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

[HarryStotle]

For any given linguistic statement, there are going to be infinite other statements that are consistent with it. So unless you’re arguing that linguistic communication is inherently impossible and nothing we say has any significant meaning, you’re going to need a new argument there.

My cat’s name is Bill.

So, let’s hear your “infinite other statements” that make a significant contribution to a discussion about my cat. Or that tell me something about my cat that I do not know.

Feel free to contribute such broadly spaced but meaningless statements to a discussion [about Bill my cat ], but then don’t be surprised when others doubt that you have actually made a significant contribution to that discussion.

Look at your listing of “broad space of statements” and extract from any of them a significant piece of data, one that is actually true,…that adds anything meaningful to a discussion.

The point being that a statement which is meaningful to a discussion will not permit a “broad space of statements” that are themselves also meaningful to the discussion. When the initial statement is, itself, too broad to add anything meaningful, being “consistent with it” tells us nothing since there is no real integral consistency.

 

[DarkLight]

My cat’s name is Bill.

So, let’s hear your “infinite other statements” that make a significant contribution to a discussion about my cat. Or that tell me something about my cat that I do not know.

“My cat was named after the 42nd president of the United States.”

Let’s start there, shall we? Because that’s perfectly consistent with what you said.

 

[Xantippe]

You mean as in what a Pareto distribution model would predict?

Right–but the Pareto distribution increases the probability that any particular erring individual is not just guilty of a one-off, but that this is a sustained pattern of behavior.

Believing that there is a Pareto distribution should make us want to look carefully at the evidence and see if other people are going to step forward–publicity is very helpful for this. The Pareto distribution is a good reason not to dismiss accusations out of hand without examination.

Perhaps what was being argued is that Pareto would predict that if a woman dresses or makes herself up to look provocative she can expect to draw that attendant kind of attention because dressing that way is a stronger magnet for that kind of men. As in, how did you word it, “a danger sign?”

Would you like to provide some empirical evidence?

So treat men like idiots who don’t know and can’t judge good behaviour from bad and as morally tepid or cowardly because they also need “encouragement” from women to act decently?

As DarkLight mentioned, sometimes decent man have trouble seeing how certain things look to women. Being pushy about walking a woman to her car or apartment at night is threatening. DarkLight also mentioned my first date hike example, which a real life male CAFer mentioned a couple years back. His reasoning was that he didn’t believe in spending a lot on a first date. Many of us women would never have gone on that first date with him because we’ve heard too many true crime stories–but he was completely innocent as to how terrible his idea was.

I have another real life example. There’s a mom blogger named Jen Mann who met her future husband over the internet back in the 1990s. They met for the first time in NYC (his home town), while she was visiting and they went out to dinner. Then he invited her (and remember, it’s DARK and NYC and not her home turf) to Central Park to see a spot he was using for a student film. She had a huge freak out–but despite that start, they wound up married with two kids in the Midwest. It’s easy to imagine, though, a scenario in which she gets creeped out by the suggestion to go to Central Park in the dark and never sees him again. This, by the way, is another example of how safety is determined by “who,” not “what” or “where.” Her future husband was a safe guy, so she was safe with him, even though with a less safe guy, it could have been very dangerous.

We have a lot of lonely single guys on CAF, and a number of them persist in behaviors that can make women feel unsafe. It’s hard to say why any particular person is single, but acting like a Dateline villain is a pretty good way to scare away sensible women.

 

[Xantippe]

Why not just go with the Pareto model on all of those and assume the large majority of men don’t need “fixing?”

Well, it may be that most men are safe but are a) giving aid and comfort to predators or b) are accidentally giving off predatory signals that spook women.

I have to add that there are also cases in which large numbers of men act horribly as a group–which means that the Pareto distribution may only apply to individuals acting alone.

Or perhaps instead of moving about cowering with fear, what if some real men decided to form a band of “concerned citizens” to find the perpetrator and actually address the issue rather than surrender to that one individual the power to hold the entire community in fearful abeyance?

I believe what you’re describing is called “the police” and they don’t appreciate vigilante action.

I also wonder how your proposed band of citizen vigilantes is supposed to identify the rapist. If they band together and walk around at night in an intimidating group, they’re never going to find the rapist–when they see him as a group, he’ll be a solid citizen. It’s only when any of them are walking alone at night that he’s a rapist.

I can imagine that it might help to use an apparently solitary man as “bait” (with the group available to swoop in and help)–but that’s not really the manly, chivalrous solution that you’re looking for.

And just perhaps the reason women are so fearful is because of the feminization of men through years of maternalistic child care and the education system where boys are taught to be passive and inordinately restrained instead of being shown how to become men.

Do you think that 100 years ago, women fearlessly walked the streets alone at night?

