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

[Xantippe]

It’s an analogy not perfect. If you are heading out to a bar now, you know not all men behave according to our laws and standard customs, so take appropriate precautions. You can still go camping in the woods (to a singles bar), just take reasonable and proven precautions. Don’t go alone, don’t drink too much, and carry some bear mace. That’s just the way it is until we know all the grizzlies are dead. Don’t ignore present reality.

Another problem–a number of us have discovered that our boyfriends were actually grizzlies.

Worse, there was a grizzly bear on my mom’s side of the family that molested his two daughters and at least three granddaughters. I have no idea what the total numbers might be, and as I mentioned, he once showed up to watch me in the bath tub for no good reason when I was 5 (which I’ve heard was one of his behaviors with other girls in the family that he molested). Had we lived closer and spent more time with that side of the family, I would undoubtedly have been molested too, as would my sister.

So, Grizzlies are not just out there in the woods/bars. They spend time in other places, too.

 

[Theo520]

So, Grizzlies are not just out there in the woods/bars. They spend time in other places, too.

Yes, bears do come into town where we get complacent.

The good news is we’ve become much more aware that the grizzlies are hiding among us, some even on regular TV like the Today Show.

Awareness is a good first step in thinning the bear population

 

[PetraG]

However, if you want to simply pretend that grizzlies don’t exist in the wild, that’s your prerogative. I’d prefer to train my kids how to avoid bear attacks.

No one here is telling women to go ahead and get drunk, go someplace cozy with some stranger, and if he rapes you then you can accuse him of it later and everything is OK, don’t let your rape bother you because it is his fault and not yours.

That is such nonsense, I do not know where to start.

What is this nonsense about grizzly bears? We are talking about fellow citizens who can learn what the social, professional and legal boundaries are and act accordingly. That is men and women.

“No” means “no.” No debate, no guff.

It would do the world good if both men and women operate socially as if “no” meant “no.”

 

[TheAmazingGrace]

Replace grizzlies with sociopaths and I think you’ve described the situation pretty well.

Not all rapists are sociopaths.

 

[PetraG]

Not all rapists are sociopaths.

Very true. A lot of the most charming and accomplished liars are, though.

 

[TheAmazingGrace]

You’d have to kill the root of the vice long before it ever turns into rape for it to be effective.

Gee, I wonder how we’d go about that.

How about…educating people?

 

[Xantippe]

I’m saying women have to give up control if they want men to protect them

–Do men have to give up the same kind of control if they want the police to protect them?
–Again, did women used to walk around fearlessly alone at all hours of day or night?
–Isn’t this a lot like Wimpy’s offer to gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today? What is the recourse for women if it turns out that men aren’t holding up their side of the bargain?
–Also, the molestation I mention happened in a very traditional family situation, with the perpetrator being the patriarch of that side of my family (it was a farming family, with him controlling the land and equipment that some of his adult children used). Under your system, he’d be the one charged with protecting everybody–but he molested girls in the family for decades.

I don’t have a lot of confidence that you’d be able to deliver significantly better safety than American girls and women currently enjoy–in fact, I’m pretty sure that it would be much more dangerous, because of the lack of safeguards and outside recourse.

And you will achieve this by mass importing of Muslims and Mexicans and going out into the deep woods with strange men.

–Are feminists really the ones mass importing low-wage labor to the US? Isn’t there a lot of corporate enthusiasm for cheap labor?
–Has anybody on the thread recommended “going out into the deep woods with strange men”?
–Come to think of it, what is the definition of “strange” here? Doesn’t it mean, “guy who suddenly turns nasty,” regardless of the length of acquaintance? It doesn’t seem to have a lot of connection to the actual duration of acquaintance between the man and woman involved.

Edited to add: If very few men are rapists, and prisons are full of the falsely accused, why are men afraid that they will be raped in prison?

 

[Xantippe]

Gee, I wonder how we’d go about that.

How about…educating people?

Right. And this can start really early, with even small children, teaching them that we respect their bodies and their personal space and that we expect them to respect other people’s bodies and personal space.

It’s all actually pretty intuitive, and you can use the rules about consent for much less intimate gestures than intercourse. Of course, with little kids, some unwanted physical touch (like shots) is necessary, but they can be taught that they don’t have to hug or kiss anybody they don’t want to, and they don’t get to hug or kiss anybody who doesn’t want them to.

 

[Xantippe]

ChunkMonk,

You’ve got a lot of ideas about what women are not supposed to do.

I don’t suppose you could give a brief account of how nice Catholic women are supposed to go about dating with an eye toward marriage?

And do you know anybody who has ever successfully done it your way and is happily married now?

I’m having a lot of trouble seeing how dating is supposed to work under your system, because you don’t seem to have a mechanism for a guy moving from being a “strange man” to being a fiance or husband.

 

[Theo520]

No one here is telling women to go ahead and get drunk, go someplace cozy with some stranger, and if he rapes you then you can accuse him of it later and everything is OK, don’t let your rape bother you because it is his fault and not yours.

That is such nonsense, I do not know where to start.

What is this nonsense about grizzly bears? We are talking about fellow citizens who can learn what the social, professional and legal boundaries are and act accordingly. That is men and women.

“No” means “no.” No debate, no guff.

