big of a deal” and “it could have been worse.” This is not just sexual, it could be verbal abuse. Physical abuse by a parent is way worse than verbal abuse by a parent, for example. Says society. But we know that both cause ill effects and there is nothing helpful about pointing out that other people have had it worse, no matter who does it. I believe that is the origin of the saying there is no hierarchy of abuse. So reading Minnie Driver’s quotes beyond the hierarchy thing shows that she did, also, mention a spectrum of sexual misconduct (predation to romantic bungling?) and she is reacting mostly to Damon saying the same thing, **but** he also said, “_We live in this culture of outrage and injury, that we’re going to have to correct enough to kind of go: 'Wait a minute. None of us came here perfect._” I don’t know what he’s saying - sometimes even a nice guy will grab a server’s ass or something? But he could have just had a bad day? In any case it’s still sexual misconduct. It doesn’t feel any different to the victim if the perpetrator does it weekly or only that one time when he was drunk, and who does Damon think he is in wanting to “correct” that? I think that’s a better representation of what Driver was saying. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2017, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-whole-sexual-accusation-thing-a-perspective-i-ve-not-heard-discussed/803295/347 "2017-12-22T04:18:17Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > No. I’m not really interested in that story at all. …you quoted a bit that talked about Henderson. Henderson is relevant. > [@](#): > > The NYT link is pertinent to the discussion regarding what Damon said and reactions to it. I posted it wondering there would be reasoned comments to the points made by the writer about that. You had no reasoned comments to make in that regard and instead asked a question about what is known about the Henderson case that the writer used as an illustration. I tried to answer that question. You also felt it relevant to make an ad hominem attack on the writer rather than to address any of the points made. You asked “Any comments about this bit from today’s NYT?” How did I answer your question incorrectly? How were my comments not reasoned? It isn’t wrong to point out that the author has written a piece that is defending a friend of his. That isn’t an ad hominem. Its relevant disclosure. > [@](#): > > My question about your question was in the context of the writer’s reacting to Driver’s comment that “[t]here is no hierarchy of abuse”… if so then why does it matter what any individual accused is accused of? He is accused of doing something that offended someone. No hierarchy; what he did (and he admits to doing something offensive) is therefore immaterial. Context is important. And what is clear here is you are mis-representing the context of Driver’s quote. Here are her words in full: “There is no hierarchy of abuse – that if a woman is raped [it] is much worse than if woman has a penis exposed to her that she didn’t want or ask for … you cannot tell those women that one is supposed to feel worse than the other." What she is clearly saying is that there is no “hierarchy of abuse” on how a women is supposed to feel. She is not sayings (as you seem to think she is saying) that there is no hierarchy of abuse in regards to consequences. > [@](#): > > Why was the question of what he is accused of of interest to you? “It will not serve the interests of women if #MeToo becomes a movement that does as much to wreck the careers of people like Henderson as it does to bring down the Weinsteins of the world. Nor will it do much to convince men that #MeToo is a movement that is ultimately for them if every sexual transgression, great or small, vile, crass or mostly clumsy, is judged according to the same Procrustean standard.” There is a lot to break down here in this paragraph. But in summary: -Bret Stephens thinks that Henderson’s career has been wrecked -Bret Stephens thinks that Henderson’s careers was wrecked by #MeToo -Bret Stephens thinks that #MeToo draws an equivalence between people who do stuff like Weinstein and people who did stuff like Henderson -That #MeToo is trying to judge everything to the same standard But thats all bullshit. Because we don’t know exactly what Henderson did. We don’t know why the two women came forward, we don’t know what they found during the investigation. #MeToo is a hashtag about solidarity. Its a symbol to those that haven’t experienced sexual harassment, assault and abuse of how big a problem this is in our society. It has not gone “too far.” #MeToo didn’t wreck Henderson’s career. Two women reported Henderson, it was investigated, and he got fired. This isn’t a sign of a hashtag out of control. > [@](#): > > Do you think the main point of the bit was the specifics of the Henderson case? Such was not my read. Henderson isn’t the main point: but he uses it as an example of “the problem with #MeToo” so it is entirely appropriate to use it to show how he’s got things wrong. ---
**Author:** ![MoodIndigo1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e8c25b/32.png) [@MoodIndigo1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MoodIndigo1)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2017, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-whole-sexual-accusation-thing-a-perspective-i-ve-not-heard-discussed/803295/348 "2017-12-22T04:35:52Z")
The original post confirms that I was right not to denounce the men who made unwanted advances and, in one case, raped me violently. I posted #me too, like many others, but I don’t have the strength to face the blame, attacks, suspicions that accusers face. I understand why most women don’t report. Thank you to all of the women who did so for the rest of us. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2017, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-whole-sexual-accusation-thing-a-perspective-i-ve-not-heard-discussed/803295/349 "2017-12-22T14:13:49Z")
