"What about teh mens?" derail from sexual assault thread

[Derec]

So if this person was not guilty - why didn't he disclose this before or after he was hired, and show proof that he was falsely accused? He could have easily cleared it up. I hire people all the time and if they are honest up front I would be even more inclined to hire an individual. Those that hide information from me whatever it is, would be terminated because I would feel this was dishonset on their part. So this example has no relevance.

Question: if you found out a female you hired accused somebody of rape and the investigation found no cause to proceed would you have fired her as well because it is likely she made the accusation up?
Or are rape accusers, even false rape accusers, protected in way men falsely accused of rape are not?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If you are a women wrongful accused of spanking her daughter, the women's teaching career is ruined as well. I have seen this happen.

Women who do statutory rape on their male students also get into some trouble, in the actual courts... though not so much in the court of public opinion.

Women who fuck their male students rarely get jail time. Men who fuck their female students usually do.

Please do not derail the thread with discussions about female sexual abuse. This thread is about men.

 

[starwater]

So if this person was not guilty - why didn't he disclose this before or after he was hired, and show proof that he was falsely accused? He could have easily cleared it up. I hire people all the time and if they are honest up front I would be even more inclined to hire an individual. Those that hide information from me whatever it is, would be terminated because I would feel this was dishonset on their part. So this example has no relevance.

Question: if you found out a female you hired accused somebody of rape and the investigation found no cause to proceed would you have fired her as well because it is likely she made the accusation up?
Or are rape accusers, even false rape accusers, protected in way men falsely accused of rape are not?

Absolutely - no question out the door - if it was credible that she was bringing false calms to her advantage.

This thread again is not about women and false claims, which you seem to be unhealthy obsessed with.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

So if this person was not guilty - why didn't he disclose this before or after he was hired, and show proof that he was falsely accused? He could have easily cleared it up. I hire people all the time and if they are honest up front I would be even more inclined to hire an individual. Those that hide information from me whatever it is, would be terminated because I would feel this was dishonset on their part. So this example has no relevance.

Question: if you found out a female you hired accused somebody of rape and the investigation found no cause to proceed would you have fired her as well because it is likely she made the accusation up?
Or are rape accusers, even false rape accusers, protected in way men falsely accused of rape are not?

It is a good question, but there is no need to gender that, or restrict it to a case of rape.

More generally, is it fair grounds to refuse to hire somebody because they once made an allegation of a crime about somebody else without good evidence, though they were never convicted for doing so? What if they were only accused of making false allegations but you can't verify if any such accusation was ever made by them?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

More generally, is is fair grounds to refuse to hire somebody because they once made an allegation of a crime about somebody else without good evidence, though they were never convicted for doing so?

Well, there's a huge difference between a false accusation and an accusation which can't be proven.

If it can be shown that the accuser actually lied, like with the people who were trying to #metoo Mueller, that's an unrelated scenario to accusations which can't be verified or which can't give evidence beyond a he said/she said situation.

 

[ruby sparks]

Women who fuck their male students rarely get jail time. Men who fuck their female students usually do.

Please do not derail the thread with discussions about female sexual abuse. This thread is about men.

??

Satire, Tom?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

If it can be shown that the accuser actually lied, like with the people who were trying to #metoo Mueller, that's an unrelated scenario to accusations which can't be verified or which can't give evidence beyond a he said/she said situation.

But does it have to be shown that they lied, or merely alleged that they lied? If allegations are enough, that opens the door in both directions.

If I claim that you falsely accused me of X, when you're not shown to have made any such accusation at all, is that enough for your prospective employer not to hire you? You MAY have made the false accusation I accuse you of.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If it can be shown that the accuser actually lied, like with the people who were trying to #metoo Mueller, that's an unrelated scenario to accusations which can't be verified or which can't give evidence beyond a he said/she said situation.

But does it have to be shown that they lied, or merely alleged that they lied? If allegations are enough, that opens the door in both directions.

Fair point. It's another instance where the accusation shouldn't be enough.

