Thread: Do we pressure men into sexual misconduct? Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020384
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
I wonder if, amidst the current flood of reports of sexual misconduct ranging from apparently accidental but misplaced touch all the way through and including rape (of both adults and minors), we are missing (or deliberately skipping past) some important aspects of the discussion.

It’s all very well to try establishing rules for workplaces -- for example, limiting permitted touch to handshakes, high-fives, and efforts to prevent accidents and injury.

But thinking about men in positions of authority makes me wonder. Highly-placed men may also experience high degrees of isolation coupled with increased job demands on their time. Given that men in mainstream US culture (assuming we can posit such a thing) are generally socialized to get their emotional needs met almost exclusively through a spouse / significant other, are we (as a culture) setting these men up? The male CEO of a highly visible corporation, the powerful male senator, the male “Wunderkind” of some entertainment empire, etc. – these are folks likely to experience huge time pressures and/or the need for lots of travel, which can put strains on that primary relationship, and make it difficult for these men to get their emotional needs met. Should we then be surprised if they start seeking alternative ways to meet these needs?

Even the small, ordinary-guy business owner can often fall prey to such pressures; to keep his business economically viable, he puts in more time at the job, cutting himself short on family time and potentially distancing himself from spouse / SO / kids, etc. But his needs for validation, support, connection and even just sex don’t go away. Instead, opportunities to meet these needs appear to him to arise, conveniently enough, on the job.

Should we be rethinking the demands and expectations our societies place on men?
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
Well, I'm not a man, much less a powerful "well-placed" man, but my immediate reaction is this is a load of rationalizing b***.

You feel isolated? Volunteer at a community center, mentor a younger colleague, join a church, form a professional association. Be a friend.

Unhappy in your marriage? Get counseling. Or be honest and get a divorce if you want, and be willing to take the $$ hit. Learn how to approach women you want to date in an appropriate manner, and deal with the disappointment if they're not interested.

No, I think this has nothing at all to do with the isolation of powerful men. Rather, I think it has to do with power. As POTUS notoriously said, "when you're famous they'll let you do anything." Alpha males like power, they like displays of power, and being able to control, intimidate and f*** women without having to go thru the niceties of wooing/courting them (i.e. treating them like a human being) is just one such display of power.

That being said, there are a 1000 shades of gray (pardon the allusion) in the various men who have been accused of sexual misconduct in the last few months, but they're all getting moshed together in a false moral equivalence. That serves no one-- the more this comes out, the more we see everything from a single juvenile joke years ago to child rape all bundled together under the single heading of "sexual misconduct", the more we normalize assault and undermine the efforts to take sexual assault seriously. And of course, we need to think about how do we talk about allegations in a way that doesn't undermine due process. These are more nuanced conversations than what we're currently seeing. If the "me too" movement is to succeed, we're going to need to go beyond just stories and finger pointing to have these much more serious and nuanced and thoughtful discussions. Otherwise the whole thing is apt to backfire with a "well clearly this is just what men do" sort of normalizing.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
Given that men in mainstream US culture (assuming we can posit such a thing) are generally socialized to get their emotional needs met almost exclusively through a spouse / significant other, are we (as a culture) setting these men up?
Yeah, I don't think this "given" can actually be taken as "given". This actually sounds like one of the major red flags for an abusive relationship (a spouse or partner trying to cut off their significant other from all outside contact) rather than mainstream American cultural socialization.

Plus I'm not sure transferring abusive behavior from the workplace to a spouse is anything that could be called a solution. Instead of raping co-workers, powerful men should instead be raping their wives? WTF?
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I agree. There is a settling-down and an agreement on standards that is yet to come. This disturbance and ferment is good, lancing a festering boil that's long been overdue to be opened.
In future the men of today, the boys who will be men tomorrow, they'll know. They certainly can no longer plead ignorance, right? And the women of that future will be spared a lot of misery.
It is of course sad for these older men, so happily groping boobs and slapping bottoms all these years. But somehow my well of sympathy for them is rather dusty and dry. A little fear will do them good. Let them taste a little of the misery and dread they so carelessly dispensed. Let them wake up at night in a cold sweat, remembering. Let the terror of justice hang over them as a sword, glinting, and they never to know when it'll fall. Let them watch the fall of other, better, greater men, and recall how the mills of justice grind slow but very fine, oh so very painfully fine.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I don't know quite what to think about the OP - although I think there is a general pornification of society which is unhealthy.

Even in my local library, a lot of the general fiction includes regular misogyny, violence against women and so on.

I think it is the volume of this stuff which is troubling. I don't think we should close libaries, turn off the internet or let men only read certain things. And it isn't about sexual ethics - all I'm saying is that the general message that men get about what is "normal" would likely be misconduct if they enacted it in their own lives.

Of course, powerful men don't read cheap fiction, probably don't bother watching porn and whatnot. So I don't think they even have that excuse, such that it is or isn't.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Well, I'm not a man, much less a powerful "well-placed" man, but my immediate reaction is this is a load of rationalizing b***.
Bing, bing, bing: We have a winnah.

quote:

You feel isolated? Volunteer at a community center, mentor a younger colleague, join a church, form a professional association. Be a friend.
Not to mention most of these men have mates they associate with. They get validation and camaraderie.

quote:

No, I think this has nothing at all to do with the isolation of powerful men. Rather, I think it has to do with power.
Power and permission. Our cultures have validated laddish behaviour and this needs to end.


quote:
Alpha males like power, they like displays of power, and being able to control,
Alpha is something borrowed from the misunderstanding of how wolves interact. They do not have alphas, and neither do we. Some people will abuse power and our cultures have allowed this to be excused and/or ignored. This also needs to end.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
@OP: No!
There is only personal responsibility for misconduct. We all know the boundaries and rules.

This all said, we are living in sick societies. Which tell everyone to control themselves, while putting sexuality into everything, probably because it sells and improves profit. From photoshopped images to advertising campaigns designed to appeal to out basic sexual instincts. And then we get all upset when people respond to the overtly sexual appeals of this crap in ways other than being a consumer. Really sick societies.

My general rules for interaction include these:


It's not complete, but this is the sort of thing I live by. I own and am partner in several business ventures. I am an older male. I have family, I have relatives, I am required to behave properly always. And I don't accept anything more than handshakes from anyone (I try to avoid those too), who is not a family member. There's a basic respect for the dignity of other people that requires that I do not lust after anyone, and basic self knowledge that tells me that like all humans I can translate emotions into sexuality (or aggression, which also really sexual if it is competitive business crap).

[ 30. November 2017, 16:10: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't know quite what to think about the OP - although I think there is a general pornification of society which is unhealthy.
Objectification and sexualisation, not pornification.
quote:

Of course, powerful men don't read cheap fiction, probably don't bother watching porn and whatnot.
Powerful men don't have the Internet?

[ 30. November 2017, 16:10: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:


Even in my local library, a lot of the general fiction includes regular misogyny, violence against women and so on.
True. But the past is another country; a work of art is inescapably a part of its time. Our problem is that the offending men (born in a certain period) are not in the past. They're here. A work of art cannot change. Men can. They might not do the right thing out of Christian charity or chivalric decency, but now they can change from pure terror.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Powerful men don't have the Internet?
I was imagining that if you are a powerful man, you get your rocks off with real life people rather than images on the internet.

I've no idea, I'm not a powerful man.

And yes, pornification. Kindly stop editing my thoughts.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
True. But the past is another country; a work of art is inescapably a part of its time. Our problem is that the offending men (born in a certain period) are not in the past. They're here. A work of art cannot change. Men can. They might not do the right thing out of Christian charity or chivalric decency, but now they can change from pure terror.
This isn't "past" fiction. This is normal, everyday, written-and-published-this-year fiction.

This stuff is both informing and informed by our culture. Even if the events depicted are fictional, even if they're not supposed to be emulated, I think there is a drip-drip-drip effect on the general consciousness of how a modern "man" behaves - or should behave.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Powerful men don't have the Internet?
I was imagining that if you are a powerful man, you get your rocks off with real life people rather than images on the internet.

I've no idea, I'm not a powerful man.
I am not a powerful man either, but I do know a number of them. And they watch porn.* Now, there may be some who employ people to enact their fantasies, but the ones I know watch porn.
quote:

And yes, pornification. Kindly stop editing my thoughts.
What a weird thing to say. I'm not editing your thoughts, but stating the problem is more basic. One doesn't need porn to objectify people.

*I cannot say definitively that they all do, but I've enough of a sample to say that this behaviour is not a rarity among that group.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
What a weird thing to say. I'm not editing your thoughts, but stating the problem is more basic. One doesn't need porn to objectify people.

Yes, but the point I was making was about pornification. You are entitled to make a wider point, but mine was about pornification.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I wonder if this very thoughtful (and free) article doesn't make Ohher's point in more detail.
 
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :
 
Was the opening post meant as satire?
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I wonder if this very thoughtful (and free) article doesn't make Ohher's point in more detail.
Excellent. Thanks for this very much.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

That being said, there are a 1000 shades of gray (pardon the allusion) in the various men who have been accused of sexual misconduct in the last few months, but they're all getting moshed together in a false moral equivalence. That serves no one-- the more this comes out, the more we see everything from a single juvenile joke years ago to child rape all bundled together under the single heading of "sexual misconduct", the more we normalize assault and undermine the efforts to take sexual assault seriously. And of course, we need to think about how do we talk about allegations in a way that doesn't undermine due process. These are more nuanced conversations than what we're currently seeing. If the "me too" movement is to succeed, we're going to need to go beyond just stories and finger pointing to have these much more serious and nuanced and thoughtful discussions. Otherwise the whole thing is apt to backfire with a "well clearly this is just what men do" sort of normalizing.
Yes, the OP missed me, but I would love to talk about Cliffdweller's points above.

Where exactly does a much needed day of reckoning end and a witch hunt begin?

For me the witch hunt started with Garrison Keillor losing everything over putting his hand comfortingly on the back of a woman who was telling him a sad story. Her back happened to be bare because her shirt was short and open and Keillor pulled his hand away and said "Excuse me," when he realized he was on bare skin. Now NPR has fired him. No warning, nothing, just career over, reputation ruined.

Of course, the way things are going, we have a dozen more collaborating allegations against him before the day ends, but right now that's all anyone is sure of and it certainly seems to me that there's something wrong with serving him the same punishment as Kevin Spacey who assaulted minors or any of the men who threatened to ruin careers if the women were not compliant.

It's wonderful that a message is being sent to men that what they do in their offices or hotel suites may come to light some day, but I don't think we have the right to sacrifice innocent men in the name of the cause.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
True. But the past is another country; a work of art is inescapably a part of its time. Our problem is that the offending men (born in a certain period) are not in the past. They're here. A work of art cannot change. Men can. They might not do the right thing out of Christian charity or chivalric decency, but now they can change from pure terror.
This isn't "past" fiction. This is normal, everyday, written-and-published-this-year fiction.

This stuff is both informing and informed by our culture. Even if the events depicted are fictional, even if they're not supposed to be emulated, I think there is a drip-drip-drip effect on the general consciousness of how a modern "man" behaves - or should behave.
Oh, modern works? Then it's tons easier. You have the power!
Pop onto Amazon or Goodreads and review that book, pointing out its troglodytic attitudes towards women. Go onto the review sites and comment on the uckiness of that movie's attitudes towards girls. Write to that TV advertiser and point out that the horridness of that newscaster or show they're advertising on is filling you with an ineradicable nausea when you contemplate their soap or spaghetti or whatever it is, and they had better reconsider their advertising decisions.
Why do they have sexist ads, abusive material, page three topless girls? Because they sell. When they don't sell, it'll stop. Vote with your dollar, and make your vote known.
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
For me the witch hunt started with Garrison Keillor losing everything over putting his hand comfortingly on the back of a woman who was telling him a sad story. Her back happened to be bare because her shirt was short and open and Keillor pulled his hand away and said "Excuse me," when he realized he was on bare skin. Now NPR has fired him. No warning, nothing, just career over, reputation ruined.

Of course, the way things are going, we have a dozen more collaborating allegations against him before the day ends, but right now that's all anyone is sure of
We were very sad to hear that Keillor had been fired, and I am glad to read that he appears to have not behaved badly - though, as you say, further allegations might emerge, and he might deserve all he gets.

I am currently thinking about the women at church and elsewhere whom I routinely kiss.

They are all around my age, we have known each other for a long time, and they always volunteer their cheek to be kissed (as does my wife to their husbands) when we meet.

How long that will be wise or appropriate in the current climate remains to be seen.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
If they volunteer, then you're solid. It's when they DON'T volunteer there's a problem.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
We were very sad to hear that Keillor had been fired, and I am glad to read that he [claims] to have not behaved badly - though, as you say, further allegations might emerge, and he might deserve all he gets.
Fixed that for you. At the moment all the details we know are that Minnesota Public Radio fired Keillor because of "inappropriate behavior with an individual who worked with him" (MPR's statement lacked any details), Keillor's own minimization of the accusation, and a second Keillor statement that boils down to "it's complicated". Keillor's explanation is what we'd expect if he was guilty of much worse. It's also the kind of explanation we'd expect if he wasn't, so it's only dispositive insofar as you're willing to believe Keillor (or not).

[ 30. November 2017, 19:48: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
I laughed my way through the OP.

Oh, those poor, isolated, pressured men!

I think I'll save my tears for someone who deserves them.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I wonder if this very thoughtful (and free) article doesn't make Ohher's point in more detail.
No, it doesn't. It is the same rubbish in a taller bin.

This bit here illustrates the flaws in her logic.
quote:
It may not win me any popularity contests to ask this next question, but what stopped Carlson from just telling the cameraman to shut up? True, she was a young woman in her early twenties, and recently hired.
She answers her own question, if she had the experience to understand it.

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

For me the witch hunt started with Garrison Keillor losing everything over putting his hand comfortingly on the back of a woman who was telling him a sad story. Her back happened to be bare because her shirt was short and open and Keillor pulled his hand away and said "Excuse me," when he realized he was on bare skin. Now NPR has fired him. No warning, nothing, just career over, reputation ruined.
So far, there is only his version. We do not know what MPR was told by the accuser. It is too early to call this a witch hunt.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
Of course, nothing eases the pressures for those in power like a good shoulder rub...
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Well! Boo-hoo: some men may think they'll find their "emotional needs" met if they assault someone? Are you kidding?

If - IF - there was to be any mileage in the "its-lonely-at-the-top" scenario, how would you explain men who behave inappropriately in packs? What about gang-rape? Or is that just a load of lonely men bonding over the violated body of a woman they honestly thought would meet their "emotional needs".

There is absolutely no mileage in the OP. Forcing one's attentions on someone else is just boorish and wrong - that is as true of the maudlin drunk as of the rapist. Bullying yob-culture is just that, whether it wears the label of Phi-Beta-Kappa, The Bullingdon Club, or the Millwall Supporters Club.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
There is absolutely no mileage in the OP. Forcing one's attentions on someone else is just boorish and wrong - that is as true of the maudlin drunk as of the rapist. Bullying yob-culture is just that, whether it wears the label of Phi-Beta-Kappa, The Bullingdon Club, or the Millwall Supporters Club.
Absolutely agree. What the OP overlooks is that lack of consent. We are not talking about a man in power who cheats on his wife. That may cause scandal, it may be embarrassing (especially if the cheater is a hypocritical politician who has been arguing against SSM because of the "sanctity of marriage"), but such consensual conduct between adults does not merit the outrage of what is being reported these days: unpermitted sexual contact.
 
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :
 
Chiming in here to agree the OP is rubbish. It's not just men at the top who sexually harass and molest, it's men at all levels of society.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
I am currently thinking about the women at church and elsewhere whom I routinely kiss.