> [@Tee](#): > > Sure. … Thank you for these comments. Damon’s “We live in this culture of outrage and injury, that we’re going to have to correct enough to kind of go: 'Wait a minute. None of us came here perfect.”? What was he talking about? Well this was the context: > [@Damon](#): > > … And we’re going to have to figure — you know, there’s a difference between, you know, patting someone on the butt and rape or child molestation, right? Both of those behaviors need to be confronted and eradicated without question, but they shouldn’t be conflated, right? You know, we see somebody like Al Franken, right? — I personally would have preferred if they had an Ethics Committee investigation, you know what I mean? It’s like at what point — you know, we’re so energized to kind of get retribution, I think. > > And we live in this culture of outrage and injury, and, you know, that we’re going to have to correct enough to kind of go, “Wait a minute. None of us came here perfect.” You know what I mean? … He is not claiming that the sort of thing Franken was accused of was not sexual misconduct but that the apparent culture of outrage drive for retribution mandates “end of career” as the one possible response to all offenses. And, he feared, the lesson learned then is to deny “because if you take responsibility for what you did, your life’s going to get ruined.” I think it is a clear misread to portray Damon’s comments as Driver seems to be parsing them, as saying that victims have no right to be upset. Let’s go with your child abuse analogy. Yes physical abuse, like putting a child into boiling water, and verbal abuse, can both cause serious lasting harms to a child. But should we a society respond to them both the same way. I would argue not. Some child abuse mandates taking the child away from a parent permanently and possibly criminal prosecution in some cases. Some child abuse may not even be best served by removal but rather by supervision with parent training and support of the the child and the parent in a variety of ways. Moreover parents guilty of some degree of verbal abuse who recognize it, admit it, and ask for help to become better parents, would be ill served by living in a society in which they believe that the response will be to take their kids away. Does my saying that mean that I am insensitive to the harms that verbal abuse can cause and who do I think I am? Or would such a response be a contrived reaction to what I just wrote? I think we have to accept that the death by a thousand cuts offenses are endemic. If the problem is “patriarchy” or otherwise a culture that has many men, who are otherwise reasonable and good people, thinking that some comments and behaviors that are clearly not okay are, then one goal should be to get these many people to recognize that they are doing something wrong and learn to not do that. Does an environment that labels all who do any of those thousand cuts as monsters for whom there is no rehabilitation only expulsion (and makes other men so irrationally afraid of being misinterpreted that they avoid contact when possible, as several males here say they now do) best accomplish that goal? ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2017, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-whole-sexual-accusation-thing-a-perspective-i-ve-not-heard-discussed/803295/350 "2017-12-22T15:31:47Z")
If cisgender men think they are so overly demonized and victimized by society and the media that they can’t be around kids, then have some pity for me. As a transgender woman I see or read DAILY, multiple times, of people posting or saying or giving lectures in churches about how all of us are serial child sex perverts who are only transitioning because we want to spy on, victimize, oppress, molest, fondle, or rape other women and _especially_ children. I can _never_ allow myself to be alone with a child under any circumstances, when one of the two major political parties in this country has people campaigning on the “threat” I pose to all children, everywhere. I see it in every comments section on transgender news online, they call into my radio station and ask how they can put a “child molester” on the the air. Last week while I was the sound engineer I answered a call from a man who said I “would stand before the Lord, like Sodom and Gomorrah and be judged”, with an implied threat that if “the Lord” didn’t move fast enough, someone else would. High-profile posters on this message board, devoted to fighting ignorance, play innumerable sophistic games to try to cast FUD on us, almost always from the standpoint of anything dealing with sex or potential sex. It’s actually been stated to me by _numerous_ other transgender women that one reason they hurried up or pushed their final surgery was to reduce the chance that if they were falsely accused of being a “child sex pervert” or “pervert in general” for being in the ladies’ room, their claim of innocence at least might be taken more seriously if they had no male genitalia (not that a small number of women don’t abuse, molest, and rape children too, but let’s be serious, we all know how the average ignoramus views this issue). So when someone asks me to watch their child, alone, for more than 5 minutes, I have to say “absolutely not”, or use some ruse to get a second adult to come over and “help me” because “I don’t know how to be around children” or something else I make up. It actually makes me glad sometimes that I was born sterile thanks to my intersex condition, because I’ve **personally** seen friends of mine, even cisgender family members in a transgender household who support the transgender person, have police reports turned in from “anonymous” strangers that there is “child sex abuse” in their house. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2017, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-whole-sexual-accusation-thing-a-perspective-i-ve-not-heard-discussed/803295/351 "2017-12-22T15:34:32Z")
