A Frum Jewish Ronan Farrow (#metoo journalist)

ora_43

Thu, Oct 24 2019, 2:04 am

Getting back to the OP.

I think that at this point, Jewish publications are starting to talk openly about s-xual assault, but still aren't quite at the point of investigating and uncovering specific scandals.

But that doesn't mean it couldn't be done. I mean, I wouldn't say the mainstream American media was at that point, either. Their hands were forced by people who refused to stay quiet.

I think there could be a frum Ronan Farrow. But they'd have to be like the actual Ronan Farrow. IOW not just anyone could do it, it would need to be someone who is good at their job, and willing to take on a lot of criticism and personal risk.

If you mean specifically a frum journalist publishing in a frum publication... I don't think a hareidi publication would name a suspect before charges are filed. But, I could see some hareidi publications (eg Kikar Hashabat) publishing enough identifying details to keep the story relevant. And publishing the names once it became an official criminal case.

Frum non-hareidi... Arutz Sheva's coverage of the Rav Alon scandal was problematic to say the least, but they did publish his name from the beginning. (And the scandal was publicized by a frum organization, the Takana forum.)

I don't think it's a given that we'll see frum journalists breaking stories like this in the near future, but I definitely wouldn't rule it out.

ora_43

Thu, Oct 24 2019, 2:16 am

Fox wrote:

But he certainly benefited by frum society's general willingness to jump to the leniency rather than insist on the ideal. He knew that his victims would be unlikely to say, "Ya know, I don't really feel like this situation warrants employing a leniency for yichud. I'll come back when your wife can be in the next room and walking past the door." Let's be honest, most of us -- including me -- wouldn't want to be weirdly strict about something that everybody routinely does. And my refusal to be weird made your rapist more confident that he'd be able to convince his victims using the "everybody" rationale.

But why focus on the fact that there was yichud, and not the actual assault???

Meaning - of course the same s-xual predator who was able to coerce a teenager into actual s-xual contact, was also able to coerce a teenager into yichud. You're talking about a person who violated all of the boundaries, and saying, "right, but if Boundary X had been in place..."

Yichud is just one boundary. A predator can bulldoze right over it along with all the others. (Its value lies in the fact that not all predators can do that, all of the time. But it's not infallible.)

Fox

Thu, Oct 24 2019, 2:18 am

ora_43 wrote:

I think there could be a frum Ronan Farrow. But they'd have to be like the actual Ronan Farrow. IOW not just anyone could do it, it would need to be someone who is good at their job, and willing to take on a lot of criticism and personal risk.

This is an incredibly important and valuable point.

If you read the book, you realize what an astonishing amount of pressure was put on Farrow and his producer, Rich McHugh, to abandon the story. Farrow had a lot more resources than the average frum freelance writer/reporter, and even he found himself strained both financially and in terms of his relationships. So it's not surprising that a frum writer with a family would walk away from similar pressure.

marina

Thu, Oct 24 2019, 2:18 am

Yes I am aware that there are many things women can supposedly do to avoid the risk of s-xual assault. I am aware of these things - as you all are - because we have been hearing them our entire lives.

*Women can wear the right clothes instead of the wrong ones.

*Women can embrace the laws of yichud instead of trying to avoid them. For example, women can make sure they always meet with their male bosses only when their wives are also present.

*Women can avoid walking certain streets at certain hours. Women can walk to their cars in pairs after dark.

*Women can not drink too much, not laugh too loud, not cause attention to be paid,

ad infinitum. All of this is old and stale and we have heard it a million times before and the reason we chafe at it is because it limits us unnecessarily.

If I can only meet with my male boss when his wife is present, that means I now have to coordinate three people’s schedules instead of two and my male coworker doesn’t so he will end up meeting with my boss faster and more often as all those meetings don’t have to be coordinated with the boss’s wife as well.

If I cannot drink or laugh or cause attention to be paid, the account will probably go to someone else, someone who can do all those things because they have a p3nis I guess?

So I have to take a back seat and miss out on career opportunities because... someone might rape me? This is just not interesting to me at all. So I am not asking about it.

I don’t care about scenarios where the burden is on the woman to avoid assault. Those are a dime a dozen and we can all recite them in our sleep.

amother

Oak

Thu, Oct 24 2019, 2:24 am

marina wrote:

This is not what fox is saying at all.

You totally missed the point

marina

Thu, Oct 24 2019, 2:33 am

ora_43 wrote:

Right. This, however, is the part that is interesting to me. What Fox seems to be suggesting is that there’s a whole population of predators there who don’t care about s-xual assault altogether, will rape women against their will, but will somehow be prevented from this violent sadistic act by a siman in the shulchan aruch that discusses yichud?

And that these people are not just one off crazies but there are enough of them so that all of society should just run to embrace yichud rules as a real way to decrease s-xual assault?

Or are you saying that these assailants are just opportunists and the fewer chances they have the better for us all? And do you think that decreasing opportunity for crime actually decreases crime instead of just shifting it? Like if my boss can no longer s-xually assault me because I only meet with him and his wife, does he now just stop assaulting people or does he move on to the girl in the subway car instead?

marina

Thu, Oct 24 2019, 2:38 am

amother [ Oak ] wrote:

This is not what fox is saying at all.

