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

[TheMeInTeam]

Truth is an absolute defense against libel. It's more likely the aggrieved parties have to fear what will come out during the discovery phase.

Wat. Evidence clearly shows that truth is not consistently believed over libel, especially when dealing with scenarios where neither the truth nor libel are verifiable. Even when it is verifiable and verified, however, people have still had lasting consequences.

but when it's he said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said - I'm more likely to believe it.

That's dangerous reasoning. There were a few "she said, she said, she said" scenarios in 1692 also. Weinstein is one of those "repulsive" types I mentioned pages ago, same for those who took up those offers. I don't care if people do repulsive crap, what matters is when we start getting to criminal stuff, and deciding what *should* be criminal.

Another thing, some people have mentioned suing for libel. I believe it's much more difficult to successfully sue someone for libel in the U.S., which I think is somewhat at the center of the 'me too' movement.

You can sue, but you need to demonstrate that what is written is provably false. In many cases you're going to net-lose money in the suit anyway too, even if you win.

Tradition has a far better track record than 'evidence' based policies.

I can write an opinion piece and link it myself, or find one to link. That's not useful. I'm asking for actual evidence, and yes a track record showing statistics over time while controlling for variables is a pretty strong piece of evidence (but that's not what you linked).

Marriage has become a joke largely because the incentives surrounding its business aspect make less sense. Tradition lacks a large welfare state and creates a dependent situation, these are a lot more relevant to success rate of marriage because the changes directly alter the incentive to stay in marriage.

Whether traditional setups are acceptable is another matter (I don't see us going back that direction), but the reality is that people and situations change. When there's incentive to leave marriages, a big parachute from the government, alimony to occasionally insane degrees, and not much social pressure to remain in marriages, you're going to get more single parent households/divorces and less people bothering to enter an archaic contract in the first place.

That's correct. It's not my place to make the world conform to my ideals.

Actually it's not entirely correct. If someone is caring for themselves, it's their business. When you have a scenario where the state is forcibly taking money to pay for things, people making poor choices is no longer their own business unless they stop accepting a system that coerces other people to pay for those poor choices.

Put another way, when something directly impacts a person's resources, it's their business too. Policy already forces citizens to conform to ideals by subsidizing behavior.

I don't know, I'm not legislating here. All I'm pointing out is that formalized relationships should have legal consequences.

I'm personally not so keen on the idea that the government should dictate to people how their relationships should be. The legal consequences already existing should be pretty strong evidence that additional involvement will make things worse, not better.

ut the point is that Islam has never uprooted the tribal mentality

2018 US partisan politics never uprooted tribal mentality. That's where beliefs without evidence leads.

women were frequently used as sexual playthings by officers and men alike.

Not really disagreeing with this, but I'm pretty sure the officers doing that were men .

The Soviets executed more of their rapists than the Americans did, is what I meant.

If you go looking for reasons to get rid of people en masse', you are indeed quite likely to get a larger number of sub-populations executed. As far as reasons go in USSR this one is better than most.

 

[red_elk]

Sounds like Soviet command was so much bloodthirsty that it was "allowing rapes" and "executing rapists en masse" at the same time.
You can't claim both.

 

[Lexicus]

I don't care if people do repulsive crap

Well, there's your problem right there.

Not really disagreeing with this, but I'm pretty sure the officers doing that were men .

*enlisted

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I do not think that.

That's good. So if (hypothetical, since it's basically 100% not possible) you and I were to meet and discuss books or TV or some equally normal thing to discuss and it's completely innocent (as in the type of thing I could say in front of my own dad), you would be okay with that?

I don't like the idea of having a personal relationship with a woman outside of marriage. Feelings aren't something you can control. Maybe me and my wife have a fight over finances or something. Maybe I'm feeling depressed and alone. Maybe some time with my platonic lady friend would cheer me up.

With a group of friends and your "platonic lady friend" is merely one of them? Two of the people in my SCA group were a committed couple (married common-law, plus they held an SCA wedding). The male half of the couple enjoyed board gaming. His wife tolerated it, sometimes participated, but her idea of fun was sitting around knitting, embroidering, watching TV, and drinking an insane amount of tea.

