Laurence Krauss accused of sexual harassment

[Fervent Freyja]

Unfortunately, Sexual harassment is not objective. True, if a man gropes a woman against her will, this is Sexual harassment, but there is plenty of ground in-between and plenty of difference in the perception of what is acceptable. Then there is the possibility of misunderstanding/miscommunication, etc. that must be factored before concluding harassment took place.

A big problem is that women have to understand what is and isn't sexual harassment. Showing interest, whether they are in authority or not, isn't really sexual harassment to me.

Another issue I've had is determining the appropriate reaction. I have overdone it before, screaming at one guy not to touch me in the lunchroom, when he was only being friendly and touching my shoulder. I pretty much ruined that normally cheery relationship because I reacted too quickly without thinking.

Most women don't come forward and that isn't going to change. The males should just having periodical hunting parties to figure out which among them are the creeps doing it. Afterall, the ones doing it aren't making their jobs any easier. Still, a lot of female-dominated workplaces are still headed by men, so that might be a problem. I think a big problem with women working in male-dominated groups is that she doesn't have the same protection by other women than typical. Most female primates do work in groups and the purpose of that is to protect each other from sexual harassment by the male primates.

 

[WWGD]

A big problem is that women have to understand what is and isn't sexual harassment. Showing interest, whether they are in authority or not, isn't really sexual harassment to me.

Another issue I've had is determining the appropriate reaction. I have overdone it before, screaming at one guy not to touch me in the lunchroom, when he was only being friendly and touching my shoulder. I pretty much ruined that normally cheery relationship because I reacted too quickly without thinking.

Most women don't come forward and that isn't going to change. The males should just having periodical hunting parties to figure out which among them are the creeps doing it. Afterall, the ones doing it aren't making their jobs any easier. Still, a lot of female-dominated workplaces are still headed by men, so that might be a problem. I think a big problem with women working in male-dominated groups is that she doesn't have the same protection by other women than typical. Most female primates do work in groups and the purpose of that is to protect each other from sexual harassment by the male primates.

Other than very clearcut cases such as unwanted groping, I don't think there is such a thing as a universal definition. There are different understandings of what constitutes or not harassment, then there is the possibility of misreading/misunderstanding, crossed signals to filter before concluding. My flirting, innocent joke may be harassment to you. This does not seem to be taken into account much by modern Feminists.

 

[Fervent Freyja]

Other than very clearcut cases such as unwanted groping, I don't think there is such a thing as a universal definition. There are different understandings of what constitutes or not harassment, then there is the possibility of misreading/misunderstanding, crossed signals to filter before concluding. My flirting, innocent joke may be harassment to you. This does not seem to be taken into account much by modern Feminists.

I don't take anything into account that the modern feminist thinks.

Where are they fighting for the girls being molested in childhood? Nowhere to be found. Feminists are a joke to me, being a survivor myself- I never saw them fighting for me or any other little girl, just themselves and their pay.

 

[StatGuy2000]

I don't take anything into account that the modern feminist thinks.

Where are they fighting for the girls being molested in childhood? Nowhere to be found. Feminists are a joke to me, being a survivor myself- I never saw them fighting for me or any other little girl, just themselves and their pay.

One of my dear friends identifies herself as a feminist, and she has also volunteered as a crisis counsellor where she has worked closely with women who had suffered physical or sexual abuse (including molestation during childhood), and continues to advocate for them. So I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss feminists in their entirety.

 

[skyshrimp]

He's in a position where random female admirers might flock to him in awe. I'm not excusing his actions, but I bet he got a bit too ahead of himself on many occasions after a few drinks (or a cheeky recreational 'pick me up'). You see it a lot in media where celebrities take advantage of social encounters from adoring female fans.

He's a brilliant man, but his bedside manner obviously leaves a lot to be desired. If a random, blue collared Joe did the same, they wouldn't get away with it.

