False sexual assault claims are very rare against powerful people, to the point of almost nonexistence
Criminal trials tend to be vanishingly rare, civil is the order of the day and usually just enough of them that you vaguely remember one [a false claim] wrapped up sometime in the past year or two. That's part of the reason why the behavior of lawyers like Bloom is troubling: they're willing to exacerbate this phenomenon for personal gain.
Sexual assault takes up this weird headspace unlike any other crime where the victim's behavior is more important than the perpetrator.
Like, if someone's car is stolen, if they left the window down, or the car unlocked, or the engine running, doesn't mean the thief is suddenly no longer guilty of stealing a car. We don't ask if they've given away cars in the past, or trade cars with people, or how many people they've given rides to. Like, none of that matters.
But when someone is raped, all of a sudden whether or not they've ever willingly had sex before is paramount. Like......
what?
False accusations of rape can happen.
But so can false accusations of any other crime. Why it's so much more important when it comes to sexual assault....well...I can only guess.
It goes to intent. If every day I give 5 dollars voluntarily to the homeless guy on the corner, it's going to be harder for me to argue that today I didn't give it to him and instead he stole it out of my hand.
The problem is that sexual assault is unlike other crimes because the act of sex/flirting is something that we do quite often voluntarily. Therefore it's not enough to prove that sex/flirting happened, you also have to prove that it was not voluntary. That's a burden not necessary for stealing a car, because nobody ever gives their car to stranger voluntarily.
Or, we could start from the principle that consent is denied unless expressly given. Which is how we treat all these other interactions.
Sexual assault takes up this weird headspace unlike any other crime where the victim's behavior is more important than the perpetrator.
Like, if someone's car is stolen, if they left the window down, or the car unlocked, or the engine running, doesn't mean the thief is suddenly no longer guilty of stealing a car. We don't ask if they've given away cars in the past, or trade cars with people, or how many people they've given rides to. Like, none of that matters.
But when someone is raped, all of a sudden whether or not they've ever willingly had sex before is paramount. Like......
what?
False accusations of rape can happen.
But so can false accusations of any other crime. Why it's so much more important when it comes to sexual assault....well...I can only guess.
One thing to consider: a lot of sexual assault occurs in the context of a longstanding relationship. I'm not going to write out the extended metaphor, but I think you can see where I'm going with this.
Sexual assault takes up this weird headspace unlike any other crime where the victim's behavior is more important than the perpetrator.
Like, if someone's car is stolen, if they left the window down, or the car unlocked, or the engine running, doesn't mean the thief is suddenly no longer guilty of stealing a car. We don't ask if they've given away cars in the past, or trade cars with people, or how many people they've given rides to. Like, none of that matters.
But when someone is raped, all of a sudden whether or not they've ever willingly had sex before is paramount. Like......
what?
False accusations of rape can happen.
But so can false accusations of any other crime. Why it's so much more important when it comes to sexual assault....well...I can only guess.
It goes to intent. If every day I give 5 dollars voluntarily to the homeless guy on the corner, it's going to be harder for me to argue that today I didn't give it to him and instead he stole it out of my hand.
The problem is that sexual assault is unlike other crimes because the act of sex/flirting is something that we do quite often voluntarily. Therefore it's not enough to prove that sex/flirting happened, you also have to prove that it was not voluntary. That's a burden not necessary for stealing a car, because nobody ever gives their car to stranger voluntarily.
Or, we could start from the principle that consent is denied unless expressly given. Which is how we treat all these other interactions.
So the victim says there was no consent, the accused says there was consent. No what? We always side with the victim? Do we even need an investigation or should we just say if accused, then punished and call it a day?
I mean look at the case of weinstein's friends. They had seen no evidence of wrong doing other than accusations. At what point should they have begun to try and ostracize or distance themselves? I think we can all agree that 20 years on and many many accusations later is too slow, but should it have been after the very first instance? Should they have tried to find out more or should they just have assumed the very first person was telling the truth because statistically more people are assaulted than falsely accused?
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
Sexual assault takes up this weird headspace unlike any other crime where the victim's behavior is more important than the perpetrator.
Like, if someone's car is stolen, if they left the window down, or the car unlocked, or the engine running, doesn't mean the thief is suddenly no longer guilty of stealing a car. We don't ask if they've given away cars in the past, or trade cars with people, or how many people they've given rides to. Like, none of that matters.
But when someone is raped, all of a sudden whether or not they've ever willingly had sex before is paramount. Like......
what?
False accusations of rape can happen.
But so can false accusations of any other crime. Why it's so much more important when it comes to sexual assault....well...I can only guess.
It goes to intent. If every day I give 5 dollars voluntarily to the homeless guy on the corner, it's going to be harder for me to argue that today I didn't give it to him and instead he stole it out of my hand.
The problem is that sexual assault is unlike other crimes because the act of sex/flirting is something that we do quite often voluntarily. Therefore it's not enough to prove that sex/flirting happened, you also have to prove that it was not voluntary. That's a burden not necessary for stealing a car, because nobody ever gives their car to stranger voluntarily.
Or, we could start from the principle that consent is denied unless expressly given. Which is how we treat all these other interactions.
So the victim says there was no consent, the accused says there was consent. No what? We always side with the victim? Do we even need an investigation or should we just say if accused, then punished and call it a day?
I mean look at the case of weinstein's friends. They had seen no evidence of wrong doing other than accusations. At what point should they have begun to try and ostracize or distance themselves? I think we can all agree that 20 years on and many many accusations later is too slow, but should it have been after the very first instance? Should they have tried to find out more or should they just have assumed the very first person was telling the truth because statistically more people are assaulted than falsely accused?
How often do you ask a victim of car theft if they just handed the car over to the guy seen driving it away, then assume since the guy said that's how it happened, it must be true?
Seriously dude, this line of thought is so fucking out there it's nonsensical
Not to mention the absolute miniscule amount of cases of assault that even make it to court, then the miniscule number of cases that even wind up with a conviction. Only 2-10 percent of accusations wind up being false, and even less than that have serious consequences: https://qz.com/980766/the-truth-about-false-rape-accusations/
This may be hard to believe, especially considering that rape is a felony, punishable with years of prison. However—to start with this worst-case scenario—it’s exceedingly rare for a false rape allegation to end in prison time. According to the National Registry of Exonerations, since records began in 1989, in the US there are only 52 cases where men convicted of sexual assault were exonerated because it turned out they were falsely accused. By way of comparison, in the same period, there are 790 cases in which people were exonerated for murder.
Furthermore, in the most detailed study ever conducted of sexual assault reports to police, undertaken for the British Home Office in the early 2000s, out of 216 complaints that were classified as false, only 126 had even gotten to the stage where the accuser lodged a formal complaint. Only 39 complainants named a suspect. Only six cases led to an arrest, and only two led to charges being brought before they were ultimately deemed false. (Here, as elsewhere, it has to be assumed that some unknown percentage of the cases classified as false actually involved real rapes; what they don’t involve is countless innocent men’s lives being ruined.)
So yeah, honestly, the people who heard rumours should have sought out the survivors, dropped Weinstein, and believed the women. Because odds are, they were truthful. Can we get back to talking about a line of thought that is actually relevant to the victims, and not imagined victims of false accusations?
False sexual assault claims are very rare against powerful people, to the point of almost nonexistence
Criminal trials tend to be vanishingly rare, civil is the order of the day and usually just enough of them that you vaguely remember one [a false claim] wrapped up sometime in the past year or two. That's part of the reason why the behavior of lawyers like Bloom is troubling: they're willing to exacerbate this phenomenon for personal gain.
Could you possibly think of some reasons why criminal trials are rare that isn't "because victims report falsely"?
Or maybe I'm missing your point about criminal trials I guess.
Sexual assault takes up this weird headspace unlike any other crime where the victim's behavior is more important than the perpetrator.
Like, if someone's car is stolen, if they left the window down, or the car unlocked, or the engine running, doesn't mean the thief is suddenly no longer guilty of stealing a car. We don't ask if they've given away cars in the past, or trade cars with people, or how many people they've given rides to. Like, none of that matters.
But when someone is raped, all of a sudden whether or not they've ever willingly had sex before is paramount. Like......
what?
False accusations of rape can happen.
But so can false accusations of any other crime. Why it's so much more important when it comes to sexual assault....well...I can only guess.
It goes to intent. If every day I give 5 dollars voluntarily to the homeless guy on the corner, it's going to be harder for me to argue that today I didn't give it to him and instead he stole it out of my hand.
The problem is that sexual assault is unlike other crimes because the act of sex/flirting is something that we do quite often voluntarily. Therefore it's not enough to prove that sex/flirting happened, you also have to prove that it was not voluntary. That's a burden not necessary for stealing a car, because nobody ever gives their car to stranger voluntarily.
Or, we could start from the principle that consent is denied unless expressly given. Which is how we treat all these other interactions.
So the victim says there was no consent, the accused says there was consent. No what? We always side with the victim? Do we even need an investigation or should we just say if accused, then punished and call it a day?
