And only a few short decades ago I could fire someone for being gay, or forbid my wife from opening a bank account. And it was a mere century ago that women literally couldn't vote.

I don't see why the fact that social mores change invalidates the social standard we have today.

Furthermore, why do you folk always jump straight to the "b..b..but false harassment!" argument? All it does is demonstrate that you actually don't care at all about the original problem.

Experts place false sexual misconduct allegations at 2-10% (https://qz.com/980766/the-truth-about-false-rape-accusations...), and estimate that that number would be even lower if you include all the women who were harassed and never report to start with.

So why are you willing to throw 90-98% of harassed women to the sharks, in order to protect 2-10% of accused men? Plus there's the whole strawman that allegations are always believed. Of course there should be fact checking. In fact, even in the #metoo era, men almost never face repercussions for false allegations (and often not for real ones.)

Your statement that unfounded harassment claims do not lead to repercussions is flat out false. There is no company that would not discipline someone for bringing a harassment claim that was demonstrated to be false.

In short: this argument demonstrates that what you really want to do is only to preserve the status quo and do in fact not give a shit about a major problem in our culture.

   invalidates the social standard we have today.

The social standards we have today include that false accusations of harassment largely have no repercussions, and amount to a destruction of standards of justice. I don't want to live in a totalitarian society where hate-mobs replace argument, why do you promote one?

   don't care at all about the original problem.

I care about the original problem, but believe it to be marginal in comparison with the false accusation problem, and the decline of standards of justice.

   Experts place false sexual 
   misconduct allegations at 2-10%

The article you cite does not provide any evidence of this claim whatsoever, did you even read it?

    throw 90-98% of harassed women to the 
    sharks, in order to protect 2-10% 

You seem to think that marginal inconveniences of women (let's not forget that the Google mob was protesting because some guy hit on some woman at a party!), is more important that human rights of men?

> Experts place false sexual misconduct allegations at 2-10% (https://qz.com/980766/the-truth-about-false-rape-accusations...), and estimate that that number would be even lower if you include all the women who were harassed and never report to start with.

Those numbers are specifically for rape, not sexual misconduct. I would hope that the false accusation rate for violent felonies is pretty low. Assuming this is still the case with lesser charges or non-criminal behavior is disingenuous.

> what downsides are there for false harassment claims

There are major downsides to making true harassment claims: you get denounced as a liar and a slut. This is the main reason why so many claims went unreported, and the #metoo movement is one of solidarity which makes it possible for people to actually report true claims without ruining their career. Actually deliberately making a false harassment claim is potentially career suicide.

(Jacob Wohl thought it would be easy to bribe people into making false harassment claims, and this blew up in his face: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/robert-mue... )

So because Asia Argento has sexually harassed someone, the MeToo movement is discredited? Some of the comments in this thread are unbelievable

You know, just because you don't empathize with how in our culture and society a woman being called a "liar and a slut" can be both career and social suicide, doesn't mean that it isn't a major downside for other people...

Does the actions of a leader discredit a movement? Can one even say that #MeToo has a single leader? Do you know anything about the #MeToo movement?

> Indeed, what downsides are there for false harassment claims?

Many people who get harassed opt to change teams, companies, or professions rather than actually pursue a formal complaint against their harasser. Perhaps they are mistaken (I don't think so), but they seem to believe that there are real downsides to filing even true harassment claims, to the extent that the aforementioned career upheavals seem easier.

> Perhaps they are mistaken, but they seem to believe that there are real downsides to filing even true harassment claims

Why can’t both be true?

For what you are implying to make any sense you have to assume some sort of equivalence:

1) Between the kind of woman who makes a false claim and the kind of woman who makes a true one.

AND

2) Between the kind of man who is guilty and the kind of man who is falsely accused.

I don’t think either of these two claims holds any water.

Even if you believe that, why shouldn’t there be a process to investigate the claims? You think all harassment claims should be automatically dismissed as false instead?

   all harassment claims should be 

No, of course not. Symmetrically, the should also not automatically accepted as true.

There should be an objective, measurable process. Given the cul-de-sac that organisations like Google have been strong-armed into, I think the obvious next step is

(1) to record all work-time interaction of all employees and store them for a long time, e.g. at least 10 years.

(2) Give a absolutely clear-cut criteria as to what counts as acceptable behaviour and what doesn't.

