MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Markets Deliver Social Justice Better Than Government Does

Elizabeth Nolan Brown argues in The New York Times that we can thank "feminism, but also free markets" for the ongoing purge of predatory men.

Globe Photos/Sipa USA/NewscomGlobe Photos/Sipa USA/NewscomMarkets are much more effective handmaidens of social justice goals than government is, I argue in a New York Times piece responding to NBC's firing of 20-year Today Show veteran Matt Lauer.

"Social media takes a lot of punches for enabling sexual harassment," I point out, "but the past two months have shown that it has also provided consumers with an unprecedented power to make their market preferences heard loud and clear. And right now, the market is demanding that companies do something about sexual predators and pests in their midsts."

Lauer's dismissal is the latest in a long list of powerful private-sector men felled by recent revelations of workplace sexual misconduct—Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Charlie Rose, and Louis C.K., to name just a few. From my op-ed:

"Everybody knew" is the stomach-churning line we have heard about so many men revealed as serial sexual offenders in the workplace. And yet they held on to their cushy jobs for years. What changed? Companies like NBC, HBO, Netflix, CBS and the Weinstein Company are more vulnerable to our outrage than ever before.

While this gives many sides something to gripe about—that it didn't happen sooner, that victims weren't believed earlier, that this purge may ensnare the innocent—there's an optimistic note we shouldn't overlook: Consumers now have more power to make themselves heard than ever before. And this is forcing big corporations to reconsider how they respond to scandals, how they hold bad actors accountable, and the weight they attach to character—something those in political power have much less incentive to do.

To attest to this, look no further than Nancy Pelosi's response to allegations involving Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), or the response from Alabama Republicans all the way up to President Donald Trump on child-chasing Roy Moore.

"Character may no longer count in politics and public service—if it ever did," I write,

but it matters more than ever in the private sector, where consumer preferences prevail....As we observe and adjust to the sociosexual storm we're all in, let's appreciate the powers and paradigms making it possible: feminism, but also free markets.

Read the whole thing here.

Photo Credit: Globe Photos/Sipa USA/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Juice||

    A cop based charity was a fraud? No way.

    Children's charity accused of bilking $4.2 million from Ohio donors across all counties

    According to the lawsuit, Cops for Kids Inc. (also known as Ohio Cops for Kids) collected over $4.2 million in donations from Ohio residents between 2005 and 2015 but spent less than two percent of it on charitable programming, instead paying the vast majority — over $3.34 million — to its for-profit solicitor, Telcom Enterprises, and an additional $802,662 on salaries and overhead.
  • Crusty Juggler||

    That's the proud smile of a whip-out man.

  • Mongo||

    Lauer went crazy having to gaze upon Couric's hideous joker smile day-after-day.

  • ALWAYS RIGHT||

    "Sexual misconduct" used to be called trying to score. That was back in the old heterosexual days. We now live in the era of the feminist victim bitch.

  • Bearded Spock||

    If, or rather when, this latest "Libertarian Moment" finally collapses on itself and becomes a punch line, it will be because in an attempt to jump on the Victim Bandwagon women will be claiming men should be brutally punished for simply daring to talk to them without permission.

    One can find examples of the seeds of this downfall already being sown, where a Senate candidate in Utah claims victimhood because a colleague once called her pretty, and a writer for Teen Vogue celebrates the possibility of innocent men having their lives ruined to advance the cause.

    Right now everyone is too scared to stand up to the Narrative, but in 10-20 years this will look as ridiculous and mean-spirited as Ritualistic Satanic Abuse does today.

  • Tony||

    Pull many women by shoving your dick in their face in your day?

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    It's Robespierre Josef Stalin/AmSoc.

  • Brian||

    "Sociosexual storm" was my nickname in.... eh, go fuck yourself.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    In contrast, look at Washington. If either Representative John Conyers Jr. or Senator Al Franken were in today's corporate world, they'd be long gone. And just imagine if Roy Moore was a candidate for a C-suite job this month. He'd have no shot.

    Instead, at least so far, these politicians have been protected, and whatever happens to them, it's clear that the political system is structured to insulate men like them from the consequences of their actions and keep their accusers quiet.
    The modern American capitalist system is far from perfect. But for all its flaws, our system — and the digital communication channels it enabled — has delivered social justice more swiftly and effectively than supposedly more enlightened public bodies tend to.

