Alas, there is something quite intriguing about the cover. Nowhere does it bring up the terms “sexual abuse,” “sexual harassment,” “sexual misconduct” or any of its permutations. There are no references to “rape,” “justice,” “corruption,” or even “equality.” Indeed, if you had no idea what #MeToo was referring to, you’d be plumb perplexed as to why a major news magazine was seemingly advocating the wholesale puncturing of latex ding-dongs.
Rather, the Newsweek cover seems to post a general “war of the sexes” message, with men—those vertical pissing neanderthals they are—depicted as the deserving victims of an upcoming penile purge. “Watch out boys,” the cover implies, “us women are here to take control, and we’re taking your peckers with us as war trophies.”
About as much as one should expect from media really, it ain't a bastion of rad fems or anything.
Long story short, a lot of these harassment accusers—be they real or phony victims—aren’t looking for justice. They don’t want their harassers tried in a court of law for their criminal misdeeds; they want free and easy money. They couldn’t give a shit about their dignity, all they’re seeing is dollar signs and quite possibly the ability to salvage their sagging careers under the auspices of a trendy hashtag.
Why else would anyone drudge up alleged sexual misadventures that took place in the late 1970s, or suddenly spill the beans about gross harassment incidents after 20 years of working with the alleged pervert? The statutes of limitation have long since passed, and the only three things that can come out of such accusations are public sympathy (itself a precious commodity for many a washed-up or never-was actress), the public shaming of their alleged abusers (which I suppose can also be considered a commodity of sorts), and out of court pocket change.
It seems like they're positing speculative motivations but don't really have any handle on what real motivations may be. But in the realm of speculation, a lot of things can be treated as on equal grounds without compelling reasons why one speculation should trump an another except for one's disposition to one answer or another.
It seems folks take issue with people sharing such experiences if it's not in the court of law. Regardless of a sensationalist media that isn't motivated by the issue itself, it doesn't negate that it is an issue of importance for many and one that is often pushed out of the spotlight.
It seems that many are so uncomfortable with it that they have nothing but to denigrate bring center stage that sexual hostility towards women is relatively normalized despite any attempts to create a binary in which it's only the poor or the coloured that do it.
Because it wasn't poor and coloured folk harassing women in these high profile cases it actually shot out as not as expected to the common narrative of sexual violence of strangers from bad background but well to do and powerful guys. Which should intuitively make sense that having power over others means others are vulnerable to them and vulnerability intuitively relates to one's ability to be subject to violence, harassment and other things against one's will.
Hell, even Terry Crews got a story in this shit of having his genitals touched unwarranted/nonconseusally.
Instead the author's function here is only to delegitmize and paint those who speak about such experiences as wash up money grubbing.
To which I don't even buy the negative connotation in regards to the idea of grubbing for money as all that compelling because it seems reasonable that people would seek some sort of compensation for such things
. To which everyone's ideal answer is the justice system, but there are many reasons people don't report and go through the criminal courts. Something entirely ignored in this, the investment in resources, time and energy.
Reported allegation don't make something true and false allegations can be destructive in a social nature.The Impact of Being Wrongly Accused of Abuse in Occupations of Trust: Victims’ Voices
But there's not necessarily evidence to disprove the allegations either, because in courts, the innocent until proven guilty also applies to the idea that something is false. So if one wishes to apply such a formal standard to the informal public setting of opinion, then ideally everyone leaves things in the realm of speculation and limited facts unable to meet a certain standard to conclude a confident probability of whether something did or did not happen.
And such people getting fired is associated with how companies often function which is the social space.
No matter if something is true or not, they often dispose of people based on a bad image 'justified' or not.
This is the fickleness of companies a lot of the time, bad PR is to be disposed of.
It's been this way for a long time now.
Even in a basic sense, business is becoming dependent on public opinion. With the increasing volume and wider diffusion of wealth in America, thousands of persons now invest in industrial stocks. New stock or bond flotations, upon which an expanding business must depend for its success, can be effected only if the concern has understood how to gain the confidence and good will of the general public. Business must express itself and its entire corporate existence so that the public will understand and accept it. It must dramatize its personality and interpret its objectives in every particular in which it comes into contact with the community (or the nation) of which it is a part.
An oil corporation which truly understands its many-sided relation to the public, will offer that public not only good oil but a sound labor policy. A bank will seek to show not only that its management is sound and conservative, but also that its officers are honorable both in their public and in their private life. A store specializing in fashionable men's clothing will express in its architecture the authenticity of the goods it offers. A bakery will seek to impress the public with the hygienic care observed in its manufacturing process, not only by wrapping its loaves in dust-proof paper and throwing its factory open to public inspection, but also by the cleanliness and attractiveness of its delivery wagons. A construction firm will take care that the public knows not only that its buildings are durable and safe, but also that its employees, when injured at work, are compensated. At whatever point a business enterprise impinges on the public consciousness, it must seek to give its public relations the particular character which will conform to the objectives which it is pursuing.
Just as the production manager must be familiar with every element and detail concerning the materials with which he is working, so the man in charge of a firm's public relations must be familiar with the structure, the prejudices, and the whims of the general public, and must handle his problems with the utmost care. The public has its own standards and demands and habits. You may modify them, but you dare not run counter to them. You cannot persuade a whole generation of women to wear long skirts, but you may, by working through leaders of fashion, persuade them to wear evening dresses which are long in back. The public is not an amorphous mass which can be molded at will, or dictated to. Both business and the public have their own personalities which must somehow be brought into friendly agreement. Conflict and suspicion are injurious to both.
