A Frum Jewish Ronan Farrow (#metoo journalist)

ora_43

Wed, Oct 23 2019, 4:06 pm

amother [ Ivory ] wrote:

JCW does exactly this. However the issue in my opinion ( as someone who works in the frum magazine world) would be finding people to come forward. Its not the lashon harah, its the shame on the victims part. How many frum women are going to come forward and out their uncle cousin teacher etc etc? Zero. Or close to zero. They aren't interested in sullying their own names. And JCW def covers the cases that do come forward.

I don't know. Despite the pressure, there are people who've told their stories as victims. But I haven't seen any who've named the perpetrator.

Eg the recent video series Kikar Shabbat did with a Rosh Yeshiva who was abused as a teenager. His own identity is no secret. To be fair, he said he got a LOT of pressure from his family and friends not to reveal his identity - but he did. But he still refers to the perpetrator only as "a well-known figure," AFAIK.

Fox

Wed, Oct 23 2019, 4:22 pm

amother [ Sapphire ] wrote:

OP did not specify abuse of adults. She talked about exposing predators, which can include children and adults. You're the one that keeps on narrowing the discussion to adults only. And you're the one who brought up education of children.

Being aware of the psychological factors that contribute to the actions of serial predators is important in an educated discussion about s-xual abuse.

Perhaps you should go back and re-read the OP. She specifically referenced Ronan Farrow's investigative work and asked if something similar might be done in the frum world.

To my knowledge, Ronan Farrow has not investigated any kind of s-xual predation other than adult forms of harassment and rape. He did write an op-ed on his sister's alleged experiences, but that had nothing to do with his investigative work.

Moreover, the OP and a few others referenced the #MeToo movement -- which most definitely did not include child s-xual abuse.

I actually find it a bit concerning that a handful of people read the original post and immediately jumped to child s-xual abuse. That appears to me to signal an inadequate appreciation of the differences as well as the human suffering inflicted by each. While I obviously don't know the OP's intent, adult individuals who've experienced s-xual harassment are worthy of having their situations considered, and certainly such situations exist within the frum world.

If you and others want to turn this into a discussion about child s-xual abuse, that's fine. But if that's the case, the OP or a mod needs to change the title and/or the original post to reflect that.

All that said, I highly recommend "Catch and Kill," which reads more like an espionage thriller than a typical reporting-based non-fiction book. Though I suspect it might ruffle the world views of a few Imamothers hereabouts.

amother

Sapphire

Wed, Oct 23 2019, 4:38 pm

Fox wrote:

You're wrong.
The #Me Too movement includes survivors of all forms of s-xual violence, harassment, and assault. Childhood abuse, adult s-xual assault, s-xual harassment in the workplace, etc.

Fox

Wed, Oct 23 2019, 5:25 pm

amother [ Sapphire ] wrote:

Or how about you stop trying to control what and how people talk about their views on s-xual abuse and predators on this thread? Im sorry that you are having such a hard time with the discussion and the wide ranging scope of it, and that you apparently need thread titles to be so exact and specific and match the discussions within so exactly, .

Let's start by ratcheting down the hostility and nastiness a little.

I have no problem with what you suggest. However, it is dishonest and mean-spirited when someone makes a comment consistent with the stated topic of the thread . . . for you to then criticize her based on a sub-conversation in which you wish to engage.

Condescendingly calling me out because I responded to the original post rather than what you wanted to discuss was both inaccurate and inappropriate. I suspect you know that, since you aren't arguing the facts. The simple answer is, "Sorry -- I was thinking of child s-xual abuse and didn't notice that you were responding more specifically to the OP."

