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

[ricktas]

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.

Yes it does assume that. But then the media is making assumptions that every person who has said #metoo, is telling the truth. Mr Weinstein himself has admitted to some claims and said others are not true, and did not happen. So my assumption is that it is quite likely that some women offered their services to Mr Weinstein willingly, for mutual benefit. Or the incidents described may not have even happened.

After all, I could come out today and say when I visited New York last time, I was at a restaurant and Mr Weinstein cornered me in a bathroom and wanted me to do something to him. I could show the media my flight and accommodation tickets, show them I was booked at a restaurant the same evening as Mr Weinstein, etc. But it does not make my claim true. Yet he would find himself in the headlines again... simply because the media want to crucify him and it sells advertising space so they can make money... and doing so is the flavour of the month.

I do not disagree that he appears to be the sleaze he is being claimed to be, but just because he is, does not mean every #metoo is factual. Women, simply by being female are not necessarily the innocent party.

The 'casting couch' has a history, based in truth, and it has been used by both sexes to their advantage over the years. At present, it would seem the males are being cast as the perpetrators of everything and every event.

The broader issue here is that interactions between the sexes will have to be redefined, male employers will become less likely to employ females in case one of them accuses them of something untoward. People will be chaperoned to interviews for jobs, the whole dynamic will have to shift. Rather than deal with the recalcitrant few via the court system, trial by media might inadvertently change society. We might see less females being offered opportunities working with men. I know people now who refuse to employ young females, when it would only be themselves and the female in the office, because they do not want to expose themselves (pun) to being accused of something. Because the accusation would ruin their small business. As they have said, they would never do anything untoward with an employee, but a false accusation can easily ruin someone.

The world is changing, and we need to be careful how far we change it, because it could well push women out of roles they could easily do. Where is the equality in that?

[Steve Axford]

It seems an odd argument to say that women shouldn't complain because men might not employ them if they do. Sounds like the Harvey Weinstein argument?

[Gazza]

“The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers" - Thomas Jefferson

[bobt]

If you put your hand on my thigh without consent I'll be convicted for knifing you in the ribs.

I think you're safe .....

Interesting that the only posts here are from blokes.

Not unexpected, although I'd really like some of the women here to offer their perspective. This is perhaps an example of that lack of communication we've mentioned. Neither sex feels comfortable discussing it with the other for fear of appearing less than objective. Despite the alleged "equality" between the sexes, we've collectively got a long way to go.

- - - Updated - - -

Bob that beard must take some looking after

I got out of my pool the other day and my beard had turned blue! Too much copper in the water I think. Trust me, a blue rinse didn't suite me ......

- - - Updated - - -

The broader issue here is that interactions between the sexes will have to be redefined ...........
The world is changing, and we need to be careful how far we change it ........

This is a huge danger in my view. The whole consent issue is massive. Obviously consent is vital, but it's getting to the point where pretty soon participants will need the equivalent of a model release before engaging in any sexual activity. I am a big fan of romance, and the whole gamut of romantic engagement is one of the purest delights of being young (or even not so young). This whole sexual debate is killing spontaneity, flirting and all the undeniable pleasures of intimate relationships. We are in danger of denying people those fundamental pleasures in the interests of political correctness and in response to the sins of the few. Collectively we do need to stop the abuse and the power imbalances, but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

[Steve Axford]

Not unexpected, although I'd really like some of the women here to offer their perspective. This is perhaps an example of that lack of communication we've mentioned. Neither sex feels comfortable discussing it with the other for fear of appearing less than objective. Despite the alleged "equality" between the sexes, we've collectively got a long way to go.

Perhaps women would comment if the thread wasn't so blatantly sexist. Maybe if someone were to point out that a woman using her charms is not the same as a man using his power, then we would be moving towards a discussion. Sure there are some cases where a woman is to blame, but there are many more cases where it is the man that is at fault. If you start with the premise that because Robert Doyle appears to have been tried by the media and you feel sympathy for that incredible sentence that Larry Nassar got for his crimes when the terrorist in Brussels only got 20 years (actually he is still to be tried in France, the Belgian charges were for another incident), then you will not invite discussion, particularly not from women. Robert Doyle may or may not be guilty, but he's a politician and like all politicians he has to be able to defend himself. To blame a medical incident on the publicity isn't going to get a lot of sympathy except from his own side of politics (Jeff Kennett). As for Larry Nassar - it sounds like he deserves a life sentence and it doesn't really matter if he gets life or 140years or 1000 years. As for the terrorist trial in Belgium, they have different laws to the USA, but prisoners can be kept beyond their sentence when deemed appropriate AND he is still awaiting his French trial. Both will get life.

