Well, that's not what I said and certainly not what I meant. Anyone should be able to speak openly about an assault they suffered through, without shame. But when we talk about this in general terms, we should be careful to make sure were speaking about the people who commit such crimes and not lumping all men into the same category. When men as a whole feel threatened, they tune out.
What I quoted, you said. I’m glad that it didn’t mean what it looked like to me.
But all I’ve seen of #metoo is people speaking out about what happened to them, personally. I haven’t seen any “all men” accusations, and if some are appropriating the movement to victimise innocent people, that’s hardly the movement’s fault.
It's true that you quoted what he said, but the way you characterized it afterwards was in a wildly divergent way given his actual words:
I agree that we should have a change, but I don't think the current #metoo movement is helping. Too many men feel as if they're under attack, and when that happens people tend to block out the overall message.
So, women should keep quiet about having been assaulted, because men who weren't involved don't want to hear it?
And it's women's responsibility to speak out less, to make sure the message isn't blocked out?
That line of reasoning sounds familiar, and not in a good way at all. I really hope that's not what you meant.
What Vince said was that he doesn't "think the current #metoo movement is helping. Too many men feel as if they're under attack, and when that happens people tend to block out the overall message." This could mean a lot of things and perhaps Vince is wrong. Or, maybe there's some truth to what he said but he wasn't clear in the way he stated it.
There are arguably several ways in which it could be said that the #metoo movement has been helpful but is also potentially harmful (i.e., "not helping"), and several women have recently written articles attesting to the fact that it might be spinning a bit out of control in some ways (I believe Vince even linked to at least two such articles earlier). Personally, I'm still scratching my head at how a bunch of celebrities who knew about past and ongoing cases of rape and sexual assault for decades, can dress in all black for an awards show and think that it somehow makes everything better or is an example of "fighting" or "standing up for" anything. But, that's just me.
However, the danger of this movement quickly snowballing into a type of scorched earth witchhunt (as I've mentioned before), much like the "satanic cult" scare of the 80s and the "recovered memories of sexual assault" bullshit of the 90s (assuming it isn't already going that way) is very real and shouldn't be scoffed at.
How you interpreted "I don't think the current #metoo movement is helping..." as somehow saying "So, women should keep quiet about having been assaulted, because men who weren't involved don't want to hear it?" and "it's women's responsibility to speak out less" is really beyond my logical comprehension. Because what he said doesn't at all suggest that, if one gives a good-faith reading of his post.
Your entire response was attacking a strawman. I'm not in your head (obviously...or am I?) but your response seems more like an emotional reaction to what some denialist, asshole men's right guy *might* say rather than a serious reading of Vince's actual words on the screen.
This can be an emotionally-charged issue for many people. I get that, but I think we would all do well to take a few deep breaths, re-read what someone has written, and rather than knee-jerk assuming the worst, maybe respond with "What do you mean by that?"
If the person then clarifies, and their clarification is an awful misogynist dumpster fire, then by all means go with your earlier response.
Okay, my title is obvious clickbait. But, you're already here, so you might as well stick around and read this.
I've mentioned in a few threads the problems with false memories, especially when it comes to eye witness testimony and the unethical ways in which witnesses are questioned by law enforcement sometimes. I've also questioned whether this could be an issue in the current milieu of the #MeToo movement for at least a small portion of claims of alleged incidents from decades ago. "Recovered memories" isn't nearly the problem it was 20 - 30 years ago, but "those who do not remember the past..." and all that (an unintentionally ironic quote to use here, given the subject of the article/book).
Well, a new book is suggesting that a false memory effect might have led to the conviction of Jerry Sandusky. If anything, it's at least thought-provoking.
The whole initiative against Sandusky had begun in November 2008 when Fisher, a former Second Miler whose delinquent tendencies had included a frequently rebuked penchant for lying, began at age 14 to feel that Sandusky’s attentions to him might have betrayed an aspect of perversion. Fisher had confided his worry to his mother, Dawn Daniels, who had taken advantage of Sandusky’s mentorship of her son to party hard in local bars. Until then, she had regarded Sandusky as “a real dumb jock with a heart of gold.” Now, however, she wanted to know whether he had ever molested her son.
