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

[HarryStotle]

Cite?

Huh?

Pretty much every movie, television show, Broadway production, news broadcast, artwork, novel, popular music piece, etc., etc. created in the past 20 years or so.

 

[Xantippe]

FYI, muck-raking doesn’t mean what you probably think it means.

Muckraker - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Muckraking is a good thing–it means exposing and stopping evil-doing.

Pretty much every movie, television show, Broadway production, news broadcast, artwork, novel, popular music piece, etc., etc. created in the past 20 years or so.

That’s a bit sweeping.

 

[Xantippe]

The interesting thing is that the mob with torches isn’t really the natural response to dealing with accusations of molestation or sexual assault–the natural response is to circle round the perp if he’s a member of your community.

Opinion | In Which The Jewish Community Gives Cover To A Child Molester - Again

Almost exactly two years ago, I basically left my local Jewish community.

forward.com

The author of that story warned her community that a rabbi who had molested a child was about to get out of jail and to be careful about their children around him. The response from the community was to treat her like the bad guy:

“I was utterly horrified by how many members of the community downplayed the abuse he perpetrated (one message: “he didn’t actually molest him”) and tried to hide the abuse he committed, supposedly in order to protect his wife who runs a local preschool and his parents who run the Chabad at nearby Rutgers University from the shame of his actions.”

"But this week, my warnings about the likelihood of the rabbi offending again were confirmed. He was caught with a child in an illegal sex act — again.

“As MyCentralJersey.com reported, Goodman and two people from the Bronx are facing charges related to human trafficking and prostitution of a 17-year-old girl.”

“And yet, two years ago, those of us who dared to ask questions like whether Goodman walks around in his wife’s preschool, or if he attends Shabbat meals with students at his father’s Chabad house, where young women also dorm, were smeared more forcefully both in public and private than Goodman himself.”

 

[ATraveller]

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?

I agree charity is needed on this matter (but it can be hard to offer by some).
Personally, I think that there wasn’t much in terms of public support on chastity even back then. It would appear it was more of a wink wink nudge nudge thing much of the time back then with exceptions during certain periods of time and in certain places. I know among the armchair historians in my ‘circles’ they would argue Christian Europe overall never actually existed based on more than just this issue. For them, was it culturally Christian? Yes. Authentic Christianity? No.

 

[Xantippe]

I know among the armchair historians in my ‘circles’ they would argue Christian Europe overall never actually existed based on more than just this issue. For them, was it culturally Christian? Yes. Authentic Christianity? No.

I think “authentic Christianity” is a will o’the wisp that vanishes the closer you look at any particular historical period. For example, we idealize the Early Church, and yet (as is clear from St. Paul’s letters) they had a lot of problems. And if the Puritans are our ideal–in the US, they collapsed theologically very quickly.

Everybody’s got problems.

 

[DarkLight]

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

Someone else was saying that there was social control on male sexuality before, that isn’t there now. I was saying that the “control” was in the form, not of telling men to control their libidos, but in designating a class of women that were acceptable outlets and a class that weren’t. It was a form of control, but the control didn’t shield vulnerable women.

 

[Theo520]

Someone else was saying that there was social control on male sexuality before, that isn’t there now. I was saying that the “control” was in the form, not of telling men to control their libidos, but in designating a class of women that were acceptable outlets and a class that weren’t. It was a form of control, but the control didn’t shield vulnerable women.

So you are mixing up ‘contain’ and ‘control’

I think previously all men were expected to direct their libidos towards their spouse or girlfriend. I see this as control.

I think previously there was allowance given between consenting adults, the female of which happened to be ‘professional’. Regular girls tended not to do so for harm to their reputation and marriage prospects.

People of a religious background were expected to contain their libido until marriage.

 

[DarkLight]

It’s a form of social control or constraint, in that society was telling them that certain women were off limits to them, no matter how much they desired that woman, and that there would be consequences if they did. It was hardly the sort of self-control that our faith desires.

One of my points though was that this didn’t always mean that it was between consenting adults - often it merely meant that they were restricted to women of lower class. There’s a lot of discussion, for example, about risks to female servants, because there weren’t a lot of consequences for a noble that did so, and the young lady might give in fearing dismissal and being unable to find another place. (And of course there’s the question of how “consenting” prostitutes were, especially in societies with few places for a woman on her own.) In American antebellum history, sex with slaves was of course a major issue - which again is a case where “consent” really can’t exist in any sensible form, but a lot of people looked the other way because a slave woman wasn’t seen as having any chastity or reputation to protect anyway.

