[RD] Why Men Need to be Involved in the #MeToo Movement

[El_Machinae]

There will always be victims regardless which way we go. And they will be perpetrated by people with poor morality on people who are innocent, and may be naive. I might just be playing the numbers, but I suspect that a woman can falsely accuse a smaller number of men compared to the number of women that a man can secretly assault. That said, there is also the intensity of consequence, which is what I feel that people are implicitly touching upon. Does the damage from a false accusation cause a larger, and more powerful, disruption than a sexual assault? I don't know, it's not easy comparison to make.

 

[red_elk]

So I asked pages ago for an actual example of this happening....now I'll ask again.

I believe this was answered several times in this thread, the latest examples were given by Lemon Merchant on previous page.

 

[Farm Boy]

More cameras?

Good question. I'm tempted to say yes, but between camera society and secure doors society, "school or prison" does seem to be getting funnier by the year. Heck, especially as "sit still and be quiet, there are tests to study for and compulsory cooperative tasks to complete" slowly displace activities such as Art, Music, P.E., shop, and recess. I'm troubled about one thing as I'm optimistic about another. Almost feels like it ties in with giving kids time to just go out and be themselves with themselves is increasingly irresponsible and dangerous. Risks of growth we are simply becoming less tolerant of bearing, and they do come with at least some degrees of risk.

it's not easy comparison to make.

It's like asking if it's better for your faith in people to be destroyed, or theirs in you. And a whole different bunch of non-comparables.

 

[Lexicus]

I believe this was answered several times in this thread, the latest examples were given by Lemon Merchant on previous page.

Assuming you're referring to Ryan Seacrest and Kevin Spacey, as stinkubus pointed out neither had their career or life ruined by evidence-free accusations on social media. Seacrest's doing just fine, and Spacey was accused by more than a dozen different people in "normal" media, not social media.

I also don't know where any of you get the idea that people have a right to employment which can only be denied to them if someone can produce sufficient evidence of wrong doing. In most of the United States, unless you are a member of a union or otherwise have a contract, you can be fired for any reason at all. People are also more less free to libel you on social media as proving damages would be incredibly difficult in almost all circumstances.

Actually, as some sort of anti-capitalist leftist I do believe that people deserve due process before being fired from their jobs.

 

[stinkubus]

I wasn't attempting to argue against employment protections, but rather was pointing out that they largely don't exist within the United States. That being said, the notion that an employer would ever be legally required to uphold a "beyond reasonable doubt" standard when dealing with employee misconduct is absolutely absurd.

 

[Lexicus]

I wasn't attempting to argue against employment protections, but rather was pointing out that they largely don't exist within the United States.

I know, I'm just noting the issue. I have been despairing lately at "leftists" doing capitalist boot-licking in the effort to ensure that their culture-war enemies are punished. For example, I was just in a thread on Facebook the other day arguing with "leftists" who were talking about getting people fired from their jobs for social media comments.

That being said, the notion that an employer would ever be legally required to uphold a "beyond reasonable doubt" standard when dealing with employee misconduct is absolutely absurd.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is probably too high. But there is a lot of space between at-will and a criminal burden-of-proof.

 

[red_elk]

Assuming you're referring to Ryan Seacrest and Kevin Spacey, as stinkubus pointed out neither had their career or life ruined by evidence-free accusations on social media. Seacrest's doing just fine, and Spacey was accused by more than a dozen different people in "normal" media, not social media.

Admittedly I can't give you examples related to MeToo movement specifically - it is relatively new and I'm not so familiar with US social life.
But there certainly were cases where people lost their jobs and reputation because of accusations on social media. A couple years ago on programming conference two guys were talking to each other, and a woman sitting next to them perceived some of their jokes as sexist. So she made a picture of them on her phone and posted it online with a comment (with intention to shame them, probably). Both guys were fired. I can look for the link, if you are interested but I'm pretty sure I remember details well enough.

 

[Tigranes]

This Sunday I was listening to NPR (American public Radio) and the segment was named "Five Women" -- five victims of Don Hazen, AlterNet's executive director. One of the victims was remembering that back when she was 13 one boy from the Lacrosse team wrote her a note: "you got a great boobs! Use them!" Kids in school learned about it and were making jokes and lightly teasing both the boy and the girl. But administration of the school called the girl at principle's office and were pressuring her into telling that she was violated by these childish remarks and she has to accept the fact that she was sexually harassed. She was inclined to dismiss the whole episode as a stupid boy joke though, so administration could not do much except for expelling the boy from the school's team. Which brings me to a question -- how far adults are willing to go, especially in the cases involving minors. It is now almost a crime to say that boys will be boys (and girls will be girls for that matter) -- but while we all agree that any kind of harassment is bad -- isn't it also a form of harassment when everybody is telling young woman or young girl: you are a victim, does not matter if you don't feel it like that, just join us, help us punish this boy?

