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

[Theo520]

The analogy was more about how you go camping in known bear country, not whether you would see the bear from a mile away. You can camp with high safety or do things that encourage their attention to your campsite. However, there is always risk since bears may even come into town. Why shouldn’t we instruct and expect people to take reasonable precautions?

To your Sandusky comments, I think we are slowly becoming more aware that many predators are chameleons, hiding among us, some highly trusted, Losing some of our innocence or blind trust is healthy in this aspect, though we should lose all trust in our fellow man. The vast majority of men are not this sort of predator.

 

[Xantippe]

The analogy was more about how you go camping in known bear country, not whether you would see the bear from a mile away. You can camp with high safety or do things that encourage their attention to your campsite. However, there is always risk since bears may even come into town. Why shouldn’t we instruct and expect people to take reasonable precautions?

Would you like to give a list of your reasonable precautions? Is it limited to just “don’t get drunk alone around strangers”? Although that’s good advice, I have to point out that it can give a lot of false security, as I’ve read a lot of stories where friend groups turned out to have a bad apple member (see “Jack” or Captain Awkward’s “My friend group has a case of the creepy dude”) and I personally was sexually assaulted with myself and the guy being stone cold sober. In fact, I would say that overemphasis on certain obvious rules is dangerous in that it can make rule-followers feel overconfident (I’d say that I personally was overconfident about the value of not drinking). In practice, the list of “reasonable precautions” is practically unlimited and is likely to expand on a post hoc or ad hoc basis (see “Don’t drive to National Park with boyfriend!”).

Some more points:

–I personally wouldn’t camp in grizzly country at all, but the problem is that women live in grizzly country and can’t leave (see the nursing home abuse example).
–At what point are women supposed to start trusting that the guy they are seeing is not a grizzly? Can she ever trust him? And if not, why should she marry and have children with a guy she can’t trust?
–In practice, constant fear can make you stupid and careless–you can’t be at peak vigilance all the time and still be effective.

 

[DarkLight]

I think this is actually something that gets lost in the #metoo talk.

I tend to think the real education isn’t aimed at rapists, it’s aimed at other men. Not to teach them not to rape, but to teach them how predatory men act, the kind of excuses they give, that sort of thing. Predators often try to systematically discredit their victims. One of the ways they do this is by making themselves out to be ordinary men doing ordinary things. We have a natural tendency to want to interpret what others say and do in the light of how we think and act. Predators exploit this in their stories to make themselves sound understandable to men who would never dream of committing rape. (Very many women report that their abusers were extremely good at presenting a nice face in public and painting her as a crazy woman out to ruin him. Or as a poor, disturbed woman who needed his help.)

The idea is that good men (and women!) shouldn’t accept predatory behavior as “just how that guy is.” When someone keeps having “misunderstandings” with women, for example, that’s a good sign he’s doing something sketchy. The idea is that bad men shouldn’t keep getting opportunities to abuse because good people brush their behavior off. There’s some good evidence in several of the high profile cases that these men were known for taking advantage of young women, but that it was tolerated. Hopefully, this would put an end to serial behavior much more quickly. And of course, frightening bad people is not a bad thing - it would be better for them not to want to, of course.

I think there is also a desire to discourage entitled attitudes towards women overall, with the idea of keeping men from ever getting to the point where they are ok with raping a woman. Not by starting with “don’t rape,” but by things like “you’re not owed a date just for being nice” or “it’s nice to pay when you ask someone out, but that doesn’t mean you can expect sex.”

 

[Xantippe]

To your Sandusky comments, I think we are slowly becoming more aware that many predators are chameleons, hiding among us, some highly trusted, Losing some of our innocence or blind trust is healthy in this aspect, though we should lose all trust in our fellow man. The vast majority of men are not this sort of predator.

Right.

I’d also point out that it wasn’t just being a chameleon–people were repeatedly catching him molesting boys in the showers and not reporting him to the authorities and a lot of people were involved in covering up for him. In fact, complicity and cover ups are unfortunately more the rule than the exception (see also Larry Nasser and the US gymnastics system).

