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

[stinkubus]

I would be just fine with expulsion for second-time offenders. I can see trying to correct the behavior once, but if the perpetrators don't learn to respect boundaries after one incident then they don't belong in a public setting like a school.

 

[Farm Boy]

Dude what

Dude what? I don't think I should have to explain this, but ok - here we go. Here what:

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.

You and I have exchanged posts for years. Yet this is what you post. You say, quite literally, that I am ok with reducing a middle schooler to her breasts like a sexual chattle and that this is permissible. Moreover, you imply that it is necessary to educate men not to be predators because of people like me.

If, you have somehow missed that I would find this extraordinarily repugnant, that any decent human would consider this morally repugnant, then I have to assume that you hold what is an insane position. The other assumption would be that you are trolling, and that presumption is infractible, so we'll drop it. Furthermore, in order to get to this conclusion, you have to assume that I not only expect that children will need to be taught not to bully each other in the form of hair pulling, and innappropriate sexual behavior, you also have to assume that I consider these actions permissible. Dude, you're calling me a monster, and yes I am deeply insulted. I should be insulted. You are being insulting, and given how long we've interacted, odds are you're doing in on purpose and in light of ample evidence to the contrary when it comes to our opinions on sexual morality.

That what.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

So I asked pages ago for an actual example of this happening....now I'll ask again. An example, please, of someone's life and reputation being destroyed on the basis of an unsubstantiated allegation on social media?

Two men who have had their lives impacted and reputations affected by people using social media:

James Franco - smeared on Twitter by multiple actresses during an awards ceremony
Scott Baio - accused on Twitter of multiple counts of molestation by the same woman

Not to mention a couple of poor guys who worked at our sister hospital until recently (but that's anecdotal and doesn't apply here).

And now you guys will say "Well, they did it. They get what they deserve." But that's not the point here. Whether they did it or not is immaterial. The fact is that they are being accused in a public forum with no accountability of the accuser to provide evidence before the general public acts upon the allegations. The postings go "viral" and suddenly it's all over the major news networks. After all "it's on the Internet. It must be true." Right? So the accused is now in the position of having to defend his reputation against allegations that are unproven, but he is suffering the consequences of this reputation hit in the form of lost jobs and wages, and the taint follows him even if the accusations are eventually proven baseless.

I'll give you an example:

I meet up with guy X from this forum in a bar while I'm traveling to his city. The idea is to have dinner and a couple of drinks and a good yak. X has a little too much to drink and puts his hand on my knee (possibly suggestively), or propositions me for sex. I decline, and or move his hand away and tell him that it isn't appropriate. We go on with the evening and he doesn't do it again. I go to my hotel, get up the next morning and all is forgotten (because this kind of thing happens all the time).

That's one scenario. The other is that X does these things, I decline and bat his hand away, we go on with the evening, and I go to my hotel room. There, I get on CFC to exclaim loudly that X is guilty of sexual misconduct and that I feel violated.

So if that happens, how do you guys feel about X? I've provided no evidence of what happened, no witnesses, only my accusation. You guys have to make up your mind about X and what a creep he must be (or not). His reputation among most of you is destroyed or badly damaged. The more credibility that I have with members of this forum, the more seriously the accusation is viewed. Even if I recant later, he is still viewed as "that guy that felt up Lemon."

How does that make you feel? It should make you feel a little uneasy. It can happen that easily. If I have a problem with someone like X feeling up my knee or propositioning me I should report it (if it's severe enough, like putting his hand up my skirt and fondling me). If it's not serious enough, then I should keep my mouth shut. And I don't mean wait 20 years and then say something on Twitter. I mean keep my mouth shut. I'm not about to ruin someone's life and reputation for a lousy knee grope, unlike some women these days.

 

[inthesomeday]

Whether they did it or not is immaterial.

Action is literally the only material thing in this discussion, due process is an imagined concept. Not in any way disparaging the concept here as it’s quite nice to think about but ultimately a dismissal of the conditions at play is so central to the philosophical debate that this is an irreconcilable difference.

Law cannot be objective because situational conditions affect the application of law, this is a fact. It is absolutely factual that a man like Harvey Weinstein could never have been brought to justice in the courts alone— even with the mass popular movement to convict him mainstream media did its best to blame the victims.

