Time to stick my neck out ........ [Warning: politically adventurous viewpoint lurks within.]

[bobt]

I'm just pondering whether I'm being politically incorrect, chauvinistic or showing my age .. BUT .....

We are currently riding a wave of men being outed for numerous sexual indiscretions - the name Harvey Weinstein comes to mind, but maybe it all started with people like Rolf Harris.

I should perhaps preface my comments by emphasising that I in no way condone either of their actions and I fully support the rights of women to go about their day-to-day lives without being molested. I shouldn't need to say that, but there you go.

However .... I am beginning to think that the pendulum is swinging a tad too far in the other direction, and that natural justice is being replaced with a lynch mob mentality. It seems that trial by media is replacing any presumption of innocence.

I have two issues .....

1) I believe that unless there is obvious and proven evidence of guilt, we should be applying that presumption of innocence a little more often than currently seems to be the case. A case in point lies with Robert Doyle, Lord Mayor of Melbourne, who has been reduced to a mental invalid as a result of as yet unproven allegations. Perhaps he will be found to have committed the sins he is accused of, perhaps not, but should we not allow him at least a semblance of due process before lynching him in the streets?

2) The second issue is related to the first and it concerns the relative weight we apply to various crimes. If Robert Doyle is indeed guilty of touching someone's thigh and making crude and inappropriate comments, should this be prioritised over youths who deliberately bash people senseless, create havoc and mayhem and generally go out of their way to terrorise and harm the weak and defenseless on a regular basis.

Again, none of my views should be interpreted as being accepting of harassment of women, but surely there is a scale of evil which is not being applied with any sense of proportion. Sure men should not be touching women inappropriately, but there are degrees of severity in the crime spectrum and that order seems to have become confused.

A further example lies in that Olympic coach who molested all those young gymnasts. No doubt there of the crimes he committed, but does a sentence of 175 years in jail deem his crimes to be worse than murderers who get half as much, or horrendous bashings and acts of savage violence which earn a symbolic slap on the wrist ? We see it every day in our courts, and the police see offenders released, laughing, and setting off to do it all again.

Feel free to misinterpret my concerns, but I do feel that society is losing its sense of proportion here, and crimes and sentencing should be placed on a scale where crimes are punished with regard to their relative level of evil - not simply by how many papers the story can sell.

[ameerat42]

Preamble: Nope.

Re 1) Agree.
Re 2) Agree.

May I add a 3): The mind-numbing attempts of ALL arms of media at interpreting the stories/events,
particularly by the news broadcasters. It's at the point where "News" has been debased in meaning
from something like "reporting the facts" to an amalgam of innuendo, veiled hypocrisy, feel-goodery,
and other questionable practices that slip my head for now.

How often do you hear "chilling", "heart-warming", "thankfully/tragically/sadly" in front of "nobody was hurt"
and the like? This is accompanied by facial expressions and other visible body language. In the meantime,
of course, there's the relentless stupidity of advertising. That, increasingly promotes stupidity, envy and
one-upmanship as the main drivers for people to make decisions. Actually, the news itself is pretty much
just an advertisement.

So, it's all rather a joke - Hang on! Who's laughing?

[bobt]

I was in the hairdresser's the other day (it's the only place I can read all the trashy magazines). The front page was about Bert and Patty Newton (not sure if non-Victorians know those names.) Anyway, the headline said "Trauma in Newton household - Patty packs her bags!" Instead of a looming divorce it was simply that their son was sick and Patty was packing her bag to go and visit him. That was followed by a headline about a romance between two well known celebrities. Upon further examination it transpired that they were friends at school when they were 12, some 40 years ago. Sheesh .....

As far as the other stuff is concerned, I am reluctant to stick my head out because invariably some female will accuse me of not understanding female molestation, but I'm pretty sure that a hand on the thigh doesn't equate with a knife between the ribs! Some of the minor accusations I'm reading about are 20 years old (and I uses the term "minor" without trivialising the experience - just placing it on that spectrum of evil).

[merlin1]

No, Agree, Agree.

Ross.

The whole system as gone to the dogs.

[Steve Axford]

I can see your point, but ......
We have tolerated this for ages (literally) now and I'm sure you'll agree that it should stop. It's a bit like paedophilia. Many of those who are convicted are just guilty of looking at pictures, surely there is no harm in that? And yet we give them hefty prison sentences and then effect what they can do for the rest of their lives. Should this be prioritised over youths who deliberately bash people senseless?
It is hard to convict people of sexual harassment, even rape is difficult to prove as often there are often no witnesses, so what do we do? What would you suggest?
I think society overreacts to many things as we decide that something needs to be stopped. Many people do feel that it is overreacting with the sexual harassment thing, just as the Catholic Church feels that society overreacts to paedophilia. Perhaps that is why people overreact. Because, if they don't, nothing will happen.

[John King]

The media once served a useful purpose ("the fourth estate").

These days its uselessness is only matched by its hubris.

Rather than a watchdog, it has devolved into a major player.

[ameerat42]

Wells' Head - No! Well said.
Not to mention the cliches and the abysmal English used by national TV stations - commercial AND non!

