How 'MeToo' is exposing the scale of sexual abuse

[Revi]

I think it's great that people are coming out with real abuse, but at the same time you can't just say all the #MeToo hashtags are sexual abuse. Some who are using it have actually been raped, others have had t heir ass touched on a dance floor. And 99% of it is totally unsubstantiated. Showing support is good, taking this as some kind of stat of sexual abuse is bad.

[A dot Ham]

I think it's great that people are coming out with real abuse, but at the same time you can't just say all the #MeToo hashtags are sexual abuse. Some who are using it have actually been raped, others have had t heir ass touched on a dance floor. And 99% of it is totally unsubstantiated. Showing support is good, taking this as some kind of stat of sexual abuse is bad.

I don't know if that was the OPs point. We KNOW that a lot of abuse/harassment goes unreported. We know from college campus regarding title IX cases that even when reported some reported cases go undocumented and thus get left out of official data collections. I think the point is/was that it may be even more than what we KNEW it to be.

[urasim]

I don't know if that was the OPs point. We KNOW that a lot of abuse/harassment goes unreported. We know from college campus regarding title IX cases that even when reported some reported cases go undocumented and thus get left out of official data collections. I think the point is/was that it may be even more than what we KNEW it to be.

It could be mostly bullshit, though. I'll never understand the "listen and believe" culture. Just seems illogical, counterproductive, and hurts real cases when they're found to be false.

[Beazy]

I just finished watching https://vimeo.com/142444429 An Open Secret and I'm disgusted with the entertainment industry. In all of my years on this earth, I never thought it was like this. I guess we all should have paid more attention to this garbage.

I don't know whats more disgusting, having sex with children, or the California Judges giving pedos who plead guilty to fucking kids in the ass only 5 years of probation, then allowing them to return to the industry to fuck more kids in the ass.

[Twix]

I just finished watching https://vimeo.com/142444429 An Open Secret and I'm disgusted with the entertainment industry. In all of my years on this earth, I never thought it was like this. I guess we all should have paid more attention to this garbage.

I don't know whats more disgusting, having sex with children, or the California Judges giving pedos who plead guilty to fucking kids in the ass only 5 years of probation.

Maybe those judges are pedos themselves and setting a precedent if they eventually get caught.

[Beazy]

Maybe those judges are pedos themselves and setting a precedent if they eventually get caught.

Maybe. I feel they are involved in some way.

[Deleted]

I just finished watching https://vimeo.com/142444429 An Open Secret and I'm disgusted with the entertainment industry. In all of my years on this earth, I never thought it was like this. I guess we all should have paid more attention to this garbage.

I don't know whats more disgusting, having sex with children, or the California Judges giving pedos who plead guilty to fucking kids in the ass only 5 years of probation, then allowing them to return to the industry to fuck more kids in the ass.

This goes far beyond Hollywood.

The US is way behind the UK and parts of Europe in this. Judging from precedent I would be very, very surprised if a major part of the political, culture and corporate elite in the US weren't getting away with systemic paedophilia.

[A dot Ham]

It could be mostly bullshit, though. I'll never understand the "listen and believe" culture. Just seems illogical, counterproductive, and hurts real cases when they're found to be false.

I think you can show compassion and empathy while still remain healthily skeptical of the facts.

[Amerrol]

https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs...1&view=Chapter 2 Definition and Scope of Neglect

Page 15 under other forms of inadequate supervision.

It is child neglect by definition of CPS (and that of any otherwise responsible or loving/caring parent).

Welcome to 2017 perhaps you would like to join us.

LOL, you used "current year" unironically. If you have kids, god help their souls. If you don't, please never have any, because you are clearly unfit to discipline a dog, let alone a child. That's why you get so many piece of shit kids these days, because of horrible parents who would rather be friends with their kids then raise them properly.

[Beazy]

This goes far beyond Hollywood.

The US is way behind the UK and parts of Europe in this. Judging from precedent I would be very, very surprised if a major part of the political, culture and corporate elite in the US weren't getting away with systemic paedophilia.

I hate to say it, but I bet you are right.

[Tico]

The common sense needs to change so that the victims can freely talk about these things without fear of shame.

[Tijuana]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-41633857


MORE IN LINK

Normally I scoff at these sort of trends as nothing more than online narcissism BUT I can actually get behind this... People are ignorant on not only how common it is but the shame so many men and women feel who are victims of sexual abuse/assault. Too many feel they can't tell their story out of fear of judgment

It's pretty sad to find out that a city comprised of the worst human beings in the world, are actually worse than we thought. Basically every single person in Hollywood is either an abuser, has been abused, or has engaged in both. I think these stories will open the eyes of the public to what terrible people there are in Hollywood.

Even amid all this scandal, just this week they released another video lecturing us on the NRA. The NRA is financially insignificant, while Hollywood gives tens of millions yearly to various political follies. I find it odd that the biggest proponents of violence in this galaxy, movie makers, are all up in arms about the violence they promote.

[Deleted]

I hate to say it, but I bet you are right.

There is one way I could be wrong: Americans have an extremely low power-distance ratio.