 

[StatGuy2000]

I have thus far avoided wading into this discussion, but I'm frankly dismayed by some of the responses I've seen in this post, particularly the response of @skyshrimp in post #55. The specific charge laid by Melody Hensley, as outlined in the original article, came very close to rape/sexual assault (if not could be considered sexual assault in a criminal context). I certainly do not consider this behaviour to be someone who "got a bit too ahead of himself".

More broadly, I find it rather curious why so many (including some on PF, as well as many in the skeptics movement, as represented by CFI) are so quick to want to give Lawrence Krauss the benefit of the doubt and not want to give equal consideration to the charges laid by Hensley and others. As we have seen in many other contexts (Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey in Hollywood, Roger Ailes at Fox News, Matt Lauer on the Today Show, etc.), sexual harrassment and misconduct are something that too many women (and men) experience, and very often the perpetrators are people of power and prestige who abuse the power that they can wield. Lawrence Krauss may not necessarily be a boss, but he certainly has prestige within the skeptic community (and to an extent within the scientific community), so it shouldn't be outside the realm of possibility that he may have abused that position.

Furthermore, all too many women (and men) who have been victims of such abuse have often suffered in relative silence and refused to either report their abuse to the authorities or refuse to be open about their experiences because of the fear of not being taken seriously or face social stigma (or worse) if coming forward.

Given that risk of stigma, if a woman (or man) comes forward with allegations of misconduct, my default position on this matter is to believe the allegation unless I have clear evidence for not believing the allegation.

 

[WWGD]

I
More broadly, I find it rather curious why so many (including some on PF, as well as many in the skeptics movement, as represented by CFI) are so quick to want to give Lawrence Krauss the benefit of the doubt and not want to give equal consideration to the charges laid by Hensley and others. As we have seen in many other contexts (Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey in Hollywood, Roger Ailes at Fox News, Matt Lauer on the Today Show, etc.), sexual harrassment and misconduct are something that too many women (and men) experience, and very often the perpetrators are people of power and prestige who abuse the power that they can wield.

.

In my case, because it seems guilt is assumed, and many have paid a high price before going to trial. This does not seem right to me. Further, the Feminist movement seems to make no allowance for different takes on what constitutes abuse, misunderstandings, and crossed signals. So much for their constant complaints that their views were never aired under the "Patriarchy", so they now go on to condemn men without allowing them to give their side. Given their accusations will ruin someone's life, it seems only fair to try to pin them down; the accused will not likely pay anywhere as high of a price, even if the charges are thrown out.

 

[StatGuy2000]

In my case, because it seems guilt is assumed, and many have paid a high price before going to trial. This does not seem right to me. Further, the Feminist movement seems to make no allowance for different takes on what constitutes abuse, misunderstandings, and crossed signals. So much for their constant complaints that their views were never aired under the "Patriarchy", so they now go on to condemn men without allowing them to give their side. Given their accusations will ruin someone's life, it seems only fair to try to pin them down; the accused will not likely pay anywhere as high of a price, even if the charges are thrown out.

Again, my take is that if an allegation is made of abuse, that needs to be investigated, but the default position that I would advocate is to believe those who bring forward the allegations unless there is clear reason or evidence not to believe the allegation.

Another approach to think about this is to use probability. If say, an individual (let's call him Bob) is accused by, say, a woman named Mary that he sexually harrassed her. Without knowing more about the information, we would assign probability of Bob's guilt to be around 0.5 (reflecting a 50/50 chance of guilt or innocence).

But suppose another allegation comes forward, from another woman (let's call her Alice), who is unconnected from Mary. Then we would, according to Bayesian inference, use that additional data to provide a posterior probability of Bob's guilt in the case of Mary, which would be > 0.5 (I can come up with a more precise example, with appropriate calculations using Bayes theorem in a different post).

 

[WWGD]

Again, my take is that if an allegation is made of abuse, that needs to be investigated, but the default position that I would advocate is to believe those who bring forward the allegations unless there is clear reason or evidence not to believe the allegation.

Another approach to think about this is to use probability. If say, an individual (let's call him Bob) is accused by, say, a woman named Mary that he sexually harrassed her. Without knowing more about the information, we would assign probability of Bob's guilt to be around 0.5 (reflecting a 50/50 chance of guilt or innocence).

