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

[HarryStotle]

And in related news…

California Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia denies groping accusations

Cristina Garcia not only authored numerous bills about sexual assault, but also took part in the #MeToo movement

www.cbsnews.com

#MeToo, apparently, has a hidden, double, meaning.

Refer back to…

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

Sure, it has, but it was wrong then and wrong now. The difference is that most people then, even the ones who did wrong, knew it (sex outside of marriage, for example) to be wrong. Now, many have no such standard nor are even that very concerned with right or wrong. And far more individuals than in former times have dedicated themselves not merely to transgressing moral norms but to removing altogether all notions of right and wrong from the social sphere.

 

[Xantippe]

That does indicate to me the focus wasn’t on God and His ways during most of Europe’s ‘Christian age’ but rather it was on more worldly matters. It shatters the notion Europe was devoutly Christian when it was far from it.

I think it should make us a bit more charitable with regard to modern difficulties with chastity.

Edited to add: If our European forebears, with every support in terms of public and private practice of Catholicism, still often failed at chastity in a huge, public, manner, is it any wonder that modern people (who lack many of the supports or forebears had) also have trouble with chastity?

What we do have going for us is:

–less war
–modern law enforcement
–a better shot at justice when the offender is wealthy or powerful
–less economic vulnerability/more economic opportunities
–better support for victims of sexual assault

 

[Xantippe]

The difference is that most people then, even the ones who did wrong, knew it (sex outside of marriage, for example) to be wrong. Now, many have no such standard nor are even that very concerned with right or wrong. And far more individuals than in former times have dedicated themselves not merely to transgressing moral norms but to removing altogether all notions of right and wrong from the social sphere.

Isn’t the point of the MeToo movement to bring back some notions of right and wrong?

 

[Xantippe]

#MeToo, apparently, has a hidden, double, meaning.

Refer back to…

HarryStotle:

Believe it or not, that story was discussed at length previously in this 1200 comment thread.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

The difference is that most people then, even the ones who did wrong, knew it (sex outside of marriage, for example) to be wrong. Now, many have no such standard nor are even that very concerned with right or wrong. And far more individuals than in former times have dedicated themselves not merely to transgressing moral norms but to removing altogether all notions of right and wrong from the social sphere.

Isn’t the point of the MeToo movement to bring back some notions of right and wrong?

I thought it was an identitarian movement to further divide those who are always right from those who are always wrong, and to keep those who are always wrong in their place while raising the status of those who are always right and cannot be wrong a little higher.

Otherwise, why would someone presumably guilty of harassment make of herself a “leader” in a movement to “out” harassment, all the while remaining absolutely coy about her own behaviours?

You would suppose, Garcia would have led her foray into the movement with, “These are the behaviours I have been guilty of in the past, but I have seen the light and now repent – as all of us who are guilty should.” You know, an old fashioned, John the Baptist inspired, confession and metanoia, instead of pointing fingers all the while feigning innocence.

The case also also brings us back to the points made about verdict in the kangaroo court of public opinion.

 

[Xantippe]

Otherwise, why would someone presumably guilty of harassment make of herself a “leader” in a movement to “out” harassment, all the while remaining absolutely coy about her own behaviours?

You can see how well that’s working for Ms. Garcia, if that was the plan.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article200864729.html

Shouldn’t we all be happy that Garcia is going to have far few opportunities to abuse subordinates going forward?

You would suppose, Garcia would have led her foray into the movement with, “These are the behaviours I have been guilty of in the past, but I have seen the light and now repent – as all of us who are guilty should.”

I expect she’s going to get sued before this is over. As a rule, lawyers really, really hate their clients to apologize.

Note, again, that Garcia’s bad behavior was not a one-off–there was a consistent pattern of harassment and abuse of power.

The case also also brings us back to the points made about verdict in the kangaroo court of public opinion.

Do you believe that none of the accusations against Garcia are true? Because that seems unlikely.

 

[HarryStotle]

You can see how well that’s working for Ms. Garcia, if that was the plan.

I am still puzzled by what the “plan” is, and even less convinced about any benefits it might bring.

