The glass ceiling is now made of concrete.

[DrZoidberg]

Do you have any examples of any #MeToo accusation not having immediate impact when the accusation was made, rather than after it had been run through the courts? They're all like that. I think they were all assumed guilty by the public. The only people who made it in one piece were people protected by due process. People like Kavanaugh. Because lawyers are good at following laws. Other than that I don't know? Can you think of any?

What do you mean by due process? Due process protects people from going to jail without a trial. It doesn't protect someone from public criticism. If someone is publicly accused of rape, due process has not been violated.

But we can chose to respect due process anyway. Which is hopefully what responsible citizens should try to do before passing judgement. No?

Kevin Spacey was treated as if guilty instantly after only one man came forward with an old unverifiable accusation which he denied. He was kicked off all his projects and nobody wanted to work with him. All due to public outcry. You don't think that is fucked up?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Do you have any examples of any #MeToo accusation not having immediate impact when the accusation was made, rather than after it had been run through the courts? They're all like that. I think they were all assumed guilty by the public. The only people who made it in one piece were people protected by due process. People like Kavanaugh. Because lawyers are good at following laws. Other than that I don't know? Can you think of any?

You're the one asserting the impact. I don't feel the need to research your own argument for you in order to back up a claim you're unable to back up.

What? How could it be any more obvious? It's like demanding evidence for your face having a nose

Right, that's what I'm saying. It's like how the negative effects of millions of rapists and murderers who are definitely pouring into the US with all their diseases are so fucking obvious, it's insane that libtards feel the need to question the premise instead of talking about how high the solution of building the wall should be.

It is most certainly obvious that there are male executives worried about the effects of false accusations brought about by women exploiting the toxic environment they feel has been generated by the #MeToo movement. What is not obvious is whether or not this group is representative of male executives as a whole or is an insignificant subset of them and it's not obvious whether or not their fears are well founded or completely imaginary.

 

[Toni]

Do you have any examples of any #MeToo accusation not having immediate impact when the accusation was made, rather than after it had been run through the courts? They're all like that. I think they were all assumed guilty by the public. The only people who made it in one piece were people protected by due process. People like Kavanaugh. Because lawyers are good at following laws. Other than that I don't know? Can you think of any?

What do you mean by due process? Due process protects people from going to jail without a trial. It doesn't protect someone from public criticism. If someone is publicly accused of rape, due process has not been violated.

But we can chose to respect due process anyway. Which is hopefully what responsible citizens should try to do before passing judgement. No?

Kevin Spacey was treated as if guilty instantly after only one man came forward with an old unverifiable accusation which he denied. He was kicked off all his projects and nobody wanted to work with him. All due to public outcry. You don't think that is fucked up?

You are not at all well informed re: Kevin Spacey.

 

[Toni]

Anyway... what I wanted to discuss in this thread was how #MeToo's suspension of due process impacts society.

Well, a big part of that would be a discussion of examples where this has actually happened. If the examples you provide aren't clear cases of this and others don't see the injustices you're pointing out as actual injustices, then the discussion can't move on to the discussion of the impacts of those injustices.

It's like a Trumpster talking about the need for a large, physical wall across the south of the US to save Americans from the hordes of rapists and murderers streaming across that border. If he wants to take the hordes of rapists and murderers as a given and move on to discussion about what would be the most effective design of the wall but others keep interrupting him and going back to asking why he thinks these hordes are actually coming across, the "concrete vs steel slats" part of the conversation won't make any headway.

Do you have any examples of any #MeToo accusation not having immediate impact when the accusation was made, rather than after it had been run through the courts? They're all like that. I think they were all assumed guilty by the public. The only people who made it in one piece were people protected by due process. People like Kavanaugh. Because lawyers are good at following laws. Other than that I don't know? Can you think of any?

In the US, almost everyone is employed at will, meaning that they can be fired for any reason or no reason. There is never a need to go through the court system in order to fire anyone.

Yes, a firing may be challenged in courts (see Loren's example) and cases of discrimination can be brought to courts as civil cases.


