High-Profile Sexual Abuse Epidemic

[AFireInside]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

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

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.

I agree with most of of what you are saying. The bolded part is a just simply an opinion. That's not a fact, I'd argue that men aren't worse at reading situations, have weaker emotional skills or don't know know what's inappropriate. That's bull and its an easy out. You're right men are taught to not publicly show emotion etc, but that doesn't mean they don't have as much emotional intelligence. It means they deal with it in a different way. It's that kind of thinking that causes problems.

I agree with you, most of these men have a history and its good that this stuff is coming out and hopefully men that have similar attitudes change their ways. The MP involved in the threesome comment is ridiculous. Inappropriate, but it's an over the top reaction.

However I think women behave this way a lot. A lot. Men just don't react to it as much. Remember what you posted above, taught not to show emotion, act tough etc. That doesn't mean it doesn't affect them though. I had a female colleague today make a comment that weirded me out a little bit. I tend to over analyze everything so it bounces around in my head for a longer than it should and I eventually I shake it off. Doesn't mean it didn't mess with me for a bit. I'd never ever say anything because overall it's not a big deal at all, but someone a little more emotional might.

Again this is just nit picking because I agree with almost everything you're saying and I don't think most people are arguing in favour of guys with a history or ones that clearly cross the line. Those are are pretty open and shut.

The dating stuff, well I have no idea about any of that anymore, but I don't remember having issues when I was dating with reading the situation.

[curves2000]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Well yeah, that's exactly my point.

People making comments about coworkers in the lunch room probably isn't appropriate for men or women.

People making comments about a bartender at a work function may or may not be crossing the line.

The difference is context, who is making the comments, and the specifics of the comments.


In my office there are three groups of people:
1) People I can joke around with and don't have to worry about offending
2) People who I know I should be more respectful and careful what I say around
3) People who I'm not sure if they are in group 1 or 2

If you don't know what group they are in, assume they are group 2 until you know for sure, it's not that hard.

For most people, the fact that this issue is coming to light so strongly recently isn't an issue because a lot of us know, or have learned through experience, how to read the room and when various levels of interaction are appropriate (who's in which group).

The people who are taking offence to this issue, or are worried we are moving to a place where were we never say anything to anyone are likely the people who only think there is group 1, or have never figured out the bold part.

To address your specific point about how this situation was different let me ask you this. Were you offended or felt threatened based on what the women said, or are you just upset that they are allowed to say it and you aren't?

If it's the former then you shouldn't treat this any different and should consider discussing it with them and explaining how/why that is.
If it's the latter, then you are exactly the type of person I'm talking about who doesn't understand why there is/should be consideration given to who is making a statement and in what context.

In my specific situation I will fully admit I could care less and when it comes to offending me personally my threshold is super high with what people say. To answer your question, no I wasn't offended at all.

I can't speak for the other guy who was also at the table and most likely heard the chatter but I never asked, I don't care and I don't know him very well and wouldn't even bother to bring it up.

What I did find INTERESTING though was the stance the ladies took when it came to this. I joked around with facial, hand and voice expressions that "careful now, we don't any of you to lose their jobs over some offensive comments"

They were 100% in solidarity that their comments were to each other, simply a joke, private conversation during off-work hours but at a work related event and that in no way, shape or form that anyone would ever need to even consider discipline and something as ludicrous as termination. It was flat out that we don't care that you overheard it, were or were not offended and to move along, nothing to see here!! It was an interesting scenario given the conversation we are having in North America in November/December of 2017. This wasn't a conversation from 30 years

Going back to your 3 groups of people in your office place, hypothetically I would probably be in your group #1. I am a super easy going guy, I love some good conversation with the people I spend hours each day with, I am very friendly and have been told I have quality traditional and gentleman values which I appreciate.

The truth of the matter is that if you and me were having a little conversation, no matter what the conversation topic and someone from group #2 or 3 comes around the corner or into the room and hears it and suddenly is so offended, can't function at work, scared and intimidated and needs to make sure they have HR handle it and all this, how do you deal with that? Keep in mind that your opinion, my opinion doesn't matter one bit, it's about as relevant as my goaltending skills to the Flames. It's the other peoples feelings that matter 100% that does. End of story.