 

[Xantippe]

I tend to think the real education isn’t aimed at rapists, it’s aimed at other men. Not to teach them not to rape, but to teach them how predatory men act, the kind of excuses they give, that sort of thing.

Right. I think there’s already been a lot of benefit to the public from raised awareness about how pedophiles operate.

When someone keeps having “misunderstandings” with women, for example, that’s a good sign he’s doing something sketchy.

Yeah.

I think there is also a desire to discourage entitled attitudes towards women overall, with the idea of keeping men from ever getting to the point where they are ok with raping a woman. Not by starting with “don’t rape,” but by things like “you’re not owed a date just for being nice” or “it’s nice to pay when you ask someone out, but that doesn’t mean you can expect sex.”

Yes. I think that mastering respect, good boundaries and basic principles of consent creates (as our Jewish brethren would say) a “fence around the law.” If a guy wouldn’t kiss an unwilling woman, he’s not going to have sex with an unwilling woman.

 

[Xantippe]

Speaking of personal safety, I’m a big fan of this check list from the Gift of Fear of red flags indicating potential violence (I’ve added some notes in brackets):

–“Forced Teaming. This is when a person implies that they have something in common with their chosen victim, acting as if they have a shared predicament when that isn’t really true. Speaking in “we” terms is a mark of this, i.e. “We don’t need to talk outside… Let’s go in.””
–“Charm and Niceness. This is being polite and friendly to a chosen victim in order to manipulate him or her by disarming their mistrust.”
–“Too many details. If a person is lying they will add excessive details to make themselves sound more credible to their chosen victim.”
–“Typecasting. An insult is used to get a chosen victim who would otherwise ignore one to engage in conversation to counteract the insult. For example: “Oh, I bet you’re too stuck-up to talk to a guy like me.” The tendency is for the chosen victim to want to prove the insult untrue.” [This is a relative of PUA’s beloved negging.]
–“Loan Sharking. Giving unsolicited help to the chosen victim and anticipating they’ll feel obliged to extend some reciprocal openness in return.” [So, don’t be surprised or insulted if women seem ungrateful about offers of help from strange men.]
–“The Unsolicited Promise. A promise to do (or not do) something when no such promise is asked for; this usually means that such a promise will be broken. For example: an unsolicited, “I promise I’ll leave you alone after this,” usually means the chosen victim will not be left alone. Similarly, an unsolicited “I promise I won’t hurt you” usually means the person intends to hurt their chosen victim.” [This is very important–the fact that the person said “I won’t do XYZ” out of the blue means that the person is thinking about doing XYZ.]
–“Discounting the Word “No”. Refusing to accept rejection.”

The Gift of Fear - Wikipedia

Some of the behaviors listed are a bit generic, but my rape-y college boyfriend definitely did the last two: the unsolicited promise not to harm, and failure to respect no. And this was substantially before he did anything terrible.

Note the lack of long lists of unsafe situations–the focus is on the common behaviors of unsafe people.

 

[DarkLight]

It’s worth noting a lot of these behaviors are used towards third parties as well, with the purpose of making the violent person look like a nice guy who’s being victimized by a bunch of crazy accusations. Forced teaming is a big one here too - an actual predator is going to be highly motivated, when talking to other men, to make himself out as a normal guy who really loves the ladies and is just randomly being accused by some evil women (with the implication that if you’re a heterosexual man, you should be on his side).

 

[Lea101]

This is actually quite true. I noticed some people who would be quick to assume the woman’s lying not because of any shady details in her statement, but because they would identify with the guy more and they probably see themselves as a future victim of a false claim.

But I would have to admit I notice this even if there’s 0 interaction. People would even support someone they identify with unless there’s absolutely no way to put a positive spin on it. You can even give a misogynistic guy a hypothetical scenario and he’ll try his best to make the woman the bad guy. And before I trigger anyone…obviously the same goes for a misandrist.

