Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?
Death threats all around. Can’t imagine why women don’t come forward
lots has changed since Anita Hill.
Because I've seen your posts, I know you're not an "Not All Men" guy, but the National Center for the Prosecution of Violence Against Women have a report that states: " 2-8 percent of reported rapes are false, but the number that are false accusations is smaller" so while it is absolutely possible for false accusations, it is extremely unlikely.
I thought the same thing. The posts in answer made me wonder
The other point is this. We're not looking at a criminal prosecution here. There is no chance any prosecutor in the world would ever take this on, so we don't need a law enforcement investigation.
She doesn't need to present evidence, or have the FBI do it for her, to sustain a conviction. She'll never reach that standard. What's the FBI going to do? They're going to do the same thing the Senate Committee should do. This is about listening to her story, asking relevant questions to see if the factual allegations add up, listening to his response, and making a credibility decision. If, as a Senator, you tend to believe her story (even if you wouldn't vote as a juror to criminally convict him), you vote against his confirmation. It isn't that complicated.
I feel like the whole FBI thing is a bit of political game playing, and I'm not sure it's the victim that's pushing that issue, even in spite of her recent request. It feels like the Democrats are pushing for this to a) further delay any vote, and b) hoping for a report from the FBI that basically reads, "she said this, and we have no reason to disbelieve her, and he denies the allegation." Then they can parade that report around and say the FBI found her credible, perhaps deflecting from their own responsibility to make that decision.
From what I could glean the information about this was passed off to Feinstein in plenty of time to be investigated. When there was no action on it then the info was outed in frustration because they weren't going to acknowledge it. Just saw something on one of the networks (not MSNBC) that was saying the GOP committee members met with and questioned Kavanaugh about it and he denied it. The optics of that are just plain bad. There was plenty of time for them to publicly acknowledge this and speak to it. By not doing so they give credibility to the complaints they are not willing to evaluate the candidate. NPR did a great show discussing memory formation after trauma. Everyone who is complaining about veracity should listen to it. Not because it supports her but because it explains why it is hard to sort through what they remember.
https://www.npr.org/2018/09/18/6492...professor-discusses-how-trauma-affects-memory
Whether it is unlikely or not is not the point. And FWIW I have seen that number be disproven before and I have also seen people falsely accused. If one person is falsely accused that is still wrong and all it does is become the poster boy for the opposition. I am very militant in my support of going after anyone accused but right now we are destroying people before they have their day in court and that will bite you in the *** sooner or later.
What I am talking about is everything else in the movement. I got in this argument last night actually with my girlfriend. For the culture to change we need to acknowledge that there is degrees to this stuff and that there is definite grey area. What is and is not appropriate changes with the person and the circumstance. She gave an example:
She has a friend she works with, and older guy. He likes to put his hand on her shoulder...not in a sleazy way but she is not very touchy feely so it makes her kind of uncomfortable. (she would never actually would report him because she knows him and it doesnt really offend her)
We both agree that if she is uncomfortable she should either tell him (if she feels she can) or talk to HR or his superior. I asked her though "what if he gets fired or severely reprimanded?" which is something that is starting to happen because in various careers they have to be proactive or risk backlash. She thinks that is ok whereas I dont. And the reason isnt that I dont think what he did was a big deal, because that is in the eye of the beholder, but because no one told him prior to that that what he was doing was inappropriate and he has never really had a chance to adjust his behavior now that he knows she is uncomfortable. Going from 0-60 is not the way to go but right now that is what we are doing every time someone gets accused.
The danger we have, and I include me because I am about as big of a believer in the #MeToo Movement and all of its offshoots as you can get, is we are getting to the point where we tar and feather and ask questions later and that is dangerous. What will end up killing momentum is collateral damage. You start destroying everyone who is accused of anything and the backlash will be reminiscent of how White Voters backlashed to having a Black President. If we want true culture change you need to change the behavior not try and even the playing fields. They wont be even, no matter how many people you take down.
I read this post and it seems to be a microcosm of the schizoid way our culture views this whole issue. You are militant but... there is a grey area. That is not being militant. Militant is blind and unreasonable acceptance.
I am a bit confused about what is grey. If you want to see why people don't come forward this is the reason why. It is uncomfortable to hold someone accountable. It is much easier to think of all the reasons why it should be OK. They didn't mean it, they were unaware it wasn't OK, other people did it too, no one told them.... Whether they were intentional or not if the behaviour is bad it is bad. They don't need to be aware it is bad for it to be bad. Sociopaths can have no understanding of why something shouldn't be done but we hold them accountable anyway.
Unless the manager you mention recently crawled out from under a rock he should know better than to touch an employee. It has been in every training thing I have been to in the last 5 yrs (4 different facilities). Most companies are required to do something about it as part of their insurance coverage. Likely if he were to get fired or severely reprimanded it would be because he has been trained that it isn't OK.
Going from 0-60 right now.... well there never seems to be a time where is OK to go anything past 0. I had been in practice for a few yrs when the whole Anita Hill thing went down. It caused no end of trauma to survivors who saw the hope of someone speaking up and then saw her complete character assassination because the need to confirm a judge outweighed having integrity. Anyone who had experienced that scenario or worse knew her as a fellow survivor. And it hasn't really changed, even in the slightest bit, in the intervening decades. Even though is is supposed to be illegal to put the accuser on trial in a court of law society has no problem doing that because to believe them means to upset a lot of preconceived assumptions about people in power.
Instead of the absolute expectation of silence now there is absolutely no right answer. If they stay silent they were accused of cowardliness for not speaking up and it is their fault if there are other victims. If it takes a while for them to get their head together before they speak up then they are accused of not being legit because if they were then they would have spoken right away. If they do speak up the list of negatives is ridiculous- they are liars, they didn't say exactly the same thing every time, the person would never do that, they misunderstood, it wasn't as bad as they perceived it, beacuase it could have been much worse there shouldn't be punishment, they are out for financial gain, do they understand what they are doing to the person's life, their family's life, their career, etc. The response you gave of being skeptical because of a few false accusations, not being sure they are should be believed or the possibility of over reaction is made the responsibility of the survivor?