**Banquet Bear** , You wrote a lot of words but none of them answered the question: “Why was the question of what he is accused of of interest to you?” We know it was years back and that it was not sexual assault but so what? Are you saying that if what he said he did wrong, that was inappropriate, is confirmed, that he should _not_ have been fired? Because unless you are saying that I cannot understand why it would matter. And if you are saying that then you are saying that not all inappropriate behavior should be met with the same response. Again that NYT article about the Ford experience has some lessons. One, the need to visibly fire those with patterns of egregious offense and to make sure that reporting is without risk of retribution. The need to follow through in lasting ways. But also ability of some to learn and to change behaviors. There was this bit there: > [@](#): > > Firing workers demonstrated that harassment came with steep penalties. But many men did not view their behavior as improper. Ms. Thomas-Moore, the former teacher, was among those asked to conduct the classes. “Once you crossed into what we call Ford World,” she said, “everybody was supposed to be treated as co-workers.” There should be no hugging. When employees found themselves in uncomfortable situations, she taught them to say, “You’re in the yellow,” or “You’re in the red.” > > Some men scoffed or cracked jokes. Still, she felt the training was having an effect. One day, a man spoke up, saying he had wronged a co-worker by lying about having sex with her, Ms. Thomas-Moore recalled. He asked that the woman come upstairs, then apologized to her in front of his classmates. … Maybe Driver was talking about how women should feel but it was in response to what Damon said and claiming that he was telling women how they should feel. He was not. He was talking about how we as a society respond to offenders. Is the world in this case black and white without grays? Decent folk and monsters and no space in which decent folk can recognize they have made mistakes, learn, and change, without having end of career as the _only_ response to the mistake? Whatever was the case with Henderson, _should_ there be a space for punishment that is not career death penalty and for rehabilitation? Should our national conversation, in addition to empowering women to speak up, also create the space that those many who do not see themselves as monsters can engage in enough critical self-reflection to recognize that they may have in the past been inappropriate even if they did not see it that way at the time and if not try to make amends at least improve in the future? Is creating both possible? I think so. ---
**Author:** ![Tee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@Tee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tee)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2017, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-whole-sexual-accusation-thing-a-perspective-i-ve-not-heard-discussed/803295/352 "2017-12-22T17:00:33Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Thank you for these comments. > > Damon’s “We live in this culture of outrage and injury, that we’re going to have to correct enough to kind of go: 'Wait a minute. None of us came here perfect.”? What was he talking about? Well this was the context: > > He is not claiming that the sort of thing Franken was accused of was not sexual misconduct but that the apparent culture of outrage drive for retribution mandates “end of career” as the one possible response to all offenses. And, he feared, the lesson learned then is to deny “because if you take responsibility for what you did, your life’s going to get ruined.” > > I think it is a clear misread to portray Damon’s comments as Driver seems to be parsing them, as saying that victims have no right to be upset. I have no problem with that interpretation, I think it’s the best we can do with choppy celebrity quotes. There is still plenty there to work with. > [@](#): > > \*Let’s go with your child abuse analogy. Yes physical abuse, like putting a child into boiling water, and verbal abuse, can both cause serious lasting harms to a child. But should we a society respond to them both the same way. I would argue not. Some child abuse mandates taking the child away from a parent permanently and possibly criminal prosecution in some cases. Some child abuse may not even be best served by removal but rather by supervision with parent training and support of the the child and the parent in a variety of ways. Moreover parents guilty of some degree of verbal abuse who recognize it, admit it, and ask for help to become better parents, would be ill served by living in a society in which they believe that the response will be to take their kids away. > > Does my saying that mean that I am insensitive to the harms that verbal abuse can cause and who do I think I am? Or would such a response be a contrived reaction to what I just wrote? > > I think we have to accept that the death by a thousand cuts offenses are endemic. If the problem is “patriarchy” or otherwise a culture that has many men, who are otherwise reasonable and good people, thinking that some comments and behaviors that are clearly not okay are, then one goal should be to get these many people to recognize that they are doing something wrong and learn to not do that. Does an environment that labels all who do any of those thousand cuts as monsters for whom there is no rehabilitation only expulsion (and makes other men so irrationally afraid of being misinterpreted that they avoid contact when possible, as several males here say they now do) best accomplish that goal?