I do know of a real life case where an employee was fired immediately after being arrested for assaulting their domestic partner. As it happens, both the victim and the person accused of (and eventually convicted ) assault were employees of my employer. The assault was serious, involved a serious, disfiguring injury and a weapon. My employer did not wait for the trial to fire the accused person. Both persons were employed in the same building and it would have been difficult for the victim to have remained in their job and been safe from any further violence. Of course, the employer also had to be concerned about the safety of the other employees. I have since been told that the one who committed the assault was well known for being extremely possessive and jealous and often made others uncomfortable. I only knew them in passing, to say hello to. I would never have guessed.

In this case, an actual crime--a serious crime at that-- was committed. This was not a case of someone telling a dirty joke or being insensitive.

 

[Toni]

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. I think you're just fantasizing now about something you know nothing about. High level managers put quite a lot of effort into helping young people for a variety of motivations.

I'm almost certain that I know at least as many CEOs and top level executives as you do. Yes, high level people do put a lot of effort into mentoring others. That doesn't mean that there aren't some mixed feelings from time to time. The fact that much discrimination comes about because people are more likely to hire and to mentor and promote individuals who remind them of themselves rather than explicit: I wouldn't hire a woman or a black person or a gay person or whoever. People hire, promote, mentor people they think have potential and who seem familiar to them. They identify with others like themselves.

How the fuck do you "know" this? How did the line of reasoning go to the point where you thought this was an inciteful peace of information? It's absolute nonsense. I think it's the opposite. I think most of these men would prefer women to mentor, because there's less of them. There's only a tiny pool of young people with the required talent and ambition necessary.

How do you "know" this? How is this anything more than your guess?

We've talked about this in this thread already. We're talking about different things. This isn't a meeting now and again. This is a much more hands on and intimate affair. It's comparable to adopting a child. The mentor typically gets involved in all aspects of the mentored life. Being a top level manager/CEO is a massive commitment and time and energy. It's not just a job. It's an entire lifestyle. The mentored is going to spend many nights sleeping over at the mentors house, and being in hotel rooms, elevators and taxis together... alone. Lot's of two-on-two lunches and dinners. Not to mention all the parties and vacations spent together. Social functions. Situations where there's alcohol and typically plenty of sexual tension. Not between the mentor and mentored, but around them.

So, what you're saying is that men mentoring other men have difficulty keeping it professional? That they are often attracted to one another? I'm assuming you are talking about straight men, here. But what about gay men being mentored by straight men? Gay men mentoring straight men? Gay men mentoring gay men?

WTF is your problem? I don't know why you wrote this? You clearly have no interest in having an adult conversation about this.

I'm just trying to follow your line of reasoning. You say that (some) men fear mentoring women because of the #MeToo movement. I'm just wondering if in Sweden, it is never the case that gay men find themselves sexually attracted to those they are mentoring? Or bi? Why is this a problem confined only to male/female situations? Are women also vulnerable to being unduly attracted to males they might mentor?

If it's a problem, it's not just a problem with straight men/straight women.

In the US, there is increasingly a move away from situations where alcohol is mixed in with business, at least in great quantities.

Well... I guess USA can't be great at everything. I hope it gets better over there in time. We can only hope.

While I don't think that enough progress has been made, I do find it very heartening that the US has progressed beyond the Mad Men days, which, according to your stories, it seems Sweden seems stuck in.

Do you think blackface, racist humour and gay bashing is funny?

I think that they are as funny as is sexist 'humor.'

I'm also beginning to think that Sweden does not deserve its reputation for being socially progressive.

So you seem to understand how humour works. Good for you. So I don't understand what your problem is?

I don't have a problem. I am pretty familiar with what is appropriate behavior in the workplace and what is not.

Anyway... what I wanted to discuss in this thread was how #MeToo's suspension of due process impacts society. Something you've not addressed once in this thread. Instead you seem hellbent on trying to derail the thread. I've given you several second chances, and you keep trying to derail the thread. I have no interest in talking with you any more.

As far as I can tell, #MeToo has not suspended due process. Your own examples don't demonstrate that it has done so. I don't see that happening in the US. As far as I can tell, the article YOU linked in YOUR OP contradicts your thesis.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There is a difference between 'can't' and 'won't.' Mentoring the next generation always comes with risks. Always. The risk and the inevitable outcome is always that you will be replaced. Because you will be. We will all be replaced. It's supposed to be like that.

Are ALL top CEO's in Sweden male?

