High-Profile Sexual Abuse Epidemic

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

The persistent inability of ideologues to acknowledge the nuance of any given moral issue was once a continuous source of depression for me. But now that I've embraced nihilism fully, it simply reaffirms my views! Bring on that extinction level asteroid, universe. We're ready.

May I recommend sourcing the continued hypocrisy of those who preach nuance and conflate any position that has logically deemed the required nuance to be irrelevant or low with a complete inability to even recognise it in the first place, as a source of joy? It makes days brighter, and pushes that pesky need for world destruction further and further away.

“This requires nuance! If you disagree, you’re just unable to see it!” is just such a beautifully nuanced position in itself.

[flamesfever]

Now that women are demanding much better behavior by men, a few of the things (some have already been said) I have learned, over the many years, regarding behavior in the workplace are:

1. Never mix business with pleasure

2. If there is even the smallest thing in the back of your head, that says "Don't say it", then say nothing...especially when you are trying to be funny or witty.

3. One of the things I observed, early in my career, was you have to be a different person in the workplace than you are at home.

4. Discretion is the better part of valor.

5. You can sometimes get away with things, as long as you make sure your heart is in the right place.

6. Exercise good gentlemanly behavior.

7. Sarcasm is the lowest type of humour

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by AFireInside

When it comes to these types of situations though we need to stop acting like it's traumatizing. A coworker making a comment that makes you uncomfortable doesn't necessarily require that they be fired and dragged through the mud on social media.

The threesome comment isn't traumatizing and we need to stops acting like it is. Inappropriate, sure, traumatizing no. If it is traumatizing to you then you need to be an adult and recognize that maybe you need to get some help.

But in today's outrage culture, there's no difference between inappropriate and a fireable offence, between discomfort and trauma. Taking offence has been weaponized, and will remain weaponized as long as the rest of society goes along with the public shaming.

Anyone who is really serious about reducing harassment should be taking the greatest care to distinguish it from thoughtless gaffes. Because failing to distinguish between the two will only cloud the issue and make people take the former less seriously.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

May I recommend sourcing the continued hypocrisy of those who preach nuance and conflate any position that has logically deemed the required nuance to be irrelevant or low with a complete inability to even recognise it in the first place, as a source of joy? It makes days brighter, and pushes that pesky need for world destruction further and further away.

“This requires nuance! If you disagree, you’re just unable to see it!” is just such a beautifully nuanced position in itself.

There are two possibilities here.

First, you and Psycnet think that the people in this thread who have expressed concerns about whether there will be unforeseen and unintended consequences to the way people pursue personal relationships as a result of current trends are really just concerned that they suddenly have to be "be considerate of their actions, words and intentions", rather than not bother. Even though they didn't use "that specific phrasing", all of the "complaining, woeing, and dreading" exposes this underlying issue. Accordingly, those complaints are really about not being allowed to be inconsiderate, and all of the consequences of this current "thing", whether you call it a social movement or a moral panic, are "only good".

If that's what you think, then I was right in calling you ideologues who refuse to acknowledge or appreciate nuance.

The other possibility is that you knew full well that that wasn't the concern raised by other posters, and chose to ignore their expressed intent and instead constructed a misleading caricature of them. In which case, you're still an ideologue, but you'd also have to be a complete and utter prick. I chose to assume that not to be the case, despite the usual self-satisfied tone you took in your sarcastic "Hah totally bro" sign-on to Psycnet's. If you're saying I was wrong and it was door #2, though, I'll take your word for it.

Either way, still rooting for that asteroid.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

There are two possibilities here.

First, you and Psycnet think that the people in this thread who have expressed concerns about whether there will be unforeseen and unintended consequences to the way people pursue personal relationships as a result of current trends are really just concerned that they suddenly have to be "be considerate of their actions, words and intentions", rather than not bother. Even though they didn't use "that specific phrasing", all of the "complaining, woeing, and dreading" exposes this underlying issue. Accordingly, those complaints are really about not being allowed to be inconsiderate, and all of the consequences of this current "thing", whether you call it a social movement or a moral panic, are "only good".

I wouldn't even call it a concern. Than implies it's a problem. Just wanting to discuss a different part of the issue since the power dynamic and workplace related stuff has been talked to death and there are other factors going on that are interesting from a sociological perspective. Maybe it's better for a different thread.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

The persistent inability of ideologues to acknowledge the nuance of any given moral issue was once a continuous source of depression for me.

