High-Profile Sexual Abuse Epidemic

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by driveway

Good, long article about #MeToo, what it's becoming, and the Ansari thing which finally put into words how I was feeling about it but unable to articulate.

https://longreads.com/2018/01/18/were-not-done-here/

Great article but here's one place I disagree.

The terms of this war of sex and power have changed, and so have the weapons. Physical violence and threat won’t work for you here. You are trying to fight against whispers and rumors and inference, against righteous rage, against charges of hypocrisy, exploitation, and crass dehumanization that hit home with career-ending accuracy. And you’re trying to fight this war with an arsenal you don’t know how to use, against an army that has been training with these weapons for generations, because these tools of emotional warfare are the only ones they have ever been allowed, because they are women.

You are going to lose.


Unless women "police themselves" like they did with this Babe article women will lose. Men still hold most if not all the real power. Losing allies will cost them in the long run. Men, in organizations will distance themselves from women and the sacrifice will be promotions and being in the inner circle. That's why this Aziz moment is so important, because there are a lot of old dudes waiting for the "see, they (women) can't be trusted" and it didn't happen.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Great article but here's one place I disagree.



Unless women "police themselves" like they did with this Babe article women will lose. Men still hold most if not all the real power. Losing allies will cost them in the long run. Men, in organizations will distance themselves from women and the sacrifice will be promotions and being in the inner circle. That's why this Aziz moment is so important, because there are a lot of old dudes waiting for the "see, they (women) can't be trusted" and it didn't happen.

I wildly disagree with you. Absent some kind of colossal Fall-of-Rome societal change I don't think it's possible for women, long-term, to 'lose.'

[SebC]

Originally Posted by driveway

Absent some kind of colossal Fall-of-Rome societal change I don't think it's possible for women, long-term, to 'lose.'

Women are already getting more of the university degrees, even in important/prestigious fields like law and medicine. It won't be long until more lawyers translates to more politicians, judges, and lobbyists; more businesswomen translates into more CEOs; more journalists become more Editors-in-Chief. The pieces are already in place for women's power to surpass men's. The question then would be whether feminism is willing to do for men what it will have done for women, with the same tools, or will it continue to seek redress for historical injustice. Will there be quotas, affirmative action, tokenism, "men in medicine" programs the way there is "women in STEM", or will 40%-male be considered an appropriate counterbalance to the bulk of history?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by SebC

Women are already getting more of the university degrees, even in important/prestigious fields like law and medicine. It won't be long until more lawyers translates to more politicians, judges, and lobbyists; more businesswomen translates into more CEOs; more journalists become more Editors-in-Chief. The pieces are already in place for women's power to surpass men's.

Those pieces have been in place for a while, but you still see few women rise to the very top of their fields. Most medical school graduates today are women, as are most GPs. But 80 per cent work part-time, compared with 50 per cent of male doctors, and almost a quarter drop out of the profession altogether to raise children. Even in education, which is a female-dominated profession, principals are disproportionately men.

There comes a point in the careers of ambitious people where they face the prospect of giving up almost everything else in their lives to dedicate themselves to their job. Most people aren't willing to do it. The people who do choose to focus almost exclusively on their careers are usually men.

While the resulting gender disparity in the highest positions may be a problem for society, it isn't obvious that women who chose to only make $90k and have a balanced family/work life instead of dedicating themselves body and soul to their jobs in order to earn high status and 200k have made a bad decision personally. Which is a conundrum that feminism - and society in general - has difficulty acknowledging.

Otherwise yes, we are rapidly becoming a society where the average woman will be better off than the average man in terms of job prospects, income, health, etc. It may seem counter-intuitive, but that's not at all incompatible with a world where the top positions are overwhelmingly held by men. All that's necessary is for the bottom rungs of society to be disproportionately male too - something which is increasingly true.

Originally Posted by SebC

The question then would be whether feminism is willing to do for men what it will have done for women, with the same tools, or will it continue to seek redress for historical injustice. Will there be quotas, affirmative action, tokenism, "men in medicine" programs the way there is "women in STEM", or will 40%-male be considered an appropriate counterbalance to the bulk of history?

Likely not. I mean, it's not as though there aren't all sorts of bad outcomes in our society that disproportionately affect men already. Worksite injury and death, homelessness, suicide, prison. Boys have been falling behind girls in school for decades now, in virtually every field outside tech, and yet all our attention is focused on the tech gender gap.

