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

[HarryStotle]

If the Pareto Distribution is true, people such as Harrystotle should be more willing to believe multiple accusers of a single individual.

I am beginning to be skeptical of the purported precognitive or intuitive capabilities of women.

Where would you get the idea that “people such as Harrystotle” have been resistant to believing “multiple accusers of a single individual?”

What I am skeptical of (based on the Pareto distribution probability paradigm) is the assumption that most men are harassers, assaulters and rapists. The probability and reliable experience would make it very probable that MOST men are not, so painting this as a “male” problem rather than as a behavioural deficiency is where the narrative is mistaken.

Besides, if Je Suis Charlie (I am Charlie) showed us anything, it did demonstrate rather clearly that participation in collectivist campaigns to change society at its core can have the opposite effect. Not many defenders of journalistic freedom remain today, while most politicians cower behind the fear of being labeled Islamophobic or racist. Rotherham should have been another lesson, but it wasn’t.

I would caution women about buying the narrative that they have more power in numbers. It only serves to reduce the individual to the collective by turning over personal autonomy to identitarians, ideologues and group-think. It will not end well.

But who am I to disrupt a probability distribution principle? Autonomous thinking will correlate very highly to Pareto’s distribution model, and most humans will not think autonomously – they will go along with the group-think of #MeToo.

 

[DarkLight]

What I am skeptical of (based on the Pareto distribution probability paradigm) is the assumption that most men are harassers, assaulters and rapists. The probability and reliable experience would be that most men are not, so painting this as a “male” problem rather than as a behavioural deficiency is where the narrative is mistaken.

That’s actually not far off what we’ve been saying.

If you read up, that’s one major criticism I and others have had of certain conservative Christian models of sexuality - that they encourage women to think that all men are like that. Not only is that highly unfair to men, it keeps women from avoiding bad men. If you’re supposed to marry a man, and all men are like that, not much point in looking for one that isn’t.

Really, it’s not that most men are any of those things. It’s that some men are, and that the men that are tend to tell their stories in ways that are designed to be believable to other men. And a whole lot of men in our society have been willing to either believe those stories or simply give men who behave badly a pass. It’s men in that second category that we’re really aiming at as much as anything. Much of the idea of numbers is an attempt to show that pattern to men who wouldn’t harass women themselves, but who are skeptical that it’s really something that’s particularly common for women.

There is also, of course, the deterrence aspect. It is best if no men want to behave that way, but we won’t get there this side of heaven. It is better that bad men be afraid than otherwise. If a man who holds no respect for women in his heart at least gets the idea that he must behave respectfully or face consequences, that is still an improvement.

 

[HarryStotle]

That’s actually not far off what we’ve been saying.
…
Really, it’s not that most men are any of those things. It’s that some men are, and that the men that are tend to tell their stories in ways that are designed to be believable to other men. And a whole lot of men in our society have been willing to either believe those stories or simply give men who behave badly a pass. It’s men in that second category that we’re really aiming at as much as anything.
…

Your account would be more believable if you didn’t limit the “unbelievers” to men only.

This is where Justin Trudeau’s ‘peoplekind’ could actually be a useful term.

Allow me to rephrase your statement.

Really, it’s not that most men are any of those things. It’s that some men are, and that the men that are tend to tell their stories in ways that are designed to be believable to peoplekind. And a whole lot of peoplekind in our society have been willing to either believe those stories or simply give men who behave badly a pass. It’s the peoplekind in that second category that we’re really aiming at as much as anything.

See not quite as skewed against men, in general. We all shoulder a little of the responsibility rather than half of us take the blame. #peoplekindtoo

 

[Xantippe]

I’ll pass on the opportunity, thanks.

I’ve seen the photos–it’s a very dramatic difference!

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

I’ll pass on the opportunity, thanks.

I’ve seen the photos–it’s a very dramatic difference!

I’ll take your word for it.

But the question remains: Why is appearance (and drama, apparently) so important to you and to most of peoplekind, assuming Pareto?

 

[Xantippe]

I am beginning to be skeptical of the purported precognitive or intuitive capabilities of women.

I don’t think any woman in the thread has claimed an innate ability to identify child molesters, sexual harassers or rapists–in fact, quite the contrary.

I think I have a reasonably good mental check list at this point, but that’s the product of a couple decades of adulting and a lot of reading.

What I am skeptical of (based on the Pareto distribution probability paradigm) is the assumption that most men are harassers, assaulters and rapists.

I don’t think anybody’s said that.

However, I think there are many social milieus where peers (including female peers) make things cushy for child molesters, sexual harassers and rapists.

Besides, if Je Suis Charlie (I am Charlie) showed us anything, it did demonstrate rather clearly that participation in collectivist campaigns to change society at its core can have the opposite effect.