The ONLY thing that matters in judging matters of oppression is whether or not they did occur. The only thing that matters in judging anything is whether or not it occurred. The process by which the judgement is brought is so inconsequential that its repeated invocation by reactionaries serves only to betray the real conservative function of the reaction, which is the preservation of the patriarchal world order.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

The ONLY thing that matters in judging matters of oppression is whether or not they did occur. The only thing that matters in judging anything is whether or not it occurred.

Your bizarre philosophy aside, the problem in many of these cases is that there is no proof that the event actually occurred.

 

[Hygro]

They're the same people they always were, and they've always said they aren't.

Word.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The process by which the judgement is brought is so inconsequential that its repeated invocation by reactionaries serves only to betray the real conservative function of the reaction, which is the preservation of the patriarchal world order.

That's quite the leap, and it's not coherent. Since action is what matters, demonstrating said action occurred should be a vital step...social media smearing directly subverts your assertion that "action is the only material thing in the discussion". Making public accusations without said evidence directly undermines the importance of "what actually happened".

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Two men who have had their lives impacted and reputations affected by people using social media:

James Franco - smeared on Twitter by multiple actresses during an awards ceremony
Scott Baio - accused on Twitter of multiple counts of molestation by the same woman

Not to mention a couple of poor guys who worked at our sister hospital until recently (but that's anecdotal and doesn't apply here).

And now you guys will say "Well, they did it. They get what they deserve." But that's not the point here. Whether they did it or not is immaterial. The fact is that they are being accused in a public forum with no accountability of the accuser to provide evidence before the general public acts upon the allegations. The postings go "viral" and suddenly it's all over the major news networks. After all "it's on the Internet. It must be true." Right? So the accused is now in the position of having to defend his reputation against allegations that are unproven, but he is suffering the consequences of this reputation hit in the form of lost jobs and wages, and the taint follows him even if the accusations are eventually proven baseless.

I'll give you an example:

I meet up with guy X from this forum in a bar while I'm traveling to his city. The idea is to have dinner and a couple of drinks and a good yak. X has a little too much to drink and puts his hand on my knee (possibly suggestively), or propositions me for sex. I decline, and or move his hand away and tell him that it isn't appropriate. We go on with the evening and he doesn't do it again. I go to my hotel, get up the next morning and all is forgotten (because this kind of thing happens all the time).

That's one scenario. The other is that X does these things, I decline and bat his hand away, we go on with the evening, and I go to my hotel room. There, I get on CFC to exclaim loudly that X is guilty of sexual misconduct and that I feel violated.

So if that happens, how do you guys feel about X? I've provided no evidence of what happened, no witnesses, only my accusation. You guys have to make up your mind about X and what a creep he must be (or not). His reputation among most of you is destroyed or badly damaged. The more credibility that I have with members of this forum, the more seriously the accusation is viewed. Even if I recant later, he is still viewed as "that guy that felt up Lemon."

How does that make you feel? It should make you feel a little uneasy. It can happen that easily. If I have a problem with someone like X feeling up my knee or propositioning me I should report it (if it's severe enough, like putting his hand up my skirt and fondling me). If it's not serious enough, then I should keep my mouth shut. And I don't mean wait 20 years and then say something on Twitter. I mean keep my mouth shut. I'm not about to ruin someone's life and reputation for a lousy knee grope, unlike some women these days.

Since your hypothetical Guy X is from CFC, your outing of his identity here would be doxxing (if I have the correct term), and somebody higher-up (supermod or admin) should throw the book at you. If you were inclined to seriously complain about this hypothetical individual, you should speak to the admins about it, rather than post in OT.

And even then, is there a policy about what to do with a member here who has been accused of a crime? Some forums kick them out without bothering to get any real facts - the accusation is enough. One forum I belonged to kicked a guy off staff after someone complained, even though they knew damn well that the guy had been convicted of a crime, completed his sentence, and had never been in trouble since. They appointed him to staff already knowing about his past.

That action led to a situation where people who defended this guy were in turn vilified and harassed themselves (guilt by association). Multiple breakaway forums resulted to get away from the toxic environment that had developed. The harassment didn't stop even then.

 

[Lexicus]

Sharia Law is fully incompatible with modern western feminism. This is a fact, no more debatable than the Earth is round and it revolves around a point within the sun. Sharia Law does not recognize marital rape as a crime. Women and minorities are especially oppressed under Sharia Law. Judaism and Christianity (more so Christianity) gave rise to western feminism. Unless you know Muslims, Sharia Law, or Islamic Philosophy, I cannot give credibility to your claims of Islamaphobia. I know 2 muslim men very well and neither respect women and one expressed a desire to comit sex crimes against American women. I’ve also read translations of parts of the Koran and commonly enforced laws in countries under Sharia Law.

