#MeToo Becomes #LeaveMeAlone

[Trumptonium1]

They're protecting themselves, it's understandable. It's very common in finance. Hurts women more than men, haha.

[New Tryphalia]

So how does accepting the possibility that someone might have done a thing equal guilty until proven innocent?

If you believe in God, does that mean you accept the possibility of God or that you have full faith that God exists, and accept His existence as real?

If you believe Donald Trump, does that mean you accept the possibility that Donald Trump is telling the truth, or that you have full faith that he is telling the truth, and accept his word as truth?

If you believe in climate change, does that mean you accept the possibility of climate change, or that you have full faith that climate change is a real thing and accept it as a real event?

If you believe your spouse when he/she says he/she was working late, do you accept the possibility they were working late, or that you positively affirmatively accept they were working late and accept it as a real event?

Precisely. I'm no right-winger, but I resent constant rewording of accepted definition of words, whether "belief" or racism or anything else.

[New Tryphalia]

She said "believe." Belief isn't a skeptical, rational consideration or openness to something. It's a blind acceptance on faith, without any evidentiary support for such a conclusion whatsoever.

You mean like the belief that feminists want rape accused to be treated as guilty until proven innocent?

No, I never said the word "believe." She did. I do think that a lot of feminists want to erase the presumption of innocence, unless the accused were a woman charged with raping a man, of course. Then they suddenly want due process.

[New Tryphalia]

Personally, I think that the actual goal of feminism isn't equality, it's female supremacy, with men reduced to second-class citizens only used for breeding and labor until they no longer need us. Once the robots and cloning are complete, we'll be exterminated.

[Kaggeceria]

If this is the case then the only logical conclusion is the man she is accusing must be guilty.

It's also worth note that this was literally the law in Washington state - guilty until proven innocent based on the accuser's word alone - until 2014.

You think I'm being hyperbolic, but I'm not.

The court had previously ruled that when a defendant claimed the contact was consensual, it was up to the defendant to prove there was consent by a preponderance of the evidence. The rulings essentially made consent an affirmative defense to a rape charge, the way a killer can claim self-defense in a murder case.

But in a 6-3 opinion Thursday, the justices said those decisions wrongly interpreted U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Prosecutors must prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and making a defendant prove that there was consent got that requirement backward, they said.

“Requiring a defendant to do more than raise a reasonable doubt is inconsistent with due-process principles,” Justice Debra Stephens wrote for the majority, saying it raises “a very real possibility of wrongful convictions.”

...

The Legislature changed the definition in 1975, removing the reference to consent and requiring prosecutors to prove “forcible compulsion” — force that overcomes resistance, or threats that put a person in fear of death or injury. The intent was to put the focus back on the actions of the defendant, Owens said.

“Placing the burden on the State to disprove consent wrongfully puts the victim’s actions and reputation on trial,” she wrote. “Not only does the majority’s decision invalidate years of work undertaken to properly refocus our rape law, but it also has serious implications for victims of an already underreported type of crime.”

Emily Cordo, former legal director of the Sexual Violence Law Center in Seattle, agreed.

“You are going to have decisions from jurors based on misperceptions about how victims should behave rather than based on what the defendant did,” she said. “Washington, like every other state, has a real problem getting actual rapists convicted. This makes it that much more difficult.”


But the majority said the use of force is an element of the crime: It can’t be true that a rape case involved both forcible compulsion and consent. For defendants to prove consent, they are also disproving forcible compulsion — which means the state has been requiring the defendant to prove they didn’t commit the crime, rather than requiring prosecutors to prove the defendant did.

The ruling came in the case of a boy identified only as W.R. Jr., who was convicted of second-degree rape in King County. He was awarded a new trial.

W.R. Jr.’s attorney, Gregory Link of the Washington Appellate Project, characterized criticism of the ruling as “fear-mongering.”

“I don’t think there’s any concern we’re going back to the dark days of rape prosecution,” he said. “This doesn’t change much. It just clarifies for jurors who has the burden of proof and who doesn’t. Outside this one area of law, that’s the way things are always done.”

Link said because of procedural rules, he did not expect the ruling to lead to many new trials for defendants convicted under the old court holdings.

Jesus fucking Christ. What draconian bullshit.

[New Tryphalia]

It's also worth note that this was literally the law in Washington state - guilty until proven innocent based on the accuser's word alone - until 2014.

You think I'm being hyperbolic, but I'm not.

Jesus fucking Christ. What draconian bullshit.

Yep. Edward Blackstone would be spinning in his grave.

