How about an example of "sexual harrassment" that doesn't warrant the above consequences? Got one handy?
I actually reject your question for its irresponsible lack of definition. You know how easily I can answer you? Here, try this: They are among ones you don't hear about. Someone says something wrong, gets called out, acknowledges it, corrects behavior.
In the Eighties there was a bit about the Satanist next door, that you wouldn't necessarily know the perfectly wonderful people you played Canasta with each Thursday night were Satanists, unless they told you, and they weren't going to tell you unless they asked. Its context was the period when Christianists wanted people freaking out about Satanism in rock music, and Geraldo Rivera hosting a prime-time special on the subject. Many are watching, closely, to see if the
New York Times is really going there with their next-door-Nazi puff coverage.
There are even more complicated versions of resolution, because it gets more complicated when someone
does, instead of says, but that's the thing, resolutions require everyone involved to do their part, and there comes a point at which that all depends on how the accused responds to being called out. Meanwhile, you're also not hearing about a whole lot of what is going on because our society works to keep a bunch of it quiet in order to protect harassers, abusers, and assailants.
So, for starters, I'm going to go with that: There are incidents you just won't hear about because they get resolved appropriately. And even if they are a minority of cases, it's still a large raw number.
You can be as vague and suggestive as you want; there just isn't much anyone can do to help you if you can't commit to something more particular, and it's also true that if you look around, sometimes the lack of resolution about such laments seems to be the point. Start with the really extreme: Hey, do you think MSU and and USGA knew about Doctor Rapist? I mean, USGA board members are stepping down. I wonder what took so long to catch on; I mean, why would three USGA board members be stepping down? While the rapist might have received due process, I'm just going to run with the victim count, the fact of people scrambling to cover their liability, and the period over which this predator operated, and suggest that maybe people should have paid more attention to some of the talk much earlier than they did, but, hey, since nothing was being done it must not be true, right? Next up: NBC News? Matt Lauer? They knew about the locks. They heard the rumors. They knew when his assistant called for medical assistance. Yes, the company knew. Weinstein Company? They helped cover it up. Congress? The process is designed to keep these cases out of court. How about the state legislator who killed himself after
investigative reporters↗ dug up an old molestation complaint and colleagues suggested he step down? Well, his entire world was coming apart, but his suicide note pointed directly at the molestation accusation; his own excuse for the behavior was that someone drugged him; the police never really followed up on the teenage victim's claim; they classified the allegation wrong with the result of underinvestigating, never interviewed the suspect, and closed the file under a false claim that the victim told them to. Had police followed up at the time, would the preacher have been elected to the legislature? Would he be able to fly under the radar as merely an extravagant preacher? Would investigative reporters have stayed away if he hadn't been elected to public office, or was the state of the church itself enough to kindle and stoke that investigative curiosity? Would they only have started digging again in the glare of #MeToo? We don't know, and sure, it kind of sounds like his election might have renewed scrutiny, but here's the thing: How many cases would you like me to go through? Because you can just hang out in your vagary and complain that you're not satisfied, yet.
And, you know, that's not exactly a useful way of going about whatever it is you think you're doing, unless of course the point is to be disruptive.
... but it seems that all transgressions deserve public humiliation, degradation along with loss of career and social standing. At the minimum. Am I missing something?
Yes, you are missing certain aspects of reality. More specifically: Do you see the word "seems" in your explanation? That is a problematic word; what
seems does not necessarily equal what
is. Perhaps the word "all"? That, too, is your own projection, as your particular prerequisites have yet to be satisfied.
It means, dear T, that I haven't seen consensus yet that some offenses are worse than others and deserve harsher penalties. Did I miss it?
I don't know—
And, yes, when we sort through the data in order to understand the behavioral continuum of sexual violence in society, there will be important differences to note. However, when the question is sexually predatory behavior in the workplace, groping her at the office or during a photo op in the field is still predatory behavior, and the fact that he isn't trying to rape her in his car when she is fourteen means precisely nothing as a comparison.
(#3492704/194, 14 December 2017↗)
—sometimes it goes by quickly, and maybe that's the problem. Perhaps it isn't prominent enough to satisfy your demand. Maybe you are unsatisfied with the phrasing.
And just like there is a time and place for consensual partners to complicate such questions by consenting to violence, so also is there a time and place for parsing the difference between the Minnesota Groper and What Goes On In Alabama. There are times, for instance, when we aim to diagnose the behavior in order to disrupt it; this is a question both of human rights and public health and safety. And during these times, yes, it is helpful to know the difference between the guy who strangles 'em out, the guy who uses his office to create duress for picking up underage girls, and the guy who, for instance, seems at best to simply fail to understand that women's bodies are in fact human beings and therefore have their own rights. The connection, though, is the fact of predatory behavior.
(#3492905/216, 15 December 2017↗)
And that?
And then, going forward, I don't know, what's the framework, here, for your satisfaction? Should I repost these in every iteration of these threads as this calamity tumbles along? Once a month, wherever the discussion happens to be, maybe? I mean, y'know, since we could be at this for a while? Once a week, just to make sure? Or, more directly: Would you like to know what I
really think of your demands?
†
There is also this, though: Certainly, 'tis a depressing read, but there actually is some sequence to how this has gone; the discourse might evolve poorly, but it does evolve. It might be helpful to recall a well-known, reliable statistic about how people prejudicially refuse to trust women; it even goes so far that all they need is to
think you're a woman, and they judge you more harshly. Because it is worth noting that your vague hinting about
factionalization and inference↑ depends in no small part on the effective reality of audiences defining on sentiment and not the actual record. And you are also, in your pretense, forgetting that the "faction", as you and others would have it, including the two women and a queer is already well-acquainted with that reality.
Can I at least suggest that any time you feel that itch to thread the middle, it might be helpful to take a moment to familiarize yourself with what you're getting in between? Because, yeah, certes, 'tis a depressing read, but Sisters know what they're doing, and where you might think you're seeking some concession to rationality, you are effectively advancing irrationality.
____________________
Notes:
Dunlop, R. G. and Jacob Ryan. "The Pope's Long Con". Kentucky Center for Investigative Reporting. 11 December 2017. LongCon.KYCIR.org. 24 January 2018. http://bit.ly/2AXux9Q