So the husband would invite a few friends to a gaming session, which was sometimes held at their home, and sometimes at my boyfriend's home. Mixed company, no alcohol, just a few people trying to take over the world over a session of the original Civilization board game (pre-Civ I) or a game of Eurorails.

Would that fit within your personal rules, or not? The only inappropriate thing that happened was during one of the Eurorails sessions - new guy who had just joined the SCA, and invited to his first board gaming session... I was the only woman there that evening and this guy decided to be a <jerk>. Consescending, misogynist comments, I expressed my disapproval, and the host told him that what he'd just said was not the proper way to speak to a woman and that if he did it again, he would be asked to leave.

No one says that it's rational for dieters to surround themselves with cakes and cookies and depend solely on rational discretion to resist the temptation to eat. Are emotional needs any less powerful?

Sometimes a discussion of a favorite book is just a discussion of a favorite book. Most times, in fact. It doesn't include inappropriate flirting or innuendo.

That's something that a lot of women need to learn, too. In the theatre and at conventions and even in the SCA, I found that an innocent conversation about books or history between me and some guy would draw the ire of the guy's wife or girlfriend. Somehow they would never believe that it was just a conversation about a mutual interest. Nope, I must have designs on their man.

So when matchmaking rumors went around about my boyfriend and me, I just let them fly. Our real friends knew the truth - we hadn't made any plans to commit, marriage/cohabitation wasn't in the future... but it did make it easier to have those conversations with some of the other guys, if their wives/girlfriends were under the impression that I wasn't out to steal their man because I already had one.

 

[Mouthwash]

I can write an opinion piece and link it myself, or find one to link. That's not useful. I'm asking for actual evidence, and yes a track record showing statistics over time while controlling for variables is a pretty strong piece of evidence

Are you nuts, dude? It's pretty much all variable.

(but that's not what you linked).

Indeed. The piece I linked to argues for a different way of determining truth (it's called the Lindy Effect).

Marriage has become a joke largely because the incentives surrounding its business aspect make less sense. Tradition lacks a large welfare state and creates a dependent situation, these are a lot more relevant to success rate of marriage because the changes directly alter the incentive to stay in marriage.

That is the main reason that traditional marriage is unpopular right now, but it does not prove that it can't reestablish itself. Even now, there are plenty of successful, growing sects who have defied the liberalization of sex and marriage (and in the ancient world there was also a religion which seemed to emulate modern notion of free love: Mazdakism. So clearly the rejection of chastity and institutional relationships doesn't require modern economic incentives.)

Actually it's not entirely correct. If someone is caring for themselves, it's their business. When you have a scenario where the state is forcibly taking money to pay for things, people making poor choices is no longer their own business unless they stop accepting a system that coerces other people to pay for those poor choices.

How is this relevant to my claim that traditional sexual morality shouldn't be enforced by the state?

I'm personally not so keen on the idea that the government should dictate to people how their relationships should be. The legal consequences already existing should be pretty strong evidence that additional involvement will make things worse, not better.

Good thing I've never advocated for it.

2018 US partisan politics never uprooted tribal mentality. That's where beliefs without evidence leads.

Huh?

That's good. So if (hypothetical, since it's basically 100% not possible) you and I were to meet and discuss books or TV or some equally normal thing to discuss and it's completely innocent (as in the type of thing I could say in front of my own dad), you would be okay with that?

Not alone. The point of the system is to reduce the discretion of the individual. Even if our conversation was completely innocent, the decision to engage in it is my own judgment and my judgment is not good enough (even if it was, most people don't attain that level of rationality).

With a group of friends and your "platonic lady friend" is merely one of them? Two of the people in my SCA group were a committed couple (married common-law, plus they held an SCA wedding). The male half of the couple enjoyed board gaming. His wife tolerated it, sometimes participated, but her idea of fun was sitting around knitting, embroidering, watching TV, and drinking an insane amount of tea.

