Sexual misconduct
 

I had to unfriend former Dwellar elSicomoro.

He posted that men who are not involved should "say something if they see something". I was moved to say that we gents who are blameless don't really have a job to do here, our job is to just keep being awesome.

His group of yenta friends lept on me in attack. It's always the bad ones who will say something like that, they said, and it was off to the races, no real discussion to be had.

It was their big opportunity to attack in retaliation for god knows what. All I could think is, wow I have woken and angered this pack of apes and now I see them advancing, color in their eyes. Now I'm one of the bad ones. But I can see they love it; and once in ape mode there's no talking to be done. I stuck around and played for a little while, tried to explain how attacking me was absolutely wrong. But once I had "transgressed", forget it.

Sycamore's been an associate since 2001, and came to my 40th birthday party. Unfriended. Because who on this earth needs THAT particular kind of shit in their lives?

(Nobody, and that's why this place is barren now. But I digress.)

~

People have started to call it "virtue signaling" when somebody makes a public proclamation of how they support blah blah blah. I think that's an appropriate tag. Go out and publicly declare yourself good. Shame the Others to demonstrate how Good you are.

But it's the sort of thing Weinstein does -- they all do -- I posted a picture of Weinstein at the pink pussy march, on Syc's thread, to make a point of it. I'm not a predator, I am part of your pack, Weinstein and others are saying. Hunters trick the prey into allowing them to get as close as possible before the killing shot.

Because these public proclamations are NOT for the ears of the predators.

And the behavior of the apes showed it for what it was, as they circled to create and protect the perceived pack from danger. And the danger was....

...me! :dunce:

This from ElSicamoro who used a succession of women to carry him through life until a bankruptcy forced him to move to another city with sights already set on a woman who lived there whom he hoped would carry him. I understood, but didn’t approve, which is why I refused to be his best man. The irony is bright at the sun.

My whole life the lesson from peers, movies, books, TV, even biology class, was the goal in life was sex. Sometimes dressed up as reproduction or survival of the species, even wrapped in morality, marriage, family, missionary position, the bottom line was sex.

From early on I understood the captain of the football teem, movie stars, people with money and power, would attract women like moths to the flame. I was sure that many of the moths were hoping to win the flame’s favor but went away singed and bitter. So revelations like Cosby and Weinstein going over the top are not surprising.

For the rest of us it appeared women had the power, were in control, and guys like me would have to do the best we could to win favor sex. We all used the tools we had, and for a few one of those tools was power. Whether the physical power to rape or social power of the paycheck, it’s not fair, not right.

When a bad behavior is extremely ingrained in the culture, calling it out is needed.

Maybe in a specific instance you make the calculation that "saying something" when you "see something" wouldn't be productive, but I don't see why someone would push back against the idea of doing it in abstract.

Maybe I'm too non-confrontational, or too shy, or whatever, to actually do it, but I congratulate those who do. And if I see someone being harassed, and don't say something, I should be ashamed.

"Virtue signalling" is required until the person doing so receives the response "well, of course; obviously", rather than "you think you're better than me!?!?".

No, they're for the ears of the victims who are afraid to speak out. It's fantastic that there's been enough so called "virtue signalling" to bring victims out of the shadows, and attempts to denigrate the victims to vindicate the predators are starting to fall on deaf ears.

Sure, predators will virtue signal, too, as a disguise. But as Wednesday Addams says, homicidal maniacs look like everyone else. That doesn't mean that looking like everyone else is a sign of a homicidal maniac.

When someone sees a murder and says nothing, then they are complicit in the murder. Same concept applies to other crimes.

It's the part where he's telling others how to behave. And then getting the praise of your fellow apes for being so virtuous... for actually doing nothing at all

The phrase is "behave yourself" not "behave others". El Sic and, really, all of us, have plenty to address in ourselves. (Including me) And that is where we should focus our energies.

Noting/rewarding the positive behavior? That's the correct way to operate, I believe, and is the only way to actually get the behavior we are looking for out of society.

Positive reinforcement: it's how we train our dogs. Let it be how we train our humans, too.

And now,

UnDeRsTaNd that if you had been in that thread, with those apes, and offered your position, they would have attacked you for it.

Too shy to actually say something? Wow, like being shy is your big excuse or something? Someone being nearly raped and you can't even say one word? Now we see where the problem lies. It's you, you've actually been the problem all along. The rapers, they run off instinct, but you are supposed to be better than that - and you know that it's wrong, you admit that, but you say nothing? And you want to congratulate the ones who do say something? WOW!! What do you say in your defense? And by the way, if you don't want to talk about it any more? It's even more clear and obvious proof you're one of the bad ones.