The other night Ch 7 was touting all the science degree qualifications of the weather reporter just before
the weather segment was to air. No doubt it was intended as an inducement to watch it rather than some
other channel. I mean, did he make the weather?

[bobt]

so what do we do? What would you suggest?
I think society overreacts to many things as we decide that something needs to be stopped. Many people do feel that it is overreacting with the sexual harassment thing, just as the Catholic Church feels that society overreacts to paedophilia. Perhaps that is why people overreact. Because, if they don't, nothing will happen.

That's the key actually, "Overreact" vs "react".

Sexual crimes are hard to discuss because guys tend to be vilified if they appear to be downplaying the impact of any sexual imposition. A lot of sexually induced harm is psychological rather than physical, and that makes it harder to quantify than, say, a physically damaging assault. Sometimes the assault is not recognised at the time and only later is retrospectively deemed to be an assault rather than an inappropriate contact. There are massive shades of criminality ranging from the extremely minor to those things which scar for life. There is also an element of herd mentality involved. Some years ago there was a huge furor over allegedly recovered memories, where hypnosis was "uncovering" legions of abused women through hypnotic recovery of lost memories. No doubt some were genuine, but many were probably not, and we no longer see hordes of women suddenly discovering issues from the past. It was another classic case of overreaction rather than measured reaction.

I don't have a solution, and if I did I would lack the power to implement one. I'm just a bit tired of seeing all manner of incidents treated in a disproportionate manner rather than being calmly and dispassionately examined to discover the truth. I would like, as Gilbert and Sullivan said, the "punishment to suit the crime".

[bcys1961]

I can see your point, but ......
We have tolerated this for ages (literally) now and I'm sure you'll agree that it should stop. It's a bit like paedophilia. Many of those who are convicted are just guilty of looking at pictures, surely there is no harm in that? .

Sorry but I think there is MASSIVE harm in that ! If you look at the pictures you are providing the market for those who took the pictures to do the terrible things they are doing to the children in the pictures . And often that is ruining the rest of those poor children's lives.

[Ionica]

However .... I am beginning to think that the pendulum is swinging a tad too far in the other direction, and that natural justice is being replaced with a lynch mob mentality. It seems that trial by media is replacing any presumption of innocence.



A further example lies in that Olympic coach who molested all those young gymnasts. No doubt there of the crimes he committed, but does a sentence of 175 years in jail .

According to the latest reports, he has been sentenced to a further 40 - 125 years jail - a "possible " total of 300 years.( Welcome back, Methuselah ). Compare this to the trial in Belgium, where the prosecutor is seeking a 20 year sentence for S. Abdeslam ( and his rights are respected ).

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42940636

[Tannin]

What we have here is a triple disconnect.

On the one hand we have for many years tolerated sleazebags who frequently behave in ways that are, while not generally criminal or truly threatening, nevertheless unacceptable, particularly when repeated, often on a daily basis. We need to see it as what it is: simply another form of bullying.

On the other hand, the "cure" has now been deemed to be conviction without trial, fairness, or due process, and penalties ranging from loss of an entire career and a life sentence of being shamed and shunned by decent people everywhere through to being driven to ill-health and suicide. (I'll come to the third disconnect later.)

First, it is entirely appropriate that sleazebags - and especially habitual ones - be brought into line. They need to be taught a lesson. It's just like training any other human (or indeed a dog): the key is to provide an appropriate punishment as soon as possible after the infringement, such as (for a first offence) a stern word and (for a second offence) a sharp smack over the wrist. This helps the creature learn not to do it again. These life sentences being handed out without trial or judge or jury, however, are pretty much exactly like ignoring your small child's little tantrums for a few years, and then spanking it with an axe.

Second, note here that we are talking about sleazy stuff and inappropriate remarks and so on. None of this applies to a sport coach or a TV star molesting 9-year-old children. That is defined as equal to or worse than rape in any jurisdiction in the civilised world, and rightly punished as such.

Third is another disconnect. It is still fine for an aspiring young actor to sleep his or her way into the starring roles. No penalty at all for that, and it's common as mud. I doubt that any of us in any reasonably senior positions in any industry have not had the experience of being vamped by a job applicant, or a subordinate looking for promotion. It happens all the time and we, as a society, ignore it. The worst that usually happens to the perpetrator is a few snide remarks around the coffee machine. Big deal. Reverse the roles, however, and the penalty is terrible. Most men would rather be raped than put through what these celebrity victims have been lumbered with. At least that is something you can get over (eventually) and your name is not made public, and if it is at least everybody feels sorry for you instead of treating you like scum for the rest of your life. Now in the case of one or two persistent repeat offenders (no need to name names) a pretty stiff penalty is appropriate. But not a life sentence. And certainly not without trial.

[ricktas]

My ten cents worth:

1. In the past it has been quite well know that 'actresses' often offered their services to a man to gain a role in a movie etc. Yet we have not heard one thing about that. It has all been about the 'bad men'. What about the 'bad women'? It does sound like Mr Weinstein has a lot to answer for, but I wonder how many women threw themselves at him to get a role. But we have not heard a word about this aspect of celebrity.

