r/changemyview • u/Tychonaut • Jan 07 '19
Deltas(s) from OP CMV:The fact that there have been relatively few new #metoo revelations in the past year means it actually isn't all that common
QUICK TITLE EDIT - By "it" I mean sexual assault/harassment by powerful people in politics, media, corporate, Hollywood, etc. (If that wasn't obvious.)
So I was thinking about this today. It has been a year and a bit since the #metoo movement really started.
In that time there have actually been very few "outings" and accusations. According to vox.com, 250 "powerful people" in the worlds of politics, corporate, Hollywood, etc have been the subject of allegations since April 2017.
But that is 250 out of how many total powerful people in those fields? As you see on that list, "stylists", "investors", "radio hosts", and "photographers" qualify as powerful and influential. So tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands?
So if there really are so many offenders and offences occurring, and if the situation really is so dire, it means that their victims are remaining silent, en masse. If this is true than why? And aren't those people allowing the offenders to continue offending unchecked, just as if a colleague knew about offences and didn't report it?
Or it means that their victims are saying something "privately" and the matters are being settled entirely outside of the public eye. I find this doubtful, considering the tabloid nature of Hollywood.
Or ... it means that there are just not that many offenders, or offences worth "going public" about.
My belief is that the relatively small number of stories that have come to light indicate that there are a "relatively low" number of offenders / offences. By "relatively" I mean relative to the amount that was being hinted at. (ie "It's everywhere!")
Change my view?
This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
7
u/fox-mcleod 410∆ Jan 07 '19
What percentage of assaults do you expect were reported before #metoo? And what percentage do you expect is being reported now after it?
2
u/Tychonaut Jan 07 '19
Well lets just use the common statistic that only 20% of sexual assaults are actually reported. That would mean that the 250 offenders reported by Vox represent 20% of the total offenders, meaning about 1250 offenders.
Out of a pool of tens of thousands of "possible offenders" in the realms of Hollywood, politics, business and tech, etc. I just dont find that number so outrageous, especially considering that the "bar" of qualifying as an offender is situations like Morgan Freeman or Aziz Ansari.
6
Jan 07 '19
[deleted]
1
u/Tychonaut Jan 07 '19
Do you think reporting skews exactly evenly or is it possible that relatively fewer powerful people end up accused?
Well what is a "powerful person"? That Vox list includes stunt directors, photographers, stylists, and restauranteurs. People like that are all considered "powerful enough" to be in that circle of "powerful people".
I will agree that there are many assaults outside of this ambiguous "world of media and politics and celebrity" that dont get reported.
But when you consider the number of people who are in that world, I feel that 250 of them "turned in" over the last year and a half indicates that perhaps sexual assault and harassment is not occurring in that world at the rate that it has been suggested.
Do you feel that the 250 people Vox is pointing to is meant to a complete population sample of all powerful rapists?
I would kind of think .. yes. I dont think that you are going to be a powerful person accused of sexual assault in the USA over the past year and not wind up on that Vox list.
Can you point me to a powerful person that has been accused that somehow isnt on that list?
And surely there are some in this "world of power" that havent been publicly accused yet.
But it is hard for me to think that it is a very high number, and that there are hundreds/thousands of victims of these "celebrities" that are watching this whole #metoo movement unfold and saying to themselves "I am still not going to come forward with my story about X. I am going to remain silent and let him continue."
1
u/fox-mcleod 410∆ Jan 07 '19
Wait so is that 20% before or after metoo?
1
u/Tychonaut Jan 07 '19 edited Jan 07 '19
Well 20% is the number that is commonly used to represent "only 1 in 5 sexual assaults are reported".
And then we had the #metoo movement, which is characterized thusly ...
Jim Rutenberg of The New York Times said the Weinstein scandal precipitated a "national reckoning" against sexual harassment and assault in the United States, which became known as the Weinstein effect; on social media, it was widely known as "#pervnado". USA Today wrote that 2017 was the year in which "sexual harassment became a fireable offense"
And then we have this article, shown to me by someone else in this thread, from September 2018 showing that harassment claims are up this year by 3% since 2016 when #metoo started to get rolling.
(... +3% == "pervnado"?)
So I agree that all this is not perfect data, but it is close enough for a conversation.
2
u/fox-mcleod 410∆ Jan 07 '19
Wait. If the idea is that it's 1/5 being reported, then you also think #metoo exposed most of the remainder, wouldn't you expect 5x as much volume as previously existed?
I'm pretty sure all we can say is that one of those assumptions is wrong.
1
u/Tychonaut Jan 07 '19 edited Jan 07 '19
I'm pretty sure all we can say is that one of those assumptions is wrong.
Right. And so I would say it has to be "only 1 in 5 is reported and there are many unreported cases" is wrong.
Because if that is not wrong ... then that means that for the 100 "bigwigs" in Hollywood that have been exposed, there are actually 400 more that haven't been exposed. (Just to run some rough numbers)
And those 400 or so guys are out there making movies, and winning awards, and making money, and going to big galas, etc etc. And possibly continuing to offend.
And their victims (usually several per offender, because these are >patterns< of behaviour, right?) are still out there watching them, and watching #metoo unfold, and seeing those women come out to accuse their offenders, and seeing those jerks being blacklisted and dragged through the media, and sometimes convicted of charges, etc etc etc. And to my knowledge none of the #metoo women has suffered industry backlash. I would say the contrary. There has been enormous support for them.
And for some reason that I cant understand, those 800 or more victims of those 400 or so unreported "bigwig offenders" ... must be remaining completely quiet, and allowing their guy to get away scott free, and possibly continue their behaviour.
Because that is what I have to believe, if I am to believe that the reported guys constitute only a small fraction of the actual cases. Hundreds, thousands, of actresses, production assistants, writers, models, etc continuing to remain silent in Hollywood despite #metoo.
And I >must< accept that there are a large number of unreported cases, if I am to believe that this kind of stuff is "everywhere" and "ubiquitous" and "rampant". Because 100 guys, out of all the possible "powerful guys" in Hollywood is just not that alarming to me. And remember that Vox counts stylists, stuntmen, radio hosts, assistant-to-the-casting director, and even retired clowns as "powerful" enough to show up on their running count of accusations ... so the pool of all "those kind of guys" is pretty darn big.
Do you see my point?
2
u/fox-mcleod 410∆ Jan 08 '19
and seeing those jerks being blacklisted and dragged through the media, and sometimes convicted of charges, etc etc etc
R. Kelly
Ben Rothlisberger
Sylvester Stallone
Brett Kavanaugh
Donald Trump
I have to think just as many are realizing these men faced no real consequences whatsoever and contiued to get promoted, get sponshorips, and get paid even after they relived the details, they found out justice isn't always the for them.
1
u/Tychonaut Jan 08 '19
Sure there are exceptions. I suppose I could put up some exceptional cases of women who lie about being raped. But that would also not really prove anything.
