Has the #MeToo movement become a witch-hunt to a significant degree?

[PetraG]

That’s an example of what I’m referring to.

Or there was recently a story written about a girl who dated a famous actor/writer - Aziz Ansari. He was accused of sexual assault when by all accounts they had a consensual relationship.

She told her story. She did not describe a sexual assault. She described bad communication, but not sexual assault. Still, I could see how that could rank as one of this woman’s worst dates ever. (The wine complaint was bizarre, though. How many different bottles was he supposed to have open at his home?)

Having said that, we are talking about a guy who is hurrying home after a first date to have sex, not someone who has a “relationship” with his partner. He met her once, they made a date, they went out to dinner, and now he wants to score right away. I’m not feeling too sorry for his defense that in his rush to self-gratification he failed to read her mind. If you rush into bed with someone the first time you go out, well, yeah, figure you could be accused of pressuring her to have sex without paying any attention to her as a person. It wasn’t a crime, but it wasn’t anything to be proud of, either.

Good grief, this is a Catholic web site. I hope we’re not defending the right to pursue one-night stands without having anyone think the worse of us for it.

 

[Metis1]

There are always going to be false claims on almost anything we can think of, but they should not obscure what we all too well know what has been happening.

 

[Theo520]

Good grief, this is a Catholic web site. I hope we’re not defending the right to pursue one-night stands without having anyone think the worse of us for it.

Agreed, but when we are talking about broad cultural issues, it’s oft a very dull discussion if limited to just what should a Catholic do.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Theo520:

That’s an example of what I’m referring to.

Or there was recently a story written about a girl who dated a famous actor/writer - Aziz Ansari. He was accused of sexual assault when by all accounts they had a consensual relationship.

She told her story. She did not describe a sexual assault. She described bad communication, but not sexual assault. Still, I could see how that could rank as one of this woman’s worst dates ever. (The wine complaint was bizarre, though. How many different bottles was he supposed to have open at his home?)

Having said that, we are talking about a guy who is hurrying home after a first date to have sex, not someone who has a “relationship” with his partner. He met her once, they made a date, they went out to dinner, and now he wants to score right away. I’m not feeling too sorry for his defense that in his rush to self-gratification he failed to read her mind. If you rush into bed with someone the first time you go out, well, yeah, figure you could be accused of pressuring her to have sex without paying any attention to her as a person. It wasn’t a crime, but it wasn’t anything to be proud of, either.

Good grief, this is a Catholic web site. I hope we’re not defending the right to pursue one-night stands without having anyone think the worse of us for it.

I would contend it works both ways. She hurried home with him as well. She was on the receiving end too.

 

[Hereiam]

It is, only when we politicalize it. The movement doesn’t seem to be “hunting” anyone, but is only pressing for the bringing of a huge, longstanding moral problem to the forefront.

 

[Joe_5859]

It’s stories like this one that make me realize and appreciate all the more acutely how the Catholic view of sex is the only one that works.

Even with implicit consent, casual sexual encounters lend themselves to people feeling used as objects for gratification. It’s never going to not be that way because sex wasn’t designed for casual “hook ups”. It is meant for much, much more.

I think with any cultural movement you are going to have individuals that take it the wrong direction for their own selfish ends. But on the whole, I am glad to see something like this gain serious steam. Too often, women are basically taught that being used and coerced and spoken to with vulgarities is something they just have to live with. And many men learn by this that it’s okay to behave this way and see nothing wrong with it.

I’ve long found it very ironic, particularly with regards to Hollywood. Our movies and TV shows actually glamourize men who treat women like sexual objects and turn it into a source of humor. So many TV shows have the “lovabale lout” type character. A character like Ted Danson’s character in “Cheers”, or Steve Carell’s character in “The Office” or Charlie Sheen’s character in “Two and a Half Men” can say all sorts of crude, off color things, and it’s played up for laughs. But then when someone like Charlie Sheen actually behaves like his character in real life, it’s no laughing matter. But how can we be surprised that they behave that way? The media they produce reinforces that it’s funny to make overt, uncomfortable sexual advances on random women.

I think this whole me too movement provides a great catechetical moment for us as Catholics. The Catholic view of sex and the human person is the antidote to a culture of sexual abuse. That is how we train men to be men and not abusers.