I mean look at the case of weinstein's friends. They had seen no evidence of wrong doing other than accusations. At what point should they have begun to try and ostracize or distance themselves? I think we can all agree that 20 years on and many many accusations later is too slow, but should it have been after the very first instance? Should they have tried to find out more or should they just have assumed the very first person was telling the truth because statistically more people are assaulted than falsely accused?
Investigations must start with giving credence to what victims are reporting and conducting the investigation in a way that isn't "let me look for evidence to support my preconceived notions about how victims should act, how they report, what exactly they should be able to remember, etc".
When someone reports that their car was stolen, is the police officer's first instinct to ask them if they handed the criminal the keys?
When someone says "believe women", that's what they mean. Investigate as if a crime occurred, don't assume that a crime didn't occur before the investigation starts.
Edit: @So It Goes I just realized I paraphrased your above post, ignore me guys I'm tired
This isn't academic or hypothetical. Real people refuse to report sexual assault or rape because they don't think people will believe them.
I guess I don't know what else to say except that the $5 hypothetical rubbed me the wrong way, because it's really close to the "are you sure you weren't leading them on?" defense.
Sometimes the failure is not because of shitty human behavior but because of inherent challenges though. Proving that someone stole a car without consent is a lot easier than proving someone flirted without consent. Both because proving the car was stolen is easier (the car was found at the thief's house vs victim says perp said inappropriate things but no evidence exists other than testimony), and also because proving consent is easier (virtually no one would want to give their car to a stranger vs many people have sexual relationships with friends/co-workers/one-night stands/ect...)
I don't think it's a failure of society that one is much harder to punish than the other, and I find it frustrating when people act like it is easy and there are no possible complications. I think it makes it harder to work towards achievable goals if you aren't willing to acknowledge underlying issues.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
This isn't academic or hypothetical. Real people refuse to report sexual assault or rape because they don't think people will believe them.
I guess I don't know what else to say except that the $5 hypothetical rubbed me the wrong way, because it's really close to the "are you sure you weren't leading them on?" defense.
Sometimes the failure is not because of shitty human behavior but because of inherent challenges though. Proving that someone stole a car without consent is a lot easier than proving someone flirted without consent. Both because proving the car was stolen is easier (the car was found at the thief's house vs victim says perp said inappropriate things but no evidence exists other than testimony), and also because proving consent is easier (virtually no one would want to give their car to a stranger vs many people have sexual relationships with friends/co-workers/one-night stands/ect...)
I don't think it's a failure of society that one is much harder to punish than the other, and I find it frustrating when people act like it is easy and there are no possible complications. I think it makes it harder to work towards achievable goals if you aren't willing to acknowledge underlying issues.
If it's a lot harder to prove that a crime happened when it comes to rape, then why are we worried about false accusations? Does the burden of proof in a courtroom change when the crime is sexual?
Sexual assault takes up this weird headspace unlike any other crime where the victim's behavior is more important than the perpetrator.
Like, if someone's car is stolen, if they left the window down, or the car unlocked, or the engine running, doesn't mean the thief is suddenly no longer guilty of stealing a car. We don't ask if they've given away cars in the past, or trade cars with people, or how many people they've given rides to. Like, none of that matters.
But when someone is raped, all of a sudden whether or not they've ever willingly had sex before is paramount. Like......
what?
False accusations of rape can happen.
But so can false accusations of any other crime. Why it's so much more important when it comes to sexual assault....well...I can only guess.
It goes to intent. If every day I give 5 dollars voluntarily to the homeless guy on the corner, it's going to be harder for me to argue that today I didn't give it to him and instead he stole it out of my hand.
The problem is that sexual assault is unlike other crimes because the act of sex/flirting is something that we do quite often voluntarily. Therefore it's not enough to prove that sex/flirting happened, you also have to prove that it was not voluntary. That's a burden not necessary for stealing a car, because nobody ever gives their car to stranger voluntarily.
Or, we could start from the principle that consent is denied unless expressly given. Which is how we treat all these other interactions.
So the victim says there was no consent, the accused says there was consent. No what? We always side with the victim? Do we even need an investigation or should we just say if accused, then punished and call it a day?
I mean look at the case of weinstein's friends. They had seen no evidence of wrong doing other than accusations. At what point should they have begun to try and ostracize or distance themselves? I think we can all agree that 20 years on and many many accusations later is too slow, but should it have been after the very first instance? Should they have tried to find out more or should they just have assumed the very first person was telling the truth because statistically more people are assaulted than falsely accused?
Investigations must start with giving credence to what victims are reporting and conducting the investigation in a way that isn't "let me look for evidence to support my preconceived notions about how victims should act, how they report, what exactly they should be able to remember, etc".
Yes, start with believing women. Exactly.
I don't think I've ever argued to the contrary. Like I said there is a lot we can do without having to go full bore towards guilty till proven innocent. If someone says they have false accusations concerns acknowledge that it is a concern but argue how your solution won't cause an issue rather than dismissing it out of hand.
This isn't some out there hypothetical either. People are specifically calling out former friends/co-workers of wenstein's as if they have seriously failed their societal duties. I'm asking what we believe they should have done differently.
Some are easy, whoever told an actress to shut their mouth and not talk about it is a huge goose and should face punishment/fallout. But what about someone like Kevin Smith? He was never approached or witnessed anything first hand, and all of his interactions with Weinstein were positive. So he wrote off rumors as being rumors and publicly supported weinstein. Should he have turned on his friend the very first time he heard a rumor? Many people seem to be saying yes, and that seems pretty shitty to me. But I also think that by now there was probably a critical mass that at least should have triggered the desire for more information.
I honestly don't know how I would have handled that type of situation, and I want to know what other people would do. But instead I just get told that I'm just trying to shut down women's rights and that I'm probably a secret abuser otherwise I would admit that everything was obvious from the beginning.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
Cory Feldman has been talking about this for a long time and it's never caught traction. There's a significant conspiracy theory "following" surrounding pedophile rings perpetuated by high profile celebrities and politicians similar to what Feldman says exists in Hollywood and I imagine that acts as a barrier to people taking it seriously.
This isn't academic or hypothetical. Real people refuse to report sexual assault or rape because they don't think people will believe them.
I guess I don't know what else to say except that the $5 hypothetical rubbed me the wrong way, because it's really close to the "are you sure you weren't leading them on?" defense.
Sometimes the failure is not because of shitty human behavior but because of inherent challenges though. Proving that someone stole a car without consent is a lot easier than proving someone flirted without consent. Both because proving the car was stolen is easier (the car was found at the thief's house vs victim says perp said inappropriate things but no evidence exists other than testimony), and also because proving consent is easier (virtually no one would want to give their car to a stranger vs many people have sexual relationships with friends/co-workers/one-night stands/ect...)
I don't think it's a failure of society that one is much harder to punish than the other, and I find it frustrating when people act like it is easy and there are no possible complications. I think it makes it harder to work towards achievable goals if you aren't willing to acknowledge underlying issues.
If it's a lot harder to prove that a crime happened when it comes to rape, then why are we worried about false accusations? Does the burden of proof in a courtroom change when the crime is sexual?
Because even false accusations have significant social outcomes when it comes to sexual crimes. That's not an argument for considering the outcome of false accusations as more important than the outcome of true accusations, but rather a direct response to this very specific question.
Saying start investigations by believing women is not the same as saying that it should be as easy to prove as a car theft. It's more that fundamentally we must change how we think about these acts and how to investigate them. We must acknowledge, up front, the societal biases against victims of sexual harassment and abuse and work to overcome the influence of those myths about victims, how they should act, how sexual abuse typically occurs, etc. We should also change how we interview and gather facts from victims of these crimes and interviewers in any official capacity should have training in the neurobiology of trauma.
I don't think any of this requires us to ignore the fact that someone could potentially make a false accusation, nor will it functionally result in false convictions increasing.
Sexual assault takes up this weird headspace unlike any other crime where the victim's behavior is more important than the perpetrator.
Like, if someone's car is stolen, if they left the window down, or the car unlocked, or the engine running, doesn't mean the thief is suddenly no longer guilty of stealing a car. We don't ask if they've given away cars in the past, or trade cars with people, or how many people they've given rides to. Like, none of that matters.
But when someone is raped, all of a sudden whether or not they've ever willingly had sex before is paramount. Like......
what?
False accusations of rape can happen.
But so can false accusations of any other crime. Why it's so much more important when it comes to sexual assault....well...I can only guess.
It goes to intent. If every day I give 5 dollars voluntarily to the homeless guy on the corner, it's going to be harder for me to argue that today I didn't give it to him and instead he stole it out of my hand.
The problem is that sexual assault is unlike other crimes because the act of sex/flirting is something that we do quite often voluntarily. Therefore it's not enough to prove that sex/flirting happened, you also have to prove that it was not voluntary. That's a burden not necessary for stealing a car, because nobody ever gives their car to stranger voluntarily.
Or, we could start from the principle that consent is denied unless expressly given. Which is how we treat all these other interactions.