 

[Theo520]

Would you like to give a list of your reasonable precautions? Is it limited to just “don’t get drunk alone around strangers”? Although that’s good advice, I have to point out that it can give a lot of false security, as I’ve read a lot of stories where friend groups turned out to have a bad apple member (see “Jack” or Captain Awkward’s “My friend group has a case of the creepy dude”) and I personally was sexually assaulted with myself and the guy being stone cold sober. In fact, I would say that overemphasis on certain obvious rules is dangerous in that it can make rule-followers feel overconfident (I’d say that I personally was overconfident about the value of not drinking). In practice, the list of “reasonable precautions” is practically unlimited and is likely to expand on a post hoc or ad hoc basis (see “Don’t drive to National Park with boyfriend!”).

Some more points:

–I personally wouldn’t camp in grizzly country at all, but the problem is that women live in grizzly country and can’t leave (see the nursing home abuse example).

–At what point are women supposed to start trusting that the guy they are seeing is not a grizzly? Can she ever trust him? And if not, why should she marry and have children with a guy she can’t trust?

–In practice, constant fear can make you stupid and careless–you can’t be at peak vigilance all the time and still be effective.

No analogy fits all aspects of a complex situation. The analogy was about taking precautions before heading out on the town, perhaps to a singles bar. I think I suggested, go with friends, don’t get hammered, and have some bear spray in your purse/pocket. In some situation, dressing modestly helps reduce attention from bears, but not always as we’ve discussed. Obviously the list of good precautions could be much longer.

The analogy is better in avoiding harm from strangers than your boyfriend. It’s true some men are puppy dogs 99% of time and a lethal pit bull on occasion. Such relationships are far too complex and varied for general response. I don’t know how to spot the puppy with a viscous streak, and it also depends on the couple.

The nursing home example is obviously concerning but very different since the resident has little control over who works there and whether the management hires with care, etc etc.

 

[PetraG]

oops…don’t know how the original post was posted to you…

 

[PetraG]

The idea is that good men (and women!) shouldn’t accept predatory behavior as “just how that guy is.” When someone keeps having “misunderstandings” with women, for example, that’s a good sign he’s doing something sketchy. The idea is that bad men shouldn’t keep getting opportunities to abuse because good people brush their behavior off.

Yes. That is precisely the kind of behaviors that Harvey Weinstein got away with for years, that Charlie Rose got away with for years, that Matt Lauer got away with for years.

It is amazing to me that there is this concern that someone’s entire life is going to be ruined by one misunderstanding when the entire idea of “MeToo” is that someone says, “So-and-so did such and so to me” and it becomes clear it was not a one-time misunderstanding because of the size of the chorus of “What? You? Me, too!!” When it is a one-time misunderstanding that someone really finds regrettable, he finds a way to avoid having it happen again.

What is important in avoiding the reasonable concern over a witchhunt is to take the trouble to look into each allegation. Just because a guy has 20 credible allegations against him does not automatically make #21 a credible accusation. Those who lie and manipulate also look for vulnerable targets, after all.

That does not mean that we ought to turn back the clock and treat this kind of complaint as it used to be treated, which is this: “Well, you decided to allow yourself to be alone with him. Your bad.” Why protect one party by telling his accuser that whatever happens to her is her problem while not protecting her by reminding him that if he is not careful to be very respectful of her right to say “no” to any kind of intimacy whatsoever that he will have crossed a very serious line that does have a patrol of societal opinion concerning his reputation on it?

 

[PetraG]

The analogy was more about how you go camping in known bear country, not whether you would see the bear from a mile away. You can camp with high safety or do things that encourage their attention to your campsite. However, there is always risk since bears may even come into town. Why shouldn’t we instruct and expect people to take reasonable precautions?

To your Sandusky comments, I think we are slowly becoming more aware that many predators are chameleons, hiding among us, some highly trusted, Losing some of our innocence or blind trust is healthy in this aspect, though we should lose all trust in our fellow man. The vast majority of men are not this sort of predator.

