6 ms·

After a year of MeToo, survey respondents have become more sceptical

48 points by crunchiebones 8y ago

olliej 8y ago
Has it really shifted? Blaming victims of sexual harassment and assault is what has always happened: * Why was she drinking? * Why was she dressed that way? * Why was she leading him on? * Gay panic defense -- literally arguing that a hate crime wasn't a hate crime because the murderer panicked about the victim being gay ... This isn't new. MeToo was a response to believing that just maybe things were going to change.
- tropo 8y ago
  That sort of binary thinking harms real people. To make this clear, I'll apply it to something else: It isn't OK to tell a kid not to play out in a highway, because that is victim blaming, and you're saying that it is OK for drivers to run kids down. Parents who tell kids to say out of the road are perpetuating a hit-and-run culture. Real people get hurt when we pretend that victimhood is fully unrelated to the behavior of potential victims, or that pointing out foolish behavior is somehow an approval of a criminal's actions.
  - getoj 8y ago
    Except that almost nobody who hits a kid on the highway did it on purpose, and everyone who commits sexual assualt does it entirely on purpose. Sexual assault is unrelated to the victim's behavior because no matter how foolish you were, if your attacker wasn't a vile fucking shitbag then it wouldn't have happened. People who commit assault make a choice, every single time. And then they get away with it, because other people somehow believe that "the kid came out of nowhere and I couldn't brake in time" and "she was drunk and wearing a short skirt, what was I supposed to do" are equivalent defences. Edit for clarity: I'm not saying that you're justifying the attacker. I'm saying that while advice like this is sometimes practical before an attack happens[1], it's irrelevant after the fact. Entirely. Every time. Because sexual assault doesn't happen by negligence (which can legally and logically be shared by both parties), it happens by intent. So we should stop asking what she could have done, and start asking what we can do. [1] Although trust me, every woman is fully clued up on the fact that she could be attacked at any time - have your ever been asked to walk a coworker to her car?
    - manfredo 8y ago
      > Except that almost nobody who hits a kid on the highway did it on purpose, and everyone who commits sexual assualt does it entirely on purpose. This statement needs qualification. The majority of cases of sexual assault that my undergrad unversity's Title IX office handled consisted of cases where the accused believes sex was consensual. Such as not knowing that the accuser had taken drugs beforehand, the accuser claims to have withdrawn consent partway through but the accused reported that consent was never revoked, etc. Granted, it could be possible that the types of sexual assault accusations that are reported to the Title IX office aren't the same types of assault reported to the police.
    - burfog 8y ago
      People who hit kids on the highway can face criminal charges, even when there is no intent to hit kids. Negligence often leads to manslaughter charges. We don't always let drivers get away with "the kid came out of nowhere and I couldn't brake in time". Advice is not irrelevant after the fact. First, there's always next time. Second, other people can learn by example. It's like the advice given alongside car crash pictures shown in driver education classes; this is useful even if the person in the crash is long dead. Learning from the mistakes of others is important. Today, people are afraid to point out mistakes and give safety advice because it gets seen as "victim blaming". This is a problem. If you insist on "asking what we can do" though, and you are honest about it, then you've really kicked a hornet's nest. Sexual assault rates vary around the world, and some places change suddenly when the population changes. Good luck having a productive discussion on the matter.
    - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
      > Except that almost nobody who hits a kid on the highway did it on purpose, and everyone who commits sexual assualt does it entirely on purpose. Counterexample: There was a recent episode of Vice titled Consent, which included a mediation between a man and a woman where the man had no conception that the woman hadn't consented. It's not hard to see why this is common. When you have a power dynamic, even subtle and unofficial ones, someone who doesn't want to consent has an internal conflict. They neither want to participate nor want to harm their relationship with the other person. Those types of situations are horrifying. If you signal refusal using overtly transparent methods (throw a drink in their face, scream, slap them), they'll get the message but at the cost of making a scene and potentially souring the relationship. If you try to be too subtle they won't get the hint. The middle ground exists, but with pressure on both sides, it's not the least bit surprising that sometimes someone errs too far on the side of not making a scene. I don't mean to blame the victim in a moral sense, but in a technical sense where sometimes the situation is hard and the right balance isn't clear. In many of these cases it's still fair to blame the other person for not getting the message, but the failure can certainly be in perception rather than intent. In a sense it is very similar to when you hit a kid in the road because you weren't paying enough attention.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - CocaKoala 8y ago
    Here's the way I've always thought about it. If you're walking in a bad neighborhood at 3am and you get mugged, should you have chosen your path more wisely? Maybe. But would anybody say that _because you chose to walk in a bad neighborhood and you got mugged, the mugger isn't at fault and shouldn't be prosecuted for the crime they committed_? No, probably not. Mugging is a crime, and just because you put yourself in a situation where you're more likely to get mugged doesn't make it less of one. Why does the same not apply to sexual assault?
    - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
