Rob Porter, and Mormonism's #MeToo Moment

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

For this very reason, I wish the Church would dial back the coverage and celebration of Mormon celebrities.

Especially given the reports about the MazeRunner author who sounds like was engaged in sexual misconduct. The problem is that famous people usually have a hard time living the gospel. Look at all the Mormons who make it in Hollywood. How many stay active?  A lot of the same sorts of things are happening elsewhere but perhaps not as well known. Which isn't to say there aren't really solid famous Mormons. Just that you don't know who will be able to survive that environment. So why set yourself up for disaster?

While not as famous and it's not clear if they are actually Mormon, there's two prominent Utah legislators who've been caught up in prostitution scandals this week.

Portraying famous Mormons as important ultimately hurts the cause they seek. Far too many just turn out to have a dark side.

Edited February 15, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Duncan]

11 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

That's true of my wife's parents. They'd have been much, much better off getting divorced years earlier. From everything my wife told me it was clear what would happen. Of course that was years ago when social norms - particularly in small towns - were much different. Still I think it's often pretty obvious when someone should get out of a relationship.

My Mum was saying prior to 1970 or 1971, in Canada, it was so hard to get a divorce but when it was legal people were getting it like gangbusters, which isn't always a bad thing. She knew a lady who was beaten regularly by her husband and she ran off, went home to her folks. They told her to go back, she did and he killed her. 

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

On buzzword wording, yes. I don't think the Church and I disagree at all on changes to interviews or restrictions on bishops counseling. 

I suppose if enough members are supportive of the current system it'll remain.  Sadly, that also means we'll get stories of abuse and the Church repeating the, well not sure how else to put it at this point, lie of zero tolerance.  

[HappyJackWagon]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

On buzzword wording, yes. I don't think the Church and I disagree at all on changes to interviews or restrictions on bishops counseling. 

You seem to be suggesting that the church's strong "zero tolerance" language against abuse is just a buzzword, or PR. But with a wink and a nod we know they don't really have a "zero tolerance" policy. Is that really the best argument to be making in defense of the church. It seems counter productive.

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

My Mum was saying prior to 1970 or 1971, in Canada, it was so hard to get a divorce but when it was legal people were getting it like gangbusters, which isn't always a bad thing. She knew a lady who was beaten regularly by her husband and she ran off, went home to her folks. They told her to go back, she did and he killed her. 

[Jeanne]

4 hours ago, rongo said:

You reminded me of my wife's family. She is one of eight children, all born after her mother was 30 (plus a lost baby). Her father is ten years younger than her mother. They did not have a happy marriage, and he was emotionally abusive to her. When they were newlyweds, he hit her, and she told him if that ever happened again, she would be gone. He never again laid a hand on her (which was very good, of course), but she was not happy in her marriage and lived for her children. Despite her unhappiness, I believe that it was indeed best for the children to not get divorced, and even for her as well. Very few divorces* I have seen result in happiness and the total absolution of all problems, so it is something people should definitely "count the cost" and have both eyes wide open about. My wife is grateful that her mother stuck it out until dying of breast cancer, even though she was just waiting and living to die to be free from an unhappy life. If my in-laws were famous people in the public eye, they and their bishops would have been swept up in this #MeToo maelstrom, but I think it would be unfair (to them and to their bishops) and not a true assessment of the complexity of the full situation. Divorcing to "be truly happy" would have had a devastating effect on my wife and her seven siblings. 

What I'm saying is that sometimes staying in an "abusive" relationship is good counsel, depending solely on the situation (quotation marks to reflect that there is a wide range of things contained in the word "abusive." Not all abuse is created equal). I'm sure that the "zero tolerance" crowd will have a coronary over that, but things are not always cut-and-dried or black-and-white.

*Obviously, sometimes divorce is appropriate or even the only option. That goes without saying. But parents and children in divorce usually don't have an ideal outcome. Sometimes we have to settle for "good or better" instead of best.  

I think this is sad.  A woman cheated out of any happiness and her children not even able to see that happiness...is the worse abuse of all.

[rongo]

48 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You seem to be suggesting that the church's strong "zero tolerance" language against abuse is just a buzzword, or PR. But with a wink and a nod we know they don't really have a "zero tolerance" policy. Is that really the best argument to be making in defense of the church. It seems counter productive.