But suppose another allegation comes forward, from another woman (let's call her Alice), who is unconnected from Mary. Then we would, according to Bayesian inference, use that additional data to provide a posterior probability of Bob's guilt in the case of Mary, which would be > 0.5 (I can come up with a more precise example, with appropriate calculations using Bayes theorem in a different post).

It may be more complicated than that, with accusations made some 10+ years after the fact, specially when the accused did not hold a position of power over the accused. Cognition is largely social, which makes it harder to pin things down. It would seem fair if the media made mentions of lawsuits by those claiming to have been falsely accused too. If a woman shows up at someone else's apartment after-hours , claiming rape makes the situation muddled, EDIT: same when the woman or both parties are drunk/intoxicated. All of this should be filtered, but it does not seem to be happenning. EDIT2: In addition, people are not likely to be as measured as you describe, IMO. Once accused, a person's life is ruined, at least for a large period of time.

 

[256bits]

The specific charge laid by Melody Hensley, as outlined in the original article, came very close to rape/sexual assault

Police lay charges after a complaint is laid after an investigation.
Based on the complaint they would make a charge of attempted rape, sexual assault, or something else.
A trial would determine guilt or innocence.
It seems that the article has bypassed the justice system, discussing only her version of events and evidence, and has determined, or rather leads the reader to believe that the version written is the one and only correct version, along with the sympathy card to sway emotion to that end.

Furthermore, all too many women (and men) who have been victims of such abuse have often suffered in relatively silence and refused to either report their abuse to the authorities or refuse to be open about their experiences because of the fear of not being taken seriously or face social stigma (or worse) if coming forward.

As I said, It seems that the article has bypassed the justice system. Perhaps the reason for that is that there is some problem with how cases of this sort are handled from start to finish. The court system is a kind of sterile and cold system where one has to lay open their soul, re-live an experience, and have their sanity questioned. An article such as the above gets to the heart of the matter, and if the accused wants to sue for defamation, well let them.

 

[StatGuy2000]

It may be more complicated than that, with accusations made some 10+ years after the fact, specially when the accused did not hold a position of power over the accused. Cognition is largely social, which makes it harder to pin things down. It would seem fair if the media made mentions of lawsuits by those claiming to have been falsely accused too. If a woman shows up at someone else's apartment after-hours , claiming rape makes the situation muddled, EDIT: same when the woman or both parties are drunk/intoxicated. All of this should be filtered, but it does not seem to be happenning. EDIT2: In addition, people are not likely to be as measured as you describe, IMO. Once accused, a person's life is ruined, at least for a large period of time.

But part of the very reason why accusations are made some 10+ years after the fact is that there is very real stigma and genuine fear of ridicule that often accompanies the victims of these cases. I personally know of a friend of my girlfriend who was raped by an older man back when she was 19 years old, and to this day (she is now in her 30s) she has not told anyone (besides myself, my girlfriend, and another close friend) about her experiences. She has not reported this to the police because she sees no point, as she doesn't think the police are either equipped to, or will take seriously, her claims (whether rightly or wrongly).

So just because the accusations come after many years does not mean the claims are not true.

 

[WWGD]

But part of the very reason why accusations are made some 10+ years after the fact is that there is very real stigma and genuine fear of ridicule that often accompanies the victims of these cases. I personally know of a friend of my girlfriend who was raped by an older man back when she was 19 years old, and to this day (she is now in her 30s) she has not told anyone (besides myself, my girlfriend, and another close friend) about her experiences. She has not reported this to the police because she sees no point, as she doesn't think the police are either equipped to, or will take seriously, her claims (whether rightly or wrongly).

So just because the accusations come after many years does not mean the claims are not true.