 

[PetraG]

I would contend it works both ways. She hurried home with him as well. She was on the receiving end too

I don’t think she comes out of this looking like much to brag about, either. According to her version, however, she felt rushed out of the restaurant and rushed out of her clothing. so unless you are calling her an utter liar she did not “hurry home” with him. How can he be accused of that when he doesn’t actually take women home on the first date, let alone get them out of their clothing?

Does anyone even consider their reputations any more? Do men even think about the possibility that their sexual behavior could possibily give them a “reputation”? It used to be only women could get a “bad reputation.” Why would that be? It is because for a long time it did not at all “work both ways,” except as a defense for bad behavior by men.

 

[PetraG]

It is, only when we politicalize it. The movement doesn’t seem to be “hunting” anyone, but is only pressing for the bringing of a huge, longstanding moral problem to the forefront.

As qui_est-ce pointed out, the moral problem does work both ways. I have sympathy for the complaint that women sometimes give very mixed signals or are irresponsible in how encouraging they are. People are not sexual freight trains who need a quarter of a mile to come to a stop, but it is not emotionally sensitive to give one message one minute while reserving the right to give a 180 degree different message the next minute. It is not realistic for society to say, “go, throw caution to the wind, it is your life” and then turn around and act surprised when there are terrible emotional crashes and real damage is done. Blaming at that point doesn’t undo the damage.

People need to be expected to slow down, watch where they are going, and consider whether or not they are leaving enough stopping distance. That is not just men. That is not just women. That’s defensive emotional driving by everyone. When there is a “crash,” we need to stop looking as it as an unavoidable accident, even when one driver is legally (and should be) held to account for damages when a crash happens.

That is the minimum, something even a secular mind can accept is necessary. The real ideal ought to be an actual societal regard for chastity and purity, not the sneering contempt for those virtues that we have now.

I think this whole me too movement provides a great catechetical moment for us as Catholics. The Catholic view of sex and the human person is the antidote to a culture of sexual abuse. That is how we train men to be men and not abusers.

Agreed…it is also how we train women to be “emotionally defensive” drivers, as well. You don’t teach people a realistic course of action when you’re telling them to drive the limit (or just a little above) and to expect everyone else to drive perfectly all the time as the way to be a safe driver. That is not safe and it is not “old lady driving” to actually drive the way they taught you to drive in Driver’s Ed.

 

[qui_est_ce]

It used to be only women could get a “bad reputation.” Why would that be? It is because for a long time it did not at all “work both ways,” except as a defense for bad behavior by men.

I disagree with that. Guys used to have reputations as “users.”

 

[commenter]

PetraG:

The problem is how much someone can be punished or judged for allegations for which it is impossible to mount a defense? Reputations are valuable and rash judgment is a moral evil, as well.

True, but one must take into account that false accusations make up a minority of sexual misconduct allegations.

There is no way to prove or disprove this assertion.
I worked as a sexual investigator years ago.There are no experts, no research studies, that substantiate, or rule out, what you state, that false accusations are a minority.

First, there are different definitions of Sexual Misconduct. Second, the vast majority of these incidents occur without witnesses, other that the two persons, and leave no physical evidence. Having multiple accusers, who are known to be separate, uncoordinated witnesses forming a pattern, is rare. What we see on media is usually not spontaneous, not “uncoordinated”. But sometimes it is.

It is usually impossible to prove that something did not happen, unless you carry a tape recorder and stay within range of video surveillance.
If society cancels the historic principle of “innocent until proven guilty” in one area, don’t think that it won’t be extended into other areas. Other protections will also get suspended. Remember the Bill of Rights?

 

[TheAmazingGrace]

If society cancels the historic principle of “innocent until proven guilty” in one area, don’t think that it won’t be extended into other areas.

We’re not cancelling the principle. Public/individual opinion should not be held to the same standards as the courts. Dismissing alleged victims’ claims out of hand has happened way too often throughout history.

 

[PetraG]

I disagree with that. Guys used to have reputations as “users.”

Yes, when they were “nobodies,” but it was covered up when they got high enough on the ladder.

That is the real issue here. Most of these men being accused of misconduct in professional settings are being accused of things that would get ordinary men fired. Really…could anyone here do the kind of thing to a professional colleague that Sen. Franken did, just by passing it off as a joke? No, and particularly not if the woman were higher-ranking in the organization than the man. That shows what this is really about.

I am hoping very much that this is as much about what the high-ranking get away with in how they treat the lower-ranking as it is about sex. It would be a good thing if bosses and administrators who are abusive got called on it, even when they are “only” verbally or professionally abusive to their underlings.