It's perfectly fine to have various sub-conversations going at once, and as you point out, it happens frequently. What isn't fine is responding harshly to someone simply because she chose to respond to another conversation or to the original post. Insisting that every response must be about your sub-conversation is known as hijacking the thread. If you and others feel strongly that you don't want posts that reference the original topic, then it's time to revise the title/original post or start a new thread. See how easy that is?

amother

Sapphire

Wed, Oct 23 2019, 5:44 pm

Fox wrote:

The comments I made in response to your suggestions are the same comments I would make if the thread was limited to adult assault and rape

I still think "There is a huge amount of naivete in your post. Your point of view doesn't take into account the psychological effects of grooming on individuals, families, and whole communities, of power differentials and threats, and the psychological makeup and cunning of sociopaths and abusers.

If only yichud and educating your adult and minor children would be enough..."

The topic of predators in the Jewish community is extremely complex and cannot be addressed solely with your two proposed interventions

Fox

Wed, Oct 23 2019, 6:11 pm

amother [ Sapphire ] wrote:

I'm guessing that you have some sort of personal stake in this conversation that is making you see every comment as an all-or-nothing proposition.

I certainly don't propose that embracing yichud and actively discouraging "play-for-pay" will solve every s-xual abuse problem in the world.

However, grooming an adult requires, in a majority of cases, the ultimate goal of yichud. If that goal is clearly out of reach from the beginning, a great deal of grooming can be reduced. Notice that I said "embrace laws of yichud." Even in relatively RW circles, yichud is often treated as something to be "gotten around." When a potential yichud situation arises, we immediately start thinking of how to halachically circumvent it. The repairman is coming while my DH is home and the kids are at school? No problem -- leave the front door open! And so on.

I think most of us -- including myself -- do this. After all, it's crazily inconvenient to never be able to schedule a repairman or whatever if we don't take advantage of halachic leniencies. But our kids internalize that cavalier attitude and grow into adults who are too easily convinced by arguments that yichud is just a formality. And, yes, I believe that puts young adults in potentially dangerous situations.

Likewise, there are many of us in the frum veldt who encourage our kids to achieve in school and work, but while we may warn them about allowing someone to touch them without their consent, we don't make it clear that we care more about their being in a potentially exploitive situation than about the grade, the internship, the job, or whatever.

It may seem clear to us that a summer job or even a great internship isn't worth being harassed by a boss or co-worker, but our young adult kids don't always get that message. Sadly, preventing child s-xual abuse is an entirely different matter than preventing the exploitation of people who are capable of giving consent but who are being pressured to do so.

Do I believe that working on those two solutions will make the world a sparkly, happy place with no bad guys? Absolutely not. However, I don't think it's "naive" to suggest that they have a place. And it's certainly less naive than endlessly recounting how disgusted we are that the problem exists.

amother

Sienna

Wed, Oct 23 2019, 10:41 pm

marina wrote:

Describe a situation where - but for yichud rules- a woman would have been s-xually assaulted.

Please set up the scenario so that the burden is on the man to avoid assaulting instead of on the woman to avoid being assaulted.

I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at. The halachos are there for both parties.

I read a description by 1 of Harvey Weinstein's victims. As she was discussing something with him in his office, he told his associate to leave, and then told her to lock his office door.

Granted, he's sick and I doubt he would've cared an iota about yichud if he was frum. But, you now have 2 parties who, if they were frum, either 1 could have relied on yichud to not allow the situation to go forward.

Fox

Thu, Oct 24 2019, 12:41 am

amother [ Sienna ] 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.

ora_43

Thu, Oct 24 2019, 12:59 am

marina wrote:

So... anything beyond "the molester shouldn't molest" is victim blaming?

Come on. That would leave all of us completely powerless, no room for any type of self-protection whatsoever. There's plenty of room for suggestions on how we can help prevent young people from being victimized without crossing the line into victim blaming.

The burden is always on the perpetrator not to commit assault, always.

Anyway. The power of the rules of yichud and negia in these situations isn't in completely foiling any attempts at assault. It's in giving people an excuse to set boundaries opposite someone who would push back on any attempt to set boundaries. IOW "sorry, can't do that for religious reasons, nothing personal" tends to be easier to say than "you're weirding me out and I'd rather not." And harder for a boss/ teacher/ etc to push back on.

