ALTRAV, it very clear that some have used their power and networks to ensure that anybody who dared to lodge a complaint would suffer a massive personal penalty. Harvey Weinstein appears to be a pretty clear example of that.

There appears to be a compelling case that others such as Crosby used drugs and their own status to get away with actions that were clearly abusive.

The case that Bill Clinton was a serial sexual abuser appears to be pretty strong as is the case that Hillary was involved in silencing his victims. Christopher Hitchins gave a couple of interesting interviews on the topic while he was still alive and as far as I can put the pieces together his early work on that topic was while he was still otherwise on side with the Democrats.
I have no sympathy for those who have used power to assault others or hinder their careers unless personal favours of some kind were given. I have no sympathy for those who have forcefully or with the aid of drugs assaulted others.

I do though have concerns that the climate of an accusation being treated as guilt so popular with some appears to be becoming more common place.

I do have concerns that we may not have a viable balance in the way the reputations of accused and accuser are handled, especially where it may be that establishing guilt or otherwise is not viable. Raising an accusation will harm the reputation of the accused sometimes even when clear evidence is available that the accusations are false, we don't have from what I can see any viable way of protecting the reputation of accused when the case is not proven (nor dis-proven).

It does appear that public coverage of accusations gives others the courage to come forward, what we have learned from institutional child abuse should teach us some pretty strong lessons in that space.

It's a messy space and blaming either men in general or women in general for the choices of others is never a good approach.

R0bert

Robert, I agree with punishing anyone who drugs someone and then proceeds to rape them or take advantage of them.

But, what we are talking about here is far from this.

I am quick to point out that using todays laws and morals in matters of the past is a dangerous path to follow.

I openly admit to 'chatting up' women in my past, because that's what men did and might I add, are supposed to do.

What this new self proclaimed 'moral' generation has to get into their thick heads is, we have a certain instinctive pre-determined program within us which defines the men from the males or worse, and it is as old as creation itself.

They don't want to hear it because, they/we can't change our DNA and, it would stop them and their cause in their tracks.

We MUST accept what we are and not allow PC and the softies of this world to push their mis-giuded agenda.

My message is. Stop pushing this idiotic and childish agenda and leave the past in the past.

Even if the same occurred today, my message would be. So what, move on.

ALTRAV, I think to current focus on this covers a range of scenarios. There are genuine abusers being outed but also a fever to believe allegations even when it's clear the allegations have holes in them.

I've not noticed any hitting the media that cover what I'd consider reasonable interactions but have seen commentary on the topic over time that strongly in the area you were talking about. A lot of women of my generation are very strongly of the view that men must make the first move, I grew up with playing hard to get being a thing and the expectation that should make the male try harder if he was genuinely interested. I never did well with either but was well aware of the pervasiveness of those views.

I agree that it's unreasonable to judge the past based on today's values (which are still not universal).

I never want to be so bogged down in a side though that I ignore evil because of its caught up in another issue.

R0bert

RObert,

It isn't messiness that is the problem. It is most usually board directors in the private sector and ministers, politicians, in the public, who are NOT fulfilling the roles they are being paid for.

Historically it has often been the case that many directors, like politicians where the public sector is concerned, sit back and 'don't make waves'. -But what that really means is them taking the dough and benefits and being slack. Performing due diligence only requires some questions of the responsible persons, especially senior management, and It is part of the responsibility of the directors of the boards (and politicians!) to be asking them.

I went into this on another thread, on sexual harassment, saying,

"The control environment is set from the top. Also, behaviour generalises.

Where for example, a grub can repeatedly offend against children and over years, as occurred in the case of Jimmy Saville and the BBC, it is very likely indeed that there is other corruption occurring, such as the (very common) conversion of the organisations' assets to private use and another, favouritism in appointment, promotions and conditions of service.

It suits the tabloid media and some predictable elements to portray sexual harassment as a male abuse of power against women. However that trivialises what is really going on and ensures that while there is the occasional scalp for that particular offence, the far greater problem of abuse of position and power to the detriment of the organisation and shareholders (taking the public as the shareholders in public bodies) continues.

There is nothing like having an effective audit committee (with outside appointments), a program including comprehensive audits and publication of audit reports to deter offenders and to ensure that robust and effective controls are in place and working...(tbc)

continued
It is the absence of these and particularly an environment where audit is belittled and seen as the enemy by management that is the red flag that something nasty is going on. An audit program would be noticeably incomplete if the organisation's cub-contractor and outsourced functions are not included."
Posted by leoj, Wednesday, 29 November 2017 8:02:07 AM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8043

I would add that for the boards to be effective, independent external directors are necessary. Where political parties (and governments) are concerned, internal democracy of political parties is a prerequisite, for obvious reasons. In Australia the latter will require regulation.

The reason why radical feminists don't pursue the due diligence solutions (discussed above) that are well laid down already in available regulations,in accountancy standards and audit standards as examples, is because they only want a changing of the guard, with them replacing those who are already in the envied positions of power and privilege. They do NOT want real, sustained change, a new deal. Quite the opposite in fact, as can be seen from the favouritism and business as usual where 'Emily's Listers' have taken the reins in Australia.

Good to hear from people with reason and common sense.

It is a rare thing to experience when discussing controversial topics.

Thank you all.