
After a year of MeToo, survey respondents have become more sceptical - crunchiebones
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/10/15/after-a-year-of-metoo-american-opinion-has-shifted-against-victims
======
johnp314
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".

------
olliej
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
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
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?

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> 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.

~~~
DoreenMichele
It's actually a lot more complicated than that.

I have been watching this discussion and loathe to jump in. I'm glad to see a
few comments adding some nuance, in spite of this being a conversation with
very polarized positions.

------
jonahbenton
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
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
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.

------
Ruthalas
[https://web.archive.org/web/20181015201612/https://www.econo...](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)

Archive link for those who have "reached [their] article limit".

------
slivym
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?"

------
StevenJac
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.

------
rossdavidh
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.