So the husband would invite a few friends to a gaming session, which was sometimes held at their home, and sometimes at my boyfriend's home. Mixed company, no alcohol, just a few people trying to take over the world over a session of the original Civilization board game (pre-Civ I) or a game of Eurorails.

Would that fit within your personal rules, or not?

Depends on the situation. I wouldn't go out partying with them, but your example sounds alright.

That's something that a lot of women need to learn, too. In the theatre and at conventions and even in the SCA, I found that an innocent conversation about books or history between me and some guy would draw the ire of the guy's wife or girlfriend. Somehow they would never believe that it was just a conversation about a mutual interest. Nope, I must have designs on their man.

Those women are rational. Even if you were 100% determined to never develop an inappropriate relationship, that's not something they can know just by looking at you.

Your objections seem to be grounded in particular situations, which means you aren't getting my point that humans aren't fit to judge situations. That's why an estimated 50% of marriage have at least one spouse cheat - but I assume that most of them began with vows to one another and a genuine desire to abstain from sex outside marriage.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Not alone. The point of the system is to reduce the discretion of the individual. Even if our conversation was completely innocent, the decision to engage in it is my own judgment and my judgment is not good enough (even if it was, most people don't attain that level of rationality).

So you would be okay with a chaperone present?

I once did the chaperone thing at a convention. One year I had a roommate who was attending her first convention. At the convention, she accidentally got kicked by some guy wearing hard boots - he'd been showing off and she was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The sensible thing would have been for her to be checked out by a doctor, as she said her back hurt. However, she didn't want to, and I couldn't force her. The guy offered to give her a backrub, and she said okay. However... I did not leave that room for one nanosecond. He complained that he'd never had a chaperone before, and the fact that he said it made it clear to me that it would be a good idea to stay. My roommate said later that she was glad I'd stayed, since I think we both knew where this guy's mind was really at.

(No, I didn't have my eyes on them all the time; I just sat at the desk doing some writing, within a moment's reach of the phone if it turned out that we'd need to holler for help.)

Depends on the situation. I wouldn't go out partying with them, but your example sounds alright.

I'm not much of a partying kind of person. I went to room parties at science fiction conventions, but only the ones that were quieter, and where people weren't getting falling-down drunk. For me, a good conversation about something interesting, some filking, a late-night supper with friends... that was my idea of a good Saturday night at a convention. I went to the costume bacchanal but avoided the dance afterward, and if I ended up talking to a guy I didn't know, I made sure I wasn't alone in a room with him. Truth was, I was more nervous the year our convention had to share the Palliser Hotel with the provincial Liberal leadership convention. Political delegates don't have the same boundaries that con-goers do. Thank goodness their crazy efforts to get us (our convention) kicked out of the hotel resulted in their convention being kicked out of the hotel.

Those women are rational. Even if you were 100% determined to never develop an inappropriate relationship, that's not something they can know just by looking at you.

So the wife of one of the actors in The King and I was being rational for giving me dirty looks if her husband said "hi" to me in passing (he said "hi" to everyone), or if we had to discuss how to use one of the props (since I was head of the props crew, there were times when I did have to discuss this sort of thing with people - how to use something, or at least how to use it without breaking it, or if it needed to be adjusted or fixed)?

Having a 5-minute conversation about Heinlein and other SF authors was cause for jealousy? By that time I'd known both of them for years and she should have known I wasn't after her husband and he wasn't after me.

Your objections seem to be grounded in particular situations, which means you aren't getting my point that humans aren't fit to judge situations. That's why an estimated 50% of marriage have at least one spouse cheat - but I assume that most of them began with vows to one another and a genuine desire to abstain from sex outside marriage.

My objections are grounded in particular types of situations. My personal "dos-and-don'ts" are based on my observations of my parents' marriage, the marriages of various family members, the marriages of some of my adult friends... and it's enough to make me decide it's not for me.