They are all around my age, we have known each other for a long time, and they always volunteer their cheek to be kissed (as does my wife to their husbands) when we meet.

How long that will be wise or appropriate in the current climate remains to be seen.
I think Brenda about nails it. The mere act of kissing an acquaintance isn't the issue at all. We men need to reflect on matters of consent, especially in light of subtle and not so subtle power imbalances, in all of our interactions with women- and not just the physical ones either.
 
Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Forcing one's attentions on someone else is just boorish and wrong
Yes it's wrong. Decent people don't do that. And in fact it's so wrong that I'm uneasy about lumping other behaviours into the same category.

At the other end of the scale, there are misunderstandings and miscommunications where no blame should be applied.

People - relatives, friends, colleagues - negotiate the intimacy or distance of their relationships by body language and stance and tone of voice more than by the words they say. Normally the signals that one person is uncomfortable with how close and "touchy" another person is behaving are read and respected, and a distance restored that is comfortable for both. But signals can be misread.

And what's difficult is the grey area in between.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
And (as is mentioned somewhere else on SoF) some people have more difficulty processing and understanding those social signals. So yes, allowances must be made, and there is a wide gap between outright rape and a tentative overture that is unwelcome.
However. I do believe that we may, at long last, be putting paid to the notion that men -deserve- and -are owed- the attentions of women. All women are asking for is to be treated like human beings. That this is so shocking and revolutionary a demand does say something about our culture. But when black people made the same demand it did not at all go well, so clearly there are difficulties for all of us who are not white men.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
... Highly-placed men may also experience high degrees of isolation coupled with increased job demands on their time. ... Even the small, ordinary-guy business owner can often fall prey to such pressures; ... Should we be rethinking the demands and expectations our societies place on men?
Well, I'm a lowly-placed woman in my organization, I'm working three jobs rolled into one, and I'm under a huge amount of stress. It never occurred to me that groping my colleagues could be a stress reliever. Or is that excuse only valid for assholes with dicks and subordinates?

Sexual harassment is just another form of bullying, and we all know bullying is about POWER; not stress, or demands, or expectations, or any other self-serving mansplainy crap.

Anybody, male or female or anything else, who cannot deal with the stresses of their job without assaulting their colleagues should be, oh, let's say, "encouraged" to explore other employment opportunities.
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
Re kissing in church: Bussing long- time acquaintances when that is the custom is one thing; but I still shiver when I recall visiting -- visiting, mind you -- a church where, during the Peace, I found myself being open- mouthed kissed on the lips, massaged and ass- grabbed by the Christian brethren.

None of these things is ever okay in a work or worship setting. Ever. And I don't, frankly, give a tiny That's ass about the perpetrator's loneliness, social awkwardness or other psychological issues. Why are men's psychological states my management problem? **** that. Find a therapist.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
I think the OP is misconceived, and I also think it remains the time for focusing on turning the workplace into a comfortable place for all genders. Adjusting from workplaces where women were only supposed to be there until they found a husband to places where everyone can feel safe will also deal with how men exist there. Its a long process though, and short of an abrupt and massive disruption of western society we are a few generations short of reaching the goal that we, in the early 21st century now have in view.

I think what I mean is that we will have to talk about issues that used to be solely bloke issues, like how much time we have to spend away from home to have a successful career as a member of the white middle class(Aussie definition - I'm unsure what the Yanks mean when they use the term) or liberal elite, but now is not the time. Now we just have to stop men like me behaving badly in the workplace.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
When I hung around churches in the reformist tradition, they used to talk about continual reform. I think that's a mindset that might work in our workplaces. Incidentally, the legal framework around workplace safety (and that's what it is about, sexual harassment in the workplace) has been in place in Victoria since - I'm going to say - the early 1980's.
 
Posted by MaryLouise (# 18697) on :
 
What Brenda has said in this thread makes so much sense to me. That festering boil needs to be lanced and abusive men made accountable for serious but also less serious behaviours. I suspect Keillor's behaviour was much more complicated and troubling. I'd like to hear his colleague's account of what happened and how many times.

Special pleading by men reminds me so painfully of working with women in battered women shelters who would have low self-esteem, trouble distinguishing truth from reality after years of being gaslighted, extreme trauma around violence, hypervigilance, hopelessness, self-loathing, self-blame etc etc. What happens when you're a punching bag for years and years and the abuse escalates.

And then the batterers would arrive at the court or counselling offices tearfully penitent and assuring everyone the latest beating was an isolated incident 1/due to pressures at work 2/ loneliness and being misunderstood 3/ a mid-life crisis 4/ unresolved trauma from being bullied at school 5/their father's violence 6/their own abuse in childhood. They would promise the battering would never happen again. They believed their own stories and very often so did their wives and partners. And the vicious cycle would just resume and carry on.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:

Anybody, male or female or anything else, who cannot deal with the stresses of their job without assaulting their colleagues should be, oh, let's say, "encouraged" to explore other employment opportunities.
Yes, this.

Although I'll note that the OP's language and the phrase "sexual misconduct" can cover a lot of ground. I can easily buy long hours, stress, and the rest of it as reasons that someone embarks on a completely consensual affair with a colleague (or even a completely consensual shag against the water cooler). But there's a lot of clear water between consensual sex that you shouldn't be having (because you're married or whatever) and assaulting someone or pressuring them into sexual activity.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I think the/an other side of this is this. "Top" jobs in many different fields attract a certain sort of person, and directly-or-indirectly push away others.

I certainly don't think this creates abusive men. But it certainly creates the environment where those kinds of people are often given free rein.

It's like a perfect storm of factors which encourages and nurtures macho-ness and where these people can exist in plain sight doing things to others that usually go unchallenged.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:


Although I'll note that the OP's language and the phrase "sexual misconduct" can cover a lot of ground. I can easily buy long hours, stress, and the rest of it as reasons that someone embarks on a completely consensual affair with a colleague (or even a completely consensual shag against the water cooler). But there's a lot of clear water between consensual sex that you shouldn't be having (because you're married or whatever) and assaulting someone or pressuring them into sexual activity.
Mmm. Well, yes. But I'm not sure it is quite as simple as this.

It is possible that office affairs don't lead anywhere else, but I suspect a lot of the time it is a pattern of behaviour for abusive men. I suspect that for many they begin with something that is consensus, then move on to something less consensual, then move on to something clearly abusive.

The problem is that in many work scenarios, the idea of consent is quite problematic. A woman might agree to sex, but if she's doing it because she thinks it it is the only way to get a promotion.. well, that's arguably not a consent freely given.

I'd have thought that someone who is known for having affairs in a work environment is quite likely to be exhibiting, or to be moving towards, the kinds of abusive behaviours we are hearing about.

Not all of them. I'm not saying it is inevitable.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
..... At the other end of the scale, there are misunderstandings and miscommunications where no blame should be applied. ...
And what's difficult is the grey area in between.
A few months ago, I bumped into another car while leaving my parking spot. I didn't mean to do it. Both cars are running just fine. And yet a few weeks later, I was informed by my insurance company that the accident - their word, not mine - was entirely my fault!!!! And I had to cough up $700 to repair a few scratches.

But but but but but but I didn't mean to do it! I didn't mean any harm! I have no malice towards the other driver! It was just a few scratches! Why am I being blamed when I didn't intend any harm? It was an accident!

In case my analogy isn't clear enough, Russ, we all have to accept responsibility for our actions, regardless of our motives.

The proper response when one hurts another person inadvertently is not, "I didn't mean any harm! You're too sensitive! I didn't know any better! It's not my fault! Don't blame me!"

The proper response is "I'm sorry. I won't do it again." Unless, of course, one really does want to keep on doing it .... and one isn't really sorry ....
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
One of the other complicating factors is how businesses abet horrifying abusers. Matt Lauer had (I am not making this up!) a button under his desk, so that he could lock the door of his office without getting up. Lure the victim in, lock the door remotely behind her, and then chase her around the office at your leisure. And you do not get this kind of device at the corner store; the building management has to install it, the corporation has to (in theory) approve the expenditure. It's like something in a horror movie.

And why is this tolerated? Because these men are hugely profitable, big stars, the directors of Oscar-winning movies, and so on.

Here is a Post article arguing that abuse should be much, much more costly. It has to hit these corporations in the bottom line, the only place where they feel pain. Only then will the business culture change.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Another fine opinion piece from the Post, written by a woman rabbi contemplating the web page of the man who assaulted her when she was 18. Oh, I do hope that guy reads the article, I do.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
This article, I think, might shed light on the OP.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Twilight--

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Where exactly does a much needed day of reckoning end and a witch hunt begin?

For me the witch hunt started with Garrison Keillor losing everything over putting his hand comfortingly on the back of a woman who was telling him a sad story. Her back happened to be bare because her shirt was short and open and Keillor pulled his hand away and said "Excuse me," when he realized he was on bare skin. Now NPR has fired him. No warning, nothing, just career over, reputation ruined.

Of course, the way things are going, we have a dozen more collaborating allegations against him before the day ends, but right now that's all anyone is sure of and it certainly seems to me that there's something wrong with serving him the same punishment as Kevin Spacey who assaulted minors or any of the men who threatened to ruin careers if the women were not compliant.

It's wonderful that a message is being sent to men that what they do in their offices or hotel suites may come to light some day, but I don't think we have the right to sacrifice innocent men in the name of the cause.
Not quite.

Check out the info in this post of mine on the "What are we going to do..." thread.

Keillor said the woman "recoiled". *Then* he apologized. And I've seen nothing that says she had a short shirt--just that it was "open".

And, as I mentioned in the first paragraph there, the Washington Post put a note on his column that he knew he was under investigation--yet still wrote an article defending Franken, and didn't warn the Post.

He also referred to *two* accusers (CBS News).

I don't want to believe anything bad about Keillor, believe me. But the situation is gradually sounding more complicated than "he's innocent".
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
Gregg Zaun

So, a well-known (in Canada) retired baseball player who has been a sportscaster for several years, has been fired.

Note that the article indicates there are no allegations of physical or sexual assult.

Not sure what this adds to the discussion, but the lack of physical or sexual assult with similar repercussions seems to take it a step further.

[ 02. December 2017, 13:32: Message edited by: sharkshooter ]
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
... Not sure what this adds to the discussion, but the lack of physical or sexual assult with similar repercussions seems to take it a step further.
I'm not sure either what this adds either. It is a truth universally acknowledged that employees can be disciplined or fired for actions are not criminal in nature. "I didn't rape anybody" is not something to brag about at your annual review either.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
"I didn't rape anybody" is not something to brag about at your annual review either.
True. But if men were falling like pins around one, one might be tempted to mention it.
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Sexual harassment is just another form of bullying, and we all know bullying is about POWER; not stress, or demands, or expectations, or any other self-serving mansplainy crap.
This.

And a belief that they can get away with it.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:

Not sure what this adds to the discussion, but the lack of physical or sexual assult with similar repercussions seems to take it a step further.
Not commenting on what Zaun actually did because there are no particulars as yet, but ‘inappropriate behaviour’ is a blanket phrase with no specific indication of degree of behaviour.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Yes, for all you know he's been helping himself to the petty cash box, or abstracting checks from the mail.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Yes, for all you know he's been helping himself to the petty cash box, or abstracting checks from the mail.
Well, no.
quote:
Rogers Media president Rick Brace announced the firing in a statement Thursday.
"This week, we received complaints from multiple female employees at Sportsnet regarding inappropriate behaviour and comments by Gregg Zaun in the workplace," Brace said in the statement. "After investigating the matter, we decided to terminate his contract, effective immediately.
So we know women felt harassed, but we don't know exactly what he said and did.
sharkshooter's 'a step further' comment is a step too far at this point.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
Honestly, I find it amazing that people think one should not be fired for sexually harassing colleagues. If it was just one comment to one woman, one might say it was an accident. But multiple women feeling harassed? Sounds like a great idea to fire the guy.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Me too. Inappropriate behavior and comments? You got no excuse any more.
If you care to use one of your NY Times clicks, here is an excellent article explaining how it is too soon for men to get any 'redemption'.

[ 02. December 2017, 20:38: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]
 
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:


I am currently thinking about the women at church and elsewhere whom I routinely kiss.

They are all around my age, we have known each other for a long time, and they always volunteer their cheek to be kissed (as does my wife to their husbands) when we meet.

How long that will be wise or appropriate in the current climate remains to be seen.
I have dithered about posting this, but here goes...

I might be a bit over the top with this, but I think it might be an idea to ask the women involved. I think with the raising of awareness of what is and isn't appropriate may lead some women to be aware that they don't feel completely comfortable with cheek kissing, but the fact that it has been the usual ritual of greeting makes it difficult to say so.

I realise this isn't a parallel situation, but my best friend, a gay man whom I have known almost 30 years, ( we spend Christmas together and have stayed in each other's houses) met some new friends who were more exuberant, and started greeting me with a kiss. I know it wasn't sexual, but I felt really uncomfortable with it. It took me several took several meetings before I could screw up the courage to tell him.

Also I have left a church where the Vicar was a huggy person. I made an appointment to see him and explained that I found touch difficult, (it was not long after I had been raped, which he knew) and asked him not to, but he ignored my request, so I left. I don't think his touch was sexual either, but his continuing to ignore my request still felt like harassment.

I suppose this could be written off as me being a delicate wee flower, but there will be other women out there who have had similar experiences.

Huia
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Huia:

I suppose this could be written off as me being a delicate wee flower, but there will be other women out there who have had similar experiences.

Huia
Doesn't matter if you are delicate. Not only do you have reason to be, no one should be expected to be OK with being touched if they do not care for it.
I am one for whom touch is very important. However, due to my experiences, I am also wary of being touched. The onus is ever on the toucher, not the person they would touch.
 
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
quote:
I think with the raising of awareness of what is and isn't appropriate may lead some women to be aware that they don't feel completely comfortable with cheek kissing, but the fact that it has been the usual ritual of greeting makes it difficult to say so.
English men of my age and class found the recent-ish fashion for kissing women on both cheeks continental-style (or were we meant to hit the air?) on greeting them, affected and a bit pretentious. Or was that just me? [Smile]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
It's terrifying. Much happier shaking hands, even better with just a nod of acknowledgement and a swift, 'alright?'

Keep your mwah-mwahs to yourselves, you strange people.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Yeah, it's flu season.
s
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
Should we be rethinking the demands and expectations our societies place on men?
I don't agree with much of this Slate article, but I think it may deal with a subject similar to the one you are trying to bring up. I didn't have the same reaction to the NYT piece cited as the author did. In a world in which words are seriously described as "violence," I'm not sure it's inaccurate to describe some aspects of sexuality and libido as brutal (direct and lacking any attempt to disguise unpleasantness). But I do think that at this point we need to honestly address some of the issues underlying our assumptions about sexuality, masculinity, femininity, power, and assault.

Unfortunately, in most venues, all attempts to talk about possible causes and solutions to this problem are routinely and immediately shot down, frequently by people calling others names and putting words in their mouths. Apparently people would rather just complain.

In general, I think the social and economic demands placed on many people at this point are in fact likely to lead to any amount of bad behavior of various kinds. What makes it more difficult is that we don't particularly seem to agree on what bad behavior is, except in the most egregious cases (most of which involve criminal behavior). I agree that we are lumping far to many diverse situations under the same heading, although I haven't seen many people even attempt to come up with a set of rules for workplace behavior (other than never be alone with women, and no alcohol at any work-related event).

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
You feel isolated? Volunteer at a community center, mentor a younger colleague, join a church, form a professional association. Be a friend.
I thought part of the point of the OP was that our requirements for being a "successful" man ("successful" in the way of the men in these newsworthy allegations) preclude having even the time for such things. When all you do is work, almost all of your relationships are going to be related to work, which, given the structure of most workplaces, means there are likely to be a certain number of power discrepancies. When people assume that a certain amount of fame in a given industry gives someone power over not only all others in that industry, but over almost all other people, the only people they can have ever any contact with are people that they have power over. By definition.

