Moral Panic Over Sex Harrassment Jumping the Shark?

[LowDown]

I'm not worried about money because I'm counting on those tax cuts to trickle down.

No problem. The court will garnish your wages, or your welfare payments, whatever applies.

 

[LowDown]

I guess it takes reminding that Trump has not only been accused of sexual harassment but bragged about it to remind Lowdown to try and spin the "#MeToo" movement as a raving mob.

Yes, they have become a mob demanding that the rights of accused people be disregarded. It's as contrary to the principles of justice as it can get. Why do you support such evil? Why are you being so evil?

 

[Serenity]

people should not be fired for doing something like patting someone on the butt

In your opinion, what would be the appropriate way to deal with someone who touches you in such a way without asking?

 

[cuban smokes]

There is evidence that people who are fomenting the moral panic over sexual harassment have overplayed their hand.

Matt Damon recently commented on the matter on ABC News wherein he said that there is a spectrum of sexual harassment going from minor offences to major ones like rape, that all such behavior needs to be stopped, but that the punishment should fit the crime -- people should not be fired for doing something like patting someone on the butt while crimes like rape should get offenders prison sentences.

This resulted in a big outcry of outrage and a petition demanding that Damon be expunged from Hollywood and all his films burned, or some such.

But it's not happening, and pundits spanning the political spectrum from the comments at the New York Times to Fox News have stood up to say that Damon is being perfectly reasonable -- leave him alone.

In another example of over-reach Rose McGowan demanded that the news media stop using the term "allegedly" when writing stories bout women's accusations of sexual misconduct against men. In other words, she wants the men to be considered guilty without any question, and if you question it you're guilty, too.

But this is getting nowhere, either, because using the term "allegedly", or otherwise indicating that facts in a story have not been adjudicated, are a legal requirement, to protect against claims of libel. So McGowan is just being crazy, gone drunk with the power that the great moral panic has handed her. Allegedly.

But people are finally beginning to say, "Wait a minute..."

So perhaps a bunch of overheated Twitter users have not managed to drive us to irrational mob rule after all.

I have been in the work place for over 40 years & I have yet to pat anyone on the butt; that was never in my job description.

You? Grab a lot of ass at work, huh? I see you are a 'true' libertarian ...............

 

[joG]

In your opinion, what would be the appropriate way to deal with someone who touches you in such a way without asking?

Don’t you think that that very much depends on the circumstances? Certainly you should be able to handle rudeness, I should think.

 

[Perotista]

There is evidence that people who are fomenting the moral panic over sexual harassment have overplayed their hand.

Matt Damon recently commented on the matter on ABC News wherein he said that there is a spectrum of sexual harassment going from minor offences to major ones like rape, that all such behavior needs to be stopped, but that the punishment should fit the crime -- people should not be fired for doing something like patting someone on the butt while crimes like rape should get offenders prison sentences.

This resulted in a big outcry of outrage and a petition demanding that Damon be expunged from Hollywood and all his films burned, or some such.

But it's not happening, and pundits spanning the political spectrum from the comments at the New York Times to Fox News have stood up to say that Damon is being perfectly reasonable -- leave him alone.

In another example of over-reach Rose McGowan demanded that the news media stop using the term "allegedly" when writing stories bout women's accusations of sexual misconduct against men. In other words, she wants the men to be considered guilty without any question, and if you question it you're guilty, too.

But this is getting nowhere, either, because using the term "allegedly", or otherwise indicating that facts in a story have not been adjudicated, are a legal requirement, to protect against claims of libel. So McGowan is just being crazy, gone drunk with the power that the great moral panic has handed her. Allegedly.

But people are finally beginning to say, "Wait a minute..."

So perhaps a bunch of overheated Twitter users have not managed to drive us to irrational mob rule after all.

I don't know if I'm the norm or way out there. I was watching ESPN sportscenter when a football player was accused of sexual harassment. I immediately switched channels as I had got enough of this stuff on the news. I really don't care what happened 20, 30, 40 years ago in an individual's life. What is important is what they are now. People change, ideals and what is appropriate or even the norm change over time.

I don't want to hear about sexual harassment from way in the past anymore. Allegations that can't be proven as too much time has passed. The era we live in today is different from that of 40 years ago. If someone sexual harasses today, burn whomever. If it is just an allegation from 30 years ago, a he said, she said situation, get lost. I don't want to hear it.