If management teams are 50/50 male/female, why can't women mentor other women? Why can't women mentor men? Why can't men leave the damn door open? Why can't men quit 'joking' with women about maternity leave? Do they also joke with men about paternity leave? Why can't men quit telling women they can have a job if the woman will sleep with them? Why do men work while drunk? Why can't men take responsibility for their boorish behavior without using alcohol as an excuse?

1) Mommy track. You would expect CEOs to be predominantly male because of this.

2) This answer doesn't even address the problem--namely that it's gotten too risky for men to mentor women. Down the road that's going to mean fewer women in the boardroom.

1. The mommy track and #MeToo are just excuses for men to refuse to promote women. Plenty of women do not have children. Plenty of women with children actually found companies and earn millions of dollars and serve as VP, Pres and CEOs. Plenty of men have children and instead of being penalized are rewarded with promotions and raises.

Mommy track is about taking it easier at work so they have time with their kids--something pretty much incompatible with becoming CEO.

And the issue we are discussing with #metoo is about mentoring, not about promotion.

2. It will always be 'too risky' for chickenshit men to mentor women. Actual men do what is suggested in the article linked in the OP: They are just not jerks.

It hasn't been in the past. What we are seeing now is one unsupported allegation can be devastating, so don't put yourself in a position where such an allegation could be true.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I was never a Seinfeld fan so I never saw the show you are talking about. I still don’t see the relevance. We’re talking about the real world here and not imagined events.

I suggest you read what I actually wrote. I am not discussing what happened on a TV show, but people talking about a TV show!

https://corporate.findlaw.com/human...on-to-executive-fired-over-racy-seinfeld.html

(Note that it seems to have been shot down on a technicality that I don't understand.)

Loren,

Thank you very much for providing a link. Just trying to decipher what you were getting at without the link was beyond my abilities. The link really helps.

It was perfectly clear, you were just fixated on the notion of it being something on TV.

It sounds to me like Miller Brewing treated MacKenzie unfairly or at least was dishonest about why they fired him--or he reached the wrong conclusion OR that he purposely misled the court in the initial case about why he was fired, alleging that it was for sexual harassment which didn't actually take place.

I may have misunderstood something but this particular case does not seem to support your thesis that #MeToo is making it too difficult to employ women or to mentor women.

For one thing, the case took place 20 years prior to #MeToo.

My point is that we were already bending over backwards long before #metoo.

More importantly, every single court decision found and upheld that there was NO SEXUAL HARASSMENT. MacKenzie was not fired for sexual harassment, according to Miller Brewing and the court of appeals and Wisconsin Supreme court found also that MacKenzie was not fired for sexual harassment.

My guess is that Mackenzie was a proper asshole and that's why he ultimately was fired. It was only in his own mind that his firing/demotions were due to allegations of sexual harassment. No one aside from Best seems to have thought it was harassment.

If he wasn't fired for harassment then why was he fired when a totally bogus harassment allegation was made?

I don't know if Mackenzie was a proper asshole. That's just a guess. He may have genuinely thought there was a connection between the allegation of sexual harassment and his demotion/firing. He was successful in arguing this in the original court case. However, ultimately Miller Brewing was able to convince the court that wasn't why he was demoted/fired. Maybe Miller Brewing lied. Maybe MacKenzie lied. Or was simply wrong. Neither would not surprise me at all. He may or may not have been treated unfairly or maybe just badly. Or maybe he was a big enough asshole that he deserved to be let go.

But the important relevant fact here is that NO COURT EVER FOUND THAT THERE WAS SEXUAL HARASSMENT. Ultimately, his firing was found to be justified.

I don't see that the court said he wasn't fired for harassment, but rather that he had no basis for a claim at all.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I won't speak for RavenSky, but I'm still waiting for an example of a woman making a false claim and it harming the man's career.

The thing is there's usually no recourse.

1) The claims are normally of things that can neither be proven nor disproven. How is he to prove it was false?

2) So long as the company reasonably would be taken in by the lie they're probably off the hook. She's not going to have the money to make a lawsuit worthwhile.

3) All too often there are binding arbitration agreements which means anything other than an absolutely clear cut case is going to lose.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There is a difference between 'can't' and 'won't.' Mentoring the next generation always comes with risks. Always. The risk and the inevitable outcome is always that you will be replaced. Because you will be. We will all be replaced. It's supposed to be like that.