 

[PetraG]

There is no way to prove or disprove this assertion.

I worked as a sexual investigator years ago.There are no experts, no research studies, that substantiate, or rule out, what you state, that false accusations are a minority.

More to the point, even if 99% of the accusations were true, that would not make it OK to ruin a man’s reputation with false allegations against which there is no defense.

I’d go so far to say, too, that it is a near occasion of serious sin to make it a policy that everyone with a ruinous story to tell is going to be believed. They ought to be heard, even if the story seems implausible, but they also have to realize that there is not a right to be believed. Reputations take a lifetime to build. No one ought to be given carte blanche to tear one down with an unsubstantiated word. That is too much power to give anyone.

 

[TheAmazingGrace]

More to the point, even if 99% of the accusations were true, that would not make it OK to ruin a man’s reputation with false allegations against which there is no defense.

I don’t disagree. My problem is that so many people use false accusations as an excuse to act like rape isn’t really an issue, which is despicable.

 

[PetraG]

It is usually impossible to prove that something did not happen, unless you carry a tape recorder and stay within range of video surveillance.

If society cancels the historic principle of “innocent until proven guilty” in one area, don’t think that it won’t be extended into other areas. Other protections will also get suspended. Remember the Bill of Rights?

The other problem is that in a professional setting the “Billy Graham Rule” (a) puts women at a disadvantage because they cannot have any private meetings with men in power and (b) won’t stop a male from making an accusation against another male. No one can prove they are strictlly heterosexual any more than they can prove that something alleged to have happened at a more or less vague time and place in the distant past did not happen.

 

[pnewton]

There are cases coming out where the guy did accept the rejection, but it’s till being shown as sexual harassment.

Exactly. However, I will add one caveat. When the romantic gesture comes from one in authority, of any kind, there is a built in sexual oppression. Period. The law accounts for this for people like police. Business need to be held accountable for this in the workplace.

 

[Kei]

Yes. I think there need to be lie detector tests to determine if some are telling the truth and if a false accusation crops up, there would be a thorough investigation and if it is found it is indeed false, legal action can be taken against them.

Just being accused of rape or sexual harassment is a terrible clout on your reputation and is not something to take lightly. Those who falsely accuse should face penalties for these actions.

 

[Lou2U]

Not that I don’t agree those making false accusations should be punished, but I wouldn’t use lie detector tests as a measure of truth-telling. They are very inaccurate.

With regards to the OP - I don’t think so. I think there will be a period of adjustment and then hopefully the new normal will be one in which everyone is respected to say ‘no’ or ‘stop’ or ‘slow down’ and that is what happens. I also hope it will stop the more subtle harassment that people can be subject to.

 

[pnewton]

The problem I have with it is the guilty until proven innocent aspect, and how loosely women are being convinced to interpret sexual misconduct.

Since these statements are not in a court of law and do not accuse another of a crime, the only thing that can be done is to not read too much into these accusations. Look only at what is said. It is not reasonable to try and stifle those who speak up, or to punish them because they cannot prove what they say. We can,however, assume the best on both parties; that maybe she really did feel pressured, and maybe he really did think the romance was consensual. That is in accordance with Catholic teaching. Unless one is planning to date one of the parties, there is no advantage in assuming anything.

 

[commenter]

commenter:

If society cancels the historic principle of “innocent until proven guilty” in one area, don’t think that it won’t be extended into other areas.

We’re not cancelling the principle.

Public/individual opinion should not be held to the same standards as the courts. Dismissing alleged victims’ claims out of hand has happened way too often throughout history.

Not sure who the “We” is. The Media? The Media followers?

Whatever happened to sins such as Calumny and Detraction? In our media dominated environment, to be accused of something sexual, publicly, is almost equivalent to being convicted.

I worked in the sex abuse area for years. I participated in intervening action when necessary, be it criminal courts, family courts, or other means. The overwelming tendency now is to bypass criminal court (where the accused’ rights have been protected, especially since 1960) and go right to civil court - $$$ - (where accused rights are weak) or especially to the “court of public opinion” which means the media corporations.

Obama forced colleges to adopt the “guilty until proven innocent” rule, but this has been scrapped by Trump. The irony is that the Left, which to its credit fought for decades to assure the accused was “innocent until proven guilty”, has now taken the opposite side; alongside the media corporations.