Escaping the Echo Chamber

[Sunsilver]

Men need to change their behaviour. The sort of behaviour you see in this video should NOT be acceptable, yet many men think it IS!

https://www.facebook.com/attn/videos/1531260430242744/

[Dave_LF]

Men need to change their behaviour.

No, those men need to change their behavior. I am not responsible for that sort of thing any more than the women on the receiving end were "asking for it."

(I am making assumptions about the content of the video since I can't follow a facebook link without being logged in)

[Sunsilver]

Have a look when you get the time! It features Lily Tomlin and Jane Fonda as waitresses having to deal with sexist comments from a customer. As you might imagine, they give as good as they get... ...Oh, the BURN!

[Nin]

But the discussion was not "here are some helpful tips for women who are concerned about assault". It was "That rape victim sure was reckless and foolish. I mean, what did she expect?"

Not, that wasn't the discussion - at least not how I saw/heard/felt it. It was: some people might call that rape victim foolish - and in how far can we understand where they are coming from?

Anyway, Sunsilver: DSK: Dominique Strauss Kahn, potential candidate for the last (not this, the one four years ago) French presidential election who raped a maid in his hotel room. (and generally was well known for predatory sexual behavior...)

I still don't know what king hit means

[Dave_LF]

I still don't know what king hit means

Neither do I. Ah; urbandictionary does:

King Hit
A term widely used in Australia. A very hard punch, usually delivered to the head, that is completely unexpected. Most often results in knock outs or knock downs. Viewed upon by most as an act of cowardice. Similar in meaning to sucker punch.

[Nin]

Because the rules for murder victims apply to EVERYONE not just one half of the population!

Not equally, by any means. Someone living in south Chicago has to be a whole lot more careful than I do. I did myself when I used to live in a sketchy part of Madison. Big, imposing men are safer than scrawny ones, etc. But why does it even matter? If the reality is that men and women face unequal risks, then what? We should pretend otherwise so we can say things are fair?

But that are individual or geographical differences - not group differences. You have those differences within the group of women too: women in a German Beer tent are more likely to be groped than in an embassy reception and less likely to be raped than any Afghan woman.

And no, we should not pretend that men and women face equal risks for any sake. But I think we should not pretend that insisting on women's behavior is part of the solution. It is imho (or not so humble) opinion part of the problem - especially if the insistance is coming from men. In my experience, often men insisting that women should not behave a certain way, are also incline to blame the victim. But I have no hard data on that experience. (and I don't want to insinuate that this was the intention of any of the posters here)

[Dave_LF]

I see nothing there to argue with.

[yovargas]

But the discussion was not "here are some helpful tips for women who are concerned about assault". It was "That rape victim sure was reckless and foolish. I mean, what did she expect?"

Not, that wasn't the discussion - at least not how I saw/heard/felt it. It was: some people might call that rape victim foolish - and in how far can we understand where they are coming from?

Fair enough. My answer would be, yes, I understand where they are coming from but I don't think it is fair or helpful.

[Nin]

Nin, I found myself nodding along with everything you said, but there there was this:

For centuries women have adapted their behavior and it has not stopped sexual harassment. How about attacking the problem from the other end this time?

I understand it hasn't always been that way, but harassment and rape are both illegal and thoroughly stigmatized now; or at least they are in the places we live. How does that not count as attacking the problem from the other end?

It counts, but it's not enough and by far not.


Sorry for my decomposed answers. I am correcting German grammar tests with my other brain.

[Lalaith]

I deliberately picked this one for that reason. Yes, it was an appalling thing to say. The question is whether it should be a career ending mistake? He profusely and unequivocally apologised, and is undoubtedly a product of his generation, but even so it was a terrible thing to say. But should it be career ending?

To give an opinion your original question, I would say that it depends. Is this the first time he has said things like this? If so, then perhaps training/education would be appropriate. If it's not the first time, then I would lean toward firing him.

As for the rest of it, I'm fairly worked up on several points and am not sure I can respond well right now.

[Inanna]

Nin, your answers don't sound decomposed at all - they are wonderfully composed.

Regarding the echo chamber - I think it is a very small chamber, and largely in the media or online.

