Repost: Liu Yu: About metoo

The article was reposted from Teacher Liu Yu. Since the author did not post the article, please do not tip.

1. Don't want to comment on specific cases. Cases vary so much that it is impossible to generalize. And, probably out of what might be called a "woman's benevolence," I am more concerned with "sins" than with "sinners."

2. If I have to make a "good" or "bad" judgment on the #metoo movement, I would say it is a good thing, because it is an educational movement, for men, to teach them moderation and respect, for men For women (and some gay men), educate them (them) to protect themselves, especially as soon as possible to say no or even call the police. Many men "arrested" from this movement are actually on the front line of rights defense" "Fighters" shows how lacking and necessary this education - especially in China - is.

3. Alright, now that we’ve finished talking about the politically correct, let’s talk about the politically incorrect. There are things I don't like about #metoo as a movement, and at the simplest, I don't like big posters by nature. Although I agree that in many places and many times, it is a luxury to pay attention to the rule of law-if resorting to the law is no longer possible, then resorting to the Internet is an option, but I would rather see the rule of law, or even "find the unit After the "lynching methods" of finding relatives and friends were exhausted, Daming Dazibao was used as the last method.

4. Why do I prefer the legal path? Because the spirit of the rule of law is individualistic in nature—it emphasizes the specific analysis of specific cases, even the different charges of the same person should be analyzed separately, procedural justice, confrontation and providing evidence between the two parties, the spirit of presumption of innocence in criminal issues, and appropriate sentencing. The principle of proportionality ... I like the carefulness involved in the spirit of the law. Sure, sexual assault can cause untold harm and suffering to victims, but the label of a "sexual harasser" can also be devastating to a man—even if he doesn't end up in prison or lose his job, his reputation in the public sphere is. Shadow for life.

5. Daming Dazibao is a collective, long-distance, carnival public trial. If nothing else, metoo confuses me by bundling together offenses of very different nature. From the cases that have been exposed, it seems that there are actual rapes (and repeat offenders), inappropriate "lou hugging", touching hands and legs, text messages or offensive words, and even simple stupidity or misjudgment sexual temptation. Criticizing these together is not only downplaying and weakening the real "felony, fear of spoons", but also infinitely exalting misdemeanors such as "light peach" and "self-made passion". The meaning of the rule of law is not only to clarify "guilty or innocence", but to determine the proportion of punishment for different crimes. It would be cheaper for him to just conduct an online public trial for a repeat rapist, but for a man who kissed a girl forcibly because of self-cognitive dissonance, and ended the offense in time after the girl pushed her away, would he be labeled a "sexual harasser" for the rest of his life? That's too much for me.

6. Someone said, who did metoo call wrong? How can there be unjust, false or wrongly decided cases? So no need to worry about accidental injury. I don't completely agree. First of all, in the history of sexual harassment allegations, there are indeed many cases that are likely to be accidental injuries. Columbia has a "mattress girl" rape case, at least two investigations failed to prove the man's guilt. Woody Allen's case of molesting her adopted daughter is still a mystery. The Tang Lanlan case, which sparked a big discussion not long ago, is also confusing. Among the dozens of people accused by her, her grandfather has died in the detention center for no apparent reason. If you have doubts about the possibility of false accusations, just search for false rape claim, and it can be said that cases abound. Moreover, what is "hit rate"? Catching a "big villain" is indeed a "hit", but have all the charges against this big villain been "hit"? Even for a rape suspect who has been accused continuously these days, there are some bizarre accusations (such as lying in the women's bathroom) that are said to be fishing posts. Some people may say, anyway, he was convicted of all 10 charges, so let's worry about the 11th charge, right? No, the principles of the rule of law require that we take every charge seriously. The more accusatory the person is, the more procedural justice is needed, and the struggle model of advocating big and big-character posters cannot guarantee this kind of procedural justice.