Are ALL top CEO's in Sweden male?

If management teams are 50/50 male/female, why can't women mentor other women? Why can't women mentor men? Why can't men leave the damn door open? Why can't men quit 'joking' with women about maternity leave? Do they also joke with men about paternity leave? Why can't men quit telling women they can have a job if the woman will sleep with them? Why do men work while drunk? Why can't men take responsibility for their boorish behavior without using alcohol as an excuse?

1) Mommy track. You would expect CEOs to be predominantly male because of this.

Sweden has heavily subsidised daycare. In Sweden there's zero reason for any woman to be a stay at home mom. The entire Swedish tax system is designed to encourage women to work. Being a stay at home mom in Sweden is very expensive and is not going to be worth it. In Sweden having children, for men or women, is not seen as an obstacle to make a career or be a top level CEO.

But even so, Sweden has the worlds most gendered work force. Women go for female coded jobs more here than anywhere else, and the same for male coded jobs. This is interesting sociologically.

Mommy track isn't about being a stay-at-home mother, but about only working 40 hr/wk, avoiding overtime and out of town trips.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I do know of a real life case where an employee was fired immediately after being arrested for assaulting their domestic partner. As it happens, both the victim and the person accused of (and eventually convicted ) assault were employees of my employer. The assault was serious, involved a serious, disfiguring injury and a weapon. My employer did not wait for the trial to fire the accused person. Both persons were employed in the same building and it would have been difficult for the victim to have remained in their job and been safe from any further violence. Of course, the employer also had to be concerned about the safety of the other employees. I have since been told that the one who committed the assault was well known for being extremely possessive and jealous and often made others uncomfortable. I only knew them in passing, to say hello to. I would never have guessed.

In this case, an actual crime--a serious crime at that-- was committed. This was not a case of someone telling a dirty joke or being insensitive.

There's an important difference here--this was a current threat. #MeToo is about old cases.

 

[Toni]

I won't speak for RavenSky, but I'm still waiting for an example of a woman making a false claim and it harming the man's career.

The thing is there's usually no recourse.

1) The claims are normally of things that can neither be proven nor disproven. How is he to prove it was false?

2) So long as the company reasonably would be taken in by the lie they're probably off the hook. She's not going to have the money to make a lawsuit worthwhile.

3) All too often there are binding arbitration agreements which means anything other than an absolutely clear cut case is going to lose.

Was there an actual real life example in there?

- - - Updated - - -

I do know of a real life case where an employee was fired immediately after being arrested for assaulting their domestic partner. As it happens, both the victim and the person accused of (and eventually convicted ) assault were employees of my employer. The assault was serious, involved a serious, disfiguring injury and a weapon. My employer did not wait for the trial to fire the accused person. Both persons were employed in the same building and it would have been difficult for the victim to have remained in their job and been safe from any further violence. Of course, the employer also had to be concerned about the safety of the other employees. I have since been told that the one who committed the assault was well known for being extremely possessive and jealous and often made others uncomfortable. I only knew them in passing, to say hello to. I would never have guessed.

In this case, an actual crime--a serious crime at that-- was committed. This was not a case of someone telling a dirty joke or being insensitive.

There's an important difference here--this was a current threat. #MeToo is about old cases.

#MeToo isn't just about old cases. It's about how long this crap has been going on and how many women it has affected.

The instance I was writing about took place several years ago, before #MeToo.

 

[Toni]

It was perfectly clear, you were just fixated on the notion of it being something on TV.

It wasn't clear at all to me, Loren. You didn't provide much information when you talked about this case.

It seems that you didn't understand things well, either, given your questions following in this post.

For one thing, the case took place 20 years prior to #MeToo.

My point is that we were already bending over backwards long before #metoo.

There was no bending over backwards, and if you actually read your link, you will find that the jury found for the Mackenzie and said there was no sexual harassment.

Later the judgement was overruled because the courts found that Mackenzie was not fired for sexual harassment but for cause. He didn't do his job well. Also Miller Brewing lied to him about the status of his job but apparently Miller Brewing was allowed to lie, which I find horrible.