[bcys1961]

Yes it does assume that. But then the media is making assumptions that every person who has said #metoo, is telling the truth. Mr Weinstein himself has admitted to some claims and said others are not true, and did not happen. So my assumption is that it is quite likely that some women offered their services to Mr Weinstein willingly, for mutual benefit. Or the incidents described may not have even happened.

After all, I could come out today and say when I visited New York last time, I was at a restaurant and Mr Weinstein cornered me in a bathroom and wanted me to do something to him. I could show the media my flight and accommodation tickets, show them I was booked at a restaurant the same evening as Mr Weinstein, etc. But it does not make my claim true. Yet he would find himself in the headlines again... simply because the media want to crucify him and it sells advertising space so they can make money... and doing so is the flavour of the month.

I do not disagree that he appears to be the sleaze he is being claimed to be, but just because he is, does not mean every #metoo is factual. Women, simply by being female are not necessarily the innocent party.

The 'casting couch' has a history, based in truth, and it has been used by both sexes to their advantage over the years. At present, it would seem the males are being cast as the perpetrators of everything and every event.

The broader issue here is that interactions between the sexes will have to be redefined, male employers will become less likely to employ females in case one of them accuses them of something untoward. People will be chaperoned to interviews for jobs, the whole dynamic will have to shift. Rather than deal with the recalcitrant few via the court system, trial by media might inadvertently change society. We might see less females being offered opportunities working with men. I know people now who refuse to employ young females, when it would only be themselves and the female in the office, because they do not want to expose themselves (pun) to being accused of something. Because the accusation would ruin their small business. As they have said, they would never do anything untoward with an employee, but a false accusation can easily ruin someone.

The world is changing, and we need to be careful how far we change it, because it could well push women out of roles they could easily do. Where is the equality in that?

Yes agree with all of that and if it was possible to pass a law to prevent these matters being aired in the social media before they were first prosecuted through the official courts where the presumption of innocence applies I would be all for it . Of course that would require that the law enforcement authorities and courts had the resources to fully investigate every claim , which they don't have now . It seems the only recourse those accused now have is to fight a rear guard action for deformation through the courts . It will be interesting to see how the Geoffery Rush case goes ( I notice the Daily Telegraph is already backtracking a little bit) . And also Craig McLachlan has launched deformation proceedings so will be interesting to see how that goes.

[bobt]

Perhaps women would comment if the thread wasn't so blatantly sexist. Robert Doyle may or may not be guilty, but he's a politician and like all politicians he has to be able to defend himself. As for Larry Nassar - it sounds like he deserves a life sentence and it doesn't really matter if he gets life or 140years or 1000 years.

I think you're missing several vital points here. Firstly, it has been made abundantly clear that most people here support the rights of women and respect their right to live their lives without harassment. That's not sexist. The problem lies in overreaction and trial by media.

Few of us like politicians, but to suggest that they lose their rights simply by becoming a public figure beggars belief. Everyone is entitled to a presumption of innocence - end of story. As for Larry Nassar, no-one would suggest that he deserves leniency, but in the overall scheme of things his sentencing is simply not rational when compared to the much more lenient sentences handed out to rapists, murderers and thugs of all description. It's all about proportionate responses, and that is in no way "blatantly sexist".

[Steve Axford]

I think you're missing several vital points here. Firstly, it has been made abundantly clear that most people here support the rights of women and respect their right to live their lives without harassment. That's not sexist. The problem lies in overreaction and trial by media.

Few of us like politicians, but to suggest that they lose their rights simply by becoming a public figure beggars belief. Everyone is entitled to a presumption of innocence - end of story. As for Larry Nassar, no-one would suggest that he deserves leniency, but in the overall scheme of things his sentencing is simply not rational when compared to the much more lenient sentences handed out to rapists, murderers and thugs of all description. It's all about proportionate responses, and that is in no way "blatantly sexist".

So your statement
"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 .... "
should be all that we read? I was once told that everything before a but was bullsh**. Perhaps we should extend that to everything before a "however" as well.