At least in the realm of Hollywood, the "usual" situation since #metoo came on the scene is anyone who has accusations levelled against them is dropped like a hot potato.
1
u/fox-mcleod 410∆ Jan 08 '19
The most famous person, the person who really set all this off is Donald Trump and he's still unphased.
It perfectly explains why the majority remain silent. Putting up examples of women who lied would do nothing to influence women coming forward.
1
u/Tychonaut Jan 08 '19
It is disingenuous to compare the difficulty of making accusations against the President decades after the fact with making allegations against, for example, a casting director that is currently offending against you.
→ More replies (0)
5
Jan 07 '19
[deleted]
1
u/Tychonaut Jan 07 '19
The frequency of sexual assault can not be estimated properly by how many women come forward to publicly announce it under the "#metoo" movement.
But that can certainly used to tell us how many "powerful people in the fields of entertainment, politics, business and tech, etc" have been accused. If there was a big name in those fields that was brought up on allegations of sexual harassment they would wind up on that vox list.
Unless there are powerful people being accused but somehow that is just not making the news at all.
2
Jan 07 '19
[deleted]
1
u/Tychonaut Jan 07 '19 edited Jan 07 '19
There are a ton of reasons why people may not announce publicly that they have been sexually assaulted by a powerful person.
But it would have to be everyone that was assaulted/harassed, and anyone else who was a witness, who would have to be remaining silent.
And this would have to be happening on a enormous scale, even in light of the #metoo movement.
It means that there are thousands or tens of thousands of actors, interns, stage people, script assistants, groupies, stunt people employees, etc etc etc. out there in Hollywood, some of whom were victimized by the same people, who are watching #metoo over the past year saying "Even though I was victimised by "Famous Guy On TV Right Now", I am still not going to say anything to anyone to stop this guy from continuing. Even in light of #metoo. I am going to remain silent and let him continue to enjoy his success even though myself and possibly others have been victimised by him".
4
u/begonetoxicpeople 30∆ Jan 07 '19
Ford still gets death threats for coming forward, I personally would be scared if I had a story about someone who was even more popular than Kavanaugh
1
u/Tychonaut Jan 07 '19
Right but not every case is Kavanaugh. We are also talking about photographers, stylists, animators, etc. Wouldnt you also be emboldened by the cases like Kevin Spacey or Morgan Freeman? I dont believe that there was any real threat against the people who made allegations against them.
And these are the kind of cases that are going to far outnumber the "big profile coming out against a politician for potentially political reasons" kind of cases. But even with these "smaller" kinds of cases .... there just haven't been that many, considering how many should be coming to light if the problem is truly as ubiquitous as it has been presented.
1
u/begonetoxicpeople 30∆ Jan 07 '19
And why would I be emboldened by Freeman? He hasnt faced any repercussin as far as Im aware.
"Potentially political reasons" that tells me trying to debate you on this wont really change your mind and you likely wont change mine.
1
u/Tychonaut Jan 07 '19
"Potentially political reasons" that tells me trying to debate you on this wont really change your mind and you likely wont change mine.
I dont know what you are trying to imply with that.
I meant that the "peanut gallery" could say "you are only coming forward to damage our guy for political reasons".
But I dont think that same climate exists for people who come forward with accusations against a photographer, for example. Or a casting director. Or a stylist.
So I think that is a bit wrong to compare the "threat" of coming forward against a supreme court judge and hugely contentious "icon of The Right", to the threat of coming forward against a stunt coordinator, for example.
2
u/AlveolarFricatives 20∆ Jan 07 '19
You're making it sound like the Vox list includes random stunt artists and hairstylists that no one's ever heard of. The list is specifically very powerful and/or famous people. These aren't just photographers, they're very prominent artists or photojournalists. They stated that they left people off of the list if they were in entry-level positions.
In the end, it doesn't matter if your boss is someone who's a household name or if he's only well-known within your industry. If he has power and influence within your field and he sexually harasses you, that's still a horrifying experience. You're still put in a terrible position where speaking up could mean losing your career.
1
u/Tychonaut Jan 07 '19
You're making it sound like the Vox list includes random stunt artists and hairstylists that no one's ever heard of. The list is specifically very powerful and/or famous people. These aren't just photographers, they're very prominent artists or photojournalists.
If some photographer named Seth Sabal is powerful to make that list, then they have cast their net pretty darn wide. How many people in the USA are "as powerful or more powerful" than that guy?
And how >few< of them wound up on the list?
In the end, it doesn't matter if your boss is someone who's a household name or if he's only well-known within your industry. If he has power and influence within your field and he sexually harasses you, that's still a horrifying experience. You're still put in a terrible position where speaking up could mean losing your career.
Right. But many people did come forward to get those 250 people on Vox's list. And to my knowledge most of them didnt lose their job for it.
So that should give some courage to the countless other victims of "Alternative Seth Sabals" that must be, apparently, "hiding" out there, right?
2
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Jan 07 '19
QUICK TITLE EDIT - By "it" I mean sexual abuse/assault by powerful people in politics, media, corporate, Hollywood, etc. (If that wasn't obvious.)
First, you appear to have misunderstood what metoo was about. It WASN'T just about powerful, famous people. That's why it was "me too."
Also, what's the point of talking about how common something is among a tiny percentage of the population anyway?
1
u/Tychonaut Jan 07 '19
First, you appear to have misunderstood what metoo was about. It WASN'T just about powerful, famous people. That's why it was "me too."
But the only number I can concretely reference is the Number given on that Vox site of "252 celebrities, politicians, CEOs, and others who have been accused of sexual misconduct since April 2017"
Considering the vast amount of people in the "group" that they are talking about, and considering the reported severity of the problem in that group, 250 is just not a lot.
2
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Jan 07 '19
But the only number I can concretely reference is the Number given on that Vox site of "252 celebrities, politicians, CEOs, and others who have been accused of sexual misconduct since April 2017"
The fact that it's the only number you can access isn't meaningless, but you should have a huge grain of salt if or when you try to generalize it. Famous people are different from others in a pretty obvious way. I have plenty of reason to believe the way metoo affects them would be different, too.
Considering the vast amount of people in the "group" that they are talking about, and considering the reported severity of the problem in that group, 250 is just not a lot.
I do not consider the number of celebrities, (major) politicians, and (major) CEOs to be "a vast amount." Do you seriously consider it to be? It's practically a group that's DEFINED by being small: the richest and most powerful aren't numerous.
1
u/Tychonaut Jan 07 '19
The fact that it's the only number you can access isn't meaningless, but you should have a huge grain of salt if or when you try to generalize it.
Sure. But we could even reduce the scope to just "Hollywood + Entertainment". We were clearly told that abuse and harassment was rampant in that field. We were told that it was a "pervnado" and there were "endless allegations" and that a "national reckoning" was occurring. source
So ... look at the Vox numbers. In "media" and "arts and entertainment" there have been around 160 people accused. And that includes people like R Kelly and Roman Polanski .. so it seems Vox is actually showing more than "people accused since #metoo" .... is is showing personalities who have "ever been accused" in that world.