Whenever *any* entity invokes "zero tolerance" language today, it has one intent: to signal that issue XYZ is being taken extremely seriously. That is what that phrase is used to communicate. It doesn't actually denote draconian a la Draco "zero tolerance," because such is actually impossible, and when attempted (say, with fighting or bullying policies in schools), entities quickly collide with the realities of complex situations and circumstances. That's why I don't like the expression. 

The Church is serious about not tolerating abuse as far as its positions and wishes and desires go (physical, domestic, emotional, sexual, etc.). For some critics, nothing the Church does will ever be enough (we can agree on that, can't we?). I don't mean that we wink and nod that the Church really doesn't have a "zero tolerance" policy. It does, but this doesn't mean the same thing to the Church's critics, and I think using that phrase plays into critics' hands by trying to "prove" how "zero tolerance" we are (this hasn't happened yet, but that's why the drums are beating for "Mormonism's #MeToo Moment. They want Mormonism called to account for any and all cases of abuse that could possibly have been prevented if bishops had given different counsel or had striven to unload the problem on law enforcement or professional counseling. Granted that this sometimes should happen as a matter of common sense and the Spirit, with or without guidelines or regulation). 

Let me ask you this question: Do you think that the Church effectively (i.e., not in wish or desire, but as a practical matter) has "zero tolerance" for abuse? If not, what do you think of the Church insisting so vociferously on it? All I'm saying is that using the "zero tolerance" mantra can have the effect of stepping on rakes in a PR minefield era like today with issues like this. 

[rongo]

53 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I think this is sad.  A woman cheated out of any happiness and her children not even able to see that happiness...is the worse abuse of all.

It is sad. Definitely not ideal. But the alternative (divorcing with eight kids who turned out well by the family sticking together) is also not ideal, and given the benefit of hindsight, not by any means a given, either. 

Again, my wife and her siblings are very happy that their family remained intact throughout her life. That is an important factor in the big picture. 

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, rongo said:

It is sad. Definitely not ideal. But the alternative (divorcing with eight kids who turned out well by the family sticking together) is also not ideal, and given the benefit of hindsight, not by any means a given, either. 

Again, my wife and her siblings are very happy that their family remained intact throughout her life. That is an important factor in the big picture. 

Did she have triplets or twins?  How old was she when she had the last one?

[Calm]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Especially given the reports about the MazeRunner author who sounds like was engaged in sexual misconduct. The problem is that famous people usually have a hard time living the gospel. Look at all the Mormons who make it in Hollywood. How many stay active?  A lot of the same sorts of things are happening elsewhere but perhaps not as well known. Which isn't to say there aren't really solid famous Mormons. Just that you don't know who will be able to survive that environment. So why set yourself up for disaster?

While not as famous and it's not clear if they are actually Mormon, there's two prominent Utah legislators who've been caught up in prostitution scandals this week.

Portraying famous Mormons as important ultimately hurts the cause they seek. Far too many just turn out to have a dark side.

Clark, I only saw his stuff labeled as harassment and didn't see actual quotes.  Don't want to actually see them, but could you clarify level of harassment?  His apology was vague on the allegations, came across as a thoughtful sincere acceptance of accountability and desire to change, but context is probably needed.   Being dropped by his agent sounds more significant than the impression I got from his apology.

https://www.sltrib.com/artsliving/2018/02/14/utah-author-james-dashner-of-maze-runner-dropped-by-literary-agent/

Some cultural background provided....

"Men who write children’s books have “a greater chance of being promoted and valued,” she said. They are sent on more book tours and to more conferences. And while men might be in the minority at a conference, the keynote speaker is often a man. 

The result is that men are seen as more interesting and important, she said.

“There’s an inequality of power there,” Hale said. “So when a woman is harassed or abused, her voice already matters less in that culture — so who is going to believe her over the man?”

And successful authors often are besieged with requests to read manuscripts or arrange introductions — a dynamic that can easily be abused, Hale said.

“That male author who’s on the inside can use his position to make a woman feel like he could help her if he gets what he wants out of her,” Hale said. “It’s the manipulative, ’Oh, I’ll read your stuff, why don’t you come up to my hotel room and we can talk about it?’ ”"

[Storm Rider]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Clark, I only saw his stuff labeled as harassment and didn't see actual quotes.  Don't want to actually see them, but could you clarify level of harassment?  His apology was vague on the allegations, came across as a thoughtful sincere acceptance of accountability and desire to change, but context is probably needed.   Being dropped by his agent sounds more significant than the impression I got from his apology.

https://www.sltrib.com/artsliving/2018/02/14/utah-author-james-dashner-of-maze-runner-dropped-by-literary-agent/

Some cultural background provided....