The answer she received from her son was an unequivocal no. Aaron did hold a grudge against Sandusky, but on further questioning it transpired that the source of resentment was Sandusky’s insistence on staying in supportive contact with him after the boy had become exasperated with Second Mile moralism and positive thinking. It was his mother, now, who pursued the seduction theme. According to her next-door neighbor, Joshua Fravel, she once boasted, “I’m going to get a lawyer and make a million dollars off Jerry Sandusky.” She is also said to have told him, “I’m gonna own the motherfucker’s house.” Likewise, in Pendergrast’s words, “Aaron Fisher later allegedly told Fravel that he planned to buy a big house in the country for his mother and family….”
The problem, however, was that Aaron couldn’t initially bring himself to declare that Sandusky had ever molested him. Yes, Sandusky had hugged him to “crack his back” after wrestling around, but they had both been fully clothed. That was all. Social workers in Clinton County’s Children and Youth Services urged Aaron to say more, but when he still showed reluctance, they deduced that his memory needed enhancing. And so they sent him upstairs to the psychotherapist Mike Gillum, who was, in all respects except the name, a recovered memory psychologist.
Gillum believed, as did the tutors of the mass “recovered memory” delusion in the 1980s and 1990s, that the usual response to a trauma is to “dissociate,” blocking awareness of the event in progress while nevertheless storing a repressed recollection of it in the unconscious. The therapist’s imagined task was to bring that repressed memory into consciousness and thus, in theory, to restore psychological health. Typically, a sexual abuse specialist would build trust in him- or herself while subtracting it from the alleged abuser, most often a father, stepfather, or other caretaker. As this disorienting process rendered patients more agitated and depressed, their unraveling would be offered as proof that the repressed memories were approaching the surface at last. The unraveling, anyway, was genuine. Aaron Fisher, for example, suffered panic attacks, became suicidal, and nearly killed himself in a car wreck.
I have no idea if any of this is actually true but, if it is, this sounds a lot like the same type of manipulative bullshit that was going on during the "repressed/recovered memory" rage of the mid-90s. Especially this part...
This was to be Aaron Fisher’s development under the watchful eye of Mike Gillum. The latter, noting Aaron’s nervousness in his company, classified him at once as a survivor of molestation. Gillum began spending many hours each day with the boy and making himself available by phone around the clock. He told Aaron that he would help and protect him until the memory of abuse could be safely expressed. As Fisher would later avow, “It wasn’t until I was 15 and started seeing Mike that I realized the horror.” Nor was it necessary for Aaron to tell Gillum what he thought had happened. The psychologist prided himself on guessing the truth and stating it to the boy, who would simply nod his head or say “Yes” or “No”—and “No” was clearly not an acceptable answer.
Having seen Aaron Fisher every day for weeks, Gillum felt frustrated when he was excluded from Aaron’s first police interrogation, which yielded meager results. After that setback, though, Gillum became in effect a tool of the prosecution, sitting in on every interview and, by his very presence, reminding Aaron of what he was expected to say.
I'm also left wondering why, if the claims made in this book have any merit, that Sandusky's lawyers haven't used this information to try to get his conviction overturned? Is that evidence that it's all bullshit, evidence that there's just no hope he could get a fair hearing from a judge on it, or evidence that his legal team is incompetent?
Also, even if he wasn't guilty, some of his more chummy, physical behavior (as described) with some of the boys seems a bit weird, if not somewhat creepy, which leaves me with even more questions.
So...I dunno. I haven't read the book but it does seem like the author is making a compelling, controversial, but seemingly well-researched set of claims with it.
There's a lot of other interesting information in this review of the book, that you should read for yourself if you're interested. Be warned, though. The article is rather long.