      It's not either/or, it's both/and. Yes, the mugger is morally and legally at fault. Absolutely. And by walking in that neighborhood at 3 AM you at least increased your probability of being mugged. Morally, people in that neighborhood shouldn't be like that. But they are like that, and you knew it, and you walked there anyway. Morally, it isn't your fault, and yet what you did was definitely unwise. In an ideal world, it shouldn't make any difference where you walk. But this isn't an ideal world, and in the world we've got, with the people we've got, you need to pay some attention to where and when you walk.
    - tomp 8y ago
      Nobody is saying that the mugger/rapist aren't guilty. But, are you not going to tell your kids, "don't walk in dangerous dark streets at night" and "scream if someone tries to mug you"? No, of course not, because it would be idiotic not to, it's just common sense! Then why wouldn't you tell women (well, people in general), "don't be alone with people you don't trust" and "scream 'no' if someone tries to rape you"? It's common sense!
      - CocaKoala 8y ago
        You can (and I suspect people DO) tell women "don't be alone with people you don't trust". That's not in contention. Victim blaming is when you say "Well, if you hadn't been alone with somebody you didn't trust, you wouldn't have been raped"; it's technically a true statement, but it puts the onus on the woman (why was she alone with somebody she didn't trust, something she's been told not to do?) as opposed to on the rapist (why did they rape somebody?). While it's valuable to give people tools to avoid situations that might go bad, it's still important to recognize that the person at fault for the situation going bad is the person who commits the crime, and not the person who ended up in a bad situation.
  - Doxin 8y ago
    Important detail is that playing on a highway is highly correlated with getting hit by a car. Clothing choice is almost not at all correlated to getting raped.
- kazinator 8y ago
  > Has it really shifted? The data in those charts, if it has any statistical merit, does indicate an attitude shift: more people agreeing with anti-victim sentiments one year later.
  - burfog 8y ago
    People falsely accused are victims too, so these are not anti-victim sentiments. They are sentiments in favor of due process, fair trials, prosecution of perjury, and the concept of "innocent until proven guilty". Maybe people have taken "To Kill A Mockingbird" to heart.
    - kazinator 8y ago
      The leftmost chart's question is "false accusations of sexual assault are a bigger problem than underreported assaults" and people were found who actually agree with it.
      - jobigoud 8y ago
        The old "do you prefer to put an innocent person in prison or leave a guilty person free".
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
  - lacker 8y ago
    None of these sentiments on the rise are "blaming the victim". They seem more like "not believing the victim".
Ruthalas 8y ago
https://web.archive.org/web/20181015201612/https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/10/15/after-a-year-of-metoo-american-opinion-has-shifted-against-victims https://web.archive.org/web/20181015201612/https://www.econo... Archive link for those who have "reached [their] article limit".
jorgec 8y ago
It is not against the victim but against fake victims.
rossdavidh 8y ago
Hmmmm...in the 2018 survey results, among Trump voters, in response to "False accusations of sexual assault are a bigger problem than unreported assaults", nearly 2/3 disagreed, even though it was in Sept 2018 when the Kavanaugh nomination was in the news daily. That's among Trump voters, AFTER the supposed shift. Which, you know, good, because I doubt that false accusations are a bigger problem than unreported assaults, but still, I think they're overstating the magnitude of the change a little bit.
jonahbenton 8y ago
Terrible headline, and poorly constructed survey questions. This shoddiness is worthy of the New York Post, not the Economist. "American opinion" has always been "against victims." The difference, completely missed in this surprisingly garbage work, is that behavior that was once taken for granted is now unacceptable, and practitioners of that behavior can now be destroyed. This of course does not happen in all cases, but the vulnerability of abusers is new, real and unprecedented. This poorly executed piece that embarrasses the Economist suggests abusers will return to a state of impunity. I wager the opposite is true. Their vulnerability will only increase. Time will tell!
- tomp 8y ago
  What are you talking about?! The answer to all the questions were "yes" in less than 50% of the cases for nearly all groups, so clearly on average they're very "pro" "victims" ("accusers" really, but whatever).
belorn 8y ago
I would not be surprised that when there a lot of news about extrajudicial punishment and trial by media, then the general opinion about the problem of false accusations goes up. > The share of American adults responding that men who sexually harassed women at work 20 years ago If a large portion are giving an answer based on the Kavanaugh case then the answers does not reflect the poll question. The poll question is also very unclear if it meant people who has been convicted and server their time to society, if its people who has been accused of a crime that happened more than 20 years ago, and if statue of limitations has occurred. The other questions in the survey is likely to have framed the question and thus biased the result.
slivym 8y ago
Wow, this is a really bad take. One survey a year ago and then another survey immediately after a highly partisan supreme court fight? Why don't you just change the question to "Did Brett do it?"
johnp314 8y ago
Using the word 'victim' biases the headline. Until an allegation is proven, the person making the allegation is an 'accuser'. So the article should state that opinion has shifted against 'accusers'. If we wish to hold to the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" then we don't have a 'victim' until that proof standard is met. I don't believe that opinion has shifted against 'victims' if we adhere to the real (original?) definitions of words. Or, if we are living in a wonderland, then I guess words can mean whatever some unnamed mass media says they mean. If that's the case then like in the original wonderland "off with their heads".
StevenJac 8y ago
MeToo has become an opportunity to just lay any claims and have a career boost for being "brave" and get a big lawsuit cash-out in the process. Having actual, verifiable claims is no longer relevant. For example: Paris Hilton might as well go say that Brad Pitt molested her in some hotel elevator at some unspecified time because she blacked out and forgot the specifics.