 

[Serenity]

Don’t you think that that very much depends on the circumstances? Certainly you should be able to handle rudeness, I should think.

Obviously it depends on the circumstances. The circumstances are simple. You're minding your own business, at work, and someone decides that they will give you some unwanted attention and pat/touch you on the arse.

I asked the OP, and you jumped in so feel free to give your reply. Do you believe that to be ok? How should they be dealt with?

 

[joG]

Obviously it depends on the circumstances. The circumstances are simple. You're minding your own business, at work, and someone decides that they will give you some unwanted attention and pat/touch you on the arse.

I asked the OP, and you jumped in so feel free to give your reply. Do you believe that to be ok? How should they be dealt with?

I find it is impolite of the fellow and an inability of the girl to deal with it behaviorally inadequate. If it escalated, as an employer I would remove both.

 

[Serenity]

I find it is impolite of the fellow and an inability of the girl to deal with it behaviorally inadequate. If it escalated, as an employer I would remove both.

Initially I would handle it myself. I'd ask the person concerned to keep their hands to themselves. I'd only ask them once. If It happened again, I'd report them to whoever was in charge at the time.

I don't live in Saudi Arabia or some other Talibornagain town with people who have attitudes such as yours (blame the victim), so I won't have to worry about being removed when I have done absolutely nothing wrong to begin with.

 

[Josie]

Obviously it depends on the circumstances. The circumstances are simple. You're minding your own business, at work, and someone decides that they will give you some unwanted attention and pat/touch you on the arse.

I asked the OP, and you jumped in so feel free to give your reply. Do you believe that to be ok? How should they be dealt with?

That happened when I worked at Dairy Queen. A super nice guy thought of it as just a "good job" gesture and he did it to one of his female friends after handling an annoying customer. She looked him right in the eye and said, "I don't like that -- please don't do it again" and he apologized and never did it again.

There's a difference between creeps who just want to feel you up and an innocent gesture. I've found that many guys don't know the difference between a woman flirting with them and a woman just being nice - especially young guys - so they might do something the woman isn't expecting. That's not a harassment or assault -- just a guy who misunderstood.

 

[CMPancake]

Yes, they have become a mob demanding that the rights of accused people be disregarded.

The rights of people are not being disregarded or disparaged. Instead, men and women who felt unable to speak out against sexual harassment against influential people are now finally being encouraged to have the strength needed to call out their alleged predators.

It's as contrary to the principles of justice as it can get.

It's contrary to American values to not shun accusers who openly accuse their predators? If you're presupposing that everyone and anyone that makes a sexual harassment claim against the Weinstein's and Trumps of the world are lying and that they needed to be silenced that's far more contrary to American values.

Why do you support such evil? Why are you being so evil?

How are you able to warp the conversation to where the accused sexual predators (literally all of them) are innocent and need defending from people accusing them of harassment and rape?

 

[Serenity]

That happened when I worked at Dairy Queen. A super nice guy thought of it as just a "good job" gesture and he did it to one of his female friends after handling an annoying customer. She looked him right in the eye and said, "I don't like that -- please don't do it again" and he apologized and never did it again.

There's a difference between creeps who just want to feel you up and an innocent gesture. I've found that many guys don't know the difference between a woman flirting with them and a woman just being nice - especially young guys - so they might do something the woman isn't expecting. That's not a harassment or assault -- just a guy who misunderstood.

Obviously an innocent gesture should be able to be sorted out very quickly between the two people concerned. It's unlikely a genuine innocent gesture would be repeated once they were asked to please not do that again. That should really go without saying.

 

[holbritter]

I don't know if I'm the norm or way out there. I was watching ESPN sportscenter when a football player was accused of sexual harassment. I immediately switched channels as I had got enough of this stuff on the news. I really don't care what happened 20, 30, 40 years ago in an individual's life. What is important is what they are now. People change, ideals and what is appropriate or even the norm change over time.

I don't want to hear about sexual harassment from way in the past anymore. Allegations that can't be proven as too much time has passed. The era we live in today is different from that of 40 years ago. If someone sexual harasses today, burn whomever. If it is just an allegation from 30 years ago, a he said, she said situation, get lost. I don't want to hear it.