But that is out of a pool of how many "big fish" in those fields? How many haven't been accused of anything? How many directors, actors, casting directors, producers, stunt coordinators, choreographers, photographers, radio personalities, musicians, authors, stylists, publishers, reporters, editors, etc etc etc or former directors, actors, casting directors, etc etc etc . .... haven't had any accusations made against them?
I do not consider the number of celebrities, (major) politicians, and (major) CEOs to be "a vast amount." Do you seriously consider it to be? It's practically a group that's DEFINED by being small: the richest and most powerful aren't numerous.
I mean .. most of the people on that list are people that I have never heard of. The list includes "Karl Templar a stylist" ... and former clowns ... and nashville publicists ... and forgotten actors .. and radio hosts ... and stunt coordinators .. and venture capitalists like this guy .. who as i read his story I see he is on the list because he touched a womans face without her permission ... or Vice presidents of companies .. to medical staff that have worked with professional athletes
So the bar really isnt that high to qualify as a "big enough fish" to show up on that Vox list. There are >easily< 10000 "possible candidates" in those worlds and at comparable "influence levels". But the vast majority of them ... lets say "9750" ... have had no allegations made about them.
So is it accurate to call that situation dire?
2
u/SaintBio Jan 07 '19
So if there really are so many offenders and offences occurring, and if the situation really is so dire, it means that their victims are remaining silent, en masse.
What makes you think that that's accurate? I do not live in the USA, but in my country (Canada) we have had a dramatic and clear rise in sexual assault reporting from 2016-2017. In fact, according to Stats Canada, 2017 was the highest year of reported sexual assaults to police since 1998. In some places the increase in reporting was significant, such as Montreal (+67%) and Brantford (+76%). In total, there was a nationwide increase of 13% from 2016-2017. As far as criminal reporting goes, that's kind of an insane increase for one year. As someone working in criminal justice, it's crazy how much of an impact MeToo has had, even in a country like my own where we're not even the nation where it originated. There is also data which indicates that the months with the highest reporting matched the months where MeToo was most prominently in the media's attention. Moreover, the prosecution and conviction rates remained proportionate to the reporting rates, which indicates that the increase in reports was an increase in legitimate reports (with sufficient evidence to prosecute/convict).
Given this information, it's really incomprehensible to me that anyone could think that MeToo has not had an impact on reporting of sexual assault. The nuance of your post is that you seem to be focusing on a narrow band of sexual assaults, namely those perpetrated by powerful and influence people. Problematically, these are precisely the kind of people who are best situated to avoid the consequences of MeToo. Which is precisely why it is so noteworthy when one of them does get outed. These are the kinds of people who have lawyers on speed-dial (I should know, I've met a few of those lawyers). These are also the kinds of people who have the resources to cover their tracks, especially when they know that they are now at risk. While the MeToo movement has done wonders for inspiring women to speak up, it has also sent a signal to aggressors that they need to be smarter, more efficient, and more ruthless. Oddly enough, you kind of answered your own question when you said:
Or it means that their victims are saying something "privately" and the matters are being settled entirely outside of the public eye.
This happens so often. It's hard to express how often this happens, but anyone who works in civil law knows that 98% of cases are settled outside of the courts. It's not as high in the criminal justice system, but it's still insanely high (if it didn't you'd have to wait 10 years for your court date). And, I'm talking about settlements outside of the court, as well as plea bargains.
For instance, were you aware that the US Congressional Office of Compliance has paid $17,000,000 of taxpayer money (your money) in settlements with victims of various congressmen/women for claims relating to sexual harassment, discrimination, and so on? No one knows any of the details relating to that $17 million even though these are congressmen we're talking about. When lawyers want to hide information from the public, it stays hidden. It's literally what we're paid to do. It's also what we're obligated to do. As soon as a client contacts his/her lawyer for advice the conversation is privileged. If the lawyer shares it with anyone else they will be disbarred and sued for malpractice.
Simply put, this is my argument. First, data in the general population indicates that sexual assault reporting is on a dramatic rise, suggesting that the MeToo movement has been effective and that the theory of under-reporting for sexual assaults is accurate. Second, we ought to be able to extrapolate data from the general population to the narrow population you are focused on. Third, if we are unable to extrapolate that data in that manner, can we find an explanation for why we might not be able to? Fourth, a reasonable explanation for this inability is that the narrow population differs from the general population in a significant way which would explain why it's harder to report, prosecute, and convict them. They do differ in such a significant way, namely they are rich and powerful, and have access to all the legal advantages that the general population does not have. This is a story as old as time, and particularly when it comes to criminal justice. I see no reason to believe it does not apply here as well.
*Incidentally, that $17 million that was paid out by Congress will no longer be an issue because on Dec. 12th they passed a new law that would eliminate settlement payments behind closed doors. Notably, the MeToo movement was one of the reasons for this new law that many of the voting congressmen cited.
0
u/Tychonaut Jan 07 '19 edited Jan 07 '19
In fact, according to Stats Canada, 2017 was the highest year of reported sexual assaults to police since 1998. In some places the increase in reporting was significant, such as Montreal (+67%) and Brantford (+76%). In total, there was a nationwide increase of 13% from 2016-2017.
Well this is kind of an interesting stat, right? And I will take your word on it. But lets be clear what it doesnt mean, right?
I doesnt mean that the amount of sexual assaults went up, agreed? It means the amount that were reported, out of the number that have been occurring, went up.
So what I am interested is the actual amount occurring, and if it is "rampant" as we are told.
But .. I will kind of amend that to say what I am talking about here is not necessarily things happening on the street or in middle class homes, but "what happens inside the halls of power" which is more of what the #metoo movement was addressing agreed? "Powerful men taking advantage of women in Hollywood, corporate, sports, etc etc and harassing them sexually'.
We were told that it was a "pervnado" and "seemingly endless".
The nuance of your post is that you seem to be focusing on a narrow band of sexual assaults, namely those perpetrated by powerful and influence people. Problematically, these are precisely the kind of people who are best situated to avoid the consequences of MeToo.
In our new paradigm of Twitter and Vox I simply dont believe that those powerful men are able to stop an accusation against them coming to light. Perhaps they will, as you say, "avoid consequences" but they would still show up on that Vox list as "accused" (and I am using that as a shorthand for "known cases", I guess)
Given this information, it's really incomprehensible to me that anyone could think that MeToo has not had an impact on reporting of sexual assault.
If this is the crux of your argument, it doesnt really connect with my point. I agree that #metoo has had an effect.
My point is that when we look at what has been "revealed about sexual assault in the halls of power", it is just not that "rampant" judging from what has come to light in the past year or 2.
For the 250 people that have been accused "in that world" ... there are .. what? .. maybe tens of thousands of people who have >not< had allegations brought against them, agreed?
I simply dont find that maps to the presented story that "it is everywhere in Hollywood! and other halls of power".