Yes, you're right, but it seems , IMO to make it less probable. And, I think your post sort of reinforces my point when you refer to what happened as a rape, which, AFAIK , is determined by a court: you are making a conclusive statement on a case that has not gone to trial; this perspective seems to outweigh what I would consider a more neutral one of speaking cautiously, so I emphasize the latter, to attempt to bring balance. Rape calls into question state of mind, intent, which are not so easy to pin down, specially years after the fact. Like someone else here said: What is the use of bringing up something that cannot be determined/decided? 10+ years after the fact, most evidence has disappeared, and it is essentially impossible to pin down the participant's state of mind at the moment the act happened ( Notice I am saying neither rape nor attempted rape, since the case has not been tried ).I agree that there may be cases as you describe, but it seems to me these are extreme. I may use Bayes myself adjust my views given additional evidence, but, so far, it seems this way.
And, BTW, in case it matters, I have had gay men hit on me in very aggressive ways, tho luckily they have not succeeded in going further.

EDIT: I am trying not to be indelicate here, still while trying to avoid neither of the two errors : Type I or Type II. Since it seems the opinions are weighted towards condemning those accused, I am weighing my input at the other end, just to balance things out, without in any way minimizing the seriousness of accusations nor the possibility of letting off a rapist.

 

[kyphysics]

More broadly, I find it rather curious why so many (including some on PF, as well as many in the skeptics movement, as represented by CFI) are so quick to want to give Lawrence Krauss the benefit of the doubt and not want to give equal consideration to the charges laid by Hensley and others. As we have seen in many other contexts (Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey in Hollywood, Roger Ailes at Fox News, Matt Lauer on the Today Show, etc.), sexual harrassment and misconduct are something that too many women (and men) experience, and very often the perpetrators are people of power and prestige who abuse the power that they can wield. Lawrence Krauss may not necessarily be a boss, but he certainly has prestige within the skeptic community (and to an extent within the scientific community), so it shouldn't be outside the realm of possibility that he may abuse that position.

Furthermore, all too many women (and men) who have been victims of such abuse have often suffered in relatively silence and refused to either report their abuse to the authorities or refuse to be open about their experiences because of the fear of not being taken seriously or face social stigma (or worse) if coming forward.

Given that risk of stigma, if a woman (or man) comes forward with allegations of misconduct, my default position on this matter is to believe the allegation unless I have clearly evidence for not believing the allegation.

I worry about the last sentence, StatGuy2000. I would not take anyone's side by default, as that is simply a form of bias. I do understand your logic (I think it's natural to feel that women have much more to lose when coming forth with these sorts of allegations), although I think you discount all the other power dynamics (I would not doubt that some women take advantage of precisely the notion you're talking about and play the "why would anyone make this up" card in hopes it will gain them credibility) and "games" that can be involved in false allegations.

But, also, I think a lot of cases may involve neither blatant lies, nor definite truths, but rather misunderstandings of intentions.

I think of the case of Aziz Ansari, who was recently criticized for how he handled a sexual situation on a date. The women "accuser" seemed almost universally criticized (very often by fellow women) for being out of line with her misinterpretation of Ansari's actions as involving sexual misconduct. He immediately stopped when she showed signs of disinterest from what I understand. I have an entirely different set of sexual ethics than the secular world, as a Christian, so I wouldn't have even made such a move, but assuming people agree on some basic ground rules, I think there can be a lot of room for possible misreading of "cues" in these situations.

I'm not saying Lawrence is innocent, nor guilty here. I'd just hope to see all sides represented thoroughly before passing any potential judgment on his case.

I will say that I'm not surprised when powerful people are found out to have committed various types of abuses or misconduct and even used their power to cover for themselves. I've had "powerful" people in my own life that I've seen do really "scummy' stuff that they likely be embarrassed by if others knew out in public. I lost respect for these people when I saw their behavior behind closed doors. You really cannot judge a book by its cover. Successful, attractive, and powerful people are just as guilty of really scummy stuff as anyone else in life.

 

[StatGuy2000]

I worry about the last sentence, StatGuy2000. I would not take anyone's side by default, as that is simply a form of bias. I do understand your logic (I think it's natural to feel that women have much more to lose when coming forth with these sorts of allegations), although I think you discount all the other power dynamics (I would not doubt that some women take advantage of precisely the notion you're talking about and play the "why would anyone make this up" card in hopes it will gain them credibility) and "games" that can be involved in false allegations.