I think the cases are rather different.

Imagine if Je Suis Charlie had involved bringing down major Islamic terrorist after major Islamic terrorist–that would be a fairer analogy.

Rotherham should have been another lesson, but it wasn’t.

Yes, one lesson might be that turning to the police isn’t necessarily going to be very effective for victims.

I would caution women about buying the narrative that they have more power in numbers.

We do. Aren’t two women safer than one woman alone, all things being equal?

 

[Xantippe]

Your account would be more believable if you didn’t limit the “unbelievers” to men only.

Well, in this thread, the male unbelievers far outnumber the female ones–probably because the female posters have had (on average) more MeToo type experiences.

But the question remains: Why is appearance (and drama, apparently) so important to you and to most of peoplekind, assuming Pareto?

Well, sight is one of our most important senses, so of course appearance is important.

Edited to add: I have to mention that Jordan Peterson is a good looking guy, and looks pretty sharp in a suit. (I am noticing a lack of photos of him in polo shirts and Bermuda shorts.)

 

[DarkLight]

That one is fair. (I would also add that in my own social circles, there were several men who also said they had been harassed or assaulted - it was by no means only women as victims.) I think there’s going to be some difference in approach if the average female experience is different than the average male experience though.

And I do think that some of this is just people being people, but we still want to push against it. There’s what’s called the “just world fallacy” - that good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people. We all know that’s not how this world works, but it’s oh so tempting to believe. Because if bad things happen to bad people, and I’m a good person, bad things won’t happen to me!

 

[Xantippe]

There’s what’s called the “just world fallacy” - that good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people.

Right–that if something bad happened to you, it must have been because you were careless or immoral, and your interlocutor needs to keep asking questions until they figure out what it was.

See also Job’s comforters in the Bible.

 

[HarryStotle]

Well, in this thread, the male unbelievers far outnumber the female ones–probably because the female posters have had (on average) more MeToo type experiences.

Now you are just contriving conclusions.

There were 137 participants in the survey and only 24 frequent posters.

Do you know for certain that the 58% or so that said yes were mostly men? How do you know there weren’t a fair number of women who agree but don’t want to reveal that fact?

If you counted only the posters, who did you count as “unbelievers?” And how would you know that they actually were?

You haven’t even got straight where I stand since I might merely be stating possible objections for the sake of discussion to clarify the issue and where others are at, and, yet, you likely counted me as an “unbeliever.”

In reality, I am not even clear what it is that I am supposed to believe as a function of #MeToo, which means “unbeliever” would be a largely meaningless appellation.

 

[DarkLight]

But the question remains: Why is appearance (and drama, apparently) so important to you and to most of peoplekind, assuming Pareto?

You’ll note a lot of our examples have involved workplace stuff. A certain amount of that is just how things are. Makeup is the female version of the tie - you wear it because that’s what’s expected. If people see you wearing a tie they understand that you’re conforming to corporate norms and that’s seen as a sign you are more reliable in other ways. Many people have argued we should be able to dress however we want (within modesty principles) at jobs, but that’s just not how it is.

With the example I used of looking older, it primarily comes up in cases where I’m liable to interact with people who don’t know what I’m doing. So I used it in a college teaching position a lot, for example, especially at the beginning of the semester, because people were much more likely to consider that the young lady with neat hair and makeup and wearing a skirt and blouse was supposed to be teaching the class - even though admittedly a lot of my male peers wore jeans and a t-shirt. Same thing when I worked with children in a job that involved a lot of parent volunteers; I did notice that people would zone in on me as an adult in charge much more quickly if I was dressed up a bit.

 

[HarryStotle]

And I do think that some of this is just people being people, but we still want to push against it. There’s what’s called the “just world fallacy” - that good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people. We all know that’s not how this world works, but it’s oh so tempting to believe. Because if bad things happen to bad people, and I’m a good person, bad things won’t happen to me!

One possible response would be the “fallen world” reply.

Bad things happen to all people because none of the people are truly good, and those bad things that happen are an aspect of the fallen world we have been charged to redeem. The extent to which we, on the whole, remain bad, is the extent to which the world remains unredeemed.

So pointing fingers or finding excuses isn’t at all helpful.

As Peterson would say, “Clean your room!”

 

[HarryStotle]

Edited to add: I have to mention that Jordan Peterson is a good looking guy, and looks pretty sharp in a suit. (I am noticing a lack of photos of him in polo shirts and Bermuda shorts.)

So you are assessing him on his appearance rather than the substance of his thinking?

Now try listening to one of his videos with your eyes closed.

 

[HarryStotle]

A good suit is like Spanx for men.

I couldn’t resist…

I suppose when there is no substance, one has to default to appearance, eh?