[Scomagia]

It's also worth note that this was literally the law in Washington state - guilty until proven innocent based on the accuser's word alone - until 2014.

You think I'm being hyperbolic, but I'm not.

Jesus fucking Christ. What draconian bullshit.

Yes. It's absolutely wrong that anyone ever thought that this is the way law ought to work.

[Ethel mermania]

No, believe women is exactly what it says. Believe women when they make any kinds of allegations against men. If anyone doubts a woman's allegations, then they have chosen the side of the oppressor.

I have never actually seen anyone demand someone be treated as guilty until proven innocent. At least until someone starts claiming they made the accusation maliciously.

Like Sen Booker

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/398 ... n-the-evil

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source= ... 3937834834

[The Black Forrest]

I have never actually seen anyone demand someone be treated as guilty until proven innocent. At least until someone starts claiming they made the accusation maliciously.

Like Sen Booker

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/398 ... n-the-evil

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source= ... 3937834834

Cats are evil so he is right.

[Kingliraelnin Lands]

Backlash against women is justified if they do something that brings it on themselves. And though some men are sexist, not all of them are, and because of this I consider feminism a failed ideology in the US, but an effective one in countries were women are considered lesser citizens. The stories the news and media show where someone discriminates against a women doesn't make up the entire populace, it shows ONE person being a jerk, not every man in the whole freaking country.

[South Ccanda]

Hey, lets not equate all of feminism to what has happened in recent times. I fully support first and second wave feminists, but those who participate in this third wave of feminism, these "Feminazis" and "Female Supremicists", this is the cause we should be fighting against.

[Des-Bal]

We set policy by making the thing we WANT people to do the cheapest, easiest, or safest option.

We tolerate absolutely no method of insulating yourself against an accusation of sexual impropriety. When the popular standard is "believe women" and accusations can be levied without incriminating evidence, and so many years after the fact that it's impossible to gather exculpatory evidence, it just makes sense to exclude women. We can use the threat of discrimination lawsuits to curb this but those accusations are easier to fight in the court of public opinion which means the risk of someone breaking confidentiality after a settlement is much less severe.

[South Ccanda]

We set policy by making the thing we WANT people to do the cheapest, easiest, or safest option.

We tolerate absolutely no method of insulating yourself against an accusation of sexual impropriety. When the popular standard is "believe women" and accusations can be levied without incriminating evidence, and so many years after the fact that it's impossible to gather exculpatory evidence, it just makes sense to exclude women. We can use the threat of discrimination lawsuits to curb this but those accusations are easier to fight in the court of public opinion which means the risk of someone breaking confidentiality after a settlement is much less severe.

I'm not quite sure of what the point you are making is.

[Des-Bal]

I'm not quite sure of what the point you are making is.

This is a logical response that will inevitably continue until people and businesses have some way of protecting themselves from accusations.

[Vassenor]

Hey, lets not equate all of feminism to what has happened in recent times. I fully support first and second wave feminists, but those who participate in this third wave of feminism, these "Feminazis" and "Female Supremicists", this is the cause we should be fighting against.

I don't think you really understand what third-wave feminism is. Or are just assuming that radical feminism is all feminism.

[Neu Leonstein]

This is a logical response that will inevitably continue until people and businesses have some way of protecting themselves from accusations.

The response is also drastically overstated by both the article and, more so, the OP. I mean, the only one in the industry mentioned by name as 'having a sense of walking on eggshells' is a National Review contributor.

Fact of the matter is that there is and will be some conflict in the industry over the next decade or so arising from the fact that senior management tends to be heavily skewed in one way, and graduate intakes and professionals less so. The result is that managers will be tasked with promoting the next group of leaders from a cohort that looks less like them. That can be hard, and so all of the larger institutions have programs and initiatives aimed at breaking down those barriers. And, as the article (though not the OP's quote) also makes clear:

There are as many or more men who are responding in quite different ways. One, an investment adviser who manages about 100 employees, said he briefly reconsidered having one-on-one meetings with junior women. He thought about leaving his office door open, or inviting a third person into the room.

Finally, he landed on the solution: “Just try not to be an asshole.”

That’s pretty much the bottom line, said Ron Biscardi, chief executive officer of Context Capital Partners. “It’s really not that hard.”

Where the problem might linger is a number of 'old school' smaller hedge funds and independent shops that the article is really about. The people and the culture there are more likely to remain personality- rather than results-focused, and the personalities involved are disproportionately the sort of people who think being professional around female employees is an imposition. The good news (for investors as well as potential female employees) is that those shops are on the way out anyway as they struggle to justify their fees and tend not to have the scale needed to bring them down even where they can offer a sufficiently differentiated product.