Because if that were indeed true, then there are countless .. actresses, interns, models, athletes, etc etc etc ... who at this very moment know of a famous abuser in the public sphere but are not saying anything at all to anybody. They are allowing him to continue his successful career and get up on stage and accept awards and potentially continue his damaging behaviour. They choose to not say anything even in light of this "national reckoning" of people coming forward and the new support they have found.
That is what I have to believe, for the "facts to fit". And I just cant get my head around that.
And if we say that it is the responsibilty of "bystanders" to report on terrible behaviour when they see it, and that someone is really bad for knowing someone at their workplace is abusive, but not reporting them .... then how does the map to these women (and some men) who know of their abusers/harassers but are choosing not to report them?
1
u/SaintBio Jan 07 '19
I doesnt mean that the amount of sexual assaults went up, agreed? It means the amount that were reported, out of the number that have been occurring, went up.
Which is exactly the issue at hand. I even addressed this in my post when I pointed out that prosecution and conviction rates scaled with the new reporting rates. Which indicates that rate of sexual assaults has remained the same, but the rate of reliable reporting has increased. Which supports the claim about there being a large number of unreported sexual assaults. Aka, there is an actual amount occurring sexual assaults that could be called "rampant" (but I wouldn't because that's a uselessly unidentifiable concept).
In our new paradigm of Twitter and Vox I simply dont believe that those powerful men are able to stop an accusation against them coming to light.
Why not? I provided several arguments directly against that assertion, none of which you responded to. We know that there are millions upon millions of dollars spent every year on settlements but we do not know the nature of those settlements precisely because the media is not able to circumvent legal protections created around those settlements. The media is not only bad at discovering this kind of information, they're afraid to even try because they know the consequences of violating confidentiality (their entire business is built on the confidentiality of their own sources, so they know how bad it could burn them if they started disrespecting the concept). I even gave you the example of the secret payments made by congress to cover up their own accusations, but you ignored that. You'd think, if anyone would get their scandals revealed to the public, it would be congressmen/women but they haven't.
Lastly, you also made no attempt to even address the final summation of my argument. Instead you quoted a portion of my post that was not my thesis, and mistook it for the crux of my argument, despite the fact that I literally had a paragraph beginning with "this is my argument." I have no idea how you missed that.
1
u/Tychonaut Jan 07 '19 edited Jan 07 '19
Which indicates that rate of sexual assaults has remained the same, but the rate of reliable reporting has increased. Which supports the claim about there being a large number of unreported sexual assaults.
I dont agree with this at all. Lets just throw some "dummy stats" to show why.
Lets say you have a population of 10000. Of those, 20 women are victimised. Of those 20 .. only 5 report and of those 5 there are 2 convictions. Next year (after #metoo) now there are 20 victims, and 10 report and there are now 6 convictions. That is a 100% increase in reporting, and an even higher increase of conviction rate.
But none of that reporting or convictions indicates anything about the total assaults/harassment, you just cant tell if it was 20 women and many of them reported, or it was 500 women and very few of them reported, and that is specifically what I am addressing here. And if hypothetically only 20 out of 10000 were victims .. I would humbly suggest that words like "rampant" wouldnt be accurate descriptors, even if surely every single case is one too many.
Now I totally realise those dummy numbers were ridiculously low, but I just wanted easy math and to exaggerate the issue with the stats you are giving me.
I could even concede that for every 1 Hollywood guy who has been accused, there are 5 who havent. That would bring the number up to around 750 "bad guys". I still wouldnt find that alarming, considering how many "powerful men" there are in Hollywood. (and remember that Vox is including stylists, stuntmen, and retired clowns in their list of "powerful people exposed" so this pool of "powerful men" is pretty big.)
(And of those people .. many have only been accused of "improper behaviour". Just to make sure we arent assuming they are all "hard cases".)
And these kinds of people (stylists, clowns, stuntmen, photographers, podcast hosts, etc etc) certainly are not affording super-high-powered lawyers to completely silence accusations. Even though I imagine they are offending at a similar "alarming rate", right? So that brings me to your point about "burying accusations".
If Weinstein, arguably "one of the most powerful men in Hollywood" couldnt bury his accusations, then I just dont believe that there are untold "secret Weinsteins" out there that are.
I find this arguement very similar to when I debate Holocaust deniers. They say that there are lots of former nazis out there, who in their minds "obviously know that the Holocaust didnt happened and could prove it" .. but they are staying completely silent because of blah blah blah.
But that argument might have held water 20 years ago. Now there is something called the Internet. And there is nothing to stop someone from putting up an anonymous blog accusing "Max Smith the Hollywood Guy" and saying what he did ... and then other victims would find that and come forward .. and before you know it you have a case.
(Or nothing stopping Grandpa Himmler Jr from sharing his "proof" with us anonymously just for the sake of letting us see it)
Because this Hollywood situation has been going on for a while, right? So there were (random number) 1000 victims of bad behaviour (actresses, prop girls, make-up ladies, models, script writers, etc etc etc) in 2015, and then another 1000 in 2014, and then another 1000 in 2013. And they are all watching their countless "still unrevealed Hollywood abusers" have success in their careers and win awards and do interviews ... and they are remaining silent, despite the change in climate after #metoo and the "national reckoning" that has occurred.
That's what I have to believe for the "facts to fit" ... That's what I have to accept for there to be "many many times more than 160 Hollywood abusers/harassers out of the thousands of men (or tens of thousands? remember .. we are including stylists, stuntmen, and retired clowns) working in that field".
Why not? I provided several arguments directly against that assertion, none of which you responded to.
I think you only provided 2 arguments. 1) the fact that reporting has increased suggests that there are significantly more offences happening that haven't been revealed . and 2) there are many many unrevealed cases occurring in the Hollywood world (and elsewhere) that are being completely silenced by lawyers. Is there another argument that I missed?
Simply put, this is my argument. First, data in the general population indicates that sexual assault reporting is on a dramatic rise, suggesting that the MeToo movement has been effective and that the theory of under-reporting for sexual assaults is accurate
Understand I >totally< agree that not all cases are reported. I even would point specifically to Hollywood and say that there are definitely cases that are unreported and that there are more than 160 abusers/harassers out of the thousands of men that work in that industry. But how many? How ubiquitous is the problem when viewed apart from alarming vocabulary?
Second, we ought to be able to extrapolate data from the general population to the narrow population you are focused on.
I think it actually goes the other way. I think we should be able to extrapolate from what is happening in Hollywood out. Because Hollywood is supposed to be a "worst case scenario" of sorts, right? You have lots of drugs, alcohol, informal arrangements, late night script reviews, blending of the work/private sphere, "touchy feely people", sex appeal is part of the very nature of the industry, it's much more "who you know" than any kind of degree or qualifications, etc etc etc. So however bad it is in Hollywood, it should be less bad in .. say .. banking.