In theory this should make it more difficult for powerful people to abuse their position. To some extent that's why this Hollywood stuff has come out: because some people did speak up. I really hope this is the case.

That aside it seems very likely to me that the same endemic paedophile issue present in British society are probably in US society also, and most other countries.

[A dot Ham]

LOL, you used "current year" unironically. If you have kids, god help their souls. If you don't, please never have any, because you are clearly unfit to discipline a dog, let alone a child. That's why you get so many piece of shit kids these days, because of horrible parents who would rather be friends with their kids then raise them properly.

Not sure how you could possible make such an assertion given our limited interaction and the fact that I have done nothing other than establish what I feel is an improper way to discipline a child. Which is actually grounded in something substantial like minimum standards established by Child Protective Services. That is of course assuming that the purpose is/was discipline and not just the parents need/desire to not be bothered or hassled with actually watching their child/children.

But from your ad hominem, your presence here is pretty clear. If another individuals third party account of abuse is enough to set you off and lash out and attack said person, its pretty indicative that you have your own problems to work out.

- - - Updated - - -

This goes far beyond Hollywood.

The US is way behind the UK and parts of Europe in this. Judging from precedent I would be very, very surprised if a major part of the political, culture and corporate elite in the US weren't getting away with systemic paedophilia.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/14/bi...usly-reported/

Hey we can find common ground.

[Mistame]

You know how you can spot a troll.

You know how to spot someone who doesn't know what a troll is? They'll show you.

When they pick apart a quote line by line using multiple quotes as in a vain attempt to dissect the argument and make the post seem riddled with errors or inconsistencies. Or make it easier to refute. It is a physical/structural representation of several logical fallacies.

Quoting specific points in a post to address those points is "trolling"? You really should read more.

What was it you said? Context? So how about you not take shit out of context and address it in its entirety.

In other words, "Ignore nuance, all the matters is the 'big picture'"? Sorry, but there's more to it than that. Your unwillingness to see beyond that fact is your problem, not mine.

First, #metoo is not simply about sexual assault, its about cases of sexual harassment too. I know its going to be hard for your to understand given your issues with definitions. Neglect and abuse, harassment and assault. But suffice to say you again demonstrate your lack of knowledge or familiarity with the subject and I would suggest that you refrain from weighing in until you have firm grasp on the subject matter.

I've already addressed that topic to you, and further back in the thread. What #metoo is "about" is irrelevant. Cases of "made me feel uncomfortable" being under the same umbrella as actual assault/rape does a huge disservice to the latter cases. A word or phrase (or in this case, hashtag) carries only as much power as its weakest connotation.

Second a parent does NOT have "a little bit more free reign" the document cited is establishing minimum standards for the child. Thus it follows the child regardless of who is the caregiver at any specific time. If you are a paid nanny and leave a child in a parked car (even for 5 min) it is neglect, if you are an aunt/uncle and you leave a child in a parked car (even for 5 min) its neglect, if you are a parent... guess what (well it clear you're struggling here so I'll spell it out) and you leave a child in a parked car (even for 5 min) its neglect.

Yes, they do. That you're unable to grasp the context of the very document you're quoting just shows how nonsensical your argument is.

"Grounding" a child/teen can have its uses. Given the context I would probably assume you were a much older child who has a firm grasp on consequences. Anyone even marginally familiar with child development (either by studying it or experiencing it) would know that level of grounding would have limited effect on a young child, as they would forget why they are there to begin with. But given the fact that I clarified for you exactly what was happening. Your anecdote regarding grounding is irrelevant because I specifically defined what was happening. No access to food, water, or facilities. You quoted it... do you have difficulty reading too?

No, but you apparently have a problem with making a rational argument without resorting to ad hominem drivel. Do you know for certain that, in the anecdote you provided, that the person was physically locked (as in, behind lock and key) in their room and were explicitly denied food, water and facilities or are you just assuming it based on a third- or fourth-hand story?

Its not semantics. One = the other. Child maltreament is the umbrella term for child abuse and child neglect... which are used interchangeably. That means they mean the same thing.

People may use them interchangeably, but they are not the same thing. Leaving a child in a car falls under abuse, but specifically, it's neglect. Beating a child is not "neglect", it's straight up abuse. Again, if you can't understand context, stop talking.

Last, that is not some random opinion of some nobody. That is website dedicated to asking questions of law. You don't get to answer said questions without being verified as a lawyer. Thus that would make that a significantly more qualified opinion than that of yourself.

Is it peer-reviewed research/study? If not, it's no more relevant or valid than some random helicopter parent on a gaming forum. I'm starting to think you're one of those people who call child services when a parent lets their kid play in the back yard alone.

[Malacrass]

The question I always ask myself when it comes to those metoo campaigns (pops up every now and then, under a different tag):

Why would a woman ever say "no" when asked if she was ever sexually abused, especially when the abuse is not clearly specified (are we talking about cat-calling? harassment? rape? blackmailed into it? etc.)
When she says "no, never experienced anything like that" she would admit that she's undesirable, opening herself up to malice, especially on online platforms.

I mean, just imagine Sarrah Jessica Parker posting #NotMe.

