Power dynamics and sexual harassment

Skeptic Bob · Nov 11, 2017

SmokeAndMirrors said:
I just don't get why no one thinks there's anything interesting about the conversation on why this happens, or trends in reporting, or whatever. Why is that the only thing folks find interesting on anything having to do with sexual abuse, is talking about how to tweak it so it's easier to get away with?

It's just that my entire What's New feed is full of exactly this type of thread, all saying the exact same thing. That this is the only aspect that's interesting.

Why?

Good question. I have seen it discussed some, but you are right, nowhere near enough.

I may be wrong about this, but I truly believe the vast majority of men don't behave this way. At the same time I believe these type of men are disproportionately represented in positions of power. I have a working hypothesis.

It takes a certain amount of sociopathy to sexually harass or assault someone. And as bad as sociopathy is, it definitely can help someone reach the top ranks of their industry. In one of his specials Louis CK said, "there is no limit to what you can accomplish when you don't give a **** about your fellow man."

The types of people who do these things are often the types of people who will do whatever it takes to get ahead. And if you will do whatever it takes to get ahead, your odds of getting ahead improve. It isn't fair, but it is reality.

Anyway, that is part of why I think we see so many of these cases. What can be done about it? That is tougher. We aren't going to teach sociopaths empathy. It isn't in their wiring. But sociopaths are interested in self-preservation. So the best solution, I think, is to do exactly what we see happening right now. Out the mother ****ers. Let the world know when they pull this stuff. There are a lot of powerful people right now who are pooping their pants out of fear, watching all these powerful people's careers coming to a crashing end, wondering if their victims will be the next to sound the alarm. My guess is the next time they are tempted to victimize a subordinate they will be more likely to think twice.

SmokeAndMirrors · Nov 11, 2017

Skeptic Bob said:
Good question. I have seen it discussed some, but you are right, nowhere near enough.

I may be wrong about this, but I truly believe the vast majority of men don't behave this way. At the same time I believe these type of men are disproportionately represented in positions of power. I have a working hypothesis.

It takes a certain amount of sociopathy to sexually harass or assault someone. And as bad as sociopathy is, it definitely can help someone reach the top ranks of their industry. In one of his specials Louis CK said, "there is no limit to what you can accomplish when you don't give a **** about your fellow man."

The types of people who do these things are often the types of people who will do whatever it takes to get ahead. And if you will do whatever it takes to get ahead, your odds of getting ahead improve. It isn't fair, but it is reality.

Anyway, that is part of why I think we see so many of these cases. What can be done about it? That is tougher. We aren't going to teach sociopaths empathy. It isn't in their wiring. But sociopaths are interested in self-preservation. So the best solution, I think, is to do exactly what we see happening right now. Out the mother ****ers. Let the world know when they pull this stuff. There are a lot of powerful people right now who are pooping their pants out of fear, watching all these powerful people's careers coming to a crashing end, wondering if their victims will be the next to sound the alarm. My guess is the next time they are tempted to victimize a subordinate they will be more likely to think twice.

I don't think that works as a hypothesis (i.e. sexual predators are all just inherently mentally ill) because when we look across cultures, it's interesting how in cultures where sexual abuse is accepted as normal, nearly everyone is an abuser. And in cultures where it's not, very few are.

We can't simply write them off as all being incorrigible, or a blameless product of genetic bad luck. Anthropology and sociology prove otherwise conclusively.

While I'm sure some percentage of sexual abusers are just sick -- especially sadistic and violent offenders -- it simply doesn't work for the majority of them.

Even many sexual abusers come up with exuses for themselves, for why what they did was ok. Hell, we still live in a culture where many men are never taught, "Hey, if s/he seems like they're not having a good time, maybe, like... stop and ask?"

There is no way that I can have met so many fundamentally decent men who don't know stopping and asking is a thing they should do, and yet all sexual abusers are unpreventable, simple victims of genetics.

Empathy is a trait we learn through doing. Something we are taught, something we develop over the entire course of our childhoods. We are still letting a lot of men fall between the cracks in teaching them that simple skill.

