Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Probably always some level of idiocracy, it's just way more visible now. Thanks to the communication technology we have access to, everything is at hand and in our faces the moment it happens, which has the dual effect of making everything seem more severe and showing previously hidden issues all at once.

I've always mentioned that when people talk about how much worse crime is now a days. It's actually lower per capita. It's just when something happens in California, you instantly hear about it in New York. Makes it seem like more crime even though there's actually less.

Doesn't really work with the sexual harassment claims though as those tend to be not talked about. We're bombarded by other stuff making us think that it's less prevalent than it is.

Yes, but there is no point in US history where the disregard for facts in the political sphere has been as high or as widespread. Ironic given that they are more available than ever. It's an added barrier to getting anything done about sexual assault even when it IS talked about.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Yes, but there is no point in US history where the disregard for facts in the political sphere has been as high or as widespread. Ironic given that they are more available than ever. It's an added barrier to getting anything done about sexual assault even when it IS talked about.

I suggest reading Newspapers from the 1830s (followed by the 1840s, then the 1850s, then the 1860s, the 1880s, and the 1900s so on and so forth). I once read an article from a Anti-Mason Democratic paper about how Van Buren was the best candidate because he would restore the national bank (lol). American politics, and national politics in general, have always been defined by ideological convenience over "alternate facts." I think the issue isn't that its at an all time high, but rather that education is much higher than in the past and people are better able to notice how utterly nonsensical politics can be.

I don't know about all time high but at this moment we are definitely peaking pretty hard. Also we seem to have skirted well into US Politics which, partly because of that peakness, is verboten so let's tread carefully.

peak

I just wanted to say it again.

 LordofHats wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Yes, but there is no point in US history where the disregard for facts in the political sphere has been as high or as widespread. Ironic given that they are more available than ever. It's an added barrier to getting anything done about sexual assault even when it IS talked about.

I suggest reading Newspapers from the 1830s (followed by the 1840s, then the 1850s, then the 1860s, the 1880s, and the 1900s so on and so forth). I once read an article from a Anti-Mason Democratic paper about how Van Buren was the best candidate because he would restore the national bank (lol). American politics, and national politics in general, have always been defined by ideological convenience over "alternate facts." I think the issue isn't that its at an all time high, but rather that education is much higher than in the past and people are better able to notice how utterly nonsensical politics can be.

As Ahtman was kind enough to point out above this is straying into forbidden and off topic territory so I'll leave it be. Suffice to say I partly agree and partly disagree.

Luciferian wrote:There is also the fact that in capitalist economies, there is no incentive for something like structural or institutional sexism. It would hurt profits by keeping a large portion of the most capable people out of positions they might excel at. When money is on the line, I'm inclined to believe that market forces would always overpower social ones, although they do influence each other.

You are assuming that capitalism doesn't waste resources, which is wrong. It may be better than some other system but there's a lot of waste, from stores and restaurants destroying old wares just so people who are not that picky can't use them for free (as they want to sell it to your) to stuff like having a lot of unoccupied flats/houses and at the same time an significant homeless population (and everything in between). Capitalism may be good at some thing but not being wasteful is demonstrably not one of them. People make many expensive, wasteful, and stupid decisions all the time, just because you call the system capitalism doesn't mean that it somehow eliminates those problems. Sure if you make a lot of bad choices at once you might end up with a bankrupt company but look how the 2008 crash ended. Banks fethed up colossally but it was mostly the regular citizen who had to bear the negative consequences.

I don't know how you would justify it but an economic crash would, by definition, hurt profits (except for the few who got their predictions correct). Nobody thought a crash was a good idea but it was the result of many greedy/stupid choices on top of each other, made by a huge number of people who all thought they were making choices that were good for profits. Capitalism is not infallible or automatically self-correcting.

The same goes for a most (if not all) of the fundamental research that's done. Capitalistic entities like to insert themselves once they see something that could be profitable but (for example) all the fundamental contributions to computers (hardware and software), the internet/worldwideweb, and smartphones were made possible through government research. No company would touch that type of altruistic and open projects that have no protection form rivals. Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft, and all the other companies arrived very late to build on top of all that to reap the benefits.