 

[Synobun]

At that age, you're not mature enough to make decisions like that (forgiving harassment). While true that the incident, by itself, isn't a big deal, the following behaviour is problematic and could lead to far worse results. That her peers joined in and began objectifying her is something to be discouraged. I'm not sure about expulsion as that seems like an overreaction unless the individual in question doubled down on the remark. In that instance, you have a scenario where both parties are playing chicken with each other. If this boy's behaviour directly led to the girl being hassled as the "great boobs girl" then yeah, punishment is to be expected. Obviously. Kids kill themselves over this stuff, especially when adults brush it off as "boys will be boys" or shrug their shoulders and say "well, she didn't ask us to intervene".

The victim's opinion isn't as important when they are that young. Most children will opt for the path of least resistance with their peers. It is what I did when I was sexually assaulted in that age range, and in hindsight it is good that it wasn't up to me to decide what to do about it. That a child's preference is to do nothing isn't paramount to the situation.

 

[Tigranes]

At that age, you're not mature enough to make decisions like that (forgiving harassment). ...

The victim's opinion isn't as important when they are that young. Most children will opt for the path of least resistance with their peers. It is what I did when I was sexually assaulted in that age range, and in hindsight it is good that it wasn't up to me to decide what to do about it. That a child's preference is to do nothing isn't paramount to the situation.

While I am truly horrified that you got assaulted, and even worse, at such a tender age, I am also shocked with your double standards. Remember that the boy and the girl are of the same age. If alleged victim's judgement is not important because of her age what makes the poor judgement her agemate so important? Some kids can also kill themselves for becoming the center of a witch hunt, being expelled from the school or even just from the team, which can be a big deal for some aspiring athletes. Not to mention the permanent academic record. Both boys and girls at their teens have to live with their underdeveloped brains and also hormones. Sometimes candid and awkward display of affection at that age can be mischaracterized as harassment and cases cannot be seen as black and white only.

 

[Synobun]

While I am truly horrified that you got assaulted, and even worse, at such a tender age, I am also shocked with your double standards. Remember that the boy and the girl are of the same age. If alleged victim's judgement is not important because of her age what makes the poor judgement her agemate so important? Some kids can also kill themselves for becoming the center of a witch hunt, being expelled from the school or even just from the team, which can be a big deal for some aspiring athletes. Not to mention the permanent academic record. Both boys and girls at their teens have to live with their underdeveloped brains and also hormones. Sometimes candid and awkward display of affection at that age can be mischaracterized as harassment and cases cannot be seen as black and white only.

Because one is a reaction and the other is a proactive vehicle of harm. It is not a double standard based on gender, it is a standard based on context. The victim opting to do nothing is a reaction to being harmed. The aggressor branding the victim as a sexualized object (and the branding being propagated further by her peers) is proactive.

Get out of here with the nonsense that everyone ganging up on a 13 year old girl and telling her to use her great boobs is a display of affection.

 

[Farm Boy]

Everyone ganging up is different from writing a note on paper. Given that this is one step out of pull-hair-and-run-away, I expect initial displays of attraction to be awkward as hell caricatures of adult representations in media. 13/14 year old smooth operators should be more feared than the kid getting made fun of for writing the awkward note.

 

[Mouthwash]

Well, sex should be based on mutual consenting parties. That's really the whole point. The point behind #metoo is that this has very frequently not been the case. Men do not have a right to sex. Not with someone who doesn't consent to it voluntarily. Coercion does not count.

Sex should not be based on mutually consenting parties. That should be a requirement for sex, but not the only requirement.

What in the world do the preferences of Tinder's female users have to do with a movement that is centered around exposing inappropriate behavior? Not measuring up is a problem for the 80% of men who don't get any "matches" to correct, if they so choose. The responses the fake Tinder profile got are even less relevant.

I'm sorry for not being clear. The issue is that, due to our differing reproductive strategies (insemination vs pregnancy) a small number of higher-status men can monopolize sexual access to the majority of women. Searching online allows people to bypass the social restraints, expectations and difficulties of courtship, and so the same pattern emerges (it's also in normal hookup culture, but I thought the Tinder example was more piquant. Sue me).

Demonizing women for finding or not finding a particular sort of man attractive is exactly the sense of entitlement which needs to be quashed!

I'm not demonizing them. Did Marx suggest that capitalism was a result of the moral failings of factory owners?

I'm curious which "legal protocols" that the #MeToo movement is attempting to subvert. I have yet to hear anyone clamoring for removing the presumption of innocence in criminal cases.

Rape shield laws have been in force for decades, and now a movement appears that fully endorses their sort of reasoning? I find that ominous.

In the United States (can't speak to labor laws in other countries) unless you are a union member or otherwise have a contract with your employer you are almost never entitled to a presumption of innocence, or anything else resembling "due process", in cases of workplace misconduct. Almost anyone can be fired, at any time, for any reason at all. Your bad jokes don't even need to be sexually inappropriate to get you canned.

My question to you is: do you think that's a bad thing? If yes, than do you really think the #MeToo folks aren't going to object to employees being given a presumption of innocence?

