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

[PetraG]

And if some men were to take your “plunging neckline” as an invitation to “harass you or more,” would you blame yourself for your lack of prudence? Or would you blame the boorish jerks for taking your clothing as an invitation?

Hmmm…seems to me the “boorish jerks” know better than to make remarks like that when the person they’re insulting occupies a higher social station than they do. Yes, certain people with no social filter will make remarks no matter who you are, and even they will make more remarks when there is obviously more to remark upon. The more modest you are, the less anyone takes note of you as something to be remarked upon.

I don’t believe they think their remarks are respectful. I think they believe there are some women they have to show respect for and some women they don’t. The more arrogant they are, the more brazen they believe they can be about showing not the respect that others deserve (because women do this to men, too, when THEY think they can get away with it) but only as much respect as they happen to feel like giving.

Yes, well, if you don’t want to be on the bottom rung of the social ladder, where you can say what you want because you can’t sink much lower than you are, maybe act like someone who deserves to occupy a higher place.

 

[PetraG]

Well as someone once said, “It’s only harassment if you are ugly.”. That should clue you in to the real purpose behind the attempts to change both laws and mores.

Who said that? Are you under some impression that there are even fantastic-looking people who want constant remarks about their looks? If you are, you probably haven’t been subjected to constant remarks about your looks. No, at some point, personal remarks get old, no matter how they are meant to flatter their target.

By the way, do you have your list of people who have had others attempt to criminalize their natural and acceptable male behaviors? It would help immensely if you could be specific about what you mean by natural behaviors that ought to be accepted and not criminalized by frivolous complaints?

(For instance, I’d say that the woman who complained when her host only offered red wine instead of both red and white wine that this was some sign that the host was “controlling” was totally over the top. That is not just frivolous; it is utterly self-centered. It is not as if he knew she was vegetarian, invited her to dinner knowing this, and yet had nothing without meat in it to offer her. That is a failure in hospitality; failing to have as many beverage choices as a restaurant is not. You ought to expect that there are limits on hospitality, instead of taking it as an insult when you are difficult to please.)

More to the point, what are non-illegal behaviors that should nevertheless not be tolerated in a merely social or professional sense? Do you think there are any “natural male behaviors” that are unacceptable and ought to get men who act like that called out? There is something, right? What is your line? (Surely you don’t think either companies or social circles ought to be stuck with accepting people who freely indulge in every kind of behavior, provided it can’t be prosecuted?)

 

[Xantippe]

As long as you have a framework where men are the ones who want sex and women don’t, and men are supposed to find a way to get the woman to give in, you’re going to have problems.

I’d add that it’s a system that is likely to produce unpleasant but predictable results for married men.

 

[Theo520]

I’d add that it’s a system that is likely to produce unpleasant but predictable results for married men.

I’d edit it to “WAS likely to produce”

I feel a shift towards casual attitudes around sex and less emphasis on having a family are changing the system outcomes.

 

[Xantippe]

More to the point, what are non-illegal behaviors that should nevertheless not be tolerated in a merely social or professional sense? Do you think there are any “natural male behaviors” that are unacceptable and ought to get men who act like that called out? There is something, right? What is your line? (Surely you don’t think either companies or social circles ought to be stuck with accepting people who freely indulge in every kind of behavior, provided it can’t be prosecuted?)

Right. I think there’s a big problem with seeing everything as either a) a serious crime or b) a-OK. There are a lot of activities that aren’t either crimes or OK, and society is free to punish those grey area behaviors. Some that come mind are: smoking, using racial slurs, inadequate lawn care, careless parenting and not helping out enough at your child’s school. And no, there’s no due process.

 

[Xantippe]

I’d edit it to “WAS likely to produce”

I feel a shift towards casual attitudes around sex and less emphasis on having a family are changing the system outcomes.

Some people want to keep it up.

I can’t tell you how many times (even on CAF) I’ve seen a male poster talk about how women are the “gatekeepers” of premarital sex.

The irony is that a woman who gets used to premarital gatekeeping may have a lot of trouble giving that up once she’s married, not to mention she may have difficulty with the idea of her husband as a leader in the family, if she was previously tasked with fighting him off.

Edited to add: Bonus points if the “gatekeeper” guy wants to do a big song and dance about the husband being the “spiritual leader” of the family.

 

[Elizabeth3]

The irony is that a woman who gets used to premarital gatekeeping may have a lot of trouble giving that up once she’s married, not to mention she may have difficulty with the idea of her husband as a leader in the family, if she was previously tasked with fighting him off.