Also NASA, they did a lot of research that was later used to create who knows how many spin off companies that profited from that research while NASA's budget got smaller and smaller. Just look at how people are praising Musk in the other thread. He was only able to do that because governments developed a lot of that stuff and he was able to use that as a foundation as well as hiring people from government aerospace agencies for his company (who then refined all that for him). Without government investments in all that tech, Musk would be just another nerd and not a billionaire because without the internet Paypal has no reason to exist and without that (and luck) he doesn't get his initial money to keep investing in other companies.

And if you want an argument why people might be okay with women not entering the work force, just look at a "traditional family". The family (with one salary) is dependent on the working person not losing their job and if you add fear-mongering against unions you get a workforce that has less power to enact any change that might benefit them (and companies can abuse that). When your first objective is to pay for food and shelter a better situation is not something you can worry about. Also if the wife is doing the cooking, housework, and child rearing the husband can work longer hours as he hasn't to do that too. He can just get home and get his meal after a long day of work and the wife is indirectly providing free labour that the company benefits from.

John Maynard Keynes predicted that in the future (meaning: now) we'll end up working 15 to 20 hours a week but what we have instead of crunch and long work hours (and workaholics) with the threat of getting fired always there to keep you working more. Also: Once women entered the workforce in bigger numbers, companies also benefited from that as it depressed wages a bit (more employees available but the jobs didn't just magically double in number).

When money/wealth/power is on the line i'm inclined to believe that the ones with power will do their best to overpower market and social forces. And it doesn't matter if we are talking about the USA, Russia, China, or a Scandinavian country. The differences between those systems is how much protection we have against those in positions of power (broadly speaking).

Mario wrote:

Luciferian wrote:There is also the fact that in capitalist economies, there is no incentive for something like structural or institutional sexism. It would hurt profits by keeping a large portion of the most capable people out of positions they might excel at. When money is on the line, I'm inclined to believe that market forces would always overpower social ones, although they do influence each other.

You are assuming that capitalism doesn't waste resources, which is wrong. It may be better than some other system but there's a lot of waste, from stores and restaurants destroying old wares just so people who are not that picky can't use them for free (as they want to sell it to your) to stuff like having a lot of unoccupied flats/houses and at the same time an significant homeless population (and everything in between). Capitalism may be good at some thing but not being wasteful is demonstrably not one of them. People make many expensive, wasteful, and stupid decisions all the time, just because you call the system capitalism doesn't mean that it somehow eliminates those problems. Sure if you make a lot of bad choices at once you might end up with a bankrupt company but look how the 2008 crash ended. Banks fethed up colossally but it was mostly the regular citizen who had to bear the negative consequences.

Which demonstrates that a true capitalist has no problem with wasting OTHER people's resources for his own gain. Especially tax money which he probably pays less of percentage-wise anyway than the working joes in his employ. Launching a smear campaign against a competitor is also money well spent, he makes more profits and whatever losses it causes the other company and it's employees is none of his concern. If it's so succesful that they have to be bailed out with tax money, well, there's more where that came from.

And ofc, he's still a human being with all the flaws humans are known for. He might pick a woman over a man if she's a lot better for the job, but if both are somewhat equal why not pick the guy who laughs at his blonde bimbo jokes? The guy's also not going to get pregnant and require time off the job for having a kid so there's less need for bringing in temps or other arrangements.

Those are all pretty good points, which kind of bring us back around to the abuse of power. Without transparency, there can be no accountability, and without accountability, corruption flourishes. That's the main issue behind all of these instances of sexual harassment and abuse.

 Luciferian wrote:
Those are all pretty good points, which kind of bring us back around to the abuse of power. Without transparency, there can be no accountability, and without accountability, corruption flourishes. That's the main issue behind all of these instances of sexual harassment and abuse.

Completely agree.