So the victim says there was no consent, the accused says there was consent. No what? We always side with the victim? Do we even need an investigation or should we just say if accused, then punished and call it a day?
I mean look at the case of weinstein's friends. They had seen no evidence of wrong doing other than accusations. At what point should they have begun to try and ostracize or distance themselves? I think we can all agree that 20 years on and many many accusations later is too slow, but should it have been after the very first instance? Should they have tried to find out more or should they just have assumed the very first person was telling the truth because statistically more people are assaulted than falsely accused?
Investigations must start with giving credence to what victims are reporting and conducting the investigation in a way that isn't "let me look for evidence to support my preconceived notions about how victims should act, how they report, what exactly they should be able to remember, etc".
Yes, start with believing women. Exactly.
I don't think I've ever argued to the contrary. Like I said there is a lot we can do without having to go full bore towards guilty till proven innocent. If someone says they have false accusations concerns acknowledge that it is a concern but argue how your solution won't cause an issue rather than dismissing it out of hand.
This isn't some out there hypothetical either. People are specifically calling out former friends/co-workers of wenstein's as if they have seriously failed their societal duties. I'm asking what we believe they should have done differently.
Some are easy, whoever told an actress to shut their mouth and not talk about it is a huge goose and should face punishment/fallout. But what about someone like Kevin Smith? He was never approached or witnessed anything first hand, and all of his interactions with Weinstein were positive. So he wrote off rumors as being rumors and publicly supported weinstein. Should he have turned on his friend the very first time he heard a rumor? Many people seem to be saying yes, and that seems pretty shitty to me. But I also think that by now there was probably a critical mass that at least should have triggered the desire for more information.
I honestly don't know how I would have handled that type of situation, and I want to know what other people would do. But instead I just get told that I'm just trying to shut down women's rights and that I'm probably a secret abuser otherwise I would admit that everything was obvious from the beginning.
Point me to the person saying that last bit to you, please.
I sure hope you don't think that's my assertion here.
False sexual assault claims are very rare against powerful people, to the point of almost nonexistence
Criminal trials tend to be vanishingly rare, civil is the order of the day and usually just enough of them that you vaguely remember one [a false claim] wrapped up sometime in the past year or two. That's part of the reason why the behavior of lawyers like Bloom is troubling: they're willing to exacerbate this phenomenon for personal gain.
Could you possibly think of some reasons why criminal trials are rare that isn't "because victims report falsely"?
Or maybe I'm missing your point about criminal trials I guess.
Not what I'm going for, I was agreeing with override while adding that a certain kind of false case tends to be in the public consciousness: the ones people tend to have in the back of their minds are usually interpreted as cash grabs. The problem is people stop thinking right there when they see an accusation against a powerful person, especially if they are a wealthy and powerful person, instead of taking other factors into consideration. Part of this is also a misunderstanding by the general public about the differences between a civil and a criminal trial, and why you might choose a civil trial rather than a criminal trial as many of the women in this example likely will even though a crime is alleged. As we've stated, coming forward is very hard on most victims. Sometimes, it takes years for people to speak out if they do at all; by that time, it may be very difficult to meet the standards of evidence for a criminal trial. However, if justice is still sought, a civil case has fewer of these challenges. The problem is that mechanistically everything beyond that point looks identical to a false claim to an inattentive observer; in our litigious society "X sues Y" blends with every other frivolous civil case, and this is especially so when celebrities are involved.
Sexual assault takes up this weird headspace unlike any other crime where the victim's behavior is more important than the perpetrator.
Like, if someone's car is stolen, if they left the window down, or the car unlocked, or the engine running, doesn't mean the thief is suddenly no longer guilty of stealing a car. We don't ask if they've given away cars in the past, or trade cars with people, or how many people they've given rides to. Like, none of that matters.
But when someone is raped, all of a sudden whether or not they've ever willingly had sex before is paramount. Like......
what?
False accusations of rape can happen.
But so can false accusations of any other crime. Why it's so much more important when it comes to sexual assault....well...I can only guess.
It goes to intent. If every day I give 5 dollars voluntarily to the homeless guy on the corner, it's going to be harder for me to argue that today I didn't give it to him and instead he stole it out of my hand.
The problem is that sexual assault is unlike other crimes because the act of sex/flirting is something that we do quite often voluntarily. Therefore it's not enough to prove that sex/flirting happened, you also have to prove that it was not voluntary. That's a burden not necessary for stealing a car, because nobody ever gives their car to stranger voluntarily.
Or, we could start from the principle that consent is denied unless expressly given. Which is how we treat all these other interactions.
So the victim says there was no consent, the accused says there was consent. No what? We always side with the victim? Do we even need an investigation or should we just say if accused, then punished and call it a day?
I mean look at the case of weinstein's friends. They had seen no evidence of wrong doing other than accusations. At what point should they have begun to try and ostracize or distance themselves? I think we can all agree that 20 years on and many many accusations later is too slow, but should it have been after the very first instance? Should they have tried to find out more or should they just have assumed the very first person was telling the truth because statistically more people are assaulted than falsely accused?
Investigations must start with giving credence to what victims are reporting and conducting the investigation in a way that isn't "let me look for evidence to support my preconceived notions about how victims should act, how they report, what exactly they should be able to remember, etc".
Yes, start with believing women. Exactly.
I don't think I've ever argued to the contrary. Like I said there is a lot we can do without having to go full bore towards guilty till proven innocent. If someone says they have false accusations concerns acknowledge that it is a concern but argue how your solution won't cause an issue rather than dismissing it out of hand.
This isn't some out there hypothetical either. People are specifically calling out former friends/co-workers of wenstein's as if they have seriously failed their societal duties. I'm asking what we believe they should have done differently.
Some are easy, whoever told an actress to shut their mouth and not talk about it is a huge goose and should face punishment/fallout. But what about someone like Kevin Smith? He was never approached or witnessed anything first hand, and all of his interactions with Weinstein were positive. So he wrote off rumors as being rumors and publicly supported weinstein. Should he have turned on his friend the very first time he heard a rumor? Many people seem to be saying yes, and that seems pretty shitty to me. But I also think that by now there was probably a critical mass that at least should have triggered the desire for more information.
I honestly don't know how I would have handled that type of situation, and I want to know what other people would do. But instead I just get told that I'm just trying to shut down women's rights and that I'm probably a secret abuser otherwise I would admit that everything was obvious from the beginning.
Point me to the person saying that last bit to you, please.
I sure hope you don't think that's my assertion here.
Maybe I'm being a bit hyperbolic, but this seems to be aimed directly at me as if to say that I believe women are not important and or sexual assault is not important.
An innocent person having to deal with a false accusation and ensuing investigation, or
An actual victim not reporting a crime because they won't be believed.
Even better, sometimes actual victims report the crime only to be accused of making stuff up! Which happens quite often unless a TON of victims do it all at the same time, and even then a lot of people don't believe it, see Bill Cosby.
The status quo is already worse than any imagined world of false accusations running rampant in society.
This is a pattern that happens over and over and over with this sort of discussion. What could happen to men potentially is more important than what is happening to women.
And it wasn't from this thread, but in the very similar previous thread:
No what I'm saying is, has been, and continues to be:
I would encourage examination of why it is so important to you that abusive and/or predatory behavior be tolerated. Because the only reason that it makes sense would be if you, personally, felt that limiting such behavior would eventually have personal repercussions.
edit - To be clear I wasn't trying to call you out specifically. These are difficult discussion to have, but I feel like there is a tendency to take offense to any suggestion that maybe there is some nuance to these situations.
Jebus314 on
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
Sexual assault takes up this weird headspace unlike any other crime where the victim's behavior is more important than the perpetrator.
Like, if someone's car is stolen, if they left the window down, or the car unlocked, or the engine running, doesn't mean the thief is suddenly no longer guilty of stealing a car. We don't ask if they've given away cars in the past, or trade cars with people, or how many people they've given rides to. Like, none of that matters.
But when someone is raped, all of a sudden whether or not they've ever willingly had sex before is paramount. Like......
what?
False accusations of rape can happen.
But so can false accusations of any other crime. Why it's so much more important when it comes to sexual assault....well...I can only guess.
It goes to intent. If every day I give 5 dollars voluntarily to the homeless guy on the corner, it's going to be harder for me to argue that today I didn't give it to him and instead he stole it out of my hand.
The problem is that sexual assault is unlike other crimes because the act of sex/flirting is something that we do quite often voluntarily. Therefore it's not enough to prove that sex/flirting happened, you also have to prove that it was not voluntary. That's a burden not necessary for stealing a car, because nobody ever gives their car to stranger voluntarily.
Or, we could start from the principle that consent is denied unless expressly given. Which is how we treat all these other interactions.
So the victim says there was no consent, the accused says there was consent. No what? We always side with the victim? Do we even need an investigation or should we just say if accused, then punished and call it a day?
I mean look at the case of weinstein's friends. They had seen no evidence of wrong doing other than accusations. At what point should they have begun to try and ostracize or distance themselves? I think we can all agree that 20 years on and many many accusations later is too slow, but should it have been after the very first instance? Should they have tried to find out more or should they just have assumed the very first person was telling the truth because statistically more people are assaulted than falsely accused?