What I do see is that privileged victim status, as far as progressive equalitarian ideologies are concerned, is becoming the absolute determiner between the righteous and the damned. If you fit into one of the defined “victim” classes you can do no wrong. And if you have been apprehended or merely accused of being in the perpetrator class you are absolutely damned for eternity without hope of redemption or justification, at least as far as the neo-Marxist progressives are concerned.

One of the apparent side effects is that it is far more difficult and even impossible to admit wrong in any of the areas covered under dogmatic PC determinations precisely because any admission seals your fate as far as your standing as a “decent” human being. Any perceived “wrong” act from the past determines the kind of person you will be forever in the eyes of the ideologically possessed. No room for repentance and absolution, or even change.

This is one of the reasons Trump deserves some recognition. He is, in the words of Ben Shapiro, a “mud monster.” No amount of new mud slinging has any effect on him. In some weird sense, he is free from political correctness precisely because he has infringed all of the PC norms and acts as if he is now immune to them. My fear, though, is just when he ought to do the most difficult and right thing, he will lose his nerve.

Not so many years past, not caring what people think was considered a personal strength – at least as far as not permitting oneself to be brow-beaten into submission by crowd-think was a live option. Today, not so much, because the crowd is much more vicious, crazed and unyielding.

 

[Xantippe]

If you fit into one of the defined “victim” classes you can do no wrong.

How does that view square with Ms. Garcia’s current difficulties?

See also Kevin Spacey:

Kevin Spacey scandal: A complete list of the 15 accusers

More than a dozen men and teen boys have accused Kevin Spacey of sexual misconduct, including attempted rape.

www.usatoday.com

He’s apparently gay (which on your theory should give him carte blanche) and yet that didn’t protect him from being accused of harassment and assault by a large group of men, quite a number who had been assaulted by Spacey as teenage boys.

Consider also that a number of the major MeToo accused are Jewish (Harvey Weinstein comes to mind).

At least so far, white heterosexual Christian conservative men have not been disproportionately represented among those accused in MeToo–in fact, they’ve actually been pretty scarce. So, yay?

This is one of the reasons Trump deserves some recognition.

I think he does deserve some thanks–without his election, none of this would have been possible. It would have been very, very politically awkward with Hillary Clinton in the White House wining and dining Harvey Weinstein et al. (You may not be old enough to remember this, but during WJC’s presidency, the Clintons loved entertaining Hollywood types at the White House.)

My fear, though, is just when he ought to do the most difficult and right thing, he will lose his nerve.

I expect that Trump’s decision-making process is much more about shiny objects. So, what you get from him is pretty random.

Not so many years past, not caring what people think was considered a personal strength – at least as far as not permitting oneself to be brow-beaten into submission by crowd-think was a live option.

It all depends what the activity involved is and what the public opinion is.

Hiding Jews from Nazis in occupied Poland against popular opinion–great!
Being a sexual harasser or rapist in contemporary America against popular opinion–not so great!

 

[Xantippe]

What we’re seeing here is the end of an era where power combined with being political liberals in good standing made various people untouchable. Remember Weinstein’s apology letter where he obviously thought that promises to attack the NRA would save him? That was how it used to work–you could “buy” indulgences for bad behavior.

Here’s a snip from the letter (which is a pretty clear demonstration of the indulgence attitude):

“I am going to need a place to channel that anger, so I’ve decided that I’m going to give the NRA my full attention. I hope Wayne LaPierre will enjoy his retirement party. I’m going to do it at the same I had my Bar Mitzvah. I’m making a movie about our President, perhaps we can make it a joint retirement party. One year ago, I began organizing a $5 million foundation to give scholarships to women directors at USC.”

Harvey Weinstein Mentions Jay-Z, NRA in Bizarre Apology After New York Times Report

The New York Times posted a bombshell report that cited "dozens" of allegations detailing inappropriate sexual behavior by Harvey Weinstein.

variety.com

 

[HarryStotle]

How does that view square with Ms. Garcia’s current difficulties?

See also Kevin Spacey:

True, there are exceptions to the narrative. Whether the exceptions are there merely to add some credibility to the narrative, so it isn’t so obviously a narrative, or whether the narrative is actually being broken isn’t obvious as yet.