Consider these following examples I have personally experienced in the last one month:
1. A person (who, by the way, is brilliant and not sexist at all when it comes to his students) and Editor of a major journal said, "the problem is that the women AEs are not quantitatively good enough. But I can't say that in public." But he just said to me. And I'm glad he can't say that in public because of the pathetic effects it would have on all women aspiring to be AEs.
2. A colleague, to another colleague, "the problem is that we recruit all these girls who want to do PhDs and then they don't want to move out of the NY area". I'm sitting right there.
3. Our department is discussing lack of diversity - we have 0 african-americans in our department. One colleague giggles and says "how about I just declare myself african-american".

In all of these instances I cringed, but I didn't say anything. Because I am in a powerless position. And *this* is a liberal university in a liberal city.

What echo chamber?

[Frelga]

Whereas I am a part of highly diverse organization with many female and minority managers and directors. That kind of comment would not fly, and the person making it would face dire consequences. Which I support.

OK, with an asterisk - we are not perfect and I'm sure these things are being said in private. But not openly.

It's all about power.

To back up all the way - why was that particular story brought up in the first place? People do things of various degree of risk all the time. Why was that woman singled out to be personally responsible?

[Cerin]

What the Irish broadcaster said strikes me as very illogical. How does meeting someone in a bar and going to have sex with them (which I agree is very imprudent behavior) connect in any way to the unpredictable occurrence of someone else happening into the room? How could she possibly in any way be held responsible for something completely arbitrary that no one could have foreseen?

I think it's an unfortunate case of the broadcaster using a muddled example. A simpler example would be, a college woman going to a frat party, drinking until she's insensible and then reacting with surprise when she discovers she was sexually assaulted while unconscious.

Part of the problem is there is no room for nuance or intelligent debate in the public forum anymore, because of the dumbed-downedness and instantaneous nature of social media and the absence of what is referred to as cognitive empathy. I am usually extremely irritated whenever I hear about someone being summarily fired because they didn't have their politically correct t's crossed and i's dotted. This is one of the things, I believe, that is responsible for Trump being in the White House. People are sick of being told what they are allowed to think and say.

[Alatar]

To give an opinion your original question, I would say that it depends. Is this the first time he has said things like this? If so, then perhaps training/education would be appropriate. If it's not the first time, then I would lean toward firing him.

I would say he's a conservative pundit, and one who often takes contrarian stances for the sake of debate (a professional Devil's advocate, if you will) but not in the league of a Rush Limbaugh type. He has certainly said controversial things in the past, but in the trial by social media the only things brought up were comments from his autobiography where he referred to women in a laddish manner, though never anything as crude as what Trump said. IIRC he passed a comment in his autobiography about a woman who had "magnificent breasts". He has also spoken openly and candidly about his own issues with Erectile Dysfunction and male impotency, and is an advocate for mental health issues. As part of the witch hunt, his radio station was targeted as being a "Boys club" because there was only one female presenter, despite the fact that most of the producers and staff were female, including the staff on George Hooks show, who described him as "an absolute gentleman".

To back up all the way - why was that particular story brought up in the first place? People do things of various degree of risk all the time. Why was that woman singled out to be personally responsible?

She wasn't really, no more than anyone else he commented on regularly. Whatever the news story, he had an opinion on it. Sometimes He would pick on one aspect of a story and address that if it interested him. His show was Talk Radio, opinion and discussion, not a dry news outlet. He regularly had Boston Conservatie broadcaster Michael Graham on as an example of extreme right wing, which made Geroge look positively liberal.

What the Irish broadcaster said strikes me as very illogical. How does meeting someone in a bar and going to have sex with them (which I agree is very imprudent behavior) connect in any way to the unpredictable occurrence of someone else happening into the room? How could she possibly in any way be held responsible for something completely arbitrary that no one could have foreseen?

I think it's an unfortunate case of the broadcaster using a muddled example. A simpler example would be, a college woman going to a frat party, drinking until she's insensible and then reacting with surprise when she discovers she was sexually assaulted while unconscious.

Part of the problem is there is no room for nuance or intelligent debate in the public forum anymore, because of the dumbed-downedness and instantaneous nature of social media and the absence of what is referred to as cognitive empathy. I am usually extremely irritated whenever I hear about someone being summarily fired because they didn't have their politically correct t's crossed and i's dotted. This is one of the things, I believe, that is responsible for Trump being in the White House. People are sick of being told what they are allowed to think and say.