Investigations must start with giving credence to what victims are reporting and conducting the investigation in a way that isn't "let me look for evidence to support my preconceived notions about how victims should act, how they report, what exactly they should be able to remember, etc".
Yes, start with believing women. Exactly.
I don't think I've ever argued to the contrary. Like I said there is a lot we can do without having to go full bore towards guilty till proven innocent. If someone says they have false accusations concerns acknowledge that it is a concern but argue how your solution won't cause an issue rather than dismissing it out of hand.
This isn't some out there hypothetical either. People are specifically calling out former friends/co-workers of wenstein's as if they have seriously failed their societal duties. I'm asking what we believe they should have done differently.
Some are easy, whoever told an actress to shut their mouth and not talk about it is a huge goose and should face punishment/fallout. But what about someone like Kevin Smith? He was never approached or witnessed anything first hand, and all of his interactions with Weinstein were positive. So he wrote off rumors as being rumors and publicly supported weinstein. Should he have turned on his friend the very first time he heard a rumor? Many people seem to be saying yes, and that seems pretty shitty to me. But I also think that by now there was probably a critical mass that at least should have triggered the desire for more information.
I honestly don't know how I would have handled that type of situation, and I want to know what other people would do. But instead I just get told that I'm just trying to shut down women's rights and that I'm probably a secret abuser otherwise I would admit that everything was obvious from the beginning.
Point me to the person saying that last bit to you, please.
I sure hope you don't think that's my assertion here.
Maybe I'm being a bit hyperbolic, but this seems to be aimed directly at me as if to say that I believe women are not important and or sexual assault is not important.
An innocent person having to deal with a false accusation and ensuing investigation, or
An actual victim not reporting a crime because they won't be believed.
Even better, sometimes actual victims report the crime only to be accused of making stuff up! Which happens quite often unless a TON of victims do it all at the same time, and even then a lot of people don't believe it, see Bill Cosby.
The status quo is already worse than any imagined world of false accusations running rampant in society.
This is a pattern that happens over and over and over with this sort of discussion. What could happen to men potentially is more important than what is happening to women.
And it wasn't from this thread, but in the very similar previous thread:
No what I'm saying is, has been, and continues to be:
I would encourage examination of why it is so important to you that abusive and/or predatory behavior be tolerated. Because the only reason that it makes sense would be if you, personally, felt that limiting such behavior would eventually have personal repercussions.
edit - To be clear I wasn't trying to call you out specifically. These are difficult discussion to have, but I feel like there is a tendency to take offense to any suggestion that maybe there is some nuance to these situations.
The problem is that comparatively, false accusations make up such a tiny percentage of sexual assault allegations, and an infinitessimally small number of those are prosecuted fully. The "what about false claims" argument is frequently raised as a response to "why not just believe the women" and used as a tactic to derail the argument and make it about potential (usually male) victims instead of the actual existing (usually female) ones. Though you may be positing this argument in good faith, there is often little patience for it because of how it is consistently brought up in a ratio that doesn't directly correlate with the actual occurrence of the thing.
Like, it's like if we were talking about gun violence being a bad thing, and you came in saying "what about all the times a good guy with a gun shot someone? What if that guy got sent to jail?" When that problem is so very, very small compared to actual numbers of victims of gun violence. It prevents us from having an actual conversation on the topic with timely examples by making us retread ground. It can be frustrating.
Sexual assault takes up this weird headspace unlike any other crime where the victim's behavior is more important than the perpetrator.
Like, if someone's car is stolen, if they left the window down, or the car unlocked, or the engine running, doesn't mean the thief is suddenly no longer guilty of stealing a car. We don't ask if they've given away cars in the past, or trade cars with people, or how many people they've given rides to. Like, none of that matters.
But when someone is raped, all of a sudden whether or not they've ever willingly had sex before is paramount. Like......
what?
False accusations of rape can happen.
But so can false accusations of any other crime. Why it's so much more important when it comes to sexual assault....well...I can only guess.
It goes to intent. If every day I give 5 dollars voluntarily to the homeless guy on the corner, it's going to be harder for me to argue that today I didn't give it to him and instead he stole it out of my hand.
The problem is that sexual assault is unlike other crimes because the act of sex/flirting is something that we do quite often voluntarily. Therefore it's not enough to prove that sex/flirting happened, you also have to prove that it was not voluntary. That's a burden not necessary for stealing a car, because nobody ever gives their car to stranger voluntarily.
Or, we could start from the principle that consent is denied unless expressly given. Which is how we treat all these other interactions.
So the victim says there was no consent, the accused says there was consent. No what? We always side with the victim? Do we even need an investigation or should we just say if accused, then punished and call it a day?
I mean look at the case of weinstein's friends. They had seen no evidence of wrong doing other than accusations. At what point should they have begun to try and ostracize or distance themselves? I think we can all agree that 20 years on and many many accusations later is too slow, but should it have been after the very first instance? Should they have tried to find out more or should they just have assumed the very first person was telling the truth because statistically more people are assaulted than falsely accused?
Investigations must start with giving credence to what victims are reporting and conducting the investigation in a way that isn't "let me look for evidence to support my preconceived notions about how victims should act, how they report, what exactly they should be able to remember, etc".
Yes, start with believing women. Exactly.
I don't think I've ever argued to the contrary. Like I said there is a lot we can do without having to go full bore towards guilty till proven innocent. If someone says they have false accusations concerns acknowledge that it is a concern but argue how your solution won't cause an issue rather than dismissing it out of hand.
This isn't some out there hypothetical either. People are specifically calling out former friends/co-workers of wenstein's as if they have seriously failed their societal duties. I'm asking what we believe they should have done differently.
Some are easy, whoever told an actress to shut their mouth and not talk about it is a huge goose and should face punishment/fallout. But what about someone like Kevin Smith? He was never approached or witnessed anything first hand, and all of his interactions with Weinstein were positive. So he wrote off rumors as being rumors and publicly supported weinstein. Should he have turned on his friend the very first time he heard a rumor? Many people seem to be saying yes, and that seems pretty shitty to me. But I also think that by now there was probably a critical mass that at least should have triggered the desire for more information.
I honestly don't know how I would have handled that type of situation, and I want to know what other people would do. But instead I just get told that I'm just trying to shut down women's rights and that I'm probably a secret abuser otherwise I would admit that everything was obvious from the beginning.
Point me to the person saying that last bit to you, please.
I sure hope you don't think that's my assertion here.
Maybe I'm being a bit hyperbolic, but this seems to be aimed directly at me as if to say that I believe women are not important and or sexual assault is not important.
An innocent person having to deal with a false accusation and ensuing investigation, or
An actual victim not reporting a crime because they won't be believed.
Even better, sometimes actual victims report the crime only to be accused of making stuff up! Which happens quite often unless a TON of victims do it all at the same time, and even then a lot of people don't believe it, see Bill Cosby.
The status quo is already worse than any imagined world of false accusations running rampant in society.
This is a pattern that happens over and over and over with this sort of discussion. What could happen to men potentially is more important than what is happening to women.
And it wasn't from this thread, but in the very similar previous thread:
No what I'm saying is, has been, and continues to be:
I would encourage examination of why it is so important to you that abusive and/or predatory behavior be tolerated. Because the only reason that it makes sense would be if you, personally, felt that limiting such behavior would eventually have personal repercussions.
edit - To be clear I wasn't trying to call you out specifically. These are difficult discussion to have, but I feel like there is a tendency to take offense to any suggestion that maybe there is some nuance to these situations.
The problem is that comparatively, false accusations make up such a tiny percentage of sexual assault allegations, and an infinitessimally small number of those are prosecuted fully. The "what about false claims" argument is frequently raised as a response to "why not just believe the women" and used as a tactic to derail the argument and make it about potential (usually male) victims instead of the actual existing (usually female) ones. Though you may be positing this argument in good faith, there is often little patience for it because of how it is consistently brought up in a ratio that doesn't directly correlate with the actual occurrence of the thing.
Like, it's like if we were talking about gun violence being a bad thing, and you came in saying "what about all the times a good guy with a gun shot someone? What if that guy got sent to jail?" When that problem is so very, very small compared to actual numbers of victims of gun violence. It prevents us from having an actual conversation on the topic with timely examples by making us retread ground. It can be frustrating.
That's perfectly fair.
In my case, I brought it up because I feel the discussion hit a point with respect to other people hearing rumors and claims and yet doing nothing that it's worth considering how to deal with the edge cases that really make or break things in the long term, as well as ongoing influences that can cause things to fly apart even short-term. I'm the kind of person that likes to keep digging into little fiddly details, and in my experience (even if it takes a long time) if you can address all the little fiddly details you're in a really solid place.
Everybody believes a false accusation could happen to them, few people believe they could become a victim of sexual abuse
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
+9
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Everybody believes a false accusation could happen to them, few people believe they could become a victim of sexual abuse
If we're coming at it from a male-centered mindset, this is especially true.