Which does make it seem like we are setting people up.

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
In future the men of today, the boys who will be men tomorrow, they'll know.
They'll know what? That they have to live in constant terror? (This reminds me of Ezra Klein's bizarre rationalization for yes means yes laws, that men should feel a cold spike of fear when approaching a woman).

Thus far, there's been very little agreement about what, exactly, constitutes sexual harassment, much less what what qualifies as a firing or career and reputation destroying offense.

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
It's wonderful that a message is being sent to men that what they do in their offices or hotel suites may come to light some day, but I don't think we have the right to sacrifice innocent men in the name of the cause.
Because we don't have that right. This will only lead to badness. For my thoughts on Keillor, see here.

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
This bit here illustrates the flaws in her logic.
quote:
It may not win me any popularity contests to ask this next question, but what stopped Carlson from just telling the cameraman to shut up? True, she was a young woman in her early twenties, and recently hired.
She answers her own question, if she had the experience to understand it.
I'm sorry, but I'm a bit slow when it comes to the world according to what is obvious to certain people, but what exactly is the flaw in her logic? How does she answer her own question? What experience does she need to understand "it"?

Because right now it sounds like you believe that younger women (or all women) are too weak and pathetic to do so much as speak up about bothersome behavior. But that can't be what you're actually saying, can it be?

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Well! Boo-hoo: some men may think they'll find their "emotional needs" met if they assault someone? Are you kidding?
If we were only talking about cases in which men were accused of assault (which is true of some of the more egregious cases), I'd be a little more inclined to listen to you. But we've clearly moved beyond that, not only in the cases that have been happening IRL, but in the cases that have been brought up on the Ship. But, of course, we don't know what happened in some of those cases, so apparently it's ok to condemn the accused anyway. THey deserve it.

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It is possible that office affairs don't lead anywhere else, but I suspect a lot of the time it is a pattern of behaviour for abusive men. I suspect that for many they begin with something that is consensus, then move on to something less consensual, then move on to something clearly abusive.

The problem is that in many work scenarios, the idea of consent is quite problematic. A woman might agree to sex, but if she's doing it because she thinks it it is the only way to get a promotion.. well, that's arguably not a consent freely given.
And the other problem is that in the US between sixteen and twenty percent of marriages began in the workplace, and large numbers of Millennials view work as an appropriate place to start a romantic relationship.

Given those facts, what is appropriate workplace behavior? How do you determine consent when there's a power relationship? How do you know if someone is agreeing to sex only because they think it's the only way to get a promotion? Who makes that determination, and is it subject to retroactive evaluation by an aggrieved party?

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
But but but but but but I didn't mean to do it! I didn't mean any harm! I have no malice towards the other driver! It was just a few scratches! Why am I being blamed when I didn't intend any harm? It was an accident!

In case my analogy isn't clear enough, Russ, we all have to accept responsibility for our actions, regardless of our motives.
One presumes you were taught that, unless you're in a bumper car, any contact between your car and another car is forbidden. All the time. One also presumes that you not only knew that you had accidentally bumped into the other car in the first place, but that you had also in fact exchanged insurance or other information at the time, in order for you to get a bill for the repairs. One assumes that you had to actually damage the other car in order for there to be anything to be billed for, and that you were not simply asked to pay money because fifteen years ago someone in another car found your car threatening and potentially damaging and thought that you had used its size/niceness/relative niceness compared to their car/whatever to bully them out of a parking space.

Analogy fail.

Intent may not matter (although it frequently does in criminal law), but we can't base our punishments solely on the feelings of the alleged victim, either.

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
This article, I think, might shed light on the OP.
How, exactly, does this shed light on the OP?

What are you trying to say here? Because I have no idea.

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Keillor said the woman "recoiled". *Then* he apologized.
So the woman recoiled, thus indicating that she was displeased with the contact (which, from the descriptions we have so far, is not necessarily contact that all women would have found objectionable). Upon learning of her objection, one assumes he removed his hand, and then he apologized.

Are we now expecting people to be psychic and know that common non-criminal behavior and contact is objectionable even before anyone objects to it?

The articles I've read referring to the second accuser say that it was someone who objected to Keillor's conduct towards others, not towards them. If this hysteria follows the pattern of the campus rape saga, we are well and truly screwed if we're going to take the accusations of third parties as evidence of wrongdoing, particularly if the alleged "victim" doesn't object.

And yes, I know, we don't know whether or not the alleged "victim" did or did not object: but that's the point. This kind of extreme reaction without allowing the accused to hear the accusations against them or face their accusers is simply wrong and is almost inevitably going to lead us down a dark and ugly path.

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
If it was just one comment to one woman, one might say it was an accident. But multiple women feeling harassed?
So we're going to destroy people's lives and livelihoods over comments and feelings now? There's no requirement that the conduct be severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment?

This will not end well.

For anyone.

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Me too. Inappropriate behavior and comments? You got no excuse any more.
For the love of G-d, would any of the people who are so eager to crucify people care to define what qualifies as "inappropriate behavior and comments"?

Because it's fairly clear to me that people in the US don't agree on the most basic attitudes towards sex, much less what behavior is appropriate in any given context. And yet there are an awful lot of people who seem to be willing to inflict severe punishment based on what are starting to seem like whims.

This is not the way to go about achieving any kind of long-term cultural change.

quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
I know it wasn't sexual, but I felt really uncomfortable with it. It took me several took several meetings before I could screw up the courage to tell him.
I'm sorry it took several meetings before you felt like you had the courage to tell him, but would you have felt comfortable telling someone else (like your friend), and asking them to tell him?

quote:
Also I have left a church where the Vicar was a huggy person. I made an appointment to see him and explained that I found touch difficult, (it was not long after I had been raped, which he knew) and asked him not to, but he ignored my request, so I left. I don't think his touch was sexual either, but his continuing to ignore my request still felt like harassment.
Even non-sexual touch can be harassment if you've made it clear that it is not something you are ok with. In general, people failing to change their behavior in reasonable ways to accommodate others are, at the very least, jerks. And they are frequently signaling their willingness to ignore people's boundaries in all kinds of other ways (some of them dangerous).

quote:
I suppose this could be written off as me being a delicate wee flower, but there will be other women out there who have had similar experiences.

Huia
It's not being a delicate flower at all to be clear on what your comfort levels with various things are, and to make those boundaries clear to other people. When they violate them, they are in the wrong.

However, I question whether it's reasonable to expect that everyone can adjust to the sensitivities of all without being asked to do so (not that I'm accusing you of doing this). But it does point to the difficulty in setting general rules and leaving the odd person out without any responsibilities to inform others of their needs and preferences (and I hope that doesn't sound accusatory towards you - I myself have certain oddities that I have to inform people of - it's meant to be more of a comment on the current state of the culture with regard to these kinds of accusations).

So, what has anyone learned from this latest round of sexual harassment allegations? We're still generally not allowed to talk about it (except to condemn it), what causes it (except it's about POWER, which good luck eliminating that), what we might do to prevent it, what appropriate punishments might be (except complete exile), or say anything about the alleged victims, except that we believe them and their feelings are valid...

Or am I missing something? In all these threads (starting, I believe, with the Weinstein one), has anyone learned anything, except that there are a bunch of taboo subjects, discussion of which is likely to get shut down?
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
saysay--

My comment about recoiling was in direct response to someone else's comment that *Keillor* felt uncomfortable, and apologized. From what Keillor wrote, that isn't what happened.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
I've looked over the posts, and I'm afraid I can't see the distinction you're making, or why you think it's significant. Can you explain?
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Excellent post say-say. I don't agree with everything in the post, but it is an excellent counterpoint. Thanks for making a fair dinkum contribution to the topic.

I do think this social change business is long term though, and now is the time for victims to be heard so that future victims might have the courage to speak.

Mind you, as I have said previously there has been legislation making workplace sexual harassment unlawful in my state since the mid-80's, and that established the Victorian Equal Opportunity Commission, a body that allowed complainants to seek redress first by mediation and then by hearing, appealable to the Supreme Court. Monetary awards of damages could be made and I think orders of restorative justice, but I've been out of the game for more than 15 years so not sure on that last bit. The legislation in this jurisdiction has a pretty good definition of harassment and has over 20 years of case law behind it.

What constitutes sexual harassment in the workplace is pretty clear in Victoria, and I have attended numerous sessions on it, so that my employer could show that it has complied with its obligation to make efforts to prevent this behavior.

Obviously its Weinstein that has re-ignited anger that despite these legislative reforms, sexual harassment in the workplace still happens.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:


quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
This bit here illustrates the flaws in her logic.
quote:
It may not win me any popularity contests to ask this next question, but what stopped Carlson from just telling the cameraman to shut up? True, she was a young woman in her early twenties, and recently hired.
She answers her own question, if she had the experience to understand it.
I'm sorry, but I'm a bit slow when it comes to the world according to what is obvious to certain people, but what exactly is the flaw in her logic? How does she answer her own question? What experience does she need to understand "it"?
Carlson didn't have the experience or clout to confront a man in a man's world. Women's position in entertainment is precarious, much more than a man's.

quote:

Because right now it sounds like you believe that younger women (or all women) are too weak and pathetic to do so much as speak up about bothersome behavior. But that can't be what you're actually saying, can it be?
Yeah, continue the bullshit that it is a level playing field; that women can speak up with no consequences, not threat of job loss.


quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
This article, I think, might shed light on the OP.
How, exactly, does this shed light on the OP?

What are you trying to say here? Because I have no idea.[/QB][/QUOTE]
I'm saying Ohher's POV might be due to a different perspective, one that is informed by attitudes of the past.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
saysay--

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I've looked over the posts, and I'm afraid I can't see the distinction you're making, or why you think it's significant. Can you explain?
Sure. On the previous page, Twilight said:

quote:
For me the witch hunt started with Garrison Keillor losing everything over putting his hand comfortingly on the back of a woman who was telling him a sad story. Her back happened to be bare because her shirt was short and open and Keillor pulled his hand away and said "Excuse me," when he realized he was on bare skin. Now NPR has fired him. No warning, nothing, just career over, reputation ruined.
Note: I do *not* want to believe anything against Keillor. I'm a long-time fan of PHC; and it was very hard for me when he retired from the show, and the format changed. It was also hard for me to listen to it tonight. Name's changed to "Chris Thile Show", and Chris opened with a very good statement about the situation and the show. However, I was getting so upset that I had to turn it off. May try again tomorrow. But no more "Powdered Milk Biscuit" song, half an hour in, ever again.
[Tear]


My reply to Twilight is here.

Keillor gave few details, and those are open to interpretation. E.g., what does "Her blouse was open" mean? You can see Twilight's interpretation above. Keillor was just being a good friend; the woman wore a short/cropped shirt; and Keillor immediately felt bad, and stopped on his own. I thought maybe she was wearing an open shirt as a jacket, but that still didn't make sense. An article I read suggested that her blouse was simply untucked, and his hand went up underneath it--6 inches, by his own estimation.

Twilight's assessment is that Keillor is a good guy who made an innocent mistake, immediately realized it, and is being subjected to a witch hunt.

That might be true...but IMHO it doesn't really fit Keillor's account, and his account doesn't make perfect sense, anyway. And he's since mentioned a second complaint, though MPR hasn't.

ISTM this is less "innocent until proven guilty", and more "forever innocent, because he's too nice a guy to have done something like that".

Sometimes, nice guys do awful things. And, sometimes, nice guys aren't actually so nice.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

ISTM this is less "innocent until proven guilty", and more "forever innocent, because he's too nice a guy to have done something like that".

Sometimes, nice guys do awful things. And, sometimes, nice guys aren't actually so nice.
There's obviously been a lot of interpretation (by both Shipmates and journalists) about what exactly "her shirt was open" means, and we're not likely to sort that out without more information from Keillor, his alleged victim, or an official report. And I'm still not clear on what about Keillor's account doesn't make sense.

But it's the quoted paragraphs that concern me. I'm well aware that seemingly nice guys sometimes aren't actually all that nice and sometimes fact do horrible things. But your attitude (which is shared by others) is exactly what makes me think that this is a witch hunt.

You seem convinced that this is not a case of "innocent until proven guilty" but a refusal of people to accept that he's guilty because he's such a "nice" guy.

But no one - including him - has even had a chance to see the accusations against him. That alone makes it something of a witch hunt and a violation of the ideals that many in the US hold dear.

Even if he is guilty, what the he'll is he guilty of? Briefly putting his hand on a woman's bare back? That simply doesn't qualify as sexual harassment in many people's book. It's neither severe nor pervasive. It's a single action (a mistake) for which he apologized. According to what we currently know, it's not a pattern of behavior (and I'm sorry, but that is significant when evaluating the seriousness of allegations). And putting your hand on someone's bare back is not necessarily inappropriate (although it sounds like in this case both he and the woman he touched thought it was).

So why is there a widespread assumption of guilt? And what exactly do people think he's guilty of? Because unless there's a lot more info that we don't have, his "inappropriate behavior" does not warrant the response it received unless people are gripped by a sexual harassment panic.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
I have to say, I share the worry that this is getting out of control in the case of Garrison Keillor.

Not because I especially like the guy. I like some of his material, my parents are bigger fans.

But because from the limited material we have (and let's face it, we only have reporting to go by in all these cases) this is a case of a person who apologised then and there, in the moment.

This is quite different from a number of the cases of some kind of apology now, years after the fact, and in some instances as a whole series of people come forward to say there was a consistent pattern of behaviour. In many instances it's at least arguable that people aren't sorry about what happened, they're sorry about being caught.

What's unclear in the Keillor case is whether there is more to the story, i.e. whether it will turn into something bigger as did some of the other cases that started with a single incident. As one article I've read pointed out, the Keillor case is somewhat unusual in that almost all the available information came from Keillor himself. So maybe he's minimising it.

There's a perhaps even more questionable case happening at the moment here in Australia with Geoffrey Rush. The information available is that someone at a theatre company complained about Rush, but wanted it handled quietly... SO quietly, in fact, that they didn't even want Rush told. But then the media was told. So the current situation appears to be that Rush doesn't even know what he was accused of, or who by, and the theatre company refuses to tell him.

But from what I've seen, they've confirmed that they told a journalist when asked. Now, putting aside the question of how the journalist knew to ask (and what exactly they asked), to tell a journalist when they haven't told Rush is spectacularly unfair.

[ 03. December 2017, 07:27: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
saysay--

My concern was that Twilight (and many, many fans) seem to assume that Keillor *can't possibly* have done anything bad, because they like him. Hence, the "forever innocent" comment.

I'm not pushing for his guilt. I'd love for this to be some horrible misunderstanding.

I'm just saying that it *could* be the other way. I've had too many people I admire fall from grace (and not just lately) to firmly assume that someone's "forever innocent".

And, if it was a matter of running his hand up way up under her shirt, I don't see any way for that to be innocent comforting of an employee, friend, and/or colleague.

FWIW, YMMV.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:


quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
This bit here illustrates the flaws in her logic.
quote:
It may not win me any popularity contests to ask this next question, but what stopped Carlson from just telling the cameraman to shut up? True, she was a young woman in her early twenties, and recently hired.
She answers her own question, if she had the experience to understand it.
I'm sorry, but I'm a bit slow when it comes to the world according to what is obvious to certain people, but what exactly is the flaw in her logic? How does she answer her own question? What experience does she need to understand "it"?
Carlson didn't have the experience or clout to confront a man in a man's world. Women's position in entertainment is precarious, much more than a man's.
He was a cameraman. That is a fairly disposable position without a lot of clout. She told her boss about it, which indicates that she didn't particularly think her job was precarious or contingent on her putting up with such behavior.