Right. Women in one sense should only have to gatekeep in situations with men who have less than honorable intentions and those men should be dismissed as suitable partners. A woman has a right to not have to be with someone who is constantly trying to lead her into sin. That’s not the kind of leading a potential husband should be demonstrating. With a good man, they should both be on board with and have unity in their desire to remain chaste. They should be a mutual help to each other just like they are called to be in marriage. That’s the kind of guy who you would feel safe with and could respect as a leader of the family.

 

[Xantippe]

Right. Women in one sense should only have to gatekeep in situations with men who have less than honorable intentions and those men should be dismissed as suitable partners. A woman has a right to not have to be with someone who is constantly trying to lead her into sin. That’s not the kind of leading a potential husband should be demonstrating. With a good man, they should both be on board with and have unity in their desire to remain chaste. They should be a mutual help to each other just like they are called to be in marriage. That’s the kind of guy who you would feel safe with and could respect as a leader of the family.

Yes.

It’s very short-sighted to sacrifice that for immediate gratification.

 

[DarkLight]

Hmmm…seems to me the “boorish jerks” know better than to make remarks like that when the person they’re insulting occupies a higher social station than they do. Yes, certain people with no social filter will make remarks no matter who you are, and even they will make more remarks when there is obviously more to remark upon. The more modest you are, the less anyone takes note of you as something to be remarked upon.

Yup - although this also has the point that I’ve made before that some of us just naturally have more to remark on. Covered or not, I have curves.

But you’re absolutely right that most men who engage in this behavior are selective. Typical targets are women with less power. Younger women who are less sure of themselves are also very common, especially with women who aren’t yet sure what to see as normal, or who have been taught to blindly follow authority. (I know I put up with some things at 18 where I would now tell the guy to go cool his jets in the nearest body of water.) That to me indicates they do know it’s wrong - because they’re aiming specifically for women who won’t report or won’t be believed.

 

[Xantippe]

I’m just reading the long article Bruised Reed posted, which is about police breaking a rape accuser’s story, only to find out that she had been the first of a long string of victims of a methodical serial rapist who took advantage of lack of communication between police jurisdictions.

An Unbelievable Story of Rape

An 18-year-old said she was attacked at knifepoint. Then she said she made it up. That’s where our story begins.

www.themarshallproject.org

“After O’Leary was linked to Marie’s rape, Lynnwood Police Chief Steven Jensen requested an outside review of how his department had handled the investigation. In a report not previously made public, Sgt. Gregg Rinta, a sex crimes supervisor with the Snohomish County Sheriff’s Office, wrote that what happened was “nothing short of the victim being coerced into admitting that she lied about the rape.””

“That Marie recanted wasn’t surprising, Rinta wrote, given the “bullying” and “hounding” she was subjected to. The detectives elevated “minor inconsistencies” — common among victims — into discrepancies, while ignoring strong evidence the crime had occurred. As for threatening jail and a possible withdrawal of housing assistance if Marie failed a polygraph: “These statements are coercive, cruel, and unbelievably unprofessional,” Rinta wrote. “I can’t imagine ANY justification for making these statements.””

“Sgt. Mason is now back in narcotics, in charge of a task force. Interviewed in the same room where he had confronted Marie seven years before, he said: “It wasn’t her job to try to convince me. In hindsight, it was my job to get to the bottom of it — and I didn’t.””

“Two and a half years after Marie was branded a liar, Lynnwood police found her, south of Seattle, and told her the news: Her rapist had been arrested in Colorado. They gave her an envelope with information on counseling for rape victims. They said her record would be expunged. And they handed her $500, a refund of her court costs. Marie broke down, experiencing, all at once, shock, relief and anger.”

$500 was a huge sum to lose for a recent graduate of the foster system.

“Marie sued the city and settled for $150,000. “A risk management decision was made,” a lawyer for Lynnwood told The Herald in Everett, Washington.”

Yay!

 

[ATraveller]

If someone notices there’s poor wording, it would be wise to point it out so things don’t get miscommunicated. I don’t think it helps anyone for people to be silent when an error occurs.

I would stress that nowhere in the Bible does it say sexual restraint is the sole duty of women. The Bible is quite clear that the primary responsibility is on the individual. Jesus hyperbolically mentions that people should pluck their right eyes and cut off their right-hands themselves if they sin. Paul tells people to control themselves too. If no one is mentioning this, then someone should.

 

[Xantippe]

I should have included some quotes about the price that Marie paid for reporting to the police:

“But her misdemeanor had made the news, and made her an object of curiosity or, worse, scorn. It had cost her the newfound independence she was savoring after a life in foster homes. It had cost her sense of worth. Each ring of the phone seemed to announce another friendship, lost. A friend from 10th grade called to ask: How could you lie about something like that? Marie — that’s her middle name, Marie — didn’t say anything. She just listened, then hung up. Even her foster parents now doubted her. She doubted herself, wondering if there was something in her that needed to be fixed.”