7. Some friends said that the "presumption of innocence" does not apply to public opinion, and I do not fully agree. The principle of "presumption of innocence" is first of all a kind of culture, and it is possible to generate a specific system on a specific culture. I don't really believe that a society where the "presumption of guilt" is widely used in public opinion will suddenly and effectively implement the principle of "presumption of innocence" in court. Even if we cannot use the principle of "presumption of innocence" in public opinion, we should at least use the principle of "presumption of guilt based on strong evidence" instead of jumping directly to the principle of "presumption of innocence". For example, cross-testimony between different real-name witnesses is A strong basis. Unfortunately, I feel that the recent atmosphere is moving more and more toward the principle of "accusation is conviction - as long as one person has accused another person, the name of the "defendant" will be hanged repeatedly.

8. Some people say that even if you are accidentally injured, you can fight back and prove your innocence. This is said lightly. If someone accuses you of "kissing me by the river on the night of March 28, 2005", how can you prove that you didn't? Or a girl who slept with you ten years ago did not say no, but ten years later she suddenly said that she was forced. How do you prove that you did not force her? Even if you can prove it, why do you have to spend all your heart, money, and time to prove your innocence when someone online spends ten minutes writing a proposition? What if he writes a new proposition just after you prove it? Moreover, anyone who is familiar with the law of Internet communication knows that lies are always spread much more widely and faster than rumors, self-proving innocence is often darker and darker, believers keep believing and those who don't believe it... All of these make "self-certification Innocent" The matter paled.

9. I agree with many of my friends that sexual harassment is often a problem of power structure. When a man holds power and resources completely disproportionate to that of a woman (or a gay man), women are often powerless to resist, or the price of resistance is high, which is one of the main reasons why sexual harassment spreads everywhere. This is why I believe that the current exposure of sexual harassment is just the tip of the iceberg. Why is sexual harassment being exposed the most in intellectual circles, public welfare circles, cultural circles, and media circles? Not because the men in these fields are extraordinarily evil, as some people say, but precisely because the power structure in these fields is still relatively low, and the exposure behavior will not cost these girls too much. In areas where there is a real power pyramid structure (such as politics, such as adult sexual assault on girls), women have not so far, and it will be difficult for women to stand up and complain, because they may pay a greater price for this.

10. However, I don't agree with the undeniable unified story structure of "evil powerful man + innocent weak woman" in the metoo movement. Just as sexual predators are as diverse as sexual predators, so are those who are “violated.” Some are completely innocent and are coerced or even violently coerced, and some regard sex as a "transaction mechanism" in exchange for their own interests; "These men are too powerful, so women have no choice", I am also confused by the logic of some feminists who emphasize women's strength, autonomy, and courage while describing women as puppets at the mercy of others . Except for some extreme cases, people have choices in most cases, the kind of "if she won't let him invade, she won't get this role/can't be promoted/can't get this opportunity is afraid of spoon logic" , and the corrupt logic of "if I don't bribe, I won't get the project"? Yes, it's a power structure issue, but you can't obey and participate in the power structure and resist at the same time It. Saying no loudly, clearly, and promptly, even at a cost, is the fundamental mechanism for reversing the rules of this game.

11. Another root cause of sexual assault is the dwarfing and objectification of women by patriarchal cultures. Some men may not use their power to blackmail sex. He "just" really feels that "it's not a problem" and really feels that the role of women in society and around him is to hold their chins, blink their eyes, and worship Looking up at his stalwart image. So the woman is that little trinket, little medal, little toy that he can put on and put down at any time. Since it is an accessory, her main characteristics should be young, beautiful, well-behaved, and she can come and go when you call her. Of course, she can also have a personality, but it is best to be "playful" or "elf-type". Used to increase his interest in life. In this mentality of "appreciating and fearing spoons", for straight men with a little bit of resources, "hands-on" is simply a top-down "favor".