How does her failure to confront him have anything to do with her experience or clout? By that logic, aren't all women women in a man's world and thus incapable of confronting anyone ever?

(Also, you implied that Kipnis, the author of the article, was the one lacking the experience to understand her own question, or at least to understand the answer to it, which still doesn't make sense, but whatever).

quote:
quote:

Because right now it sounds like you believe that younger women (or all women) are too weak and pathetic to do so much as speak up about bothersome behavior. But that can't be what you're actually saying, can it be?
Yeah, continue the bullshit that it is a level playing field; that women can speak up with no consequences, not threat of job loss.
Yeah, continue the bullshit that men are inherently more powerful than women and that therefore all of their interactions are in some sense coerced. It goes well with the bullshit about how women are never perpetrators and the bullshit about how we have to automatically believe women who claim to have been sexually harassed or assaulted because women never lie (at least not about stuff lime that).

There's not much that can be done about people who want to be perpetual victims.
 
Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
in case my analogy isn't clear enough, Russ, we all have to accept responsibility for our actions, regardless of our motives.

The proper response when one hurts another person inadvertently is not, "I didn't mean any harm! You're too sensitive! I didn't know any better! It's not my fault! Don't blame me!"

The proper response is "I'm sorry. I won't do it again."
Yes, you're right, that's what should happen. And where material damage has been inadvertently caused, an offer to pay the cost might form part of the apology.

And the proper response to an apology is ?

"I forgive you" probably isn't explicitly said very much. But something along the lines of "I know you didn't mean any harm" can do a lot to restore or rebuild the relationship.

But those are the easy cases...

In between the cases of wrongful intent and the cases of miscommunication - one person innocently and inadvertently getting closer than the other is comfortable with - is the whole grey area around the casting couch.

And in the area of sexuality we're not talking about quantifiable material damage, but about experiences that different people might find either extremely pleasurable or deeply traumatic.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
It is astounding by the way people’s names are being pulled like rabbits from a hat over this subject.
Whoever, or whatever, is driving this seems unperturbed that a massive grey area is being created whereby even a man who spontaneously hugs a women is getting close to being equated with a pervert or rapist.

It is starting to look like another victory for fear.
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
What I learned on these boards is the following:

Jengie

[ 03. December 2017, 10:36: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
This needs to be recast. It includes, by the way that it is worded, a child who refuses to be hugged by Aunt Hilda as an abuser.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
He was a cameraman. That is a fairly disposable position without a lot of clout.
Not always how that works; in reality it is highly situational. However, let us presume that in that organisation, at that time, what you say is accurate. She is a woman. At that time, 1980's or 90's, she was not a reporter, but eye-candy.*
quote:

She told her boss about it, which indicates that she didn't particularly think her job was precarious or contingent on her putting up with such behavior.
Read the article. She told her boss after he asked her why she was so shaken.

*Not a denigration of her abilities, but of how she would be perceived at the time.

quote:

Yeah, continue the bullshit that men are inherently more powerful than women and that therefore all of their interactions are in some sense coerced. It goes well with the bullshit about how women are never perpetrators and the bullshit about how we have to automatically believe women who claim to have been sexually harassed or assaulted because women never lie (at least not about stuff lime that).
If you are auditioning as head of your local Men's Rights chapter; I can only say congratulations, you cannot fail. As is typical on this subject, your argument is an idiot.
I could say that men do currently dominate the power structure of most everything. And I could say that women are human and humans are conditioned to work within a structure, rather than against it. I could mention that history is replete with examples of how much more difficult it is for those outside of the power structure to implement change regardless of sex (or race or gender, etc.). I might then add how humans, all of us, are strongly influenced by culture and its expectations and how our current culture treats men and women.
And how being the first in a movement is incredibly difficult for the above mentioned factors.
I could mention the numerous times I've said that abuse is about power, not sex, and that women have the potential to be as bad as men if they had the opportunity. of which they have much less in the current state of our cultures.
However I will be wasting my time, I'm sure.
Have fun in your apparent alternate reality, I will continue the fight in the one that actually exists.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
It is astounding by the way people’s names are being pulled like rabbits from a hat over this subject.
Whoever, or whatever, is driving this seems unperturbed that a massive grey area is being created whereby even a man who spontaneously hugs a women is getting close to being equated with a pervert or rapist.

It is starting to look like another victory for fear.
OK, please produce the example of your magical accusations. The closest thus far is Keilor. And as we only have his version, it is stupid to assume.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Many men, when introduced to the concepts of the Patriarchy and male privilege, make the mistake of thinking that people who acknowledge the P and M.P. believe every man is more powerful, and more privileged, than every woman. I have never heard any SJW or sociologist define it so. Either we're not making ourselves clear, or the fragile man are purposely misinterpreting, or the fragile men are not capable (yet) of taking it on board because it clashes so with their worldview and the experiences they filter through that worldview.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
I've been in situations where, because I was a man, I was the patriarchy and therefore verbally attacked. I don't think it's just 'some men' who misunderstand what the concept is.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Many men, when introduced to the concepts of the Patriarchy and male privilege, make the mistake of thinking that people who acknowledge the P and M.P. believe every man is more powerful, and more privileged, than every woman. I have never heard any SJW or sociologist define it so. Either we're not making ourselves clear, or the fragile man are purposely misinterpreting, or the fragile men are not capable (yet) of taking it on board because it clashes so with their worldview and the experiences they filter through that worldview.
In any group that has power, there will be members who do not and those who have some but do not perceive it. This does not negate the power of the group, but those members are used to obscure that power. The same dynamic is true in groups that do not have power.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I've been in situations where, because I was a man, I was the patriarchy and therefore verbally attacked. I don't think it's just 'some men' who misunderstand what the concept is.
Point.

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
In any group that has power, there will be members who do not and those who have some but do not perceive it. This does not negate the power of the group,
And of course I did not, and would not have, said so.

quote:
but those members are used to obscure that power.
Could very well be. Hadn't thought of that but it makes sense.

quote:
The same dynamic is true in groups that do not have power.
Not sure what you mean, i.e. what parts of the analogy on one side correspond to what on the other.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
In any group that has power, there will be members who do not and those who have some but do not perceive it. This does not negate the power of the group,
And of course I did not, and would not have, said so.
I was expanding on your point, not implying anything.
quote:

quote:
The same dynamic is true in groups that do not have power.
Not sure what you mean, i.e. what parts of the analogy on one side correspond to what on the other.
In a group that has little power, members who succeed are used to claim the group is not disadvantaged.

[ 03. December 2017, 18:48: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
In a group that has little power, members who succeed are used to claim the group is not disadvantaged.
Ah, I see. Thank you.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Just on saysay's intervention, I have a saying of Mark Twain's on my email sig: Whenever you find yourself in the majority its time to pause and reflect.

Social change is not a matter of a moment. It is a long struggle, a generational struggle in the case of gender equality. A good place to start social change is the law. Nothing changes attitudes faster than the likelihood of having to pay a substantial sum of money to someone else.

If an employer is required to pay money for the harassing actions of an employee unless they took reasonable steps to eliminate workplace harassment, then they are going to do that. And a great big bunch of caselaw will soon develop around what constitutes reasonable steps.

Has this happened already in America? Surely it has.

With the industry whales, like O'Reilly, Weinstein and the rest, the economic argument isn't going to work. They are worth too much money to their employers. With the rest of us harassers, we will be stomped on and turfed out as liabilities at the earliest available opportunity (bearing in mind that dickwits have rights too).
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
There was a great song on the subject, on Saturday Night Live last night. Here's a free link with the YouTube video on it.

The gist? Women have been coping with this for a long LONG time. It's terribly sad that men are uncomfortable. But I am not saddened by their suffering. Look here, on the tip of my pinky finger. See it? The smallest violin in the world. It plays 'My Heart Bleeds for You.'
 
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
I think the OP has been adequately dealt with, but there are a few other things to be addressed.

I wasn't that surprised by the Keillor thing; I've interviewed him twice (not my idea - I've never been a fan), and found him creepy and condescending.

In fact, several colleagues who've also interviewed him brought up that exact phrase in talking about him.

As for worried men, well, Welcome to Hell!
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
There was a great song on the subject, on Saturday Night Live last night. Here's a free link with the YouTube video on it.

The gist? Women have been coping with this for a long LONG time. It's terribly sad that men are uncomfortable. But I am not saddened by their suffering. Look here, on the tip of my pinky finger. See it? The smallest violin in the world. It plays 'My Heart Bleeds for You.'
You're okay with seeing innocent people punished? Really? Seriously? Because they're men? Because that is really a sucky, inhuman, unchristian attitude.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
You feel isolated? Volunteer at a community center, mentor a younger colleague, join a church, form a professional association. Be a friend.
I thought part of the point of the OP was that our requirements for being a "successful" man ("successful" in the way of the men in these newsworthy allegations) preclude having even the time for such things. When all you do is work, almost all of your relationships are going to be related to work, which, given the structure of most workplaces, means there are likely to be a certain number of power discrepancies. When people assume that a certain amount of fame in a given industry gives someone power over not only all others in that industry, but over almost all other people, the only people they can have ever any contact with are people that they have power over. By definition.
This is a neat little trick being played by the wealthy and privileged as an excuse for, well, the kind of bad behavior we're talking about here, among other things. Very reminiscent of claims that those at the top of the food chain "deserve" to make 200x those at the bottom of the corporate hierarchy because those at the top have "so much more stress". But when they actually did a study, look for signs of stress-related illnesses, they found lo and behold, the people carrying the most stress were those at the bottom rungs-- the people with far less control over their time.

I think we'll find the same true here. You want to know who doesn't have time for socializing? Single moms working two minimum wage jobs to pay the rent. The moms I met at the children's hospital who had to leave a couple of kids with an iPad in the cafeteria while visit their sick child after work. Adults caring for aging parents and newborns simultaneously.

The wealthy and powerful will complain a lot about how hard they work, but the reality is they have far more control over their schedule than any of their underlings, and have far more resources available to hire help with the time-consuming irritants like grocery shopping or cleaning the John that the rest of us have to deal with.

I agree with a lot of what's been said here-- as I mentioned before, I'm also concerned about the loss of due process that's come with this sudden breaching of the floodgates, and the conflating of a 1000 different shades of misbehavior all lumped together under the single heading of "sexual harassment".

But when it comes to the very real and verifiable misbehaviors by the wealthy and influential, I'm not buying the "it's lonely at the top" sob story. This is about a raw display of power, about the thrill certain men get when they are able to take what they want without having to ask for it.

[ 04. December 2017, 04:37: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:


If an employer is required to pay money for the harassing actions of an employee unless they took reasonable steps to eliminate workplace harassment, then they are going to do that. And a great big bunch of caselaw will soon develop around what constitutes reasonable steps.

Has this happened already in America? Surely it has.
Yes, this has already happened, and we can all see how much good it has done. I sit alongside everyone else in a mandated 8 hour sexual harassment seminar every other year (mercifully now online)-- one that is so transparently obvious it might as well come stamped with a label that says "Don't blame the head office!". Full of helpful news flashes like "threatening someone's job for sex is bad". Because it really isn't about reducing sexual harassment, it's about reducing corporate liability. And it's not even accomplishing that-- these biannual jaunts did not prevent a recent lawsuit over an alleged episode of sexual bullying and corporate cover-ups.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Huia--

quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:


I am currently thinking about the women at church and elsewhere whom I routinely kiss.

They are all around my age, we have known each other for a long time, and they always volunteer their cheek to be kissed (as does my wife to their husbands) when we meet.

How long that will be wise or appropriate in the current climate remains to be seen.
I have dithered about posting this, but here goes...

I might be a bit over the top with this, but I think it might be an idea to ask the women involved. I think with the raising of awareness of what is and isn't appropriate may lead some women to be aware that they don't feel completely comfortable with cheek kissing, but the fact that it has been the usual ritual of greeting makes it difficult to say so.
I've been thinking the same. Sometimes, people suppress their discomfort, whether with cheek kissing, or air kissing, or hugs, or obvious, recognized forms of harassment. It can be like when you feel the need to speak up in response to a bad thing someone said, but you're scared. Or like a deer in headlights. (I saw something about that on a nature show. IIRC, one part of the deer's brain shuts down, then the rest go along.)

And a lot of women have been socialized to be polite, never speak up, and never disagree. So we've learned to push everything down and just get through whatever's going on--because the world and/or our lives may fall apart, if we don't. I've grown past a lot of that, but it's still a deep reflex.

This may be a reason for so many women speaking up lately. They've been carting this baggage around for a long time, wanting to get rid of it; but societal and workplace attitudes made it not ok. Once the dam started to crack (and it was a man, Mia Farrow's son, who broke the story about Weinstein), women started throwing their baggage through the widening cracks.

And much of this may apply to abused/harassed men, too.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
yeah that's right. There is no quick fix that will get the company off the hook. That's why mostly they won't put up with it, unless the harasser is making them serious money. It's completely morally bankrupt, but that's capitalism for ya.

Also, those boring seminars can contribute to changing social mores, especially in the workplace. They make it clear to perps that they are taking a risk, they make it clear to potential victims that the behavior is not acceptable and give victims a clear structure for complaints. If its a good complaints process that will include making a complaint to someone outside the chain of command and even outside the company. A good seminar will also make it clear that people can complain straight to the EOC, and ask the EOC to conduct an investigation of the workplace itself. That really puts the frighteners on management. They scare potential perps (whatever they might say) they scare management and they empower potential victims.

Surely that's worth a boring day of our time.

This is just a stage though. Its social change by fiat, a method denigrated by the right. But what's that old saying? If you have them by the balls their hearts and minds will follow.

There's currently social advertising going on here about domestic violence. Its part of a campaign of social change that included getting the law right, and getting the coppers to understand that they had to make this a top priority. It's a proven method. We have done it here with changing motorist behavior and with tobacco smoking, the 'stick' there being massively expensive fags.

Back to the OP, I think there is something to the assertion that there can be a climate for sexual harassment in existence when women are seen as a status symbol akin to a flash car or a big house. There was a scene in a Monty Python clip I posted where the village idiot hid his wealth and power so that his neighbors could continue to despise him. He had a flash car, a massive bank account and slept in a four-poster bed with two nubile and naked young women as bedfellows. I almost put a warning on the post about objectification, but what part of our culture does not presently treat young women in exactly this way?

Wife home, back later
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
The world of work would be a better place if we re-imagined ideas of leadership, success, power. The idea that to be a success, to make it to the top, to lead an organisation *must* be so all-consuming, take all your time, require you to sacrifice family and other relationships, is an idea that keeps a whole range of people out of the pool of potential leaders.

The people who are being excluded from the pool might be some of the people who could improve the culture in workplaces, not least by spreading power and creating balance. So it would, over time, be a virtuous circle with greater inclusion leading to a more inclusive culture, leading to greater inclusion...

But how do we get off our current trajectory and on to the better one?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
There was a great song on the subject, on Saturday Night Live last night. Here's a free link with the YouTube video on it.

The gist? Women have been coping with this for a long LONG time. It's terribly sad that men are uncomfortable. But I am not saddened by their suffering. Look here, on the tip of my pinky finger. See it? The smallest violin in the world. It plays 'My Heart Bleeds for You.'
You're okay with seeing innocent people punished? Really? Seriously? Because they're men? Because that is really a sucky, inhuman, unchristian attitude.
Seconded. And it's not about being "uncomfortable". If you're fine with the concept of innocent people losing their jobs, and their reputation (which will make it harder to find another job), so long as they are men, then you're basically advocating mindless revenge rather than justice.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Did you see the video? Go back and click on it. It has already happened: to women. Innocent people who did not deserve to be chased around conference room tables, lose their jobs because they didn't want to fellate the boss, be denigrated as 'troublemakers' or 'unable to take a joke.' That kind of thing. Nobody paid attention. It was funny.