\* On reddit I saw a great example of this current debate. A female college student was outside at a frat party, and while there, a male student came over to her and lifted her dress up above her waistline. A friend had dared him to do it. They were both on the lacrosse team. The party crowd was happy but the girl was upset, and no one would apologize, so she filed a police report. The police contacted the school. End result was that the two men are no longer on the lacrosse team and they lost their scholarships. There is a lot of anger in the comments toward the woman for ruining the mens’ lives, for not being able to take a joke, for not understanding pranks, for being vindictive, for destroying the country etc. and the other half of comments is unsympathetic, because the men acted like entitled jerks who expected no consequences…but no one disputes what happened and no one is questioning the authorities or the school. The woman ruined the mens’ lives with the simple act of reporting what they did. Does that support what Damon is saying? It seems so. ---
**Author:** ![Biffster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biffster/32/339_2.png) [@Biffster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffster)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2017, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-whole-sexual-accusation-thing-a-perspective-i-ve-not-heard-discussed/803295/353 "2017-12-22T18:55:31Z")
> [@Tee](#): > > I have no problem with that interpretation, I think it’s the best we can do with choppy celebrity quotes. There is still plenty there to work with. > > On reddit I saw a great example of this current debate. A female college student was outside at a frat party, and while there, a male student came over to her and lifted her dress up above her waistline. A friend had dared him to do it. They were both on the lacrosse team. The party crowd was happy but the girl was upset, and no one would apologize, so she filed a police report. The police contacted the school. End result was that the two men are no longer on the lacrosse team and they lost their scholarships. > > There is a lot of anger in the comments toward the woman for ruining the mens’ lives, for not being able to take a joke, for not understanding pranks, for being vindictive, for destroying the country etc. and the other half of comments is unsympathetic, because the men acted like entitled jerks who expected no consequences…but no one disputes what happened and no one is questioning the authorities or the school. The woman ruined the mens’ lives with the simple act of reporting what they did. > > Does that support what Damon is saying? It seems so. No it does not. Damon is not saying there shouldn’t be consequences; but rather, the consequences should be on a spectrum the same as the offences are. What happened with the girl and her dress being hiked up is not equivalent to rape, but it needs to be punished somehow. This response that was meted out seems commensurate. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2017, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-whole-sexual-accusation-thing-a-perspective-i-ve-not-heard-discussed/803295/354 "2017-12-22T23:46:05Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > **Banquet Bear** , > > You wrote a lot of words but none of them answered the question: “Why was the question of what he is accused of of interest to you?” …of course I did. We cannot test Stephens thesis regarding Henderson unless we know what Henderson did. Stephens claims #metoo has become a movement that does as much to wreck the careers of people like Henderson as it does to bring down the Weinsteins of the world. But #metoo didn’t wreck the career of Henderson. Henderson wrecked the career of Henderson. Unless you can show evidence otherwise: and that evidence would be what \*he was accused of and the circumstances of the accusations. \*Without any of that all we know is that two people came forward and complained about Henderson, it was investigated, and he was fired. > [@](#): > > We know it was years back and that it was not sexual assault but so what? I’ve explained “so what.” > [@](#): > > Are you saying that if what he said he did wrong, that was inappropriate, is confirmed, that he should _not_ have been fired? Why would I say that? > [@](#): > > Because unless you are saying that I cannot understand why it would matter. It matters because you have cited an opinion piece that uses Henderson as an example of how #metoo has incorrectly wrecked his career. I don’t think that’s the case. Do you? What are you basing that on? > [@](#): > > And if you are saying that then you are saying that not all inappropriate behavior should be met with the same response. Good thing I’m not fucking saying that then. > [@](#): > > Again that NYT article about the Ford experience has some lessons. One, the need to visibly fire those with patterns of egregious offense and to make sure that reporting is without risk of retribution. The need to follow through in lasting ways. But also ability of some to learn and to change behaviors. There was this bit there: I’m not sure what your point is here. Of course people can learn and change. And I’m glad that a random man asked a woman to come upstairs to apologize to her. I’m sure he felt better after that. > [@](#): > > Maybe Driver was talking about how women should feel but it was in response to what Damon said and claiming that he was telling women how they should feel. He was not. [QUOTE=Damon] I do believe that there’s a spectrum of behavior, right? And we’re going to have to figure — you know, there’s a difference between, you know, patting someone on the butt and rape or child molestation, right? Both of those behaviors need to be confronted and eradicated without question, but they shouldn’t be conflated, right? You know, we see somebody like Al Franken, right? — I personally would have preferred if they had an Ethics Committee investigation, you know what I mean? It’s like at what point — you know, we’re so energized to kind of get retribution, I think. And we live in this culture of outrage and injury, and, you know, that we’re going to have to correct enough to kind of go, “Wait a minute. None of us came here perfect.” [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Driver] “Gosh it’s so interesting (profoundly unsurprising) how men with all these opinions about women’s differentiation between sexual misconduct, assault and rape reveal themselves to be utterly tone deaf and as a result, systemically part of the problem.” [/QUOTE] The reality is that we do live in a society where the difference between “patting someone on the butt” and “rape or child molestation” is pretty fucking crystal clear. Society treats a butt-patter and a child molester differently. The law treats them differently. A butt-patter like Franken is not treated like a guy like Jared Fogle. **We all know this.** So I think that Driver has it exactly right. Damon thinks he’s identified the problem. But he doesn’t have a fucking clue. Society does not conflate butt-patters with molestation. But #metoo does, to a degree conflate butt-patters with molestation. How does it do that? Well as Driver puts it: [QUOTE=Driver] There is no hierarchy of abuse – that if a woman is raped [it] is much worse than if woman has a penis exposed to her that she didn’t want or ask for … you cannot tell those women that one is supposed to feel worse than the other. [/QUOTE] #metoo doesn’t differentiate between abuse. Because its all abuse. From a legal point of view the differences matter and I would suggest that nearly every women that has posted #metoo understands this. But that isn’t the point. [QUOTE=Driver] “There is not a woman I know,” Driver said, “myself included, who has not experienced verbal abuse and sexual epithets their whole fucking life, right up to being manhandled and having my career threatened several times by men I wouldn’t sleep with.” [/QUOTE] Because this is the point. The problem (in Hollywood) is at a scale that most people still can’t comprehend. Matt Damon can’t comprehend it. He can’t grasp the scale. Its why he has been labeled tone deaf. When nearly every women in Hollywood can tell stories where they have been experiencing verbal abuse and sexual epithets their whole fucking lives, being lectured by someone with the clout and the power as Damon that “none of us are perfect” and implying that we shouldn’t be outraged is the last thing that they need. > [@](#): > > He was talking about how we as a society respond to offenders. Is the world in this case black and white without grays? Decent folk and monsters and no space in which decent folk can recognize they have made mistakes, learn, and change, without having end of career as the _only_ response to the mistake? [QUOTE=Matt Damon] ” You know what I mean? … The Louis C.K. thing, I don’t know all the details. I don’t do deep dives on this, but I did see his statement, which kind of, which [was] arresting to me. When he came out and said, “I did this. I did these things. These women are all telling the truth.” And I just remember thinking, “Well, that’s the sign of somebody who — well, we can work with that” … Like, when I’m raising my kids, this constant personal responsibility is as important as anything else they learn before they go off in the world. … And then we can talk about rehabilitation and everything else. That’s criminal behavior, and it needs to be dealt with that way. The other stuff is just kind of shameful and gross, and I just think … I don’t know Louis C.K.. I’ve never met him. I’m a fan of his, but I don’t imagine he’s going to do those things again. You know what I mean? I imagine the price that he’s paid at this point is so beyond anything that he — I just think that we have to kind of start delineating between what these behaviors are. [/QUOTE] Matt Damon admits he doesn’t know the details. He accepts Louis CK’s apology as genuine, even though Louis CK _never says sorry_. He thinks he’s “paid the price” for only being “shameful and gross.” That the price he’s paid is “beyond anything that he’s [done].” Ya see I don’t think that Louis CK is “decent folk.” I don’t think that what has happened to Louis CK is out-of-proportion to the damage he did to those he harassed, I don’t think he genuinely understands what he has actually done, he hasn’t genuinely apologized. But Matt Damon thinks that Louis CK has suffered enough. So how do we reconcile our respective opinions? Well we can’t. “Monsters” and “decent folk” are subjective terms. So when you talk about “decent folk can recognize they have made mistakes, learn, and change” I think are you talking about people like Louis CK who still hasn’t said sorry to the people he hurt? Or Mel Gibson, who 10 years later is still complaining that he was “recorded illegally by an unscrupulous police officer who was never prosecuted for that crime?” Are these the “decent folk” you are talking about? What other “decent folk” did you have in mind? How as a society should we respond to “decent folk” like Louis CK? How many chances do they get? Hollywood is a competitive industry. A netflix contract is lucrative. There are many funny people out there who don’t whip out their dicks on a whim. Even if he was “very very sorry” I don’t see why he should get an opportunity over someone just as funny and talented who isn’t a colossal asshole. > [@](#): > > Whatever