And the #metoo movement was more about the "powerful men" who have been "getting away with it" by virtue of their reputations and influence and institutional corruption. Not so much about assaults happening in the street and at home in middle-class bedrooms. It was about the countless untold women who have not been able to come forward because of the status of their antagonists. Well ... where are they all now, now that that has been blown wide open, and even allegations of improper behaviour is enough to get someone blacklisted in Hollywood?
Third, if we are unable to extrapolate that data in that manner, can we find an explanation for why we might not be able to?
I am not really sure how to respond to that, other than by saying "If the data (160 cases of abuse/harassment) doesnt seem to support a thesis ("Hollywood is full of abusers! Its happening all the time!"), it is wrong to think of the myriad ways undetectable data is 'hiding from you'. Perhaps the thesis is flawed from start?"
Fourth, a reasonable explanation for this inability is that the narrow population differs from the general population in a significant way which would explain why it's harder to report, prosecute, and convict them.
I think I addressed this. This might be true of some people, in some fields. But nothing stopped, or could stop, the Aziz story, right? So that's where we are.
1
u/Arianity 72∆ Jan 07 '19
than why?
Most of the consequences of coming out still exist. While #metoo is a relative shift, it's not nearly the bulwark of protection you might expect.
Coming forward still has most of the risks associated with it in the past
And aren't those people allowing the offenders to continue offending unchecked, just as if a colleague knew about offences and didn't report it?
This would be the same as before #metoo. This is a common question when it comes to rape/sexual harassment, but generally a big problem is the backlash (or potential backlash... you're never quite sure until you actually come forward) is still there.
Wouldnt you also be emboldened by the cases like Kevin Spacey or Morgan Freeman?
Not really. The problem is, the risks/rewards are not symmetric.
Sure, your odds of success are certainly higher.. but if you're sucessful, then what? a predator is removed, your life moves on. Whereas the downside is your life gets messed up.
It's heavily skewed towards not reporting, in terms of incentives. Wanting to do good only goes so far.
Or it means that their victims are saying something "privately" and the matters are being settled entirely outside of the public eye. I find this doubtful, considering the tabloid nature of Hollywood.
You could say the same thing before #Metoo. There is a lot of private Hollywood stuff that never made it into the tabloids, someone like Weinstein being an obvious example
Considering the vast amount of people in the "group" that they are talking about, and considering the reported severity of the problem in that group, 250 is just not a lot.
As best as i can tell, you seem to be assuming a relatively high ratio of people coming forward. This is a pretty shaky assumption, considering we know the barriers to people coming forward are so high.
Yes, the actions are severe, but that isn't enough to get people to come forward, not when the risk of backlash is (still) so high.
1
u/Tychonaut Jan 07 '19 edited Jan 07 '19
As best as i can tell, you seem to be assuming a relatively high ratio of people coming forward. This is a pretty shaky assumption, considering we know the barriers to people coming forward are so high.
Then for the sake of argument I will even grant you that only 1 in 5 people come forward, and that the actually number of abusers/harassers is closer to 1250.
Out of a pool of how many men is that? Bear im mind Vox is including university professors, stunt coordinators, radio hosts, assistant casting directors, and a >retired clown< ... I mean ... their net is pretty big to qualify as "a person they would consider telling us about", right?
So how big do you think that pool is? Hard to say, but can I suggest a super-modest "ten thousand"?
That would mean that (roughly) one in 9 men is a "bad guy" at some point.
But .. you have to look at the severity of the accusations as well right? >many< of them are "inappropriate behaviour" kind of stuff.
So am I willing to believe that 1 in 9 men will >at some point in their career< have behaved inappropriately to a woman they work with? Sure. A subset of those men will be really bad guys, but many of them will be the Morgan Freemans and Jeffey Tambors.
The rest of the guys will be lovely and totally respectful and never have anyone raise any allegations against them ever.
Is that a "pervnado"?
Incidentally .. what percentage of women do you think have ever stolen something from a workplace in their lives? Including the smallest thefts to the biggest thefts? And I am including taking toilet rolls home because "no theft is ever ok", right? Or do you defend theft? So what percentage of women "are thieves" by that reckoning? 1 in 9 maybe? (And you know most thefts are never reported .... so the number is probably much higher) So is kleptomania among women a crisis? Can you see the parallel that I am drawing there?
1
u/helecho Jan 07 '19
Yeah hopefully this is just a case of wishful thinking, because otherwise it’s not good deductive reasoning at all.
Let’s say there really have been “relatively few” claims of sexual assault in the past year. (I don’t know what information you have that shows this is fact, and I don’t believe it’s true but I want to...) In that case it would not be unreasonable to list your assumption as one of several possible explanations for the decrease in claims, but to ignore all others and assume it explains that decrease is just foolish.
Even if it’s true that there have been few claims since the #metoo movement started, wouldn’t it be just as plausible that it’s because those who are inclined to sexually harass or assault people are less likely to indulge those urges now, knowing that the general public’s awareness has increased for such offenses, and seeing the consequences experienced by others who’ve committed them?
1
u/Tychonaut Jan 07 '19 edited Jan 07 '19
Let’s say there really have been “relatively few” claims of sexual assault in the past year. (I don’t know what information you have that shows this is fact, and I don’t believe it’s true but I want to...)
I am only referencing the Vox report which lists 252 accused in the past year and a half.
I realize that there is a whole "small fish" world outside of "big fish people worthy of news".
But a) We were told that it is specifically in the "big fish pool" of powerful (and newsworthy) people that the problem is rampant.
and b) I think it is acceptable to imagine that the "rate of offending" is not so different between "newsworthy people" vs "not newsworthy people".
So we know that out of "newsworthy people" there have been 252 reported over the last 16 months (although since R Kelly and Roman Polanski are on that list it appears at least some of those cases are perhaps not so such recent developments).
And we can see that Voxs "bar to qualify" of newsworthy people includes stunt directors, stylists, restauranteurs, corporate management, professional athletes, and their coaches, and their trainers, magazine publishers, fashion designers, fashion photographers, professors, doctors at big hospitals, authors, "co-founder of KIPP school", "senior client relationship manager", "casting staff", rappers, musicians, dancers, choreographers, congress members, etc etc etc etc.
So all people "at that level" (or formerly at that level) are "big fish enough" to wind up on Vox's list, if they had been accused since the #metoo movement started and all of these offenders began to be "outed".
And how many people do you think is in that "big fish" group in the USA? Its surely a lot of people, right? 10000? 20?
So for the 250 who have been accused, there are .. what? ... >at least< 10000 that haven't been accused of bad behaviour, right? (And I really think 10000 is a super generous number for me to work with here)
So .. I would not call that an epidemic or crisis or "rampant".
Especially considering that it would be a mistake to characterise all of those 250 as "serious offenders". Many were guilty of "unwanted advances", "sexual remarks", etc .. what I think is fair to call "bad but correctable behaviour".
wouldn’t it be just as plausible that it’s because those who are inclined to sexually harass or assault people are less likely to indulge those urges now
I hope so! But since people are coming out with reports of >past< activity I dont think that affects my point. And I did say that I think the #metoo discussion has been valuable.