We're hindered by intractable cognitive biases that interpret these issues as a tug-of-war - every gain women make is at the expense of men, and vice-versa. So we have to choose whether to encourage more women to enter tech, or to encourage more men to go to university. Calls to address the extreme gender imbalance in the teaching profession are ignored, or regarded with suspicion.

We might move past this false binary if one key demographic - mothers - find their voice in these issues. It's not as though mothers aren't capable of being concerned about the future of both their daughters and sons. But the problem is that mothers are severely under-represented among the punditry and experts on matters of gender, who are overwhelming young and/or childless.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Stuff like this, an article which earnestly attempts to make the case that the reason why women like Anzari's accuser don't leave when they're uncomfortable is because they're afraid if they don't agree to sex, men will murder them, makes me sort of pessimistic that any of this will be getting better any time soon.

http://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture...n-aziz-ansari/

[icecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Stuff like this, an article which earnestly attempts to make the case that the reason why women like Anzari's accuser don't leave when they're uncomfortable is because they're afraid if they don't agree to sex, men will murder them, makes me sort of pessimistic that any of this will be getting better any time soon.

http://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture...n-aziz-ansari/

I'm not a woman but I do have two daughters. I agree with the article. What's your problem with it?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by icecube

I'm not a woman but I do have two daughters. I agree with the article. What's your problem with it?

Like a lot of articles, it's implies that the great majority of men are coercive of threatening, and don't take no for answer once a woman comes home with them. And like a lot of feminist dogma, it's also presumes that men do this because they're taught it's their right to behave this way.

What people like the author can't seem to get their heads around is the fact that a small but significant proportion of men demonstrate abusive and predatory behaviour not because of socialization, but in spite of it. But when you think every problem is due to institutionalized oppression, you're going to misapprehend many intractable problems.

[PsYcNeT]

I don't think the attitude is that the "great majority" of men are like that, however if a woman finds herself in a situation where a guy she did not expect to be coercive or threatening suddenly becomes so when the situation isn't moving at the pace he expected (which, according to many women I've spoken with, is common), they have zero idea how far it can spin out of control. At that point, they are just erring on the side of caution, which unfortunately usually means appeasing him to the point that they feel they can safely leave.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Without commenting on whether that sort of mindset is a good best practice for women to employ, all I was implying is that if that is how young women are being told to think about the men they're interacting with, this whole situation is not going to get any less tense or antagonistic in the near future.

[PsYcNeT]

I'm unsure if that's learned or taught behaviour however, and more of just base human survival instinct.

[icecube]

I'm not even certain CliffFletcher believes there is such a thing as institutionalized oppression against minorities of any sort. Or if he does I don't think he has a problem with any of it. The REAL problem is PC culture and attack on freedom of speech, amirite?

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Like a lot of articles, it's implies that the great majority of men are coercive of threatening, and don't take no for answer once they a woman comes home with them. And like a lot of feminist dogma, it's also presumes that men do this because they're taught it's their right to behave this way.

Wait. So, assuming the events transpired as described, the woman who dated Aziz Ansari did say no multiple times. He didn't take no for an answer. We then have a very substantial part of the population defending Aziz and arguing he did nothing wrong.

So, why are you presuming we aren't being taught it's our right to behave this way?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I'm unsure if that's learned or taught behaviour however, and more of just base human survival instinct.

Yeah, I'm sure there is an element of that, simply as a result of millions of years of evolved psychology that says "this creature standing several feet from me is about 50% larger than I am".

[corporatejay]

This was a dumb response.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by icecube

I'm not even certain CliffFletcher believes there is such a thing as institutionalized oppression against minorities of any sort. Or if he does I don't think he has a problem with any of it. The REAL problem is PC culture and attack on freedom of speech, amirite?

I think Cliff Fletcher would like people to take responsibility for their own actions. Sure, institutionalized oppression exists but everything isn't s single trigger. The woman in Aziz's apartment probably didn't leave for a whole host of reasons, including but not limited to, the idea that he might end up a being a good guy and should could date "aziz ansari".

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I don't think the attitude is that the "great majority" of men are like that, however if a woman finds herself in a situation where a guy she did not expect to be coercive or threatening suddenly becomes so when the situation isn't moving at the pace he expected (which, according to many women I've spoken with, is common), they have zero idea how far it can spin out of control. At that point, they are just erring on the side of caution, which unfortunately usually means appeasing him to the point that they feel they can safely leave.

