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

[Xantippe]

talk about a straw man argument.

I’m not sure that you understand what a straw man argument is.

It doesn’t mean, “argument that I find it really difficult to answer.”

Edited to add: I have a lot of posts on the thread right now, so I’m just going to tack this on, even though it’s not not an answer to the previous poster instead of making a new post.

Ask Dr. NerdLove: Help, I'm Not Ready To Have Sex

Hey Doc, This is going to seem like it's coming out of left field, given how many questions you get are some form of 'HOW DO I START HAVING SEX?', but - honestly - I'm not ready. I want it eventually, but now is not that time. I've got my hang-ups and my issues, and they are mine to keep. I...

www.doctornerdlove.com

A very secular male internet advice columnist is answering a question from a letter writer who is interested in dating, but not sex at this point.

Dr. Nerdlove replies (as part of a long response):

“Just remember: telling people about your limits is a superpower. You’re telling them one thing about you; their response tells you everything about them. Someone who either doesn’t respect your limits, who tries to argue you out of them or who is upset that you aren’t ready for sex is telling you what you need to know: that they aren’t right for you and better for you to go and find someone who is.”

Again, this is a major secular advice columnist.

 

[Theo520]

I don’t think “women can fantasize about domination but still insist on consent” is exactly how SST would put it.

I would say that it’s entirely logically consistent to not only fantasize about domination but do it in real life…inside a framework of consent. It’s possible to do both things at the same time.

I think the feelings are legit, but in practice it’s problematic. The below examples all started with ‘consent’

Portfolio manager accused of raping, beating women in penthouse dungeon

A former portfolio manager for an investment fund founded by financier George Soros sexually abused women at a Manhattan penthouse dungeon, according to a $27 million Brooklyn federal suit. Howie R…

nypost.com

 

[TheAmazingGrace]

The consequences were much higher back then.

How, and for which gender?

 

[DarkLight]

Aren’t you assuming that everything being complained about is criminal? Is one not allowed to complain publicly about non-criminal activity, like greasy spoons at a restaurant or badly done work by a contractor? This seems very ad hoc.

That’s a definite point. I’ve mentioned - a guy shouting out his car window what he’d like to do with my body is not violating any laws, he’s just creepy and gross. The guy following me around the bus stop several days in a row trying to get my number after I told him repeatedly that I didn’t want to talk to him is a pain, but again not illegal. Guy calling us at work to ask weird questions of the ladies…probably not legal but not going to start a multi-state manhunt over him.

 

[Xantippe]

How, and for which gender?

I did a big post on this that is apparently in moderation right now, but I think we may not have a realistic picture of how this worked historically, especially for the rich or powerful. Wikipedia has an article on illegitimate sons of kings, and a number of English kings had a dozen or two children out of wedlock who were semi-officially recognized (they often got the surname “Fitzroy”) and it sounds like having a baby with the king was financially and socially lucrative. See also Madame de Maintenon, who eventually married Louis XIV of France after serving as his mistress.

But of course, coloring outside the lines has always been more hazardous for the poor and unimportant.

 

[TheAmazingGrace]

See also Madame de Maintenon, who eventually married Louis XIV of France after serving as his mistress.

Holy mother of coincidences. I’m actually reading a book about Louis XIV’s love life right now. Apparently, having the king’s children wasn’t just a benefit for mistresses; it was basically a requirement of the job.

The funny thing about Madame de Maintenon is that she saw sleeping with Louis as a necessary part of procuring his salvation, by keeping him away from younger, hotter women

 

[SuperLuigi]

“Possible Step 6: Creepy dude rapes someone. If he does, there’s a less than 50% chance that the woman will report it. Why? Could it be that all the people who surround her have taught her that if she speaks up nothing will really come of it anyway? Could it be that she doesn’t trust her friends and the people who love her to have her back on this? I CAN’T IMAGINE WHY.”

A lot of times, it’s just not that big of a deal to quote Karen Straughn.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I’m noting the word “accused” and not “convicted” here.

Why is the metoo movement all about accusations and not convictions? Is it because a lot of these stories are just hot air?

 

[TheAmazingGrace]

Why is the metoo movement all about accusations and not convictions? Is it because a lot of these stories are just hot air?

1. A lot of the “accusations” have to do with actions that aren’t technically illegal, but are still degrading.
2. Statute of limitations.
3. The harasser/rapist/molester might be unknown, or dead.
4. It was a family member, and they’re not prepared to deal with the rift that would cause (as was the case for one of my relatives).
5. They don’t feel they have sufficient evidence.
6. They are still suffering from the trauma.
7. Getting involved in a legal battle could cause issues in their personal/work life.

 

[Theo520]

I’m noting the word “accused” and not “convicted” here.

Why is the metoo movement all about accusations and not convictions? Is it because a lot of these stories are just hot air?

My quick read was they are after him for civil charges not criminal,

They consented to some degree of role play and abuse, but claim it went too far and want additional compensation.

 

[Xantippe]

A lot of times, it’s just not that big of a deal to quote Karen Straughn.

What would you like to quote?

Why is the metoo movement all about accusations and not convictions? Is it because a lot of these stories are just hot air?

If it is a criminal matter (which sometimes it isn’t–see previous discussion), it can help a lot to get the names out there so that other victims know that it’s worthwhile to step forward. See my post at 1178 about how the LAPD is looking into prosecuting Harvey Weinstein.

See also Larry Nassar–150 of his victims spoke at his trial and he was recently sentenced to 175 years of prison.

MeToo just started in the fall, which is not a lot of time. Don’t worry–there will be more prosecutions.