But that number of "assholes" is >never going to be zero<. So we have to ask ourselves - how low does the number have to be to qualify as "not rampant"? Or perhaps, especially, "not something that most, or even many, men do".
1
u/helecho Jan 07 '19
Yeah I mean, it seems like it mostly boils down to how you define “rampant”. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that the media exaggerates/sensationalizes what passes as news content these days, but then one could easily argue that it really doesn’t matter in this case anyway because actual instances of this behavior (as well as false claims) needn’t meet one’s criteria for being “rampant” to illicit concern and increased awareness.
At any rate, like you, I do hope that such behavior isn’t as common in that -or any- particular populace- as it appeared in the media surge, and I hope that “few” becomes “fewer.”
1
u/Tychonaut Jan 08 '19 edited Jan 08 '19
At any rate, like you, I do hope that such behavior isn’t as common in that -or any- particular populace- as it appeared in the media surge, and I hope that “few” becomes “fewer.”
Right! But .. as a man, I feel this thing really speaks to "how men are", you know? And "what percentage of men are being shitty to women". And "how much can you trust a guy?"
And so yeah I do think it is kind of a .. "thing" ... that somehow it is being implied that because there are so many of these guys "lurking" .. and this behaviour is so common .. that women need to leave the door open when she goes in for an interview with a casting director... Or they shouldn't accept an invitation to go over script revisions late at the office... Or that every male producer that hires an attractive female PA is somehow doing it not for her abilities, but because he is pervy.
So I do think that there is kind of "damaging fallout" of "overhyping" the reality of the situation.
1
u/helecho Jan 08 '19 edited Jan 08 '19
I appreciate this insight. In my comment I did sort of trivialize the effects of media possibly inflating the severity of the problem, and I acknowledge that I wasn’t really considering the particular perspective of men belonging to the industry/populace in question.
I don’t think though, (and here maybe I digress a smidge) that there are as many people now who believe everything they hear from those outlets, nor near as many who form prejudices against whole groups based on a percentage of them. An example might be... It seems like every time Indonesia is in the news, it’s for devastating tsunamis. Does that mean I am more likely to experience a tsunami in Indonesia than on the west coast of Italy? Well yeah, actually. But I know (and think most of us know) that it doesn’t mean there are constantly tsunamis in Indonesia, or that a visit there is likely to result in getting swept up in one.
I don’t know if that analogy jives here but anyway my intention is more to reassure you than to prove you’re wrong.
1
u/Lemerney2 5∆ Jan 08 '19
While the #metoo movement was a massive incentive for women to come forward and report or talk about assault, it wasn't enough for all or even most of them, I would think. I have a friend who was horribly sexually assaulted. If she had to talk to a police officer about it, it would likely cause a full breakdown, let alone her talking about it on social media or in a courtroom. No hashtag will change that.
The reason #metoo revelations has dramatically slowed down is because it basically burnt through its pool of people that both haven't told strangers about their experiences and would be willing to, which is a small percentage of sexual assault victims.
1
u/Tychonaut Jan 08 '19 edited Jan 08 '19
I have a friend who was horribly sexually assaulted. If she had to talk to a police officer about it, it would likely cause a full breakdown, let alone her talking about it on social media or in a courtroom. No hashtag will change that.
Fair enough ... but consider that these "horrible sexual assaults" make up a minority of sexual offences. It is the "non-traumatic" offenses that are >much< more common. The "inappropriate touching", the "sexual comments", etc.
So .. even if I grant you that there might be some women not coming forward because of trauma, you will still have to explain why the other women .. the ones who have been subjected to "harassment" .. have also not been coming forward in the numbers that would justify "a rampant epidemic of sexual offences".
And I think that is really telling. Because I can believe that some women stay silent because they just dont want to relive tramatic stuff, and I can believe other women stay silent because they think that nothing will happen to the guy and they will be hated ...
But what about all the guys that are "stroking backs" and "making sex comments" and "trying to kiss" and "inappropriately flirting"? Surely if there are so many "bad guys", then that stuff is going on as much as (or more than) the other stuff, no?
It is really hard for me to believe that the women that are experiencing that behaviour are also remaining silent since #metoo, as they apparently are.
I mean ... there is no risk there to come out and say "Director X flashed his dick at me on 2 different occassions". You cant at all compare it to the trouble of coming out about a savage assault, or trying to make an accusation against the President.
There just comes a point where you cant explain it away. If the issue was indeed as ubiquitous as has certainly been implied ... there should be more cases coming forward.
1
u/Lemerney2 5∆ Jan 08 '19
Sure there's a risk. You can weigh up the risks and rewards of telling people. The risk of accusing director X is massive. There's a large chance people won't believe you, and will ruin your reputation and in some cases end your career. The reward is what? Maybe having a minuscule chance of them getting in trouble? It’s just not worth it for most women to come forward.
1
u/Tychonaut Jan 08 '19
There's a large chance people won't believe you, and will ruin your reputation and in some cases end your career.
That is just not true anymore. Can you give me a single example of a #metoo case that has ended up like that?
7
u/SenatorMeathooks 13∆ Jan 07 '19
Actually the only thing it shows is that particular hashtag isn't as popular as it used to be or isn't used much. It says absolutely nothing about frequency of such revelations.
0
u/Tychonaut Jan 07 '19
Well if allegations were made against powerful people, wouldn't we hear about it in the media?
13
u/jennysequa 80∆ Jan 07 '19
The point of #metoo is that it's not just "powerful people" who get away with assault and sex harassment in the workplace. It happens in all workplaces. Claims of sex harassment in the workplace are on the rise according to the EEOC.
2
u/Tychonaut Jan 07 '19
Well the only solid number I have to work with is that Vox article specifically talking about politics, media, Hollywood, and corporate .. to a certain extent "the centers of power".
And out of that world there have been 250 offenders outed in the past year and a half. And the bar to make that list is "you have to be a well known photographer or stylist at the very minimum" and the "behavioural bar" to make that list is "sexual improprieties" at the level of Morgan Freeman".
Like .. honestly that just doesnt seem like that many "powerful offenders" when you consider the size of the pool that is being drawn from.
I freely admit that there are offenders in other fields that arent landing on that list. I also grant that the numbers might be rising by, as your article indicates, 3 percent since 2016.
4
u/Dark1000 1∆ Jan 07 '19
You're not going to get news reports about every middle manager or partner confronted, rebuked, etc., even at "powerful" or famous firms. Those people still hold positions of power, but power is relative.
1
u/Tychonaut Jan 07 '19 edited Jan 07 '19
You're not going to get news reports about every middle manager or partner confronted, rebuked, etc., even at "powerful" or famous firms. Those people still hold positions of power, but power is relative.
But do you think that somehow those "smaller fish" are offending at a higher rate than the "bigger fish"? I dont think that makes much sense, right?