Plus everybody's been falsely accused of something once in their lives. Experiencing something makes it much more salient in decision making
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
"Take Rape Allegations Seriously" is not incompatible with "Innocent Until Proven Guilty." You'd take it seriously if a parent reported a missing child but that doesn't mean anybody is immediately condemned for having taken the child.
Chris Savino, creator of The Loud House (perhaps the best cartoon on Nickelodeon right now) was recently fired from the show and from Nickelodeon Studios as a whole over sexual assault allegations. Which actually makes the second time this decade that something like this happened, as the creator of the great show Clarence, Skyler Page, was also fired for sexually aggressive behavior.
It's kind of stupid the way we do it. Close to the incident, what we should be doing is reducing harm and gathering data. Then when everything is organized and filed, do the analysis and make the decision.
"Accusing" someone of any crime would much easier to swallow (especially for individuals that can't stomach hurting others) if the public response was temporary detainment and defusing.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
"Take Rape Allegations Seriously" is not incompatible with "Innocent Until Proven Guilty." You'd take it seriously if a parent reported a missing child but that doesn't mean anybody is immediately condemned for having taken the child.
This metaphor is absurd. Sexual abuse allegations *always* involve 1 or more specific persons perpetrating them.
Sexual assault takes up this weird headspace unlike any other crime where the victim's behavior is more important than the perpetrator.
Like, if someone's car is stolen, if they left the window down, or the car unlocked, or the engine running, doesn't mean the thief is suddenly no longer guilty of stealing a car. We don't ask if they've given away cars in the past, or trade cars with people, or how many people they've given rides to. Like, none of that matters.
But when someone is raped, all of a sudden whether or not they've ever willingly had sex before is paramount. Like......
what?
False accusations of rape can happen.
But so can false accusations of any other crime. Why it's so much more important when it comes to sexual assault....well...I can only guess.
One thing to consider: a lot of sexual assault occurs in the context of a longstanding relationship. I'm not going to write out the extended metaphor, but I think you can see where I'm going with this.
This isn't academic or hypothetical. Real people refuse to report sexual assault or rape because they don't think people will believe them.
I guess I don't know what else to say except that the $5 hypothetical rubbed me the wrong way, because it's really close to the "are you sure you weren't leading them on?" defense.
Sometimes the failure is not because of shitty human behavior but because of inherent challenges though. Proving that someone stole a car without consent is a lot easier than proving someone flirted without consent. Both because proving the car was stolen is easier (the car was found at the thief's house vs victim says perp said inappropriate things but no evidence exists other than testimony), and also because proving consent is easier (virtually no one would want to give their car to a stranger vs many people have sexual relationships with friends/co-workers/one-night stands/ect...)
I don't think it's a failure of society that one is much harder to punish than the other, and I find it frustrating when people act like it is easy and there are no possible complications. I think it makes it harder to work towards achievable goals if you aren't willing to acknowledge underlying issues.
But maybe you gave them the car keys.
Maybe you said they could take the car but forgot to give the keys.
Maybe someone else stole the car and left it in their yard.
Sexual assault takes up this weird headspace unlike any other crime where the victim's behavior is more important than the perpetrator.
Like, if someone's car is stolen, if they left the window down, or the car unlocked, or the engine running, doesn't mean the thief is suddenly no longer guilty of stealing a car. We don't ask if they've given away cars in the past, or trade cars with people, or how many people they've given rides to. Like, none of that matters.
But when someone is raped, all of a sudden whether or not they've ever willingly had sex before is paramount. Like......
what?
False accusations of rape can happen.
But so can false accusations of any other crime. Why it's so much more important when it comes to sexual assault....well...I can only guess.
One thing to consider: a lot of sexual assault occurs in the context of a longstanding relationship. I'm not going to write out the extended metaphor, but I think you can see where I'm going with this.
This isn't academic or hypothetical. Real people refuse to report sexual assault or rape because they don't think people will believe them.
I guess I don't know what else to say except that the $5 hypothetical rubbed me the wrong way, because it's really close to the "are you sure you weren't leading them on?" defense.
Sometimes the failure is not because of shitty human behavior but because of inherent challenges though. Proving that someone stole a car without consent is a lot easier than proving someone flirted without consent. Both because proving the car was stolen is easier (the car was found at the thief's house vs victim says perp said inappropriate things but no evidence exists other than testimony), and also because proving consent is easier (virtually no one would want to give their car to a stranger vs many people have sexual relationships with friends/co-workers/one-night stands/ect...)
I don't think it's a failure of society that one is much harder to punish than the other, and I find it frustrating when people act like it is easy and there are no possible complications. I think it makes it harder to work towards achievable goals if you aren't willing to acknowledge underlying issues.
But maybe you gave them the car keys.
Maybe you said they could take the car but forgot to give the keys.
Maybe someone else stole the car and left it in their yard.
You say that you can't see where I'm going, and then you write out exactly where I was going, among other things. Not sure what to make of that.
Doesn't anyone else find comparing rape to stealing a car (and, by extension, sex with using/borrowing a car) weird and off-putting?
The comparison fails to recognize that someone with a history of lending a car to someone could very well have a hard time proving that the borrower stole the car one time, but wasn't stealing it at various other points before and possibly after the alleged theft.
Sexual assault takes up this weird headspace unlike any other crime where the victim's behavior is more important than the perpetrator.
Like, if someone's car is stolen, if they left the window down, or the car unlocked, or the engine running, doesn't mean the thief is suddenly no longer guilty of stealing a car. We don't ask if they've given away cars in the past, or trade cars with people, or how many people they've given rides to. Like, none of that matters.
But when someone is raped, all of a sudden whether or not they've ever willingly had sex before is paramount. Like......
what?
False accusations of rape can happen.
But so can false accusations of any other crime. Why it's so much more important when it comes to sexual assault....well...I can only guess.
One thing to consider: a lot of sexual assault occurs in the context of a longstanding relationship. I'm not going to write out the extended metaphor, but I think you can see where I'm going with this.
This isn't academic or hypothetical. Real people refuse to report sexual assault or rape because they don't think people will believe them.
I guess I don't know what else to say except that the $5 hypothetical rubbed me the wrong way, because it's really close to the "are you sure you weren't leading them on?" defense.
Sometimes the failure is not because of shitty human behavior but because of inherent challenges though. Proving that someone stole a car without consent is a lot easier than proving someone flirted without consent. Both because proving the car was stolen is easier (the car was found at the thief's house vs victim says perp said inappropriate things but no evidence exists other than testimony), and also because proving consent is easier (virtually no one would want to give their car to a stranger vs many people have sexual relationships with friends/co-workers/one-night stands/ect...)
I don't think it's a failure of society that one is much harder to punish than the other, and I find it frustrating when people act like it is easy and there are no possible complications. I think it makes it harder to work towards achievable goals if you aren't willing to acknowledge underlying issues.
But maybe you gave them the car keys.
Maybe you said they could take the car but forgot to give the keys.
Maybe someone else stole the car and left it in their yard.
You say that you can't see where I'm going, and then you write out exactly where I was going, among other things. Not sure what to make of that.
Doesn't anyone else find comparing rape to stealing a car (and, by extension, sex with using/borrowing a car) weird and off-putting?
The comparison fails to recognize that someone with a history of lending a car to someone could very well have a hard time proving that the borrower stole the car one time, but wasn't stealing it at various other points before and possibly after the alleged theft.
It's not even about a history, or lack thereof, of borrowing yout car.
But that with almost everycrime, there is a potential element of conflicting narratives on whether or not the victim allowed it to happen.
You stole my car, you told me i could borrow it, you broke into my house, you let me in (and the door was already broken), you took my vallet, you handed it to me.
It's only with rape where it suddenly becomes this big thing to worry about false accusations even before actual investigations.
And no, i don't think everyone who gets overly worried an abuser or rapist.
Doesn't anyone else find comparing rape to stealing a car (and, by extension, sex with using/borrowing a car) weird and off-putting?
Nope, but then again, this forum has a longstanding tradition of odd car metaphors. More to the point, the underlying concepts of consent aren't all that different - what differs is how we view it as a society when it comes to sex.
The comparison fails to recognize that someone with a history of lending a car to someone could very well have a hard time proving that the borrower stole the car one time, but wasn't stealing it at various other points before and possibly after the alleged theft.
So, with most other issues involving "well, did the party actually consent", the standard we use as a society is "consent denied unless expressly given" - that is, we tend to work from the idea that unless there's clear evidence that yes, consent was given, then we should assume that it wasn't. It's only when we get to sex that there's this weird social construct that instead, we should be assuming consent unless expressly denied that really doesn't make any real sense when you actually think about it. Just because a woman has consented to sex before and after does not mean that we should assume that they consented to sex at any one given point.
“I knew enough to do more than I did,” he said, citing several episodes involving prominent actresses. “There was more to it than just the normal rumors, the normal gossip. It wasn’t secondhand. I knew he did a couple of these things.”
“I wish I had taken responsibility for what I heard,” he added. “If I had done the work I should have done then, I would have had to not work with him.”