:yt ....

 

[holbritter]

Obviously an innocent gesture should be able to be sorted out very quickly between the two people concerned. It's unlikely a genuine innocent gesture would be repeated once they were asked to please not do that again. That should really go without saying.

Yet some of these older accusations were just that. An innocent gesture that was completely accepted during that time period. Why should they be crucified now? And yes, once you are accused publicly of something it tends to have a direct impact on your career and life in general, whether it's proven false or not proven at all.

 

[LowDown]

The rights of people are not being disregarded or disparaged. Instead, men and women who felt unable to speak out against sexual harassment against influential people are now finally being encouraged to have the strength needed to call out their alleged predators.

Yes, the rights of people are being totally disregarded. People are losing their jobs over little more than innuendo.

All this stuff about "finally encouraged to have the strength" is nothing more than rhetoric meant to keep the panic at a high level because these people think that they are getting power that way. And so they are, but they won't be able to keep it up. And then the bill will come due.

It's contrary to American values to not shun accusers who openly accuse their predators? If you're presupposing that everyone and anyone that makes a sexual harassment claim against the Weinstein's and Trumps of the world are lying and that they needed to be silenced that's far more contrary to American values.

If you had a decent argument you would not have to misrepresent what I said.

How are you able to warp the conversation to where the accused sexual predators (literally all of them) are innocent and need defending from people accusing them of harassment and rape?

All people accused of wrongdoing should have the right to due process; to have the charges against them presented formally under oath and subject to cross examination and to present evidence in their defense. And then only after they are found to be guilty are they punished, which punishment is appropriate to the crime.

But the panic mongers don't want this because in a court of law is where their panic will often (but not always) fall flat. They don't want to be bothered with the rights of people they accuse.

Mark my words: Even as we discuss this lawyers are being consulted. They will wait until this panic dies down, and then they will start filing lawsuits. Many of the people who have been accusing others will be dragged into court and will be required to provide the court with acceptable evidence to prove their charges. If they can't do it they are going to be in big trouble.

 

[polgara]

I don't know if I'm the norm or way out there. I was watching ESPN sportscenter when a football player was accused of sexual harassment. I immediately switched channels as I had got enough of this stuff on the news. I really don't care what happened 20, 30, 40 years ago in an individual's life. What is important is what they are now. People change, ideals and what is appropriate or even the norm change over time.

I don't want to hear about sexual harassment from way in the past anymore. Allegations that can't be proven as too much time has passed. The era we live in today is different from that of 40 years ago. If someone sexual harasses today, burn whomever. If it is just an allegation from 30 years ago, a he said, she said situation, get lost. I don't want to hear it.

Greetings, Pero. :2wave:

Well said! :agree: What good does it do to air a grievance to strangers, of all people, about something that happened 30 or more years ago? The complaints that were made about the Hollywood elite - as an example - while probably true, seem to have been just be an option they had at the time to either take the offer or decline it. That made it a personal thing, so why bring it up now?

 

[Serenity]

Yet some of these older accusations were just that. An innocent gesture that was completely accepted during that time period. Why should they be crucified now? And yes, once you are accused publicly of something it tends to have a direct impact on your career and life in general, whether it's proven false or not proven at all.

Where did I suggest anyone should be crucified for an innocent gesture or support any such actions?

Hint: I didn't say any such thing.

 

[CMPancake]

Yes, the rights of people are being totally disregarded. People are losing their jobs over little more than innuendo.

And that's the right of the employers to not want to allow a culture created within their workplace where people can feel entitled to treat the employees underneath them like meat.

All this stuff about "finally encouraged to have the strength" is nothing more than rhetoric meant to keep the panic at a high level because these people think that they are getting power that way. And so they are, but they won't be able to keep it up. And then the bill will come due.

The "bill" being what exactly in your mind?

If you had a decent argument you would not have to misrepresent what I said.

Is your argument not "the #Metoo movement needs to stop because it's costing their accusers money. Who cares about the validity of their claims?"

All people accused of wrongdoing should have the right to due process; to have the charges against them presented formally under oath and subject to cross examination and to present evidence in their defense. And then only after they are found to be guilty are they punished, which punishment is appropriate to the crime.

I completely agree, we both completely agree on this point.