The question I always come back to is whether ideologues are consciously hypocrites, or just simple-minded.

Do they honestly think something as complex and irrational as human sexuality can be so tidily controlled? That every man and woman in Canada could reach a consensus on where and when off-colour jokes are appropriate, where and when it's okay to touch someone's elbow, the exact border between professional and social environment? And that having reached a consensus, no person of goodwill would slip up? Do they never make errors in judgement themselves?

Or is is just convenient to pretend the world is so simple so you can malign your political opponents and broadcast your own righteousness.

[PsYcNeT]

Is it more or less convenient than acting like there's no progress to be made in controlling inappropriate behavior?

It's really weird that you guys think wacky and out-there rules like "Don't touch people" and "Don't make blue jokes unless you know your audience" and "Don't be a creep" are hard to follow.

Why does everything have to be quantified with you lot?

*BEEP BOOP* YOU CANNOT SUE ME. MY TOUCH ON YOUR ELBOW ONLY LINGERED FOR 1.37 SECONDS, THEREFORE IT DID NOT REACH THE 2 SECOND ILLEGAL CARESS THRESHOLD. *BEEP*

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Is it more or less convenient than acting like there's no progress to be made in controlling inappropriate behavior?

It's really weird that you guys think wacky and out-there rules like "Don't touch people" and "Don't make blue jokes unless you know your audience" and "Don't be a creep" are hard to follow.

They're not at all hard for me to follow. But I actually have compassion for people who aren't as self-conscious and self-disciplined as I am. As I noted up-thread, my wife has no filter. She says whatever comes into her head, the instant it comes into her head. She's been fired from a job for being overly candid to colleagues. And that didn't make her more deliberate in her behaviour, so I doubt anything ever will.

It's also worth noting that women disagree just as much as men on what constitutes harassment.

[afc wimbledon]

Gentlemen the rules for dating haven't changed, if you not sure if you should kiss a lass at the end of a date then you never learnt them in the first place.

Did she lean into the conversation at dinner? let you guide her gently into the door you are holding open for her, your hand casually and lightly just touching her back or arm? is she in any way interested in your jokes/conversation, smilling at you etc, etc, did she say you could call her again and go on another date when you asked?
Finally and crucially, when you put your hand on her waist and lent in to kiss her did she jerk backwards away from you?

Seriously guys it ain't rocket science

[Coach]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Is it more or less convenient than acting like there's no progress to be made in controlling inappropriate behavior?

And that is happening where exactly?

Being introspective and wondering about whether your own behavior or that of your friends (which is largely benign) is actually perpetuating a larger problem is acting like there's no progress to be made? Trying to make progress here. Are you going to pretend like you haven't been a part of the problem, consciously or not? Give me a f***ing break.

[wittynickname]

I was working all day and there's a whole lot to unpack here, so this is long.

Originally Posted by SebC

The problem is that it can be impossible to know if an advance will be welcome or unwelcome without having mind-reading super powers.

"Impossible"? Seriously?

For all the talk of "nuance" that happens on this board with certain posters, I would think this is an absolute golden area where "nuance" applies. All human interaction involves nuance. It's just a matter of having the emotional intelligence to handle it.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

This is why it would be better if we developed a social norm of women taking the initiative sexually. Men are both more likely to be predatory, and more likely to be socially inept than women. It would be nice if we could wave a wand and transform the brains of all men so they're always clear on social context and receptiveness. But that's not going to happen. So the best way to avoid uncomfortable and unpleasant situations is to make women responsible for taking the first steps.

So since it's just so difficult for men to control their predatory behavior and inherent creepiness, that means that women must change entirely? Don't get me wrong, I'm fully in favor of women making the first move--I usually do myself if I'm interested in someone--but women should not have to entirely change their behavior because men are apparently prone to be creepers.

That's just an intensely insulting statement to make about men, honestly. If the base belief is "welp men are just creepers by nature so I guess women have to take over everything" that's a whole lot of that beloved nuance right out the window.

Originally Posted by northcrunk

This is why as a man it is always more enjoyable to work with all men. You don't have to walk on egg shells.

Or rather than "walking on eggshells" you could just learn to speak to women like real people.