>No, of course not. Symmetrically, the should also not automatically accepted as true.

This. I imagine most are absolutely true, but there are some that absolutely are not. I've personally been accused by rape, online, of someone in another state that I've never even been to. Fortunately, no one took the claim serious but I imagine there are many innocent people that have been wrongly accused for whatever reason.

I also had a friend, that was using OkCupid, reject a girl very politely in the first message or two. She then went on 'cheaterville' and posted that he gave her sexual transmitted diseases/infections and made multiple accounts alleging the same, one even as him with his name. He's an actor, he was up for a role and they retracted their offer when googling his name brought the cheaterville page up on the first page. Now if these two instances have happened to 2 guys from the midwest that have no power or money, I can only imagine there are quite a few false accusations regularly. I also imagine there are many many more TRUE accusations.

We need to protect individuals regardless of race, gender and sexual orientation but at the same time we need to avoid workplace harassment turning into McCarthyism.

   I imagine most are absolutely 
   true,

I don't, for two reasons.

(1) There is simply no agreement currently on what counts as harassment.

(2) Anecdote: I've been involved in investigating a sexual harassment claim at a previous employer, at it was absolutely and categorically and provably false.

   turning into McCarthyism.

Too late. That ship has sailed a long time ago. The situation has gotten so out of hand, that recording all employee interaction might indeed be the only way forward.

>(1) There is simply no agreement currently on what counts as harassment.

This is an absolutely fair observation.

>The situation has gotten so out of hand, that recording all employee interaction might indeed be the only way forward.

Yeah, I think something like bodycams is likely the most effective solution to the issue but then things get tricky for various industries, stuff like patient/client confidentiality laws, trade secrets, etc. Not to mention stuff like using the restroom, where sexual harassment could still take place.

Then audio-only wouldn't cover miming explicit actions.

It's certainly a problem with no easily actionable answer.

> store them for a long time, e.g. at least 10 years.

Not sufficient. Should store them for at least 36 years.

> Even if you believe that, why shouldn’t there be a process to investigate the claims?

Because it quickly becomes a witch-hunt.

It is hard enough to have a fair investigation within a proper court system and legal framework - it’s far more likely any Google process will end up as a kangaroo court than the process leading to any justice.

So you think all claims should be dismissed as false and people who are actually subjected to sexual harassment and coercion at work should have no recourse.

> So you think all claims should be dismissed as false

Why would you think that?

I think the majority of claims need to go into the “not really sure” bucket where they belong.

Acknowledging this basic truth does not mean you have to then do nothing.

Which is why they merit investigation. For which there should be a process. Without an investigation process, what alternatives would you suggest for avoiding treating all claims as true or all claims as false?

> what alternatives would you suggest

There are many well tested solutions but they all carry different trade offs.

E.g.

- Have a zero tolerance policy on relationships between colleagues. This works well in smaller to mid-size companies.

Or,

- When you receive a complaint move the accuser and accused into different teams.

Etc.

> When you receive a complaint move the accuser and accused into different teams.

That's a very good way to be found liable for both later harassment by the accused and, if you move the accuser, for retaliation; and also a PR nightmare when it is discovered to have been your policy or even a common practice to move accused wrongdoers without follow-up (just ask the Catholic Church.)

> just ask the Catholic Church

If priests had been moved around for simply leering at a woman or making a suggestive sexual comment I don’t think there would have been any outrage.

I hope you don’t think I’m suggesting a company should cover up serious crimes - or any crimes for that matter.

> I hope you don’t think I’m suggesting a company should cover up serious crimes

You are suggesting that they should shuffle people around without investigation to quiet complaints of situations against which are obligated by law to protect their employees, including potentially involuntary reassignment of the reporting party (again, without investigation of the facts) despite the legal prohibition on retaliation.

> to quiet complaints

Uh no - to protect their employees from abuse.

> despite the legal prohibition on retaliation.

Why is it retaliation to seperate the accused and accuser?

In fact if you don’t seperate them you are opening yourself up to legal liability and a PR nightmare.

> Have a zero tolerance policy on relationships between colleagues. This works well in smaller to mid-size companies.

This addresses only the tiniest subset of issues, and mostly the ones toward the consensual end of the spectrum. Groping; quid pro quo suggestions (subtle or explicit); coercive threats (subtle or explicit); lewd remarks; invitations to strip clubs; etc ad nauseum (and yes, they're nauseating) have nothing to do with actual romantic relationships.