You totally missed the point

Even if it is not what she is explicitly saying, it is a direct result of what she is saying and one that we should not ignore. If we all turn to yichud rules to protect ourselves from rape, we inevitably lose out on opportunities that our male colleagues will scoop up instead. That is inevitable.

marina

Thu, Oct 24 2019, 2:48 am

Fox wrote:

Ultimately, we don't need a Ronan Farrow "Catch and Kill" journalist as much as we need to embrace laws of yichud more enthusiastically and both explicitly and implicitly impart to our children that there is no achievement worth s-xual "play for pay."

This is Fox’s yichud post that started this discussion. It seems to be advising parents to teach their children not to get ahead at work through granting s-xual favors. I’m going to guess this is directed at parents of girls though.

Which is - like I said- another example of how women are asked to bear the burden of avoiding assault.

amother

Oak

Thu, Oct 24 2019, 2:52 am

marina wrote:

You can twist it all you want, but you are wrong

Fox is reminding us that the laws of Yichud are here for a very good reason ON BOTH SIDES OF THE GENDER, not at all placing burden on women more than men

As a woman, I actually feel the laws of Yichud PROTECT women

marina

Thu, Oct 24 2019, 3:01 am

Fox wrote:

This.

Let's say we have a frum version of Harvey Weinstein who sends his assistant away and assures my DD that "halacha only demands we leave the door open a crack, you know. Plus, this is a special case -- I'm discussing something private and important with you."

I would want my DD to know that getting the lead in a major motion picture (or the equivalent for our mythical frum Harvey) isn't worth playing along even a little.

Yes I agree I would want my child to understand that this person is disgusting and should be reported to HR.

Is the yichud part of this again an obligation falling to my daughter? It’s her job to somehow tell her male boss that she wants the door all the way open so she can avoid assault? Or is the yichud somehow for him? I feel like I am missing something maybe

ora_43

Thu, Oct 24 2019, 3:08 am

marina wrote:

So instead of responding to what Fox is actually saying, you're responding to a bunch of other stuff you've heard from other people?

I'm not sure where you got that avoiding yichud between a worker and boss involves the boss' wife. I have never been close to a yichud situation with a male coworker or boss or professor, and also, have never met their spouses. This isn't as complicated as you're making it out to be.

Missing career opportunities? I doubt it. Show me a workplace where a woman has missed out on a promotion because she wouldn't meet with her boss in closed room with no chance of interruption, and I'll show you a boss who was definitely planning to harass his female employee.

ora_43

Thu, Oct 24 2019, 3:19 am

marina wrote:

Is the yichud part of this again an obligation falling to my daughter? It’s her job to somehow tell her male boss that she wants the door all the way open so she can avoid assault? Or is the yichud somehow for him? I feel like I am missing something maybe

I think you're taking this in a very different direction from how it was meant, maybe.

I don't feel like yichud is some big burden on my career, but I have to keep it, because otherwise someone will harass me and it will be all my fault.

I feel like I want to avoid boundary-crossing creeps, for my own sake more than anything else, and the best way to do that is to have firm boundaries that I can apply with everyone - knowing that the 99% of people who are normal won't mind in the slightest.

In that situation - your daughter would know that a small percentage of bosses try to take advantage of female employees, and avoiding closed doors is more of a reminder that, hey, we're both avoiding anything that might even look inappropriate, which you don't mind, of course, right, boss? Since we're both normal people here.

And the boss, if he's a normal, non-predator guy, would know that if he's alone in a closed room with a female employee, and nobody else is allowed in, some people might come to the wrong conclusion.

Like how workplaces will prohibit bosses from dating employees not because it's always assault, and not because employees have an obligation to prevent harassment, but just because it creates a situation where harassment could go under the radar.

ora_43

Thu, Oct 24 2019, 4:26 am

marina wrote:

Or are you saying that these assailants are just opportunists and the fewer chances they have the better for us all? And do you think that decreasing opportunity for crime actually decreases crime instead of just shifting it? Like if my boss can no longer s-xually assault me because I only meet with him and his wife, does he now just stop assaulting people or does he move on to the girl in the subway car instead?

I think it's not black and white.

Some assailants are opportunists, and if they don't come across an opportunity, they won't commit assault. Some are determined to find a victim.

Sometimes certain boundaries are helpful, sometimes they aren't. I think avoiding yichud is a good thing, and helps create a standard of healthy boundaries in general that makes it harder for perpetrators to go unnoticed. But perpetrators who make a habit of targeting vulnerable people or younger people and of earning their victims' trust can talk/coerce their way past that boundary, too. And it doesn't help prevent incest or harassment/assault between members of the same s-x.

As for decreasing crime vs shifting it - what makes you think your boss wouldn't harass you and the girl on the subway car? Even if someone is determined to commit assault, it's not like they have a quota to fill and then they're done. Preventing the crime against yourself, if possible, is meaningful even if the same person assaults other people, because those assaults aren't instead of a (potential) crime against you, they're in addition to.

IOW we can't reduce the number of perpetrators by taking precautions, but we can reduce the total number of crimes.

And we don't have to choose between teaching people to take precautions, and teaching people not to commit assault. This is a problem that can and should be fought on both ends, both by teaching the importance of consent and setting a community standard that sees assault as absolutely intolerable, and by empowering people to set boundaries and take precautions.

marina

Mon, Oct 28 2019, 9:21 am

ora_43 wrote:

She posted earlier about how great it is that Mike Pence only dines with women when his wife is also present. That's what I was responding to. Many business deals and decisions happen over dinner. It's not great to have women limited in this way.