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I can't be the only one who feels like men taking the time to be considerate of their actions, words and intentions going forward is anything but a bad thing.

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Yes, and it's very helpful of you to add that, Psycnet, because I see a ton of people suggesting precisely the opposite.

Putting these two quotes together for context: Yes, that's the gist of some suggestions here. "Well women have to be responsible for taking the initiative to start a relationship" "well when I can just work with men I don't have to give any thought to what I'm saying"

Women are being made responsible for men's inability to develop social skills. While there are women who are absolutely guilty of being crass, of harassing others, assaulting others, etc, it's not as common as with men. Women in general have stronger emotional skills--women do better at reading situations and knowing what is and isn't appropriate, and it's ingrained in women from a very young age. Men don't have that forced upon them as children, good old "boys will be boys" and "boys don't cry" and thus men never attempt to develop any sense of emotional intelligence.

If this forces men to develop a sense of emotional IQ, that's a very good thing.

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

The persistent inability of ideologues to acknowledge the nuance of any given moral issue was once a continuous source of depression for me. But now that I've embraced nihilism fully, it simply reaffirms my views! Bring on that extinction level asteroid, universe. We're ready.

It is hilarious to hear you complain about nuance when discussing human sexuality/interaction. Literally all about it is nuance. That's what we're all railing about is nuance. Nuance in relationships is having the emotional knowledge to realize "it's 4 am and I ask a woman to come into my private hotel room for coffee" is different from "I ask a woman to go for coffee in a public place at a reasonable hour of the day" and how one of those puts out really big red flags and the other is basic normal human interaction.

Not being creepy isn't that hard. It just isn't. The concept that we have to change literally all traditional means of communicating in a romantic way because men can't grasp that cornering a woman on an elevator at 4 am is problematic is literally the polar opposite of nuance.

Forcing massive sociological changes on the masses because some serial creepers are being called to task for their continued and habitual creepiness is like lighting your house on fire because you found a spider in the bathroom.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

But in today's outrage culture,

It seems to me there's a whole lot more outrage in this "well we just have to change literally everything about how relationships work because god why am I expected to think twice before I say something that's potentially offensive?" attitude than just...asking men to be decent human beings who think about the feelings of others.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The question I always come back to is whether ideologues are consciously hypocrites, or just simple-minded.

Do they honestly think something as complex and irrational as human sexuality can be so tidily controlled? That every man and woman in Canada could reach a consensus on where and when off-colour jokes are appropriate, where and when it's okay to touch someone's elbow, the exact border between professional and social environment? And that having reached a consensus, no person of goodwill would slip up? Do they never make errors in judgement themselves?

Or is is just convenient to pretend the world is so simple so you can malign your political opponents and broadcast your own righteousness.

Look at the men who are being called to task for harassment and assault. They all have one great big thing in common: their actions were not a one-time lapse in judgement. The men who are losing their jobs are guilty of habitually harassing others. They were in positions of power and they with regularity abused that power over women (and girls, and other men). These are not one-off jokes made in the wrong moment with years of goodwill. These are men who have been harassing and assaulting their victims for years, sometimes decades.

This is not about small lapses in judgement. This is not about one dirty joke that was spoken in the wrong company. The men who are actually being brought down are bad people doing bad things for a very long time, not good people making a dumb mistake one time.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Why does everything have to be quantified with you lot?

*BEEP BOOP* YOU CANNOT SUE ME. MY TOUCH ON YOUR ELBOW ONLY LINGERED FOR 1.37 SECONDS, THEREFORE IT DID NOT REACH THE 2 SECOND ILLEGAL CARESS THRESHOLD. *BEEP*

That's actually a fair question. I don't think I need everything to be quantified (or determined in accordance with clearly expressed pre-set standards, which I take it is another way of putting what you're saying). But it's not a quick answer.I'll answer in detail later when I'm not on a chairlift.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

They're not at all hard for me to follow. But I actually have compassion for people who aren't as self-conscious and self-disciplined as I am. As I noted up-thread, my wife has no filter. She says whatever comes into her head, the instant it comes into her head. She's been fired from a job for being overly candid to colleagues. And that didn't make her more deliberate in her behaviour, so I doubt anything ever will.

It's also worth noting that women disagree just as much as men on what constitutes harassment.