48 points by crunchiebones 8y ago

Has it really shifted? Blaming victims of sexual harassment and assault is what has always happened: * Why was she drinking? * Why was she dressed that way? * Why was she leading him on? * Gay panic defense -- literally arguing that a hate crime wasn't a hate crime because the murderer panicked about the victim being gay ... This isn't new. MeToo was a response to believing that just maybe things were going to change.

tropo 8y ago
That sort of binary thinking harms real people. To make this clear, I'll apply it to something else: It isn't OK to tell a kid not to play out in a highway, because that is victim blaming, and you're saying that it is OK for drivers to run kids down. Parents who tell kids to say out of the road are perpetuating a hit-and-run culture. Real people get hurt when we pretend that victimhood is fully unrelated to the behavior of potential victims, or that pointing out foolish behavior is somehow an approval of a criminal's actions.
- getoj 8y ago
  Except that almost nobody who hits a kid on the highway did it on purpose, and everyone who commits sexual assualt does it entirely on purpose. Sexual assault is unrelated to the victim's behavior because no matter how foolish you were, if your attacker wasn't a vile fucking shitbag then it wouldn't have happened. People who commit assault make a choice, every single time. And then they get away with it, because other people somehow believe that "the kid came out of nowhere and I couldn't brake in time" and "she was drunk and wearing a short skirt, what was I supposed to do" are equivalent defences. Edit for clarity: I'm not saying that you're justifying the attacker. I'm saying that while advice like this is sometimes practical before an attack happens[1], it's irrelevant after the fact. Entirely. Every time. Because sexual assault doesn't happen by negligence (which can legally and logically be shared by both parties), it happens by intent. So we should stop asking what she could have done, and start asking what we can do. [1] Although trust me, every woman is fully clued up on the fact that she could be attacked at any time - have your ever been asked to walk a coworker to her car?
  - manfredo 8y ago
    > Except that almost nobody who hits a kid on the highway did it on purpose, and everyone who commits sexual assualt does it entirely on purpose. This statement needs qualification. The majority of cases of sexual assault that my undergrad unversity's Title IX office handled consisted of cases where the accused believes sex was consensual. Such as not knowing that the accuser had taken drugs beforehand, the accuser claims to have withdrawn consent partway through but the accused reported that consent was never revoked, etc. Granted, it could be possible that the types of sexual assault accusations that are reported to the Title IX office aren't the same types of assault reported to the police.
  - burfog 8y ago
    People who hit kids on the highway can face criminal charges, even when there is no intent to hit kids. Negligence often leads to manslaughter charges. We don't always let drivers get away with "the kid came out of nowhere and I couldn't brake in time". Advice is not irrelevant after the fact. First, there's always next time. Second, other people can learn by example. It's like the advice given alongside car crash pictures shown in driver education classes; this is useful even if the person in the crash is long dead. Learning from the mistakes of others is important. Today, people are afraid to point out mistakes and give safety advice because it gets seen as "victim blaming". This is a problem. If you insist on "asking what we can do" though, and you are honest about it, then you've really kicked a hornet's nest. Sexual assault rates vary around the world, and some places change suddenly when the population changes. Good luck having a productive discussion on the matter.