 

[Xantippe]

One of my points though was that this didn’t always mean that it was between consenting adults - often it merely meant that they were restricted to women of lower class. There’s a lot of discussion, for example, about risks to female servants, because there weren’t a lot of consequences for a noble that did so, and the young lady might give in fearing dismissal and being unable to find another place. (And of course there’s the question of how “consenting” prostitutes were, especially in societies with few places for a woman on her own.) In American antebellum history, sex with slaves was of course a major issue - which again is a case where “consent” really can’t exist in any sensible form, but a lot of people looked the other way because a slave woman wasn’t seen as having any chastity or reputation to protect anyway.

There was probably an analogous situation to US slavery in tsarist Russia, where they had serfdom until 1861.

 

[HarryStotle]

FYI, muck-raking doesn’t mean what you probably think it means.

Muckraker - Wikipedia

Muckraking is a good thing–it means exposing and stopping evil-doing.

Or, in the modern PC progressivist world, it means journalists who think they are exposing and stopping evil-doing when, in actuality, they are imposing their ideological prejudices upon those they are determined to tar as evil (or racist, or sexist, or homophobic, or xenophobic, etc, etc.) So, no, muckraking, in this case is not a “good thing.”

 

[Xantippe]

Or, in the modern PC progressivist world, it means journalists who think they are exposing and stopping evil-doing when, in actuality, they are imposing their ideological prejudices upon those they are determined to tar as evil (or racist, or sexist, or homophobic, or xenophobic, etc, etc.) So, no, muckraking, in this case is not a “good thing.

Hey! It sounds like you’ve made up your mind!

 

[SuperLuigi]

Statute of limitations.

There’s reasons for these. Life goes on. Either report the crime or get on with life. Those are your choices.

The harasser/rapist/molester might be unknown, or dead.

Or the story is exaggerated or made-up.

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).

Risky business relying on help from strangers on the internet—especially from those with nothing to do all day, are mentally ill or have a political agenda as many metoo supporters do.

They don’t feel they have sufficient evidence.

Or it really wasn’t rape which is why HE or she didn’t get a rape kit.

They are still suffering from the trauma.

In which case counseling, not shouting over the internet for years on end, would be the solution.
Getting involved in a legal battle could cause issues in their personal/work life.

But I guess practical solutions aren’t warranted when there’s a feminist political agenda.

One last thing: It would be a grave mistake for anyone to assume that being a victim gives HIM or her extra moral authority on the matter.

 

[SuperLuigi]

What you have to understand is there are some people who rather complain on the internet the rest of their natural lives than get on with life or seek appropriate justice.

People like wielding their own (or their family/friends) victimhood as a weapon to push an agenda, get attention, ect.

It’s just one giant, pathetic circle that sucks up time.

Most people on the internet in metoo don’t really care. I wouldn’t just trust them as far as I could throw them—basically the same I feel about most anyone on this site. I’ve seen this kind of mentality for years on other issues with other groups. There’s nothing unique or special about it, and it’s not going to change things that much in the end.

For one thing, a lot of these people who complain have no impetus to change the fundamental behaviour and blow with the wind.

What they don’t understand—or won’t admit—is that hordes of men and women exist who WILL take what the Harvey Weinstein’s and Bill Clinton’s of the world deliver to advance their own careers.

The solution isn’t the virtue-signaling of metoo, it’s Catholicism.

 

[DarkLight]

There’s reasons for these. Life goes on. Either report the crime or get on with life. Those are your choices.

Actually, there is a social benefit to pushing back on people’s attitudes. It’s worthwhile to say, for example, repeatedly asking the same woman out isn’t illegal, but it’s not romantic and it’s going to make women not want to come to places where that’s treated as normal behavior.

I’ve seen that kind of thing come up a lot. Say take my own hobby of tabletop gaming - there’s been a lot of discussions that certain creepy but not illegal behavior should still result in a sharp instruction to knock it off or leave the group, rather than pushing women to quietly tolerate it.

Or it really wasn’t rape which is why HE or she didn’t get a rape kit.

There’s a lot of misconceptions about rape kits. They don’t actually prove someone was raped - they prove there was a sexual encounter with another individual. They’re not going to be useful in a lot of cases for precisely that reason.

In which case counseling, not shouting over the internet for years on end, would be the solution.

There’s some pretty strong evidence that community support plays a big role in trauma recovery. People who have a group around them that supports them and encourages them have significantly better long-term outcomes; people who are blamed or shamed have much worse ones.