And as far as cheating goes, if one or both spouses decide to cheat, they should have the decency to divorce first. Or agree to an "open" marriage... although that isn't necessarily a good solution, either, when it doesn't work. One of the couples in another SCA branch found themselves in this situation, and gossip was rampant. I was asked for my opinion - whose side was I on?

I told them I wasn't taking sides. Both people had been good to me in the past, I had nothing against either of them, and the basic fact was that their marriage - and divorce - was none of my business.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Well, there's your problem right there.

Hardly. If I personally cared, I'd have a bigger problem because there's not a lot I can do about it individually.

Are you nuts, dude? It's pretty much all variable.

You pick the ones you want to consider and see if there's a relationship. Then you figure out which is the cause and which is the result, or if they're both related to something else but not each other.

Indeed. The piece I linked to argues for a different way of determining truth (it's called the Lindy Effect).

You don't "determine truth" by using a tool that helps you estimate future occurrence/time.

That is the main reason that traditional marriage is unpopular right now, but it does not prove that it can't reestablish itself.

You would have to alter the legal and social situation. There are always going to be subsets of populations that have reasons to act against the over-arching incentive, and those reasons can overpower the incentive. It's not going to be widespread or common like that.

Good thing I've never advocated for it.

-->

I don't know, I'm not legislating here. All I'm pointing out is that formalized relationships should have legal consequences.

Huh?

The rationale I see in political discussion is closer to tribal rationale/us vs them mentality than it is to anything that emphasizes evidence or practical policy.

Not alone. The point of the system is to reduce the discretion of the individual. Even if our conversation was completely innocent, the decision to engage in it is my own judgment and my judgment is not good enough (even if it was, most people don't attain that level of rationality).

This is the individual's responsibility. If we're going to take that responsibility away, where do we draw the line, why do we draw the line there, and why is this consideration unique to relationships? If it isn't, how much of people's actions does policy dictate "for their own good" before we're in 1984 territory? That's a bit hyperbolic, but at the same time you do need a stopping point and a reason for it.

 

[Mouthwash]

So you would be okay with a chaperone present?

I once did the chaperone thing at a convention. One year I had a roommate who was attending her first convention. At the convention, she accidentally got kicked by some guy wearing hard boots - he'd been showing off and she was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The sensible thing would have been for her to be checked out by a doctor, as she said her back hurt. However, she didn't want to, and I couldn't force her. The guy offered to give her a backrub, and she said okay. However... I did not leave that room for one nanosecond. He complained that he'd never had a chaperone before, and the fact that he said it made it clear to me that it would be a good idea to stay. My roommate said later that she was glad I'd stayed, since I think we both knew where this guy's mind was really at.

(No, I didn't have my eyes on them all the time; I just sat at the desk doing some writing, within a moment's reach of the phone if it turned out that we'd need to holler for help.)


I'm not much of a partying kind of person. I went to room parties at science fiction conventions, but only the ones that were quieter, and where people weren't getting falling-down drunk. For me, a good conversation about something interesting, some filking, a late-night supper with friends... that was my idea of a good Saturday night at a convention. I went to the costume bacchanal but avoided the dance afterward, and if I ended up talking to a guy I didn't know, I made sure I wasn't alone in a room with him. Truth was, I was more nervous the year our convention had to share the Palliser Hotel with the provincial Liberal leadership convention. Political delegates don't have the same boundaries that con-goers do. Thank goodness their crazy efforts to get us (our convention) kicked out of the hotel resulted in their convention being kicked out of the hotel.


So the wife of one of the actors in The King and I was being rational for giving me dirty looks if her husband said "hi" to me in passing (he said "hi" to everyone), or if we had to discuss how to use one of the props (since I was head of the props crew, there were times when I did have to discuss this sort of thing with people - how to use something, or at least how to use it without breaking it, or if it needed to be adjusted or fixed)?

Having a 5-minute conversation about Heinlein and other SF authors was cause for jealousy? By that time I'd known both of them for years and she should have known I wasn't after her husband and he wasn't after me.