Now it's not. Tell me why that is bad.

I do not believe that innocent men have anything to fear. All you have to do is to treat women as human beings. It's a pity that's such a big ask.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
There was a great song on the subject, on Saturday Night Live last night. Here's a free link with the YouTube video on it.

The gist? Women have been coping with this for a long LONG time. It's terribly sad that men are uncomfortable. But I am not saddened by their suffering. Look here, on the tip of my pinky finger. See it? The smallest violin in the world. It plays 'My Heart Bleeds for You.'
You're okay with seeing innocent people punished? Really? Seriously? Because they're men? Because that is really a sucky, inhuman, unchristian attitude.
Seconded. And it's not about being "uncomfortable". If you're fine with the concept of innocent people losing their jobs, and their reputation (which will make it harder to find another job), so long as they are men, then you're basically advocating mindless revenge rather than justice.
W. T. F. ?! Seriously, where does the video or Brenda's comment say all men should be punished?
Uncomfortable is what she said and what the video implies and fuck it, they are right. All men* should be uncomfortable.
Why? Because this bullshit about the innocent presupposes that everyone has the same view of what is and isn't innocent. The "harmless" toucher, the wolf whistler, the "nice" guy, etc. All think they are innocent. And a person of truly innocent mind can overstep boundaries. People need to think about how what they do affects other people. And if that makes people uncomfortable whilst they figure it out, it is well worth the price.
Many women would find merely feeling uncomfortable to be progress.


*Female predators/abusers as well. But we are talking about work and public and that space primarily belongs to men.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
yeah that's right. There is no quick fix that will get the company off the hook. That's why mostly they won't put up with it, unless the harasser is making them serious money. It's completely morally bankrupt, but that's capitalism for ya.

Also, those boring seminars can contribute to changing social mores, especially in the workplace. They make it clear to perps that they are taking a risk, they make it clear to potential victims that the behavior is not acceptable and give victims a clear structure for complaints. If its a good complaints process that will include making a complaint to someone outside the chain of command and even outside the company. A good seminar will also make it clear that people can complain straight to the EOC, and ask the EOC to conduct an investigation of the workplace itself. That really puts the frighteners on management. They scare potential perps (whatever they might say) they scare management and they empower potential victims.

Surely that's worth a boring day of our time.
It would be worth several boring days-- if in fact it did that. But as we're seeing right now in industry after industry, it's not doing that. It didn't do that in my workplace, and it's not doing it in any others that I can see as well. These sorts of mandated sexual harassment seminars have been standard in most workplaces of any size for more than a decade, but I'm not seeing a single sign that they've been effective. All they do is send the message, "if you're f****** someone we don't want to know about it so we have plausible deniability."

I'm not sure what the solution is, but I think it begins with correct diagnosis. Again, I'm not convinced that "working too many hours to have a proper work life balance" is the problem-- I think the "hard work" of CEOs is vastly overrated and, in fact, it's the struggling minimum wage workers who really are the ones having trouble finding time to nurture family life. I suspect the answer lies in a total re-examination of the way we look at power-- who gets it, how they are held accountable-- and new models of shared leadership.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Here you go, a free and much more nuanced explanation of what I'm trying to say.
A quote:
"I hope to be able to continue to write in a way that focuses on those harmed by abuses of power and privilege. I hope to continue to write with integrity and honesty. And I hope that we all can try to read with the same focus and the same integrity. And that we can all work together to be more aware of how we are being manipulated and distracted and misrepresented and shamed into believing that we do not deserve to be centered in conversations on our oppression. That we do not deserve to be heard. That we do not deserve justice. That we do not deserve “due process.” Due process is long overdue."
 
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
...I do not believe that innocent men have anything to fear. All you have to do is to treat women as human beings. It's a pity that's such a big ask.
Nope, they don't have anything to fear. Speaking as a woman who "can't take a joke" when it involves sexual harassment or abuse, I know that innocent women have been paying a huge price all along.

And when it comes to sexual predators, it looks as though the biggest open secret in classical music is finally officially out. The Met is shocked, shocked - but for years they covered up for him (and made payoffs, if reliable sources and persistent rumors are to be believed). I hope this doesn't bring down the company.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:


I'm not sure what the solution is, but I think it begins with correct diagnosis. Again, I'm not convinced that "working too many hours to have a proper work life balance" is the problem-- I think the "hard work" of CEOs is vastly overrated
It is. But even for those exceptions that are overworked, it is a bullshit excuse for sexual harassment. Are they to be excused for stealing, beating employees or other bad behaviour? Those are not considered excuseable offenses merely because they are “overworked” so why is harassment?
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is. But even for those exceptions that are overworked, it is a bullshit excuse for sexual harassment.
Yes, this.

Working long hours, travelling with colleagues and living in hotel rooms can certainly be "excuses" for office romances and torrid affairs.

Consensual affairs (actual consent, rather than when the actor you're considering casting "consents" to give you a blow job) may well be unwise, but they're not any kind of harassment.

Nothing excuses any kind of harassment. If you're the boss, don't ask your minions out, and certainly don't proposition them for sex. Asking a co-worker out on a date? Not harassment, if you do it once, and take no for an answer. Asking a co-worker for sex? Probably harassment, even if you only do it once. Most people don't want to be asked for sex by colleagues.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I do not believe that innocent men have anything to fear.
You can believe it all you like. That does not make it true.

You and I can both believe that the women coming forward are telling the truth. That does not mean that no woman anywhere will ever decide that a good way of taking down a man is to accuse a man of something he hasn't done.

Nor does it mean it has never, ever happened. I've heard pretty directly of it happening. No, it is not most cases. But it will be some. People will take advantage of the current atmosphere to attempt it.

[ 04. December 2017, 20:02: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is. But even for those exceptions that are overworked, it is a bullshit excuse for sexual harassment.
Yes, this.

Working long hours, travelling with colleagues and living in hotel rooms can certainly be "excuses" for office romances and torrid affairs.
mino tweak: they create opportunities for office affairs, not excuses.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I do not believe that innocent men have anything to fear.
You can believe it all you like. That does not make it true.

You and I can both believe that the women coming forward are telling the truth. That does not mean that no woman anywhere will ever decide that a good way of taking down a man is to accuse a man of something he hasn't done.

Nor does it mean it has never, ever happened. I've heard pretty directly of it happening. No, it is not most cases. But it will be some. People will take advantage of the current atmosphere to attempt it.
You are surely not arguing, are you? That because, say, two percent of accusations are false, that all of them should be ignored for ever?

You must concede that if -many- women show up with similar stories about the same man over a long period of time, and with handwritten evidence, too! that the -probability- is that there is not collusion, but actual villainy there.

We must hold ever before us now that the Russians are happily meddling in all our affairs. It is entirely possible, probable even, that they're going to fish up a totally false accusation and fling it, in hopes of further disrupting the polity. I am certain they are considering this; we're going to see a lot more of this and some of it will be entirely faked. We must be wise and wary. But that doesn't mean that bad men should be allowed to skate untouched, as they have for so long.

[ 04. December 2017, 22:38: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Did you see the video? Go back and click on it. It has already happened: to women. Innocent people who did not deserve to be chased around conference room tables, lose their jobs because they didn't want to fellate the boss, be denigrated as 'troublemakers' or 'unable to take a joke.' That kind of thing. Nobody paid attention. It was funny.

Now it's not. Tell me why that is bad.
It is not and I have never said so.

quote:
I do not believe that innocent men have anything to fear.
Then you are in la-la land.

quote:
All you have to do is to treat women as human beings. It's a pity that's such a big ask.
It's not a big ask. Nobody here has said it was, I don't believe.
 
Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
a person of truly innocent mind can overstep boundaries.
That's true. And the solution to that is clearer boundaries.

But what's going on at the moment isn't creating greater clarity as to where the boundaries are.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:

I do not believe that innocent men have anything to fear.
Then you are in la-la land.
Some innocent men might be accused and suffer from that. This is unfortunate and unavoidable without complete cessation of attempts to address the harassment problems.
It is exactly the same as every other enforcement of laws and standards, there will be innocent people affected. Happens every day with every crime and standard we have. The solution is to proceed as responsibly as can be done. Just as with every other standard and law.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:

I do not believe that innocent men have anything to fear.
Then you are in la-la land.
Some innocent men might be accused and suffer from that. This is unfortunate and unavoidable without complete cessation of attempts to address the harassment problems.
It is exactly the same as every other enforcement of laws and standards, there will be innocent people affected. Happens every day with every crime and standard we have. The solution is to proceed as responsibly as can be done. Just as with every other standard and law.
Then you admit innocent men may have somewhat to fear. You agree with me. Thank you.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Then you admit innocent men may have somewhat to fear. You agree with me.
Probably not. With any enforcement, some innocent will suffer, yet we stilll enforce laws and standards.
What is happening now is no different. So why the whinging about this issue?
If all you are doing is staying the obvious, fine. But many men saying similar are implying this is somehow more egregious for this issue.
We don’t want a looser standard, we want to have this problem to finally be taken seriously.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
And this is why I posted that "decent and trying-to-be-decent men" should be extra careful, because when there's lots of rage, it can spill over on people who don't deserve it. And I know that sometimes decent guys don't understand boundaries, so I gave some guidelines (however imperfect).

I also posted that to establish and maintain my own balance, because of my own rage.

One difficulty is that, with all the recent allegations, and the child sexual abuse in the RCC and all sorts of other places, and stuff that's embedded in US culture, and my own #metoo experiences...it can be extremely hard to remember that there are good guys *at all*.

It would be most helpful if men who are creeps wore a scarlet "C" where everyone could see it...to be removed if they truly get better.

And yes, women abuse, too. And men are abused by other men. Etc.

FWIW.
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

What is happening now is no different. So why the whinging about this issue?
.
The stigma attached to an accusation of sexual misconduct is hard to wash away with a "not guilty" verdict due to the seriousness of the accusations.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I do not believe that innocent men have anything to fear.
You can believe it all you like. That does not make it true.

You and I can both believe that the women coming forward are telling the truth. That does not mean that no woman anywhere will ever decide that a good way of taking down a man is to accuse a man of something he hasn't done.

Nor does it mean it has never, ever happened. I've heard pretty directly of it happening. No, it is not most cases. But it will be some. People will take advantage of the current atmosphere to attempt it.
You are surely not arguing, are you? That because, say, two percent of accusations are false, that all of them should be ignored for ever?

You must concede that if -many- women show up with similar stories about the same man over a long period of time, and with handwritten evidence, too! that the -probability- is that there is not collusion, but actual villainy there.

We must hold ever before us now that the Russians are happily meddling in all our affairs. It is entirely possible, probable even, that they're going to fish up a totally false accusation and fling it, in hopes of further disrupting the polity. I am certain they are considering this; we're going to see a lot more of this and some of it will be entirely faked. We must be wise and wary. But that doesn't mean that bad men should be allowed to skate untouched, as they have for so long.
No, I am not arguing that. And I think it’s fairly clear from my post that I’m not arguing that.

What I am arguing is that there needs to be a level of guarding against false accusations rather than glibly asserting that it doesn’t matter if any men are suffering and that they deserve the world’s smallest violin. Or having a frankly naive belief that innocent people have nothing to fear.

There is a long list of historical cases of people promising to only punish the guilty but failing to have the mechanisms in place to ensure this, and then punishing the innocent as well. The world of social media is frankly ripe for this problem. It’s a whole universe of retweet first and ask questions later.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:

I do not believe that innocent men have anything to fear.
Then you are in la-la land.
Some innocent men might be accused and suffer from that. This is unfortunate and unavoidable without complete cessation of attempts to address the harassment problems.
It is exactly the same as every other enforcement of laws and standards, there will be innocent people affected. Happens every day with every crime and standard we have. The solution is to proceed as responsibly as can be done. Just as with every other standard and law.
And here as well, I would point out that you need to consider what the enforcement mechanisms actually ARE here. Most of these cases are not actually involving police or courts of law.

I don’t have the level of faith that you apparently do that there’ll be a consistently decent level of checking before people lose their livelihood over an allegation. Heck, even the lawful authorities don’t do a great job. In my own city there’ve been 2 cases in the last few years of false accusations leading to lengthy processes and one of those involved jail time for the falsely accused. It’s a serious issue.

[ 05. December 2017, 01:34: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Perhaps there will be as decent a police supervision of the investigations as, oh, in the killings of black men. If you fear that the quality will be of that abysmal level, it is a valid concern. Perhaps the solution then is to make investigations and prosecutions more fair.

The solution of ignoring the crimes or perpetually diving into 'what about-ism' is now no longer open. We as a society have to deal with it.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Perhaps there will be as decent a police supervision of the investigations as, oh, in the killings of black men. If you fear that the quality will be of that abysmal level, it is a valid concern. Perhaps the solution then is to make investigations and prosecutions more fair.
As Orfeo said, it's not even about police investigations. People are losing their jobs and potentially their employability without even getting a day in court. Trial in the court of public opinion is all it takes. Your and lilBuddha's callousness about it doesn't make the world seem any safer.

quote:
The solution of ignoring the crimes or perpetually diving into 'what about-ism' is now no longer open. We as a society have to deal with it.
I have not suggested otherwise, nor has orfeo.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Sure Brenda, and the legal mechanisms have been in place for a long time, bearing in mind that many of the acts that fall within the definition of sexual harassment are not criminal, but give rise to a civil action in a specialist jurisdiction here in Victoria. The strategy so far has been to rope the employer in, and make them pay if they haven't taken reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment in their workplace. The last I checked, and that was a long time ago, no employer has ever successfully defended their process as reasonable steps.

It might be that this legal strategy needs revisiting. The pattern for employer strategy has changed over time. Originally it was to stand by the harassing employee and put the victim to her proof, settling the matter before a public hearing. In the late 90's this changed to ditching the harasser and sacking him as part of showing how serious the employer was about dealing with sexual harassment. Then they'd settle. If you were representing the harasser, your job was to try and get him into that settlement, otherwise you risked the victim continuing to pursue the matter against the harasser.

I'm not sure how they run things now, but certainly in some corporate boardrooms, sexual harassment or having a relationship with a less senior employee does get you sacked. I recall that the AFL (Australian Football League - the beating heart of corporate Melbourne) separated from a male senior manager last year for this stuff, as did I think Channel 7, one of our TV stations, who sacked their CEO (?) for having an affair with his PA. If they are going this hardcore against someone in the club (and these blokes were establishment types in establishment jobs) can you imagine what they will do to someone who is an ordinary Joe? They are going to go all Germinal on him.

If the AFL and major TV networks are doing this to people inside the circle of power, you can bet that other major corporations in this country who are being advised by our small and incestuous group of major Corporate Law Firms will do exactly the same, because those law firms all give roughly the same advice.

I might be mansplaining this stuff. Please forgive me. I think its important.
 