Did you just call HM a rapist?

Don't forget the cop trying to come between a feuding couple and gets the shit kicked out of him by both of them.

Seeing a crime committed and saying something isn't even close to seeing something you find morally/socially reprehensible and interfering.

What is the "doing nothing at all" here? Saying something if you see something, or saying that you should say something if you see something?

The latter is more of a "behave others" thing, but it's not a "doing nothing at all" thing. The former is closer to "doing nothing at all", but further from "behave others", especially as a Facebook post not directed at any particular person.

If someone posted "Pay it forward! Do something nice today!", would you be huffy about them dictating your behavior?
Sure, but how does that work when you're "seeing something"? Wait until they stop harassing the victim, and then praise them for stopping? If you praise a dog when they finish ripping up a pillow, that won't help anything.

In my view, we should positively reinforce people who say something when they see something.
Perhaps. And I would, of course, agree to an extent, since it was explicitly described as a fault.
Thankfully, I haven't witnessed a rape. But if I had, and done nothing, I would be complicit. The non-confrontational/shy thing was a hypothetical. No particular instances come to mind where it has come up, but it's entirely possible that they have, and I didn't notice, or I did notice, but have forgotten, since it didn't affect me personally.

Your 'apes' might very well castigate me for that manifestation of privilege, as well. To which I would reply, "well, of course, obviously". I'm extremely lucky not to be in a situation where I'm likely to be a victim of this sort of thing, and I will have blind spots.

The latter. It's doing nothing at all.

I mean, for one thing, 99% of this behavior happens entirely privately. 99% of it represents a power game which we're almost never party to.

In that atmosphere, what does it mean to demand a moral behavior? I can't remember when I last witnessed a specific incident. (After 9th grade.) Have you? What was it? I have never seen a colleague play grabass with an unwilling secretary, or chase her around the desk cartoon-style, a la some sort of mid-60s sitcom.

Let me tell you what I *have* seen though. The unmistakeable evidence of a married 40 year old boss reaming his 25 year old secretary, on a Saturday afternoon, when the office was supposed to be empty and only the assistant IT guy would come in unexpectedly.

"Oh, uh... hi Cindy. Oh! Uh... hi Jim as well! Didn't expect to see you two here today. I'm just finishing up the work on the servers... well bye" (thinks: "wow, her hair was really messed up... like really really messed up... OH, uh, wait a minute! Oh shiiiit!! They were totally doin' it, and heard me in the hallway!
Had 30 seconds to stop before I got to his office!! :lol: ")

So, now, having witnessed that - dang should I have said something??

~

No. And actually, in this case, Cindy had all the power, and Jim was putting himself at great risk by doin' it with her.

Cindy was a family member of the founders; which was a really big deal. The grocery store chain had her last name on it. The family members were "special", given enormous consideration and respect. They managed their situation within the company rather privately, and were untouchable (from an employment perspective, cough). So Cindy literally could not be fired; when family members were judged not competent, they were inevitably given some other job.

So. There's also a possibility that they just liked each other, and liked doin' it, and that's the thought I went with as I went about my day not saying anything.*

It would depend on why they would say it; but, if I pushed back and there was a bevy of yentas screaming that I was foul, and part of the non-niceness problem, is.. is that cool?

Level of difficulty of the question: the demand was that I do something nice. The bevy is doing something not nice.




* OMG if you woulda seen Cindy. OMG. And then seeing her with her hair mussed up like that. OMG.

I got group-attacked for saying that the "bad" thematic elements in Blade Runner could be there because a dystopian future is bad by definition--THAT's THE POINT--and not because the...what was it they were all saying...?... "the filmmakers are showing their lack of empathy for disenfranchised groups by making a movie where bad things happen to disenfranchised groups' --actually I can't even reconstruct what their point was. Basically the filmmaker was doing something wrong, and the movie is bad, and because I said "maybe it's bad because it's dystopian, and it's supposed to be bad" that meant *I was bad* because I wasn't saying the right thing we were all supposed to be saying.

They can all go to hell. Friends of friends.

I disagree. The very worst of this behaviour happens entirely privately - but there's a bunch of very overt stuff that all feeds into a culture in which this kind of behaviour becomes almost acceptable/expected/considered merely a natural outcropping of male - female interaction.