The simple fact that no women have commented must give you a clue to how women feel about this "in no way blatantly sexist conversation".

As for Robert Doyle - has he been sacked or jailed? No, he has resigned and Jeff Kennett has claimed that the stress has caused him mental health issues. Jeff Kennett is the story.
As for Larry Nassar - what sentence would you give him? You do know that he is in the USA where they have the highest rate of incarceration in the world, about 6 times the rate that we have here. Also he has faced numerous charges and the judge made the sentences consecutive, so the end result sounds like a lot, but it is simply life with no parole. Lots of prisoners get that in the USA.

[bobt]

The simple fact that no women have commented must give you a clue to how women feel about this "in no way blatantly sexist conversation".

As for Robert Doyle - has he been sacked or jailed? No, he has resigned and Jeff Kennett has claimed that the stress has caused him mental health issues. Jeff Kennett is the story.
As for Larry Nassar - what sentence would you give him?

Without any women participating in the discussion one can only surmise what prevents them from doing so. I suspect it is because this conversation has been exclusively male and entering as a lone female would be somewhat intimidating. We cannot force them to engage, but it's certainly not for the want of trying and I would dearly like to hear a female perspective. As far as Robert Doyle is concerned, what person would not feel overwhelmed, stressed and intimidated by an avalanche of very public negativity. I suspect I'd be losing my marbles a bit if it happened to me - perhaps you are different. I do not support lynch mobs, and that is what we're seeing here.

Larry Nassar? Where do you place his actions on the overall scale of harm done to others? Is he better of worse than a murderer? Is he better or worse than someone who physically harms someone? To what extent does psychological harm outweigh physical harm? These are the issues in focus here.

[Steve Axford]

Without any women participating in the discussion one can only surmise what prevents them from doing so. I suspect it is because this conversation has been exclusively male and entering as a lone female would be somewhat intimidating. We cannot force them to engage, but it's certainly not for the want of trying and I would dearly like to hear a female perspective. As far as Robert Doyle is concerned, what person would not feel overwhelmed, stressed and intimidated by an avalanche of very public negativity. I suspect I'd be losing my marbles a bit if it happened to me - perhaps you are different. I do not support lynch mobs, and that is what we're seeing here.

Larry Nassar? Where do you place his actions on the overall scale of harm done to others? Is he better of worse than a murderer? Is he better or worse than someone who physically harms someone? To what extent does psychological harm outweigh physical harm? These are the issues in focus here.

Who's lynching him? I see no noose strung over a tree. Trial by media isn't a new thing. It has been happening ever since there was media. I don't excuse them (or should that be us?) but I don't assume that Robert Doyle is as pure as the driven snow either. It was his choice to resign and Jeff Kennett's choice to make an issue of it.

I repeat my question re Larry Nassar - what sentence would you give him?

I think that life is appropriate given what he has done and where he lives.

and p.s.
With regards to your comment "I suspect it is because this conversation has been exclusively male and entering as a lone female would be somewhat intimidating." why would a female regard a conversation that is all male, intimidating? Unless of course the conversation is sexist.

[bobt]

Who's lynching him? I don't assume that Robert Doyle is as pure as the driven snow either.

I suspect you already know that "lynching" is a metaphor, so I smell a red herring there. Again, the whole point is that we simply don't know about what Doyle may or may not have done. Trial by media (is this getting circular?)

I repeat my question re Larry Nassar - what sentence would you give him? I think that life is appropriate given what he has done and where he lives.

Firstly, it's not my place to sentence him, but I do not believe that a sentence of that magnitude is justifiable. Secondly, you raise an interesting philosophical point in that you suggest that justice should not be uniformly applied but subjected to geographical considerations. On that basis you might just as well suggest that he should be executed given that the US still supports capital punishment. If we start accepting injustice simply because it is accepted in some parts of the world, then that is indeed a very slippery slope. Using your logic one would have to support couples being lashed if they happen to be caught alone together. Punishment and culpability are universal considerations and suggesting that a more repressive sentencing regime is acceptable just seems odd to me.

[Steve Axford]

I suspect you already know that "lynching" is a metaphor, so I smell a red herring there. Again, the whole point is that we simply don't know about what Doyle may or may not have done. Trial by media (is this getting circular?)