I can comprehend that this is a problematic topic and definitely an issue, but I do call bullshit on the sheer amount of #metoo's, or whatever the current trend is called.

[A dot Ham]

You know how to spot someone who doesn't know what a troll is? They'll show you.



Quoting specific points in a post to address those points is "trolling"? You really should read more. [no true scotsman]



In other words, "Ignore nuance, all the matters is the 'big picture'"? Sorry, but there's more to it than that.[the fallacy fallacy] Your unwillingness to see beyond that fact is your problem, not mine.



I've already addressed that topic to you, and further back in the thread. What #metoo is "about" is irrelevant. Cases of "made me feel uncomfortable" being under the same umbrella as actual assault/rape does a huge disservice to the latter cases. A word or phrase (or in this case, hashtag) carries only as much power as its weakest connotation.



Yes, they do. That you're unable to grasp the context of the very document you're quoting just shows how nonsensical your argument is.
[personal incredulity]


No, but you apparently have a problem with making a rational argument without resorting to ad hominem drivel. Do you know for certain that, in the anecdote you provided, that the person was physically locked (as in, behind lock and key) in their room and were explicitly denied food, water and facilities or are you just assuming it based on a third- or fourth-hand story? [tu quoque][bandwagon]



People may use them interchangeably, but they are not the same thing. Leaving a child in a car falls under abuse, but specifically, it's neglect. Beating a child is not "neglect", it's straight up abuse. Again, if you can't understand context, stop talking. [ambiguity]



Is it peer-reviewed research/study? [burden of proof] If not, it's no more relevant or valid than some random helicopter parent on a gaming forum. I'm starting to think you're one of those people who call child services when a parent lets their kid play in the back yard alone. [ad hominem][strawman]

Since you're clearly aware of logical fallacies. I've gone ahead and notated your many uses. Not to mention that the very way you choose to address and structure your posts speaks to these two right here: [composition/division][texas sharpshooter]

You really say nothing worthy of replying to until you accuse ME of ad hominem. My "attack" on your ability to read was genuine concern, as I am quite perplexed as to how you seem to not understand my account (anecdotal as it may be) but in regards to #metoo its all anecdotal so... My stepdad was the child abused, and my grandparents were the ones who abused him. Pieces of the story you would have picked up on had you actually read the post. Hence the "Can you read?" question. This isn't some story I found on the internet. Its one that gets told in my family quite often as old folks like to repeat themselves. While neither my grandparents, nor my dad feel/felt it was/is abuse or neglect. By reasonable definitions it was. In some cases he was left alone and unattended from after breakfast until dinner. Sometimes more... sometimes less. My grandfather admits that he sometimes fell asleep because he forgot that his son was there. My father recounts having to be strategic about the bathroom because once he went into the room it would be quite some time before he could go again. He was admittedly put into the room not because he was bad necessarily, but because he was a curious child who would get into things he shouldn't. The door was locked from the outside. There would be no way for my dad to get out unless he broke a window to do so.

Not sure why we are even on this whole semantics thing... oh right. Because you claimed neglect wasn't abuse. But according to the definition it is. So I don't know how to help you with that. Neglect is ALWAYS abuse, according to the definition, according to law. Neglect = abuse. Abuse is not always neglect... but I never said it was so your entire point here was another strawman.

Peer reviewed study? I had no idea I was dealing with world's top authority in child services, and that you were in need of such hard evidence. I must say that I have find it more than a little ironic that while I have provided literature from the CPS regarding minimal standards for child care, a lawyers opinion, and an actual case that backs up my assertion that this type of behavior would be considered abuse by any reasonable person. You feel that the same standards don't apply to your position. I don't see any peer-reviewed studies from you that suggest that locking a child in a room for hours is not only NOT neglect but is a good practice for raising children, and healthy child development.

I actually don't need the approval of some random obnoxious and contemptible neanderthal from some video game forum to validate my opinions. Your thoughts mean as little to me as my middle finger does to you. You can piss off now! I've added you to my ignore list. You're not here to discuss you're here to fling mud and bait people. Any response by you will 100% self serving, though it has been from the beginning.

[Grimfrost]

i think many girls on my facebook at least are just doing the hashtag for attention/to be a part of the group. I too have been sexually abused but i'm not going to put this on facebook because it's my problem, i deal with it myself

[Kaleredar]

The question I always ask myself when it comes to those metoo campaigns (pops up every now and then, under a different tag):

Why would a woman ever say "no" when asked if she was ever sexually abused, especially when the abuse is not clearly specified (are we talking about cat-calling? harassment? rape? blackmailed into it? etc.)
When she says "no, never experienced anything like that" she would admit that she's undesirable, opening herself up to malice, especially on online platforms.

I mean, just imagine Sarrah Jessica Parker posting #NotMe.

I can comprehend that this is a problematic topic and definitely an issue, but I do call bullshit on the sheer amount of #metoo's, or whatever the current trend is called.

...so you're saying that a woman ties her desirability to whether she's been sexually harassed or not, and so should always claim she has been?

What?

[oxymoronic]

This post is disgusting.

/facepalm

do people like this really exist?