Wall Street Rule for the #MeToo Era: Avoid Women at All Cost
This was utterly, utterly predictable, and I&#x27;m sure the same dynamic is playing out in milder, more insidious forms in industries that are less openly regressive than Wall Street. I said as much to many of my friends during the nascency of the movement, and was baffled at how novel a concept it seemed to all of them.<p>This isn&#x27;t fair to women, of course. But Water flows downhill, and people follow incentives. If you create a no-due-process superweapon that a class of people can point at another class, expect the latter to avoid situations where the former can use it.  Duh.  (In theory, women wouldn&#x27;t be considered potential false accusers any more than men would, but the fact that the breakdown of gender roles has been intentionally lopsided means that a female accuser is both more likely and more likely to be taken seriously).<p>As die-hard a liberal as I am, I&#x27;m still sympathetic to the idea of examining whether we should shift the burden of proof for cases with characteristics that are systematically difficult to prove (not in the criminal justice system, of course; I think society-sanctioned state violence does and should have a much, much higher bar for protecting the innocent).  But as a left-liberal, one of my primary points of departure with the contemporary left is that it seems to believe to its core that wishing on a star is all it takes for a policy to be effective, with no attention paid to the _actual_ way that a policy is expected to play out in the real world[1].<p>[1] I don&#x27;t mean to suggest that the left uniquely has this problem, but I&#x27;ve got less exposure to the man-on-the-street version of the right, since I live in a deep Blue bubble and most of my friends form their beliefs based on whatever the Atlantic et al have on their front page.