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
...People are losing their jobs and potentially their employability without even getting a day in court. Trial in the court of public opinion is all it takes. Your and lilBuddha's callousness about it doesn't make the world seem any safer....
The problem here is with Trial by Social Media, which happens all the time, and is no less evil for its ubiquity. I'm not yet aware of any major figures brought down by unsubstantiated rumor alone, however.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Your and lilBuddha's callousness about it doesn't make the world seem any safer.
Callous. Really. The least likely group to be falsely accused has a ᵗᶦⁿʸ percentage greater chance than previously and all of a sudden it is panic time?
I do not take false accusation lightly, I'd wager more of my family have a higher chance of this happening than yours.
Once again for emphasis, We don’t want a looser standard, we want to have this problem to finally be taken seriously.
The news might make it appear that there is a great deal of accused, but that is illusion. Look at how many male politicians and famous men there are currently and then see how few are actually being accused. And even fewer that have yet to have real consequences. Look at Al Franken.¹ Before the photos and additional accusers, people were cautious. Read the discussions about Kiellor,² One accuser thus far and the wolves are not yet tearing him apart. The feared hysteria and false accusation avalanche isn't yet happening.
Men are worried about the incredibly small chance of being falsely accused of the things that actually happen to women and LGBTI on a frequent basis.
I have much sympathy for anyone falsely accused, but not as much as the ones who would slow down progress on this issue with their, mostly, unfounded fears.
¹Still has his job.
²Fired from semi-retirement. Over reaction or proper reaction not yet known.
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

What is happening now is no different. So why the whinging about this issue?
.
The stigma attached to an accusation of sexual misconduct is hard to wash away with a "not guilty" verdict due to the seriousness of the accusations.
Incorrect. Child Molestation accusations are difficult to wash away. Rape is sometimes.
The rest of sexual misconduct? How many stories of men having a history of misconduct that was an open secret which didn't affect their careers, of it being reported and ignored, etc., will it take to sink in that it has not been hard to wash away or at least ignore?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I do not take false accusation lightly, I'd wager more of my family have a higher chance of this happening than yours.
It sounds like you've never actually been on the receiving end of serious, career and life-destroying false accusations.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
I always find the “this problem isn’t important to discuss because there’s some other problem” line of argument very strange. I think I’ve just seen it twice: the risk of false trial by social media of men is not important, because of police racism.

The reason I find the argument so strange is that one can always trump almost ANY problem with a bigger one. Sure, police racism is a problem, but look at what’s happening in Syria. And sure, that’s a problem, but millions of innocent people are dying of AIDS in Africa. And if you care about that, climate change might wipe us all out.

Enough with the ranking of problems. Human brains are quite sophisticated things, they should be able to handle multiple concepts and issues without resorting to this lame idea that one problem excludes another. They should be capable of understanding, for example, that being concerned about false accusation of men in no way implies that sexual harassment of women is not a problem that needs dealing with.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

There's a perhaps even more questionable case happening at the moment here in Australia with Geoffrey Rush. The information available is that someone at a theatre company complained about Rush, but wanted it handled quietly... SO quietly, in fact, that they didn't even want Rush told. But then the media was told. So the current situation appears to be that Rush doesn't even know what he was accused of, or who by, and the theatre company refuses to tell him.

But from what I've seen, they've confirmed that they told a journalist when asked. Now, putting aside the question of how the journalist knew to ask (and what exactly they asked), to tell a journalist when they haven't told Rush is spectacularly unfair.
I'm surprised that this has not been taken up. The press is told that there has been an accusation against a respected actor. That was before the actor himself had been told. He has still not been told who made the accusation or what it was. He has now resigned from a public position so as not to taint that organisation with this most peculiar tale.

Surely fairness demands that Rush be told, and the sooner the better.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Yes, its the quandary of confidentiality v fairness that panicky administrators sometimes twist themselves into. In this situation though someone forgot about the confidentiality.

He's slated to play in A Midsummer Nights Dream with the MTC late next year. Hopefully, the situation will be sorted by then.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
It seems to be one of those terrible unanswerable problems.

Women are generally ignored and used by powerful men. So their voices and complaints and allegations are not heard, not believed and/or nothing is done.

There is some kind of crisis. Suddenly space opens up where women can speak about it and the floodgates open.

Which leads to some rapid actions against people accused of things

Which opens the door for people wanting to settle scores by making false accusations.

Which, unfortunately, may well lead to genuine accusations being buried and women being disbelieved and stories being buried again.

[ 05. December 2017, 07:17: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
...and there's a backlash against women, and the cycle starts over again.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It seems to be one of those terrible unanswerable problems.

Women are generally ignored and used by powerful men. So their voices and complaints and allegations are not heard, not believed and/or nothing is done.

There is some kind of crisis. Suddenly space opens up where women can speak about it and the floodgates open.

Which leads to some rapid actions against people accused of things

Which opens the door for people wanting to settle scores by making false accusations.

Which, unfortunately, may well lead to genuine accusations being buried and women being disbelieved and stories being buried again.
Yes.

The only way out of it, long term, is to deal with the way women are treated so that it's not the case that it builds up like this.

This is not so much about the actual abusers, but about all the people around who don't call out the behaviour when it happens. Who encourage the victims, in various ways, to "not rock the boat".
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I always find the “this problem isn’t important to discuss because there’s some other problem” line of argument very strange. I think I’ve just seen it twice: the risk of false trial by social media of men is not important, because of police racism.
I’m not saying that false accusation is unimportant. I’m saying it is the same problem that occurs for any similar situation. And the risk of false accusation isn’t greater than actually being harassed.
I am also saying it is a significantly smaller risk than is being implied.
It is a conundrum. The only way to safeguard men from being falsely accused is to stop making them accountable for harassment.
False accusation has always been part of the landscape for this and every other issue ever. This issue is getting attention because a group which is generally safe fears they are now not.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I do not take false accusation lightly, I'd wager more of my family have a higher chance of this happening than yours.
It sounds like you've never actually been on the receiving end of serious, career and life-destroying false accusations.
And it sounds like you’ve never been raped, sexually harassed, been forced to constantly monitor your relationships with more than half the people you work with because they thought a smile was an invitation, had to remind people that you do not fancy their sex and gender and still needed to fend off advances,...
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
I think it's entirely reasonable for Eutychus (given his history) to react very badly to the idea that false accusations are simply collateral damage, without someone else trying to minimise the effects or belittle him personally.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I think it's entirely reasonable for Eutychus (given his history) to react very badly to the idea that false accusations are simply collateral damage, without someone else trying to minimise the effects or belittle him personally.
I’m not trying to minimise the effects or seriousness of false accusation. People, mostly men, are creating a backlash against an overdue movement because they fear accusation. And the risk of false accusation is being overstated.
I don’t want false accusations to happen. Because they are wrong and because they negatively affect addressing real accusations.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
]I’m not saying that false accusation is unimportant. I’m saying it is the same problem that occurs for any similar situation. And the risk of false accusation isn’t greater than actually being harassed.
What a strange thing to say.

Of course, the risk of being involved in an aircraft accident is less than the risk of being in a road-traffic accident in the UK.

So? The volume of fatal accidents on the road does not somehow mean that airline accidents are unimportant.

It is a fact that people are accused falsely. There is nothing here to debate, and this isn't saying anything about people who have experienced genuine abuse.

quote:
I am also saying it is a significantly smaller risk than is being implied.
How can you possibly know that? You're also rubbishing the experience of others and saying that their worries are unimportant.

quote:
It is a conundrum. The only way to safeguard men from being falsely accused is to stop making them accountable for harassment.
False accusation has always been part of the landscape for this and every other issue ever. This issue is getting attention because a group which is generally safe fears they are now not.
Or possibly it is because some of us are worried about innocent people having their lives turned upside-down by false spiteful accusations.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
The risk of false accusation is something that accompanies any issue where there is accusation. This issue is no different. Tell me why it is being treated as if it is.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It sounds like you've never actually been on the receiving end of serious, career and life-destroying false accusations.
And it sounds like you’ve never been raped, sexually harassed, been forced to constantly monitor your relationships with more than half the people you work with because they thought a smile was an invitation, had to remind people that you do not fancy their sex and gender and still needed to fend off advances,...
If you've experienced all those things, that's awful.

But, really, this has absolutely nothing to do with the reality of other people's experience.

It is entirely possible for two people to have serious, opposite experiences of this. The one hardly devalues the other.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
People, mostly men, are creating a backlash against an overdue movement because they fear accusation. And the risk of false accusation is being overstated.
So, please - do you believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty, or are you trying to say that the risks of falsely accusing men is so small compared to the risk of ignoring women's reports of sexual abuse that we're into territory whereby women should always be believed no matter what.

How would that actually work as a judicial, legal or even common-or-garden interpersonal system?

quote:
I don’t want false accusations to happen. Because they are wrong and because they negatively affect addressing real accusations.
I don't think anyone has claimed that you "want" false accusations. The issue seems to be that you don't think it is a problem worth wasting any time thinking about.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The risk of false accusation is something that accompanies any issue where there is accusation. This issue is no different. Tell me why it is being treated as if it is.
Well, because I don't think there are many other issues that one can be accused of something, see their lives collapse around their ears before any proof has been weighed and/or any judicial and legal decision has been made.

The only thing I can come up with at the moment is when a teacher is accused of child abuse.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It sounds like you've never actually been on the receiving end of serious, career and life-destroying false accusations.
And it sounds like you’ve never been raped, sexually harassed, been forced to constantly monitor your relationships with more than half the people you work with because they thought a smile was an invitation, had to remind people that you do not fancy their sex and gender and still needed to fend off advances,...
If you've experienced all those things, that's awful.

But, really, this has absolutely nothing to do with the reality of other people's experience.

It is entirely possible for two people to have serious, opposite experiences of this. The one hardly devalues the other.
You realise this also applies to what Eutychus said?
How many times must I repeat that false accusation are a bad thing.
You tell me, then, how we keep up the pressure on harassment without the possibility of false accusation?
And I would like to point out that the vast majority of the #metoo responses have not identified harassers. Accusation has never come without personal consequence.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The risk of false accusation is something that accompanies any issue where there is accusation. This issue is no different. Tell me why it is being treated as if it is.
Well, because I don't think there are many other issues that one can be accused of something, see their lives collapse around their ears before any proof has been weighed and/or any judicial and legal decision has been made.

The only thing I can come up with at the moment is when a teacher is accused of child abuse.
As I said to sharkshooter, only accusations child molestation and (sometimes) rape have that attached to them. Sexual harassment accusations don’t have that track record.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You realise this also applies to what Eutychus said?
I don't think it does. Eutychus is saying that you are minimising an experience he has had (or perhaps someone close to him has experienced). And it certainly seems that way when you keep talking about the minimal risks of someone being falsely accused.

You simply can't answer someone who says "well, sorry, I've been falsely accused" with the response "yes, but have you been raped?" and sound credible.

It might be a risk far smaller than the risk of genuine rapes being ignored. But that doesn't somehow make it unimportant.

quote:
How many times must I repeat that false accusation are a bad thing.
I don't know. As often as you keep saying it is a lower risk, perhaps?

quote:
You tell me, then, how we keep up the pressure on harassment without the possibility of false accusation?
I don't know. Hence the post I made above where I said this is a horrible problem without a simple outcome that could easily undermine itself.

As the accusations grow in number and the impacts pile up, the chances of someone settling a score with a false accusation increase. Surely that's a fairly uncontroversial point.

quote:
And I would like to point out that the vast majority of the #metoo responses have not identified harassers. Accusation has never come without personal consequence.
Not sure what this has to do with anything at all. It'd be lovely to believe that all members of a particular group are honest, that those using the #metoo hashtag are expressing honestly what happened to them. That would be brilliant.

Unfortunately I have the uncomfortable belief that humans will generally do whatever they can get away with, and that lying via a popular hashtag is not beyond the bounds of possibility.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You realise this also applies to what Eutychus said?
In an attempt to keep this out of Hell, and bearing in mind that you find it difficult to see how what you say can be perceived as rude, please tell me whether you personally know what it's like to have your life as you knew it effectively destroyed by false accusations.

If so, then you might beneficially use your own experience to reflect on how your comments come across to those of us who have also had that experience.

If not, then you might care to take some time to wonder whether we don't have a point worth paying attention to.

[ 05. December 2017, 12:44: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Well, at risk of sounding like a total chump -

It seems to me that everyone here can be correct at the same time. It is a terrible thing that women were not believed and that their accusations were not taken seriously. It is a good thing that this has changed.

But it is also a terrible thing when people are accused falsely of things that they didn't do - and it there is an increased risk of false accusations at the moment.

So good that women are being taken seriously, but also bad if this is leading to knee-jerk responses to accusations and false career-damaging claims.

The problem is knowing what to do about it - I'm not sure that simply saying "ah, but have you.. blahdiblah.." is really helping the discussion.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
I don’t think there is a practical solution, in the short term. The long term solution, as orfeo said earlier in this thread, is to change the way women are treated. We need to change the culture that facilitates abuse.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Well, at risk of sounding like a total chump -

It seems to me that everyone here can be correct at the same time. It is a terrible thing that women were not believed and that their accusations were not taken seriously. It is a good thing that this has changed.

But it is also a terrible thing when people are accused falsely of things that they didn't do - and it there is an increased risk of false accusations at the moment.

So good that women are being taken seriously, but also bad if this is leading to knee-jerk responses to accusations and false career-damaging claims.

The problem is knowing what to do about it - I'm not sure that simply saying "ah, but have you.. blahdiblah.." is really helping the discussion.
Good!

The one thing I would like to see appearing after all the froth has died down is a true change in awareness and social expectations. Never again should it be possible to grab pussy without repercussions. May the day of the boss with the button at his desk that locks his office door be over forever.

I don't want it to go back to the way it was.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
So, please - do you believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty,...How would that actually work as a judicial, legal or even common-or-garden interpersonal system?...
OK, here's a fact: employers are not bound by the same rules as the criminal justice system. When someone gets fired, that is the due process. Employment law is part of civil law, where cases are decided on a balance of probabilities.

Larger employers and institutions and unionized workplaces may have additional policies and practices to deal with employee misconduct, but at the end of the day (particularly in the USA), employees can be "let go" for any reason or no reason at all. Employers have always been free to operate using the concepts of "where there's smoke, there's fire" and "there's plenty of fish in the sea".

An employee can be fired for a false accusation of ANYTHING. If you think that sucks, you're right. But that was true before and during, and will be after, the zeitgeist.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
That is generally not true in the UK. Employees have significant protection against being dismissed for trivial or unfounded reasons. That's why we have so many employers trying to get around it by claiming their employees are self employed.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
There seems to be a difference in the UK between "being sacked" and "being made redundant".

The former is that you've been told to leave because you've done something wrong. The latter is because the company is closing, downsizing etc so your job is being lost due to something outwith of anything you've done.

I'm not entirely clear that this distinction exists in the USA and elsewhere.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm not entirely clear that this distinction exists in the USA and elsewhere.
Sure the distinction exists in the US. But we’d say “being fired” instead of "being sacked" and “being laid off” instead of "being made redundant.”
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I'm curious to know what would happen if someone was fired in the UK for an accusation that was false. I'd guess that they could try taking it to a tribunal to claim unfair dismissal, but I'm not sure what standard of proof is required.

I'm not sure what happens if a fired employee goes to an employment tribunal saying that they don't believe that the employer had any proof or basis for firing them.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
No, there is a wide gap between legal culpability and employer decision making. They can fire you (in the US) for chasing girls around your desk on the instant; getting you into jail for harassment is a much higher bar.
There is also a yawning gap in the US between the private sector and the government, especially Congress. A TV show host who demands sex from his secretary can be out the door in hours. A congressman can nurture presidential ambitions; the only way to get him out may be years later at the voting booth. And as we can see in Alabama the voters may often be utterly hypocritical.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm curious to know what would happen if someone was fired in the UK for an accusation that was false. I'd guess that they could try taking it to a tribunal to claim unfair dismissal, but I'm not sure what standard of proof is required.

I'm not sure what happens if a fired employee goes to an employment tribunal saying that they don't believe that the employer had any proof or basis for firing them.
Here's one example: man gets fired from job after unproven sexual abuse allegation. Tribunal says it was unfair because "confirming that an accusation alone, however serious in nature, could not by itself found a fair SOSR* dismissal"

* some other substantive reason
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
No, there is a wide gap between legal culpability and employer decision making.
Yes, there is, but that doesn't mean that employers (in the UK, at least) are free to just fire you.