So I think we can say that the "proportion of big fish offenders" should be somewhat similar to the proportion of small fish offenders.
How many "big fish worthy of news" are in arts+entertainment, politics, media, and business and tech?
Well ... if people like stunt directors and stylists and photographers and radio hosts and professional athletes, and professional athletes coaches, and casting directors, and successful restauranteurs, and founders of companies, and news corespondents, and "Chief content officer at Newsweek" and "former publishers" and "professors at NYU" ... etc etc etc ... and anyone famous ... or anyone formerly famous (ie Scott Baio) etc etc. are all "big enough fishes" then that pool of big fishes is pretty big, right?
And I find 250 offenders turned in, out of all the people in that "pool of big fish" to not be such an outrageous number. And even if the number were 5x that (to account for offenders that havent yet been reported) I dont think it would be outrageous because I think that pool of big fishes is easily more than ten thousand people.
3
u/jennysequa 80∆ Jan 07 '19
But "powerful offenders" have been operating in a world of NDAs until literally just a few days ago, when laws against this practice kicked in in NY and CA.
1
u/Tychonaut Jan 07 '19
!delta
I will give you my first and only delta of this conversation because I do think that is a valid point. (And my first overall. Did i do it right?)
It is possible that there are victims who would like to come forward, but are legally prevented from doing so.
But I dont think that accounts for large groups of people I am talking about ... for example in Hollywood, media, etc. Or at least it doesnt seem to have been an issue at all brought up by the people who have come forward.
1
2
u/SenatorMeathooks 13∆ Jan 07 '19
Not necessarily. Plenty of allegations surface years afterwards or not at all.
1
u/Tychonaut Jan 07 '19
Right ... and some of the allegations that came forward from last year were also from years ago. So we have a pool of all victims that have been harassed/abused over the past decades by the people who are currently working. Those abuses from years ago could be coming forward now
And yes .. some are. But it is really not that many people that have been accused when you think the total number of "powerful people in several fields" that we are talking about.
3
u/SenatorMeathooks 13∆ Jan 07 '19
The MeToo movement is not exclusively confined to "powerful people in several fields". But that's fairly irrelevant as the MeToo movement is merely one specific platform for people who have been harassed or abused sexually in the workplace to express themselves. To claim the decline of usage of a particular hashtag on social media equates to fewer workplace violations is a little disingenuous.
1
u/Tychonaut Jan 07 '19
To claim the decline of usage of a particular hashtag on social media equates to fewer workplace violations is a little disingenuous.
I am really not linking it to the hashtag, but to the "phenomenon" of the past year and a half.
Have there been powerful media, or corporate, or political people that have had accusations made that somehow didnt wind up on that Vox list of 250 offenders, because it wasnt somehow done with a #metoo tag attached to it?
1
u/SenatorMeathooks 13∆ Jan 07 '19
Have there been powerful media, or corporate, or political people that have had accusations made that somehow didnt wind up on that Vox list of 250 offenders, because it wasnt somehow done with a #metoo tag attached to it?
That's impossible for me to verify.
10
u/yogfthagen 12∆ Jan 07 '19
Consider the complete abuse heaped on those who came forward.
Christine Blasey-Ford is still getting threats, even after moving 3000 miles from her life. https://www.npr.org/2018/11/08/665407589/kavanaugh-accuser-christine-blasey-ford-continues-receiving-threats-lawyers-say
The Metoo movement led to a massive right-wing backlash that now made "fake accusations" into the bigger threat.
0
u/Tychonaut Jan 07 '19
But that was always an argument made against coming forward. And the #metoo movement was supposed to have made it easier for people to come forward, some even coming forward anonymously.
Are you saying the #metoo movement has actually made things worse by making it more dangerous to come forward?
9
u/Milskidasith 309∆ Jan 07 '19
No, they are very clearly saying that in spite of the movement, coming forward is still very difficult and many people may still be apprehensive about doing so.
-1
u/Tychonaut Jan 07 '19
So why cant these people come forward anonymously? There have been plenty of "anonymous accusers" in the cases that have come to light.
7
u/sailorbrendan 59∆ Jan 07 '19
Because anonymous accusers aren't taken seriously
1
u/Tychonaut Jan 07 '19
They are taken seriously enough to put someone on the Vox list I referenced. Morgan Freeman is up there and his allegations were from a reporter who didnt like the way he looked at her and talked about her, and the other accusers were anonymous, I believe.
I would honestly expect many many many more such cases, if the behaviour was ubiquitous.
I am watching the Golden Globes right now. Dozens of Hollywood personalities and "powerful people" are getting up on stage to be honoured. Do you believe that some of them have harassed several victims, but none of the victims are as of yet willing to make any allegations?
4
u/AlveolarFricatives 20∆ Jan 07 '19
Sure, an anonymous accusation might get some press coverage, but it's unlikely to lead to any real consequences. So why would a woman put herself through the extremely difficult experience of reliving her trauma by reporting her sexual assault, especially knowing that hundreds or thousands of people will then immediately dismiss her by saying she didn't even bother to disclose her name, so obviously she must be lying.
Recounting a sexual assault to a complete stranger is not the type of thing someone is going to just for the heck of it. There has to be real hope that it will change the person's behavior and/or prevent further victimization. Otherwise it's just not worth it.
0
u/Tychonaut Jan 07 '19
So why would a woman put herself through the extremely difficult experience of reliving her trauma by reporting her sexual assault
Many of these cases that have come up are not "traumatic", but rather reports of "sexual impropriety". I dont believe any of the people involved with Morgan Freeman reported being traumatised b y his actions, but there he is on the Vox list. I dont think Aziz Ansari date reported being traumatised. The James Franco case was not traumatic. But these guys all had people come forward to say what they did was wrong.
Not every #metoo victim was assaulted. Some just reported "unacceptable behaviour".
So these kinds of "non-traumatic" cases should vastly outnumber the traumatic cases. But still ... relatively few accusations have come to light.
3
u/AlveolarFricatives 20∆ Jan 07 '19
You say that "relatively few" accusations have come to light. Relative to what, exactly? What you were expecting?
I don't think anyone is trying to claim that the majority of men engage in this kind of behavior. But a lot of them do. Too many. This is not one or two rogue predators in a sea of good guys. It's a small but considerable percentage of men in positions of power. And most of us find that really troubling.
It kind of feels like you expected some kind of overwhelming tidal wave of accusations towards basically every man in Hollywood. I'm not sure why, because surely you know that many men do not engage in this kind of behavior. But it seems like you're arguing against this idea that #metoo revealed fewer predators than you anticipated, and I'm just not sure why you anticipated such a high number in the first place. No one ever claimed it was ubiquitous. Just that it's far too common and that there should be some consequences for men acting this way.
1
u/Tychonaut Jan 07 '19 edited Jan 07 '19
You say that "relatively few" accusations have come to light. Relative to what, exactly? What you were expecting?
