Dags posted on this recently and I've was going to respond to it but the post got deleted so I will start a new one. I thought would try to identify some of the aspects involved with these allegations below:
(a) Power. These allegations concern an abuse of power. The power was created by a gap in wealth and social status, by an ability to affect employment of the victims and by the vulnerability of the victims. Those working in the TV and movie industry were vulnerable because if they complained they could lose an opportunity for a dream job and in Roy Moore's case the victims were young and that was the vulnerability.
(b) Vulnerabilty: Discussed above. Victims were chosen due to some vulnerability.
(c) Objectivication: Rather than treating these women as subjects--unique human beings with feelings that would be harmed by the misconduct--the abusers treated the victims as objects to be exploited. Typically, these abusers were men whose wealth and fame would attract women but that would requirement an investment in a relationship--finanicially and emotionally--that they were not willing to make.
(d) Satisfaction?: The abusers were not particularly successful in getting sex. However, they were able to exercise their power, their dominance of another person. That they apparently derived a certain amount of satisfaction from. Also whatever sexual contact they were able to obtain.
(e) Abettors: Clearly in most instances there would have been people aware of the misconduct who did nothing about it. They have been subject to the power of the abuser themselves and/or may not been aware of the full extent of harm that was being caused, may have not been aware of how extensive the misconduct was, or for whatever reason did not want to get involved. The point here is that power intimidates reporting of misconduct and keeps it hidden.
(f) Vetting: How are such claims to be assessed for authenticity? These types of allegations destroy careers. What is the media's role in substantiating them before going to press with them?
(g) Aberration vs Pattern: Where is the line between an isolated incident or incidents that can be forgiven and abhorrent behavior that makes a person unfit for a significant public career?
(h) Risk Assessment made by abusers: While the conduct was seemingly reckless, the abusers did clearly did recognize a line that was too risky to cross. Whether it was keeping things behind close doors, how they chose their victims, or drawing back from going further in harassment the abusers clearly made an assessment of how far they could go without taking too much of a risk of getting into trouble.
(a) Power. These allegations concern an abuse of power. The power was created by a gap in wealth and social status, by an ability to affect employment of the victims and by the vulnerability of the victims. Those working in the TV and movie industry were vulnerable because if they complained they could lose an opportunity for a dream job and in Roy Moore's case the victims were young and that was the vulnerability.
(b) Vulnerabilty: Discussed above. Victims were chosen due to some vulnerability.
(c) Objectivication: Rather than treating these women as subjects--unique human beings with feelings that would be harmed by the misconduct--the abusers treated the victims as objects to be exploited. Typically, these abusers were men whose wealth and fame would attract women but that would requirement an investment in a relationship--finanicially and emotionally--that they were not willing to make.
(d) Satisfaction?: The abusers were not particularly successful in getting sex. However, they were able to exercise their power, their dominance of another person. That they apparently derived a certain amount of satisfaction from. Also whatever sexual contact they were able to obtain.
(e) Abettors: Clearly in most instances there would have been people aware of the misconduct who did nothing about it. They have been subject to the power of the abuser themselves and/or may not been aware of the full extent of harm that was being caused, may have not been aware of how extensive the misconduct was, or for whatever reason did not want to get involved. The point here is that power intimidates reporting of misconduct and keeps it hidden.
(f) Vetting: How are such claims to be assessed for authenticity? These types of allegations destroy careers. What is the media's role in substantiating them before going to press with them?
(g) Aberration vs Pattern: Where is the line between an isolated incident or incidents that can be forgiven and abhorrent behavior that makes a person unfit for a significant public career?
(h) Risk Assessment made by abusers: While the conduct was seemingly reckless, the abusers did clearly did recognize a line that was too risky to cross. Whether it was keeping things behind close doors, how they chose their victims, or drawing back from going further in harassment the abusers clearly made an assessment of how far they could go without taking too much of a risk of getting into trouble.