When a guy tells a rape joke to his mates - he is more than likely not himself a rapist, and probably would think doing such a thing vile - and it's likely most of the mates he's telling the joke too also think it vile - but that one guy, who doesn't think of himself as a rapist (because rapists wear balaclavas or ski masks and drag stranger women into the bushes) , but does see sex as a form of conquest and women as the prize, and is not above plying a co-ed girl with enough alcohol as to not be able to stand, might be laughing for different reasons - except he won't know he's laughing for different reasons because he probably assumes all his mates think the same way deep down.


Catcalling also doesn't generally happen in private. I have been insulted, flattered and frightened by catcalling, turn and turn about. When a car full of lads stops at the lights and one of them starts leering out the windows and making lewd comments to some 13 year old girls in school uniforms it's just a laugh - his mates probably laugh along, maybe call him a dickhead, but in an affectionate way - and then they drive off and it's forgotten.

Then there's the stuff that is very much in front of other people but which those other people just don't notice or pick up on. Like the boss who is always super picky with their female staff and super pally with the men, or gives the best projects to the men and passes over the women for promotion. I daresay it happens the other way around - but given the gender disparity in managerial roles across most industries, it is probably something that has tended to affect women more.

I've worked places where it has been known that one of the guys has wandering hands - was a bit of a lad. And there was a general attitude of oh well, what can you do . Though that is going back some years.

Not everything can or should be called out when you see it. But not laughing along at the friend who shouts 'show us your tits' to young teenage girls - or not laughing at a joke about rape where the rape victim is the butt of the joke and calling it out for the tasteless offensive shit that it is - that can sometimes be useful. Because it lets that guy, who doesn't really see women as human in the same way he and his mates are, know that his mates don't see women the same way. That it is in fact an aberation to see them that way and not the natural norm.

In reference to the original point, "good guys" have exactly the same responsibility as "good cops".

A couple of other thoughts:


I personally think we have, as a society, and for a very, very long time, magnified the fundamental differences between men and woman to an unhealthy degree. The whole men are from mars, women are from venus / male humans have more in common with male chimpanzees than they do with female humans attitude creates an unhealthy distance between us. Any one individual human is as distinct from or as alike as any other individual human as any differences between or commonalities across each separate gender.

We are bathed in this sense of difference - saturated with it from the womb to the grave - it's one of the cornerstones of our culture. Even as we learn how complex the true picture really is, we still carry that simple, polar understanding of gender with us. It underpins our language, our social structures, our expectations, both conscious and unconscious- it affects how we perceive the world around us and sets us in a feedback loop that continually reinforces it.

This othering of the opposite gender comes with a cost - and it isn't an entirely accidental one. At various times in our history (in some places right now) there have been efforts by concerned citizens and religious and political leaders to encourage proper behaviour in men and women - crises in gender have occurred at various times in various places. In the late 17th and early 18th centuries, gender roles in Britain were a little less narrowly focused and men and women often worked together (usually on different tasks) - amongst the elite there was a new appreciation for playfulness and art, for emotional expression and extravagant dress among men - the response to this was a moral crusade - the society for the reformation of manners (primarily focused on brothels, prostitution and gay sex) was one expression of this - another was a change in literary forms, and a massive public debate (in leaflets, news sheets, sermons, poetry and educational works) in which the 'female problem/problem of the Sex' and its twin, the debate over effeminacy, were discussed and through which a proper kind of masculinity and a proper form of femininity were openly codified and promoted.

We have sold the lie to ourselves for generations - but the cost is high. If generations of boys have been raised to see girls not as fellow human beings, as individual and unique as themselves, but rather as ineffable prizes for them to win, lesser, but desirable creatures who they can conquer, or terrifyingly powerful aliens who can rock their world in any direction - then is it any wonder some men have no ability to feel any kind of empathy for the women they are driven to want.

And yes, I get that there is absolutely a flip side to that.


I have a lot of optimism for the younger generation in this regard. Youngsters today seem to have a much more nuanced sense of gender than my generation.



Second point:

For the kind of accusations Weinstein faces, there's just no excuse. He understood his power and he revelled in applying it. But - I do sometimes feel sorry for the guys that get swept up with this stuff. Sometimes, I think guys are abusing a form of power without really perceiving themselves as powerful. Or not understanding their place within the power dynamic.

Once again Dana nails it, sugar&spice vs snakes&snails, and never the twain shall meet.. on equal terms.

I'm with you Dana, all except the part where rape jokes create rapists because they make rape more socially acceptable. I don't think the jokes do that and I don't think that's how rapists are made. It's just a guess on my part though. I could be wrong.

Influence of culture, it's like what Derek and Clive said about the influence of television. Does television make people do things?