If he wasn't fired for harassment then why was he fired when a totally bogus harassment allegation was made?

From your link, which you said wasn't necessary because you understood the whole thing without it. Apparently not but:

The company had argued that Mackenzie's actions were the culminating event of a series of mistakes on the job which justified his termination,

And (this is a bit hard to understand but it's from your link):

The case ultimately did not turn on a reverse sexual discrimination claim, but on misrepresentations by Miller Brewing Company. The Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the appellate decision.

The appeal centered on the misrepresentations that Miller made to Mackenzie about his employment. Mackenzie worked from Miller Brewing from 1974 to 1993, moving up the company ladder in what the company called "grade levels." In about 1987, the company reorganized and adjusted some of the grade levels for some employees. One of those employees who had had his position adjusted downward was Mackenzie.

Mackenzie, concerned about the re-organization, asked whether or not his position and grade level had been affected. Miller Brewing Company lied to Mackenzie and said that his position was not affected. It was this lie and the misrepresentation by Miller that was the subject of the case review at the appellate level and then at the supreme court level. The Wisconsin Supreme court held that there is no such thing as a cause of action for intentional misrepresentation to induce continued employment and therefore Mackenzie had failed to state a cause of action upon which recovery could be based.

I don't see that the court said he wasn't fired for harassment, but rather that he had no basis for a claim at all.

The first court declared that there was no sexual harassment and that he had been fired unjustly. Miller alleged he was bad at his job and made many mistakes. Also that there were prior allegations of harassment.

The appeals court and supreme court did not address whether there was sexual harassment but said that Mackenzie had failed to state a cause of action for which recover could be based. Miller Brewing lied to him (I find this confusing) about the status of his job. I am guessing although the article isn't clear about this that this misrepresentation about the job led to his poor performance at the job. I don't think that makes a lot of sense but basically the appeals court and supreme court said Mackenzie had no basis for his claim.

 

[DrZoidberg]

What? How could it be any more obvious? It's like demanding evidence for your face having a nose

Right, that's what I'm saying. It's like how the negative effects of millions of rapists and murderers who are definitely pouring into the US with all their diseases are so fucking obvious, it's insane that libtards feel the need to question the premise instead of talking about how high the solution of building the wall should be.

It is most certainly obvious that there are male executives worried about the effects of false accusations brought about by women exploiting the toxic environment they feel has been generated by the #MeToo movement. What is not obvious is whether or not this group is representative of male executives as a whole or is an insignificant subset of them and it's not obvious whether or not their fears are well founded or completely imaginary.

Everybody who has been accused in #MeToo has been socially punished the instant the accusation is made. If they get cleared from the accusation the social punishment is maintained. They're seemingly for ever punished. Due process just seems to be an irrelevant formality. Nobody seems to care about it.

Are you disagreeing with this?

It was already bad before #MeToo. In Sweden anybody in business who was accused of rape, even if acquitted was for ever persona non-grata in the fancy clubs. Another example. I know a guy who was accused of murder, because of a police cock up. They just got the wrong guy. He wasn't remotely connected to the victim. It was highly publicised. It took him 10 years before he was let back into the fancy rooms again. He arguably still isn't. Not to mention the trauma of being socially isolated by all the people he respected for 10 years. He used to live in Stockholm city. Go to parties and be a fun guy. Now he lives in the country.

Just being accused has a tremendously high cost. #MeToo took a bad situation and made it a hell of a lot worse.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Sweden has heavily subsidised daycare. In Sweden there's zero reason for any woman to be a stay at home mom. The entire Swedish tax system is designed to encourage women to work. Being a stay at home mom in Sweden is very expensive and is not going to be worth it. In Sweden having children, for men or women, is not seen as an obstacle to make a career or be a top level CEO.

But even so, Sweden has the worlds most gendered work force. Women go for female coded jobs more here than anywhere else, and the same for male coded jobs. This is interesting sociologically.

Mommy track isn't about being a stay-at-home mother, but about only working 40 hr/wk, avoiding overtime and out of town trips.