Does the Rob Porter debacle belong in this thread? On the one hand its a bit different, as he was throttling wives and girlfriends, not forcing employees/co-workers in to sex. But on the other hand, the rest of the story is the same. We have multiple, credible complaints, and we have an employer (in this case the Whitehouse) that just doesn't care, because the man is an important and effective part of the team. Then when the whole thing blows up in their face they attempt the same old defense that it's just an accusation and you can't possibly react in the face of a mere accusation.

Which is pure crap, because while innocent until proven guilty is an essential part of our justice system, its ludicrous to pretend it must be applied to all circumstance outside of that. You wouldn't leave your kid with a babysitter because at this point at this stage they're only accused of child murderer. And of course, when we're looking at multiple, credible accusations, then failure to act isn't caution, its denial.

 Luciferian wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Preference in jobs is meaningless as the jobs generally preferred by women will be seen as less valuable and thus pay worse.

Well, you could say that social workers (a field almost entirely dominated by women) deserve to be paid the same as engineers (a field almost entirely dominated by men) but enforcing that in practice is basically communism. And I am not being hyperbolic, that is the level of top-down regulation and market interference it would take to make different industries and markets "equal".

But top down pay control isn't the only way to change this. Cultural change is possible. Simply getting people to realise that women are as capable as men, and therefore a job with large numbers of women isn't a lesser kind of job will change this.

It won't be a complete answer, of course, but it will be a definite improvement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
I agree. If anything that feels more like market forces, in terms of the perceived value of a social worker vs an engineer. I think the things that draw sexes to those jobs are a whole seperate issue and yes, possible structural sexism as with STEM.

Market forces impact pay, but they're not the whole story. There is a human concept of what a job 'should' pay that operates even when market forces tell you something different. It's a phenomenon that's been noted happening in a lot of specific jobs - its been observed in some specific instances that an absolute scarcity of skilled employees didn't lead to pay increases outside the norm, and in other instances despite there being a flood of people with applicable skills wages for those who could get employment continued to rise at normal rates.

This would explain why teaching and nursing were long underpaid relative to other similar professions, but the level of underpay began to decrease at the same time they began to be seen by an increasing number of people as unisex careers. They're still underpaid, but not by as much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
This I am mixed on. I think it's hard to deny that men are more reckless than women and get themselves into more physical injury than women. But at the same time there is a culture that reinforces that. Risks to the physical safety of men are treated less seriously than those to women, and deaths of men (by any factor) are treated less seriously that those of women. There is an underlying attitude of 'well men just die all the time' that is difficult to address because between engagement in violent conflict (military or otherwise) and physical recklessness there's some truth to that. Couple that with the physical resilience of men (force-to-injury ratio) in relation to the pervasive (if not instinctive) idea of physically shielding the women/children and it gets even more difficult to tackle.

While men get physical injuries way more often than women, this doesn't really have much of an impact on relative mortality. Physical injuries just don't make up that much of mortality.

Men have lower life expectancies because of heart disease, bowel cancer, and stuff like that.

I suppose my view is that there is a certain recklessness in regards to physical health on various levels as opposed to solely physical injury. Also physical damage that doesn't kill can still adversely affect health and contribute to death by other causes. Ultimately, at the end of the day I find it hard to believe there is not a correlation between men's behavior and men's life expectancy.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I suppose my view is that there is a certain recklessness in regards to physical health on various levels as opposed to solely physical injury. Also physical damage that doesn't kill can still adversely affect health and contribute to death by other causes. Ultimately, at the end of the day I find it hard to believe there is not a correlation between men's behavior and men's life expectancy.

Yep, there's definitely a correlation between behaviour and health, no argument there. Women visit the doctor more often, both for specific issues and for regular check ups. That means a lot more issues get seen when something can be done about them.

There's also genetic issues. Being the bigger gender places a strain on the body, heart disease is a way bigger killer of men.

It's a lot of stuff, I guess.

Thread Topic: Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood

RULE #2 is STAY ON TOPIC.

I am going to go out on a limb and say that the #Me Too moment is over int he US, as it has been replaced with Parkland Shooting Aftermath. This is in addition to the inevitable backlash and concern trolling that nibbled away at the edges, until Parkland came along and completely took over everyone's mind space.