But, also, I think a lot of cases may involve neither blatant lies, nor definite truths, but rather misunderstandings of intentions.

I think of the case of Aziz Ansari, who was recently criticized for how he handled a sexual situation on a date. The women "accuser" seemed almost universally criticized (very often by fellow women) for being out of line with her misinterpretation of Ansari's actions as involving sexual misconduct. He immediately stopped when she showed signs of disinterest from what I understand. I have an entirely different set of sexual ethics than the secular world, as a Christian, so I wouldn't have even made such a move, but assuming people agree on some basic ground rules, I think there can be a lot of room for possible misreading of "cues" in these situations.

I'm not saying Lawrence is innocent, nor guilty here. I'd just hope to see all sides represented thoroughly before passing any potential judgment on his case.

I will say that I'm not surprised when powerful people are found out to have committed various types of abuses or misconduct and even used their power to cover for themselves. I've had "powerful" people in my own life that I've seen do really "scummy' stuff that they likely be embarrassed by if others knew out in public. I lost respect for these people when I saw their behavior behind closed doors. You really cannot judge a book by its cover. Successful, attractive, and powerful people are just as guilty of really scummy stuff as anyone else in life.

I had not intended to respond further to this thread, but I will respond to you since you have brought up the case of Aziz Ansari. This is precisely the example I was thinking of where I would believe the allegation of the party who theoretically have more to lose when bringing these allegations forward unless there is additional information out there which will lead me to reach a different conclusion.

With respect to this particular example, the very account made by the woman involved in the interview she has given is the best evidence of Ansari's innocence -- from what I've read and heard, while she clearly did not enjoy the date with Ansari, she had not been explicitly clear about whether she was consenting or not until the very end, in which Ansari stopped and respected her wishes. This particular instance highlights the importance of the necessity of clear communication between two parties, more than anything else.

However, Ansari's case is rather unique -- most public allegations of sexual misconduct that I am aware of are not like this. And from what I've read about the situation with Lawrence Krauss, it seems clear that miscommunication was not at all involved. So again, in the case of Krauss, unless I have reason to doubt the allegation made by Hensley (which I do not at this point), I will tentatively conclude that Hensley's account is credible and Krauss's account is not credible.

 

[WWGD]

However, Ansari's case is rather unique -- most public allegations of sexual misconduct that I am aware of are not like this. And from what I've read about the situation with Lawrence Krauss, it seems clear that miscommunication was not at all involved. .

But that is part of the problem. How can you ( or anyone) know this if you have not heard both sides, and the case has not been tried? I have noted how difficult it is to communicate effectively at just-about any level. The message intended is very rarely the same as the one understood, even for very simple messages; I would think much more so for more complex situations such as this one. Leaving aside the obvious cases like unwanted groping, I think there is much more gray area than most Feminists are allowing for Let alone the "Baby with the bathwater" of condemning all men ( at least Straight Whites) when it is those in power who are ( allegedly) responsible for misconduct. I see it more as an issue of power dynamics than gender dynamics. EDIT: Given the seriousness of the issue and the consequences of doing either type-1 or type -2 errors, I think it is a good idea to avoid making assumptions either way and wait until the case has been tried. Yes, I am sorry that someone who is already shocked must re-live the experience in a trial, but we must also remember that the accused also has a lot at stake.

 

[dipole]

Krauss's response to this article.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IgAGpkAa2vwSMOtFD4iAfwfryTNJbJ_5/view

Also worth a listen, Sam Harris's comments (about two weeks old now).



Let's dispense with the knee-jerk reactions that most people seem to be taking, and the attempts at virtue signaling by immediately looking to destroy someone's reputation and life. Re-read the Buzzfeed article, taking particular note of the biases and language they use.

If you're not willing to critically evaluate this situation, then you have no business spouting off speculation that can ruin careers and lives.

 

[ZapperZ]

Not sure if this has been posted here, but Krauss responded to the allegations against him, some in detail.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/37674/physicist-uses-physics-rebut-sexual-misconduct-ashe-schow

Zz.