Sexual Harassment- It's nearly time for clemency (opinion)

[Rational Poster]

And why is that morally wrong?

 

[cooks1]

I don't think he should. He just shouldn't cross my path, that is all.

I don't think all of those people who work for that boss, should lose their jobs just because the boss happened to be an asshole to my daughter, or girlfriend, or whatever. That's a destructive impulse, to punish everyone, for one man's sins.

We'd just deal with the problem in a man to man situation, and leave it at that. He can keep his company because his company didn't assault my daughter or girlfriend. I don't need to exact vengeance on everything that the man has accomplished. A physical reminder of his transgressions, is enough. The punishment must fit the crime. The man might have a wife or children to look after, who need him to make a living. Those people that work for him, might need that company that he has built, to make a living.

I've had people insult me and the people that I care about before, and I've straightened them out. No need for any third party to get involved. No need for social media outrage, no need for the police, no need for the courts, no need for any of that.



That's because they've grown to expect the state to carry out their punishment for them. Anyway, I think we just disagree on such a fundamental level that it's not really worth arguing about. The sort of a society that you propose, is the sort of a society that I'm sworn to resist against, with every inch of my being. And I'm afraid there are no real arguments that can stray me away from that innate belief.

I don't think we are nearly as far apart in our beliefs as you would like to believe. You have already done half the work in proving my point.

You have already admitted that your reaction to your GF getting groped would not be moderate, and you would be inclined to personally remedy the situation. Giving the boss a 'physical reminder' of his transgressions no less. So you would be inclined to respond with physical violence. As would many of us.

And as I mentioned before, the owner of a company would not be fired for merely grabbing some tits. No one in a company would be. The person and the company would be given the opportunity to modify the behavior and remedy the matter. Only if they failed in that would there be consequences for either. I am fine with that. People in the organization close to the situation can take an objective look and decide what's best. With the more serious incidents being dealt with more decisively.

Where we differ is on public exposure, though I too have a distaste for social media like twitter and instagram. Providing the victims are Ok with it, I like the idea of people being exposed for this sort of thing. Justifiable shame is a useful tool and if often gets a very bad rap.

 

[Fawlty]

For society to function, this needs to be answered though. You cant just claim moral authority without doing it. Otherwise you will find more and more people breaking these 'rules'. The christians at least had hell. What do you have?

Are you asking for other people to do a lot of deep thinking for you? Test your studies, make your case. If you have a strong position, maybe you'll have a fun and interesting thread from it, but this isn't really the thread for that I think.

 

[TheGreatA]

I don't think we are nearly as far apart in our beliefs as you would like to believe. You have already done half the work in proving my point.

You have already admitted that your reaction to your GF getting groped would not be moderate, and you would be inclined to personally remedy the situation. Giving the boss a 'physical reminder' of his transgressions no less. So you would be inclined to respond with physical violence. As would many of us.

And as I mentioned before, the owner of a company would not be fired for merely grabbing some tits. No one in a company would be. The person and the company would be given the opportunity to modify the behavior and remedy the matter. Only if they failed in that would there be consequences for either. I am fine with that. People in the organization close to the situation can take an objective look and decide what's best. With the more serious incidents being dealt with more decisively.

Where we differ is on public exposure, though I too have a distaste for social media like twitter and instagram. Providing the victims are Ok with it, I like the idea of people being exposed for this sort of thing. Justifiable shame is a useful tool and if often gets a very bad rap.

I think a punch on the nose is a fully proportionate standard of punishment, compared to a grab of the breasts.

I don't think a man losing a 50-year career and being publicly shamed is proportionate. That sounds like some Middle Ages theocratic bullshit to me.

The problem with social media shaming is that not nearly all of it is justifiable. Mob rule has generally not been a very effective form of rule in human history. I do not see any reason why lynch mobs would be more effective in 2017, than they were in 1817.

 

[Tycho]

Are you asking for other people to do a lot of deep thinking for you? Test your studies, make your case. If you have a strong position, maybe you'll have a fun and interesting thread from it, but this isn't really the thread for that I think.

Ok mate. Wasn't trying to derail. Its a heavy topic

 

[KnightTemplar]

Louis CK's career is over Fawlty-bud, get over it.