In order to convict someone of a criminal offence, you must prove it in court beyond reasonable doubt. If you fire someone for "chasing girls around their desk", they could take you to an employment tribunal claiming unfair dismissal, and the case would be decided on the balance of probabilities. As an employer, you would need to show that you had investigated the allegations properly, and that you were applying your standards fairly to all employees.

You could also, incidentally, claim constructive dismissal if you were the girl being chased around the desk, you complained about it to your employer, and nothing was done about it, which forced you to quit your job. Again, that would be decided on the balance of probabilities.

AIUI, employees in the US generally don't have quite so many protections unless they're a member of a protected class and can bring an equal opportunities case.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm curious to know what would happen if someone was fired in the UK for an accusation that was false. I'd guess that they could try taking it to a tribunal to claim unfair dismissal, but I'm not sure what standard of proof is required.

I'm not sure what happens if a fired employee goes to an employment tribunal saying that they don't believe that the employer had any proof or basis for firing them.
You would need a lawyer to answer that one with any accuracy. However - speaking as someone who did take an employer to an employment tribunal - tribunals tend to be much more task-focused, rather than a forum for adversarial combat. At least that's the way mine worked.

If things have got bad, then you probably wouldn't want your old job back, and so may want to pursue a claim against your former employers for damages in the civil courts.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
AIUI, employees in the US generally don't have quite so many protections unless they're a member of a protected class and can bring an equal opportunities case.
This will vary according to the employment law of each state and the nature of the employment contract—whether employment is “at will,” for example, or whether through collective bargaining or company policy some protections are in place.
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm curious to know what would happen if someone was fired in the UK for an accusation that was false.
I think someone who was sacked simply because an allegation had been made would be able to make a claim for unfair dismissal (disclaimer: IANAL (or at least not practising for nearly 30 years now)). Though an employer might quite reasonably suspend them.

If an employer carried out a proper investigation leading them reasonably to believe, on the balance of probabilities that the allegation was true, then the person could be sacked.

There would then be the possibility that the Crown Prosecution Service might feel that the case was not good enough to put before the court to obtain a conviction on the basis of proof beyond reasonable doubt, or the person might go to trial and be found not guilty because the evidence was not deemed strong enough on that basis to convict.

The situation would be that they had been found in court to be not guilty of the offence in court beyond reasonable doubt, but guilty on the balance of probabilities by their employer of behaviour which justified dismissal. That is the potential consequence of two different standards of proof.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
AIUI, employees in the US generally don't have quite so many protections unless they're a member of a protected class and can bring an equal opportunities case.
This will vary according to the employment law of each state and the nature of the employment contract—whether employment is “at will,” for example, or whether through collective bargaining or company policy some protections are in place.
This is key I think.

The point was made above that false accusations are possible in any instance where allegations are made, regardless of crime. There is no way around that-- it is a logical and unavoidable consequence. The key, then, is to have a process to rectify the situation when the accusation is false.

When criminal allegations are made, there is such a system-- you have your day in court (acknowledging there are huge inequities there that need to be addressed), and if acquitted, can make that known.

The problem is when there is no parallel system for employment. I would expect the issue of false allegations is somewhat less problematic in places where there are strong labor laws that allow for suing for unjust termination. This would protect the falsely accused employee from being hastily dismissed for PR reasons without a full investigation. Just as the ability to bring a sexual harassment suit against your employer as well as the harasser helps to guard against hostile work environments-- having both in place would be a strong inducement to employers to have a robust, fair, transparent, and effective system for reporting, investigating, and responding to sexual harassment claims. When only one side of the equation exists, abuse is inevitable.

Beyond these two there is the inevitable "trial by media" of course. Not much we can do about that, I'm afraid-- people will form opinions, it's the way we're wired, asking people to hold off until an investigation is complete is an exercise in futility. But at least if the other two avenues were available and effective, both the falsely accused and the truly victimized would have the opportunity to publicize the results.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

The point was made above that false accusations are possible in any instance where allegations are made, regardless of crime. There is no way around that-- it is a logical and unavoidable consequence. The key, then, is to have a process to rectify the situation when the accusation is false.
True or false is not the standard by which these things are judged. Credibility is the standard and this has always been problematic.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm curious to know what would happen if someone was fired in the UK for an accusation that was false. I'd guess that they could try taking it to a tribunal to claim unfair dismissal, but I'm not sure what standard of proof is required.

I'm not sure what happens if a fired employee goes to an employment tribunal saying that they don't believe that the employer had any proof or basis for firing them.
And what happens in the Geoffrey Rush case, to which Orfeo and I have referred? As an actor seeking new roles, what tribunal can say that he's been unjustly not chosen for a role because of this unspecified and anonymous assertion and is therefore entitled to compensation by the theatre?
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
And what happens in the Geoffrey Rush case, to which Orfeo and I have referred? As an actor seeking new roles, what tribunal can say that he's been unjustly not chosen for a role because of this unspecified and anonymous assertion and is therefore entitled to compensation by the theatre?
We are familiar with how hard it is to prove systematic discrimination against classes of people (cf. housing owners not renting to black people). It is very much harder to prove systematic discrimination against a particular individual.

Did I not cast that actor because of some rumours about him, or did I just not think he was quite right for the part? Proof is almost impossible.

Similarly, did I not cast that actor because he or she didn't offer sexual favours? It's pretty hard to prove anything.

[ 05. December 2017, 20:53: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm curious to know what would happen if someone was fired in the UK for an accusation that was false. I'd guess that they could try taking it to a tribunal to claim unfair dismissal, but I'm not sure what standard of proof is required.

I'm not sure what happens if a fired employee goes to an employment tribunal saying that they don't believe that the employer had any proof or basis for firing them.
And what happens in the Geoffrey Rush case, to which Orfeo and I have referred? As an actor seeking new roles, what tribunal can say that he's been unjustly not chosen for a role because of this unspecified and anonymous assertion and is therefore entitled to compensation by the theatre?
An accusation was made, he decided to step down whilst it is looked into. It is, currently, a minor inconvenience to him. The course of action taken by him, and accepted by the AACTA, is a reasonable and mature one.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
This really sidesteps the point: an employee can go to a tribunal and seek compensation if wrongly dismissed, or if not employed because of unlawful discrimination. But Mr Rush is not an employee, and who's to know why he is not invited to take any role? No tribunal to go to for him.

As to the balance of the post - what is being looked in to and by whom? I've not seen any announcement of one. All we know is that the Sydney Theatre Company (to which we are subscribers, BTW) received an allegation of misconduct from a person who wishes to remain anonymous. Rush is not told of this allegation but an employee of the STC tells a member of the press that one was received. Rush still does not know what it is that he is alleged to have done and to whom. Scarcely fair play by the STC, I'd say.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
This really sidesteps the point: an employee can go to a tribunal and seek compensation if wrongly dismissed, or if not employed because of unlawful discrimination. But Mr Rush is not an employee, and who's to know why he is not invited to take any role? No tribunal to go to for him.
Acting is temporary, one is not an employee of a company after a job is over as you note, so how would a tribunal work? It is a real problem, though one that has traditionally worked against the abused.
quote:

As to the balance of the post - what is being looked in to and by whom? I've not seen any announcement of one.
Rush's statement seems to imply one
quote:
In the circumstances, I have decided to step aside in my ambassadorial role as president of AACTA effective immediately and until these issues have been resolved
however it isn't definitive, so there may not yet be one.

quote:
Scarcely fair play by the STC, I'd say.
If the accusation is never revealed, then yes. At the moment it is too early to make your accusation.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Too early!!!!!! The accusation was made to the STC 21 months ago, and as at the breaking of the story late last week, the STC had not told Rush. There's nothing to suggest that they have done so since or are just relying upon the furore as a being sufficient. So he still does not know who has made the assertions, what he is supposed to have done and when. Nor is there any suggestion that the STC has been making any investigation of its own.

In my book, that's totally unfair given that a newspaper reporter was told that an accusation had been made.

[ 06. December 2017, 04:41: Message edited by: Gee D ]
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The risk of false accusation is something that accompanies any issue where there is accusation. This issue is no different. Tell me why it is being treated as if it is.
Well, because I don't think there are many other issues that one can be accused of something, see their lives collapse around their ears before any proof has been weighed and/or any judicial and legal decision has been made.

The only thing I can come up with at the moment is when a teacher is accused of child abuse.
I think the issue of false allegations is becoming increasingly important in the world of corporate whistleblowing. On the one hand, big corporate scandals have led for public calls for greater protection for whistleblowers (which could include guaranteed compensation or even - as I think is already the case in the US - financial incentives to blow the whistle) greater protection for whistleblowers inevitably increases the risk of false accusations by colleagues with a grudge.

A similarity with the sexual harassment issue is that in the past, the dice has seemed to be weighted against the whistleblower (especially in medicine, where blowing the whistle on even deadly misconduct by colleagues is effectively a one-way ticket to Australia - because you'll never work in the UK again). But now the concern is that correcting this historic imbalance will result in a tip in the other direction.

On the whole, I think safer whistleblowing routes are a good thing. But OTOH, it must be awful to be suspended from work pending investigation and not be entitled to know what you're accused of, who has accused you etc etc.

In both cases - sexual harassment and corporate misconduct - I would support a lot more research into the rates of both false accusations *and* of victims/potential whistleblowers choosing not to make a complaint/blow the whistle, to try and get closer to understanding what the real prevalence is of both. However I appreciate that this could be complex and expensive.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
In the airline industry, if something happens and there's an 'incident', then everyone has to report in. Ground crew, flight crew, manufacturers, air traffic control. Consequently, air safety is as good as it gets.

In medicine (and especially surgery), no such protocols apply. If the surgeon turns up drunk, then no one has to report them.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
The thing that I fear, and am seeing here, is the attitude that "Well, some innocent men are going to go down, but that's just the price we as a society pay for finally hearing women's voices. Sucks to be male. We've been dealing with this since forever. Get over it." My mind keeps going back to the early Soviet Union, and people ratting on their neighbors for being "kulaks."

We on the left speak out against fascism, until it benefits (or seems to benefit) us. Then it's peachy keen, suck it up buttercup.

Fortunately some female voices have risen up against this attitude.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Some cultural links, amusing and of mild relevance (and free):

a letter from the 14 year old girls of the world.

Time Magazine names its Persons of the Year.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The thing that I fear, and am seeing here, is the attitude that "Well, some innocent men are going to go down, but that's just the price we as a society pay for finally hearing women's voices. Sucks to be male. We've been dealing with this since forever. Get over it."
Yes and no. Innocent people being accused is a price of addressing crimes/behaviour. It does suck, but it is impossible to avoid unless we choose to not address crimes/behaviour at all.
In other words, to spare all innocent men, no guilty ones will face any consequences.
The only real issue here is trying to assure that percentage is as low as practical. This is not how it works for any other issue, though it should be. I am also pointing out the hypocrisy of those who have not called for caution in any other issue before they were potentially affected.
And I would point out, again, whilst there is a flood of #meetoo, there is not a flood of direct accusation.

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Too early!!!!!! The accusation was made to the STC 21 months ago,
Nothing I've read says this. The alleged incident was 21 months ago, it appears that the accusation is more recent.
This particular incident does illustrate how problematic the entire issue is. Typically, a victim risks their career by making an accusation. This is an entertainment industry fact. If the accuser of Rush is in fact sincere, s/he might be hoping other victims come forth in support and minimise the risk.
If no other accuser steps forth and this one and his/her accusation remains nebulous, Rush's career will likely not suffer. One of his costars in a major film franchise continues to get roles despite domestic abuse allegations.

None of this is going to be fair in every case.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The thing that I fear, and am seeing here, is the attitude that "Well, some innocent men are going to go down, but that's just the price we as a society pay for finally hearing women's voices. Sucks to be male. We've been dealing with this since forever. Get over it." My mind keeps going back to the early Soviet Union, and people ratting on their neighbors for being "kulaks." .
That is a real and valid fear.

My parallel fear is that all this moshing together of everything from juvenile pranks to underage rape/ exposure of almost every prominent male figure will lead instead to "well, this is just what boys do. Nothing to see here". Which, given the latest poll numbers for Roy Moore, seems to be exactly what is happening.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
If you look closely at that Time magazine cover, you can see that the image has been cropped. There's a woman to the right side of the shot who can be only be discerned by her elbow and a chunk of skirt. She's a Me-Too person who does not dare show her face or reveal her name -- she will lose her job.

So do remember that men possibly losing their jobs is balanced by many women fearing the same.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
None of this is going to be fair in every case.
Again, I have seen, and indeed (in my time and to my shame) participated in, causes in which damaging other people was waved away by some as acceptable "collateral damage" in pursuit of a higher aim.

If the cause doesn't have a mechanism to provide some sort of checks and balances to that kind of thinking, it's fanaticism.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
My parallel fear is that all this moshing together of everything from juvenile pranks to underage rape/ exposure of almost every prominent male figure will lead instead to "well, this is just what boys do. Nothing to see here". Which, given the latest poll numbers for Roy Moore, seems to be exactly what is happening.
Except I don’t think that’s what Roy Moore’s poll numbers are showing. Everything I have seen out of that race and the poll numbers indicates that voters do think that there is something to see, but greater importance is being given to political pragmatism. Voters seem to be saying that at the end of the day, it’s preferable to elect a Republican whom they can count to vote the way they want him to than to elect a Democrat who won’t, even if they’d never want that Republican candidate alone with their daughters.

Well, it’s that plus a dash of “those Yankees aren’t going to tell us how to vote.”
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
My parallel fear is that all this moshing together of everything from juvenile pranks to underage rape/ exposure of almost every prominent male figure will lead instead to "well, this is just what boys do. Nothing to see here". Which, given the latest poll numbers for Roy Moore, seems to be exactly what is happening.
Except I don’t think that’s what Roy Moore’s poll numbers are showing. Everything I have seen out of that race and the poll numbers indicates that voters do think that there is something to see, but greater importance is being given to political pragmatism. Voters seem to be saying that at the end of the day, it’s preferable to elect a Republican whom they can count to vote the way they want him to than to elect a Democrat who won’t, even if they’d never want that Republican candidate alone with their daughters.

Well, it’s that plus a dash of “those Yankees aren’t going to tell us how to vote.”
I'm not seeing that as a whole lot different from what I described above. "Child rape may be bad, but it's not as bad as the possibility of our (assuming you're very rich) taxes going up if a Dem is elected..."
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I'm not seeing that as a whole lot different from what I described above. "Child rape may be bad, but it's not as bad as the possibility of our (assuming you're very rich) taxes going up if a Dem is elected..."
I see it as very different, for two reasons:

First, “nothing to see here” suggests that the problem is dismissed altogether. I think the reality is that many, many voters do not dismiss the problem at all; they’ll just hold their noses and vote for him despite the problem.

Second, I don’t think the taxes example is really apropos. That’s not going to be on the radar of most Alabama voters, and to the degree it is, it’ll be as much from poorer voters as wealthier ones. I think it’s more: “What he did to those girls is horrible and repulsive, but it’s more important to elect someone who will consistently vote pro-life/personal freedom and vote to confirm pro-life/personal freedom judges and justices.” As you know, for a segment of the electorate, protecting the unborn in particular trumps any other consideration.

To be clear, I don’t agree with that rationalization, nor with the “pro-life” agenda. At the same time, though, I don’t think it helps to mischaracterize the motives of voters, to the extent we can know those motives at all.

ETA: By “personal freedom” I’m mainly thinking religious freedom and free speech. And guns, I’m afraid.

[ 06. December 2017, 18:17: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
“What he did to those girls is horrible and repulsive, but it’s more important to elect someone who will consistently vote pro-life/personal freedom and vote to confirm pro-life/personal freedom judges and justices.”
Because once they're born, they're fair game.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This is a wise blog post by a woman minister about the need for truth from both men and women.