[Right wing humour squad]

I'm not quite sure of what the point you are making is.

This is a logical response that will inevitably continue until people and businesses have some way of protecting themselves from accusations.

Remove anti discrimination laws.
Stop hiring women.

[Liriena]

So you are knowingly bullshitting?

Are you actually going to do anything in this thread besides pathetically sniping at people?

You mean like you are doing right now? Hours after the fact?

[Liriena]

So your solution to male paranoia is silencing accusers.in general. Gotcha.

You must have a big shovel.

Mechanical.

[Liriena]

Yeah, I'm a fairly left of center guy, but I've never been comfortable with the whole "lumping people together with group guilt" business of identity politics. Not once, not ever.

Same here. It's a practice I find revoltng. If you have an issue with what I say, take issue as an individual against another individual's opinions, not as a member of "Group A" vs. "Group B".

This is the basis of racism and sexism. You as an individual don't matter, it's your group affiliation that matters. It's absolute garbage. Liriena needs to cut this shit out if they want to be taken seriously. It isn't virtuous to treat people this way. It's wrong and disgusting.

How exactly did I treat you, again? I made an (admittedly anecdotal) observation about a pattern of behavior I saw in a group. My only mistake seems to have been including you in that group and, IIRC, I apologized for it the moment you disputed it. So all this scolding, to me at least, comes off as needlessly melodramatic.

[South Ccanda]

Hey, lets not equate all of feminism to what has happened in recent times. I fully support first and second wave feminists, but those who participate in this third wave of feminism, these "Feminazis" and "Female Supremicists", this is the cause we should be fighting against.

I don't think you really understand what third-wave feminism is. Or are just assuming that radical feminism is all feminism.

Please educate me on what the third wave of feminism is, because so far, it just seems like the entirety of the third wave is radicals.
and to answer your question, I did not compare radical feminism to all feminism, i'm literally trying to defend feminism from those who think
all feminists are radicals.

[South Ccanda]

You must have a big shovel.

Mechanical.

you gotta Excavator? damn, wish i had one.

[Vassenor]

I don't think you really understand what third-wave feminism is. Or are just assuming that radical feminism is all feminism.

Please educate me on what the third wave of feminism is, because so far, it just seems like the entirety of the third wave is radicals.
and to answer your question, I did not compare radical feminism to all feminism, i'm literally trying to defend feminism from those who think
all feminists are radicals.

Third Wave feminism is, broadly speaking, Second Wave feminism plus intersectionality and a few other concepts. It's more about challenging the systems that lead to oppression rather than simply challenging the oppression itself.

[Liriena]

"Believe women" was not an attack on "Western" values. If anything, it was an attack on something that was and still is fundamentally broken about "Western" values, which is a widespread institutional reluctance to fully investigate sexual violence.

Also, nothing inherently sickening about memes based on righteous schadenfreude, specially if it comes into being as a response by a marginalized group to the insecurities of a more powerful group.

Believe all women has some pretty obvious connotations. It suggests attributing truth value to a woman's claims before investigating and until her account is disproven.

Does it? Because it sounds to me like we are operating on very different and very subjective connotations.

That is somewhat anti-western, since you're arbitrarily deciding that what a person says is true because of their sex.

I can't speak for others, but yeah, I do operate under the general assumption that someone who claims to have been the target of sexual misconduct is not (a) a pathological liar or (b) an opportunistic liar actively trying to ruin the accused's life. But no, that's not because of their sex. I generally believe that men who claim to have been the targets of sexual misconduct aren't speaking in bad faith either.

"investigate all accusations"

Good sentiment, to be sure.

Deal with people as individuals, not as members of an "oppressor" or "oppressed" group. There's absolutely nothing righteous about playing the group hate, group responsibility game.

People are never just individuals, though. Sometimes you can't avoid addressing the actions of individuals as a reflection of broader patterns of behavior and thought.

[South Ccanda]

Please educate me on what the third wave of feminism is, because so far, it just seems like the entirety of the third wave is radicals.
and to answer your question, I did not compare radical feminism to all feminism, i'm literally trying to defend feminism from those who think
all feminists are radicals.

Third Wave feminism is, broadly speaking, Second Wave feminism plus intersectionality and a few other concepts. It's more about challenging the systems that lead to oppression rather than simply challenging the oppression itself.

Challenging the system? how exactly?