Mason66 · Nov 11, 2017

DiAnna said:
In response to the bolded question, yes, it very well could be sexual harassment and/or coercion. Just as the boss has power in the office, a headline star with tentacles in producing/starring in big budget projects has power over those who have less power in the same industry. Women warned each other about Harvey Weinstein, but didn't go public because he had the power to destroy their careers. The same could be said for female comedians in a very male-dominated arena of the entertainment industry.

So the man that has that power must live a solitary life just in case a woman thinks he has some power over her, is that right?

Who would want to live in that world?

GhostlyJoe · Nov 11, 2017

SmokeAndMirrors said:
I don't think that works as a hypothesis (i.e. sexual predators are all just inherently mentally ill) because when we look across cultures, it's interesting how in cultures where sexual abuse is accepted as normal, nearly everyone is an abuser. And in cultures where it's not, very few are.

We can't simply write them off as all being incorrigible, or a blameless product of genetic bad luck. Anthropology and sociology prove otherwise conclusively.

While I'm sure some percentage of sexual abusers are just sick -- especially sadistic and violent offenders -- it simply doesn't work for the majority of them.

Even many sexual abusers come up with exuses for themselves, for why what they did was ok. Hell, we still live in a culture where many men are never taught, "Hey, if s/he seems like they're not having a good time, maybe, like... stop and ask?"

There is no way that I can have met so many fundamentally decent men who don't know stopping and asking is a thing they should do, and yet all sexual abusers are unpreventable, simple victims of genetics.

Empathy is a trait we learn through doing. Something we are taught, something we develop over the entire course of our childhoods. We are still letting a lot of men fall between the cracks in teaching them that simple skill.

Your posts in this thread have some sexist undertones that are troubling to me. You really believe men don't know it's wrong to masturbate on someone against their will? Men aren't taught empathy? You seem to be implying that most men are potential abusers. I say that's nonsense. Perhaps I'm misreading your intent?

Also, asking a woman out, even a co-worker or colleague or -- gasp! -- subordinate is not abuse, and I certainly don't blame men especially for being concerned about modern sexual mores. We can't refuse to draw clear boundaries of conduct, institute severe penalties for violating these vague and subjective norms, and then get hostile when people want to know what is and isn't permissible. Intent has to matter, not just the reaction and political standing of the other party. Otherwise you have scenario where appropriate behavior is at least partially determined by sexual attractiveness.

We have a system where people can be stripped of their livelihoods without the chance to face their accuser or any way to defend themselves against an allegation in the workplace. That said, what Louis C.K. apparently did is so obviously inappropriate that it's hardly worth debate. Same with Weinstein and many of the others. My concerns are not an attempt to justify what they have done but a sense of unease that otherwise normal sexual behavior can be painted with the same brush based on modern sexual politics.

Anecdotally, I dated a co-worker for several years. She was clearly interested in me -- flirtatious glances, hints, questions about my dating status, etc. I waited for her to make the first move because she was younger than me and was a new hire, and I was higher-ranking veteran in the organization. Luckily, she was pretty aggressive, or likely nothing would have happened between us, because I wasn't willing to risk treading into those murky waters, especially since I know a guy who lost his job for just that sort of flirting (he was accused of making a co-worker uncomfortable by staring at her).

SmokeAndMirrors · Nov 11, 2017

GhostlyJoe said:
Your posts in this thread have some sexist undertones that are troubling to me. You really believe men don't know it's wrong to masturbate on someone against their will? Men aren't taught empathy? You seem to be implying that most men are potential abusers. I say that's nonsense. Perhaps I'm misreading your intent?

Also, asking a woman out, even a co-worker or colleague or -- gasp! -- subordinate is not abuse, and I certainly don't blame men especially for being concerned about modern sexual mores. We can't refuse to draw clear boundaries of conduct, institute severe penalties for violating these vague and subjective norms, and then get hostile when people want to know what is and isn't permissible. Intent has to matter, not just the reaction and political standing of the other party. Otherwise you have scenario where appropriate behavior is at least partially determined by sexual attractiveness.