A friends mother brought up something to him today, what's next.....we are going to have to be cognizant of how we speak to our spouses or children on the phone in our workplace building? What if somebody gets into a huff and puff over how you spoke to your spouse?

If there is one common theme in this entire thread and conversation is that everyone agree's on a whole host of issues and scenarios and there is a lot of opinions, some people think certain things are acceptable and others don't. I don't have all the answers myself. I just find the debate interesting!!

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by curves2000

If there is one common theme in this entire thread and conversation is that everyone agree's on a whole host of issues and scenarios and there is a lot of opinions, some people think certain things are acceptable and others don't.

These tables show just how diverse peoples' opinions are on these matters.

Spoiler!

Spoiler!

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/11/01...erations-see-/

[Mightyfire89]

Ahem...Not to bring this back on topic but, Warren Moon is also apparently a giant creep:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2...ging-assistant

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

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

No one is saying this. Why is it all or nothing with you lot?

All that's being claimed is that while this open discussion about things that have been bottled up in society is largely healthy and productive and will hopefully move us forward toward healthier relationships between men and women, there are some troubling aspects to it as well, and some issues that will undermine the goal. I think some seriously awful, and in some cases criminal, people had to be made an example of, but mob justice always yields collateral damage and there are some terrible ideas catching on. Mike Cernovich just used this panic to get Sam Seder blacklisted. Do you really want to give a guy like that a weapon to wield? Just one of many examples.

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*

This is a complicated question. If I were to give you a simple answer, it's this: right and wrong cannot be reduced to the whims of a particular group of people at a given time. What you intuitively feel as right and wrong is a piss poor guide; a couple of hundred years ago people were perfectly morally comfortable with the concept that the white race was superior. And you think that finally, just now, you've got it figured out?
The arrogance. How do you decide what's right? Moreover, why is your standard of what's right preferable to Charles Manson's? Is it just majority rule?

The answer is a series of values that you can defend not by reference to themselves (e.g. not a dead dogma), but by reference to general principles. The answer to "how ought we to act" has been basically a top 3 question for the human race for thousands of years. So there isn't necessarily a series of rules for particular cases, but if you're a hedonistic rule utilitarian, you might ask, "will following this course of action tend to produce more happiness in general" ? Answer that question as best you can, and act accordingly. Or maybe you have another principle you find convincing enough that you can defend it to the rule utilitarian. Either way, at least you're attempting to be guided by reason, not your gut and not what people around you are influencing you to think. Individuals are smart (well, some). People are basically always stupid and capricious.

Unfortunately, if you don't just act as you feel, ethics is really hard and just about no theory is perfect. Sometimes even in trying to follow the rules you think make the most sense you'll screw up. But you need some touchstones or you'll just end up following the mob of the moment, another relic of history.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by SebC

"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.

To be fair, when your two options are “don’t socialise at work” or “maintain a high risk of being viewed as a creep,” you’re probably first laid off regardless.

It’s amazing how many examples of outrageous behaviour there are and the plethora of guys who just shrug and say “I don’t know how to not be in appropriate!”

Just... look around you... it’s everywhere. Every day. Just hundreds of people having conversations where they don’t offend people or creep anybody out. It’s almost as if it’s easy.

[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?

I've been around long enough to remember when controlling inappropriate behaviour was an enthusiasm peculiar to the conservative right. We live in remarkable times.

[snootchiebootchies]

Director Bryan Singer faces lawsuit over alleged rape of teen in 2003

http://www.latimes.com/business/holl...207-story.html

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I've been around long enough to see the enthusiasm for controlling inappropriate behaviour swing from one end of the political spectrum to the other. We live in remarkable times.

Classic Cliff with the Facebook Comment Dichotomy.

I'll bite however. 50s style Conservative "stifling of urges" and "clean living" was about suppression of one's self and what was deemed personally harmful behaviour.

What we're talking about now is controlling behaviour that hurts others.

I feel like I shouldn't have to point this out however.

