Thanks for your thoughtful response, JJ. You're pointing to the nuance and grey areas that are so rarely clear and well-defined. Where is the line between a woman's self-responsibility, and the influence that a coach, therapist, community leader, or other man in a power position has in that relationship with her?
One question that I resonate with, from Kylea Taylor's book The Ethics of Caring, is "Who is this for?"
I think about that question when I read and heard Aubert's messages to his 'clients', or that he would ask them to move closer to him. This is all before we even start talking about sexual assault.
And, to answer your thought experiment: I would show up tor the conversation. I know I have blind spots and I want to see them clearer. Even if "she" was totally in her own trauma and reliving things that had nothing to do with me, I would do my best to gather my resources, ground my body and nervous system into mama earth, and to listen, and let them know I heard them.
Interesting thoughts, thanks, brother! I personally don't buy into power dynamic arguments (i.e. a man in a "power" position can somehow control other adults through his non-threatening words and actions). I think we all need to move towards a type of consciousness that acknowledges the power of choice we have in the world. The world of consenting adults should not be a place to label "abusers" and "survivors." Take the lessons learned from impulsive, foolish decisions and move forward, but there is no need to find a bad guy in all of it.
I like the question, "Who is this for?" It's a good way to check in with oneself regarding intentions behind actions. But Bastiat probably thought what he was doing for his clients was for them, right? He was giving them a chance to learn about themselves and push some edges. It can easily be framed that way. That's the messiness of all of this. Everyone has their own sense of ethics, and that attracts certain sets of people.
But ultimately, in general, I don't think adults being responsible for other adults' choices should be accepted (rare exceptions to that, of course, such as disabled and dependent adults). I don't think Bastiat's approach is for me, and I wouldn't recommend him to others. There are a lot "spiritual teachers" I'd advise people to stay the hell away from if they asked me, because I think many of them are full of shit. But it's none of my business what consenting adults do and who they choose to take advice from. Even if I think it's a bad idea.
I like your response to the thought experiment. Ideally that would be the case. But also consider that there may be a looming threat of damaging your reputation and livelihood if you don't completely agree with what is alleged. What if just hearing them isn't enough? What if there are unreasonable demands?
Excellent read. In my opinion, it doesn’t have to be one or the other. Collectively, we tend to frame the process of “calling someone out” as negative, violent and hostile, but it can be done constructively (if both parties are willing to recognize it as such and receive it). To call out is the simultaneous action of calling in. 🙏🏽
Brother, this type of discussion is often missing the balance of what the feminine must do to heal and move forward in an empowered way. It's very easy to say one man is not in integrity, but were the women involved with him in theirs? What responsibility do we all have to own our choices? If someone tells you to move across the country, and you do, are you not acting out of free will and your own integrity?
Holding women in the perpetual victim sphere is damaging and continues a narrative that has been unhelpful throughout time: that women are not responsible for themselves, but men are. Solid boundaries work needs be taught to everyone. We must all know the power we have to make our own choices in any given moment. If women are taken advantage of physically, of course that is clearly wrong. But if they are allegedly taken advantage of emotionally, how can we know if that's true?
There's a reason these kinds of things can't be proven in a court of law. There is way too much gray area. It's dangerous to act as if there's not. It opens up an entire realm of false accusations and power grabs, the likes of which was used to jail black men falsely accused by white women not so long ago. Sure, falsely accusing someone of "emotional abuse" won't land them in prison, but it will damage their lives.
Imagine yourself in this position: an ex accuses you of emotional abuse and you are now being inundated with calls for accountability ... or else. You know you did nothing to your ex to warrant that accusation. She is hurting and lashing out to control your life, framing your texts as abusive, having a trauma response to normative relationship conflict. The "community" is on her side. Your friends turn on you. What does it mean to be a "good man" with integrity in this scenario?
We wouldn’t be having this much needed and long overdue conversation if it wasn’t for the brave and solid women that are willing to shoulder this while everyone calls them angry and vindictive.
The question I am always left with is, “what are the skills our community has to meet the needs of these stories coming forward?”
If sensual assault affects 1 in 3 women and 1 in 4 men, it is not a matter of if but when. And if we are out here doing men’s work, can we talk about the full spectrum of the experience of our bodies and our spirits in these brave spaces? Where is our sensual assault literacy?