I'm certainly not denying that many Muslims are misogynists. I do absolutely deny that Islam is inherently more misogynistic than Christianity or Judaism.

 

[Arwon]

Yeah it's honestly amazing how often you see conservative christians, who also hate muslims because of conservative islam, express views on sexuality, gender and women which would be entirely at home in conservative islam. One of my favourites is every time a Muslim preacher gets on the front page of the tabloids for saying something gross about women (eg, "like uncovered meat attracting cats") and there's a big old outrage from people who basically agree with the actual sentiment.

It's really much more an brand rivalry than a clash of basic philosophy.

(side note: the nickname for the hard right of our conservative Liberal Party in New South Wales is actually literally "the Taliban". This is a faction whose origins are traced back to a Slovenian nazi collaborator, of all things)

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Since your hypothetical Guy X is from CFC, your outing of his identity here would be doxxing (if I have the correct term), and somebody higher-up (supermod or admin) should throw the book at you. If you were inclined to seriously complain about this hypothetical individual, you should speak to the admins about it, rather than post in OT.

It's a ridiculously hypothetical example used to make a point so traditional reality does not apply, and yes it is doxxing. Just like people do on Twitter when they accuse someone. And of course, something like that would be escalated immediately in real forum life.

My example was meant to get people thinking about what would happen if something like that actually happened here in OT and how it would make people feel if it did. I used the example to drive home the point that this is happening, and the crowd mentality on the internet is causing harm to the accused before anyone can even see the evidence of the accusation, because people assume anything on the internet is true and factual. That's why "fake news" is so successful. And yes, there is some out there, though not to the extent that Trump thinks there is.

 

[Lexicus]

It's really much more an brand rivalry than a clash of basic philosophy.

Exactly. It's just different flavors of patriarchal violence.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

It's a ridiculously hypothetical example used to make a point so traditional reality does not apply, and yes it is doxxing. Just like people do on Twitter when they accuse someone. And of course, something like that would be escalated immediately in real forum life.

Your example was hypothetical, yes. And if anything like that were to really happen, it would be very surprising, given that you've been completely open about your being a lesbian. No male OT regular who respected you would even consider making such an advance.

My position is unchanged, though. IF such a scenario were ever to happen in reality, you (or whoever else did such a thing) would be in trouble... at least on forums that forbid doxxing and unsubstantiated accusations.

I'm still curious to know if CFC actually has a policy about this. Or should I ask in Site Feedback?

My example was meant to get people thinking about what would happen if something like that actually happened here in OT and how it would make people feel if it did. I used the example to drive home the point that this is happening, and the crowd mentality on the internet is causing harm to the accused before anyone can even see the evidence of the accusation, because people assume anything on the internet is true and factual. That's why "fake news" is so successful. And yes, there is some out there, though not to the extent that Trump thinks there is.

Yes, I get that. It does help to apply the larger issue to this forum to help make a point more accessible. It's what I used to do when a former member went on a tear about his view that any woman who has an abortion should be executed. I pointed out that there was a chance that he could be talking about one or more female CFC members. He got the point eventually, and revised his stance a smidgen.

 

[inthesomeday]

Frankly, @Lemon Merchant, I’d be inclined to believe you because I trust your judgement and that you wouldn’t lie about something like that. My default position would be to listen to you. Your testimony is itself a type of evidence, and one that I value and trust.

 

[Yeekim]

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.'

making casual and premarital sex - for both men and women - taboo is a step in the right direction.

"My life is miserable, so I'll try to make everyone equally miserable."

I do absolutely deny that Islam is inherently more misogynistic than Christianity or Judaism.

Islam and Christianity, otherwise respectively known as Judaism v3.0 and v2.0.

Frankly, @Lemon Merchant, I’d be inclined to believe you because I trust your judgement and that you wouldn’t lie about something like that. My default position would be to listen to you. Your testimony is itself a type of evidence, and one that I value and trust.

I wouldn't doubt her testimony either. But I would think less of her for making a scandal over a lousy knee grope, if the guy could properly take "no" for an answer.

Lots of people would never learn (or remember) what the guy actually did, just that he presumably committed "sexual assault".

IMO it's always been clear what acceptable behaviour is. The laws are clear and they haven't changed much.

