I think the strength or perceived strength of evidence may be a big factor and this aspect is completely missing from this article.
There are huge cultural norms around presumption of innocence, around better let 100 guilty go than punish one innocent, on protecting the accused's rights - habeas corpus is nearly 900 years old.
Feminists have been trying to shift it because in such cases evidence is nearly impossible. They do have a point - if Bob takes my bike from my garage, I should have to prove at court that I did not consent to it? How? If Bob beats me up, I should prove at court it was not a consensual BDSM play? Obviously these things are not provable.
But such a huge thing is just hard to shift and besides what exactly should replace it? Just believing all accusations is clearly not an acceptable replacement.
In old times, the rigid sexual norms maybe helped with convincing people. Just like people beating up some on the street is very unlikely to be consensual BDSM play, and no one would believe such a claim, back in old times no one would have believed the plumber saying that a random housewife consented to sex with the plumber fixing the pipes. But these norms have shifted - now hookups are an accepted part of culture and it makes lack of consent so much harder to prove, to convince people of it. We longer have an argument that in this particular situation consent would have been *unlikely*.
Kevin Spacey's legal defense sounded basically like Hollywood is full of gay men and all of them want him. 100 years ago it would have sounded ridiculous, but today - who knows? We no longer know in what situations is consent *unlikely*
But now there is a new norm slowly emerging: multiple similar accusations are to be believed. But it is unclear how many. Still ultimately multiple similar accusations establish a... reputation. Sexual harassment is not a one-time action but a general attitude and habit, and sooner or later it gets known.
I think the strength or perceived strength of evidence may be a big factor and this aspect is completely missing from this article.
There are huge cultural norms around presumption of innocence, around better let 100 guilty go than punish one innocent, on protecting the accused's rights - habeas corpus is nearly 900 years old.
Feminists have been trying to shift it because in such cases evidence is nearly impossible. They do have a point - if Bob takes my bike from my garage, I should have to prove at court that I did not consent to it? How? If Bob beats me up, I should prove at court it was not a consensual BDSM play? Obviously these things are not provable.
But such a huge thing is just hard to shift and besides what exactly should replace it? Just believing all accusations is clearly not an acceptable replacement.
In old times, the rigid sexual norms maybe helped with convincing people. Just like people beating up some on the street is very unlikely to be consensual BDSM play, and no one would believe such a claim, back in old times no one would have believed the plumber saying that a random housewife consented to sex with the plumber fixing the pipes. But these norms have shifted - now hookups are an accepted part of culture and it makes lack of consent so much harder to prove, to convince people of it. We longer have an argument that in this particular situation consent would have been *unlikely*.
Kevin Spacey's legal defense sounded basically like Hollywood is full of gay men and all of them want him. 100 years ago it would have sounded ridiculous, but today - who knows? We no longer know in what situations is consent *unlikely*
But now there is a new norm slowly emerging: multiple similar accusations are to be believed. But it is unclear how many. Still ultimately multiple similar accusations establish a... reputation. Sexual harassment is not a one-time action but a general attitude and habit, and sooner or later it gets known.