Because it’s not just rape that is harm. Unwanted advances, overdoses and climbing on people when they can’t resist. All really disturbing violations. And concerning false accusations, in the case of sensual assault, only 10% are false, so why do we err on the side of lying?
Gratitude to the survivors for digging through their text messages, voice notes and emails despite their own self doubt in an attempt to protect others.
We long for the day that brothers can turn to us and say “what can I do to help amplify your voice, sister?”
Because the women were harmed physically and in so many other ways.
May this action continue to protect future people from his poor coaching practices because it already has.
deeply heard. grateful to the women who are courageous and willing to bring their stories forward despite the likelihood of being shut down, or ignored.
Thank you for the numbers and valuable perspective, Mikaela.
I have been sitting with the question you asked here and one answer that comes up is, if those of us doing men's work aren't building the skillset needed to meet the needs of these stories coming forward, then what exactly Are we doing?
Hello Mikaela, thank you for sharing your thoughts! I am very interested in this subject because I was falsely accused of "emotional abuse" with zero evidence, yet it destroyed my life. I know 3 other men and one woman who this happened to in the last couple of years in my local community. It appears to be a growing problem in leftist/progressive/queer communities. Some call it cancel culture. I call it abuse.
Folks who have survived this kind of abuse are often the most displaced people within those leftist queer subcultures. They get ostracized, even when it's clear they are not abusers. All that needs to happen is a seed of doubt be planted in people's heads, and there is is no coming back from that. It's a form of abusive gaslighting that is incredibly painful to experience and can easily lead to a destruction of livelihoods and sever social connections.
That is why I believe accusations need to be approached with a lot of care without feeding into a public accountability (possibly humiliation) campaign that could possibly (probably) cause more harm to the accused and others involved. Care, in my view, involves acting from a place of irrefutable and clear evidence of abuse, and to move forward privately. Yes, there was a study in 2010 that claimed 10% or less of *rape* accusations are false, but has there ever been a study done in a queer/leftist community to see how many false allegations of "abuse" there are? Especially "emotional abuse?"
I'll bet the number is way higher, because in these communities, often evidence is not as important as believing the accusers. The accusations can be vague. A person can say they "felt abused" and not have a clear example of it. Or they can exaggerate harm and use many mechanisms that are baked into that subculture to amplify what are normative conflicts and disagreements.
I don't know all the details of Aubert's accusations. I'm waiting to understand more. I think it's also important to include his voice in all of this. I keep hearing about evidence, but the little bit I've seen are texts suggesting his clients move to Austin. This seems to be a framing of his actions as a coach as inherently abusive, and I just don't see that. But maybe I'm missing something.
He also gave ketamine without being certified to do so? And layed on top of one client? (*Sounds* potentially bad -- what are the details/context/evidence?) I know a lot of spiritual coach types who give psychedelics and "hold space" for clients while they trip. Should they be certified by the state to do so? I'm not sure what the end game here is by publicly calling out a small spiritual influencer like this.
I think there are many things wrong with the coaching/spiritual guru world (not a fan, personally), but as long as it's consenting adults, it's really none of my business. Let adults make their bad/dumb/desperate choices and move on with their lessons. No one is being forced to do anything in the scenarios I've heard so far. I believe we all need to awaken to the power of our choices and stop blaming others for them.
I appreciate you being willing to dialogue. I hope there is peace and healing and humanity to be found in everyone involved in this situation.
It’s interesting how so many men make this argument about what women can do to take responsibility, or “heal and move forward in an empowered way” because in my view that’s exactly what the women were doing by investing in Aubert’s “healing” services in the first place. These women were clearly in dark places and decided to take actions to claim power over their lives and well-being just like youre insinuating they should do. And out of that desire to take responsibility over their wellness, they sought help like they should have by trusting who they were thoroughly convinced was a divine masculine brother from the organization of the seemingly trustworthy Sacred Sons. He was in the professional position to create the safe container they needed to do just that, and he instead traumatized those clients further.