Whether the “movement” is organic or merely being orchestrated or manipulated for some end is still indeterminate.

Western society is so media-centric that it is difficult to know what is reality and what is fiction. There are sufficient media resources in play that the fiction begins to look very real – CGI applied to the cultural narrative with the end of molding culture and society towards some end or other.

The abolition of man to be replaced by the shallow, contrived, ever-frivolous, “peoplekind.”

 

[Theo520]

No, but the point is the idea of uncontrolled male sexuality isn’t some product of the modern sexual revolution. There have always been men going out in search of extracurricular activities. A lot of times the social control merely meant keeping them to “approved” women.

Read your post again, you acknowledge that it was controlled before. Or did you mean to use the word “contained” rather than controlled?

 

[Xantippe]

True, there are exceptions to the narrative. Whether the exceptions are there merely to add some credibility to the narrative, so it isn’t so obviously a narrative, or whether the narrative is actually being broken isn’t obvious as yet.

It’s more the rule than the exception, actually.

Remember, Harvey Weinstein was the spark that started MeToo.

I would compare the situation to forest fires or brush fires. If fires are allowed to burn (for example, the frequent take-downs of individual conservative figures for bad behavior), fuel does not accumulate. But if fires aren’t allowed, the fuel accumulates, so you wind up with massive wild fires. That’s how I would explain MeToo, and also some previous scandals.

 

[HarryStotle]

Controlled burns are also possible.

These may or may not be beneficial, depending upon who is doing the controlling.

I distrust the media enough to reserve all judgement. We’ll see where this leads.

One tell would be what, exactly, happens to Weinstein. If he ends up actually serving an appropriate jail sentence I’ll be a little more receptive to your analogy. If things are orchestrated such that he suffers no dire consequences, I’ll be more likely to conclude he was a willing agent in a “controlled burn.”

 

[Xantippe]

I distrust the media enough to reserve all judgement.

Are you, though? It didn’t sound like that earlier.

 

[HarryStotle]

Reserving judgement does not imply or entail stop asking probing questions or stop making any speculative remarks.

 

[Xantippe]

Reserving judgement does not imply stop asking probing questions or stop making any speculative remarks.

You only seem to be probing and speculating in one direction.

Just saying.

 

[HarryStotle]

You only seem to be probing and speculating in one direction.

Just saying.

There is a large crowd of hawkers shielding and shilling for that “one direction.” And I am somewhat agoraphobic. Along with having an ingrained sense of fairness and balance.

 

[Xantippe]

There is a large crowd of hawkers shielding and shilling for that “one direction.”

There’s also a large crowd of hawkers in favor of wearing seat belts, not drunk driving, and washing hands after using the bathroom.

Do you want to take them on, too?

 

[HarryStotle]

There’s also a large crowd of hawkers in favor of wearing seat belts, not drunk driving, and washing hands after using the bathroom.

Do you want to take them on, too?

I suppose if that “large crowd of hawkers” simply mouthed the words in favour of those things but at the same time drove drunk with dirty hands while not wearing seat belts I might consider taking them on.

Many of the drivers of the #MeToo movement are from the social classes that, analogically speaking, promote moral inebriation, untethered immoral behaviour and neck-deep mud-raking in all their handiwork, so pardon me while I indulge just a little bit of skepticism regarding their motives and goals.

Again, it isn’t that I am against wearing seat belts, washing hands or driving while sober, it is wondering whether the hawkers are genuinely interested in reality or are merely moving reality-television production values into the moral domain and into real life.

 

[Xantippe]

I suppose if that “large crowd of hawkers” simply mouthed the words in favour of those things but at the same time drove drunk with dirty hands while not wearing seat belts I might consider taking them on.

You realize that Christian sexual morality is subject to the exact same critique? Lots of people mouth the words in public (and in fact make careers out of it) but live their lives completely differently in private.

Many of the drivers of the #MeToo movement are from the social classes that, analogically speaking, promote moral inebriation, untethered moral behaviour and neck-deep mud-raking in all their handiwork, so pardon me while I indulge just a little bit of skepticism regarding their motives and goals.

Cite?