"Men who write children’s books have “a greater chance of being promoted and valued,” she said. They are sent on more book tours and to more conferences. And while men might be in the minority at a conference, the keynote speaker is often a man. 

The result is that men are seen as more interesting and important, she said.

“There’s an inequality of power there,” Hale said. “So when a woman is harassed or abused, her voice already matters less in that culture — so who is going to believe her over the man?”

And successful authors often are besieged with requests to read manuscripts or arrange introductions — a dynamic that can easily be abused, Hale said.

“That male author who’s on the inside can use his position to make a woman feel like he could help her if he gets what he wants out of her,” Hale said. “It’s the manipulative, ’Oh, I’ll read your stuff, why don’t you come up to my hotel room and we can talk about it?’ ”"

Here is his apology:

"I've taken the past few days for introspection, to see if I've been part of the problem. I think that I have," he tweeted Thursday. "I didn't honor or fully understand boundaries and power dynamics. I can sincerely say that I have never intentionally hurt another person. But to those affected, I am deeply sorry. I am taking any and all criticisms and accusations very seriously, and I will seek counseling and guidance to address them."

This is an interesting statement.  I am struck with his comment that he did not honor or fully understand boundaries and power dynamics.  I wonder how many men could/would agree with the same statement.  I think most of us have gone through life without any concept or understanding of power dynamics.  He also said he never intentionally hurt another person.  This makes me wonder exactly what actions were involved in these allegations.  

Lastly, no criminal charges, no legal actions, but simply allegations and he loses his literary agent.  The idea of due process has been replaced by the mere mention of an allegation, without any proof, becoming judge, jury, and executioner.  

[clarkgoble]

32 minutes ago, Calm said:

Clark, I only saw his stuff labeled as harassment and didn't see actual quotes.  Don't want to actually see them, but could you clarify level of harassment?

Sounds like clumsy passes. But kind of shocking for someone supposedly happily married. He'd put his hands through womens hair and ask them if they were kinky.

 

[Gray]

22 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Lastly, no criminal charges, no legal actions, but simply allegations and he loses his literary agent.  The idea of due process has been replaced by the mere mention of an allegation, without any proof, becoming judge, jury, and executioner.  

Did he go to jail without a trial or something? If not, what relevance does due process have here?

[Calm]

"simply allegations and he loses his literary agent."

Since he states he crossed lines (and assuming Clark's summary is correct, what he did was very inappropriate and creepy), it is not just "simply allegations".

Edited February 15, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

44 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Sounds like clumsy passes. But kind of shocking for someone supposedly happily married. He'd put his hands through womens hair and ask them if they were kinky.

 

Thank you.  Now I am very glad I did not go looking myself.  It is really hard to understand how an intelligent, articulate man could do something like this.  It is so stupid for one thing and creepy for another.

[juliann]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Sounds like clumsy passes. But kind of shocking for someone supposedly happily married. He'd put his hands through womens hair and ask them if they were kinky.

 

The article I read attributed that to a Mr. Diaz, a chidren's book writer.

[juliann]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

 

Lastly, no criminal charges, no legal actions, but simply allegations and he loses his literary agent.  The idea of due process has been replaced by the mere mention of an allegation, without any proof, becoming judge, jury, and executioner.  

No matter that he admitted the bad behavior and apologized. How long are you going to keep defending sexual abusers just because?

[Calm]

56 minutes ago, juliann said:

The article I read attributed that to a Mr. Diaz, a chidren's book writer.

Since accuracy is important, I went and looked.

Very disappointing:

"I would like to clarify that the harassment/abuse from James Dashner was not a one-time unwanted touch or a joke I took the wrong way. It entailed months of manipulation, grooming and gaslighting. He offered to be my “mentor” using praise and flattery of my writing, and promises to use his connections to help elevate my career to the level of his. But it was all a bait and switch. When I made it clear that I was not going to give him what he wanted in return, our “mentorship” relationship ended. It took me a long time to realize that every move he made was carefully calculated. He has his manipulation down to a science. I realize now that I was not the first to fall for his tricks, and I was not the last. I feel deeply sorry for everyone who fell for his manipulations after me. I’ve tried to nudge others and warn on the so-called “whisper network” but I have always worried that talking about it publicly would harm my career or family. Even typing this is making me sweat buckets. Thanks for listening."