    Yes.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    I like the expression "handmaidens of social justice goals."

    John Conyers is definitely innocent, though. So is Al Franken.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    So is Roy Moore. And Garrison Keillor. And Dennis Hastert.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Roy Moore is clearly guilty. Conyers and Franken are victims of a right-wing witch hunt, like Bill Clinton was in the 1990s, and still is even today.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    What about Bret Ratner? The Affleck brothers? Bill Cosby?

  • Just Say'n||

    Right-wing witch hunt. All of it. Those six Franken accusers are just Repugs and so is Nancy Pelosi for saying that Conyers should resign now

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Cosby has said 'conservative' sounding things about how African Americans are responsible for some of their own problems, so he's probably guilty.

    I'm leaning toward believing Ratner and the Afflecks are innocent because they're probably all liberals. But I'd need to know more about their politics in order to have an informed opinion.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Do you think Joe Scarborough killed his aide?

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Scarborough criticizes Orange Hitler and seems to be generally moving to the left, so I'm inclined to believe he's a good guy. Therefore, the death was most likely accidental.

  • GILMORE™||

    One day this comment section will have no one left but Amsoc, Tulpa, and Buttplug

    I suppose they'll think of that as 'victory'.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Victory for those of pure heart and mind.

  • GILMORE™||

    +1 Robert Duvall in Apocalypse Now

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Elizabeth Nolan Brown likes her chicken spicy.

    As we observe and adjust to the sociosexual storm we're all in, let's appreciate the powers and paradigms making it possible: feminism, but also free markets.

    JFC, what a fake libertarian.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    What do you mean "fake libertarian"? There are many valid subsets of libertarian thought, and libertarian feminism as practiced by ENB is certainly one of them.

  • SIV||

    Lol!

    B+

  • GILMORE™||

    There are many valid subsets of libertarian thought

    "to be sure: its just that some of them are wrong"

    /Zach, ENB, Robby

  • Bearded Spock||

    ENB belongs to the Punch Your Opponents In The Face Repeatedly school of Libertarianism, an old type of libertarianism practiced by Longshoremen and Teamsters during their quest for economic justice.

  • GILMORE™||

    ""Everyone can be libertarian now - especially the leftists! - but just not, like... you know, bad people. Robby will point them out"

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Are you referring to the tweet about Ben Shapiro? That was clearly a joke, and did nothing to diminish her libertarian credibility.

    I bet you're one of those "libertarians" who is just a Republican who wants to smoke pot. You need to accept the real future of libertarianism is on the left: libertarian feminism, liberal-tarianism, etc.

  • Bearded Spock||

    I read the tweet: she was not joking, and only claimed she was some 10 minutes later, after it became obvious she had really stepped in it.

    In any case, isn't "I was just joking" what Franken claimed at first? If our new standard is going to be joking about sexual harassment is not acceptable and grounds for dismissal, then there is no reason we should allow joking around about violence, either.

    People don't see it right now because they are too busy virtue-signaling, but society in general and women in particular are not going to like the new rules which are being established by the new Sexual Cultural Revolution.

  • BYODB||


    People don't see it right now because they are too busy virtue-signaling, but society in general and women in particular are not going to like the new rules which are being established by the new Sexual Cultural Revolution.


    Absolutely true.

  • GILMORE™||

    feminism, but

    What is it they say about, "everything after the but"? I forget

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Nothing, so far as I know.

    Now, everything before the but...

  • GILMORE™||

    Oh, right. I was thinking of "Tina got a big ol' butt"

  • Just Say'n||

    *sigh*

    Don't worry, you'll always have true libertarians like Cathy Reisenwitz.

  • chemjeff||

    This is something I have believed for a little while now - we are ALL "social justice warriors" in one form or another. We all have visions of what a just society would look like. It's just that a libertarian vision of a just society involves only minimal coercion and letting people be free to live their lives as they see fit.

  • GILMORE™||

    It's just that a libertarian vision of a just society involves only minimal coercion and letting people be free to live their lives as they see fit.

    in other words, not interested in 'social justice', and not a 'warrior' about other people's problems at all.

    that's deep, bro.

  • chemjeff||

    But it WOULD be "social justice" from a libertarian perspective if we had a society where people were free to live their lives as they saw fit. No?