Yes, that's what I hear too. But erring on the side of caution would be not going alone to the home of a man on short acquaintance. And I don't say that to be judgemental or a prude. It's unfair and unfortunate, and we should continue to try to find ways to make it less dangerous for women to be alone with men in sexually charged circumstances. But there will always be a risk.

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Without commenting on whether that sort of mindset is a good best practice for women to employ, all I was implying is that if that is how young women are being told to think about the men they're interacting with, this whole situation is not going to get any less tense or antagonistic in the near future.

No, it isn't. Even if the incidence of sexual assault and date rape go down (as they may well have in the last 30 years, depending on whose stats you look at), it will remain common enough and prominent enough that the issue isn't going to go away. I honestly believe we may see some elements of society - the educated, affluent and liberal - pull back from behaviours like drinking and casual sex, and return to the more buttoned-down norms of the pre sexual liberation era. Not that those are proof against sexual assault. But there's no question they reduce exposure to risk.

Originally Posted by icecube

I'm not even certain CliffFletcher believes there is such a thing as institutionalized oppression against minorities of any sort. Or if he does I don't think he has a problem with any of it. The REAL problem is PC culture and attack on freedom of speech, amirite?

I believe some, but not most, of the disparities we see in society are the consequence of systemic injustice. My problem with PC culture is it sees ONLY systemic causes for disparities, and ignores or is hostile to the suggestion of any other causes, often in the face of strong empirical evidence. That narrow and ideologically-motivated focus handicaps our ability to understand and deal with social problems.

On the issue of sexual assault, I do not believe it is strictly, or even mainly, culturally learned behaviour. Like murder, it's found in every society we know of. Like murder, it's recognized as a crime in every society we know of. And like murder, we've managed to reduce but not remove it from our society because deep down we're violent, status-seeking primates. With the twisted timber of humanity, nothing straight was ever made.

[Knut]

https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity...al-abuse-case/

Larry Nassar was sentenced to up to 175 years in prison.

The Judge absolutely unloaded on him.

“It is my honor to sentence you because, sir, you do not deserve to walk outside of a prison ever again,” the judge said. “Anywhere you walk, destruction would occur to those most vulnerable.”

She added: “I just signed your death warrant.”

Aquilina said the sentence reflected not only the seven counts to which Nassar pled guilty, but also the survivors who came forward during the sentencing hearing “because the depth of all of your crimes have cut into the core of this community”.

“The breadth and ripple of this defendant’s abuse and destruction is infinite,” prosecuting attorney Angela Povilaitis said in her closing remarks. “Nassar used his prestige to gain [his victims’] trust and to exploit them, leaving many of the emotionally shattered by a man they not only trusted but loved. In competitive gymnastics, he found the perfect place for his master manipulation.”

The disgraced physician gave a brief statement before Aquilina handed down the sentence, acknowledging the “pain, trauma and emotional destruction” experienced by his victims.

“Your words these past several days have had a significant emotional effect on myself and have shaken me to my core,” he said. “I will carry your words with me for the rest of my days.”

“Sir, I hope that’s true,” the judge said after Nassar concluded.

Aquilina read portions of the six-page, single-spaced letter Nassar wrote to the judge last week in which he said it was too difficult for him to listen to the victim impact statements, citing it as proof that “you have still not owned what you did”.

She actually tossed his letter aside after she read it. Savage

[CaptainCrunch]

Good on the judge.

there is no rehabilitation in my mind for these creeps. Toss them down a well and throw a grenade after them.

He destroys lives and then whines that its too hard for him to listen to impact statements. They should be playing those impact statements for 2 hours a day in his jail cell every day for the rest of his life.

If he wants to do some good, sign himself up as an organ donar and then find a way to kill himself

[cal_guy]

Patrick Brown denies sexual misconduct allegations from two women

Ontario Progressive Conservative Leader Patrick Brown is facing serious allegations of sexual misconduct from two women who spoke to CTV News. In interviews, the women allege inappropriate behavior by the rising political figure throughout his tenure as an elected official.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/patr...omen-1.3774686

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by cal_guy

Patrick Brown denies sexual misconduct allegations from two women



https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/patr...omen-1.3774686

I was just wondering how the Ontario PC's were gonna #### it up this time. Guess I got my answer.