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

[inthesomeday]

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" ?

I’m not understanding the question. Are you saying what if she was accused of sexual assault? Because then I’d listen to the person accusing her.

It’s not rocket science.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

So all that stuff about trusting her and not thinking she would lie about something like that is entirely dependent on context?

 

[warpus]

I’m not understanding the question. Are you saying what if she was accused of sexual assault? Because then I’d listen to the person accusing her.

It’s not rocket science.

The question wasn't about "listening" it was a question of whether this person's testimony is doubted or not. Obviously we should listen to anyone making such accusations.

 

[Tigranes]

Even France did something to draw a line in the sand:

France announced plans Monday to set 15 as the age of sexual consent following public outrage over two cases involving sex with 11-year-old girls.

Until now, sex with children under 15 could be prosecuted as a sexual offense, but rape charges could be difficult to prove in such cases because the law required evidence that the sex was forced

 

[Lexicus]

Even France did something to draw a line in the sand:

Wait, I thought you were against that kind of thing though? Since it would be society "forcing the 11 year olds to be victims" or whatever?

 

[red_elk]

I’m not understanding the question. Are you saying what if she was accused of sexual assault? Because then I’d listen to the person accusing her.

It’s not rocket science.

If we adopt the rule to trust the accusing person more, this will quickly turn into a contest of "be the first in accusing".

Even France did something to draw a line in the sand:

You mean, they didn't have the age of consent before?
Sounds crazy. Kids are too easy to manipulate into a "consent", they must be protected by the law.

 

[Tigranes]

Wait, I thought you were against that kind of thing though? Since it would be society "forcing the 11 year olds to be victims" or whatever?

Do you understand the difference between adult and kid? And between foolish note and actual act?

 

[Yeekim]

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" ?

Perhaps I should've said "I don't care if what she tells happened, because I don't consider a single knee grope to qualify as sexual misconduct". That is assuming she explained what happened. If she didn't, though... I would withhold judgement. However, that doesn't really mean anything. "Do you believe X is a molester?" and "Are you willing to take some kind of a personal risk X is not a molester?" are two rather different questions, and only the second one carries any actual weight in real life.
Edit: and answer to that last one would likely be "no".

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.

I presumed she would give some details, but if not, it obviously makes it worse for X.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Are you willing to take some kind of a personal risk X is not a molester?" are two rather different questions, and only the second one carries any actual weight in real life.
Edit: and answer to that last one would likely be "no".

Acting on the assumption that X is a molester should carry personal risk. It's when someone knows more about the situation than just an accusation existing that shielding X should be carrying risk.

I presumed she would give some details, but if not, it obviously makes it worse for X.

It does, and that's a problem because it shouldn't. Absent police report/good reason to believe something specific happened (and knowing what that something is) it's not reasonable to judge X in this context, just like it wouldn't be reasonable to judge if the situations were reversed.

I’m not understanding the question. Are you saying what if she was accused of sexual assault? Because then I’d listen to the person accusing her.

It’s not rocket science.

So you say, but this position directly contradicts the assertion that "what actually happened is what matters" made earlier. When you have contradictory stories and no further evidence, you don't know what happened...despite that "literally" being the only important consideration:

Action is literally the only material thing in this discussion

That same post goes on to claim that due process is a "dismissal of the conditions at play". There is no coherent framework that accepts this proposition while also favoring the accuser absent evidence. If X didn't do it, or did something differently than claimed, it is objectively wrong to conclude otherwise.

If reality is important, then the same argumentative position can't reject reality.

 

[Yeekim]

Acting on the assumption that X is a molester should carry personal risk. It's when someone knows more about the situation than just an accusation existing that shielding X should be carrying risk.
/.../
It does, and that's a problem because it shouldn't. Absent police report/good reason to believe something specific happened (and knowing what that something is) it's not reasonable to judge X in this context, just like it wouldn't be reasonable to judge if the situations were reversed.

I feel like we're talking past each other here.
Yes, it's not reasonable to judge anyone in this situation. But that is because we have the luxury to withhold our judgement.
However, imagine you're a woman and X asks you out.
You´re going to factor the risk he might - just might - be a molester into your decision, no? Maybe you're willing to take that risk at the end, but this hardly improves his chances, does it?

 

[Berzerker]

Rather than start a new thread:

https://www.knoxnews.com/story/news...-when-frisking-woman-without-cause/387526002/

Lying perv defended by the Tennessee Highway Patrol

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I feel like we're talking past each other here.
Yes, it's not reasonable to judge anyone in this situation. But that is because we have the luxury to withhold our judgement.
However, imagine you're a woman and X asks you out.
You´re going to factor the risk he might - just might - be a molester into your decision, no? Maybe you're willing to take that risk at the end, but this hardly improves his chances, does it?

Oh that's what you meant. It's hard to get away from that, and that applies to accused and accuser. When you don't have evidence, the situation carries uncertainty to it. It's this uncertainty that creates the perception of risk, and avoidance. It's why someone accused of this stuff while not being a celebrity/figure with established credibility might find it hard to recover, and also the reason accusers can get stigma/fear making the accusation in warranted cases.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

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.

It depends on if you accept a rejection or some other indication that your action is not welcome.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It depends on if you accept a rejection or some other indication that your action is not welcome.

It also depends on the personality of the one doing the rejection. Granted, doing this while lacking cues for it being acceptable is a pretty significant social screwup (depending on context, someone outside their normal culture is more likely to make this kind of mistake), but some people also overreact.