Unless you’re convinced they’re blatantly lying due to your own anecdotal experiences despite the overall facts outside of your own reality, what more ownership do you expect them to take than to get themselves professional help? And why should a conversation resulting from the sexual misconduct of a spiritual wellness professional -and how that negatively impacted his clients- include how those clients must heal and move forward for any other reason than to help and serve those clients? Not to imply that the feminine was partially responsible or even misconstruing what happened to them in order to defend who you probably perceive to be the real victim, the masculine you identify with, as represented by Aubert himself, by insinuating falsehood and therefore gaslighting the victims. All because some woman at some point in your life hurt you. I am truly upset about that, and sorry that you and few people you know were victims of false accusation. That said, does that justify coming to a space that is calling forth accountability from a problematic practitioner (in other ways than sexual misconduct apparently) and projecting that past onto these strangers who did nothing at all to you? Gender is brought up quite a bit in this topic which is equally as understandable as it is not central in my opinion. Because the way I see it, this isn’t as much a matter of “power” over a woman that was abused by the man, but the position of powerful influence that a professional spiritual wellness practitioner has over a vulnerable client seeking help regardless of gender. This would be equally as unacceptable if Aubert was a woman and the clients were male, in which case I strongly believe your attitude towards him and the clients would be the complete opposite than it is now. You wouldn’t be implying what you’re implying, and you would jump at the opportunity to hold the woman accountable.
But as stated, if female victimhood is a trigger for you, remove the factor of gender and focus on what the main issue is: A wellness professional not being professional at all when they accepted wellness of their paying, vulnerable and trusting clients in their hands by agreeing to assist them.
“But ultimately, in general, I don't think adults being responsible for other adults' choices should be accepted (rare exceptions to that, of course, such as disabled and dependent adults).”
- When you are putting yourself in a position of power, in this case a professional healer in an organization designed to LEAD the way in their healing process with your services, you are stepping up to a position of authority. You are accepting responsibility when that person pays you or invests in your services. One of the most masculine principles I know is the phrase, “with more power comes more responsibility.” This isn’t just some situation between two regular adults in a mundane non-professional setting, like a brother and sister or two equal friends. This was a man who is accepting the role of a healer and a leader, therefore simultaneously taking the well-being of the people who are coming to him for help into his own hands. He literally vouched for responsibility over these vulnerable people with his actions. And likely did not tell them what they were in for if they were so shocked about it like a professional should do.
I’d like to ask you what your true intentions are in expressing this statement? What does calling in this “balance” from the feminine do to serve your growth process as a masculine? What does that have to do with YOU or other men in general taking accountability? Why do you need this from someone else before you can own your part in the problem. You say there’s a balance needed, when you fail to recognize that it was responsibility that was the direct driving force behind why they trusted Aubert in the first place. And the masculine in the situation STILL abused his power. After that, you’d think there would be nothing more to say.
I’m really curious as to what exactly that female responsibility would look like to you in this case? If the women involved stepped forward and made a public statement of accountability, what should that look like to you considering the position they’re in? I have my own idea because it directly applies to my life as a woman, but as a man, what do you think they should be accountable for in this case and how would them owning up to that serve your growth process as a divine masculine brother? Looking forward to your response potentially.
I appreciate the thoughtful reply, Madonna. You bring up a lot of really good questions that have me thinking more deeply about this particular scenario. I'm grateful you have taken the time to express all that you have. However, I am still left with the question of evidence. I keep hearing that there was sexual assault, but the only situation has been in regards to him laying on top of a client during a ketamine session? I am still wanting to understand exactly what Aubert did that was so unethical, and what evidence there is. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for this if there is going to be a public campaign that could potentially damage his life, as well as cause unnecessary strain on others involved.
He invited clients to live in Austin. Are there some that came and greatly benefitted from the experience? Or did every single one feel "harmed" by that? What does it mean they felt harmed? I presume innocence until guilt is proven. I believe this is the best way we as humans can approach these sticky subjects. Due process has protected people from being falsely accused and presumed guilty for many years, including slaves and other oppressed groups.
I realize there are many cracks in the rule of law, but these "call outs" or "call ins" -- whatever you'd like to call them -- have a lot of potential for abuse, because there is usually no one holding the accusers feet to the fire to provide ample evidence. And who gets to play judge, jury, and even executioner in these scenarios? When it's a matter of subjective ethics or accusations that are not held up in a court of law, there is no system available to provide a framework and ideally hold *everyone* accountable. But maybe that exists within the coaching world, and I am unaware?