 

[spin]

@HIMBOB too, since he seems to have a similar opinion-

Would it be inappropriate to offer men & women the opportunity to come forward on the condition that minor (non-assault stuff, wherever that line is drawn) harassment would be aired, admitted, discussed, corrected and forgiven? Is that unrealistic?

i think in most workplaces that's the spirit of what we do currently have.

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

You can have that if you want, because it's not central to the argument. The problem is still systemic.

The problem I have with some of this is that only 1 side of it is being discussed.


Acting like women don't grab, grope, slap men's asses etc etc without consent is hilarious. But of course, it's looked at differently if and when they do it.


And I'm not just talking about when a cute/hot chick does it -let's not all act like we haven't had some odd experiences with undesirable grabby older women or what ever lol


At least, I can't be the only one


Anyways, the point of this is that women helped build this environment too. It's one big shit sandwich and everyone has to take a bite.

 

[JDragon]

I don’t see this retroactive morality ending well

I don't get what you mean, can you explain?

He probably means that he is unable to visually represent "retroactive morality endings" properly and therefore should consider visiting an ophthalmologist.

 

[cooks1]

I think a punch on the nose is a fully proportionate standard of punishment, compared to a grab of the breasts.

I don't think a man losing a 50-year career and being publicly shamed is proportionate. That sounds like some Middle Ages theocratic bullshit to me.

The problem with social media shaming is that not nearly all of it is justifiable. Mob rule has generally not been a very effective form of rule in human history. I do not see any reason why lynch mobs would be more effective in 2017, than they were in 1817.

You are an interesting paradox. You obviously like the idea of vigilante justice but do not care for 'mob justice'. Mob justice is just a group of people that feel the same way you do. It's Ok for you to hit your GF's boss in the nose for grabbing her tits. But it's not Ok for her brother to do the same? Or her Father? You + her brother + her father = Mob.

Public shaming does not have to entail additional consequences. Though it often does. But the fear of being exposed is a powerful deterrent, and it should be utilized, not limited.

Surely you realize that almost every power structure puts protocols in place to limit and avoid exposure of questionable acts. And this almost always comes at great expense to the victims. How do you think Sandusky was able to do what he did at Penn State for so long even though plenty of people knew about it? How do you think the Catholic Church was able to do what it did to children for centuries?

We certainly agree though that the social media overkill that so often accompanies discourse these days is most often not useful or helpful. But there is a difference between that and someone 'being exposed' for scandalous or inappropriate actions.

People have been being exposed for centuries, basically as long as there has been written word. I like people being exposed. In all things, sunlight is the best disinfectant.

And people have been 'gossiping' about things being exposed for just as long. That's all social media really is- Gossip. A little bit of gossip on a small scale could be considered a harmless diversion. But the difference now being that gossiping is faster, easier, and can be done with the whole world at once as opposed to person to person. And I am not sure that is a good thing.

 

[TheGreatA]

You are an interesting paradox. You obviously like the idea of vigilante justice but do not care for 'mob justice'. Mob justice is just a group of people that feel the same way you do. It's Ok for you to hit your GF's boss in the nose for grabbing her tits. But it's not Ok for her brother to do the same? Or her Father? You + her brother + her father = Mob.

A family sorting out problems involving the family is not "mob justice".

Mob justice is when a man on the other side of the world can jump in on a public shaming, without knowing jackshit about the situation, without having any emotional attachment, outside of enjoying the temporary feeling of power that he gets from being able to bring somebody down. That's what we are seeing in spades, nowadays. The weak get empowered by social media, and they become intoxicated from that power. They do not give a shit about the situation involved. They are addicts looking for a fix, and there needs to be a steady, uninterrupted stream of such "fixes", even if there's no one particularly deserving to bring down.

Every damn day, somebody needs to be painted red with tomatoes.

Public shaming does not have to entail additional consequences. Though it often does. But the fear of being exposed is a powerful deterrent, and it should be utilized, not limited.

You sound like you ought to rule next to Stalin. Do we need to bring back the "self-criticisms" in front of a political commission, as well? To get all the comrades to tow the party line? The Soviets had it all figured out.

