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

[Manfred Belheim]

Your analysis is... first of all laughingly cliche.

I think you might mean "laughably clichéd". Why do so many people get basic words completely wrong these days...

Moderator Action: Remember that English isn't everyone's first language. This is an international forum and misspellings and grammatical errors can be expected from time to time. Let's be tolerant of others, k? --LM

 

[El_Machinae]

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.

It's not favouring women, it's a zero-sum changing of the structure of how the burden is borne for unwanted advances. You might be putting to much weight on the word 'punishment' as a social force. Either way we go, someone is forced to bear the burden of error. I happen to think that there are many fewer victims if we use #MeToo's suggestion.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Are you saying undesirable men deserve the reward of sex from a woman?

That's out of left field. Nobody made that case on this thread.

In comparing sex from women to wages from a boss you discuss it as a commodity to be traded.

There are women who disagree with you, and not all of them work in an industry that does it overtly. I find women who do this and men who go for it to both be doing something a little repulsive by my own standards, but my standards aren't important to them. What shouldn't happen, and does, is that men and women in this scenario are not punished evenly, legally or socially. Either it's a transaction or it's not, and that distinction doesn't magically change based on perspective.

We recognize that the unfortunate and disgusting capitalist commodification of sex serves more to objectify and dehumanize women than men, guaranteed by men’s material privilege.

Time to bust out the robots for safety to both genders?

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.

He misquoted the statistic if I'm not mistaken. My impression was that 80% of men are rated as "below average", not that 80% of women rate men below average (there is outcome variance between the two). This is only barely relevant to the thread, in that it has been shown through experimentation that on average women perceive and report exactly the same communications differently between these two groups of men. The objective problem is that it is this perception, and not the objective actions, that is being used as a basis for social media libel in some cases. Sexual assault has clearly defined legal boundaries...harassment not so much when it comes to what gets said on social media.

The same people perceive the same words/messages different depending on who sends them, with no prior knowledge of the other person. There is no reasonable basis for concluding one person is committing harassment and not the other at this stage.

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.

Social media libel introduces punishment prior to the known outcome of criminal cases and has real effects on people regardless of the outcome of said criminal cases. What this subverts is due process.

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'.

In many cases, there is no reasonable way to be assured advances are wanted vs unwanted prior to making them (and women can and do initiate advances, at an increasing rate if men stop). Concluding the old way better is not "conservative tendencies", it's a decision on the facts of the scenario. Unless we're going to scrap the courting process entirely or have a universal process to consistently determine whether advances are wanted, punishing someone for trying (at least initially) is nonsense. You can make the "dealing with" process more reasonable to handle by limiting the persistence, but then this must be handled consistently in the legal sense.

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.

That does happen, though not very often from a rate perspective.

 

[stinkubus]

Social media libel introduces punishment prior to the known outcome of criminal cases and has real effects on people regardless of the outcome of said criminal cases. What this subverts is due process.

If anything untrue is published, online or otherwise, and it causes demonstrable, material damage to the aggrieved party they may sue for libel. That is their due process.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

If anything untrue is published, online or otherwise, and it causes demonstrable, material damage to the aggrieved party they may sue for libel. That is their due process.

True, but the accused's life and reputation are irrevocably destroyed in the process. And how do you collect compensatory damages in a libel case out of someone who makes minimum wage... while you try to rebuild your destroyed life?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

...freedom is completely illusory if you are dependent upon the goodwill of another class to live a decent life...

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.

 

[El_Machinae]

ances are wanted vs unwanted prior to making them (and women can and do initiate advances, at an increasing rate if men stop). Concluding the old way better is not "conservative tendencies", it's a decision on the facts of the scenario. Unless we're going to scrap the courting process entirely or have a universal process to consistently determine whether advances are wanted, punishing someone for trying (at least initially) is nonsense. You can make the "dealing with" process more reasonable to handle by limiting the persistence, but then this must be handled consistently in the legal sense.

It's not nonsense. The previous system creates victims. It's not like every neckbeard will get socially castigated as a rapist every time he asks a girl out. #MeToo is about bum-grabbers and senior staff putting on the moves while dressing up the encounter as work-related.

 

[red_elk]

There are women who disagree with you, and not all of them work in an industry that does it overtly. I find women who do this and men who go for it to both be doing something a little repulsive by my own standards, but my standards aren't important to them.

About commodification - on another forum I read an interesting dialogue. A girl was asking for relationship advice and one of women told her:
"You are doing it wrong, your boyfriend is using your resource and you aren't getting anything from him in exchange"

In many cases, there is no reasonable way to be assured advances are wanted vs unwanted prior to making them

From personal experience, sometimes it's hard to tell whether advances are wanted or not, even after making them...

 

[stinkubus]

True, but the accused's life and reputation are irrevocably destroyed in the process. And how do you collect compensatory damages in a libel case out of someone who makes minimum wage... while you try to rebuild your destroyed life?