We have a system where people can be stripped of their livelihoods without the chance to face their accuser or any way to defend themselves against an allegation in the workplace. That said, what Louis C.K. apparently did is so obviously inappropriate that it's hardly worth debate. Same with Weinstein and many of the others. My concerns are not an attempt to justify what they have done but a sense of unease that otherwise normal sexual behavior can be painted with the same brush based on modern sexual politics.

Anecdotally, I dated a co-worker for several years. She was clearly interested in me -- flirtatious glances, hints, questions about my dating status, etc. I waited for her to make the first move because she was younger than me and was a new hire, and I was higher-ranking veteran in the organization. Luckily, she was pretty aggressive, or likely nothing would have happened between us, because I wasn't willing to risk treading into those murky waters, especially since I know a guy who lost his job for just that sort of flirting (he was accused of making a co-worker uncomfortable by staring at her).

Yes. Everyone is. Humans are the closest thing to tabula rasa nature has ever created. We have to be, because our way of functioning is so complex and context-dependent. Our functioning as humans -- which includes a highly developed empathetic sense -- is almost entirely dependent on the strength of our social teaching. Humans are so reliant on explicit, hands-on teaching for even the most basic functions that without it, we never progress past an infant's cognitive abilitites. Seriously.

So yes, men do need to be taught. So do women. But in our society, women are. In fact, women are taught to put more weight on other people's feelings than they do on their own, which is part of why women are often such poor communicators to their sexual partners (an understandable frustration or source of anxiety many men have).

Why are you yelling at me about poor men supposedly not being allowed to ask someone on a date on a thread that is about wanking onto semi-random women? Again, I am going to ask you why you seem to see those things as equivalent. Why are you acting like those are even in the same universe?

If you want to know what's permissable, read your employee handbook like everyone else. It's that simple. I've never found any of mine to be hard to understand. I have dated without incident where appropriate, and just left it the hell alone where not. Stop acting like you can't tell the difference between dinner and splooging on strangers. This is part of the lack of accountability for the antipathic behavior of men that we have in our culture.

GhostlyJoe · Nov 11, 2017

SmokeAndMirrors said:
Yes. Everyone is. Humans are the closest thing to tabula rasa nature has ever created. We have to be, because our way of functioning is so complex and context-dependent. Our functioning as humans -- which includes a highly developed empathetic sense -- is almost entirely dependent on the strength of our social teaching. Humans are so reliant on explicit, hands-on teaching for even the most basic functions that without it, we never progress past an infant's cognitive abilitites. Seriously.

So yes, men do need to be taught. So do women. But in our society, women are. In fact, women are taught to put more weight on other people's feelings than they do on their own, which is part of why women are often such poor communicators to their sexual partners (an understandable frustration or source of anxiety many men have).

Why are you yelling at me about poor men supposedly not being allowed to ask someone on a date on a thread that is about wanking onto semi-random women? Again, I am going to ask you why you seem to see those things as equivalent. Why are you acting like those are even in the same universe?

If you want to know what's permissable, read your employee handbook like everyone else. It's that simple. I've never found any of mine to be hard to understand. I have dated without incident where appropriate, and just left it the hell alone where not. Stop acting like you can't tell the difference between dinner and splooging on strangers. This is part of the lack of accountability for the antipathic behavior of men that we have in our culture.

I did not yell at you. And I certainly did not equate wanking on someone with asking them out. On the contrary, I specifically said that one is wrong and the other isn't.

That is, in fact, why I jumped in this thread. It's about sexual harassment and power dynamics, yet you've attempted to put the question of what is and isn't appropriate behavior out of bounds and are then blaming men for not knowing the difference. Nature vs. nurture is a whole other debate, but I don't believe empathy is a solely learned trait or that socialization is the only difference between a serial wanker and a respectable horny guy.

It's somewhat ironic that you would accuse men of having an "antipathy" problem even as you dismiss their concerns and point of view on modern sexual norms. You're basically just saying "men are the problem." That runs contrary to my personal experience.

As far as Weinstein and C.K., I think their behavior is appalling and clearly wrong. But it's just not a man thing. The problem of the powerful taking advantage of the vulnerable transcends gender, sex, and race. Nor is it a modern issue. Rather, it's a fundamental problem of all human societies and one of the chief drivers of human conflict.