12. The image of women in popular culture and sexual culture also contribute to this dwarfing and objectification. How many nearly naked young women are featured in Hollywood movies, TV, record promotions, commercials, magazines, and the media? To quote a quote I've seen, "They look like they welcome sex anytime, anywhere". There are also one-night stands, hook-ups, and changing clothes that are ubiquitous in movies and TV novels. Changing boyfriends or girlfriends... together create a concept of "easy sex", as if that's real life, and if you hold a cautious If you live with a restrained sexual attitude, then you are pedantic or simply unattractive. The spread of this concept of "easy sex" has somewhat contributed to a sexual culture of "isn't it just for fun?" A culture in which the weight of "sex" keeps depreciating, and at the same time requires us to be extremely vigilant against any physical contact is also a modern paradox.

13. Likewise, I do not believe that men alone are responsible for the dwarfing, objectification of women. Women are often passive or even active participants in this objectification and dwarfing. Ayawawa's approach of building an industry to discipline women is an extreme, but even ordinary women, how many dress up and make up to please men as the core standard? How many are actively looking for the "shortcut to success" that "doing well is worse than marrying well"? The pursuit of "sexiness" without limit, but at the same time hates that men look at you from a "sex perspective", and actively attaches to men while actively resisting male power at the same time. This kind of "feminism" is self-contradictory and self-destructive.

14. By the way, I disagree with the statement that no matter what a woman says, does, or wears, a man has no right to misinterpret her intentions. Let's be realistic, people are signaling animals. A friend of mine wrote that "consent" is the only criterion of love between a man and a woman. In principle, I certainly agree with this. But on the question, how to express "agree"? From strangers to intimacy, there is often an ambiguous zone between men and women. It is impossible for us to "sign a contract to touch", "sign a contract to kiss", "sign a contract to go to bed". Can I kiss you", isn't it a bit of a spoiler? Therefore, how you wear, how you say, and how you act constitutes a signaling system. For self-protection, girls should perhaps think about how to accurately convey the signal they want to convey to a man. If you go on a date alone with a man in a topless dress, and lean on a man's shoulder in a mellow mood, of course, a man still has no right to physically offend you at this time, but if the other party misunderstands your intentions, maybe Just stupid and not evil. This isn't a "slut-shaming" theory, it's common sense. At least if my daughter meets alone with a guy she's not interested in, and dresses topless, I don't say: Awesome! go! If he dares to move a finger of yours, I will fight him desperately! I would say: My dear, it may not be suitable to wear like this, change to another dress.

15. Regarding metoo, I especially agree with the vocabulary used by a friend: "remedial lessons". Men take lessons in respect and self-discipline, and women take lessons in self-protection. However, since it is a "make-up lesson", must some minor offenses be measured by today's standards, and must the other party not be ruined and never give up? There is a so-called "law is not retroactive" principle in law, and moral principles are naturally not the same (after all, the stability of morality far exceeds that of law), but using today's standards to measure past behavior, maybe a little bit of tolerance can be tolerated? Of course, condoning does not include actual rape or repeated and persistent sexual assault. I saw a saying, to the effect: Why don't many girls resist and ask for help on the spot? Because they themselves didn't know that it was sexual harassment, so they were "confused". When the movement came today, they realized that it was'}sexual harassment. So, in some cases (and only some cases), is it possible that men also don't realize that flirtatious patting, telling dirty jokes, and self-indulgent sexual exploration are sexual harassment? I don't want to see a relationship between men and women that is only vigilant and loses warmth, just as I don't want to see a feminism that only emphasizes rights and denies responsibilities.

16. Of course, women's tolerance is premised on men's self-examination. If the offender does not reflect on himself, apologize, or even beat him back, it is obviously a joke to ask women to be tolerant. So, if it's been exposed and it's true, apologize publicly. Even if it isn't revealed, start today with honest self-examination.

17. Fortunately, I am not a man, otherwise the above may be interpreted as himtoo.