So do you expect everyone else to change their behavior to suit her? If you can't think before you speak, and you lose your job because you refuse to change, it is not the responsibility of others to put up with it.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

So since it's just so difficult for men to control their predatory behavior and inherent creepiness, that means that women must change entirely? Don't get me wrong, I'm fully in favor of women making the first move--I usually do myself if I'm interested in someone--but women should not have to entirely change their behavior because men are apparently prone to be creepers.

Okay I haven't been able to read through all of Witty's thing and I will but I'm kind of swamped with other stuff right now. I just want to address this bolded part because I think it's were a lot of the disconnect has been.

Myself, my comments have never been about what women MUST do to accommodate men's gross behaviour. Just that I believe it's going to be a natural sort of "balancing" between initiating sexual interest versus what has been a very one sided thing for a long time.

Can I also say that we are asking men overall to change their behaviour, are we not? It's a good thing, very good thing. Because patriarchal tendencies dominate everything from payscale to language. Are we could to pretend there's not going to be equal/opposite reactions on the part of women, not by demand just by nature? Again, maybe the wrong thread for it, but why is it a taboo subject?

[Locke]

nm.

[PsYcNeT]

I do agree that it might be time to create a "Microaggressions Transgressions" offshoot thread though, as the topic has definitely mutated.

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I do agree that it might be time to create a "Microaggressions Transgressions" offshoot thread though, as the topic has definitely mutated.

Might need a trigger warning though.

I'n other news. Nice new avatar!

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

This is not about small lapses in judgement. This is not about one dirty joke that was spoken in the wrong company. The men who are actually being brought down are bad people doing bad things for a very long time, not good people making a dumb mistake one time.

You seem to have missed the topic drift. Nobody here is defending the predators like Weinstein. Nobody is defending harassment. Nobody is even saying making unintentional social gaffes is okay.

Some of us are talking about this:

An inappropriate joke by an MP is not really a #MeToo moment - Robyn Urback

...There have been many phenomenal successes as a result of the #MeToo movement, not the least of which has been watching once-untouchably powerful men brought down by revelations of their own misbehaviour. Women are no longer afraid to come forward, and everyone is thinking more carefully about how their behaviour affects others. There's no question that, for these and many more reasons, the movement has been an unrivalled force for good.

But there have been small casualties along the way, one of which seems to be respect for nuance — a topic that Alheli Picazo explored in a recent column for CBC. Picazo outlined the danger of conflating boorish and offensive behaviours with those that are predatory, exploitative and criminal: all of them are wrong, to be clear, but the latter is usually habitual and devastating for its victims, whereas the former can be addressed and corrected, and usually does not derail the lives of those it affects.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/james...joke-1.4433899

Originally Posted by wittynickname

So do you expect everyone else to change their behavior to suit her? If you can't think before you speak, and you lose your job because you refuse to change, it is not the responsibility of others to put up with it.

I'm not saying it is. I'm pointing out the fact everyone is a flawed human, with their own weaknesses. We aren't blank slates that any social behaviour can be inscribed on. It would be nice if we were, but that's not humanity.

Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made.

Or as Christie Blatchford put it:

James Bezan was entitled to assume that he was dealing with an adult who had a sense of proportion, if not a sense of humour.

He was grossly mistaken.

Comes a time to ‘call out’ those who reflexively describe ordinary human behaviour (which is to say, imperfect behaviour) as abusive and those who reflexively report it as gospel.

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/chri...gy-and-move-on

[Duruss]

Some of you, those who are now unsure how to conduct yourselves, are asking questions that get talked about daily in the autism community. Welcome to how we feel.

Think about entropy and chaos theory and then apply that to people, perception and behavior. You can never be certain, so you always need to try and be mindful and hope for the best.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

It's really weird that you guys think wacky and out-there rules like "Don't touch people" and "Don't make blue jokes unless you know your audience" and "Don't be a creep" are hard to follow.

"Creep" is pretty subjective. It's possible to be perceived as a creep for pretty much no good reason at all.

As for the whole "don't socialize at work" thing, I question the validity of that as a solution. Part of being successful at a job is being liked by your colleagues, and that requires social interaction. If you and a colleague are equal in job performance but one of you has a connection with the boss through Friday drinks, guess who gets laid off first.