Edit: Oh, and to address your argument about the employee handbook. Please understand that corporate sexual harassment guidelines are purposefully vague to shield the company from blame in cases of dispute. They are not designed to protect the employees. Nor are they clear or reasonable guidelines for behavior, at least in my experience. Our most-recent sexual harassment training encouraged not discussing politics, sex, family, religion or really any other aspect of humanity while at work and instructed employees to report any and all questionable statements to the company for evaluation. Completely unworkable in practice.

SmokeAndMirrors · Nov 11, 2017

GhostlyJoe said:
I did not yell at you. And I certainly did not equate wanking on someone with asking them out. On the contrary, I specifically said that one is wrong and the other isn't.

That is, in fact, why I jumped in this thread. It's about sexual harassment and power dynamics, yet you've attempted to put the question of what is and isn't appropriate behavior out of bounds and are then blaming men for not knowing the difference. Nature vs. nurture is a whole other debate, but I don't believe empathy is a solely learned trait or that socialization is the only difference between a serial wanker and a respectable horny guy.

It's somewhat ironic that you would accuse men of having an "antipathy" problem even as you dismiss their concerns and point of view on modern sexual norms. You're basically just saying "men are the problem." That runs contrary to my personal experience.

As far as Weinstein and C.K., I think their behavior is appalling and clearly wrong. But it's just not a man thing. The problem of the powerful taking advantage of the vulnerable transcends gender, sex, and race. Nor is it a modern issue. Rather, it's a fundamental problem of all human societies and one of the chief drivers of human conflict.

I am not the one who pivoted from wanking on people to asking someone to dinner. Read the posts I responded to.

There is never any one sole trait responsible for anything, in any given individual. But when you compare societies with more or less sexual violence, you will find that all of the ones with more have a culture that doesn't teach men empathy. And that is our mothers' failure as much as it is our fathers'.

I do not understand how anyone other than men could possibly be the problem with men molesting or raping other people. Do you believe it's the victim's fault?

Lutherf · Nov 11, 2017

DiAnna said:
Most adults who possess a modicum of social awareness know the difference between saying, "Would you like to have dinner sometime?" and "Want to see my dick?" :lol:

OK, but what if you've got a sticker on your dick that says "How about dinner"?

Hmm...no...come to think of it, that could be misinterpreted too.

GhostlyJoe · Nov 11, 2017

SmokeAndMirrors said:
I am not the one who pivoted from wanking on people to asking someone to dinner. Read the posts I responded to.

There is never any one sole trait responsible for anything, in any given individual. But when you compare societies with more or less sexual violence, you will find that all of the ones with more have a culture that doesn't teach men empathy. And that is our mothers' failure as much as it is our fathers'.

I do not understand how anyone other than men could possibly be the problem with men molesting or raping other people. Do you believe it's the victim's fault?

If you think I'm victim-blaming, you're mistaken.

It's not a problem of gender. It's a problem of power, as the thread title suggests. Men as a whole are not responsible for the actions of sexual predators, and women are certainly not immune to being abusive. There are certainly physical and social differences between men and women and how they go about abusing one another, but I outright reject the notion that men are solely responsible for proper sexual conduct. I believe a just society should have clear guidelines for behavior and hold individuals accountable for their actions.

My concern is not that men should be allowed to go around masturbating on women. Rather, I'm advocating for a just system in the workplace. My fear is that egregious outliers will be used as justification to punish men for normal sexual behavior.

Protecting people from predators like Weinstein is vital, but it can't come at the expense of justice for normal folks. For example, we allow people to make accusations anonymously to protect them from retribution. But doing so also prevents the accused from mounting any kind of defense. Just because this take place in a corporate setting and not in court doesn't mean it can't be unfair or have real-world, severe consequences for either party. Blaming any one gender isn't really addressing the issue or offering a solution. In fact it's doing the opposite. We need a system that strives to protect both men and women as they are today, not as we wish they were.