Surely you realize that almost every power structure puts protocols in place to limit and avoid exposure of questionable acts. And this almost always comes at great expense to the victims. How do you think Sandusky was able to do what he did at Penn State for so long even though plenty of people knew about it? How do you think the Catholic Church was able to do what it did to children for centuries?

This happens because the individuals involved within those power structures are a bunch of pussies. We no longer live in a world where people are fully dependent on these power structures and therefore have to lay down and take it from their "bosses". There are plenty of opportunities for people to just say "no".

The idea that a woman is forced to suck someone's dick, in this day and age, is ludicrous. They can just go on welfare, if nothing else. Not like they'll die of starvation. I have little sympathy for those that degrade themselves to that level.

These people, for the most part, exchange sexual favours for fame and glory, and are willing to take it for as long as the fame and the glory persists. When it doesn't, they get scornful.

We certainly agree though that the social media overkill that so often accompanies discourse these days is most often not useful or helpful. But there is a difference between that and someone 'being exposed' for scandalous or inappropriate actions.

People have been being exposed for centuries, basically as long as there has been written word. I like people being exposed. In all things, sunlight is the best disinfectant.

And people have been 'gossiping' about things being exposed for just as long. That's all social media really is- Gossip. A little bit of gossip on a small scale could be considered a harmless diversion. But the difference now being that gossiping is faster, easier, and can be done with the whole world at once as opposed to person to person. And I am not sure that is a good thing.

It's not so much people being exposed that's the problem, as much as it is people proving themselves, once again, utterly incapable to utilize the "mob power" of collective shaming, in any sort of a rational manner whatsoever. The best evidence is how many of these "sexual predators" themselves were first in line to judge other people, until being exposed themselves. Our irrationality is amplified when encouraged by a collective.

 

[cooks1]

Knock it off, asshole. I'm talking about harassment and misconduct, not rape. And I think you knew that when you wrote that, so you probably owe me an apology. Way to instantly torpedo a post you put a lot of words and thought into. I'll forgive you for your indiscretion though. lol.

.



In all seriousness though. I mentioned rape specifically because it is more visceral. Almost everyone agrees that no one should ever escape consequences for rape. Yet for completely reprehensible behavior that falls short of rape, there seems to be a point in time when some think the perps should be allowed to get off scott-free. I find that interesting. Why is that?

And now here you are, a poster of some note, not only advocating for that, but suggesting that there should be some 'truth and reconciliation' period where men should be able to volunteer their lechery without consequence. Sorry, I just find that baffling.

You should also acknowledge how I specifically set Weinstein and Moore apart (which implies Cosby too, obviously) as people who should be made an example of. Weinstein may get what's coming, but they brought the wrong case against Cosby and Moore is sitting pretty in a shithole state of people who broadly lack any sense of morality in the face of politics. Unfortunate. I don't have any specific outcome in mind, other than we manage to deal with the problem without losing our minds. I see that the discussion is in danger of polarizing into cynicism vs capitulation.

My point in bringing up Bill, Harvey, and Moore, is that they are all largely going to completely escape justice. They will not be made examples of. There will be no legal repercussions for any of them. And in all likelihood even any civil justice will be trivial in the grand scheme. And that is pretty indicative of almost everyone else in these retro-active situations, regardless of where their actions stood by comparison. Pretty much their only consequence is personal ridicule and shame, and perhaps some financial loss that would accompany that. And here you are advocating to chip away at even that.

I disagree that I'm reckless in calling it a systemic problem. The system has until recently allowed men to do pretty much anything they wanted without consequences, and the reason they didn't face consequences is because it was taboo for men to be held accountable. That means women reported less, and your "vast vast majority" of men refused to go to bat for them, because they were just trying to get by within the system. Even the good men did nothing- god forbid they lose admission to the Good Old Boys' Club.