Maybe women fear or lack confidence because they need the kind of protection, against the 10% of men, that women generally cannot provide for themselves – which accounts for the rise of the nanny state.

The men in PetraG’s example also couldn’t defend themselves.

Wanting a functioning police force and for crime to be controlled isn’t the same as wanting a nanny state.

As a gross generalization I’d say the genders do respond differently, with men more likely to respond with aggression and women with more subtle forms of resistance. Which approach is better probably varies with the circumstances.

While it’s true that violent resistance to Soviet power was primarily a male thing, it eventually died down. You had post-WWII anti-Soviet partisans in places like Estonia, Poland and the 1956 Hungarian Revolution–but ultimately almost everybody got ground down to “more subtle forms of resistance.” Poland’s Solidarity, for example, was not aggressive, but was effective.

Russians had a different relationship to Soviet power (it was in some sense their home team) than other Eastern Europeans, but they were definitely into “more subtle forms of resistance.”

 

[Xantippe]

–Women’s role obviously isn’t just “fixing” men–part of our job is to share information with each other, dispel myths about personal safety (like that it’s strangers who are the primary threat to women), help each other identify men with behavior similar to that of bad actors, help each other be safe, and to be good bystanders ourselves. For example, if we’re at a party and the football team starts to carry a drunk 16-year-old away for heaven knows what kind of depravity (which happened at Steubenville), our job is to say, “That’s not cool–STOP IT!” or call 911, not giggle and call her bad names.
–I have to say that when I participate in these discussions, I’m pretty sure that people who say certain kinds of things are not good or safe people, or at least are not good or safe people right now. For example, any guy who thinks it is more probable that 4 dozen women would lie about Bill Cosby than that Bill Cosby might be a rapist is a person who has sub-sharia-level respect for women’s testimony and for women in general. A guy who thinks like that just isn’t safe for women to be around.
–I also think that men who act like a cat being taken to the bathtub whenever consent is being talked about probably aren’t that safe for women to be around. These are not difficult concepts, and fighting vigorously against social expectations of decent behavior do not give me a lot of confidence about how people like that behave and have behaved in their private life. Again, the tea and consent video is not at all long or difficult–don’t do sexual things with people who don’t clearly want sexual things done to them! It’s not hard.

And yet, I have been disheartened by how many of the male posters on this thread think that these are unreasonable expectations.

 

[HarryStotle]

Wanting a functioning police force and for crime to be controlled isn’t the same as wanting a nanny state.

Actually it is the same, when the police force is permitted to become disfunctional in order to promote some bigger progressive agenda. There is evidence that the police department and school board involved colluded to get federal funding for their “successes” at reducing criminal behaviour. In actuality, the Sheriff’s department was increasingly not reporting or documenting criminal behaviour in order to sustain those grants to the school district.

Ideological commitments have a way of forming society in its image and likeness all the way down.

If top-down control over people is your schtick that will manifest itself in certain ways. If bottom up, grassroots, formation of responsible citizens is, policy will manifest itself differently.

#MeToo may appear to be a grassroots movement, but my suspicion is that it is a ploy to show how “big” a problem it is so that more government or political intervention will be called for. I may be wrong, but I don’t think it is about individual responsibility at all. This is why the problem is characterized as a “male” problem or a “societal” one and therefore, big societal and political remedies will be proffered.

Every issue progressives raise is of this type. The desire is to reshape society from the top down by political fiat. It positively reeks of collectivism (social control) and not subsidiarity (individual responsibility.)

In any case, discussion here will not make any difference because the controlling factors will continue to play themselves out because a large proportion of individuals have lost their sense of autonomy and moral responsibility. I’ll keep listening to and learning from those who haven’t.

I’ve said all I had to say regarding this thread topic, and I’ll be content to watch how #MeToo plays out. My prediction is that it will be a replay of Je Suis Charlie and with about the same anti-positive results.

 

[godisgood77]

No… it has not in my opinion because the tendency to abuse authority and sexual misconduct not yet been purged. It appears there is an ‘over correction’ brewing, but we are not there yet. And perhaps and over correction will be necessary to truly eradicate the country of this disgusting problem.

 

[Xantippe]

Underreporting crime is always going to be a built-in temptation for the police and local government–it’s not some sort of specific progressive thing.

If top-down control over people is your schtick that will manifest itself in certain ways. If bottom up, grassroots, formation of responsible citizens is, policy will manifest itself differently.

Even Mayberry didn’t work like that, and NYC policing definitely doesn’t. I wouldn’t even try to run a city of 100,000 like that.

I’m from a small blue collar town (population in the four digits), and while there definitely are social controls inherent in a small community, it’s not exactly what you have in mind. I’d say that the Golden Rule in my home town is more like “I don’t report you and you don’t report me.”