My aforementioned former co-worker doesn't really know why he was fired or who exactly accused him of looking at her strangely. He feels like his sexuality has been criminalized, and he has a compelling argument. He thinks the system has victimized him. Do you disagree? Should he also have workplace protections?

SmokeAndMirrors · Nov 11, 2017

GhostlyJoe said:
If you think I'm victim-blaming, you're mistaken.

It's not a problem of gender. It's a problem of power, as the thread title suggests. Men as a whole are not responsible for the actions of sexual predators, and women are certainly not immune to being abusive. There are certainly physical and social differences between men and women and how they go about abusing one another, but I outright reject the notion that men are solely responsible for proper sexual conduct. I believe a just society should have clear guidelines for behavior and hold individuals accountable for their actions.

My concern is not that men should be allowed to go around masturbating on women. Rather, I'm advocating for a just system in the workplace. My fear is that egregious outliers will be used as justification to punish men for normal sexual behavior.

Protecting people from predators like Weinstein is vital, but it can't come at the expense of justice for normal folks. For example, we allow people to make accusations anonymously to protect them from retribution. But doing so also prevents the accused from mounting any kind of defense. Just because this take place in a corporate setting and not in court doesn't mean it can't be unfair or have real-world, severe consequences for either party. Blaming any one gender isn't really addressing the issue or offering a solution. In fact it's doing the opposite. We need a system that strives to protect both men and women as they are today, not as we wish they were.

My aforementioned former co-worker doesn't really know why he was fired or who exactly accused him of looking at her strangely. He feels like his sexuality has been criminalized, and he has a compelling argument. He thinks the system has victimized him. Do you disagree? Should he also have workplace protections?

That doesn't explain why sexual abuse is a mostly male problem even amongst the common folk, especially since so many rapes and most harassments aren't even commited using brute force, and the trend holds true even when we look at male victims.

...Unless there's, oh I don't know, a systemic culture of the genders being treated differently or something. :roll:

Anyway, as I said, read your employee handbook and stick to it. It's the company's decision what level of risk they want to assume. I've had some with a no dating policy, and some with a "just don't bring it into the office, guys" policy. Whatever it is, if you don't like it, move on. You don't have an inherent right to find a date at work.

GhostlyJoe · Nov 12, 2017

SmokeAndMirrors said:
That doesn't explain why sexual abuse is a mostly male problem even amongst the common folk, especially since so many rapes and most harassments aren't even commited using brute force, and the trend holds true even when we look at male victims.

...Unless there's, oh I don't know, a systemic culture of the genders being treated differently or something. :roll:

Anyway, as I said, read your employee handbook and stick to it. It's the company's decision what level of risk they want to assume. I've had some with a no dating policy, and some with a "just don't bring it into the office, guys" policy. Whatever it is, if you don't like it, move on. You don't have an inherent right to find a date at work.

Your assumptions are flawed in several ways. Abuse is not a mostly male problem. That is statistically untrue. Men are often the victims of sexual and physical abuse, and women are often the perpetrators.

When men abuse women in the classic criminal sense, it is often a crime of physical force. But there are other forms of abuse -- psychological abuse, emotional abuse, fraud, coercion -- and women are just as capable as men of being abusers. For example, when a woman lies to a man about paternity, it's a devastating form of psychological and emotional abuse, and it's probably more common than you think.

This is not to let men off the hook. Men are also capable and too often guilty of sexual and physical abuse. But your post is riddled with unfair assumptions.

I have a friend who told me his wife beats him up routinely. He said he won't hit her back, so he just puts his hands behind his back and lets her punch him until she works out her anger. He said this in such a casual way, during an otherwise normal conversation, that I didn't really believe him at first. He said it wasn't a big deal. Women who are victims of abuse often say the same thing. Abuse is a mindf*** no matter what your gender.

And as to the workplace thing. If you punish people severely -- for example, by taking their livelihood -- for what is otherwise normal human behavior, then the problem is systemic. Don't just hand-waive injustice because it's challenging to your previously held assumptions.

You don't seem to like men very much. Most men are not abusers, and like women, they deserve to be treated with respect and fairness.