All anonymous as far as I can tell, but he didn't deny any details and basically confirmed it with his apology.

Edited February 16, 2018 by Calm

[juliann]

I suspect the apology is an attempt to stop gory details from emerging. There should be enough examples out there to know that denials are an invitation for more women to step up. I really wonder if these predators have both oars in the water though as they continue to think they can still wiggle out. That is why I don’t have a lot of confidence in them redeeming themselves. 

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

The article I read attributed that to a Mr. Diaz, a chidren's book writer.

Thanks for the correction. I'd hate to accuse him falsely. Unfortunately the article I had kept interrupting the text with add blocks and asides and it was terribly hard to see who was quoting. Although what Calm quoted sounded much, much worse.

Edited February 16, 2018 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

7 hours ago, Duncan said:

My Mum was saying prior to 1970 or 1971, in Canada, it was so hard to get a divorce but when it was legal people were getting it like gangbusters, which isn't always a bad thing. She knew a lady who was beaten regularly by her husband and she ran off, went home to her folks. They told her to go back, she did and he killed her. 

A lot of religions were big on no divorce. Both Catholicism and Anglicanism were big in Canada and there were lots of things like this.

Honestly I don't understand the push for people to stay together when things are that bad. It's one thing when both are trying and love each other. But when there's emotional abuse or worse I'd think everyone should want to find someone they'd be happy for in the eternities.

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

A lot of religions were big on no divorce. Both Catholicism and Anglicanism were big in Canada and there were lots of things like this.

Honestly I don't understand the push for people to stay together when things are that bad. It's one thing when both are trying and love each other. But when there's emotional abuse or worse I'd think everyone should want to find someone they'd be happy for in the eternities.

The only reason I can think of is fear of poverty.

[Storm Rider]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

Did he go to jail without a trial or something? If not, what relevance does due process have here?

Gray, the problem of not have due process is that a citizen is punished without ever being guilty of a crime or anything else.  The only thing that has been done is that another citizen has made an accusation.  For example,  next week an individual with whom you worked with at company "A" makes an accusation that you molested them ten years ago while at work.  Upon this accusation being made public you are fired from your job and no one will hire you.  Does this sound fair and just?  We have due process so that each and every citizen actually is not punished for crimes unless actually being found guilty of a crime.

 

[Duncan]

Just talking to Mum on the phone, she's saying that prior to 1970 or '71, can't recall, they used to publish divorces in the paper. The only reason for divorce was infidelity, which you had to prove in court, usually with witnesses, all of which is $$$. When marriages broke down, people just moved out and lived apart, which explains the lady she knew that got killed by her husband. The problem though is you're legally married, which is a problem if you want to marry again. She's saying that abuse happened but it wasn't a grounds for divorce. If you were living with someone then he could leave and you have nothing and no recourse. She knew someone who's husband faked his own death and my Mom recalls going to town and her Mom pointing out to her 'that's the lady who's husband faked his own death" people knew about it but couldn't prove it in court, this was in the the rural area, in the '40's.Turns out he went across a lake, deep sixed the boat and I don't know all the details but he moved elsewhere and this lady was left behind.

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

No matter that he admitted the bad behavior and apologized. How long are you going to keep defending sexual abusers just because?

CFR that he admitted the bad behavior.  Nowhere in his quote in the paper did he admit bad behavior - what he said was he reflected on his past to determine if he was part of the problem and "he thinks" he is.  This is not I am part of the problem; he is unsure because as he also said "I didn't honor or fully understand boundaries and power dynamics".  

So, you don't understand the rules of the game and still don't, but we are going to punish you anyway. 

I just read an article recently about a James Madison University student that sued his university due to their punishing him and evading due process.  Fundamentally, society and universities in particularly are creating huge grey areas where male students become punching bags for female students and university.  I just googled it to find another take on it - National Review - wrote about it.  NR had more of the back story - being initially found innocent, female student appeals, and wins and then is approved by the university president.  Problem is that the male student cannot talk to anyone and it is done only with the female's input.  

I think maybe we are going to go through a rather turbulent time before we ever get to a fair environment for all students.  Whereas before males were not punished and females were never heard - now we have males just have to breathe and they thrown out of universities and/or lose their jobs. This is not a good time for our society.