Sweden has this to. But it's not really a mommy track. It's more a parent track. Both parents are expected to help out. Even though women do it more. There's no social pressure to do it. All of Scandinavia is the same on this. The women who do it do it because they want to. The women who don't aren't negatively judged on it. Rather the opposite. In Scandinavia parents don't have to sacrifice anything regarding work to have children. Society is organised around making life easy for parents.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What? How could it be any more obvious? It's like demanding evidence for your face having a nose

Right, that's what I'm saying. It's like how the negative effects of millions of rapists and murderers who are definitely pouring into the US with all their diseases are so fucking obvious, it's insane that libtards feel the need to question the premise instead of talking about how high the solution of building the wall should be.

It is most certainly obvious that there are male executives worried about the effects of false accusations brought about by women exploiting the toxic environment they feel has been generated by the #MeToo movement. What is not obvious is whether or not this group is representative of male executives as a whole or is an insignificant subset of them and it's not obvious whether or not their fears are well founded or completely imaginary.

Everybody who has been accused in #MeToo has been socially punished the instant the accusation is made. If they get cleared from the accusation the social punishment is maintained. They're seemingly for ever punished. Due process just seems to be an irrelevant formality. Nobody seems to care about it.

Are you disagreeing with this?

It was already bad before #MeToo. In Sweden anybody in business who was accused of rape, even if acquitted was for ever persona non-grata in the fancy clubs. Another example. I know a guy who was accused of murder, because of a police cock up. They just got the wrong guy. He wasn't remotely connected to the victim. It was highly publicised. It took him 10 years before he was let back into the fancy rooms again. He arguably still isn't. Not to mention the trauma of being socially isolated by all the people he respected for 10 years. He used to live in Stockholm city. Go to parties and be a fun guy. Now he lives in the country.

Just being accused has a tremendously high cost. #MeToo took a bad situation and made it a hell of a lot worse.

At the beginning of the #MeToo movement, yes, I agree with you. There were lifetimes worth of repressed rage shooting out and this caused collateral damage. I already mentioned in this thread the guy who should be Premier of Ontario right now who got drummed out because of unfounded allegations just before the election and had to settle with becoming a Mayor and suing the newspapers who ran the stories once he was cleared.

That seems to me to have died down, though, and the movement is now what it should be - it sticks up for women who bring forward allegations, but things aren't going overboard. Look at the latest allegations against Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Six months ago, he would have been drummed out of society. Now, people read the allegations and have written a couple of them off as too trivial to matter and one as potentially serious if it can be proven. His network is looking into it, but none of his shows have been cancelled while they're doing so and his website still has speaking engagements lined up for him. There's no indication from the people looking into it that they're simply trying to find a way to kick him out over the mere allegation instead of actually trying to discover is there's a credible foundation to her claims over his claims. There will likely be people who boycott his lectures in the short term and he'll lose cash over this, but there doesn't seem to be any kind of outrage following him which will end up following him for his career if he ends up being cleared.

The comedian Aziz Ansari was vilified when the movement started because someone wrote about a bad date with him or something and he was persona non grata for a while and talked about in the same sentence with actual rapists. Now, he's back to headlining comedy festivals and his tour dates are mostly sold out.

It looks to me that the #MeToo movement has become exactly what you think it should be. It's advocating for a position and offering support for those who come forward but not interrupting due process in doing so. Perhaps I'm wrong about that and you're aware of some recent examples where careers are still being destroyed due to mere allegations and you'd be willing to share those as opposed to historical examples where we both agree they were overboard. I'd be fine with changing my position and agreeing with you about how it's still problematic if you can do so.

Now, bringing that back to your OP, as I said before, it is most certainly obvious that there are male executives worried about the effects of false accusations brought about by women exploiting the toxic environment they feel has been generated by the #MeToo movement. What is not obvious is whether or not this group is representative of male executives as a whole or is an insignificant subset of them and it's not obvious whether or not their fears are well founded or completely imaginary. If it's an insignificant number of people complaining about a completely imaginary situation, nothing needs to be done. If it's the group as a whole raising well founded fears, something significant needs to be done. If it's somewhere in between, where it lies in between would determine what sort of action, if any, needs to be taken. You haven't presented a decent case of the scope of the problem, which is a necessary step in determining what sort of solution is required, if one is required at all.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It's nice that Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Aziz Ansari where forgiven. But they, at no time, did anything wrong. Aziz was the perfect gentleman on that date. Tyson was accused of rape after a woman went to regression therapy and found repressed memories, ie pseudoscientific poppycock. The fact that they were allowed to get on with life proves nothing. On the contrary just them being #MeToo'ed and having to defend themselves proves it's still a mob out of control.