And she hadn’t even accused a concrete individual–the rapist was a stranger to her.

“Later that day a meeting was called at the housing complex, with all of Marie’s peers gathered in a circle. Marie, as directed, told her fellow participants in Project Ladder that she had lied about being raped. They didn’t need to worry, she told the group. There was no one out there who had hurt her and no one who might hurt them next.”

Wow.

“Later that month, there was a final surprise. Marie got a letter, notifying her that she was wanted in court. She had been charged with false reporting, punishable by up to a year in jail.”

“In practice, many police departments will pursue charges against women only in extreme circumstances — say, in a highly public case where a suspect’s reputation has suffered, or where the police have expended considerable investigative resources. This reluctance stems from the belief that in rape cases, the biggest problem is not false reporting, but no reporting. Only about one-fifth to one-third of rapes get reported to police, national surveys show. One reason is that women fear police won’t believe them.”

“Marie’s best friend from high school — the one who had taught her photography and had taken that picture of her emerging from the surf — created a webpage that called Marie a liar, with a photo from Marie’s Myspace page, with police reports, with Marie’s full name.”

“For Marie, Shannon’s [her foster mom’s] home had long provided an escape or respite. Marie and Shannon would walk in the woods, or take out the boat, then, at day’s end, crash in Shannon’s home. Now, fearful he could become the target of a wrongful accusation, Shannon’s husband decided it would be best if Marie no longer spent the night. “When you become a foster parent, you’re open to that,” Shannon says.”

Gee, why would a victim not report?

Marie had almost nothing to begin with, being a graduate of the foster care system, and she lost almost everything she had because she reported: her foster parents’ trust, her friends, her belief in her own sense of reality, and $500. And she came very close to losing her apartment and her freedom.

 

[Elizabeth3]

If there’s poor wording, it would be wise to point it out so things don’t get miscommunicated.

Sure. This is something that is often missed when instructing women in these areas and error should be rooted out wherever it’s found.

I would stress that nowhere in the Bible does it say sexual restraint is the sole duty of women.

Of course not.

The Bible is quite clear that the primary responsibility is on the individual. Jesus hyperbolically mentions that people should pluck their right eyes and cut off their right-hands themselves if they sin. Paul tells people to control themselves too.

The bible is clear about the primary responsibility of the individual but it also warns us against leading others into sin.

If no one is mentioning this, then someone should.

Yes. I agree.

 

[DarkLight]

That’s definitely an issue a lot of us had coming out of those backgrounds. When one gets the idea that all men are a certain way, there’s no reason to get rid of a guy who behaves inappropriately.

 

[Elizabeth3]

That’s definitely an issue a lot of us had coming out of those backgrounds. When one gets the idea that all men are a certain way, there’s no reason to get rid of a guy who behaves inappropriately.

Yes, too much emphasis on the woman’s responsibility to say no but too little emphasis on a woman’s authority to dismiss men from their company who showed no self-restraint.

 

[Xantippe]

Yes, too much emphasis on the woman’s responsibility to say no but too little emphasis on a woman’s authority to dismiss men from their company who showed no self-restraint.

It’s also important to believe that Not All Men Are Like That.

If all men are like that, there’s no point in trying to do better.

 

[DarkLight]

Yes, too much emphasis on the woman’s responsibility to say no but too little emphasis on a woman’s authority to dismiss men from their company who showed no self-restraint.

Yeah, I’ve noticed reading older literature that it was considered quite appropriate for a lady to simply refuse to interact with a man who attempted any liberties that he had not been permitted.

Of course, there’s always been an issue that women in vulnerable positions were more commonly victims. You read a lot in history among the servant class - in the U.S., often black women - that women who needed their jobs were often the victims.

 

[TheAmazingGrace]

Yes, too much emphasis on the woman’s responsibility to say no but too little emphasis on a woman’s authority to dismiss men from their company who showed no self-restraint.

And too little emphasis on a man’s responsibility to act like a decent human being.

 

[Elizabeth3]

It’s also important to believe that Not All Men Are Like That

Yes and a good father in a woman’s life will go a long way to demonstrate that which is another reason why women should dismiss the bad ones as opposed to putting up with it until they reach the altar. If their possible future daughter’s well-being and healthy outlook on life is any consideration, it’s essential to weed those types out.

 

[Elizabeth3]

And too little emphasis on a man’s responsibility to act like a decent human being.

Right. “Boys will be boys” comes to mind.