    Social justice doesn't HAVE to mean "forcing people to behave like I want you to behave". That is just the leftist appropriation of the term. We can offer a competing vision that doesn't rely on coercion.

  • GILMORE™||

    "No?"

    No. when you dilute the meanings of terms until they mean anything/everything, up to including their opposite, you've crossed the line into full-retard.

  • Hank Stamper||

    You mean like dilute which is a scientific specific term for make (a liquid) thinner or weaker by adding water or another solvent to it.

    -admitted smartass

  • GILMORE™||

    ""smartass""

    lol

  • chemjeff||

    Okay, so what would your vision of a just society be?

  • GILMORE™||

    I think pointing out the stupidity of your linguistic contortions is sufficient without needing to play Plato.

  • Shapu||

    It is not only government that can provide coercion and burden and even annihilate individual liberty. Indeed the classical liberal justification for government was to prevent the caprice of private coercion and burdens on liberty that were often far from justice. I had once believed that this was the libertarian justification as well, but to many libertarians do not seem to believe this.

    "Social justice" is indeed "forcing [others] to behave just like I want [them] to behave", and Elizabeth Nolan Brown demonstrates that amply in this blog post. It doesn't matter whether that force is applied by some so-called government or the mob, whether pitchforked or not. Indeed, it is often the latter.

    We shouldn't be celebrating the principle of people being forced out of industry and government without due process even in the cases of in practice there is some poetic justice when these same people would force out others in other contexts also without due process. I'll grant poetic justice can be tasty stuff.

  • chemjeff||

    Then I guess we are working from two very definitions of "social justice".

    I see "social justice" as the state of having a just society. And what we all would consider "just" varies considerably. Those on the left view a "just society" as one of conformity to certain narrow norms of behavior. I don't agree with that. My view of a just society would be one in which individuals are free to be different from each other, even in offensive ways, as long as peoples' rights aren't being violated. I don't see what constitutes the coercion here.

  • chemjeff||

    *very different definitions

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    I say you get points for at least offering some kind of definition of the term, while others so far have not. I don't know if I agree with you, but I think the disagreement is that the 'dilution' of the term has been going on for a while (assuming it ever had a clear meaning to begin with). And this dilution is on both sides - both sides. The self-proclaimed SJWs want to make social justice broader to make it sound more palatable and common sense, while the SJW-accusers want more opportunities to use it as a slur.

  • GILMORE™||

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Fine. Half a point. Only five words, vagueness of "rectify" invites dilution.

  • GILMORE™||

    I wasn't begging for a ruling; just pointing out your one-sided reading of a discussion.

    I'm not interested in better-defining 'social justice' because the term is primarily used as a smokescreen for leftists to grab institutional power. Because labeling things with good-intentions is always their M.O. See: "Affordable Healthcare" that isn't.

    "Words: what do they *really* mean!?"-asked the idiot

    If you think simply changing the popularly-understood definitions of terms, and doing some junior-college semantic-judo is a compelling argument... well, best of luck with that.

    "Akshully, ahem, *real social justice* is leaving people alone! QED. And thus your sweeping claims of systemic racism inherent in our entire society can be considered refuted"

    Who, exactly, is supposed to find this interesting? The vast majority on the left and right already sees the term as hopelessly poisoned. Bright minds like chemjeff think there's value in libertarians culturally-appropriating the lingo. As tho there's someone, somewhere out that that will go, "huh, i never thought of it that way. *wow, man*"

  • chemjeff||

    Yes, demagogues on both sides want to insist that their and only their definition of social justice is the correct one.

    The demagogues on the left insist that there can only be social justice when everyone is forced to conform to a narrow range of views, anything less is not. That is *their view* of social justice, but it is not the only vision out there of a just society.

    The demagogues on the right want to define social justice to mean ONLY compulsion so as to use the term to mock and do battle against their tribal opposites on the left. But they fail to even consider even among their own tribe the desire to have a just society.

  • GILMORE™||

    I imagine you'd have been a big hit in some community-college freshman humanities class, where semantic pettifoggery tends to pass for intelligence.