The desire is to reshape society from the top down by political fiat. It positively reeks of collectivism (social control) and not subsidiarity (individual responsibility.)

How would you have brought Weinstein down via grass-roots means? Bear in mind that he had hundreds of millions of dollars, armies of lawyers, the power to keep media stories out of print, and was operating in a company town. How effective can an individual be in that environment? Ronan Farrow had the goods on Weinstein, but his own employer (NBC) wouldn’t allow him to run the story on NBC–he had to go to the New Yorker, even though he had the testimony of 13 different women. He also had to use his own material resources to do the investigative reporting for the piece.

 

[Xantippe]

Here’s an example from a very secular dating advice thread of another guy doing the first date hike idea and then being surprised that the woman didn’t want to go alone into the woods with a total stranger:

Episode #68 - What Do Women Want in a Man? - Paging Dr. NerdLove

Vanessa Martinez writes,

"I was once sitting for lunch in college, reading a book with headphones in. A total stranger sat down and started talking at me (not TO me) while I stared at him wondering why he was interrupting the three things I was doing (reading, tuning out the world, and eating). I just kept staring until he told (not asked) me that he’d like to get to know me better (hilarious! He hadn’t let me get a word in edgewise). I gave him my email and a day later got a message asking me to go on a hike with him. I politely declined, and truthfully explained that I was relatively new to the area and did not feel comfortable going into the woods with a complete stranger as a first date/outing, and that perhaps we could do something more in-town? He responded, “That’s a shame, I guess I packed my ropes and chains for nothing.”

“Clearly this guy thought he was poking fun at my nervousness and thought perhaps he could break it down with some funny stuff. Uh, no. I do not know you at all, and you are not making yourself look good at all by failing to read me and beyond that, you’re making fun of my attempt to look out for myself. He got the block. I’m under zero obligation to give a total stranger the benefit of the doubt because I cannot read his [BLEEP]ing mind.”

This is story is yet another data point for the BE VERY CAREFUL!/Awwww, why don’t you trust me? double bind that women not infrequently encounter in dating. You’re supposed to be careful, but when you are careful, many men find it upsetting.

Edited to add: You’ll notice that what this woman did was an impeccably “grass-roots” approach. She told the guy exactly why she didn’t like his fun date idea. Also, there was an admirable level of “personal responsibility” in the fact that she made a good call about her personal safety. Nonetheless, it’s likely that the guy involved didn’t like her “grass-roots,” “personal responsibility” approach.

 

[PetraG]

…permitted to become disfunctional in order to promote some bigger progressive agenda…

Yes, when our toilets back up, we should blame the progressives. They are behind every single thing that is wrong with this world.

The world must have been great before some “thinker” came along thinking he could improve things.

People can be wrong-headed without being the source of every mistake and botched reality there is. I think our President is unusually incompetent, but the fact remains that most of the problems that need solutions aren’t his fault and aren’t his responsibility. He’s failing at some stuff, but he’s not the scapegoat for everything and when he says some things are broken and need fixing a lot of the time he’s at least correctly identified a problem.

Yet again, this thread has strayed away from the topic of outing people who habitually commit sub-criminal yet real sexual offenses, people who used to do so with impunity. If you were happy with the status quo, well, you probably weren’t the target of these offenders. I would add that some women (and men) were happy to “take care of” this kind of offender themselves. They are still free to do that.

In any case, discussion here will not make any difference because the controlling factors will continue to play themselves out because a large proportion of individuals have lost their sense of autonomy and moral responsibility. I’ll keep listening to and learning from those who haven’t.

So…if someone is the target of a sub-criminal sexual offense and they tell other people that it happened, how is that evidence that it is the target of the offense speaking out who has “lost their sense of autonomy and moral responsibility”?!?

It seems to me that they are exercising their “autonomy” by holding the offender to “moral responsibility.”

Instead, there are people who want to make the target of an offense out to be out on a witch hunt (or even a self-serving liar who must be twisting the actual facts to advantage) for being so impertinent as to speak up about what happened. In this system of thought, it is the offender only who has to be given the “benefit of the doubt.” The level of evidence needed to prove the target is not lying is essentially the level of evidence needed to prove sexual assualt beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal court!!

That is giving the offender carte blanche–leave no bruises and tear no clothes, and you’re beyond reproach!–and over the years the habitual offenders have not failed to notice that.

 

[ChunkMonk]

This is story is yet another data point for the BE VERY CAREFUL!/Awwww, why don’t you trust me? double bind that women not infrequently encounter in dating.