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    > Except that almost nobody who hits a kid on the highway did it on purpose, and everyone who commits sexual assualt does it entirely on purpose. Counterexample: There was a recent episode of Vice titled Consent, which included a mediation between a man and a woman where the man had no conception that the woman hadn't consented. It's not hard to see why this is common. When you have a power dynamic, even subtle and unofficial ones, someone who doesn't want to consent has an internal conflict. They neither want to participate nor want to harm their relationship with the other person. Those types of situations are horrifying. If you signal refusal using overtly transparent methods (throw a drink in their face, scream, slap them), they'll get the message but at the cost of making a scene and potentially souring the relationship. If you try to be too subtle they won't get the hint. The middle ground exists, but with pressure on both sides, it's not the least bit surprising that sometimes someone errs too far on the side of not making a scene. I don't mean to blame the victim in a moral sense, but in a technical sense where sometimes the situation is hard and the right balance isn't clear. In many of these cases it's still fair to blame the other person for not getting the message, but the failure can certainly be in perception rather than intent. In a sense it is very similar to when you hit a kid in the road because you weren't paying enough attention.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- CocaKoala 8y ago
  Here's the way I've always thought about it. If you're walking in a bad neighborhood at 3am and you get mugged, should you have chosen your path more wisely? Maybe. But would anybody say that _because you chose to walk in a bad neighborhood and you got mugged, the mugger isn't at fault and shouldn't be prosecuted for the crime they committed_? No, probably not. Mugging is a crime, and just because you put yourself in a situation where you're more likely to get mugged doesn't make it less of one. Why does the same not apply to sexual assault?
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    It's not either/or, it's both/and. Yes, the mugger is morally and legally at fault. Absolutely. And by walking in that neighborhood at 3 AM you at least increased your probability of being mugged. Morally, people in that neighborhood shouldn't be like that. But they are like that, and you knew it, and you walked there anyway. Morally, it isn't your fault, and yet what you did was definitely unwise. In an ideal world, it shouldn't make any difference where you walk. But this isn't an ideal world, and in the world we've got, with the people we've got, you need to pay some attention to where and when you walk.
  - tomp 8y ago
    Nobody is saying that the mugger/rapist aren't guilty. But, are you not going to tell your kids, "don't walk in dangerous dark streets at night" and "scream if someone tries to mug you"? No, of course not, because it would be idiotic not to, it's just common sense! Then why wouldn't you tell women (well, people in general), "don't be alone with people you don't trust" and "scream 'no' if someone tries to rape you"? It's common sense!
    - CocaKoala 8y ago
      You can (and I suspect people DO) tell women "don't be alone with people you don't trust". That's not in contention. Victim blaming is when you say "Well, if you hadn't been alone with somebody you didn't trust, you wouldn't have been raped"; it's technically a true statement, but it puts the onus on the woman (why was she alone with somebody she didn't trust, something she's been told not to do?) as opposed to on the rapist (why did they rape somebody?). While it's valuable to give people tools to avoid situations that might go bad, it's still important to recognize that the person at fault for the situation going bad is the person who commits the crime, and not the person who ended up in a bad situation.
- Doxin 8y ago
  Important detail is that playing on a highway is highly correlated with getting hit by a car. Clothing choice is almost not at all correlated to getting raped.
kazinator 8y ago
> Has it really shifted? The data in those charts, if it has any statistical merit, does indicate an attitude shift: more people agreeing with anti-victim sentiments one year later.
- burfog 8y ago
  People falsely accused are victims too, so these are not anti-victim sentiments. They are sentiments in favor of due process, fair trials, prosecution of perjury, and the concept of "innocent until proven guilty". Maybe people have taken "To Kill A Mockingbird" to heart.
  - kazinator 8y ago
    The leftmost chart's question is "false accusations of sexual assault are a bigger problem than underreported assaults" and people were found who actually agree with it.
    - jobigoud 8y ago
      The old "do you prefer to put an innocent person in prison or leave a guilty person free".
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
- lacker 8y ago
  None of these sentiments on the rise are "blaming the victim". They seem more like "not believing the victim".