Manning has always struck me as more than a bit unhinged. Her motivation for leaking intel in the first place was petty revenge and the things she's said/done ever since haven't engendered much confidence in me that she's at all a rational person.
Her Twitter feed pretty much confirms that. In an ideal world, she has no business in public office at all, let alone the Senate.
But...well...that's not the world we live in, obviously, so who knows what will happen.
I find it utterly unsurprising that his disparaging comments were about countries with majority black/brown citizens and his complimentary comments were about a country with majority caucasian/european citizens.
As much as I hate the word "toxic," given the cliche ways it's used in modern parlance, I can't help but think how much Google's corporate culture sounds like a toxic environment. Just going off what's contained in that article, it sounds like a festering cess pool of brainwashed virtue-signaling. Seriously, the language used in some of those emails and message-board posts mimics that used in religious cults and makes Google sound like a Silicon Valley North Korea.
Yeah, I agree she's not at all stupid. Probably very sharp.
But, she doesn't come across to me as much of an analytic thinker and she's way too credulous of bullshit that feeds into her biases (like the garbage that came out of Dr. Phil's and Dr. Oz's mouths and all the other woo she's fallen for).
But, she's not a legitimately qualified candidate and, unless she were to run for lower office and get some actual experience, she never will be. I realize "that didn't stop Trump," but I'd rather the country not make the same type of mistake again.
I want to have slightly more faith in Arizona than I did in Alabama, because they elected Janet Napolitano governor (and didn't actually elect Jan Brewer), but they elected Dan Ducey after Brewer's disastrous tenure, and he doesn't seem to be any better than her.
So...yeah. It'll be an interesting race to watch but I'm a bit sickened by the thought of someone like him in the Senate.
Here's something else that's funny. It's funny when Opty accuses me of "following him around the board" but his first contribution to a thread about a mass shooting is an obvious attempt to mock the person he despises most on The Colline Gate.
There's a name for someone who follows someone else around a board and it rhymes with "bowl" and lurks under a bridge.
Oh, yes. You've totally disproved my assertion by making your very first post back one where you dredge up a 2 month old post of mine and write a 900-word dissertation about how you don't actually stalk my posts and things people say here don't really bother you.
I'm sure everyone here is now thoroughly convinced.
I suppose everyone has now heard the call of #Oprah2020, the idea that maybe Oprah Winfrey could run for President against Trump in 2020.
She certainly has the money and the connections to make a run. And if she was running against Trump, I wouldn't bet against her, because lets' be honest, she'd drive up turnout--mostly to her benefit, I think--like nobody's business.
Of course, that doesn't mean she'd be a good President, anymore than Trump's wealth and connections meant he'd be a good President.
People--serious people--seem to recognize this pitfall. For instance, Sally Kohn at CNN:
To be clear, progressives have spent much of the last two years lamenting the idea of a billionaire TV star sitting in the Oval Office -- and for good reason. Donald Trump has repeatedly demonstrated himself to be a narcissist with no interest in learning about the nuances of policy, let alone government.
And yet, she immediately tosses those concerns away, because after all, Oprah is special:
Oprah deserves her own category for most things in life -- and this is no different. There are TV stars and movie producers and charitable leaders and public intellectuals -- and then there's Oprah. Her singular ability to connect with people of all walks of life and build empires to help them, especially those most marginalized, is unparalleled.
Oh. My. God. Hero worship much? And this is exactly the sort of nonsense that Trump fanboys said about Trump in 2016 (and before). Of course, such fanboys were largely ridiculed for their fanboyism (and rightly so, imo). But now, it's all good, because it's Oprah...
People shouldn't forget that Oprah is responsible for unleashing both Dr. Phil and Dr. Oz on the world (who have done much more harm to the nation than good), and hyper-credulously promoted that "Million Little Pieces" fraud James Frey on her show. She's also peddled that idiotic "The Secret" crap on her show as well as a laundry list of other pseudoscientific garbage.
The nation just saw what happens when you elected an idiotic TV star to the WH. Let's not make the same mistake again.