But the panic mongers don't want this because in a court of law is where their panic will often (but not always) fall flat. They don't want to be bothered with the rights of people they accuse.

Sexual assault courses are much harder to persecute in a court of law where unfortunately in most cases it comes down to "he said, she said." Because of this, it's impossible to even send accusers to criminal court where this due process would happen, and even if they did the victims have to spend boatloads of money for legal fees. A majority of these victims of do not have the means to pursue that level of investigations and legal process. You can't blame the alleged victims for a legal system that isn't built to handle sexual assault cases with the same ability as other crimes.

Mark my words: Even as we discuss this lawyers are being consulted. They will wait until this panic dies down, and then they will start filing lawsuits. Many of the people who have been accusing others will be dragged into court and will be required to provide the court with acceptable evidence to prove their charges. If they can't do it they are going to be in big trouble.

They can feel free to take their cases to court if they must, no on is saying that shouldn't happen. The alleged victims who have the means to hire the legal power to duke it out with their accused will be able to do so but their will be those who don't have that kind of wealth be potentially brow beaten by a legal system to remain silent. I hope your sister, significant other, or mother are never in a position where they're unable to defend themselves from a predatory deviant of a boss like Trump. Otherwise you'll be siding with their accuser because they're being a part of a "panicking crowd" who will bill their bill sooner or later.

 

[Perotista]

Greetings, Pero. :2wave:

Well said! :agree: What good does it do to air a grievance to strangers, of all people, about something that happened 30 or more years ago? The complaints that were made about the Hollywood elite - as an example - while probably true, seem to have been just be an option they had at the time to either take the offer or decline it. That made it a personal thing, so why bring it up now?

It's impossible to prove any of this from that long ago. I agree, with the Hollywood types, it probably was all true. But one can't prove it. One could on the probability scale show that it most likely happen. But it can't be proved positively. One can't be sure if the allegations are part of a grudge to smear someone or absolutely true. Not from that long ago.

Where I have a problem is all these allegations against politicians from long ago yore. One can't be certain unless the politician admits its that they are true or once again, something used for political gain by the opposing party or candidate. I've done many things 40 years ago that I sure wouldn't do today. I'm not running for office, so I don't care if they are known or not. Now people change, I could be the dregs of society 30 years ago doing a whole bunch of things viewed as wrong today. But may have corrected, righted myself to where I am the epitome of an outstanding citizen today. What's more important? What I am today or was 30 years ago?

 

[calamity]

Don’t you think that that very much depends on the circumstances? Certainly you should be able to handle rudeness, I should think.

Circumstances do not justify touching someone inappropriately without consent. For god's sake. Why so many people still fail to grasp this simple concept is a mystery.

 

[holbritter]

Where did I suggest anyone should be crucified for an innocent gesture or support any such actions?

Hint: I didn't say any such thing.

Where did I say you did?

Hint: I didn't.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

I think patting someone on the butt at work is a perfect reason to get fired. I don’t think patting someone on the butt at work 20 years ago is a reason to lose your entire reputation and career today. And the latter is the road I am starting to get worried we may be going down. Of course legal consequences should, and usually are, proportional to the severity of the transgression. But I fear the court of public opinion, which can affect your life nearly as much as a legal court, is on the verge of discarding proportionality altogether.

 

[Phys251]

How about plain American due process? I could accept that, but I doubt you would.

Stop deflecting, and answer the question. Yes or no, should we adopt the Saudi Arabia rule, where it takes at least two women to accuse one man? Yes or no, and why?

 

[joG]

Circumstances do not justify touching someone inappropriately without consent. For god's sake. Why so many people still fail to grasp this simple concept is a mystery.

Personally, I wonder how many people are brought up so badly, that the question even arises.

 

[joG]

Initially I would handle it myself. I'd ask the person concerned to keep their hands to themselves. I'd only ask them once. If It happened again, I'd report them to whoever was in charge at the time.

I don't live in Saudi Arabia or some other Talibornagain town with people who have attitudes such as yours (blame the victim), so I won't have to worry about being removed when I have done absolutely nothing wrong to begin with.

Where you live is not really material to the underlying question. You don't want complications in a business. If employees disturb the functioning it must be dealt with. You weren't there and cannot tell, what happened. Fire both.