How many women have used their sexuality to gain advantage? Where are the men going #metoo about the actions of women.

It seems to me that only half the story is being told at present.

2. The ability for courts to do their jobs fairly has all but been eliminated. All the publicity around these cases, how is the man at the centre going to get a fair trial, without a lynch mob crying out for his head? There is one reason and one reason only the 'victims' did not come forth at the time... they wanted what Mr Weinstein (and others) could offer.. Celebrity, fame, money. They did not speak up, because at the time, being famous was more important to them, than being abused.

If they were raped by a thug in an alley way they would have made a bee-line to the nearest police station.

3. Did Mr Weinstein do the things he is being accused of, most likely. Should he face repercussions for them, most definitely. Did some of the actresses benefit from this arrangement.. sure did!

I think the media, and the way this has been dealt with has over-simplified a much bigger and more complex issue, and no one is willing to talk about it. That both men and women are guilty parties in this. Simply being a female does not necessarily make you the victim.

[John King]

Without in any way condoning bad behaviour on the part of predatory males (a very dangerous animal indeed), I am constantly horrified by the media being "horrified" while they detail untried and unsubstantiated allegations of all descriptions.

There is a vanishingly small chance of the accused getting a fair jury trial, which means they are all but compelled to throw themselves on mercy of a judge alone. This is a far more risky strategy than trial by jury.

Am also appalled by them showing people how to take drugs, make bombs and the like.

[Tannin]

There is a vanishingly small chance of the accused getting a fair jury trial

Just so John. What is worse, however, is that by far the greater part of the punishment (loss of career, respect, family, friends, and life-long humiliation) is inflicted whether or not the case ever goes to trial, and whether or not the accused is guilty.

To find a close equivalent we need to go back to Victorian times, when a woman who had relations with a man for any reason was considered "fallen" and punished by society no matter what. Didn't matter if it was a consensual love affair, an affair gone wrong, a moment's passion, a youthful mistake, outright rape, or even a commercial transaction for money. Once she was "defiled" (in the eyes of society) she could never go back to a normal life. No trial, no justice, no evidence: guilt by slander, punishment for life. Welcome to the new Victorian Age.

[John King]

Quite, Tony.

Trial by gossip, insinuation and innuendo. No actual facts nor evidence required.

We are also going through a period of form being more important than content, which does nothing for concerns about accuracy.

[bobt]

I think the media, and the way this has been dealt with has over-simplified a much bigger and more complex issue, and no one is willing to talk about it.

Talking about it is indeed a huge problem. Men who do speak out are wary of being perceived as "anti-female", and it has got to the point where any male who voices an opinion has to repeatedly reassure his audience that he is fully aware of the female perspective, is fully supportive of women's rights and acknowledges the problems inherent in simply being female. It shouldn't be necessary to make that pledge every time, but it has become necessary due to the global condemnation of men in general rather than certain men only. It would be nice if women acknowledged that being male doesn't mean that all men are complicit, and that sometimes there is a level of culpability on behalf of the women involved. This doesn't mean that women are "asking for it", but it does acknowledge that men are not necessarily at fault by default.

Women have been subjugated, relegated, suppressed and treated badly by male dominated societies for centuries, but treating us all as the "enemy" doesn't help to rectify that.

[Mark L]

...., but I'm pretty sure that a hand on the thigh doesn't equate with a knife between the ribs!

Such an invasion of personal space.
If you put your hand on my thigh without consent I'll be convicted for knifing you in the ribs.

In the 90's I used to manage Timezone entertainment centres. The best employee I ever had was an early 20s year old. Wonderful young lady who got a better job. She apologise for going to a better job and thanked me so much as she left because I was the first of 4 "bosses" that hadn't sexually harassed her in some way. I didn't understand and she assured me it was so.
This shit still goes on.
Interesting that the only posts here are from blokes.

[Tannin]

The only way to deal with it, Bob, is to stop being intimidated by people determined to misrepresent you. If they want to get the wrong end of the stick, tough luck. It's not our problem.

[Bear Dale]

I was in the hairdresser's the other day .

Bob that beard must take some looking after

[bcys1961]

My ten cents worth:

1. In the past it has been quite well know that 'actresses' often offered their services to a man to gain a role in a movie etc. Yet we have not heard one thing about that. It has all been about the 'bad men'. What about the 'bad women'? It does sound like Mr Weinstein has a lot to answer for, but I wonder how many women threw themselves at him to get a role. But we have not heard a word about this aspect of celebrity.

How many women have used their sexuality to gain advantage? Where are the men going #metoo about the actions of women.

Well , this assumes the woman threw threw themselves at the male because they wanted to , and not because they felt they had to . It could be that they knew the only way they would get the job was if they offered up their "'Services"' and if they did not they would not work in the industry again . This has been the case with Weinstein. He had buried several promising actresses careers and I'm sure he is not the first to do that .It has been going on for a long time .

I also don't agree with the whole trial by social media phenomena, but can also see that in many cases woman feel they have had no other choice , as when they reported harassment through official channels nothing was done.