It's power both ways. There are many ways in which this is zero sum. Either men get punished for making unwanted advances, or women get the burden of dealing with unwanted advances. If you see this transition as evil, it might just be latent conservative tendencies, where 'the old way was better'. It's not, it's zero-sum.

I agree that lifting restrictions for the male pursuit of women would be equally disastrous. But we can reduce the scope of the conflict, and the way to do that is by rejecting sex-positivity and any notion of 'free love.'

What are you talking about?

I compared the current state of the sexual economy to capitalism. Marxists blame commodification on capitalism. I'm against the idea of sex being an exchange or a right, and this is due to my belief that sex should not be commoditized.

Again, what are you talking about?

Marx was rather against the idea of a society based upon rights or contracts.

Hm... I think there’s something deeply flawed in portraying men being punished for unwanted advances as some sort of hierarchical power dynamic favoring women.

You *think?*

And this is how it's been for most women, throughout most of human history. Every time something changes so there's more equality, you should see how some of the men react, like hordes of women are going to take over everything and erase men's accomplishments from history.

There was a time when a woman couldn't vote, or even open a bank account without the permission of her husband (how dare she have money he wouldn't have control over!). There was a time when an unmarried woman could sign a contract or own property in her own right, but the moment she got married, everything that was hers became legally his to do with as he pleased, and she was no longer legally able to sign her own contracts.

There were certain health decisions she wasn't allowed to make without the input and permission of her husband (and that's still the case even in parts of the U.S., if I understand what I've been reading). Even I've had the experience of a male doctor giving me a condescending line of BS over some issue I asked about, and prattling on about "what your future husband will think."

These are not examples of freedom.

Are you expecting me to respond that yes, I'm pro-women-as-chattel or something? Look, imagine that you faced the same situation that these women are. Perhaps you might call it... morally objectionable, at the very least?

 

[Tigranes]

Get out of here with the nonsense that everyone ganging up on a 13 year old girl and telling her to use her great boobs is a display of affection.

I will get out here the moment you will own these forums and be in the position to tell others what they ought to be doing. Meanwhile notice that I mentioned "sometimes", meaning I am not interpreting the concrete example one way or another. Jokes were directed to both parties, PG-13 version of X and Y are sitting on the tree... Again, sometimes being crude feels safer way than expressing yourself in a more romantic way in modern teenage society. Note was personal and got intercepted by guys who were fooling around. This is an 8 grade and kids with hormones are still kids. And kids need education not expulsion.

 

[Mouthwash]

I got sent home for making a finger gun at my music teacher (second grade). Wonder what would happen these days.

 

[Lexicus]

Sex should not be based on mutually consenting parties. That should be a requirement for sex, but not the only requirement.

What are you getting at? What should sex be 'based on' if not consent?

 

[Synobun]

I can see why some feminist movements encouraging educating men to not be predators is a thing now, given that there are two grown men on CFC seriously arguing that reducing a little girl to the quality of her breasts is equivalent to playground hair pulling and singing k-i-s-s-i-n-g chants and should be permissible.

 

[Mouthwash]

What are you getting at? What should sex be 'based on' if not consent?

Ritual. For monotheists, marriage is not merely a contract between two parties, it's a religious duty which carries mystical significance. I'm skeptical about the idea of secularism producing anything as effective, but making casual and premarital sex - for both men and women - taboo is a step in the right direction.

I can see why some feminist movements encouraging educating men to not be predators is a thing now, given that there are two grown men on CFC seriously arguing that reducing a little girl to the quality of her breasts is equivalent to playground hair pulling and singing k-i-s-s-i-n-g chants and should be permissible.

I think I've done worse things in my schooling days.

 

[Farm Boy]

I can see why some feminist movements encouraging educating men to not be predators is a thing now, given that there are two grown men on CFC seriously arguing that reducing a little girl to the quality of her breasts is equivalent to playground hair pulling and singing k-i-s-s-i-n-g chants and should be permissible.

I legit have no idea what's going on in your brain.

One-step-out is not equivalent. It's not what the words mean, for starters. Cariacature also means, "distortion." Comically, or grotesquely. That's what the words mean.

Given what the words mean, which, I understand, may be difficult - is it possible to express interest in somebody performing a sexual action - outside of prescribed social norms and dare I say, rituals - before they* are 18, without, as you put it, "reducing them** to sexual parts of their anatomy?"

If I, and I bring this up because I very much prescribe to the notion that spouses can be raped and abused and demeaned the same as everybody else, express my desire to my wife that she <verb> my <anatomy>, am I reducing her? I think <verb>ing not.

Edit: realized, I probably need to add pronoun clarifications. Though, to be honest, I'm not sure it matters. I could probably be speaking Martian and it wouldn't matter all that much. I had a friend who could say, "My sister is on the toilet dropping torpedos" in Klingon, once upon a time. I may have to look that back up.

*The speaker(sub 18)

**The spoken to

 

[Traitorfish]

I also don't know where any of you get the idea that people have a right to employment which can only be denied to them if someone can produce sufficient evidence of wrong doing.

That's pretty standard employment law in most of the developed world?