Winning a large judgement always carries the risk that the party ordered to pay it can't do so, or that they can file bankruptcy as a result. This is true of all but the wealthiest individuals and largest corporations.

False accusations can undoubtedly do much damage, but there is no means of preventing these in advance, and there is no indication that ANYONE is taking drastic action based on unsubstantiated allegations. This problem existed prior to the emergence of #MeToo, and I have yet to see any compelling evidence or argument that convinces me it would become more of a problem as a result of victimized women speaking out. Are you able to provide even one example of such a case?

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Are you able to provide even one example of such a case?

The current mess surrounding Ryan Seacrest is a valid one, I think. The woman tried to extort money for her silence, and he was cleared by an independent investigation into his conduct. He's still being smeared in the media. I don't know if there is any more "evidence" that has come out in the last few days to either condemn or exonerate him, but he's basically been tarred and feathered for something that he apparently hasn't done.

I don't have a problem with these victimized women coming out, but I suspect that many are doing it for the money, in the case of accusing big stars. If there is really something there, then by all means take it to the police. NOT to social media.

Another case which is food for thought is Kevin Spacey. Anthony Rapp accuses him with a 20+ year old allegation that he cannot prove. There were no witnesses to the event, just Rapp's word that it occurred. Spacey can't remember the event (which is probably true, given that it was at a party 20+ years ago), so he can't even mount a credible defense. It's also a he said/he said situation which is essentially rubbish in a court of law. Spacey's career is in ruins without having any actual evidence presented, or even having a day in court. I'm not saying that he didn't do it, because he is unable to prove that he didn't. See the problem here? This becomes a very toxic situation very quickly.

 

[stinkubus]

Almost no one is entitled to a day in court over their career. Ryan Seacrest appeared at the Academy Awards tonight, so saying his career has been ruined is a gross exaggeration. Kevin Spacey has had multiple accusers, so you are misrepresenting that case, as well.

 

[inthesomeday]

I think you might mean "laughably clichéd". Why do so many people get basic words completely wrong these days...

This is tangential but I unironically believe grammar is classist

Moderator Action: Remember that English isn't everyone's first language. This is an international forum and misspellings and grammatical errors can be expected from time to time. Let's be tolerant of others, k? --LM

I don’t know if this is considered PDMA but English is in fact my first language, and I am a red blooded American— however, I often misuse words and make grammatical errors because such is life for us poor huddled masses.

It's not favouring women, it's a zero-sum changing of the structure of how the burden is borne for unwanted advances.

(Here’s a good example of where my public school education and poverty have failed me) I’m not certain about what zero-sum means here but I believe you mean that the result is men now become just as burdened as women were for the unwanted advances men make. While I guess this is sort of true, it’s important to note that men should very obviously be held accountable and that if we’re looking at the “sum” (I hope I’m using this right) from a moral point of view we as a society make an immense gain by shifting blame away from the victims and towards the perpetrators.

There are women who disagree with you, and not all of them work in an industry that does it overtly. I find women who do this and men who go for it to both be doing something a little repulsive by my own standards, but my standards aren't important to them. What shouldn't happen, and does, is that men and women in this scenario are not punished evenly, legally or socially. Either it's a transaction or it's not, and that distinction doesn't magically change based on perspective.

I don’t think sex workers would disagree that the commodification of sex is harmful to women. I really, really don’t think they would. But then I shouldn’t expect some guy who just said he finds them repulsive to have a very good grasp on their experience.

Moderator Action: Never, ever quote moderator text. --LM
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[TheMeInTeam]

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.

It's the equality of opportunity vs outcome debate that causes a lot of that reaction. What I find fascinating is that the same people that point out the whole "dependence = slavery" thing somehow feel the government is exempt from the distinction.

There's going to be outcry over equalizing outcomes because it necessarily strips equality of opportunity.

The previous system creates victims. It's not like every neckbeard will get socially castigated as a rapist every time he asks a girl out. #MeToo is about bum-grabbers and senior staff putting on the moves while dressing up the encounter as work-related.

Insofar as any system "creates" victims in contrast to allowing for them, the present one does also. I do not see the rationale that vigilante social media is an improvement holding up.

This problem existed prior to the emergence of #MeToo, and I have yet to see any compelling evidence or argument that convinces me it would become more of a problem as a result of victimized women speaking out.

The problem is "speaking out to whom".

Almost no one is entitled to a day in court over their career. Ryan Seacrest appeared at the Academy Awards tonight, so saying his career has been ruined is a gross exaggeration. Kevin Spacey has had multiple accusers, so you are misrepresenting that case, as well.

Celebrities can usually find their way out of the mess, though at undue cost for those who are innocent. Someone applying for $50,000/year or less job will struggle to get a chance to explain themselves. Why bring those folks in for interview when you can find someone else w/ similar credentials that isn't smeared when you search them?

I don’t think sex workers would disagree that the commodification of sex is harmful to women. I really, really don’t think they would. But then I shouldn’t expect some guy who just said he finds them repulsive to have a very good grasp on their experience.