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Rotherham should have been another lesson, but it wasn’t.

Yes, one lesson might be that turning to the police isn’t necessarily going to be very effective for victims?

Same lesson from Parkland, I suppose. So we are to only leave guns in the hands of those who aren’t “very effective for victims.”

 

[Xantippe]

Do you know for certain that the 58% or so that said yes were mostly men? How do you know there weren’t a fair number of women who agree but don’t want to reveal that fact?

If you counted only the posters, who did you count as “unbelievers?” And how would you know that they actually were?

I think my estimate was probably very close if we just count commentors for the last several hundred comments.

You haven’t even got straight where I stand since I might merely be stating possible objections for the sake of discussion to clarify the issue and where others are at, and, yet, you likely counted me as an “unbeliever.”

In reality, I am not even clear what it is that I am supposed to believe as a function of #MeToo, which means “unbeliever” would be a largely meaningless appellation.

Have you yet said that you believe that any particular individual is probably guilty of at least some of the accusations against him?

Endless devil’s advocating and nitpicking in the face of large amounts of testimony makes a bad impression.

 

[Xantippe]

So you are assessing him on his appearance rather than the substance of his thinking?

Now try listening to one of his videos with your eyes closed.

There’s a reason he is a video rather than podcast star. He is very good looking (especially for a man his age), and being easy on the eyes is at least one ingredient of his current success.

Yeah, I was thinking about Justin Trudeau during our discussion on clothes. The word “ripe fruit” certainly fits a number of the outfits he wore in India.

One thing to bear in mind is that a lot of our ideas about appropriate dress for different genders are the product of a fairly limited time and place. We think it’s normal for men to dress drably and women to dress brightly, but it’s not hard to find cultures with different practices. Some examples:

–I hear that black is standard for formal events for women in much of the US NE.
–I was just doing a google image search for “Indian grooms” and oh my my! Try it and you’ll see what I mean–traditional Indian dress for bridegrooms is very colorful and/or ornate.
–See also the image search for “Chinese weddings.”
–If you look up Henry VIII and his wives, he and his wives wore more or less the same palette of dark, rich colors–and Henry VIII’s dress was arguably more flashy than his wives’.
–18th century redcoat uniforms for the British
–18th century dress for French male nobility
–the sort of long, vivid garments worn by male nobles in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth from the 16th-18th century

Żupan - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Kontusz - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

–liturgical vestments in the Eastern and Western churches

 

[Xantippe]

Here’s another example of the risks of never spending time together alone and not spending time together in each other’s homes.

My parents went to a very conservative Protestant college with strict separation of sexes and strict curfews, got married out of the dorms during college in the late 1960s (it was the sort of college where women getting the right to wear pants was a big deal), and moved into married student housing.

When I was growing up, my dad griped a lot about my mom’s cooking and housekeeping, which was not what he had grown up with (his mom being one of the great American 1950s homemakers). This may sound a little dumb of him (why didn’t he know that about her?), until you realize that because of the strict dorm gender restrictions, it was literally impossible for either of them to have had much of an idea of the other’s housekeeping standards or domestic abilities.

Because Catholic dating is about finding someone to marry and figuring out how to build a life together, I strongly encourage that couples that are headed toward marriage put some time in doing housekeeping stuff together, to discover any fatal areas of incompatibility and to reduce the number of newlywed fights. And yes, this is probably going to involve some time alone–and I think it ought to.

Yes, there’s some risk involved here, but it’s worth it to learn about what the other person is like. Can they cook? Can they clean? Can they see dirt? Are they insanely picky? Are they financially compatible? Do they forget about chastity when no third party is present? Is the guy rape-y?

Again, dating is about marriage, and the idea is to identify and fix as many problems as possible before marriage, because most problems are easier to fix before you get married. And worst case scenario, it may be necessary to pull the plug on the relationship if the incompatibilities are insurmountable. But as a Russian physics teacher I used to know liked to say about failures, “A negative result is also a result.” It’s valuable to find out that the person you are dating or engaged to is not somebody you can get married to.

 

[DarkLight]

It’s also been pointed out that if you’re holding to Catholic morality on contraception, a man who can’t restrain himself when alone is going to be a poor match for sexual restraint in marriage. There is always the possibility that one will find one’s self needing to abstain for some time as well (for example, a c-section or any sort of tearing during childbirth is going to mean no sex).

 

[Xantippe]

I’d like to comment on the term “personal responsibility” as used in this thread.

It is pretty ironic to use the term “personal responsibility” when blaming and shaming victims of rape, rather than blaming rapists for rape. From where I sit, that’s the opposite of personal responsibility, when the person who actually chose to do the thing gets no blame at all.