Edited to add: I’m not sure I see the point of complaining about false accusations and complaining about lack of prosecutions. If you believe that accusations are false, lack of prosecution should be positive. Also, it’s not entirely up to victims to prosecute–the police has to decide that it is worth their while.

 

[Xantippe]

All well and good, except the proponents of toxic masculinity never give us an instance of non-toxic masculinity that would be unique to men.

Well, a lot of the explanations of what is uniquely masculine in a positive sense tend to suggest that women aren’t capable of certain qualities like strength, fortitude, loyalty or courage. There’s a tendency to define masculinity as X and femininity as not-X. Whereas even a cursory look at the Bible or the lives of female saints would suggest that all of those qualities are to be found in at least some women to a great degree, and some of the qualities are almost expected among women. To give an example: 1/3 of babies born in the US are literally cut out of their mothers bellies, and yet it’s not uncommon for women to have 2, 3 even 4 c-section deliveries. That represents incredible courage. It’s regarded as freakish if a woman says she is scared of having babies, and yet fearing and avoiding childbirth is wholly justified by the facts involved.

Maybe there isn’t a masculinity that is unique to men beyond the obvious biological features? Only men can be biological fathers, only women can be biological mothers, etc.

The thing is, if we say X personality trait is masculine or Y is feminine, it’s a major diss to anybody who doesn’t conform to that. For example, I could say that being an obsessive geeky type is masculine (and to some extent it is), but at the same time, there are men who are not obsessive geeky types and women who are.

The consequences were much higher back then.

Interestingly, I was recently doing some research on kings’ illegitimate children, and it seems to have been almost a cottage industry to have a baby out of wedlock with the king and get your kid a title.

Royal bastard - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Some of the English kings had a dozen or two children out of wedlock. Also, William the Conqueror was known (before 1066) as William the Bastard.

 

[DarkLight]

There’s also a fair few antebellum comments, even jokes, about the light skinned slave children that tended to show up on plantations, and how the lady of the manor would put on a show of having no idea where they came from (despite the obvious resemblance to her own children).

Which is actually really creepy if you think about it, since obviously no such thing as effective consent could exist there.

 

[Xantippe]

From the Wikipedia article:

“Early coat of arms of John Beaufort, son of John of Gaunt, with a band dexter to signify bastardy. Henry IV later issued an edict legitimizing Beaufort, but also declared him ineligible for succession. Beaufort’s great grandson Henry VII was nonetheless able to use this connection to obtain the throne as the first Tudor monarch.”

So much for consequences…

 

[ATraveller]

It seems to confirm the Established Churches were either weak and powerless or complete hypocrites. Something was rotten at the top of those societies.
There was a period when there were consequences though. We definitely know the pious Puritans did mete out punishments. Men were flogged and women were publicly shamed in the American Colonies when they fornicated. Then their influence waned. When Cromwell took over England, morality was enforced harshly across the republic, which made the ruling class live in fear since their licentious lifestyles were no longer tolerated. But that ended when the Restoration of the Crown occurred and vices like gluttony and lust were publicly celebrated with joy again under Charles II, who wasn’t just the King of England but the King of vice too.

 

[DarkLight]

There are arguments going way back that prostitution had to be permitted, because without prostitutes men would harass and tempt honest women instead.

 

[Xantippe]

There are arguments going way back that prostitution had to be permitted, because without prostitutes men would harass and tempt honest women instead.

Yeah, going all the way back to Thomas Aquinas, in fact.

 

[pensmama87]

As far as masculinity, one good author I’ve come across is Michael Gurian. He is secular, but he explicitly challenges the notion that masculinity is inherently toxic, and that boys need to stop being boys in order to be good people. But he also doesn’t excuse men and boys behaving badly.

I recently read his book Saving Our Sons, but he has others.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Kings have always been able to get away with stuff. The common man was running the risk of a violent death for sleeping with the wrong woman.

 

[Xantippe]

Kings have always been able to get away with stuff. The common man was running the risk of a violent death for sleeping with the wrong woman.

During the dueling era, certainly. But during the dueling era, a lot of minor disagreements turned fatal.

Burr–Hamilton duel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Come to think of it, Hamilton himself was illegitimate:

“Hamilton and his older brother James Jr. (1753–1786) were born out of wedlock to Rachel Faucette, a married woman of half-British and half-French Huguenot descent, and James A. Hamilton, a Scotsman who was the fourth son of Laird Alexander Hamilton of Grange, Ayrshire.”

See also Benjamin Franklin’s family history:

William Franklin - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Benjamin Franklin had an illegitimate son (the mother’s identity is mysterious) who became the governor of New Jersey.

“While in London, [William] Franklin sired an illegitimate son, William Temple Franklin, who was born 22 February 1762. His mother has never been identified, and Temple was placed in foster care.”

“On 14 August 1788, William married Mary Johnson d’Evelin, a wealthy Irish widow with children, to become his second wife. William’s son Temple, after a failed business career in the U.S., lived with his father and stepmother for a time, and followed his grandfather and father’s footsteps and had an illegitimate daughter, Ellen (May 15, 1798 London – 1875 Nice, France), with the sister-in-law of his stepmother Mary named Ellen Johnson d’Evelin. William took responsibility for his granddaughter Ellen.”

To recap:

Benjamin Franklin had an illegitimate son.
His illegitimate son had an illegitimate son (Benjamin Franklin’s grandson).
Benjamin Franklin’s illegitimate grandson had a daughter out of wedlock (Benjamin Franklin’s great-grand daughter).

!!!