was the case with Henderson, _should_ there be a space for punishment that is not career death penalty and for rehabilitation? Whatever the case with Henderson is _precisely the point_. It isn’t the employer’s job to rehabilitate an employee. It has a duty of care to all its employees and if one of their employees is harassing or has harassed another then the employer should take the appropriate action. If that means “career death”: then the employer nor the person that complained are responsible for that career death. > [@](#): > > Should our national conversation, in addition to empowering women to speak up, also create the space that those many who do not see themselves as monsters can engage in enough critical self-reflection to recognize that they may have in the past been inappropriate even if they did not see it that way at the time and if not try to make amends at least improve in the future? Is creating both possible? Why should we care if a monster doesn’t see themselves as a monster? Harvey Weinstein probably doesn’t see himself as a monster. How much space for critical self-reflection do you want to give him? Should we allow him to make amends and improve for the future? There is nothing stopping people from recognizing that they may have in the past been inappropriate and to make amends at least improve in the future. I welcome that. But that doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t be consequences for what they did in the past. This isn’t a zero-sum game. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2017, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-whole-sexual-accusation-thing-a-perspective-i-ve-not-heard-discussed/803295/355 "2017-12-22T23:54:27Z")
**Tee** , Not sure how to interpret what would be “supporting” what he is saying but it does indeed demonstrate that it is possible to have gradations of responses and to attempt to fit the response to the offense. In the case you present there are several things that a response is hoped to accomplish. The perpetrators need to experience some level of punishment for the sake of justice. Hopefully the punishment is significant enough that “bro” culture on campus takes note and learns thereby learns the difference between a prank and that which crosses the line. Athletes in particular are often told that they represent the team when they are out and about and that certain unacceptable behaviors will result in suspension or dismissal from the team. A message sent that such is meant and not just winked at is important to send and to be sure that it is heard. One also hopes the offenders can themselves learn from the experience. Responding more severely than needed to accomplish those goals out of zero tolerance there is no hierarchy mentality would be best avoided. Among other reasons because the knowledge that the response will be _that_ severe may itself impede reporting. I see the response meted out as within a reasonable range to accomplish those goals and not as very excessive. They were not kicked out of the college or even suspended from the program. That would have been the equivalent of ending someone’s career and would have been excessive. Neither were they just slapped on the wrist with a response of insufficient magnitude to accomplish the above goals. Being kicked off the team (and thereby losing their scholarship monies) is big enough to make those points but it does not ruin their lives or anywhere close. Oh sure it is fair to debate if maybe a slightly less strong response would also have accomplished the goals, maybe a year’s suspension … I’m not sure if it would have or not myself. But the point remains that the school, agree or disagree with their decision, seems to have thought about what level of response was appropriate for the specific instance and then acted accordingly with something less than the most severe punishment available to them but one strong enough to accomplish the goals of meting out the punishment. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2017, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-whole-sexual-accusation-thing-a-perspective-i-ve-not-heard-discussed/803295/356 "2017-12-23T00:19:46Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > … So how do we reconcile our respective opinions? > > Well we can’t. … Well that much we can agree on. I for one do not see the world as “monsters” on the one hand and “decent folk” on the other. Oh there are individuals at the poles but most of us have capacity for being both and in fact in many ways have behaved as both whether we realize it or not. Most offenses just like most decent behaviors are not made by the few at the poles but by the rest of us, sometimes cluelessly and ignorantly. How do we best improve the behavior of the rest of us? My take is that saying “xxx-ism is evil done by monsters and those monsters should be punished severely or banished” and only that is a poor way to accomplish that change. In that formulation the monster is always someone else, but never yourself. I think many of us are able to realize on reflection that we have behaved badly and have been wrong, can learn from that realization, and can change our behavior going forward. But few us will accept a formulation that labels us monsters. That formulation stops the process right there. FWIW to the limited degree I know the specifics I happen to agree that Louie C.K.'s consequence is not out of proportion to his offense and that his apology lacked signs of true contrition. I agree that Damon is off the rails there. ---
**Author:** ![Biffster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biffster/32/339_2.png) [@Biffster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffster)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2017, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-whole-sexual-accusation-thing-a-perspective-i-ve-not-heard-discussed/803295/357 "2017-12-23T15:36:53Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Well that much we can agree on. > > I for one do not see the world as “monsters” on the one hand and “decent folk” on the other. Oh there are individuals at the poles but most of us have capacity for being both and in fact in many ways have behaved as both whether we realize it or not. Most offenses just like most decent behaviors are not made by the few at the poles but by the rest of us, sometimes cluelessly and ignorantly. How do we best improve the behavior of the rest of us? > > My take is that saying “xxx-ism is evil done by monsters and those monsters should be punished severely or banished” and only that is a poor way to accomplish that change. In that formulation the monster is always someone else, but never yourself. I think many of us are able to realize on reflection that we have behaved badly and have been wrong, can learn from that realization, and can change our behavior going forward. But few us will accept a formulation that labels us monsters. That formulation stops the process right there. > > FWIW to the limited degree I know the specifics I happen to agree that Louie C.K.'s consequence is not out of proportion to his offense and that his apology lacked signs of true contrition. I agree that Damon is off the rails there. From what you’re saying, the First Nations concept of healing circles might have a better effect on the rate of recidivism than the “monster” ostracization method does. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2017, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-whole-sexual-accusation-thing-a-perspective-i-ve-not-heard-discussed/803295/358 "2017-12-23T17:08:38Z")
> [@Biffster](#): > > From what you’re saying, the First Nations concept of healing circles might have a better effect on the rate of recidivism than the “monster” ostracization method does. Not sure if you are being serious or sarcastic but in fact [yes](http://generocity.org/philly/2017/11/16/sex-offender-reentry-circles-support-accountability-vermont-philadelphia/). First comes justice with just punishment of course. But as the link discusses, even for crimes that we’d all agree deserve a “monster” label, true criminal level sex offenders, after just punishment has been served application of that “healing circle” concept _does_ seem to have better effect on the rate of recidivism than the “monster” ostracization method does. > [@](#): > > … According to the most prominent researcher of the model, Dr. Robin Wilson, Circles have demonstrated the potential to reduce recidivism rates by as much as 70 percent amongst sex offenders. … And of course all the more so for the much greater number, those who have never been accused of anything, who are much more in the middle on the monster-decent person spectrum, and who have never before considered that what they were doing was in fact wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Biffster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biffster/32/339_2.png) [@Biffster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffster)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2017, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-whole-sexual-accusation-thing-a-perspective-i-ve-not-heard-discussed/803295/359 "2017-12-24T19:15:46Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Not sure if you are being serious or sarcastic but in fact [yes](http://generocity.org/philly/2017/11/16/sex-offender-reentry-circles-support-accountability-vermont-philadelphia/). First comes justice with just punishment of course. But as the link discusses, even for crimes that we’d all agree deserve a “monster” label, true criminal level sex offenders, after just punishment has been served application of that “healing circle” concept _does_ seem to have better effect on the rate of recidivism than the “monster” ostracization method does. > > And of course all the more so for the much greater number, those who have never been accused of anything, who are much more in the middle on the monster-decent person spectrum, and who have never before considered that what they were doing was in fact wrong. It seems to me that unless the transgressor has to face the people he or she has affected, especially on more than a one off basis, it’s easy to rationalize in one’s mind that they didn’t really do anything wrong. Consequences are important motivators, which is what you have in a hearing circle. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2017, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-whole-sexual-accusation-thing-a-perspective-i-ve-not-heard-discussed/803295/360 "2017-12-30T21:22:11Z")
[Another article](http://theweek.com/articles/739104/8-big-questions-need-ask-ourselves-wake-americas-sexual-assault-reckoning), from a month ago, to throw into the mix. > [@](#): > > … The haphazard way in which consequences are coming should concern anyone who’s hoping for a systemic response to a systemic problem. The fact is, some of these scandals have become inverse popularity contests; that means the most beloved or famous figures are — in an interesting reversal — absorbing most of the response. People care deeply about Louis C.K.'s misconduct (myself included) because they thought he was better than that. No one seems to care much about the allegations about Steven Seagal; no one liked him enough to be surprised. But that lack of interest shouldn’t mean that Seagal gets to escape the professional repercussions some of his colleagues are facing. > > This is no way to proceed. For one thing, it’s simply not fair. For another, this folds fame into the equation in ways that exclude ordinary people. If the consequence for being