And your response doesn't seem to take into account that I'm not calling for no consequences, just less severe consequences. For example, Louis taking the hit with his film and Netflix was a reasonable consequence. But blackballing him would not be, and plenty of people are reveling in the idea of his career ending. I also disagree that he wouldn't have become rich and famous. Let's say the first time he pulled his little stunt, his manager drops him and the clubs make him sit out for a while. That probably doesn't finish his career. If it's before his notoriety came, then the accusation doesn't get the same attention. It would be ridiculous, for example, to say that if you had sexually harassed somebody at McDonalds and been punished for it, that you would never be able to become a CEO.

Point taken about the 'system'. But not about the consequences, and not about Louis CK. You are advocating for less consequences, when the consequences are already less.. Louis is going to take a hit and he deserves to. It is perfectly understandable that no one wants to have anything to do with him right now. But that will change in time and he can rebuild.

And of course people can fuck up and still become rich and famous. My point was that there is just no telling what the trajectory of their life would have been if that had been busted in real time.

 

[HomerThompson]

whats wrong with sexual harrassment anyway? I mean at a moral level? Do you go to progressive hell? What are we basing 'good' and 'bad' on exactly?

 

[cooks1]

A family sorting out problems involving the family is not "mob justice".

Mob justice is when a man on the other side of the world can jump in on a public shaming, without knowing jackshit about the situation, without having any emotional attachment, outside of enjoying the temporary feeling of power that he gets from being able to bring somebody down. That's what we are seeing in spades, nowadays. The weak get empowered by social media, and they become intoxicated from that power. They do not give a shit about the situation involved. They are addicts looking for a fix, and there needs to be a steady, uninterrupted stream of such "fixes", even if there's no one particularly deserving to bring down.

Every damn day, somebody needs to be painted red with tomatoes.

Sorry but No. A family doling out a beating on a dude that groped a female member is precisely mob justice. It it mob vigilante justice, pure and simple. And I am not saying I am even against it. I am just saying that's what it is.

Some knucklehead on social media piling bile onto whatever fuckwit that got exposed for whatever douchebaggery he got up to, I suppose could also be viewed as mob justice. But now we are just talking about the size of the mob.

Does 'your mob' have more of a right to it's justice because you are more personally involved with the participant(s)? Perhaps. But you don't get to be the judge of that. Who gets to decide who joins 'your mob'? What about cousins? What about good friends? What about the guy that was fucking your GF before you and still 'hangs out' with her every now and again and is 'good friends' with her.?He probably wants to punch her boss too. Can he join your mob that is not really a mob?

As far as 'the weak feeling intoxicated and powerful on social media'. Being addicts and not giving a shit. I don't disagree with any of that. It's all true. And I would be happy to see a lot less of it. And I practice what I preach by having no twitter, no instagram, and perhaps only go on facebook every second week. But I can believe and want all that and still be fine with some fucker getting exposed for masturbating in front of women. As far as when I start to feel sorry for said fucker due to the scale of the mockery and abuse- I will let you know when that happens.

This happens because the individuals involved within those power structures are a bunch of pussies. We no longer live in a world where people are fully dependent on these power structures and therefore have to lay down and take it from their "bosses". There are plenty of opportunities for people to just say "no".

The idea that a woman is forced to suck someone's dick, in this day and age, is ludicrous. They can just go on welfare, if nothing else. Not like they'll die of starvation. I have little sympathy for those that degrade themselves to that level.

These people, for the most part, exchange sexual favours for fame and glory, and are willing to take it for as long as the fame and the glory persists. When it doesn't, they get scornful.

Though this is full of passive aggressive butt hurt here, there is some truth to this and the point is not completely lost on me. An ideal outcome in these situations for me would be for the men to get exposed as the douches they are, and the women get jackety shit in a lawsuit. Which is precisely what will happen in most of these cases.

It's not so much people being exposed that's the problem, as much as it is people proving themselves, once again, utterly incapable to utilize the "mob power" of collective shaming, in any sort of a rational manner whatsoever. The best evidence is how many of these "sexual predators" themselves were first in line to judge other people, until being exposed themselves. Our irrationality is amplified when encouraged by a collective.

This is very true and I was fucking laughing my ass off when Ben Affleck went on line to express his outrage, only to be outed as the one of the biggest leches of all.

You should not get so wound up about it though. There are so many much more deserving of your rage than internet trolls. And there are so many much more deserving of your pity than rich men who sexually harass and molest women and are then raked over the coals by internet trolls.