I see no indication it's slowing down. The worst #MeToo offenders and leaders of the witch hunts are still respected journalists. In fact, #MeToo journalism has become it's own respected branch of journalism. Or as it is also called "victim journalism".

Here's the journalist Be Scofield. All her published articles are #MeToo articles. Before #MeToo she couldn't live off her writing. Now she can. #MeToo has become a market in it's own right.

http://bescofield.com/about-be/

She has written about some people I know. So I know she's full of shit.

Like I said, there's zero cost to women to make these accusations. Rather the opposite. They get flooded with support, no matter if they're making it all up. The public doesn't give a shit if it's true or not. They just assume it's all true. So my prediction is that it'll only get worse.

Didn't we discuss this in this thread already? I feel like it's Deja Vu

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Didn't we discuss this in this thread already? I feel like it's Deja Vu

Well, that's because you never actually discussed it before, the same as now. That's why I asked for names. If your assertion that it's getting worse is accurate, then it should not be difficult for you to point to examples of how it's getting worse as opposed to retreating to vague and generic remarks, since there would be more current examples of careers destroyed by baseless allegations while the public stands there not giving a shit than there are historical examples from the beginning of the movement - that's pretty much the exact definition of what "getting worse" would mean. If my assertion that it's getting better is accurate, then I would expect to have requests for current examples answered by vague and generic remarks as opposed to actual current examples, due to those current examples not being things which actually are happening. It seems that the expected results are not happening for your assertion and are happening for my assertion.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I'll have to get back to you on that since now is a a Christmas party about to start

 

[Toni]

Everybody who has been accused in #MeToo has been socially punished the instant the accusation is made. If they get cleared from the accusation the social punishment is maintained. They're seemingly for ever punished. Due process just seems to be an irrelevant formality. Nobody seems to care about it.

Are you disagreeing with this?

It was already bad before #MeToo. In Sweden anybody in business who was accused of rape, even if acquitted was for ever persona non-grata in the fancy clubs. Another example. I know a guy who was accused of murder, because of a police cock up. They just got the wrong guy. He wasn't remotely connected to the victim. It was highly publicised. It took him 10 years before he was let back into the fancy rooms again. He arguably still isn't. Not to mention the trauma of being socially isolated by all the people he respected for 10 years. He used to live in Stockholm city. Go to parties and be a fun guy. Now he lives in the country.

Just being accused has a tremendously high cost. #MeToo took a bad situation and made it a hell of a lot worse.

At the beginning of the #MeToo movement, yes, I agree with you. There were lifetimes worth of repressed rage shooting out and this caused collateral damage. I already mentioned in this thread the guy who should be Premier of Ontario right now who got drummed out because of unfounded allegations just before the election and had to settle with becoming a Mayor and suing the newspapers who ran the stories once he was cleared.

That seems to me to have died down, though, and the movement is now what it should be - it sticks up for women who bring forward allegations, but things aren't going overboard. Look at the latest allegations against Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Six months ago, he would have been drummed out of society. Now, people read the allegations and have written a couple of them off as too trivial to matter and one as potentially serious if it can be proven. His network is looking into it, but none of his shows have been cancelled while they're doing so and his website still has speaking engagements lined up for him. There's no indication from the people looking into it that they're simply trying to find a way to kick him out over the mere allegation instead of actually trying to discover is there's a credible foundation to her claims over his claims. There will likely be people who boycott his lectures in the short term and he'll lose cash over this, but there doesn't seem to be any kind of outrage following him which will end up following him for his career if he ends up being cleared.

The comedian Aziz Ansari was vilified when the movement started because someone wrote about a bad date with him or something and he was persona non grata for a while and talked about in the same sentence with actual rapists. Now, he's back to headlining comedy festivals and his tour dates are mostly sold out.

It looks to me that the #MeToo movement has become exactly what you think it should be. It's advocating for a position and offering support for those who come forward but not interrupting due process in doing so. Perhaps I'm wrong about that and you're aware of some recent examples where careers are still being destroyed due to mere allegations and you'd be willing to share those as opposed to historical examples where we both agree they were overboard. I'd be fine with changing my position and agreeing with you about how it's still problematic if you can do so.