Firstly, it's not my place to sentence him, but I do not believe that a sentence of that magnitude is justifiable. Secondly, you raise an interesting philosophical point in that you suggest that justice should not be uniformly applied but subjected to geographical considerations. On that basis you might just as well suggest that he should be executed given that the US still supports capital punishment. If we start accepting injustice simply because it is accepted in some parts of the world, then that is indeed a very slippery slope. Using your logic one would have to support couples being lashed if they happen to be caught alone together. Punishment and culpability are universal considerations and suggesting that a more repressive sentencing regime is acceptable just seems odd to me.

Lets agree to differ on Robert Doyle.

So, you think Larry Nassar deserves less than a life sentence.
My comment about geographic location wasn't philosophical, it was a comment on the US sentencing practices, where he is being sentenced. I don't agree with sentencing practices in the USA, but the sentence of life seems reasonable when compared to an average 16 month non-parole sentence for burglary. Your diversion into "couples being lashed if they happen to be caught alone together", isn't relevant, nor is the use of the term "slippery slope".

[ricktas]

It seems an odd argument to say that women shouldn't complain because men might not employ them if they do. Sounds like the Harvey Weinstein argument?

I did not say that. You need to read what is written and stop twisting words to suit your agenda. You appear to only join in these conversation to enflame the discussion. Manipulating others words to get the debate more heated.

I said some men are avoiding employing women to protect themselves from false accusations. The accusations stick, and the media rarely reports on the court outcome if it is proven the man was innocent. People remember the headlines! When was the last time you saw 'Catholic Priest proven innocent of charges'... if at all, it is small print on page 10. Yet the accusation is front page... and that is what people remember.

[Steve Axford]

I did not say that. You need to read what is written and stop twisting words to suit your agenda. You appear to only join in these conversation to enflame the discussion. Manipulating others words to get the debate more heated.

I said some men are avoiding employing women to protect themselves from false accusations. The accusations stick, and the media rarely reports on the court outcome if it is proven the man was innocent. People remember the headlines! When was the last time you saw 'Catholic Priest proven innocent of charges'... if at all, it is small print on page 10. Yet the accusation is front page... and that is what people remember.

I don't think I have twisted your words. I just said it in a simpler way.
Maybe the Weinstein comment was slightly provokotive, but the parallel was too tempting.

There may have been the rare Catholic priest who was falsely accused, but then there are many more who were guilty and protected by their church.

[Mark L]

Perhaps women would comment if the thread wasn't so blatantly sexist. Maybe if someone were to point out that a woman using her charms is not the same as a man using his power, then we would be moving towards a discussion.

Not sure about the sexist bit but I like this and it gets lost in blokes quibbling. We can all flirt and still draw a line. Some have less power o draw that line.

.... People remember the headlines! When was the last time you saw 'Catholic Priest proven innocent of charges'... if at all, it is small print on page 10. Yet the accusation is front page... and that is what people remember.

Police tread lightly here and not to many Priests charged that haven't been convicted I'd think?

[John King]

Not sure about the sexist bit but I like this and it gets lost in blokes quibbling. We can all flirt and still draw a line. Some have less power o draw that line.


Police tread lightly here and not to many Priests charged that haven't been convicted I'd think?

Mark, read the case reports on the Broken Rites web site. It took me some days to read them all. Anger and tears in equal measure ... It is the gross breach of such a position of trust that I find so very sickening, and the acts themselves of course.

[ricktas]

I don't think I have twisted your words. I just said it in a simpler way.

if that is what you think you have completely misread what I stated.

[Steve Axford]

if that is what you think you have completely misread what I stated.

Ok Rick, you said "
I said some men are avoiding employing women to protect themselves from false accusations"
There implication here that women often make false accusations. Do you mean to say this? There is also an implied threat. Women had best not make accusations or men won't employ them. It also assumes that men will be doing the hiring - though this is usually true currently.

[Tannin]

Steve and Mark, it is no use pretending that this is a male/female question. Let me illustrate with a little story.

When I was about 16, I was working as a cleaner for a large, multi-national company (at the usual pitiful wages, of course). It was a decent job so far as jobs for unskilled teenagers go, but it was often boring, and pretty hard work. By the time I paid the rent on my one-bedroom flat in Melbourne there was never much left over. Getting through from one pay-day to the next was always a bit of a battle.