I agree 100% Cerin, and he issued a full and unreserved apology. He's a man in his seventies who often rambles a bit and can be muddled at times, but he appeals to a certain demographic. Is he a dinosaur? Sure. But there's a place for those voices also in the media, surely.

[Maria]

I've been pondering for days how to express what I feel on this thread and it boils down to this:

The guys who could be influenced by any kind of argument about how to treat women already have been.

The guys that won't change, won't.

Why get into a lather about something that isn't going to change? The world is what it is. Humans are, for the most part, rather brutal, stupid, cruel and cowardly primates. It's nice that there are exceptions- but getting all upset about the nature of humanity isn't going to change that nature.

Protect yourself and yours and move on. Stressing about anything is bad for the health.

[Frelga]

I don't think it's true at all, Mary. That's why I'm still here talking to our guys.

[Maria]

Just because it's cynical, doesn't mean it's untrue.

[Alatar]

Inky said she didn't mind me sharing this here. I think its an excellent post.

One final thought from me about the case Alatar posted, where a man lost his job after he expressed an opinion about drinking and having sex with strangers after a sexual assault:

Out in the real world, opinions on sexual assault situations range the whole spectrum from the internet extremes of the vile "She deserved it" to the PC (for lack of a better shorthand term) "The victim always bears 0% responsibility for the situation that preceded her assault." This is not necessarily related to the case Alatar posted, but in all situations. In the Harvey Weinstein case, for instance, I've heard "Isn't that how Hollywood works? Some actresses sleep with the producer to get the part." (this was from people who had only superficially heard about the case and didn't realize it was about actual assaults and not sexual advances)

On this spectrum, I'm sure the average opinion also varies with the society and group - tending toward the "It wasn't/ mostly wasn't her fault" in some societies like ours, but somewhat further toward the other end in some places. Judging by what I've read of India after high profile rape cases, for example, I'd guess that some groups there would fall into the latter category.

If the automatic reaction to anyone not 100% on the PC end of the scale is a knee-jerk "How can you say that, you horrible person?" I don't think you're going to change any minds. People may become silent when constantly challenged but that's not necessarily because they agree.

And I don't think that's a healthy situation, either for the people who see shades of gray and become silent, or the ones who are convinced they have the only enlightened view of the situation.



Pretty much what Alatar said but more long-winded.

[Cerin]

I think people confuse the concepts of blame for an assault with blame for putting oneself in a high risk situation. They are entirely separate. A mugger bears 100% of the blame for a mugging, and a victim who chooses to walk alone in a high crime neighborhood late at night bears 100% of the blame for putting himself in a high risk situation. We are all responsible for our own actions, never for someone else's.

[yovargas]

*********************************

Why does a broadcaster start telling his audience that a rape victim is to blame for her assault? He has no idea of his audience's mental conditions, he has no idea who they are, he has no idea what dangers they might pose. But modern day social activity means that he spouts off what's on his mind. Then is surprised when somebody else comes into the room and fires him. Should he be fired? Course he shouldn’t. Is he entitled to apologize? Absolutely. Are the people got that him fired scumbags? Probably. All of those things. But is there no blame now to the person who puts themselves in danger of being fired?

*********************************

Short answer is obviously that I'd prefer my daughter never puts herself in a position where she is not in complete control, but that's in an ideal world. Meeting a random stranger who she doesn't know, getting drunk and telling them your extremely controversial opinions is pretty much worst case scenario. In reality, I'd like to hope she doesn't put herself into such a position with a person she doesn't know, whether drunk or sober. Do I think she deserves to be assaulted for not following simple safety guidelines? Of course not. But that won't stop me from trying to impress on her in the strongest possible terms that she might be.

*********************************

The question is not whether the man was guilty of saying heinous things. The question is whether any of us are expected to take responsibility for our own actions that put us in danger of being fired for saying heinous things.

*********************************

We don't live in a perfect world. We know that there are people who will fire you for expressing extremely controversial opinions. This is fact.

In view of this fact, it makes more sense to make note of this and take reasonable action to prevent, avoid or evade this happening to you, than to ignore this fact, knowing it increases your risk of this happening to you. It's unfair, unjust, enraging, but it's fact.

*********************************