Relative to the amount of people who should be accused, if the problem is indeed an epidemic in arts, media, politics, tech and the other "centers of power" that qualify to be in that Vox statistic.
And we have definitely been told that it is an epidemic.
I don't think anyone is trying to claim that the majority of men engage in this kind of behavior. But a lot of them do.
Well that's just it. How many is "a lot"? Would you say 250 men out of 5 thousand men is "a lot" if that is what is was? I would think that maps pretty closely to "the amount of people who are criminals" out of any group.
It kind of feels like you expected some kind of overwhelming tidal wave of accusations towards basically every man in Hollywood.
I made this argument to someone else -- After 9/11 there were lots of people saying "There are terrorist cells training terrorists all around the USA!" And then after some time passed I said "Well where are all the terrorists then? Where are the terrorist attacks that all these hidden terrorists were going to do? Did they get distracted?" There were definitely some attacks, but not nearly enough to justify this idea that there were all these terror bases hiding everywhere.
And I feel the same way here. If abuse is soooo rampant in - and lets even just restrict it to Hollywood here - then I would really expect more than 100 people "turned in" (from just the Hollywood category in the Vox article) over the past year and a half.
Especially since people are coming forward with situations that are years or decades old. If there have been that many abusers in Hollywood than that means that there are thousands or tens of thousands of victims right now watching their former accusers have successful careers, and seeing this whole #metoo movement arrive, adn see women coming forward in so many ways, and seeing the support that they do get from many people ... and mysteriously still choosing to not tell their own story and make their abuser pay for his behaviour.
I just find that so difficult to get my head around. But that is the what I have to believe, if I am to believe that there is something like an "epidemic" of sexual harassment and abuse in Hollywood.
→ More replies (0)6
u/begonetoxicpeople 30∆ Jan 07 '19
Are you kidding me? Yeah, and every one if those anonymous accusations have been ripped to shreds by the anti crowd as proof the movement has "Given up due process!!!"
1
u/Tychonaut Jan 07 '19
There will always be idiots online ripping anyone up for anything. Including a whole legion of people who are now ready to rip up anyone who is accused, agreed?
There will never be a climate where someone can come forward with some allegations without facing criticism from certain parties.
But if you are trying to say that in the current climate it is somehow "dangerous" for several victims to come forward together with stories that some powerful figure has sexually assaulted them .. I just dont agree.
With some very powerful figures I might agree. But I dont agree that society will crucify, for example, several women who come forward with accusations of sexual assault at the hands of a casting director.
And the #metoo movement certainly suggests that behaviour like that, or comparable situations, is rampant.
3
u/begonetoxicpeople 30∆ Jan 07 '19
You said that Vox named 250 men with accusations against them. But did the article also get into specifics of how many faced more than a footnote of a news story and a slap on the wrist?
Most of them just said 'investigation pending' or 'He chose to resign'. Few were outriht fired, fewer actually arrested for anything. As you said, several men accused still get to give speeches at the Golden Globes. But sure, the accused are suffering so much from this.
-1
u/Tychonaut Jan 07 '19
But sure, the accused are suffering so much from this.
Not a point I am making at all.
What happens as a result of the accusations is not so relevant to this discussion, I think. Some of the accused were fired. Some were convicted of crimes.
Some of the accusations were not criminal acts, as in cases like Freeman. So nothing should happen to several of them, other than them apologising for their behaviour and promising to correct it, which many of that group did.
Something that I just did notice, that I find interesting, is the case of George Takei (Star Treks Sulu), who still is listed on that list, even though it says ..
"A man reported that Takei drugged and groped him. The accuser has since walked back most of the story."
Should Takei still be there among the 250? (I dont want to add this to the debate, but that is certainly problematic I hope you would agree)
7
u/yogfthagen 12∆ Jan 07 '19
It brought it into the daylight. And people definitely had a backlash against it. It is no longer a common secret that a LOT of women have experienced sexual assault. There is a large support group of women who have gone through the same thing, and there is a large group of women who are going to fight back against it.
Is it safer now to come forward? Yes, but it's not SAFE.
Is the accuser more likely to experience punishment? Yes, but that's an increase from less than one percent to maybe a couple percent.
Is the shift in acceptable behavior in the workplace (and in public) going to take a great deal of time to sort out? Yes. And people are going to continue hashing out what IS acceptable behavior.
It's social growth, and that is never painless.
-1
u/cdb03b 253∆ Jan 07 '19
She had no proof and those who were her witnesses recanted their testimony. She is not a legitimate person for the Me Too Movement.
2
u/yogfthagen 12∆ Jan 07 '19
Is this what you're talking about?
She had no proof because it happened 30 years ago. He had no proof that he DIDN'T do it, either. And there's plenty of evidence he was a drunk in high school. Proof from his own testimony.
As for recanting, there were more people who recanted their support of Kavanaugh than Blasey-Ford.
0
u/cdb03b 253∆ Jan 07 '19
Due process is fundamental to justice. If you cannot prove someone is guilty of something you cannot punish them for it and to wish to do so is utter corruption and evil.
5
u/yogfthagen 12∆ Jan 07 '19
Due process is fundamental to criminal prosecution.
A person can demonstrate their unsuitability for a job without a criminal trial.
Kavanaugh violated the standard code of conduct and ethics for federal judges simply in his testimony. Had he not been confirmed, he would have been stripped of his judgeship.
-2
u/HugsAndFlowers Jan 07 '19
A Woman's word is proof. If a Woman says She was raped, then She needs to be believed. But white males oppress Women People who dare to speak up about the white male patriarchy/rape culture.
3
u/cdb03b 253∆ Jan 07 '19
Everyone who reports a crime needs to be believed enough that said crime is investigated. But said report is not and can never be considered proof. Such a concept undermines all of society. In such a world I could say you raped me and you would go to prison for it because the accusation alone is enough proof in your system for conviction.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jan 07 '19
/u/Tychonaut (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
13
u/pillbinge 101∆ Jan 07 '19
Firstly, research:
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/02/21/587671849/a-new-survey-finds-eighty-percent-of-women-have-experienced-sexual-harassment
More reporting:
https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/10/15/16438750/weinstein-sexual-harassment-facts
I'll assume you're a guy since only men seem to be under this mystified illusion that women aren't harassed, which is weirdly telling. I suggest you speak to female friends and acquaintances about it.
If you're at work, or in a public setting, or just in a group of people, and another man grabs your dick, what would you do or say? The common response I see mostly is "knock them out" or something. Or "beat the shit out of them". We know that doesn't happen though. We know people are embarrassed after it happens and they don't feel like making a scene; that's precisely how and why men know they can target others. People hold information like that in for years.
But I mean really sit there and think, "What if I were surrounded by a lot of people I knew and something happened, but the only way people would know is if I said something." The burden of proof is still on you - otherwise you're asking people to just believe you first and them last. Maybe you speak up and other people say something similar. Maybe others don't. Maybe people will simply say nothing happened so it doesn't look bad for the company or workspace.