Ruthalas 8y ago

https://web.archive.org/web/20181015201612/https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/10/15/after-a-year-of-metoo-american-opinion-has-shifted-against-victims https://web.archive.org/web/20181015201612/https://www.econo... Archive link for those who have "reached [their] article limit".

jorgec 8y ago

It is not against the victim but against fake victims.

rossdavidh 8y ago

Hmmmm...in the 2018 survey results, among Trump voters, in response to "False accusations of sexual assault are a bigger problem than unreported assaults", nearly 2/3 disagreed, even though it was in Sept 2018 when the Kavanaugh nomination was in the news daily. That's among Trump voters, AFTER the supposed shift. Which, you know, good, because I doubt that false accusations are a bigger problem than unreported assaults, but still, I think they're overstating the magnitude of the change a little bit.

jonahbenton 8y ago

Terrible headline, and poorly constructed survey questions. This shoddiness is worthy of the New York Post, not the Economist. "American opinion" has always been "against victims." The difference, completely missed in this surprisingly garbage work, is that behavior that was once taken for granted is now unacceptable, and practitioners of that behavior can now be destroyed. This of course does not happen in all cases, but the vulnerability of abusers is new, real and unprecedented. This poorly executed piece that embarrasses the Economist suggests abusers will return to a state of impunity. I wager the opposite is true. Their vulnerability will only increase. Time will tell!

tomp 8y ago
What are you talking about?! The answer to all the questions were "yes" in less than 50% of the cases for nearly all groups, so clearly on average they're very "pro" "victims" ("accusers" really, but whatever).

belorn 8y ago

I would not be surprised that when there a lot of news about extrajudicial punishment and trial by media, then the general opinion about the problem of false accusations goes up. > The share of American adults responding that men who sexually harassed women at work 20 years ago If a large portion are giving an answer based on the Kavanaugh case then the answers does not reflect the poll question. The poll question is also very unclear if it meant people who has been convicted and server their time to society, if its people who has been accused of a crime that happened more than 20 years ago, and if statue of limitations has occurred. The other questions in the survey is likely to have framed the question and thus biased the result.

slivym 8y ago

Wow, this is a really bad take. One survey a year ago and then another survey immediately after a highly partisan supreme court fight? Why don't you just change the question to "Did Brett do it?"

johnp314 8y ago

Using the word 'victim' biases the headline. Until an allegation is proven, the person making the allegation is an 'accuser'. So the article should state that opinion has shifted against 'accusers'. If we wish to hold to the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" then we don't have a 'victim' until that proof standard is met. I don't believe that opinion has shifted against 'victims' if we adhere to the real (original?) definitions of words. Or, if we are living in a wonderland, then I guess words can mean whatever some unnamed mass media says they mean. If that's the case then like in the original wonderland "off with their heads".

StevenJac 8y ago

MeToo has become an opportunity to just lay any claims and have a career boost for being "brave" and get a big lawsuit cash-out in the process. Having actual, verifiable claims is no longer relevant. For example: Paris Hilton might as well go say that Brad Pitt molested her in some hotel elevator at some unspecified time because she blacked out and forgot the specifics.