[PepsiFree]

Apparently “don’t be a pervert or slap ass” = “CONTROL THE GAY URGES! WEED IS FOR COMMUNIST SINNERS!”

Classic regressive leftists harking back to the conservatism of the 50s. It is truly remarkable.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Apparently “don’t be a pervert or slap ass” = “CONTROL THE GAY URGES! WEED IS FOR COMMUNIST SINNERS!”

Classic regressive leftists harking back to the conservatism of the 50s. It is truly remarkable.

the MP did neither of those things.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Nor did anyone say those two things were equivalent, much less equal. It's like he's allergic to intellectual honesty.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Nor did anyone say those two things were equivalent, much less equal. It's like he's allergic to intellectual honesty.

It's not like Cliff's constant false equivalencies between the conservative and religious bans and attack on lifestyle choices in and modern "outrage culture" are particularly intellectual honest either.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by rubecube

It's not like Cliff's constant false equivalencies between the conservative and religious bans and attack on lifestyle choices in and modern "outrage culture" are particularly intellectual honest either.

There have been all sorts of studies and books published on moral tribes, policing in-group behaviour, and outrage culture. It's not some crank theory I cooked up.

Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/...om_search=true

Who Is Competent to Decide What Offends?

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ffends/542523/

When moral outrage goes viral

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/spark/371-mo...iral-1.4391798

And if the only thing you understand about traditional morality is attacking lifestyle choices, you need to read more on the subject. The purpose of traditional morality is to foster group cohesion and conformity, to reduce offensive and anti-social behaviour, and ensure that sex takes place under socially sanctioned conditions. Shame and ostracization are the preferred tools for asserting the community's values, and members of the community gain status by identifying transgressors.

Sound familiar?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Nor did anyone say those two things were equivalent, much less equal. It's like he's allergic to intellectual honesty.

It’s almost as if I see funny things and respond with something I think is equally ridiculous to highlight it, and those that get it do, those that don’t don’t, and I log off, never having given a second thought to how Corsi would grade my post if it was actually an academic paper and not just a fun post on a message board.

[troutman]

John Oliver was on to something.

New Dustin Hoffman Accuser Claims Harassment and Physical Violation on Broadway

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...column-1062349

[troutman]

Remove Trump Now‏ @KaniJJackson 18

Meet Tarana Burke, the Black woman who founded the #MeToo movement 10 years ago. Sadly, she was omitted from the TIME Magazine cover. Please show her some love, and give credit where it's due.


Gabrielle Union On The #MeToo Movement: 'The Floodgates Have Opened For White Women'

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/g...b03ece0300fd61

“I think the floodgates have opened for white women,” Union told the Times. “I don’t think it’s a coincidence whose pain has been taken seriously. Whose pain we have showed historically and continued to show. Whose pain is tolerable and whose pain is intolerable. And whose pain needs to be addressed now.”

Fonda told MSNBC’s Chris Hayes. “It’s too bad that it’s probably because so many of the women that were assaulted by Harvey Weinstein are famous and white and everybody knows them. This has been going on a long time to black women and other women of color, and it doesn’t get out quite the same.”

http://ew.com/tv/2017/12/03/welcome-to-hell-snl/

The women of SNL united for “Welcome to Hell,” a catchy, candy-colored music video that serves to remind everyone that sexual harassment and abusive behavior towards women has been going on for a very, very, very long time. Together with host Saoirse Ronan, cast members Aidy Bryant, Cecily Strong, and Kate McKinnon joined forces to sing about the “full nightmare” of being a woman when “all these big, cool, powerful guys are turning out to be habitual predators.” (They’re later joined by Leslie Jones, who pops up to remind everyone that “it’s like a million times worse for women of color.”)

[troutman]

Dylan Farrow, Woody Allen’s Accuser, Says #MeToo Movement Is ‘Selective’

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/08/u...?smid=tw-share

[troutman]

TIME, Person of the Year 2017

http://time.com/time-person-of-the-y...ence-breakers/

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by troutman

TIME, Person of the Year 2017

http://time.com/time-person-of-the-y...ence-breakers/

Yep, discussed a few pages back.