 

[TheGreatA]

Sorry but No. A family doling out a beating on a dude that groped a female member is precisely mob justice. It it mob vigilante justice, pure and simple. And I am not saying I am even against it. I am just saying that's what it is.

Some knucklehead on social media piling bile onto whatever fuckwit that got exposed for whatever douchebaggery he got up to, I suppose could also be viewed as mob justice. But now we are just talking about the size of the mob.

Does 'your mob' have more of a right to it's justice because you are more personally involved with the participant(s)? Perhaps. But you don't get to be the judge of that. Who gets to decide who joins 'your mob'? What about cousins? What about good friends? What about the guy that was fucking your GF before you and still 'hangs out' with her every now and again and is 'good friends' with her.?He probably wants to punch her boss too. Can he join your mob that is not really a mob?

As far as 'the weak feeling intoxicated and powerful on social media'. Being addicts and not giving a shit. I don't disagree with any of that. It's all true. And I would be happy to see a lot less of it. And I practice what I preach by having no twitter, no instagram, and perhaps only go on facebook every second week. But I can believe and want all that and still be fine with some fucker getting exposed for being masturbating in front of women. As far as when I start to feel sorry for said fucker due to the scale of the mockery and abuse- I will let you know when that happens.




Though this is full of passive aggressive butt hurt here, there is some truth to this and the point is not completely lost on me. An ideal outcome in these situations for me would be for the men to get exposed as the douches they are, and the women get jackety shit in a lawsuit. Which is precisely what will happen in most of these cases.




This is very true and I was fucking laughing my ass off when Ben Affleck went on line to express his outrage, only to be outed as the one of the biggest leches of all.

You should not get so wound up about it though. There are so many much more deserving of your rage than internet trolls. And there are so many much more deserving of your pity than rich men who sexually harass and molest women and are then raked over the coals by internet trolls.

To be honest, I don't think we are in disagreement over much. It's not that I disregard the potency of public shaming or intimidation as a tool, to run an effective society. But I'd be more wary about which purpose to use it for. No offense to all the women or the men who care about this issue, but sexual molestation of women in the West, is not at the top of my damn list, that's for damn sure. I consider it an issue of minuscule importance. We have taken away, systematically, nearly all of the tools that would enable sexual abuse. Women are no longer dependent on men to provide a living. If a particularly scummy part of America has a problem with abuse (Hollywood), that doesn't necessarily reflect on the rest of the society.

It's not that it is any more of an "enlightened" idea to form up a mob of one's kin, and beat the crap out of a guy that has harassed one of the women in your family. But it is one that I personally have more respect towards, than hiring a fake outrage goon squad from the internet, always willing to be incited for a cause, both real or imagined. The latter contributes to the autistic, detached society of the modern era. The former enhances one's sense of belonging to something that is actually real and legitimate. Neither are an ideal way to deal with the issue, but one is significantly more pathetic, in my estimation.

I struggle to give a shit about any of the people who have been caught up in this. Ideologically, they would be considered my opposites, in many ways, and it would be extremely easy for me to take great joy in their plight. What I'm more concerned about, is that we are once again attempting to set standards that none of us are going to be able to live up to. Standards that are going to eliminate anyone that is actually human, and not a total puppet whose entire life is a facade, from being put in any kind of a public role whatsoever. People's personal flaws ought to not determine their utility in a system, except if these flaws out-weigh the utility. We are upholding these people to greater moral standards, than what we apply to ourselves.

If a top journalist has grabbed some woman from the wrong place back in the 1970's, well it's just too damn bad, but what he has achieved in his life is more important than that one incident. If they have a history of sexual abuse, then obviously they've got to go. That is what I meant about thinking and reacting in moderation. Something that seems to be extremely difficult for people to do, when they get caught up on the social justice circus. Any potential "collateral damage" done, to individuals and their families, is seen as being excused by the "good cause" that it was all being done for. Except this "good cause" rarely ever amounts to shit, outside of ruining some people's lives. They are what I regard as our modern day public executions, for significantly lesser crimes.