accused of sexual assault is that you lose your platform — and that seems to be the best ad hoc solution we’ve come up with — then women who aren’t famous in non-celebrity industries don’t have the same recourse. Whether it’s female marines or hotel staff or restaurant workers, their plight won’t generate the same public response. Our imaginative attachments to public figures matter, but they aren’t particularly good at delivering equality or justice. > > The more we watch consequences accrue in response to eddies of public outrage, the more likely a backlash becomes. We have to develop better metrics if we want this movement to translate into real change. I don’t have the answers for how to go about that; but we can start compiling some of the relevant questions: > > 1. What are appropriate consequences for sexual predation? Assuming a harasser isn’t famous, what form of justice can his victim expect? So far, the tacit consensus seems to be that they shouldn’t get to work in their chosen careers. For how long? If the victim is tasked with publicly judging an apology (or otherwise absolving her harasser), doesn’t that just open her up to being pressured behind the scenes? What do we as a society want from this process we’re being forced to collectively improvise? Punishment? Rehabilitation? Restitution? > > 2. What are the hierarchies of harm? This is tough; sexual assault and sexual harassment exist on a worryingly wide spectrum, and the damage is hard to objectively measure. But it must at least be attempted. As Michelle Goldberg says at The New York Times, “Weinstein’s sadistic serial predation isn’t comparable to Louis C.K.'s exhibitionism. The groping Franken has been accused of isn’t in the same moral universe as Moore’s alleged sexual abuse of minors.” The terms we have — sexual harassment, sexual misconduct — are such blunt instruments that they practically force false equivalences. If we’re going to take this seriously, let’s take it seriously. You know that old, semi-correct story about the Eskimos having 50 words for snow? A culture needs to develop a rich lexicon to properly describe its environment. We need to radically expand our glossary for sexual misbehavior so that we may precisely address the sheer range of sexualized abuse to which people are routinely subjected. > > 3. What should men who know they’re guilty of sexual misconduct do? The Establishment’s Ijeoma Oluo suggests that, rather than wait to be denounced, they should come forward and face the music. It’s the right thing to do. Others have suggested some kind of “truth and reconciliation committee” — complete with amnesties — whereby harassers could confess to all the reprehensible things they’ve done. The merits of this are largely academic: It would be useful to have as complete a picture of exactly what our workplace culture has been, and it might be validating to victims. On the other hand, this robs people whose entire careers have been derailed of more forceful remedies. Are there other solutions? > > 4. How does a culture standardize its approach across industrial and political divides? Is this even possible, given how different the incentives and power structures are? Mike Allen at Axios points out that certain industries have remained hitherto untouched: “The wave has yet to hit the New York corporate suites. I’m told they’re hardly immune,” he writes. It’s possible there simply aren’t any allegations; it’s also possible that some industries are still managing to pressure victims into keeping quiet. Academia, for instance, has shown itself to be remarkably resistant to addressing sexual misconduct. The restaurant industry is just barely starting to take this stuff seriously. Politically, too, there are splits emerging between those who are ethical and those who are tactically-minded. While Democrats have roundly condemned Sen. Al Franken’s actions, they can’t quite decide what he should do now. As for the GOP, it has wrapped itself in knots around Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore, variously arguing that the allegations against him are disgusting untruths, a total conspiracy, or perfectly fine, as some 14-year-olds could pass for 20, and the Virgin Mary was a teenager. If there’s anything that unites us all as Americans, it’s that many men on both sides of the political divide have been guilty of pretty serious wrongdoing. That’s not a recipe for a healthy society. Less healthy still is the lack of political will to deal with offenders in the same way regardless of party. > > 5. Why haven’t past solutions worked? Why, in particular, have HR solutions failed? Sexual harassment training is widely seen as a joke — so much so that The Office even dedicated an episode to the phenomenon. “The basic compliance function of human resources — to ensure a company doesn’t violate the law — is often interpreted as a mission to protect a company from lawsuits, and employees know it,” Rebecca Greenfield writes at Bloomberg. Is there a way to uncouple HR from the company — or at least from its naked self-interest? … I of course cannot quote the whole thing but she goes on to discuss, as others here have, calling it “patriarchy”, the importance of how the systems of society make committing the abuse easier than stopping it is, and the close: > [@](#): > > … if we can keep from panicking, and instead keep asking careful questions and try to answer them while fully acknowledging their difficulties and contradictions, there’s a small but real chance we might channel all that fear and anger into change that lasts. As #metoo falls off the front page more and more I hope the careful questions continue to get asked and wrestled with. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-whole-sexual-accusation-thing-a-perspective-i-ve-not-heard-discussed/803295.md?page=17)