 

[ChunkMonk]

Its just the same old liberal play: create a ‘safe’ evil. Notice how hard even the (presumably devout) Catholic women pushed back against framing it in Christian moral terms. Insofar as it is a general movement and not just individual sniping, it wjll result in further emasculating the men who are already not engaging in the unwanted behavior anyway. The 15-year old boy will still see girls dating the 'bad boys, will still see thousands of girls going gaga over scenes of Christian Grey slamming her up against the wall in an elevator and taking what he wants, will still hear the most ‘succesful’ men describe their exploits as ‘conquests’ (with women now using the same descriptions) and he will face the same choice as most boys his age: learn to play the Game or live as an incel.

Now comes the trick. Suddenly Christian sexual morality will be relevant again among the Catholic feminists. However, they already communicated that Christian morality has nothing to do with it and unfortunately for them the boys all got that message loud and clear. By secular social measures, being a virgin man is synonymous with being a loser in life’s only important game, and one gains status with every lay. The feminists don’t understand that you can’t exempt yourself from the prohibitions of Christian ethics but expect others to adhere. When you close one door, you close them all.

The biggest result of #metoo will ironically be a small, but noticeable, harm to the general woman’s career life as she finds less men willing to mentor her, interact with her alone, or hire her for specific jobs for fear of being accused of wrongdoing.

 

[SuperLuigi]

There’s some pretty strong evidence that community support plays a big role in trauma recovery.

I don’t consider what goes on here outside of my posting to be community support. The complaints about this site its members, administration and operation make a very long list.

people who are blamed or shamed have much worse ones.

This is extremely toxic behavior against victims.

Actually, there is a social benefit to pushing back on people’s attitudes. It’s worthwhile to say, for example, repeatedly asking the same woman out isn’t illegal, but it’s not romantic and it’s going to make women not want to come to places where that’s treated as normal behavior.

Women shouldn’t go to those places. If they do, they need to tell the guys to stop or have the bartender call the police.

Men who keep asking the same woman out need to talk to me so I can adjust their attitude.

 

[ChunkMonk]

What they don’t understand—or won’t admit—is that hordes of men and women exist who WILL take what the Harvey Weinstein’s and Bill Clinton’s of the world deliver to advance their own careers.

I think this is a non-insignificant part of the #movement. Sleeping your way to the top carries one drawback: everyone knows how you got there. But what if you could suddenly have the cake without the calories? You didn’t sleep your way to the top, you were a victim of Unequal-Power-Dynamics-Rape™

Unfortunately for all the future ambitious secretaries of the world though, the cost of utilizing Unequal-Power-Dynamics-Rape™ to clear Sally’s reputation also makes the Vice-President less likely to hire a female secretary in the first place and less likely to actually engage in the affair, thus cutting off Beth’s path to that raise she’s been wanting. Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Well, until we get anti-discrimination laws that effectively force men to put themselves in compromising positions.

 

[SuperLuigi]

The biggest result of #metoo will ironically be a small, but noticeable, harm to the general woman’s career life as she finds less men willing to mentor her, interact with her alone, or hire her for specific jobs for fear of being accused of wrongdoing.

It’s already happening. Women are going to need to counter by saying “We’re not all like this” and show it.

 

[DarkLight]

Its just the same old liberal play: create a ‘safe’ evil. Notice how hard even the (presumably devout) Catholic women pushed back against framing it in Christian moral terms.

Pretty sure a couple of us have done exactly that.

As I mentioned before - in this modern society, I can’t expect everyone to respect my morals. Even in supposedly Christian circles there have been men like that. #MeToo is also protection for me as a Catholic woman. Too many men see a chaste woman as an insult, or a challenge to their masculinity, or something. It is not as though our modesty and chastity forms some sort of magic shield against men of ill intent. On the contrary, there are unchaste men who have a particular interest in a chaste woman as well.

What it is is a protection that I won’t be expected to trade putting up with repeated sexual advances and a dismissal of my own moral standards for a chance to work at a job around men. It’s also a protection that if a man behaves inappropriately towards me, it’s not going to turn around into a situation where I’m blamed and scrutinized for how I might have possibly caused the situation. Within the Church, it is also telling men that waiting for marriage is no excuse for objectification or entitlement - a single Christian woman doesn’t owe anything to a single Christian man in regards to her availability.

 

[DarkLight]

Women shouldn’t go to those places. If they do, they need to tell the guys to stop or have the bartender call the police.

That reminds me - I think some of this is also about teaching women it’s ok to say no and expect it to mean something. That’s an unfortunate side effect of the “boys will be boys” mentality. Women don’t get the idea that they can expect men to control themselves. There’s also often the idea that strong, direct objections are unladylike, and especially that raising a fuss is unladylike.

Of course it depends on where the place is. Most of my experiences have involved places like public transit - I’m riding the bus because I need to get from point A to point B, not because I particularly like public transit.