It would do the world good if both men and women operate socially as if “no” meant “no.”

my earlier comment was directed at the below quote, which I’ve not seen thrown out by any of the boys.

If a woman gets raped by a guy who was at the same bar, you can’t just toss out the “boys be raping, what can you do?” excuse and then get mad when people provide guidelines on how to not a be rapist.

The grizzly bear is just an analogy for a known threat, that can be avoided. It’s not a justification for the grizzly

 

[TheAmazingGrace]

The grizzly bear is just an analogy for a known threat, that can be avoided. It’s not a justification for the grizzly

You’re not talking about known threats, but men in general.

 

[Theo520]

You’re not talking about known threats, but men in general.

Forget it, the analogy worked for some but not you.

 

[TheAmazingGrace]

Forget it, the analogy worked for some but not you.

Who? People who already agree with you?

 

[Theo520]

Who? People who already agree with you?

Go back and read my post introducing the analogy, and comment from there. Otherwise you are just being argumentative.

 

[Xantippe]

Forget it, the analogy worked for some but not you.

I think it is a problematic analogy because it suggests that rapists are immediately recognizable, rather than being very much like normal people most of the time. Also, unlike grizzlies, rapists are part of our normal life. The analogy suggests that avoiding rapists is a lot simpler and easier than it actually is, whereas completely avoiding rapists in normal life would involve enormous personal sacrifices and might not even work (see, for example, the article I posted on abuse of nursing home residents).

Going back to the article that Werbenjagermanjensen posted, I have two contradictory things to say:

–There are false accusations and wrongful convictions (see for example the Central Park Jogger case)

but at the same time

–There are also cases of true accusations that are ignored, massive cover ups of molestation and rape, and tiny sentences given out to evildoers.

It’s a very local phenomenon. One college may be overzealous, while another college is just as busily covering up heinous activities by athletes and others.

See, for example, Jerry Sandusky:

https://www.cnn.com/2013/10/28/us/penn-state-scandal-fast-facts/index.html

He seems to have started abusing boys in 1994. The first complaint against him was made in 1998–he was inappropriately showering with a boy. In 2000, a janitor saw him abusing a boy in the showers. In 2002, somebody else saw him abusing a boy in the showers. In 2008, another complaint was made.

It took 10 years of repeated episodes of him being found molesting boys by different people before the wheels of justice finally started turning.

Again, this is not just a man versus woman thing–it does not do boys and men any favors when sexual predators are allowed free rein.

 

[JimG]

It took 10 years of repeated episodes of him being found molesting boys by different people before the wheels of justice finally started turning.

Yes, it should have been reported much sooner. It should have been reported immediately. And it seems to the same applies to the predatory behavior reported by the ‘me too’ movement. It should have been reported immediately rather than ten or twenty years later.

 

[PetraG]

The grizzly bear is just an analogy for a known threat, that can be avoided. It’s not a justification for the grizzly

The problem with the grizzly bear analogy is that grizzly bears are some other species. They are not human. They may be dangerous, they may be incompatible with our territorial requirements, but they are also innocent creatures. Someone who is taught what is wrong when it comes how to treat another human being and yet comes up with excuses for it and ways to get away with doing it while foisting the blame off on the other human being is not innocent. That person is not just a predator, but a culpable predator. They ought to face natural consequences in the human realm for what they do, and not just when their offenses reach a criminal level. They may not deserve to go to prison, but they have seriously and repeatedly violated the social contract, all the same. The consequences ought to include losing the position of trust given to those who deserve those places, and that includes professional positions of power.

Someone who really thinks that the single most important thing in the scenario in which someone in a sexual situation wants to say “no” and does not feel free to do it is that heaven forbid, let’s make sure the partner can’t be blamed! has their priorities entirely out of whack. I don’t know how this “discussion” keeps skirting that obvious fact: that is, that if sex outside of marriage is going to take place at all, at least everyone ought to make it the highest of priorities that it never happens under any kind of duress or circumvention of free consent. Not any, not ever, and no one ought to have any objection to that. It ought to be a given!!

 

[DarkLight]

–There are false accusations and wrongful convictions (see for example the Central Park Jogger case)

It’s also worth pointing out cases like this wrongful conviction don’t necessarily stem from women lying. In the Central Park Jogger case, a rape was committed in a situation where the woman wasn’t clearly able to identify the attacker. The case was horribly mishandled by the police and prosecution, resulting in the convictions of men who were not guilty.

 

[PetraG]

Again, this is not just a man versus woman thing–it does not do boys and men any favors when sexual predators are allowed free rein.

Or Charlie Rose…women were told–and by other women!!–“oh, that’s just Charlie being Charlie.” Or Franken: “he’s a comedian, it is just him having fun.” No, it was Charlie Rose and Al Franken committing sexual offenses that no one else could get away with because they had reached a position of importance and they kept their offenses down below what would get the police involved. I hope no one who agrees they do not belong in jail also agrees that they do not deserve to have people cover for them. Their behavior was atrocious and intolerable.

 

[PetraG]

Gee, I wonder how we’d go about that.

How about…educating people?

How about actually letting people face the natural social and professional consequences that follow when behaviors they’d like to keep hushed up are actually disclosed in public?