Perhaps, it didn't need to continue and enough momentum has been gained to keep moving forward? Your thoughts?

I think we'll just have to wait and see?
The attention span of the American public is very reliant on constant input. If there are no more big names getting dropped as part of the MeToo movement, then a lot of people will move on to the next big attention getter.

Sadly.

Turns out Brendan Fraser had a #metoo moment.

The story he wants to relay took place, he says, in the summer of 2003, in the Beverly Hills Hotel, at a luncheon held by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, the organization that hosts the Golden Globes. On Fraser's way out of the hotel, he was hailed by Philip Berk, a former president of the HFPA. In the midst of a crowded room, Berk reached out to shake Fraser's hand. Much of what happened next Berk recounted in his memoir and was also reported by Sharon Waxman in The New York Times: He pinched Fraser's ass—in jest, according to Berk. But Fraser says what Berk did was more than a pinch: “His left hand reaches around, grabs my ass cheek, and one of his fingers touches me in the taint. And he starts moving it around.” Fraser says that in this moment he was overcome with panic and fear.

The story he wants to relay took place, he says, in the summer of 2003, in the Beverly Hills Hotel, at a luncheon held by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, the organization that hosts the Golden Globes. On Fraser's way out of the hotel, he was hailed by Philip Berk, a former president of the HFPA. In the midst of a crowded room, Berk reached out to shake Fraser's hand. Much of what happened next Berk recounted in his memoir and was also reported by Sharon Waxman in The New York Times: He pinched Fraser's ass—in jest, according to Berk. But Fraser says what Berk did was more than a pinch: “His left hand reaches around, grabs my ass cheek, and one of his fingers touches me in the taint. And he starts moving it around.” Fraser says that in this moment he was overcome with panic and fear.

The article is interesting and a good read. I've really enjoyed his work over the years.

Uhm... Phrasing, I hope.

 Easy E wrote:
I am going to go out on a limb and say that the #Me Too moment is over int he US, as it has been replaced with Parkland Shooting Aftermath. This is in addition to the inevitable backlash and concern trolling that nibbled away at the edges, until Parkland came along and completely took over everyone's mind space.

Perhaps, it didn't need to continue and enough momentum has been gained to keep moving forward? Your thoughts?

Eric Greitens, the Missouri governor, was indicted with a felony charge this morning. The story of him trying to cover up his affair by taking a picture of his mistress without her consent, while she was naked and blindfolded , and using it to blackmail in to keeping quiet about the affair has been around a little while, but the charges were only laid today.

A couple of days ago there were new allegations of sexual assault laid against the president, which were denied (on twitter...), through the method always used by innocent people - get basic facts of the allegation wrong and then claim the incorrect version was impossible. I saw almost no coverage of this at all.

Neither story got much coverage. At this point honestly, I think even new, credible allegations against a major public figure won't get much attention. It really does feel like the moment is over, that feeling of shock has subsided.

That said, I do think there has been some good accomplished. 'Believe the women' is appreciated in a way it never was beforehand. And now no-one can be considered immune to punishment, no level of social standing, or no amount of goodwill will lead the public to believe that person can't possibly have done it. Nowhere near enough was done to change corporate culture on this, though - in particular the role non-disclosures in protecting people from multiple charges. But this will come around again, maybe next time that's where focus will fall.

 sebster wrote:

A couple of days ago there were new allegations of sexual assault laid against the president, which were denied (on twitter...), through the method always used by innocent people - get basic facts of the allegation wrong and then claim the incorrect version was impossible. I saw almost no coverage of this at all.

To be fair there have been so many allegations made against Trump that none of it is really news again. Those that defend him will ignore it, and those that were offended by the previous dozen or so claims can hardly think much worse of him.

Eric Greitens, the Missouri governor, was indicted with a felony charge this morning. The story of him trying to cover up his affair by taking a picture of his mistress without her consent, while she was naked and blindfolded , and using it to blackmail in to keeping quiet about the affair has been around a little while, but the charges were only laid today.

that was on my facebook tending news this morning so it seems to be out there in a fairly significant way

I haven’t seen the word “taint” used in a long time. Good on Brendon for speaking out, even if it is 15 years later. I liked his guest character on Scrubs (that one doctor’s brother).