Yes, the light-hearted joke she recieved in response must have been traumatizing…

Nonetheless, it’s likely that the guy involved didn’t like her “grass-roots,” “personal responsibility” approach.

Key word here being ‘likely’ because even by the information given in this one-sided story, he didn’t insult her or lash out or any of the boogie-man responses.

“The guy didn’t like being rejected! What a pig!”

Edit: she seems pretty anti-social anyway.

 

[Xantippe]

Yes, the light-hearted joke she recieved in response must have been traumatizing…

Hey, you’re the guy that told me that I should have realized that my college boyfriend had evil intentions when he told me that his friend had told him that he should rape me to get me to start having sex with him.

But here we have a young woman who wisely turns down a first date hiking for safety reasons and then gets creeped out when the guy makes jokes about being a serial rapist/serial killer instead of offering alternate plans.

What do you want women to do? Are we supposed to treat creepy remarks seriously and literally (like your advice to me) or just assume that creepy remarks mean nothing (like your comments about this young woman where you are assuming that the guy is not dangerous).

I’m not seeing a unifying principle here, other than, whatever a woman does must be wrong, if anything bad happens to her or if a guy is inconvenienced or has his feelings hurt.

Edit: she seems pretty anti-social anyway.

Yeah, the book, headphones and solitary lunch might indicate that, although she did give out her email, and she was willing to go out with him to a public place.

He really botched that last interaction, by the way–she was willing to go out with him somewhere in town, but he just had to make the serial killer joke instead of making an alternate invitation and making her feel safer with him.

 

[ChunkMonk]

But here we have a young woman who wisely turns down a first date hiking for safety reasons and then gets creeped out when the guy makes jokes about being a serial rapist/serial killer instead of offering alternate plans.

And then what happened? She blocked him and whined about it online. I’m not seeing how she was harmed by this whole thing.

What do you want women to do?

Hahaha, that would take more time than I’m willing to spend. But I get your point. What I want women to do is get over themselves. Okay you are creeped out by the guy and next him… Great! Where is the controversy here?

He really botched that last interaction, by the way–she was willing to go out with him somewhere in town, but he just had to make the serial killer joke instead of making an alternate invitation and making her feel safer with him.

Oh yeah he definitely botched it, but I can’t fault him too much. He had the cajones to cold-approach a girl and ask her out. (More than most girls will ever do) He needs to work on his Game a bit, but gotta love that confidence.

Still wondering how this qualifies as a tragedy for the girl though… Guy asked her out, she declined, he made a light-hearted joke, she freaked out.

 

[Xantippe]

he made a light-hearted joke, she freaked out.

Oh my gosh–you still don’t get that talking about raping and murdering somebody isn’t a “light-hearted joke.”

 

[ChunkMonk]

Oh my gosh–you still don’t get that talking about raping and murdering somebody isn’t a “light-hearted joke.”

He didn’t “talk about raping and murdering someone” lol. He made a dumb joke. More likely an S&M joke than anything. I agree it was a dumb joke, and she shot him down for it. So what’s the issue here? Guy makes dumb joke, girl shoots him down. Where is the huge cost to her for shooting him down?

 

[Mi_Rose]

Ropes and chains is a lighthearted joke. I am so grateful I am old.

 

[Xantippe]

More likely an S&M joke than anything.

She told him that she wouldn’t feel safe hiking with a stranger for a first date–and the next thing he says is to talk about ropes and chains?

Obviously, you have very different mental associations than we do, but the first thing I think of when I hear that story is serial killers and their weird murder kits–and that’s what the young woman was thinking, too.

Murder Kits | Psychology Today Canada

You’re focusing on the fact that no harm was done to the young woman, but look at what he is doing to himself–he’s going to a lot of effort and wasting it all through sheer creepiness (hopefully accidental).

For any nice young men still in the audience:

1. Don’t propose first dates that aren’t in public!
2. Don’t joke about harming your date!

 

[ChunkMonk]

You’re focusing on the fact that no harm was done to the young woman, but look at what he is doing to himself–he’s going to a lot of effort and wasting it all through sheer creepiness (hopefully accidental).

Yeah that sucks for him but your original point was that women are put between a rock and a hard place but I’m not seeing the hard place here.

 

[Xantippe]

Yeah that sucks for him but your original point was that women are put between a rock and a hard place but I’m not seeing the hard place here.

Weren’t you criticizing me for not being reactive enough, and that young woman for being too reactive?

 

[ChunkMonk]

Weren’t you criticizing me for not being reactive enough, and that young woman for being too reactive?

Who criticized her for being reactive? I might ‘criticize’ her for feeling the need to regale us with the harrowing tale of getting a tasteless email, but I don’t think anyone criticized her for shooting the guy down. She can reject any guy she wants for whatever reason she wants.