If it can't be shown one way or another, the proper response to it should be "I don't care" because the alternative response of "I will take a side" is not warranted.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

If it can be shown that the accuser actually lied, like with the people who were trying to #metoo Mueller, that's an unrelated scenario to accusations which can't be verified or which can't give evidence beyond a he said/she said situation.

But does it have to be shown that they lied, or merely alleged that they lied? If allegations are enough, that opens the door in both directions.

Fair point. It's another instance where the accusation shouldn't be enough.

If it can't be shown one way or another, the proper response to it should be "I don't care" because the alternative response of "I will take a side" is not warranted.

Exactly.

Yet, false and entirely baseless accusations, especially of something of a sexual nature against women or children, can ruin people, even if they are found "not guilty" in court, even if DNA evidence clears them, etc. It is a sad truth.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Exactly.

Yet, false and entirely baseless accusations, especially of something of a sexual nature against women or children, can ruin people, even if they are found "not guilty" in court, even if DNA evidence clears them, etc. It is a sad truth.

Well, bad court decisions are a separate issue and a separate topic of discussion. If someone's been convicted of a crime then it's fine for others to judge him negatively for that and not bother to look past the conviction and parse through the court transcripts to see if there were legal errors in this particular case.

For mere accusations, there does need to be some level of credibility established in order to take the accusation seriously. "He raped me" or "She lied about my raping her" are both nonsense statements absent support for the accusations. It's not a court of law and nobody's getting imprisoned, so it's fine to have this level be below the "beyond reasonable doubt" of court proceedings, but it needs to be above "No woman lies about rape" or "Women are all lying bitches" or "Wait ... how would believing or not believing advance my partisan political views?".

What that level is, I have no idea. It is something that should be figured out, though.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

For mere accusations, there does need to be some level of credibility established in order to take the accusation seriously. "He raped me" or "She lied about my raping her" are both nonsense statements absent support for the accusations. It's not a court of law and nobody's getting imprisoned, so it's fine to have this level be below the "beyond reasonable doubt" of court proceedings, but it needs to be above "No woman lies about rape" or "Women are all lying bitches" or "Wait ... how would believing or not believing advance my partisan political views?".

What that level is, I have no idea. It is something that should be figured out, though.

I agree with this.

 

[Opoponax]

Why should he disclose an accusation when the investigation cleared him?

Disclosure and honesty (yes, honesty) is everything in the legal field. If you fail to disclose and later get found out, you're well and truly fucked. If you disclose the problem upfront and head-on, you're probably going to be okay. You may not be okay, but you're still better off.


It's why Kavanaugh's appointment was so outrageous. The guy lied and failed to disclose. Never mind the accusations and the whole bullshit circus of going back to the guy's high school days (and that really was some horrible bullshit). A brand new associate attorney being held to a higher standard than a SCOTUS justice is ... words fail me. It's an absolute perversion of professional standards. Anyway, yeah, failure to disclose = death.

 

[RavenSky]

Why should he disclose an accusation when the investigation cleared him?

Disclosure and honesty (yes, honesty) is everything in the legal field. If you fail to disclose and later get found out, you're well and truly fucked. If you disclose the problem upfront and head-on, you're probably going to be okay. You may not be okay, but you're still better off.


It's why Kavanaugh's appointment was so outrageous. The guy lied and failed to disclose. Never mind the accusations and the whole bullshit circus of going back to the guy's high school days (and that really was some horrible bullshit). A brand new associate attorney being held to a higher standard than a SCOTUS justice is ... words fail me. It's an absolute perversion of professional standards. Anyway, yeah, failure to disclose = death.

^^^ agree

Failing to disclose, lying under oath, lying on one's security clearance...

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We all condemn sexual assault, don't we? Yet these threads keep popping up. They remind me that the costs of a false accusation of sexual assault also carries unimaginable costs. Anecdotally, at a former law firm I worked at the policy was to hire new attorneys first as probationary contract lawyers before offering full-time employment. One guy was contracted in this way. HR, perhaps not too wise to the internet, hadn't done an internet search before bringing him on board. However, a few of the staff later did and uncovered that he had been accused of sexual assault while in college. The police and college investigations turned up nothing and no charges were filed. Nonetheless, the law firm didn't want the association so ended his contract. He was promptly erased from the website. The accusation will follow him for the rest of his life. It's better to be properly charged with terrorism than falsely accused of sexual assault.

