I agree and while I find value in this distinction your next point is quite accurate...Originally Posted by misanthropist
I think this is one of the most critical insights of this particular "Reckoning". Which is that in nearly all instances it is a large power imbalance between the harasser and the harassed. It's clear in the case of some individuals (Weinstein for example) that power has been frequently used to cover up or outright manipulate people in addition to those who were the direct victims of abuse. And as near as we can tell, there is almost no recourse for those victims.On the other hand, it restricts the pool of likely victims and perpetrators in a really specific way. It also means that everyone who was intimidated or harassed or threatened, in situations where that was likely because massive power imbalances are the rule and not the exception, is going to get left out in the cold by this particular cleansing.
Although I caution to be careful, because there could be accomplices masquerading as victims. At some point individuals must draw a moral line.
The last point is really the most depressing aspect. As "powerful" leaders and well-respected people are taken done by this frenzy (as you so rightly call it); I have personally witnessed the results. While, I'm not one to suggest that women should not be empowered to confront abusers, nor should they have to tolerate abuse, I've seen some pretty nasty things happen recently. One incident, a colleague of mine made a "Me too" post on Facebook, and a "friend" of her's wrote an impolite (but not abusive or even directed at her response). In retaliation my colleague utilized access to a set of foaming feminists friends and peers to actually harass her "friend" by quoting his commentary and sending it to his employer, particularly his supervisors and HR...essentially creating a smear campaign against this individual.It also poses the problem of whether unsupported accusations are sufficient to destroy a career etc.
This ties in, in a very uncomfortable way in my opinion, with the whole "believe her" theme that runs through sexual assault cases in general, in which people are encouraged to uncritically accept accusations by women, against men.
So I find the issue complex and troubling. On one hand there's obvious creeps engaged in criminal and despicable behaviour and lots of that is finally coming to light after they protected themselves for years or decades with wealth and/or the support of business or political or personal allies.
On the other hand, we're seeing a feeding frenzy of highly gendered accusations and punishments and that kind of atmosphere strikes me as highly prone to abuse - in particular my experience is that there is a large wing of the feminist movement which absolutely cannot be trusted with unfettered power, and in a sense that's what this looks to be very rapidly developing in to.
She was utterly over the line in her response and fortunately for her "friend" he is friends with good attorneys who rapidly sent her a cease and desist notice and nipped this in the bud. None-the-less given the current political climate, she is convinced that she is morally in the right and should have the legal right to ruin this guy's life. Even though, he, as far as I know, never actually did anything to harass her.
This type of unfettered unchecked environment is inane.
Personally, I avoid these problems by following a strict set of professional rules - 1) Never be alone with a female colleague or student behind closed doors. 2) Keep my fucking mouth shut and don't say inflammatory things in public venues and/or social media. 3) Always report instances of things where I feel impropriety could have unintentionally occurred and get everything documented to address anything after the fact (fortunately, this almost never happens).
Oh yea and rule 4) Don't be fucking scumbag.
Reply With Quote