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:

Eric Greitens, the Missouri governor, was indicted with a felony charge this morning. The story of him trying to cover up his affair by taking a picture of his mistress without her consent, while she was naked and blindfolded , and using it to blackmail in to keeping quiet about the affair has been around a little while, but the charges were only laid today.

that was on my facebook tending news this morning so it seems to be out there in a fairly significant way

At this point, he should step down imo. Anyone who readily threatens to blackmail someone in this fashion shouldn't be a freak'n politician.

He did resign his position on the executive committee of the Republican Governors Association (very prominent position)...so, there is that.

Although, the woman still refuses to corroborate/interview about this publically, I'm curious if the prosecutor subpoena'ed her to testify.... before indicting. You'd almost have to assume that's the case.

If not, man...it'll be a freaking mess... you have a recording of the woman telling her husband this affair when caught, implying the blackmail...and then woman later said Greitens later apologized and claimed he had deleted the photo he took of her.

 kronk wrote:
I haven’t seen the word “taint” used in a long time. Good on Brendon for speaking out, even if it is 15 years later.

I can't imagine how disruptive to his career speaking out in 2003 would have been. Especially being victimized by another man which probably would have led to all manner of Richard Gere-level of homophobic jokes and stigma.

 kronk wrote:
I liked his guest character on Scrubs (that one doctor’s brother).

One of the best character arcs of that show in my opinion. That last episode is emotionally devastating but so damn good.

 sebster wrote:
Eric Greitens, the Missouri governor, was indicted with a felony charge this morning. The story of him trying to cover up his affair by taking a picture of his mistress without her consent, while she was naked and blindfolded , and using it to blackmail in to keeping quiet about the affair has been around a little while, but the charges were only laid today.

A couple of days ago there were new allegations of sexual assault laid against the president, which were denied (on twitter...), through the method always used by innocent people - get basic facts of the allegation wrong and then claim the incorrect version was impossible. I saw almost no coverage of this at all.

Neither story got much coverage. At this point honestly, I think even new, credible allegations against a major public figure won't get much attention. It really does feel like the moment is over, that feeling of shock has subsided.

The Greitens story at least got some coverage - CNN, NYT, etc.

Trump sexual harassment stories are not especially newsworthy because, jfc, we all know why.

But yeah, had there not been that school shooting the other day I think the Greitens story would have been bigger.

Surprised by the Brendan Fraser thing. I wonder exactly how many men have been victims of this; I know Terry Crews was and man if someone can grope Terry Crews no one is safe.

I just heard that my local state Legistlature had two people retire due to sexual misconduct allegations. I have not heard too much about how hard this has been hitting local state and smaller governments.

Well, the Wienstein Company has filed for bankruptcy due to industry folk trying to distance themselves from the former owner and nobody wanting to buy it, so it's good to see the right people are paying the price under this new system of public ostracisation that's been developed - the low-level employees of the company who had nothing to do with their boss' behaviour

But hey, collateral damage and all that, the important thing is the actual bad guy will make slightly less money for however long it takes for him to figure out a way to invest without his name attached or his behaviour fades from the public consciousness enough that it doesn't matter any more.

I agree we should have just let 'em keep on abusing people.

 Yodhrin wrote:
Well, the Wienstein Company has filed for bankruptcy due to industry folk trying to distance themselves from the former owner and nobody wanting to buy it, so it's good to see the right people are paying the price under this new system of public ostracisation that's been developed - the low-level employees of the company who had nothing to do with their boss' behaviour

But hey, collateral damage and all that, the important thing is the actual bad guy will make slightly less money for however long it takes for him to figure out a way to invest without his name attached or his behaviour fades from the public consciousness enough that it doesn't matter any more.

I'd put the blame for that squarely on the abuser and the abuser's enablers, rather than people who no longer want to be associated with the abuser.