My objections are grounded in particular types of situations. My personal "dos-and-don'ts" are based on my observations of my parents' marriage, the marriages of various family members, the marriages of some of my adult friends... and it's enough to make me decide it's not for me.

And as far as cheating goes, if one or both spouses decide to cheat, they should have the decency to divorce first. Or agree to an "open" marriage... although that isn't necessarily a good solution, either, when it doesn't work. One of the couples in another SCA branch found themselves in this situation, and gossip was rampant. I was asked for my opinion - whose side was I on?

I told them I wasn't taking sides. Both people had been good to me in the past, I had nothing against either of them, and the basic fact was that their marriage - and divorce - was none of my business.

These anecdotes are all very interesting, but how exactly are they furthering the discussion?

You pick the ones you want to consider and see if there's a relationship. Then you figure out which is the cause and which is the result, or if they're both related to something else but not each other.

Have you heard of multivariate studies? What you're suggesting can't produce usable data, even if you polled every single person in the world.

You don't "determine truth" by using a tool that helps you estimate future occurrence/time.

The Lindy Effect says a great deal more than that - it says that anything which stands the test of time must have something going for it. It's a good way to separate the wheat from the chaff, and sometimes the only way. Here's how it applies to technology.

You would have to alter the legal and social situation. There are always going to be subsets of populations that have reasons to act against the over-arching incentive, and those reasons can overpower the incentive. It's not going to be widespread or common like that.

There are arguments otherwise.

-->

You're mashing together my statements on two separate issues. WHEN the state has to intervene (as in cases of rape), it should take into account the existing values surrounding marriage. That is quite different from saying that it's the state's duty to enforce those values.

The rationale I see in political discussion is closer to tribal rationale/us vs them mentality than it is to anything that emphasizes evidence or practical policy.

I'd say that's because of the failure of rationalists themselves, not because the opposing side is just too stupid to understand.

This is the individual's responsibility. If we're going to take that responsibility away, where do we draw the line, why do we draw the line there,

I don't know. I think the best solution should take place at the local level, avoid the state, and draw heavily on religious tradition.

and why is this consideration unique to relationships?

It isn't.

If it isn't, how much of people's actions does policy dictate "for their own good" before we're in 1984 territory?

It can't reach 1984 territory if the state isn't involved (how many times must I scream into your ear that I am not for government-mandated codes of conduct?). I know that some groups of Haredim are quite exclusionary and oppressive - so I don't think it's even possible to draw from general principles. You have to pick a good ideology, and that, for me, is Modern Orthodox Judaism. I can't speak on what's best for members of other religions.

EDIT: How did I start out here criticizing the disdain #MeToo shows for underprivileged men, and end by laying out nearly my entire political philosophy?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

These anecdotes are all very interesting, but how exactly are they furthering the discussion?

Okay, forget it.

I really get the impression of being back in the "how do I get a girlfriend/i don't understand my girlfriend" and having my views dismissed precisely because I'm female!

I asked you a very simple question: "So you would be okay with a chaperone present?"

It's a very simple answer: Yes or No.

But since you don't think my posts are worth anything, just don't read them, okay? And don't bother replying. I'm out of this part of the conversation.

 

[Mouthwash]

I really get the impression of being back in the "how do I get a girlfriend/i don't understand my girlfriend" and having my views dismissed precisely because I'm female!

Okay, it is unimaginable to me that I've treated you differently based on your gender, so could you please elaborate on what makes you think that?

I asked you a very simple question: "So you would be okay with a chaperone present?"

It's a very simple answer: Yes or No.

I haven't really thought that out. Probably not, since it's a one on one conversation.

 

[Narz]

I said that Islam was a step forward in the 7th century.

Maybe but they should perhaps evolve past that now. :idea:

 

[Narz]

If I'm married, I don't want to be chatting up other women or developing a bond with them.

But that's one of the joys of life.

 

[inthesomeday]

But that's one of the joys of life.

The worldview here seems to be that men and women exist only to monogamously heterosexually have sex with each other, or perhaps even worse, that women exist only as the objects of men’s monogamous heterosexual romantic and sexual affections. Pretty disgusting, yeah?