The intimidation largely only causes the "good guys" to doubt their moral platform, and avoid putting themselves in a highly scrutinized public role, while the compulsive liars and sociopaths will still try to bullshit their way through, because they are lying scum and because they have no problem whatsoever pretending as if they are flawless human beings, to the public.

 

[Letssnuggle]

And as I mentioned before, the owner of a company would not be fired for merely grabbing some tits. No one in a company would be. The person and the company would be given the opportunity to modify the behavior and remedy the matter. Only if they failed in that would there be consequences for either.

Bullshit.

 

[JonesBones]

^^^ exactly Cooks. Their clemency was their success while doing it. They never paid for it or held accountable. They haven't done time or anything. They haven't had any repercussions whatsoever. Why should they be given clemency now?

 

[cooks1]

Bullshit.

Not bullshit. You watch too much TV.

In was in the corporate world for 17 years. I fired 4 people for sexual harassment during that time, and saw one boss canned for similar reasons. NONE of them were summarily dismissed.

My favorite was Anselmo. He was from Africa. I swear to you I am not making this up-At a company function, he went up to the HR manager of our entire regional operation, who happened to be a very plump white woman, and in front of several others told her that her breasts were like casaba melons. He then went on to say (before offering an invitation back to his hotel room) that in America and Europe they think fat women are ugly but African men treat them as sex goddesses.

I was notified of this the Monday following the incident. Since almost 60% of my staff were female at the time, I was eager just to clip him immediately. But I was not permitted. He was given a formal written warning, and forced to go through a 12 hour workshop. He stayed employed another 5 months before he started becoming pervy with a colleague. He was driving with her in a company vehicle to another location to pick up some other vehicles when he took a detour to his apartment and asked her if she wanted to go in for 'a quick one'. Even then I was not going to be able to summarily dismiss him for sexual harassment. Fortunately I was able to can him for misusing the company vehicle.

 

[platypus44]

We need some kind of 1 to 10 scale on this shit. With 10 being forcible rape of a minor and 1 being marginally overaggressive solicitation of a date with a co-worker where there is an ambiguous degree of "coercion" due to an indirect supervisory relationship.
9 would be forcible rape of an adult or consensual sex with a minor. Sexual assault on a minor might be 7 or 8. etc. etc.
We have to deal with the issue of apparent or implied consent (a big problem in the Clarence Thomas situation where Anita Hill followed him around from job to job).
Indecent exposure with no plausible consent is probably a 5 or 6.

 

[Letssnuggle]

Not bullshit. You watch too much TV.

In was in the corporate world for 17 years. I fired 4 people for sexual harassment during that time, and saw one boss canned for similar reasons. NONE of them were summarily dismissed.

My favorite was Anselmo. He was from Africa. I swear to you I am not making this up-At a company function, he went up to the HR manager of our entire regional operation, who happened to be a very plump white woman, and in front of several others told her that her breasts were like casaba melons. He then went on to say (before offering an invitation back to his hotel room) that in America and Europe they think fat women are ugly but African men treat them as sex goddesses.

I was notified of this the Monday following the incident. Since almost 60% of my staff were female at the time, I was eager just to clip him immediately. But I was not permitted. He was given a formal written warning, and forced to go through a 12 hour workshop. He stayed employed another 5 months before he started becoming pervy with a colleague. He was driving with her in a company vehicle to another location to pick up some other vehicles when he took a detour to his apartment and asked her if she wanted to go in for 'a quick one'. Even then I was not going to be able to summarily dismiss him for sexual harassment. Fortunately I was able to can him for misusing the company vehicle.

Cool stories. I have one too. Coworkers decided to go to a bar after work. A male coworker bets the female coworker $20 he could make her breasts move without touching them. He then proceeded to grab her titts and gave her $20 for which he was reported to HR.

Except he wasn’t even reported by the female. It was a third employee who felt it was inappropriate. After a investigation the titt grabber was terminated.

Only one thing matters regarding harassment: PERCEPTION.

If anyone perceives anything to be inappropriate that personal can (and often is) separated from the company for the smallest of things.

Such as: the male employee who was let go because - once again - a third person perceived it inappropriate the way he brushed against a female employee exiting a office.