Why do you keep talking about instructing people to take reasonable precautions? No one here has ever said once that it is a good idea for anyone to drink too much and the pursue sex or to have sex with relative strangers under any circumstances…although the “don’t draw attention to your campsite” comment has me wondering why we aren’t asking good men to be careful that they act in ways so that a trigger-happy camper won’t mistake them for a bear!! Don’t bear hunters take reasonable precautions so they are not accidentally shot by that fearful hiker they told to be careful who then later mistakes them for a bear?

The vast majority of adults are not pedophiles, but we have learned that the rest of us can act in ways that make it far more difficult for sexual predators to find opportunities to groom victims or offend.
That is always our main priority, right? To protect people from every sort of sexual predator? Any objections to making it harder to cruise bars for meaningless one-night stands because this is a societal priority? I didn’t think so.

You may say, “oh, don’t infantilze women,” but we have banking laws that require disclosures, we have licensing laws that forbids people from presenting themselves as professionals when they are not, and so on. We make all sorts of rules to make it difficult for con artists, thieves and predators. People complain about all the “regulation” until they run into someone posing as something they are not and taking them for all they have. Then they get why these rules exist. The rules exist so that the people who do this sort of thing face consequences for their misdeeds. Just saying, “watch out, there are bad people out there,” doesn’t cut it.

 

[Theo520]

my analogy was in response to another post. You now seem intent on arguing and are taking what I’ve said out of the context. Let’s just move on.

 

[PetraG]

my analogy was in response to another post. You now seem intent on arguing and are taking what I’ve said out of the context. Let’s just move on.

The thread is about whether the chorus of women saying, “me, too!” are on a witch hunt. The response here seems to be, “You say there are real witches out there? Well, no kidding. Wear your garlic necklace and shut up. We all know they’re out there, they’re always going to be out there, so get used to it.”

If I am reading you wrong, then please do tell us all how women are supposed to let each other know that some particular guy went far beyond being a jerk and into the realm of sexual predator trying to fly just under the radar of the law. The answer seems to be, “Guys like that are out there. Be careful.”

The “MeToo” movement is women saying, “No, we think we’re going to let ‘guys like that’ know that we’re not letting them fly under the radar any more. We’re going to be the radar, and we’re going to out them.”

There is the reasonable objection that many of these are old allegations. Well, the offenses happened at a time when a lot of covering up was going on, which the people doing the covering up are admitting. Like the pedophile scandals the Church went through, however, the expectations will necessarily be different in the time when a reporting system and some vigilance concerning the problem is in place. The question “why didn’t you say anything at the time?” will become a far more realistic question when an offense happens in an atmosphere when “saying something” was obviously an option from Day 1.

 

[Xantippe]

Why do you keep talking about instructing people to take reasonable precautions? No one here has ever said once that it is a good idea for anyone to drink too much and the pursue sex or to have sex with relative strangers under any circumstances…although the “don’t draw attention to your campsite” comment has me wondering why we aren’t asking good men to be careful that they act in ways so that a trigger-happy camper won’t mistake them for a bear!! Don’t bear hunters take reasonable precautions so they are not accidentally shot by that fearful hiker they told to be careful who then later mistakes them for a bear?

Yeah, I wanted to talk about that. A lot of the stuff that women are saying on this thread amounts to, “TAKE OFF THE GRIZZLY SUIT IF YOU’RE NOT ACTUALLY A GRIZZLY!” I’m afraid at least some of the resistance to that advice comes from guys who are grizzlies, and if their human friends stopped dressing like grizzlies, the real grizzlies would suddenly stick out a lot more.

A couple more thoughts on ChunkMonk’s stuff about “protection.”