And a more casual (and ever so much more profane!) blog post from one man to his fellow men urging them to straighten up and fly right.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
“What he did to those girls is horrible and repulsive, but it’s more important to elect someone who will consistently vote pro-life/personal freedom and vote to confirm pro-life/personal freedom judges and justices.”
Because once they're born, they're fair game.
Just one of the many problems I have with the “pro-life” agenda.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
None of this is going to be fair in every case.
Again, I have seen, and indeed (in my time and to my shame) participated in, causes in which damaging other people was waved away by some as acceptable "collateral damage" in pursuit of a higher aim.

If the cause doesn't have a mechanism to provide some sort of checks and balances to that kind of thinking, it's fanaticism.
Who, the fuck, said is was acceptable? It is inevitable, there is a difference.
And acceptable damage is part of every system we have. The only thing we negotiate is the threshold. No tolerance for coleteral damage is no enforcement of standard. Full stop.

[ 06. December 2017, 19:06: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And acceptable damage is part of every system we have. The only thing we negotiate is the threshold. No tolerance for coleteral damage is no enforcement of standard. Full stop.
Nope. Blackstone's formulation has been the cornerstone of English jurisprudence since the 18th century.
quote:
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"
That is what no tolerance for collateral damage looks like. That is the standard.

[ 06. December 2017, 19:29: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Too early!!!!!! The accusation was made to the STC 21 months ago,
Nothing I've read says this. The alleged incident was 21 months ago, it appears that the accusation is more recent.
This particular incident does illustrate how problematic the entire issue is. Typically, a victim risks their career by making an accusation. This is an entertainment industry fact. If the accuser of Rush is in fact sincere, s/he might be hoping other victims come forth in support and minimise the risk.
If no other accuser steps forth and this one and his/her accusation remains nebulous, Rush's career will likely not suffer. One of his costars in a major film franchise continues to get roles despite domestic abuse allegations.

None of this is going to be fair in every case.
No. This

Rush’s lawyer* said in a statement that Rush had not been informed of the nature of the complaint by the complainant or the theatre company, either at the time the complaint was made 21 months ago or since.

is along the same lines as all other reports in papers here. Plenty of time to investigate. It's still unclear if the STC has directly told Rush at all.

I don't understand your last paragraph, but it seems to be along the lines that collateral damage is to be expected and too bad for those wrongly accused.

BTW, the bit about the accuser hoping to encourage others to come forward does not sit with the request to the STC to keep it quiet.

*I don't know the particular lawyer, but the firm is a solid and well established one, not the sort of place from which you'd get wild or unsubstantiated allegations.

[ 06. December 2017, 20:14: Message edited by: Gee D ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Nope. Blackstone's formulation has been the cornerstone of English jurisprudence since the 18th century.
quote:
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"
That is what no tolerance for collateral damage looks like. That is the standard.
This is not how the system actually works, regardless of what is supposed to be the cornerstone. Unless you believe no innocent person has ever been convicted.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
It is most certainly not how the system works where I am right now, since as in many other Western countries the vote-winning option is to enact policies to lock as many people up as possible regardless of whether it is actually appropriate and constructive for society to do so or not.

However, the important thing about Doc Tor's quote to my mind is what it says about attitude. I'm sure Blackstone didn't want dangerous criminals running free around the country; but that in pursuing that worthy goal, he wanted to ensure the potential for other injustices was at least factored in and provision made accordingly. That's the part that doesn't come across, at least to me, in what you've been saying.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The risk of false accusation is something that accompanies any issue where there is accusation. This issue is no different. Tell me why it is being treated as if it is.
Because the consequences of the false accusation are different.

And I don't even think you're right to suggest that the same risk of false accusation exists in all cases.

Because for anyone who makes a deliberately false accusation, the calculation as to the likelihood of achieving the desired outcome is part and parcel of the decision to make the accusation in the first place. And so if the current environment is one that is more favourable to believing accusations (or particular kinds of accusations), and to having consequences immediately follow from an accusation without need for proof, then that in fact increases the incentive to make the false accusation in the first place.

The abstractness of your ideas about this weirdly reminds me of the kind of naive belief that good guys with guns will be be able shoot bad guys with guns. There's an unreality in both cases. In the real world, the zeitgeist does make a difference.

Have you never seen The Crucible? The whole point is that accusations that would be laughed off in one circumstance might become deadly serious in another.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
We could always try the biblical approach:

quote:
If a malicious witness comes forward to accuse someone of wrongdoing, then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days, and the judges shall make a thorough inquiry. If the witness is a false witness, having testified falsely against another, then you shall do to the false witness just as the false witness had meant to do to the other. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. The rest shall hear and be afraid, and a crime such as this shall never again be committed among you. Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
(In response to orfeo.)

And if innocent people are hurt, it makes people doubt all the real cases.

And it creates enemies.

[ 07. December 2017, 10:04: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
This is not how the system actually works, regardless of what is supposed to be the cornerstone. Unless you believe no innocent person has ever been convicted.
This how the system is supposed to work. That is the point. The moment you - specifically you, in this case - decides otherwise, is the moment you become a tyrant.

And if you think that's a bit strong, the reverse of Blackstone's formulation has been uttered by people as varied as Stalin and Pol Pot. Throwing innocent people under the bus on the basis of a denunciation is a hallmark of totalitarianism.

Everyone should strive that any accusation is listened to and investigated thoroughly. That is different from being believed.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
We could always try the biblical approach:

I do hate selective quoting of bible verses. For example this one would appear to suggest that one shouldn't accuse a church leader of abuse in court.

From which I think we can conclude that scattergun quoting of bible verses is never useful.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
This is not prooftexting but identifying a principle.

Other contextual elements aside, both passages enshrine the (in my view extremely sound) principle that one should not rush to a court of law, as reiterated by Jesus when he says it is better to settle with your adversary before you get there, if at all possible.

The OT law I quoted also offers a very practical deterrent to false accusations and highlights the seriousness of the matter.

I doubt it could be usefully implemented today, and didn't intend to suggest that it should be, but I think it supports Blackstone's attitude as opposed to lilbuddha's in this respect.

[ 07. December 2017, 11:32: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
This is not prooftexting but identifying a principle.
OK. What you call "identifying a principle", I call proof-texting.

quote:
Other contextual elements aside, both passages enshrine the (in my view extremely sound) principle that one should not rush to a court of law, as reiterated by Jesus when he says it is better to settle with your adversary before you get there, if at all possible.
As you say, that's just your opinion. Which isn't, in-and-of-itself authoritative. Almost nobody actually takes much notice of bible texts talking about accessing secular legal remedies. And nor should they.

quote:
The OT law I quoted also offers a very practical deterrent to false accusations and highlights the seriousness of the matter.
The bible is full of contradictory things. Including this.

quote:
I doubt it could be usefully implemented today, and didn't intend to suggest that it should, but I think it supports Blackstone's attitude as opposed to lilbuddha's in this respect.
I think that's cobblers. The worst kind of incoherent evangelical thinking. The bible is useful in ways you say. Because you said it.

You are entitled to believe this, I just think it is no sense any kind of credible position.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
As you say, that's just your opinion. Which isn't, in-and-of-itself authoritative. Almost nobody actually takes much notice of bible texts talking about accessing secular legal remedies. And nor should they.
I never offered it as anything other than an opinion and didn't say anything about it being authoritative.

I'm as against any reconstructionist biblical version of sharia law as the next guy, but to suggest that none of our legal principles have their origins in biblical thought and that there's nothing relevant there for us in terms of ethics is also cobblers.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:


I'm as against any reconstructionist biblical version of sharia law as the next guy, but to suggest that none of our legal principles have their origins in biblical thought and that there's nothing relevant there for us in terms of ethics is also cobblers.
OK, well there is only one thing worse than proof-texting, and that's arguing about proof-texting.

As such I'll agree to disagree and give your opinion the respect it deserves: ie nothing.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
(loud screeching of tires as topic wrenched back onto the main road)

A woman is defending Roy Moore by pointing out all the women he did -not- assault. Next time you murder someone, you could try telling the jury that you should get consideration because after all you did not murder lots and lots of other people. Oh Lord, when will you come down and save us? Only five days until the election...
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And I don't even think you're right to suggest that the same risk of false accusation exists in all cases.
It most certainly doesn't. For example, it's very hard to make a false accusation of murder if there isn't actually a victim. For sure, the wrong person can be accused of the crime, but at least there has to have been a crime in the first place.

The thing that makes accusations of sexual abuse - especially historical sexual abuse - so easy to fake is that such accusations are inherently one person's word against another's. There is no requirement for the accuser to provide any evidence other than their own say-so, and therefore no crime has to have been committed before a false accusation can be made.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
I'd say that in my country we try to follow Blackstone's formula if you're a white guy. If you're black? Haha, of course you must be a guilty fuck. [Frown]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I'd say that in my country we try to follow Blackstone's formula if you're a white guy. If you're black? Haha, of course you must be a guilty fuck. [Frown]
Oh, we've had our own problems. Especially Irishmen accused of terrorism. But, yes, young black men over here don't have the best chance either.

The principle, however, remains. It needs to be both remembered and extended.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
This is not prooftexting but identifying a principle.

Other contextual elements aside, both passages enshrine the (in my view extremely sound) principle that one should not rush to a court of law, as reiterated by Jesus when he says it is better to settle with your adversary before you get there, if at all possible.

The OT law I quoted also offers a very practical deterrent to false accusations and highlights the seriousness of the matter.

I doubt it could be usefully implemented today, and didn't intend to suggest that it should be, but I think it supports Blackstone's attitude as opposed to lilbuddha's in this respect.
But the real problem is not that someone might make a provably false accusation-- in that case, there are civil and criminal remedies, as well as hopefully media exposure to restore the reputation of the falsely accused and rightly denigrate the libelous liar.

But more frequently in these cases it comes down to he said/she said. Where neither side can be proven. So someone will deal with a grave injustice-- whether its a victim who never receives justice-- or a false accused person who will forever live under a shadow of suspicion. Neither is a good outcome, but I don't know how you avoid it.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm sure Blackstone didn't want dangerous criminals running free around the country; but that in pursuing that worthy goal, he wanted to ensure the potential for other injustices was at least factored in and provision made accordingly. That's the part that doesn't come across, at least to me, in what you've been saying.
So, you either have not read what I have said, think I am lying or do not wish to believe I am sincere.
quote:
We don’t want a looser standard, we want to have this problem to finally be taken seriously.
quote:
Once again for emphasis, We don’t want a looser standard, we want to have this problem to finally be taken seriously.
quote:
I’m not saying that false accusation is unimportant.
quote:
I’m not trying to minimise the effects or seriousness of false accusation.
quote:
How many times must I repeat that false accusation are a bad thing.
(Hint: Lots, evidently)
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
This is not how the system actually works, regardless of what is supposed to be the cornerstone. Unless you believe no innocent person has ever been convicted.
This how the system is supposed to work. That is the point. The moment you - specifically you, in this case - decides otherwise, is the moment you become a tyrant.
I have not "decided" anything. It only takes a minimal amount of effort to see that it isn't how the system actually works.


quote:

Everyone should strive that any accusation is listened to and investigated thoroughly.
This is something that women and LGBT+ have been wanting for decades.
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I'd say that in my country we try to follow Blackstone's formula if you're a white guy. If you're black? Haha, of course you must be a guilty fuck. [Frown]
Oh, we've had our own problems. Especially Irishmen accused of terrorism. But, yes, young black men over here don't have the best chance either.
The darker the skin, the higher the conviction rates and the longer the sentence. Though I would add being poor or "foreign" doesn't help either.
quote:

The principle, however, remains. It needs to be both remembered and extended.
The principle should always be remembered. But it isn't, it never has been, the perfect standard. It cannot be, because enforcement would become next to impossible. Perfectly exposed offence is something that rarely happens, it is almost always circumstantial. And bias against the aforementioned groups has always existed.
Extended? How do you mean this? From reading your posts over time, I am making the assumption that you are not suggesting an extension because of increased personal risk.
But, honestly, I think many are.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And I don't even think you're right to suggest that the same risk of false accusation exists in all cases.
I don't think I have actually said this. I've said all offences have the risk of false accusation, but I do not think I have said it is the same. The chances of being accused vary for the offence and group. The consequences vary by offence as well.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
For example, it's very hard to make a false accusation of murder if there isn't actually a victim. For sure, the wrong person can be accused of the crime, but at least there has to have been a crime in the first place.
This is not, actually, accurate. Presumption of a crime can indeed occur and result in a trial.
quote:

The thing that makes accusations of sexual abuse - especially historical sexual abuse - so easy to fake is that such accusations are inherently one person's word against another's. There is no requirement for the accuser to provide any evidence other than their own say-so, and therefore no crime has to have been committed before a false accusation can be made.
Abusers have relied on the lack of evidence to perpetrate their abuses. Historically, accusers have faced more repercussions than the accused. Even when abusers are made to stand trial/get sacked, etc. the victims often face censure, job loss and further abuse. Accusation has never been an easy thing.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
The latest on the Rush saga. Another actor sued recently and obtained a substantial verdict for lost earning capacity, in addition to the usual defamation damages.

BTW, I don't see any retraction from lilBuddha for the error she made.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

BTW, I don't see any retraction from lilBuddha for the error she made.
I did say that my posts was based on the sources I read. Perhaps I should have looked harder, perhaps you could have provided a link sooner. A bit of a wash, there.
The real error was not to go back and read orfeo's earliest post on this which I missed.
The theatre did misstep in telling a reporter without telling Rush.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
And perhaps I should have realised that I had to do your research for you.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
And perhaps I should have realised that I had to do your research for you.
Perhaps you should have realised that not all sources reported it the same way and that if you had link that did, the easiest and most reasonable thing to do would have been to provide it.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Sorry, that just does not wash. You have provided not a scrap of evidence to support your post, and simply rely upon your guess as to what had happened.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Almost as if it was an unbased accusation.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Sorry, that just does not wash. You have provided not a scrap of evidence to support your post, and simply rely upon your guess as to what had happened.
Rubbish, You read one thing and took days to provide a link. I said I read something different, and following your timeline, am now providing a link.
Had you simply done so at the beginning, this would have been a shorter exchange. I could have done the same, but the point is you are accusing me of behaviour that you were engaging in yourself.
Above that, I get the impression of severely twisted knickers that I did not make an extra effort to find the links you were claiming to have read. You provided neither a link or a quote, instead requiring me to accept that you had read them correctly.

Here is a link with wording typical of what I had read.
The relevant bit if clicking is too much effort.

quote:
Geoffrey Rush has stepped down from his position as president of the Australian Academy of Cinema and Television Arts after a claim of “inappropriate behavior” by the “Pirates of the Caribbean” actor surfaced this week, The Associated Press and Australian media reported Saturday.

Rush announced his decision after Australia’s ABC News stated the Sydney Theatre Company “received a complaint alleging that Mr. Geoffrey Rush had engaged in inappropriate behavior” during his time with the company.

 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
That item provides no timeline at all, and therefore no basis for your proceeding on the line that the complaint was recent and therefore time for investigation was required.

[ 08. December 2017, 20:13: Message edited by: Gee D ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Oh for heaven's sake, this is getting seriously childish.

It doesn't surprise me in the least that overseas sources, in particular, wouldn't have provided proper detail that the complaint was not new, only the "surfacing" of the complaint.

All that had to be done was to correct this point.

Conversely, all lilbuddha had to do was accept the correction instead of being niggly about it.

This is not a thing worth arguing about for post after post. We've established that the complaint was not made recently.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh for heaven's sake, this is getting seriously childish.
Sir is correct, apologies to the thread for my part in that.

[ 08. December 2017, 23:40: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
My apologies Orfeo
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0