  • Shapu||

    Traditionally the term "justice" has been sufficient to encompass the concept of a just society. The term "social justice" was specifically coined to reference an expanded set of responsibilities that individuals bear to other members of society, an enforceable responsibility that scales with their perceived advantages in that society. While fine as individual virtue, any libertarian or true liberal should see the problems associated in attempting to police it, whether that policing happens through governmental or social means.

    If "social justice" were all about moral suasion instead of governmental or social coercion, I too could go along with it. However, that ship has long sailed. Even the churches, which should know about the dangers in confusing the two, have long pushed for the latter.

  • GILMORE™||

    ^^

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    What does it mean to be "forced out of" a job "without due process"? Do you think NBC didn't conduct a thorough review of Lauer's behavior before deciding to fire their biggest star?

  • BYODB||

    Subquestion: do you think NBC would have kept Lauer if they determined nothing at all happened when they know full well the facts don't matter when it comes to the public cavorting around looking for blood?

    Y'know, the 'optics' of the situation?

  • GILMORE™||

    We shouldn't be celebrating the principle of people being forced out of industry and government without due process even in the cases of in practice there is some poetic justice when these same people would force out others in other contexts also without due process

    a few links above this story...

    One student on the Eugene Antifa Facebook page posted a screenshot, which showed the midterm question with the sarcastic answer marked as "correct," and commented: "I was livid. I brought this to his superiors and filed a formal complaint with the school. The hypocrisy was making me head spin." Another student in the thr-ead argued the school "should address" Borrowdale's "unacceptable and despicable" act. One other expressed regret that he hadn't been fired yet.

    i do think its sort of funny. I imagine if asked, they'd all agree that they are huge fans of unionization and that tenure is a wonderful thing, and that management needs to have dictatorial powers stripped from them.

    in any case, no: we're not all "social justice warriors", as CJ asserts, and "letting people be free to live their lives as they see fit." is pretty much the essential antithesis of the idea inherent in 'social justice', which is a compulsion to 'rectify' unpopular social-opinions.

  • chemjeff||

    'social justice', which is a compulsion to 'rectify' unpopular social-opinions.

    Only if you let people like Vox Day and Leftist SJW's define the term for you.

    You keep dodging the essential question. Of COURSE you have a vision of what you think a just society would look like. Everyone does on some level. What would you call the process of working towards achieving the vision of a society that you see is just? It doesn't have to involve compulsion or coercion or government force or riling up social media mobs. I have told you what I think a just society would look like. It would be one in which people were free to pursue their own interests as they saw fit as long as they didn't violate anyone's rights. And working towards removing barriers to permit this vision to become reality is, in my estimation, trying to achieve social justice.

    Instead of belittling the concept of social justice itself, why not offer an alternative vision of social justice that doesn't involve coercion and does involve liberty?

  • GILMORE™||

    I think your desperate attempt to stretch terminology to the breaking point is stupid

    when your terms include both the thesis and antithesis, they cease to be useful as terms. I think i already said this, but you're too dull to grok it.

  • chemjeff||

    Your thesis is incorrect.

    There is no necessary connection between social justice and compulsion.

  • GILMORE™||

    I wish you the best of luck convincing anyone of this proposition.

  • BYODB||


    There is no necessary connection between social justice and compulsion.

    Can't tell if serious, or joking.

  • GILMORE™||

    "The enforced reparations will be entirely voluntary; you can opt-out whenever you want, you just have to get approval-signatures from 100,000 documented descendants of slaves. In Newark. Using only red ink. Which need to be filed between the hours of 1:30-and 1:45AM, in our office in the Everglades. (shows illegible map)"

  • chemjeff||

    That is the problem Gilmore. Your vision is too limited, and your view of social justice is too cynical and jaded and tribalistic. You can only see social justice through the lens of current events.

    Here is an example to ponder. Suppose a person really is concerned about the lack of quality health care in certain segments of our society. (And if you don't believe that this is a real problem, read this.) The Leftist SJW's have an answer, and it involves making health care a "right" and lots of government mandates and coercion. So what is our answer? Just shouting "free markets!" doesn't really cut it. We need to make the case for our proposed answer on the same terms as the Leftist SJW's. We need to make the case that getting government out of health care will not only lead to better health care overall, but a more morally just society when that coercion and mandates and regulations are eliminated. If we can't make the case that our solutions are more morally just than what the Leftist SJW's offer, then we are ceding the moral high ground to them. And those who really do believe it's a moral injustice that man American citizens receive health care as if they are third-world refugees will just tune us out and embrace the Leftist SJW position. I want to avoid that.