> When you receive a complaint move the accuser and accused into different teams.

Due to the nature of company hierarchies, this almost inevitably punishes the person lower on the reporting chain much more than it does the one higher - both in terms of short term impacts and long term career advancement. Which often means punishing the victim, due to how the power dynamics of harassment interactions tend to work out.

It's also a pretty damn weak reaction. If your Director of X insinuates that they'll fire an engineer if the engineer won't sleep with the director, you think the only consequence for the director should be that that engineer no longer reports to them?

> This addresses only the tiniest subset of issues, and mostly the ones toward the consensual end of the spectrum.

Not at all - in practice it removes ambiguity which is where most of the issues stem.

> this almost inevitably punishes the person lower on the reporting chain

At a large company that is not true - it’s actually the opposite.

For those below director level it’s usually a privilege to be able to shift teams.

On the other hand when you are director level and up it’s usually a negative because most of your ability to operate effectively comes from the interpersonal relationships you have built up.

> It's also a pretty damn weak reaction.

It’s a weak reaction based on typically weak evidence. In fact most commonly there is no evidence at all.

What it does is it ensures any abuse is stopped.

In practice it’s one of the most effective techniques I’ve seen because it can be used to nip problems in the bud - nobody feels too bad about using the system early and often.

Your much more likely to have somewhere to reassign the lower level employee to than the higher level employee simply because there are fewer roles total at the higher level. Unless both must be reassigned, you end up punishing only the lower level employee.

It doesn’t ensure abuse is stopped. It may just expose a different set of employees to abuse. It doesn’t send a message that abuse is unacceptable or will meet with meaningful consequences. It’s only a solution to anything if the only problematic interactions are between two specific employees. If you have an employee with a boundary problem or who enjoys abusing their position or who “just can’t help themselves”, it does nothing to prevent or deter them from subjecting another report to the same unacceptable behavior. Like the molesting priests mentioned in another thread - moving them to another parish accomplishes nothing except to make it clear that they can get away with misbehavior and to expose a new set of victims to abuse.

> than the higher level employee simply because there are fewer roles total at the higher level.

Maybe at the very top - not for the majority of cases though.

> It doesn’t send a message that abuse is unacceptable or will meet with meaningful consequences.

Does sending a message that abuse is unacceptable stop abuse?

It seems to me that the only people it scares are the people who aren’t a problem in the first place.

In truth such a message seems to enable abusers although I couldn’t explain to you why.

> moving them to another parish accomplishes nothing

That might be the case when children are involved.

In a workplace context though such an approach empowers potential victims.

It empowers victims in four key ways:

1) It stops women from threatening innocent men - saying “I can make you move teams to an equivalent position” is not particularly threatening - more of a pain in the ass.

2) It limits the ability of a male manager to sexually pressure his female subordinates. Saying “you will never advance in this company unless you ...” carries a lot less weight when you can easily switch managers.

3) It empowers women to be able to voice concerns without having to worry about getting people fired.

You’d be surprised at the number of women who keep quiet about real problems because they don’t want an overzealous HR to come in and ruin people’s livelihoods.

4) It limits abuse without requiring strong evidence of abuse in a way that doesn’t result in strong backlash.

   Have a zero tolerance policy on 
   relationships between colleagues. 

Here is an interesting though experiment: Remove all humans from this planet who are the direct or indirect descendent of a couple whose relationship started at work.

Conjecture: the planet would be depopulated.

You do a chromosomal analysis on everyone before you use a gendered pronoun to describe them? Because you can't tell what their chromosomes are just by appearance.

I can have an educated guess from just a brief glance -- especially if the other person doesn't actively tries to mislead me on such an important issue.

And why the fuck do you care about other people's chromosomes?

I don't care directly about chromosomes, they are put an extremely good proxy for one's reproductive abilities, hence an extremely good biological correlate for sex (i.e. reproductive role).

I care about fertility, because reproduction is more-or-less the single most important duty every human has. It is also difficult a space to navigage, therefore all indicators and heuristics that help me appreciate his/her sex efficiently, makes navigating this difficult space much easier, hence is a friendly gesture.

Here is an interesting question for you to ponder: Why do basic facts about human biology upset you so much, so much so in fact, that you use the act of procreation as an expletive?