Tarantino admitted in the interview that he had known about the allegations long before the explosive New York Times and New Yorker reports that catalyzed the producer’s fall from grace. Tarantino’s former girlfriend, Mira Sorvino, who has since gone public with her own allegations against Weinstein, told Tarantino of the harassment at the time that it allegedly occurred, he said. The director said he had also heard from another actress with a similar story, and knew that Weinstein had settled with Rose McGowan.
Though Tarantino was aware of those instances, he said he didn’t put them together into an overall pattern of behavior by Weinstein, and continued to make films with him — which Tarantino said he now regrets.
“What I did was marginalize the incidents,” he recalled. “Anything I say now will sound like a crappy excuse.”
He added that he didn’t take the women’s stories seriously enough, telling the Times, “I chalked it up to a ’50s-’60s era image of a boss chasing a secretary around the desk. As if that’s O.K. That’s the egg on my face right now.”
Tarantino had dismissed the incident recounted to him by Sorvino because he had assumed that Weinstein had a particular interest in her, which had led to him crossing the line. The director added that he had thought that since he was now dating Sorvino, Weinstein would leave her alone. “I’m with her, he knows that, he won’t mess with her, he knows that she’s my girlfriend,” he recalled thinking at the time.
He confronted Weinstein about the second incident recounted by his actress friend, and he said Weinstein offered what Tarantino considered a weak apology to the actress.
Tarantino urged the Hollywood community to take stories like those that circulated about Weinstein more seriously, stating that Hollywood has been “operating under an almost Jim Crow-like system that us males have almost tolerated. We allowed it to exist because that’s the way it was.” He also asked men in Hollywood to take a more prominent role: “Don’t just give out statements. Acknowledge that there was something rotten in Denmark. Vow to do better by our sisters.”
Tarantino added that he attempted to reach Weinstein after the allegations exploded, but got no reply.
Tarantino broke his silence on the scandal a week ago, stating that he needed more time to process his “pain, emotions, anger and memory.”
A step up from the usual "I had no idea who this Harvey Weinstein is" defense *glances at Kevin Smith* Honestly, I expected a dumpster fire from Tarantino, I'm thankful we didn't get that. His apology is the likes everyone in Hollywood should be making, rather than amnesia or PR stunts involving lots of money to get rid of the guilt.
Harry Dresden on
+18
Options
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
Anyone else find it a little gross how instead of people vowing to do better and not work to hide assaults, companies are now issuing "you can't be alone with women" decrees for management personnel. That just seems like more victim blaming.
Not really. It seems more like heading things off at the pass. If you cannot be alone with members of the opposite sex in private then the company has leeway to punish people regardless of dealing with the allegations. It's formulated in this manner because they're stupid (should be gender neutral) but it has nothing to do with "people not vowing to do better"
That is person x says it happened. Y says it didn't happen. Company says I don't care you should have refused to be in a position where this could happen.
That is there should be no one on one meetings of any kind in non-public places. To suggest that there should be but we just need to do better at dealing with assault is stupid. Assaults happen in private spaces for a reason; there is no way to disambiguate between a coercive incident and one that isn't when it's in private.
It's just as dumb to suggest that men are House broken chimps as it is to suggest that women cannot be sexually coercive. (As has been done in this thread) and such policies that prohibit employees from being in situations which can become sexually (or legally or whatever) coercive is good.
It's not like you couldn't have the meeting in a public room.
Sorry, but no, the "Billy Graham Rule" is gooseshit. It doesn't actually solve the problem of sexual assault. It actively impedes the careers of women, by cutting them off from opportunities, since they are treated as "dangerous" by the very people they need the support of to advance their careers. It also creates the absolutely goosey idea that men and women cannot work together without sex being involved (remember, Graham didn't institute it to head off claims of sexual assault, but to stymie rumors of infidelity.)
So no, these policies are decidedly a bad idea, and continue to push harmful societal ideas.
It would make it super easy to fuck people over especially if people were willing to coordinate. There is no good way to policy around it except well "don't be in these situations"
Do you realize you are buying into some incredibly toxic myths here? Like this is borderline MRA gooseshit. Women are not a shadowy cabal out to take down the wealthy with coordinated attacks of false accusations, and we should not be forwarding that belief.
No. I am doing nothing of the sort. The only problem with the policy is that it's gendered... and I said that. A man and woman should not have meetings in private. Two women should not have meetings in private. Two men should not have meetings in non-public places either.
Professional standards should put no person in potentially compromising situations. This is both to prevent people from being compromised, to prevent people from feeling like they are, and to protect the company from having to deal with any resulting complaints. It would be a lot easier to deal with people like Weinstein if "we had a meeting in his room" was immediate grounds for termination regardless of whatever went on in there. Terminated for cause; "violated standards of professional ethics".
Or maybe I could phrase my objections to your post in a more accusatory fashion. Do you realize that you're promoting sexual assault? You goose.
A policy like this would waste an incredible amount of work hours in my experience. I must've had 5-10 meetings with people one on one for every meeting I had with three or more attendees.
That's not even getting into when I was a traveling consultant and was frequently paired off with another person from the company. They were paying $2000 a day for us per person, generally for a minimum of 4 days. You can't just expect them to send an odd number of people at that kind of cost.
A policy like this would waste an incredible amount of work hours in my experience. I must've had 5-10 meetings with people one on one for every meeting I had with three or more attendees.
That's not even getting into when I was a traveling consultant and was frequently paired off with another person from the company. They were paying $2000 a day for us per person, generally for a minimum of 4 days. You can't just expect them to send an odd number of people at that kind of cost.
It's not a waste, it's a preventative measure and once made would protect everyone. There's a reason Weinstein wanted to be left alone with women in hotels. If that's the price to pay for safety Hollywood needs to do it without hesitation, especially the big companies. They can afford it.
That much is clear, and I don't really care enough about that question to come down on one side or the other. What I wanted to know was what you meant by "treat women equally", and I think I have a better grasp of that now, thanks.
Maybe you should reconsider, relationships in society between the sexes is a backbone for how abuse occurs and is fostered in communities. It's an important element to pay attention to when dealing with how abuse is created. The fact that's it's white noise in the background is why it's so dangerous, when society ignores it it continues the pattern and its harder to change the environment on the macro and micro scale.
I'm not interested in a debate about the precise causal relationship between sexist ideas and sexist or abusive behaviour. That's not the same as being uninterested in discussions about sexism or abuse.
The two subjects are interlinked, can't get to the root of getting rid of sexism in toxic environments without taking in all the factors. That is one of the largest issues with how cultures become toxic, and within the Hollywood sphere this runs into issues like nepotism, being friends with abusers and how their financial and/or artistic careers are on the line if they step on the toes of people who will protect the abusers. All of this merges together to create what Hollywood is.
I'm curious why you don't want to add this to the discussion, you have yet to explain why you feel like this on this subject considering the two subjects are virtually identical.
Please, don't let me stop you from having any discussions that are of interest to you.
And again you dodge on explaining why you don't want to discuss issues like that, refusing to fully participate over a simple question - which only makes me more curious why you'd rather hide your real thoughts on the matter. Quite strange when you're willingly to talk about similar issues and other elements of sexism/sexual abuse in Hollywood without hesitation.
“I knew enough to do more than I did,” he said, citing several episodes involving prominent actresses. “There was more to it than just the normal rumors, the normal gossip. It wasn’t secondhand. I knew he did a couple of these things.”
“I wish I had taken responsibility for what I heard,” he added. “If I had done the work I should have done then, I would have had to not work with him.”
Tarantino admitted in the interview that he had known about the allegations long before the explosive New York Times and New Yorker reports that catalyzed the producer’s fall from grace. Tarantino’s former girlfriend, Mira Sorvino, who has since gone public with her own allegations against Weinstein, told Tarantino of the harassment at the time that it allegedly occurred, he said. The director said he had also heard from another actress with a similar story, and knew that Weinstein had settled with Rose McGowan.
Though Tarantino was aware of those instances, he said he didn’t put them together into an overall pattern of behavior by Weinstein, and continued to make films with him — which Tarantino said he now regrets.
“What I did was marginalize the incidents,” he recalled. “Anything I say now will sound like a crappy excuse.”
He added that he didn’t take the women’s stories seriously enough, telling the Times, “I chalked it up to a ’50s-’60s era image of a boss chasing a secretary around the desk. As if that’s O.K. That’s the egg on my face right now.”
Tarantino had dismissed the incident recounted to him by Sorvino because he had assumed that Weinstein had a particular interest in her, which had led to him crossing the line. The director added that he had thought that since he was now dating Sorvino, Weinstein would leave her alone. “I’m with her, he knows that, he won’t mess with her, he knows that she’s my girlfriend,” he recalled thinking at the time.
He confronted Weinstein about the second incident recounted by his actress friend, and he said Weinstein offered what Tarantino considered a weak apology to the actress.