  • GILMORE™||

    That is the problem Gilmore. Your vision is too limited, and your view of social justice is too cynical and jaded and tribalistic.

    I actually thought it was that you were an idiot. I'm not sure how you divined the above since i've never actually advanced any "vision of social justice" other than to observe how the left mendaciously uses it as a means to gain power.

    I don't think using vacuous, leftist-lingo is a clever means by which to advance liberty, and your case - fuzzy and moralistic, short on argument - isn't compelling at all.

  • GILMORE™||

    a simple counter argument:

    your shallow notions of social-morality don't trump my liberty. Liberty is a net-good completely independent of whether or not it produces the most socially-desirable outcomes.

    Liberty will not always produce morally-satisfying outcomes, and pretending it does is simply pandering to people who naively want govt to solve every problem, and granting their idiotic worldview credibility when it deserves none.

    e.g. would ending the drug war result in net-net public-good for everyone? No.

    Its very possible there would be more drug-use, more crime. It might ruin lots of kids lives. But there would be a few hundred thousand fewer prisoners held by the state for victimless crimes.

    Do I want to be forced to measure the net social-benefit of my policy ideas, and justify them according to some leftist-generated "scale of morality" in order for them to be considered valid?

    Fuck no. I want to end the drug war on principle, because the government shouldn't be imprisoning lots and lots of people for non-violent crime.

    I see absolutely zero utility in appealing to the any conception of "Social Justice" because it grants one of the dumbest of the left's utopian desires: that with *just the right models of governance, we can fix society*

    No we can't, and every time you try you make things worse. Stop.

  • chemjeff||

    "Liberty will not always produce morally-satisfying outcomes"

    Yes it does. Because people's outcomes will be dictated by their free and individual choices. Which is the more moral result, if I freely choose to take my own life, or if I am forcibly kept alive against my will? I believe, and I think you do too, that the moral result is the one which results from individual choice free of coercion, even if it leads to a result that others may regard as tragic.

    "I want to end the drug war on principle"

    And what is the moral basis for that principle? That it is immoral to imprison people who have done nothing to harm anyone else. That the higher moral principle is individual choice and individual liberty regardless of the harm that they choose to do to themselves. THAT is the argument that we have to make. It is MORAL to allow individual liberty to flourish. That is the argument that we have to make.

    They want you to regard morality as a purely consequentialist concept. And you are falling into that same trap. We have to challenge that. They are wrong and we are right.

    "Liberty is a net-good completely independent of whether or not it produces the most socially-desirable outcomes."

    Completely wrong. The most socially desirable outcomes are the ones that flow from liberty.

  • chemjeff||

    I am 100% serious.

  • ||

  • GILMORE™||

    Is there a term, a la Godwinning, when someone shows up after a debate with (*utterly inconclusive) Wikipedia entries? There should be.

    Its been a long time since i've read Mill... but i imagine:

    "Society should treat all equally well who have deserved equally well of it"

    ...that there's a shitload of stuff in the notion of "desert" which would run afoul of the contemporary understanding that society is supposed to be permanently hamstrung rectifying the costs of perpetual "injustices", such as "women only make .77 what men make"

  • ||

    Calm down - I'm agreeing with you.

  • GILMORE™||

    you make me feel like Cuba Gooding in Jerry McGuire. You think we're fighting, i think we're finally talking.

  • BYODB||

    Man card: REVOKED

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Next you'll say everyone virtue signals, you liberal cuck.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I libertarian so much harder than you.

  • GILMORE™||

    "cuck" is a complement, if you really think about it"

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    It's more a redundancy than a complement to liberal.

  • GILMORE™||

    "liberal" is itself an undeserved complement to leftist-apologists.

  • Shapu||

    Indeed, you'd think at least libertarians would not better than to call the modern progressive socialist metaphysical clusterfuck "liberal".

  • BYODB||

    'Liberal' and 'Conservative' have lost most of their meaning these days. Probably because most people have absolutely no idea what the underpinning philosophy is of either category. They're catch-all terms that encompass a variety of strawman arguments in my opinion, or at best a pejorative.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    We better not find out that most of these were women sleeping their ways to the top and now reinvigorating their social standings/career aspirations by joining the club of actual victims. Having your cake and eating it too is a glaring market failure.