Quoted for truth.

So if this person was not guilty - why didn't he disclose this before or after he was hired, and show proof that he was falsely accused? He could have easily cleared it up. I hire people all the time and if they are honest up front I would be even more inclined to hire an individual. Those that hide information from me whatever it is, would be terminated because I would feel this was dishonset on their part. So this example has no relevance.

"Easily" = impossible.

Once you're tainted you're tainted. It can't be undone. The allegation puts them on notice, if there ever were a lawsuit about it it would hurt them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We all condemn sexual assault, don't we? Yet these threads keep popping up. They remind me that the costs of a false accusation of sexual assault also carries unimaginable costs. Anecdotally, at a former law firm I worked at the policy was to hire new attorneys first as probationary contract lawyers before offering full-time employment. One guy was contracted in this way. HR, perhaps not too wise to the internet, hadn't done an internet search before bringing him on board. However, a few of the staff later did and uncovered that he had been accused of sexual assault while in college. The police and college investigations turned up nothing and no charges were filed. Nonetheless, the law firm didn't want the association so ended his contract. He was promptly erased from the website. The accusation will follow him for the rest of his life. It's better to be properly charged with terrorism than falsely accused of sexual assault.

Quoted for truth.

Actually, I doubt the whole story. Law schools require students to disclose all encounters with law enforcement and any other potential ethics violations. Nondisclosure is grounds for dismissal.

"Law school" != "law firm".

The school saw it was nothing, the law firm didn't care, they didn't want someone who had even been accused.

Note that the government itself is guilty of this sort of thing. There was a case posted on here a while back--the cops see someone whose behavior the misinterpreted as wrongful and arrested him for resisting arrest. In reality he wasn't fleeing the cops, he just resumed his jogging and wasn't aware the cops were trying to stop him. He got a half-million verdict because it denied him a police career. (He had been in the academy when it happened.) If the government didn't treat arrests as taint this wouldn't have been an issue.

- - - Updated - - -

There do exist libel laws one could use to sue those who make such career ruining false accusations. Of course that then shifts the onus to the accused and there may be no way to really meet the standard, which isn't a great environment to be in.

And said accused almost certainly don't have the money to pay the costs of the tainting.

 

[Lion IRC]

We all condemn sexual assault, don't we? Yet these threads keep popping up. They remind me that the costs of a false accusation of sexual assault also carries unimaginable costs. Anecdotally, at a former law firm I worked at the policy was to hire new attorneys first as probationary contract lawyers before offering full-time employment. One guy was contracted in this way. HR, perhaps not too wise to the internet, hadn't done an internet search before bringing him on board. However, a few of the staff later did and uncovered that he had been accused of sexual assault while in college. The police and college investigations turned up nothing and no charges were filed. Nonetheless, the law firm didn't want the association so ended his contract. He was promptly erased from the website. The accusation will follow him for the rest of his life. It's better to be properly charged with terrorism than falsely accused of sexual assault.

I
It is clear that "we all" do not condemn sexual assault, and "we all" do not condemn sexual harassment when "we all" persist in derailing a thread about the sexual assault of women with yet another predictable wailing of the irrelevant "oh my god, men face false accusations". And, within two post of the OP to boot.

It's not an OT derail to question the truth or falsity of a sexual harassment claim in a thread about sexual harassment accusations against men.

Listen to yourself!

Youre a self-professed rational skeptic. You're at a free thought forum which supposedly upholds the values of critical thinking and evidence-based reasoning. And yet you're willing defend an echo-chamber, group think mentality where nobody is allowed to say;
...are those sexual harassment allegations actually TRUE?
...does misplaced, uncritical acceptance of BELIEF in those allegations cause harm?
...why should we prefer FAITH over facts when discussing #metoo issues?

If I started a thread about a widely held religious opinion, and atheists jumped in with objections that this particular belief might be false, and how unfair it is for atheists to have to live with the consequences of supposedly false claims (allegations), would I be allowed to accuse them of attempting to 'derail' my cherished thread topic?