Tarantino urged the Hollywood community to take stories like those that circulated about Weinstein more seriously, stating that Hollywood has been “operating under an almost Jim Crow-like system that us males have almost tolerated. We allowed it to exist because that’s the way it was.” He also asked men in Hollywood to take a more prominent role: “Don’t just give out statements. Acknowledge that there was something rotten in Denmark. Vow to do better by our sisters.”
Tarantino added that he attempted to reach Weinstein after the allegations exploded, but got no reply.
Tarantino broke his silence on the scandal a week ago, stating that he needed more time to process his “pain, emotions, anger and memory.”
A step up from the usual "I had no idea who this Harvey Weinstein is" defense *glances at Kevin Smith* Honestly, I expected a dumpster fire from Tarantino, I'm thankful we didn't get that. His apology is the likes everyone in Hollywood should be making, rather than amnesia or PR stunts involving lots of money to get rid of the guilt.
I like that he aknowledges that he knew enough that he should have acted, but didn't, that's the first step into fixing this problem.
Now let's see if he takes the next step.
A policy like this would waste an incredible amount of work hours in my experience. I must've had 5-10 meetings with people one on one for every meeting I had with three or more attendees.
That's not even getting into when I was a traveling consultant and was frequently paired off with another person from the company. They were paying $2000 a day for us per person, generally for a minimum of 4 days. You can't just expect them to send an odd number of people at that kind of cost.
It's not a waste, it's a preventative measure and once made would protect everyone. There's a reason Weinstein wanted to be left alone with women in hotels. If that's the price to pay for safety Hollywood needs to do it without hesitation, especially the big companies. They can afford it.
Chaperones are a very 19th century solution to a todays problem.
They should probably also work for the person who needs protecting. Otherwise they can't be trusted to look after their interest.
Lockhart Steele, Vox Media’s Editorial Director and former Curbed CEO and founder, has been fired, effective immediately. Vox employees were alerted by a message in the company’s CEO AMA slack channel:
Hi team, I am writing to let you know that earlier this evening Lockhart Steele was terminated effective immediately. Lock admitted engaging in conduct that is inconsistent with our core values and will not be tolerated at Vox Media.
Our investigation into issues raised by a former employee in a post on Medium continues. Anyone with information should contact our external investigation leads, [redacted].
A policy like this would waste an incredible amount of work hours in my experience. I must've had 5-10 meetings with people one on one for every meeting I had with three or more attendees.
That's not even getting into when I was a traveling consultant and was frequently paired off with another person from the company. They were paying $2000 a day for us per person, generally for a minimum of 4 days. You can't just expect them to send an odd number of people at that kind of cost.
It's not a waste, it's a preventative measure and once made would protect everyone. There's a reason Weinstein wanted to be left alone with women in hotels. If that's the price to pay for safety Hollywood needs to do it without hesitation, especially the big companies. They can afford it.
Chaperones are a very 19th century solution to a todays problem.
They should probably also work for the person who needs protecting. Otherwise they can't be trusted to look after their interest.
It's a solution to a 21st century with sexual predators who will think twice when there's a witness in the room. I agree they should be a third party not working for the vulnerable one, perhaps either a friend and/or an associate from their guild. And perhaps the industry needs to stop meeting in hotels.
You know what would fuck you over if you where the target of a false rape accusation? I mean in the rare cases it happens at all.
You would respond "she is crazy and her accusations have no merit"(or words to that effect) and having the cops/judge scoff at your defense.
Why? Because that is the exact same story they have heard a hundred times before, given by guys that actually have raped women and are probably better at lying about it then you are at telling the truth.
After all they are probably better prepared to talk to the cops then you are. (Why yes officers, she had six drinks and was being very clingy)
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
A policy like this would waste an incredible amount of work hours in my experience. I must've had 5-10 meetings with people one on one for every meeting I had with three or more attendees.
That's not even getting into when I was a traveling consultant and was frequently paired off with another person from the company. They were paying $2000 a day for us per person, generally for a minimum of 4 days. You can't just expect them to send an odd number of people at that kind of cost.
It's not a waste, it's a preventative measure and once made would protect everyone. There's a reason Weinstein wanted to be left alone with women in hotels. If that's the price to pay for safety Hollywood needs to do it without hesitation, especially the big companies. They can afford it.
Chaperones are a very 19th century solution to a todays problem.
They should probably also work for the person who needs protecting. Otherwise they can't be trusted to look after their interest.
It's a solution to a 21st century with sexual predators who will think twice when there's a witness in the room. I agree they should be a third party not working for the vulnerable one, perhaps either a friend and/or an associate from their guild. And perhaps the industry needs to stop meeting in hotels.
I'm open to other suggestions.
There are no easy solutions.
Or there are, but they're exclusively bad ones.
A policy like this would waste an incredible amount of work hours in my experience. I must've had 5-10 meetings with people one on one for every meeting I had with three or more attendees.
That's not even getting into when I was a traveling consultant and was frequently paired off with another person from the company. They were paying $2000 a day for us per person, generally for a minimum of 4 days. You can't just expect them to send an odd number of people at that kind of cost.
It's not a waste, it's a preventative measure and once made would protect everyone. There's a reason Weinstein wanted to be left alone with women in hotels. If that's the price to pay for safety Hollywood needs to do it without hesitation, especially the big companies. They can afford it.
Chaperones are a very 19th century solution to a todays problem.
They should probably also work for the person who needs protecting. Otherwise they can't be trusted to look after their interest.
It's a solution to a 21st century with sexual predators who will think twice when there's a witness in the room. I agree they should be a third party not working for the vulnerable one, perhaps either a friend and/or an associate from their guild. And perhaps the industry needs to stop meeting in hotels.
I'm open to other suggestions.
There are no easy solutions.
Or there are, but they're exclusively bad ones.
My post wasn't about easy solutions - as you say, there aren't any, it was about solutions period. That's why I asking for options, right now having a witness sounds like the easiest an safest solution at the moment. For those actresses/actors/producers etc who have money available it would be wise to have their own bodyguards in attendance.
To combat this Hollywood needs to be restructured with preventive measures for the vulnerable. At the very least.
Posts
Criminal trials tend to be vanishingly rare, civil is the order of the day and usually just enough of them that you vaguely remember one [a false claim] wrapped up sometime in the past year or two. That's part of the reason why the behavior of lawyers like Bloom is troubling: they're willing to exacerbate this phenomenon for personal gain.
Or, we could start from the principle that consent is denied unless expressly given. Which is how we treat all these other interactions.
One thing to consider: a lot of sexual assault occurs in the context of a longstanding relationship. I'm not going to write out the extended metaphor, but I think you can see where I'm going with this.
So the victim says there was no consent, the accused says there was consent. No what? We always side with the victim? Do we even need an investigation or should we just say if accused, then punished and call it a day?
I mean look at the case of weinstein's friends. They had seen no evidence of wrong doing other than accusations. At what point should they have begun to try and ostracize or distance themselves? I think we can all agree that 20 years on and many many accusations later is too slow, but should it have been after the very first instance? Should they have tried to find out more or should they just have assumed the very first person was telling the truth because statistically more people are assaulted than falsely accused?
How often do you ask a victim of car theft if they just handed the car over to the guy seen driving it away, then assume since the guy said that's how it happened, it must be true?
Seriously dude, this line of thought is so fucking out there it's nonsensical
Not to mention the absolute miniscule amount of cases of assault that even make it to court, then the miniscule number of cases that even wind up with a conviction. Only 2-10 percent of accusations wind up being false, and even less than that have serious consequences:
https://qz.com/980766/the-truth-about-false-rape-accusations/
So yeah, honestly, the people who heard rumours should have sought out the survivors, dropped Weinstein, and believed the women. Because odds are, they were truthful. Can we get back to talking about a line of thought that is actually relevant to the victims, and not imagined victims of false accusations?
3DS Friend Code: 0216-0898-6512
Switch Friend Code: SW-7437-1538-7786
Could you possibly think of some reasons why criminal trials are rare that isn't "because victims report falsely"?
Or maybe I'm missing your point about criminal trials I guess.
Investigations must start with giving credence to what victims are reporting and conducting the investigation in a way that isn't "let me look for evidence to support my preconceived notions about how victims should act, how they report, what exactly they should be able to remember, etc".
Yes, start with believing women. Exactly.
When someone says "believe women", that's what they mean. Investigate as if a crime occurred, don't assume that a crime didn't occur before the investigation starts.
Edit: @So It Goes I just realized I paraphrased your above post, ignore me guys I'm tired
Sometimes the failure is not because of shitty human behavior but because of inherent challenges though. Proving that someone stole a car without consent is a lot easier than proving someone flirted without consent. Both because proving the car was stolen is easier (the car was found at the thief's house vs victim says perp said inappropriate things but no evidence exists other than testimony), and also because proving consent is easier (virtually no one would want to give their car to a stranger vs many people have sexual relationships with friends/co-workers/one-night stands/ect...)
I don't think it's a failure of society that one is much harder to punish than the other, and I find it frustrating when people act like it is easy and there are no possible complications. I think it makes it harder to work towards achievable goals if you aren't willing to acknowledge underlying issues.