  • EscherEnigma||

    So justice is only for those whose story will sell newspapers, eh?

    Until this "trickles down" to the *actual* justice system and business decisions that don't involve news articles, it's just lipstick on a pig.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I've trickled down on a pig's lipstick, if you know what I mean.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    You spilled your drink at a petting zoo?

  • Eidde||

    I think he's trying to help us with our diets by grossing us out so we don't eat.

  • Brian||

    So, never?

  • Shapu||

    Let's certainly celebrate a world where hysteria rules the day, and "due process" is just a distant memory.

    Let's celebrate a world where lives of men and women can be up turned and destroyed by the latest witch hunt, with no recourse to a neutral arbiter.

    Let's celebrate a world where feels are more important than facts, and reason is a distant memory.

    Let's just not celebrate that world in a magazine and web site called "Reason".

  • John||

    Markets deliver lots of "social justice". What Elizabeth doesn't understand is that what is social justice to one person might not be to another. The same process that runs people like Lauer and Weinstein out of their jobs could just as easily run anyone else out of their jobs for holding opinions or engaging in activities society at large finds offensive. Social sanction is just as necessary but no less of a slippery slope than legal sanction.

    The same forces that got Weinstein also got the President of Mozilla fired for the crime of holding an unpopular opinion. And if it happened to him, it can happen to anyone. Everyone holds an unpopular opinion sometimes.

  • lap83||

    What Elizabeth doesn't understand is that what is social justice to one person might not be to another.

    "Social justice" seems to be like feminism or "hope and change" in that way. The problem with that is, of course, politicians latching on to the rhetorical goldmine that entails so they can f*** us all over. No thanks.

  • Eidde||

    "more vulnerable to our outrage than ever before"

    They've always been vulnerable to the outrage - the outrage simply needs to be turned on. If it was turned off before, that doesn't mean the market wasn't delivering the goods, simply that there wasn't as much demand then for these sorts of standards.

    "feminism, but also free markets"

    Of course, judging feminists by their own subjective vision of how the world should be, they are totally virtuous because they want a world where every sexual approach by a man to a woman is consented to by the woman (even if it's not consented to by the man's wife).

    But if we look at the real-world actions of feminism in tearing down the institution of marriage and denouncing male chauvinists who stand up chivalrously for women, the feminists should bear a bit of responsibility for the climate where it's OK to seek extramarital hookups and if you moralize about it you're against women's empowerment.

    It will take more than "we didn't mean men should hit on women who don't like it!" for feminists to get out of this one.

  • Eidde||

    Needless to say, the misbehaving men are the prime offenders, but since feminists believe in the effects of culture, I think it's fair to point to the culture in which these men operate.

  • BYODB||

    What is 'Social Justice' one might ask ENB, but I expect no cognizant answer.

  • BYODB||

    Oh, and just to say it if these men are 'predators' does this not mean that women are little more than prey? Implicitly this means that women have no agency, or at the very least that they are weaker and need extra protection because of their tiny little girl brains. This is right in line with modern 'feminism' as I understand it.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    No, it does not.

  • BYODB||

    If the men are predators, what is their prey?

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Whoever they are, they are more than prey and can still have plenty of agency.

    They are often considered weaker, not because of the gender they may be, but because of their 'social position' and junk.

  • BYODB||


    They are often considered weaker, not because of the gender they may be, but because of their 'social position' and junk.

    So, horseshit then?

    Whoever they are, they are more than prey and can still have plenty of agency.

    If they have agency, then why don't they walk away from 'sexual predators' who did not, in fact, rape them? Is it because they were, at the time, willing to trade sexual favors for preferential treatment by these 'predators' or is that not a valid use of their agency?

    What is being said, more or less, is that women's agency has legal boundaries beyond which they are not allowed to choose. Or worse, they are allowed to choose but the repercussions for that choice fall entirely on someone else.

    These women had the choice to walk away. Some chose not to walk away in trade for opportunities. The women who made the choice to walk away and didn't get the opportunities are now mad at the women who choose to take it because it sets the bar somewhere they don't like the bar.

    I would agree it's a bad place for the bar but it's 'bad' because our society thinks sex is inherently evil for some reason. That's it. That's the reason.