The above situation is precisely what I had in mind.
If I "suggestively laid my hand on someone's knee" 15 years ago, I risked rejection.
Today, I feel like I'm risking getting branded a molester.

 

[red_elk]

My example was meant to get people thinking about what would happen if something like that actually happened here in OT and how it would make people feel if it did.

I would either think it's none of my business or listen what the other side has to say. Most of times if there was a conflict, the stories told by two sides are drastically different.
If forum members will be collectively harassing somebody, my sympathies will be rather on his/her side, in the absence of full information about what happened.

 

[Hrothbern]

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?

yes

That administration of that school...
What was their objective to act that way ?
I can only speculate ofc.
But I cannot escape the thought....
that that administration was not interested that much in how the girl perceived it, and all the more interested in what they could say among each other how they did the right thing (making BTW themselves morally invulnerable for the outside world: their inspectors, parents and local media).
And if they wanted to correct the boy, they could have talked to the boy and if they considered that that would be too soft or too less of putting an example, take actions towards him (what they did).
That administration was not thinking bottom up, from out the actual perception of the "victim", but thinking top down from out the big world, framing it into crime and victim.....and....act ignoring the interests and opinion of that "victim".

In other words: cowardly selfinterest of the administration, covering their asses, going by "the book" as they fancied it was written. Instead of having a more mature moral judgement that exceeds the petty rule book.
And OMG... that means taking individual responsibility.....

I have the same feeling with #MeToo
At first I was happy with seeing all kinds of abuses getting into the open, supporting and encouraging people to report much earlier.... getting it to the courts
But within days all kinds of dubious reactions jumped on that bandwagon, covered by the #MeToo banner, evangilising their own interests that had nothing to do with strenghtening-reviving the normal law and court procedures that are in place.
And the "MeToo" was not only about "Me being harrassed Too", but about "Me preaching to the choir Too"
Giving me also the feeling that too many of these populist "chickens without a head" reactions... were in effect a regression to Victorian times and eroding the sexual freedom revolution of the sixties.
And by ignoring the existing system of law and courts, and strenghtening the mob shaming, in effect just another populist erosion of our judicial democracies.

On the OP question:

what it is like to be a man in 2017-2018

In my personal attitude I changed not one bit because of #MeToo.
What did change over my life was my normal development in peaks and troughs.

 

[Cutlass]

Yeah it's honestly amazing how often you see conservative christians, who also hate muslims because of conservative islam, express views on sexuality, gender and women which would be entirely at home in conservative islam. One of my favourites is every time a Muslim preacher gets on the front page of the tabloids for saying something gross about women (eg, "like uncovered meat attracting cats") and there's a big old outrage from people who basically agree with the actual sentiment.

It's really much more an brand rivalry than a clash of basic philosophy.

(side note: the nickname for the hard right of our conservative Liberal Party in New South Wales is actually literally "the Taliban". This is a faction whose origins are traced back to a Slovenian nazi collaborator, of all things)

Name's been used here too. Just hasn't caught on well enough.

 

[warpus]

I wouldn't doubt her testimony either.

In all scenarios? What if she is the one accused of having done something improper, and her testimony disputed this? Does this stance then change to: "I would doubt her testimony" ?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Your example was hypothetical, yes. And if anything like that were to really happen, it would be very surprising, given that you've been completely open about your being a lesbian. No male OT regular who respected you would even consider making such an advance.

My position is unchanged, though. IF such a scenario were ever to happen in reality, you (or whoever else did such a thing) would be in trouble... at least on forums that forbid doxxing and unsubstantiated accusations.

I'm still curious to know if CFC actually has a policy about this. Or should I ask in Site Feedback?

If those events went down as she described, it's reasonable to estimate (especially given comments here) that at least a percentage of the forum community would a) believe the events in the accusation happened regardless of what the other poster said and b) would look at consequences applied to the accuser as suppression of a victim, even if they were detailed in advance and applied expressly as the rules outline.

This type of scenario could get particularly bad for X also was already unpopular for some reason, or had much less name recognition. If X is instead a well known member of the community, or especially a moderator himself (where the discipline applied is then perceived as unfair silencing), it can be divisive to the forum outright.

I wouldn't doubt her testimony either. But I would think less of her for making a scandal over a lousy knee grope, if the guy could properly take "no" for an answer.

In her hypothetical second example, the precise details of "knee grope" are left out, instead X allegedly did sexual misconduct to the extent causing someone to feel violated.