Now, bringing that back to your OP, as I said before, it is most certainly obvious that there are male executives worried about the effects of false accusations brought about by women exploiting the toxic environment they feel has been generated by the #MeToo movement. What is not obvious is whether or not this group is representative of male executives as a whole or is an insignificant subset of them and it's not obvious whether or not their fears are well founded or completely imaginary. If it's an insignificant number of people complaining about a completely imaginary situation, nothing needs to be done. If it's the group as a whole raising well founded fears, something significant needs to be done. If it's somewhere in between, where it lies in between would determine what sort of action, if any, needs to be taken. You haven't presented a decent case of the scope of the problem, which is a necessary step in determining what sort of solution is required, if one is required at all.

I have a few quibbles. First of all, at least some of the allegations, although not the most serious ones against DeGrasse Tyson were sufficiently public 6 months ago that I was aware of them, and I don't consider myself particularly 'in the know.' For the most part, they were trivial and he's a physicist making him relatively low radar. The drugged rape allegation is obviously the most serious one and will be problematic to prove. Unless something terrible is proven, I don't think he'll endure any lasting harm, aside from some women speaking badly about him and avoiding him. FWIW, some men speak badly about women and women can face serious consequences because of that.

A bad date is when your date picks his nose, insults the waitstaff and vomits in the cab. According to his accuser, Aziz Ansari pressured a woman into performing sex acts on him despite her objections/disinclination to 'service' him. At best, he was insensitive and clueless. This was more than a 'bad date' but probably less than sexual assault. What I find upsetting is that men seem to think think this is just a bad date or sex that the woman regrets. It's more than that. It's sex that a woman felt a great deal of pressure to perform and got not much out of except feelings of fear and shame. There are two parts to this: Women must learn to stand up for themselves much better than some of them do and to feel no shame or fear over turning down requests for sex. There is still too much pressure on women to put out in return for dinner or drinks or simply for being nice to her.
That has to stop. Men are unlikely to stop feeling entitled to whatever they demand from a woman so that's something that women will need to work harder on. The other part that men don't seem to get is that they actually need to pay attention to women's responses prior to and during sex to gauge whether the men's advances or actions are welcome or pleasurable or if she's simply tolerating it because she's too polite or too afraid to decline or exit. Sex is supposed to be mutual and mutually pleasurable. That means you need to pay attention and not just think with what's in your pants.


For decades, men have written on bathroom walls the names/ phone numbers of women who would have casual sex and have shared the information wide and far. Increasingly, women are sharing information about men who push sexual contact, sexually assault and rape other women--men to avoid. Women are actually getting in trouble for creating and sharing those lists. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/10/shitty-media-men-moira-donegan-andrew-miltenberg/

 

[Toni]

It's nice that Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Aziz Ansari where forgiven. But they, at no time, did anything wrong. Aziz was the perfect gentleman on that date. Tyson was accused of rape after a woman went to regression therapy and found repressed memories, ie pseudoscientific poppycock. The fact that they were allowed to get on with life proves nothing. On the contrary just them being #MeToo'ed and having to defend themselves proves it's still a mob out of control.

I see no indication it's slowing down. The worst #MeToo offenders and leaders of the witch hunts are still respected journalists. In fact, #MeToo journalism has become it's own respected branch of journalism. Or as it is also called "victim journalism".

Here's the journalist Be Scofield. All her published articles are #MeToo articles. Before #MeToo she couldn't live off her writing. Now she can. #MeToo has become a market in it's own right.

http://bescofield.com/about-be/

She has written about some people I know. So I know she's full of shit.

Like I said, there's zero cost to women to make these accusations. Rather the opposite. They get flooded with support, no matter if they're making it all up. The public doesn't give a shit if it's true or not. They just assume it's all true. So my prediction is that it'll only get worse.

Didn't we discuss this in this thread already? I feel like it's Deja Vu

She may or may not be full of shit. The fact that these are people you know does not mean that they did not engage in bad behavior. Most women are sexually assaulted by men they know. I was.

Also, according to the link you supplied, she seems to not be primarily a journalist.....