–I actually have some experience of this living outside my family. After college, I served in the Peace Corps in Russia during the 1990s, an era when Russia was incredibly violent, with a murder rate several times higher than the US (it’s still nearly twice as high). Although I didn’t learn this until much later, on my arrival, my guardian angel Vladimir (a 300 pound ex-semi pro soccer goalie with fists nearly as big as small cantaloupes) went the rounds of all the village ne’er-do-wells explaining that he was personally interested in my safety and not to bother me. (His teenage daughter was a talented English student and he and his family had arranged specially for me to work at his daughter’s school.) I also did a fair amount of travel outside my village (which was outside his sphere of influence), but in any case, I lived two years in one of the more dangerous parts of the civilized planet and nobody touched a hair of my head. (He died a few years ago, much too young.)
–Note that there was no ChunkMonk-style quid pro quo here–I did not have to give up a scrap of my freedom, legal rights or dignity for Vladimir to be looking out for me. All I had to do was do my job.
–Another thing about “protection.” I have to say that I don’t really believe anybody who says something like, “I would be a decent human being, if only you did blah blah blah.” Decent people are decent no matter what–that’s the definition of decent. As Vladimir would say, “Bog ne fraier” (God is not a sucker)–meaning that God sees everything, so don’t mess people over and think you’re going to get away with it.

 

[PetraG]

And before I trigger anyone…obviously the same goes for a misandrist.

Oh, heavens yes. There are people whose complaints register right there with the boy who cried wolf because they’re complaining against someone in a group against whom they have a persistent, obvious and unjust prejudice.

There is always the danger of destroying credibility by making mountains out of molehills. The problem is that this is not just a “boy who cried wolf” situation. It is also a situation akin to “the emperor’s new clothes.” Someone is finally saying that the fine garments of some of those in power are really a con job.

The other emperors should really look into the situation, so they can realize the ones wearing real clothing are not in any danger. This isn’t about style. It is about substance.

 

[DarkLight]

When it is a one-time misunderstanding that someone really finds regrettable, he finds a way to avoid having it happen again.

I think this is also an issue. A man who is concerned for his partners, if there is a misunderstanding, he avoids that situation again. Unfortunately, among certain men, there’s an idea that anything that’s not actually rape is ok, so long as the guy gets laid. It’s often combined with an idea that men always want sex and women don’t, so it’s a guy’s job to get past the woman not wanting to have sex. And unfortunate misunderstandings are just a natural consequence of being a real alpha male who can always get a woman.

Surely as Catholics we can at least agree that a man is expected to control his libido, and that even marriage does not give him a free pass whenever.

 

[Lea101]

I have to say that I don’t really believe anybody who says something like, “I would be a decent human being, if only you did blah blah blah.” Decent people are decent no matter what–that’s the definition of decent.

I want to be really annoying and add this: to all those people that are soo into masculinity, Christianity has made it prettyyy obvious that men (and tbh, women, but it seems to emphasize on men) should always unconditionally love and protect people like Christ did. I mean he literally told his Father to forgive the people that played a role in executing him, you know, the people who didn’t relinquish any control where Jesus is concerned.

 

[PetraG]

I want to be really annoying and add this: to all those people that are soo into masculinity, Christianity has made it prettyyy obvious that men (and tbh, women, but it seems to emphasize on men) should always unconditionally love and protect people like Christ did. I mean he literally told his Father to forgive the people that played a role in executing him, you know, the people who didn’t relinquish any control where Jesus is concerned.

Our Lord did not have any patience with people vying for places of importance rather than looking for ways to serve.

Since He is the Alpha and the Omega, that tells us all what an “alpha” really acts like.

As for defending the means to see women in an impure way, he had some things to say: “Woe to the world because of things that cause sin! Such things must come, but woe to the one through whom they come! If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter into life maimed or crippled than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into fiery Gehenna.” Matt. 18:7-9

There is nothing worse than to be someone who seduces someone who would not have sinned into sinning.

It is better to gouge your own eye out than to fight to preserve a right so that it may be used to sin. It would be preferable to not have the right at all than to keep it for committing vice.

 

[Lea101]

Our Lord did not have any patience with people vying for places of importance rather than looking for ways to serve.

Yeah. I think that’s why I feel very uncomfortable when men constantly talk about male headship and how they must have it. Jesus made it really clear that authority to him looked more like service. Not that husbands should be slaves to their wives, duh, but you get what I mean. There’s something really about people using Christian views for things of this world?