Modern business must study on what terms the partnership can be made amicable and mutually beneficial. It must explain itself, its aims, its objectives, to the public in terms which the public can understand and is willing to accept.
Business does not willingly accept dictation from the public. It should not expect that it can dictate to the public. While the public should appreciate the great economic benefits which business offers, thanks to mass production and scientific marketing, business should also appreciate that the public is becoming increasingly discriminative in its standards and should seek to understand its demands and meet them. The relationship between business and the public can be healthy only if it is the relationship of give and take.
It is this condition and necessity which has created the need for a specialized field of public relations. Business now calls in the public relations counsel to advise it, to interpret its purpose to the public, and to suggest those modifications which may make it conform to the public demand.
Another instrument of propaganda is the personality. Has the device of the exploited personality been pushed too far? President Coolidge photographed on his vacation in full Indian regalia in company with full-blooded chiefs, was the climax of a greatly over-reported vacation. Obviously a public personality can be made absurd by misuse of the very mechanism which helped create it.
Yet the vivid dramatization of personality will always remain one of the functions of the public relations counsel. The public instinctively demands a personality to typify a conspicuous corporation or enterprise.
There is a story that a great financier discharged a partner because he had divorced his wife.
"But what," asked the partner, "have my private affairs to do with the banking business?"
"If you are not capable of managing your own wife," was the reply, "the people will certainly believe that you are not capable of managing their money."
The propagandist must treat personality as he would treat any other objective fact within his province.
A personality may create circumstances, as Lindbergh created good will between the United States and Mexico. Events may create a personality, as the Cuban War created the political figure of Roosevelt. It is often difficult to say which creates the other. Once a public figure has decided what ends he wishes to achieve, he must regard himself objectively and present an outward picture of himself which is consistent with his real character and his aims.
To which of course the idea is that it can become a witch hunt because this is the hot thing for the media, it extends itself beyond reasonable means.
Such as the example brought up with Tavis Smiley who asserts his relationships were consensual which is of course quite distinct from someone harassing their employees. He even summarizes work place relationships rather well, though they are not encouraged they are not forbidden either.
But then again, its not often that such things are criminal charges but of ethics of an industry or business that sets the standards. Teachers can have consensual sex with their students at college but the college may still fire them on ethical grounds.
Which points to standards in some settings where even when expressedly consensual among adults, the relation between people is set as an ethical barrier. If one has an issue then it should be with the fickle nature of businesses who will readily give up such personalities for fear of it's damage.
This applies to anyone and everyone when they do or say something that isn't in accordance with the image as idealized and cultivated by those who run such things. One shouldn't project moral integrity onto faceless entities whose motivations will be constituted by their role in an organization, unless they are of such strong character as to press against it. Like say someone at PBS for some reason had some power and standards to stand up for Tavis Smiley.
But it seems rather strong position to be so demonizing simply because its being in the public setting and not the criminal courts. But of course, true to the author, he's pandering to those who accept certain preconceptions about women into a narrative of how its all a means to a spectacular end.
To which it seems that such men losing money and power is at best simply an implication rather than a apparent motive. It seems to weak to confidently assert such strong intentionality and seems only to be acceptable if one already has 'evil money grubbing women' preconception. To which some women can be but not sure it's effort is all that compelling in regards to the specific women except to ignore other possibilities in order to rhetorically emphasize that which supports its point speculatively.
I mean, it seems quite hysterical itself when its speculative conclusion is...
We are on the verge of general society becoming an unconstitutional gynocracy where due process amidst sexual assault allegations
I'd be interesting in hearing what people's thoughts are on dealing with allegations that circulate in public and have social consequences as distinct from court cases. Because ideally it gives warning to others to be careful based on precedent of such individuals. At worse, it damages the public image of those whose public image is often important to their work and for others their social relations.
I don't know what is to be done in the public space because I don't see it as reasonable to bar media from reporting allegations of any time. It seems its just inherently a unpleasant thing and it would seem that any avenues to try and mitigate such conflict would be unreasonable relative to simply letting these things play out.
But then even in the legal realm, I don't much care for defamation laws
which in practice seem only to function as a censor for those with wealth.
And I can't say I see how this is creating a problem for poorer/less powerful men being accused.
That stuff can have social repercussions as well on a smaller scale and this happens to varying degrees regardless of and prior to this. On the other hand, there is hostility towards those who allege such things in spite of the simplistic narrative that such allegations are always accepted, losing sight of any nuance in how there are tensions and different dominant factors as to whom is believed.
Because its a significant thing to allege as much and necessarily has social implications. It challenges people's preconceptions and mental constructions of individuals and makes them question to which many people don't like the question int he first place, they have allegiance to certain things or people.
The balance is of course that there is prevalent sexual hostility towards women in society which is largely unheard of and ignored and when brought to light in precedent has often been attacked by some.
Common efforts for example to emphasize false allegations as more prevalent than they are although its clear that law enforcement often files things as false without evidence when things are simply unproven or uninvestigated leading to inflated stats.
Or little effort to effectively distinguish someone who is fasley alleging something from someone who isn't. Which is often based in smearing the image of the accuser based on speculated possibilities, (ie she money grubbing, which isn't definitive proof of falsity but an hypothetical person that can in practice be treated as reality without further evidence).