The MeToo movement began in October 2017 after allegations of sexual misconduct against Harvey Weinstein were reported in the New York Times. On October 15th, actress Alyssa Milano wrote on Twitter: “If you’ve been sexually harassed or assaulted write ‘me too’ as a reply to this tweet.”
By the middle of October the following year, the movement had – in the words of the New York Times – “brought down” no less than 201 powerful men. That is to say, 201 men in prominent positions (e.g., politicians, CEOs, actors) had lost their jobs due to allegations of sexual harassment that were prompted by MeToo.
It would be fair to say that some of the men “brought down” by MeToo deserved their comeuppance, whereas others were treated very unfairly, such as Aziz Ansari. While the overall merits of the movement can be debated, one effect it had was to make men in prominent more wary about being accused of sexual harassment.
This must be a good thing, right? While false accusations of sexual harassment are clearly bad, it’s surely good that powerful men are more sensitive of the need to avoid inappropriate behaviour towards? Not necessarily.
In a recent preprint, the economist Marina Gertsberg highlights one unintended consequence of the MeToo movement: senior male academics became more reluctant to collaborate with junior female colleagues, thereby potentially harming the latter’s career prospects. (There is a good summary of the paper at Cremieux Recueil‘s Substack.)
Gertsberg obtained data on collaborations involving female academic economists who had a tenure-track position when the MeToo movement began. (In an academic context, a collaboration is just when two or more academics write a paper together.) For control purposes, she also obtained data for male academic economists in the same circumstances.
What did Gertsberg find? Compared to the pre-MeToo era (2015–2017), the women in her sample had fewer total collaborations in the post-MeToo era (2018–2020), and this fall was largely explained by few collaborations with male colleagues – especially senior male colleagues at the same university.
Interestingly, the men in her sample did not have fewer total collaborations in the post-MeToo era: although they did have fewer collaborations with female colleagues, they made up for this by having more collaborations with male colleagues. So the “MeToo effect” that Gertsberg observed may have harmed young women’s career prospects without harming young men’s.
She also found that the decline in women’s collaborations was greater at universities with ambiguous sexual harassment policies, which supports her interpretation that senior male academics became more reluctant to have one-on-one collaborations with junior female colleagues.
The study was restricted to one relatively narrow domain: academic economics. But it’s likely that similar dynamics have played out in other contexts where men and women have to cooperate. While preventing sexual harassment is obviously important, movements that go too far – such as by encouraging a presumption of guilt – can end up having harmful intended consequences.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
If this has featured on DS already then I must’ve missed it, but it could certainly do with more exposure. The first meeting of the European Citizens Initiative took place at the European Parliament just a few days ago.
”The citizens initiative known as “Trust and Freedom” includes representatives from seven EU countries and has been formed to challenge the WHO’s Pandemic Treaty, as well as the WHO’s creeping International Health Recommendations which also threaten to undermine individual nations’ independent policy decision-making.
Swiss lawyer Philipp Kruse reminded the room that, “The public was misled,” and proceeded to warn that the WHO’s unilateral pandemic regulations will lead to more “useless counter measures” and “experimental substances” being unleashed on unsuspecting populations, with pernicious, weaponised propaganda slogans such as ‘No one is safe until everyone is vaccinated.’
“So we are starting this public debate on an international level – to then bring this to where it has to be discussed – to our (national) parliaments,” concluded Kruse.
British MP Andrew Bridgen supports the initiative, and believes cooperation is the key to success, stating, “It’s raising the profile. If the Citizens Initiative in the EU could work and stop the WHO power grab, I don’t mind where it happens. We’re all completely aligned, and we all know the tyranny that’s involved in what the WHO, through the UN, are doing to all our citizens…I’ll stand shoulder to shoulder with my European colleagues – whether they’re MEPs or members of their own local parliaments.”
“The sooner we turn the page on this dark chapter in our human history, the better for all of us,” added Bridgen.”
https://21stcenturywire.com/2023/07/07/eu-parliament-the-people-pushback-against-who-pandemic-tyranny/
This is certainly a dark chapter in our human history. Another good post Mogwai, thank you.
It’s a good post but definitely off-topic.
I wish we could get back to using the forums for specific subjects – many’s the time I would like to pose a question but I know hardly anyone looks at them any more.
Yes it is off topic, and zero apologies are given for that. I’m a paying commentor just like everybody else and I will continue to dump freely and wherever I choose. Suck it up, Jane, because I won’t be changing, no matter who cares to have a whinge.🤷♀️
Jane G’s comment was perfectly reasonable. She said she thought your post was good. She didn’t deserve such an unpleasant response.
Then I think we clearly have very different definitions of “unpleasant”!!🤣 Perhaps Jane is old enough to stick up for herself and fight her own battles, eh?
It’s a specific example of something that may be quite widespread – a reluctance to engage in situations that could well turn out very bad for you very quickly without any bad intention (and indeed without any bad action) on your part. For example, there’s a long list of organisations, firms and business domains that I would simply not work in for fear of falling foul of woke hysteria – academia, anything in the public sector, any large firm of any kind, media/the arts, large charities.
Sexual harassment doubtless exists, as do many other forms of abuse of positions of authority, as does inappropriate workplace behaviour. But the politicisation of all of this, and the attendant hysteria, means you may well not get a fair hearing if you’re accused.
Woke really does not comprehend the law of unintended consequences. For example, the ceaseless screaming of Stonewall and associated LGBTblahblahblah is reversing the general acceptance of non-standard sexualities and making people angry. Cult Transgender is of course at the heart of this, gay rights having long ago been established (despite Tatchell’s incessant banging on about gay – and paedo, now – rights.
Maybe not the way to go?
Yes the staff at the mental asylums have obviously gone on strike and the inmates had no clean clothes to put on before they made their escape. That’s what happened. 😮
https://twitter.com/DrLoupis/status/1677967289088393216
A direct result of care in the community, perhaps this is the result, that we are all in this lunatic asylum.
The over-reach is deliberate; the objective being to cause a reaction.
Otherwise, the activist would have no hobby.
I tend to think it’s much worse than simply wanting a hobby
The over reach is designed to make our moderate traditional positions look extreme and eventually to provoke an extreme reaction in otherwise moderate people and then say “I told you they were Literally Hitler”.
Yes, I suspect that’s true.
Like the use of ‘literally’ in your comment. I can hear a vacuous juvenile using it and having no comprehension.
“…movements that go too far – such as by encouraging a presumption of guilt – can end up having harmful intended consequences.”
Who’d of thought?
There are no solutions, only trade offs.
Thomas Sowell
Or maybe this was the intended consequence: divide into two groups, create fear and distrust between them, impose one’s will on the divided society. Textbook Marxist stuff.