If it's a lot harder to prove that a crime happened when it comes to rape, then why are we worried about false accusations? Does the burden of proof in a courtroom change when the crime is sexual?
I don't think I've ever argued to the contrary. Like I said there is a lot we can do without having to go full bore towards guilty till proven innocent. If someone says they have false accusations concerns acknowledge that it is a concern but argue how your solution won't cause an issue rather than dismissing it out of hand.
This isn't some out there hypothetical either. People are specifically calling out former friends/co-workers of wenstein's as if they have seriously failed their societal duties. I'm asking what we believe they should have done differently.
Some are easy, whoever told an actress to shut their mouth and not talk about it is a huge goose and should face punishment/fallout. But what about someone like Kevin Smith? He was never approached or witnessed anything first hand, and all of his interactions with Weinstein were positive. So he wrote off rumors as being rumors and publicly supported weinstein. Should he have turned on his friend the very first time he heard a rumor? Many people seem to be saying yes, and that seems pretty shitty to me. But I also think that by now there was probably a critical mass that at least should have triggered the desire for more information.
I honestly don't know how I would have handled that type of situation, and I want to know what other people would do. But instead I just get told that I'm just trying to shut down women's rights and that I'm probably a secret abuser otherwise I would admit that everything was obvious from the beginning.
Because even false accusations have significant social outcomes when it comes to sexual crimes. That's not an argument for considering the outcome of false accusations as more important than the outcome of true accusations, but rather a direct response to this very specific question.
I don't think any of this requires us to ignore the fact that someone could potentially make a false accusation, nor will it functionally result in false convictions increasing.
Point me to the person saying that last bit to you, please.
I sure hope you don't think that's my assertion here.
Not what I'm going for, I was agreeing with override while adding that a certain kind of false case tends to be in the public consciousness: the ones people tend to have in the back of their minds are usually interpreted as cash grabs. The problem is people stop thinking right there when they see an accusation against a powerful person, especially if they are a wealthy and powerful person, instead of taking other factors into consideration. Part of this is also a misunderstanding by the general public about the differences between a civil and a criminal trial, and why you might choose a civil trial rather than a criminal trial as many of the women in this example likely will even though a crime is alleged. As we've stated, coming forward is very hard on most victims. Sometimes, it takes years for people to speak out if they do at all; by that time, it may be very difficult to meet the standards of evidence for a criminal trial. However, if justice is still sought, a civil case has fewer of these challenges. The problem is that mechanistically everything beyond that point looks identical to a false claim to an inattentive observer; in our litigious society "X sues Y" blends with every other frivolous civil case, and this is especially so when celebrities are involved.
Maybe I'm being a bit hyperbolic, but this seems to be aimed directly at me as if to say that I believe women are not important and or sexual assault is not important.
And it wasn't from this thread, but in the very similar previous thread:
edit - To be clear I wasn't trying to call you out specifically. These are difficult discussion to have, but I feel like there is a tendency to take offense to any suggestion that maybe there is some nuance to these situations.
The problem is that comparatively, false accusations make up such a tiny percentage of sexual assault allegations, and an infinitessimally small number of those are prosecuted fully. The "what about false claims" argument is frequently raised as a response to "why not just believe the women" and used as a tactic to derail the argument and make it about potential (usually male) victims instead of the actual existing (usually female) ones. Though you may be positing this argument in good faith, there is often little patience for it because of how it is consistently brought up in a ratio that doesn't directly correlate with the actual occurrence of the thing.
Like, it's like if we were talking about gun violence being a bad thing, and you came in saying "what about all the times a good guy with a gun shot someone? What if that guy got sent to jail?" When that problem is so very, very small compared to actual numbers of victims of gun violence. It prevents us from having an actual conversation on the topic with timely examples by making us retread ground. It can be frustrating.
3DS Friend Code: 0216-0898-6512
Switch Friend Code: SW-7437-1538-7786
That's perfectly fair.
In my case, I brought it up because I feel the discussion hit a point with respect to other people hearing rumors and claims and yet doing nothing that it's worth considering how to deal with the edge cases that really make or break things in the long term, as well as ongoing influences that can cause things to fly apart even short-term. I'm the kind of person that likes to keep digging into little fiddly details, and in my experience (even if it takes a long time) if you can address all the little fiddly details you're in a really solid place.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
If we're coming at it from a male-centered mindset, this is especially true.
Plus everybody's been falsely accused of something once in their lives. Experiencing something makes it much more salient in decision making
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Chris Savino, creator of The Loud House (perhaps the best cartoon on Nickelodeon right now) was recently fired from the show and from Nickelodeon Studios as a whole over sexual assault allegations. Which actually makes the second time this decade that something like this happened, as the creator of the great show Clarence, Skyler Page, was also fired for sexually aggressive behavior.
"Accusing" someone of any crime would much easier to swallow (especially for individuals that can't stomach hurting others) if the public response was temporary detainment and defusing.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
This metaphor is absurd. Sexual abuse allegations *always* involve 1 or more specific persons perpetrating them.
But maybe you gave them the car keys.
Maybe you said they could take the car but forgot to give the keys.
Maybe someone else stole the car and left it in their yard.
You say that you can't see where I'm going, and then you write out exactly where I was going, among other things. Not sure what to make of that.
Doesn't anyone else find comparing rape to stealing a car (and, by extension, sex with using/borrowing a car) weird and off-putting?
The comparison fails to recognize that someone with a history of lending a car to someone could very well have a hard time proving that the borrower stole the car one time, but wasn't stealing it at various other points before and possibly after the alleged theft.
It's not even about a history, or lack thereof, of borrowing yout car.
But that with almost everycrime, there is a potential element of conflicting narratives on whether or not the victim allowed it to happen.
You stole my car, you told me i could borrow it, you broke into my house, you let me in (and the door was already broken), you took my vallet, you handed it to me.
It's only with rape where it suddenly becomes this big thing to worry about false accusations even before actual investigations.
And no, i don't think everyone who gets overly worried an abuser or rapist.
Nope, but then again, this forum has a longstanding tradition of odd car metaphors. More to the point, the underlying concepts of consent aren't all that different - what differs is how we view it as a society when it comes to sex.
So, with most other issues involving "well, did the party actually consent", the standard we use as a society is "consent denied unless expressly given" - that is, we tend to work from the idea that unless there's clear evidence that yes, consent was given, then we should assume that it wasn't. It's only when we get to sex that there's this weird social construct that instead, we should be assuming consent unless expressly denied that really doesn't make any real sense when you actually think about it. Just because a woman has consented to sex before and after does not mean that we should assume that they consented to sex at any one given point.
A step up from the usual "I had no idea who this Harvey Weinstein is" defense *glances at Kevin Smith* Honestly, I expected a dumpster fire from Tarantino, I'm thankful we didn't get that. His apology is the likes everyone in Hollywood should be making, rather than amnesia or PR stunts involving lots of money to get rid of the guilt.
A policy like this would waste an incredible amount of work hours in my experience. I must've had 5-10 meetings with people one on one for every meeting I had with three or more attendees.
That's not even getting into when I was a traveling consultant and was frequently paired off with another person from the company. They were paying $2000 a day for us per person, generally for a minimum of 4 days. You can't just expect them to send an odd number of people at that kind of cost.
It's not a waste, it's a preventative measure and once made would protect everyone. There's a reason Weinstein wanted to be left alone with women in hotels. If that's the price to pay for safety Hollywood needs to do it without hesitation, especially the big companies. They can afford it.
And again you dodge on explaining why you don't want to discuss issues like that, refusing to fully participate over a simple question - which only makes me more curious why you'd rather hide your real thoughts on the matter. Quite strange when you're willingly to talk about similar issues and other elements of sexism/sexual abuse in Hollywood without hesitation.
Now let's see if he takes the next step.
Chaperones are a very 19th century solution to a todays problem.
They should probably also work for the person who needs protecting. Otherwise they can't be trusted to look after their interest.
Lockhart Steele Fired From Vox Media
It's a solution to a 21st century with sexual predators who will think twice when there's a witness in the room. I agree they should be a third party not working for the vulnerable one, perhaps either a friend and/or an associate from their guild. And perhaps the industry needs to stop meeting in hotels.
I'm open to other suggestions.
You would respond "she is crazy and her accusations have no merit"(or words to that effect) and having the cops/judge scoff at your defense.
Why? Because that is the exact same story they have heard a hundred times before, given by guys that actually have raped women and are probably better at lying about it then you are at telling the truth.
After all they are probably better prepared to talk to the cops then you are. (Why yes officers, she had six drinks and was being very clingy)
There are no easy solutions.
Or there are, but they're exclusively bad ones.
We, as a culture, need to continually reinforce to men that this is absolutely unacceptable behaviour
My post wasn't about easy solutions - as you say, there aren't any, it was about solutions period. That's why I asking for options, right now having a witness sounds like the easiest an safest solution at the moment. For those actresses/actors/producers etc who have money available it would be wise to have their own bodyguards in attendance.
To combat this Hollywood needs to be restructured with preventive measures for the vulnerable. At the very least.