One day I fell into conversation with a passer-by. He was impressed by my energy and attention to detail, or so he said, and after we had talked for a while he asked if I was interested in a better job. Sure I was. He turned out to be a bookmaker and he needed an assistant. Something like adult wages to start with, interesting work (most things seem quite interesting when you spend your working day washing windows, mopping floors, and cleaning toilets), lots to see and learn, good prospects for advancement if I wanted to learn the trade. So I accepted and, a few days later, turned up to start.

Before too long I discovered that, yes, I'd be writing out the odd betting slip at country racecourses, but the important part of my duties would would take place in bed. I wasn't keen on waving goodbye to an otherwise promising career move, but that wasn't to my taste and I went back to my old job. (Luckily, I hadn't handed in my notice there yet. Can't remember why not, maybe I was on annual leave or something. But it wouldn't have been hard to get another cleaning job elsewhere at the same lousy wage.)

This is exactly the sort of thing the #me_too people are making a fuss about. Would it make sense for me to suddenly go public with names and dates and calls for punishment after all these years? Of course not. (All else aside, I don't remember his name or even what year it was; sometime around about 1978 I guess.) And if I did, he would have absolutely no opportunity to defend himself. It would be my word against his. And, in the current climate, he would suffer a very severe penalty whether I was telling the truth or not.

Anyway, where was the actual harm in it? He made an offer (not in so many words, but we both knew what the score was) and once the scheme of things became plain, I declined it, as I had every right to. (Note that I also had the right to accept it, if that had happened to be my thing. Some people would do more than that for a good job with prospects, and although we will never know, my best guess is that the offer was genuine and the job would have been both interesting and well-paid.)

Now, cast your mind back to a previous post where, in passing, I mentioned getting vamped by a young woman looking for a job. This was years later, when I was running my own business and employing six or eight people at any one time. In the first instance above, he was offering a job in exchange for sex. In this second instance, she was offering sex in exchange for a job. Where is the difference?

More to the point, where is the similarity? What do the two examples have in common? Simply this: a willingness to exchange sex for money. In neither case was anybody harmed; in neither case did anybody do anything they were not willing to do. In both cases we had an older, wealthier person and a proposal that a younger, poorer person pay his or her way into a job with the oldest coin of all. In neither case was the proposal accepted.

Point is, it's not a male/female thing. It's a willingness to trade money or career for sex thing.

(As a matter of detail, in the second example my 2IC thought the young applicant was very keen and well-presented and might be just what we needed. She wanted to put the applicant on for two week's paid work experience; I dubiously assented, saying nothing about the offer I'd ignored, and there was no further trouble - apart from the fact that the young woman turned out to be quite unable to do most of the things she'd claimed to be an expert in, and didn't show any particular aptitude for learning them. Two weeks were soon over and that was the last we saw of her. A few months later, we heard on the grapevine that this young, ambitious woman who was all front and no performance, and who was considered by all who worked with her at our place to be not worth employing as the fifth-best technician out of five - and bear in mind here that we happily used to put on people with no computer skills at all provided they had a good attitude and an ability to learn - had been taken on by a competitor and let go two weeks later because she wasn't any good at the job, then taken on permanently by another, larger competitor ... wait for it ... as Chief Technician! (Sound of jaws dropping onto the carpet, followed by incredulous laughter.) I prefer not to speculate as to how she landed that job, nor how she had managed to get her technical qualification certificates the year before, but you have to wonder how much of her success came about through what we might call "unorthodox methods". Whenever I happen to remember these long-ago events, I always wonder how much her remarkably underwhelming set of hands-on competencies had to do with the firm going spectacularly broke six or twelve months later. So who was hurt by it? Certainly not me. I'd had the sense to play a straight defensive bat to that curly ball. Certainly not her: she got a great job, something impressive to put on her CV, and presumably some pretty good money. The real victim here - if any - was the company and its shareholders.)

[bcys1961]

I think you completely miss the point of the #metoo movement with the above little story . Agreed , if people want to exchange sex for money ( in the form of a job) and both do it consensually then no problem (maybe?) . But what if your bookmaker friend had said , once you declined the offer - If you don't give me sex I will make sure you never work in this town again ! And you knew he/she had the ability to carry through on this threat.

The whole point of the #metoo movement is that employers with a huge amount of power ( mostly men) have put employees ( mostly woman) into positions where they feel they have little choice but to comply with their requests and it is definitely not consensual.