 

[Narz]

The idea that a person's sexual essence should be limited to be shared with only one other human is fairly standard in the modern world (tho more rare historically). And that if you are with 'the one' and still feel feelings for others your love isn't strong enuf and/or you're weak, need to push those sinful lusts aside. Likewise you should be jealous and angry if your partner has such feelings.

I dunno, seems unfriendly to the human animal to me but what do I know, I think religion is dumb too and people love that

 

[El_Machinae]

Society doesn't really encourage lifelong monogamy. Polyamory-on-time-delay is more the norm.

Heck, even the religious right-wing allows multiple partners. Hard core muslims have 'temporary weddings'. Evangelicals get remarried after divorce.

I associate the ability to faux-flirt with others to be more of a liberal trait, but that might just be my circles. What seems to be more ill-considered is 'emotional cheating'. Hard to define, but we recognize it when we see it.

 

[Traitorfish]

Evangelicals get remarried after divorce.

That might just be to annoy the Catholics.

 

[Narz]

Society doesn't really encourage lifelong monogamy. Polyamory-on-time-delay is more the norm.

Yeah but most people won't admit that, claiming they're looking for 'the one' one failure at a time

 

[Farm Boy]

You can't catch a whale if you're throwing 4 lb test.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I'd say that's because of the failure of rationalists themselves, not because the opposing side is just too stupid to understand.

When you have two sides hurling spears at each others' false gods, both are too stupid. I'll update my opinion on this when a high level political debate has everyone actually consistently answering questions they're asked because they're held accountable to do so by general viewers. This rather than getting questions then talking about something else, and not being called on it because the other side also wants to do it.

So probably never, but that's the evidence that would change my mind.

I don't know. I think the best solution should take place at the local level, avoid the state, and draw heavily on religious tradition.

Why must we use religious tradition? Surely a posinetric tradition would work similarly, as long as you denote the same behaviors as traditional and act on the same rituals.

But rather than adopting rituals in the name of posinetric society, I'd prefer to identify which rituals and traditions give better outcomes and why.

EDIT: How did I start out here criticizing the disdain #MeToo shows for underprivileged men, and end by laying out nearly my entire political philosophy?

No idea, we do seem to agree on the topic (that # metoo is a dogpiling mechanism that inherently seeks to bypass due process and isn't particularly concerned with any consistent application of justice).

The worldview here seems to be that men and women exist only to monogamously heterosexually have sex with each other, or perhaps even worse, that women exist only as the objects of men’s monogamous heterosexual romantic and sexual affections. Pretty disgusting, yeah?

When you misrepresent an argument to make it look disgusting it is just magical how it turns out to seem that way.

Even if you eschew religion, it's still useful to take a look at why society is coughing up more single parent households and welfare with deteriorating outcomes and correct for it, and that does include the incentives for men and women in any type of legal marriage.

What seems to be more ill-considered is 'emotional cheating'. Hard to define, but we recognize it when we see it.

That statement carries roughly as much credibility as defining "cheesing" in gaming and should be assigned the same amount of value. None, with a polite attempt to hide disdain if so desired. People need to be held responsible for their actions, not what someone else thinks they think. And if it is actions we're talking about, then yes they can be defined.

Trying to make someone feel guilty over something inconsistent with what their actions demonstrate is selfish, manipulative nonsense. This is a red flag in dealing with people, even in a platonic scenario. I actively trust people who engage in that behavior less regardless of who they're interacting with, since they're demonstrating they will weight their own feelings over presented evidence.

 

[Farm Boy]

If you think it's cheesing, then you probably aren't thinking about the same thing as emotional cheating. Partnerships are significantly more than sexual activity. A partner can most certainly cheat on their relationship without using thier crotch. I mean, unless the relationship was only crotch-deep, I suppose.

The reasons to fold significant interpersonal relationships into the context of a marriage by involving one's partner instead of keeping them separate are more numerous than only being worried about keeping your pants on, I guess, is another way of putting it.