  • BYODB||

    Or, to put it another way, why is using sex as a transactional medium inherently a bad thing? In American culture it is absolutely considered bad regardless of the choices of either involved party, up to and including both parties agreeing to it. Why?

  • Eidde||

    I would reserve the term "predators" for rapists in bushes and molesters of minors.

    Not that the other stuff is legal, but it gives a creepy groper too much evil cred to call him a predator rather than a creepy groper and perhaps sex assaulter.

  • BYODB||

    I would do the same. Crimes that rely upon knowing the innermost thoughts of the perpitator are something of a fools errand in my view and I'm not a huge fan of crimes that rely on something as ephemeral as a he-said-she-said.

    "I didn't want to have sex", she said.

    "She said she wanted sex at the time", he said.

    Who knows what actually happened, but if she didn't fight him at the time the only 'evidence' will be identical to consensual sex.

    Or, in other words, you can't prove a crime. This is a problem, even if we want to pretend it isn't.

    What is happening now is that if a woman sounds 'credible' that something inappropriate *might* have happened that the man is guilty of...something? I'm unclear what the punishment for that something might be, but at the moment it appears that you lose your job and...are free to go and try to find another one? Maybe you'll need to pay some money, turning her into a legal prostitute?

    Witch hunts, inquisitions, and crusades for everyone!

  • Eidde||

    I'd have to look into the specific cases to know for sure, bottom line, I won't believe something just because it's in the media, and there may be innocent guys roped into this, but I imagine there's a bit of fire behind the smoke in some of the cases.

  • BYODB||

    If the women are blackmailed or threatened with some type of actual harm to do an action they did not want to take, I can see that being the case. I have yet to hear what the punishment for not taking those actions was, though.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    *cogent

  • Crusty Juggler||

    *Kojack.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    *Kojak, baby

  • BYODB||

    *Kodak

  • BYODB||

    I wouldn't expect a cogent answer either, although I will admit that probably fits better grammatically.

  • A Thinking Mind||

    This whole craze is growing despicable. It's pleasing to learn that some actual predators-like Harvey Weinstein-are FINALLY being brought down. But the #metoo movement is turning into something sinister-a tool for women who feel unhappy to use to spread their misery. It's helping to propagate some myth about how men are a bunch of wicked predators which means that no evidence is even required to ruin their lives.

    If you want me to believe this whole craze isn't mass hysteria, produce just ONE woman guilty of sexual harassment in the world of entertainment or politics. Surely there has to be someone, somewhere, right?

  • Eidde||

    There's Thingimebob, and what's-her-name, and also you-know-who
    The task of filling in the blanks I'd rather leave to you

  • Eidde||

    DISCLAIMER: I expect that some of the currently-publicized charges will turn out to be fake or exaggerated. and other charges will be confirmed. In speaking of offenders, I'm referring to those cases which turn out to be well-founded.

  • Microaggressor||

    You know, I think that's what it's going to take to put an end to this hysteria. Once a few people get caught trying to pull off a fake allegation, with enough evidence to prove it, it will make people realize the value of skepticism.

  • lap83||

    Let's not pretend that "social justice" is somehow compatible with free markets. It's a nice-sounding term but it belongs to those who are opposed to the ideas of individuality and choice. The "social" part of the term should be the tip-off. See: social contract

  • ||

    Let's not pretend that "social justice" is somehow compatible with free markets.

    ^ This.

    As I linked above (and as you say), the term sounds nice in the abstract, and I can see what ChemJeff is saying above, but the term as it has developed in modern western society is specifically critical of free markets and their (supposed) inability to produce outcomes that are in line with "moral philosophy."

    A "concern" for Social Justice is a "concern" that markets left alone are un-just.

  • BYODB||


    A "concern" for Social Justice is a "concern" that markets left alone are un-just.

    One and done, son. ^_-

    The longer I read Reason, the clearer their gradual conversion to Progressivism becomes. One day it might even serve as a case study in the decline of actual reason.

  • GILMORE™||

    (applause)

  • lap83||

    A "concern" for Social Justice is a "concern" that markets left alone are un-just.

    Yeah. Not to mention their concern that "justice" left alone is un-just. Justice as-is doesn't cause enough suffering to the people they dislike.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online