BTW I've seen similar rules adopted in a few workplaces recently, with no connection to religion.

(there is no any one rule/self-defense tip that's going to completely foil all types of assault)

ora_43

Thu, Oct 24 2019, 1:31 am

marina wrote:

In what situation - that would not place the burden on the female - would a man’s s-xual assault be curbed by a halachic requirement to leave the door a crack open?

Avoiding yichud doesn't just mean leaving the door a crack open. It means always being in a situation where someone who would disapprove of s-xual touch between the parties could realistically come in at any moment (ie, without warning).

If the door is a crack open but the office is empty, it's still yichud. If the door is a crack open and the other person in the office is a creep who is inappropriate with women himself, it's still yichud. If the door is a crack open and everyone knows that you never, ever open the boss' door without knocking and waiting for a "come in", it's still yichud. If you're in a completely public space, outdoors, but nobody else is around because of the late hour, it's yichud.

Again, I'm not saying this is a magic solution to s-xual assault. Obviously there are all kinds of situations that can still happen even if the laws of yichud are always followed. Especially if the victim is underage, but even if both parties are adults.

And there are also legitimate questions about the difficulty of avoiding yichud completely, and perpetrators' power to convince people to let down their guard in this as in other things.

But if we're responding specifically to Fox's statements on this thread, then that's what we're talking about. And I don't think it's unrealistic to say that some perpetrators - not all, but many - are worried enough about being caught that they'd avoid assaulting someone that openly.

Fox

Thu, Oct 24 2019, 1:51 am

amother [ Smokey ] wrote:

Fox, I was raped as a teen more than once (by someone I knew obviously) without yichud being broken. Door was left open a crack, and the wife was in town. Other times the wife was in the house in the shower, or else still sleeping.
I know, I wasn't an adult, yadda, yadda, but the point still stands. I can see the same situation easily happening in a workplace environment. Also, if you are going to argue that a normal woman would cry out for help, remember that #MeToo encompasses much more behavior than rape. A grab, a rub, an "inadvertent" touch... none of these require yichud to be broken.

This is precisely my point. We don't embrace yichud; we avoid breaking the laws of yichud.

My two young-adult kids had a conversation at the tisch recently. My DD was telling my DS about some wonderful place in NY where he could get a great suit at a good price. It was a store in a woman's basement, apparently, and she was the only employee.

My DS asked, "Yeah, but what about yichud?" and my DD said, "Oh, I'm sure the door is open or something like that. Everybody goes to her."

In other words, my DD was already plotting how the problem could be avoided halachically.

That's not embracing yichud; that's finding leniencies before you even start.

Embracing yichud means seeing leniencies as b'dieved, not l'chatchila.

As you say, a wife in the shower or asleep did you no good whatsoever. A wife who'd been in the next room and walked past the completely open door several times might have. Yes, a witness technically on the premises may be halachically permitted, but it's not the halachic or practical ideal.

There are really relatively few situations that call for a significant amount of privacy. Certainly therapy is one of them, and that's often where predators can have a field day. I'm not certain the best way to balance the need for privacy in that situation with the issue of yichud. One suggestion I've heard is that therapists should have large windows in their offices, though that seems problematic for several reasons.

The other issue is that men do not want to be falsely accused of assault, and that's a function of embracing yichud, too.

I have never understood why people complain about about VP Mike Pence's refusal to dine alone with women unless his wife is present. Someone once made the point that he should take responsibility for controlling his apparent lust if confronted with a woman in such a situation. I responded, "Maybe it's not his behavior he's worried about; it's hers." That seemed to be a novel idea to this individual.

Would your rapist have been deterred had he known his wife would be passing through the room or past the completely open door several times? Obviously, we don't know. There are certainly sick people out there who will always find a way to exploit or assault others.

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.