Nor they on mine, and they're welcome to be repulsed by my preferences too. That's how life is. That said, sleeping one's way up the ladder happens and it's certainly a double standard in how people are judged/punished on it. FWIW these were the ones I had in mind as repulsive (both men and women participating in it), because it denies people with more merit.

I wouldn't mess with a sex worker in any capacity, but I don't have a problem with their choice nor pretend to know their experiences. At least there's no pretense there. That's presuming it is a choice, in the cases where it isn't we're again in the unambiguous realm of "actual crimes that should be reported".

Kevin Spacey has had multiple accusers, so you are misrepresenting that case, as well.

What evidence have the multiple accusers brought forth? There *is* a need for causal evidence. It's not 1692.

 

[stinkubus]

I'm sure that Spacey had a contract with Netflix since House of Cards still has one more season to be released. If he was terminated in a manner that wasn't consistent with the contract he signed then he'll get a nice settlement for his trouble. If his termination was in accordance with his contract then obviously Netflix has sufficient proof. NDAs are standard in these sort of settlements, so it's highly unlikely that the public will ever know the truth. If his accusers have sought remedy in civil court they would also undoubtedly be covered by an NDA. Assuming that no evidence exists just because it hasn't been made available to the public would be an error, imo.

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.

All the the negative consequences that are being ascribed to the #MeToo movement were things that could've just as easily happened to you at any time before. For some reason no one was paranoid about it until women started asking a subset of the male populace to stop behaving like creeps.

 

[Yeekim]

A lot has been said on the issue of potential false allegations. I don't think I have much to contribute here and I don't think #metoo has changed anything on that front.
What's significant (for me) is that the boundaries of universally accepted behavior are seemingly getting foggy.

A local feminist website collects and publishes readers' #metoo stories. About 30 so far. Without any commentary.
Few rapes or attempted rapes in the mix. You read these stories and you wish to lock the guy up and throw the key away.
Most of the stories are non-violent. Indecent exposures, unwanted groping at parties, unprofessional advances from senior co-workers, trainers, educators... You read these stories and you think "What sad creeps! This kind of stuff needs to be brought to the light!".
And then there are few which just amount to "someone I didn't like approached me, I brushed him off/ignored him". That's it. Nothing else happened. You read them and you're like... "Wth? Why are they here, under the same general heading? Do the women who sent these (and more importantly, the editors who published them) think there is some sort of equivalence with the other stories? Does that mean that when I've been brushed off in a past, e.g. in a club, I've committed an assault? Do I even know any guys who haven't then? What am I supposed to do now?"

 

[Manfred Belheim]

This is tangential but I unironically believe grammar is classist

[...] however, I often misuse words and make grammatical errors because such is life for us poor huddled masses.

Not that I'm surprised, but I'd be interested to know why you think that. These kinds of things I'm talking about seem to be unique to teenagers/early 20s people who say things like "addicting" and "alot" all the time. Doesn't seem to have anything to do with class, more a generational thing. It's not so much bad spelling or grammar, more just creating new words that are almost but not quite the correct words. Just seems like laziness to me.

 

[Farm Boy]

Regarding career impacts, I know I mentioned it in another thread but - I am not scared that our politicians and wealthy actors are going to be punished to the detriment of society as we attempt to root out abuse. But the zeitgeist of "cover your ass*" and take every accusation on face value in terms of professional impact but not criminal does create harm. I was not kidding when I said I know three vo-ag teachers drummed out of the profession by unsubstatiated, and all ultimately sketchy/disproved accusations of indecent conduct. None of them had evidence. All of them had questionable potential of having been occurred. All of them had shifting stories, none of them resulted in legal punishmnet**. But that's still three less men teaching our kids in a country where the breakdown of people educating our kids is more than 3/4 women. As the kids get younger and more impressionable, the gender balance skews harder. It's like 2.2% for pre-K and Kindergarten, 19% elementary and middles school, and peaks at a thunderous 43% in high school. I'm not sure that creating a situation where shop teachers can't actually issue unsatisfactory grades without some measure of reasonable fear of punishment is clever, just, or productive. Maybe it's just a cost.

*har-de-har

**Hell, I even believed one of them for the better part of 20 years before my dad corrected me on what actually happened after the burst of anger in the news and silence that followed.

 

[Hygro]

But the zeitgeist of "cover your ass*" and take every accusation on face value in terms of professional impact but not criminal does create harm.

This right here.

So, how shall we pay for the cost of an "cover your ass"? More cameras?

 

[Lexicus]

True, but the accused's life and reputation are irrevocably destroyed in the process. And how do you collect compensatory damages in a libel case out of someone who makes minimum wage... while you try to rebuild your destroyed life?

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?

 

[warpus]

What's significant (for me) is that the boundaries of universally accepted behavior are seemingly getting foggy.

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

The problem is people who ignore these standards, people who feel they are above the law due to some power they wield, and people who feel that the law doesn't matter but that the court of public opinion does.