 

[Yeekim]

It depends on if you accept a rejection or some other indication that your action is not welcome.

Of course.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

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

Someone actually gets my point! That is the end result of all of this. No one learns or remembers whether Mr. X actually did anything. He's just that guy who "committed sexual assault." And it follows him around on the forums.

Valka's attempts to insert the real world into my hypothetical example notwithstanding, I'll ask my question again:

How would you feel about Mr. X if he was a long time member of this forum and was accused in this way? What would go through your mind? Would you give him the benefit of the doubt? Or would you ostracize him?

 

[Cutlass]

Someone actually gets my point! That is the end result of all of this. No one learns or remembers whether Mr. X actually did anything. He's just that guy who "committed sexual assault." And it follows him around on the forums.

Valka's attempts to insert the real world into my hypothetical example notwithstanding, I'll ask my question again:

How would you feel about Mr. X if he was a long time member of this forum and was accused in this way? What would go through your mind? Would you give him the benefit of the doubt? Or would you ostracize him?

I got your point all along. I'm just at a loss as to how to suggest a remedy.

This is infinitely older than #metoo. Consider as one example, OJ Simpson. I don't know if he committed those murders or not. Neither do you. OJ himself knows. And if he didn't do it, whoever did do it knows. But no one else will ever know. Part of that was that the cops and prosecutors were so certain that they did know that they never bothered to do the work to find out if they were right. And because they blew the investigation and the prosecution, the rest of us don't know.

Except that most people you ask will think that they do know. Despite not being convicted in a court of law, he was convicted in pretty much every other sense.

There are endless examples of this happening. Sure, it's wrong. But I haven't a clue what to do about it.

 

[Ajidica]

Consider as one example, OJ Simpson. I don't know if he committed those murders or not.

He didn't take a cab, he was the one who stabbed.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Valka's attempts to insert the real world into my hypothetical example notwithstanding, I'll ask my question again:

How would you feel about Mr. X if he was a long time member of this forum and was accused in this way? What would go through your mind? Would you give him the benefit of the doubt? Or would you ostracize him?

I suspect most people might say, "It depends on who is doing the accusing and who is being accused."

I don't see how you can ask this and NOT consider what would happen in the "real world" if someone were to make such an accusation against a fellow forum member.


Over a decade ago on the RPG gaming forum I belonged to, there was a moderator who, before his appointment to staff, was completely upfront with the site owners, the admins, the other staff, and indeed everyone that he had been in prison, had served his time, and was trying to turn his life around. The fact that he's gay didn't seem to bother most people until he was appointed to staff... and then suddenly there was "Think of the underage posters here! Think of the parents who won't let their kids buy your gaming magazine or other product anymore! Get rid of this gay moderator who is a convicted criminal!" hysteria flying around.

Some of us who defended this guy - who had never been in trouble at all since his sentence was completed, and who had been a very productive forum citizen (running PBP games, participating in the Iron Pen contests I ran there, being supportive to people who were feeling down in the dumps, encouraged new members, etc.) - were in turn accused of some really crazy and paranoid things... sometimes by the site owners themselves.

One of them dredged up as much of my personal RL information as he could find, posted it, and openly encouraged others to "contact" me. As in RL kind of contact of the sort that is not friendly. To make matters worse, someone found the blog of someone from my city who had the same name as me and posted her photograph - thinking it was me. In truth, the person whose photo was posted was a 17-year-old high school girl, and I was horrified at the possibility of any of these <unprintables> harassing her. I told the senior admin to get all of that off the forum NOW or I would be contacting the RCMP, informing them that an American gaming company was advocating harassment and who knows what else - basically putting a target on a kid who had my name, was not a member of that forum, and would probably get into a panic if she started receiving the vicious garbage that was being thrown at some of us for defending a moderator who had committed no crime since joining the forum but was being treated as though he had, or that he would somehow jump out at people off the computer screen.

The information was taken down, but the harassment did continue, up until the point a few years ago when I had to tell the game producer's wife on FB to leave me the hell alone.

Needless to say, I will not name that site, the company, or the people involved, since I don't want to give it ANY publicity. I no longer belong to that forum (I do belong to a couple of the ones that broke away in response, as some of us wanted nothing more to do with supporting site owners who would do that to its members), and haven't bought even a penny's worth of their gaming product since.


To answer your question... My choice would be "neither; let the admins sort it out". I'm completely serious in saying that I would expect the admins to handle it - ask each side for their story and deal with whatever consequences come with doxxing and decide what to do regarding a member accused without evidence.

The admins we have here are not like the ones at that other forum, who perpetrated or aided in perpetrating accusations against certain members and the other members figured, "If _____ and _____ say it, it must be true" and only a few of them bothered to ask any of us for our side(s) of the story.

I am also serious in asking if CFC actually has a policy about this kind of thing. Given the context of your hypothetical, it's a reasonable thing to ask about.

So if you object to me bringing RL into this, too bad. I don't see any way to not consider RL issues in such a hypothetical.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

^ That's an unfortunate real world example, and it does show reason to anticipate the likely outcome of doxxing someone with a false accusation w/o evidence here. Who is accused would matter too, yes. It would influence how people react and how the site handled it to at least a degree.

Cutlass is also correct to point out that the human behavior patterns surrounding this stuff aren't new, but that doesn't mean we need to encourage more people to "be involved in metoo". Historical behavior patterns suggest this type of "movement" to be destructive.