Which brings me to responsibility. You asked how the women who are accusing Aubert of harm or abuse could take responsibility. Did they make the choice to take on Aubert as a coach? Yes, they did. Did they make the choice to move to Austin? Yes, they did. Did they make the choice to have a ketamine session with a coach/teacher/whatever who wasn't certified to do so? It seems that's the case. Each step along the way, they had choices to make. And they made them. As far as I know, no one threatened them or forced them in any way to make those choices. Were they smart choices? Not in my view. Were they done with due diligence and awareness every step of the way? Probably not.
I understand everyone has dark times, trauma, etc. but are we really saying that completely absolves people of the choices they make and the responsibility they have for that? I've met people who have had bad relationships or made dumb choices as adults and then learned and moved on without the need to blame everyone else. I've met people who have had bad relationships or made dumb choices as adults and then lamented over the fact that these things "happened to" them. Who do you think are the happier, more empowered and successful individuals?
So to take these women's experiences with Aubert and steer them towards a "it happened to you" scenario is actually damaging them more, in my view. It's telling them, "Yes, you made all the right choices. It's him that's the problem." And that's not being truthful or helpful. Because there were many things they could have done differently. I believe that is what should be focused on in cases where the ethics are subjective and debatable. (Of course, this doesn't necessarily apply to situations that actually "happen to" a person, such as rape and violence.)
As for Aubert, what little I know about the guy is enough to have me extremely skeptical of him. I feel that way about anyone who calls themselves a "healer." I think there is a large percentage of the population that would never give this dude or people like him their money. Not everyone is duped by these people. The ones that are should take a hard look at why they were attracted in the first place, and get a grip on the reality that outsourcing your inner authority will always lead you astray. There will always be thousands of Aubert's and others like him roaming the earth. I don't think they are all ill-intentioned, but most of them probably have no business giving others advice and being paid for it. Just my opinion.
But everyone has to navigate these things for themselves and see what lessons they get out of it. Like I said in an earlier comment, there is no need to make anyone a "bad guy" (unless there is truly criminal behavior). It's just part of the messiness of being human. Roll with it and learn and move forward. But always recognize your choice. That is where your power is and always will be.
You're pointing to something that's real and true, JJ. And from a certain perspective, it is easy to say that everyone is responsible for themselves, and if bad things happen, then learn from it and move on.
It's also an easy thing for one man to suggest that there's no need to create a 'bad guy' when it's possible they have a good heart but maybe are just a bumbling idiot no one in their right mind should pay for advice.
That's not the case here.
Aubert is a smart, articulate, and hurting human who has proven himself capable of gaining a high degree of trust and influence with other smart, capable, hurting humans. Maybe he's so deep in his wounding that he can't see or hear clearly, but that doesn't excuse his behavior, nor is it a reason for the women he's harmed to say so.
And seeing as our criminal codes were written by and largely enforced by men, using the current justice system as a measure with which to decide whether a woman's story of such violations are worthy is an act of avoidance rather than of curiosity.
I hear all of that, for sure. But I'm still not seeing what the harm is here that requires Aubert to be taken to task. His methods don't seem inherently harmful. I'm sure many others in the spiritual/coaching world suggest people move to another city, and then they do. Like, psychics, for example. Are we going to hold them accountable, too, for the advice they give and is taken? Or do we wait until someone decides the advice "harmed" them and then go after them?
I know the coaching world is different, but there doesn't seem to be any uniform code of ethics, so it seems odd to act as if there are. It just keeps coming back to people taking advice from people that maybe they shouldn't have in the first place, and making choices based on that advice that are questionable.
If it's acceptable to claim harm and damage a person's reputation and livelihood in doing so, shouldn't there be a clearer definition of ethics for that to be acceptable? As I asked earlier, did some people move to Austin on Aubert's advice and greatly benefit from it? If so, why don't their experiences matter? There is a code of ethics for massage therapists, but if you get a massage from someone who isn't licensed, that code can't all of the sudden apply if you get a sketchy massage. But the law can and should.
I'm aware of with some of the problems with the rule of law in our country and others, but I also think it's more fair in many ways than this random accountability policing. At least it requires due process and evidence -- which, again, I have seen very little of in Aubert's case that is incriminating. (Please point me to any that is.)
I want to be clear I'm not defending Aubert and his sense of ethics. I'm addressing the concern that ethics can be randomly chosen and defined based on individual perception of harm, which can vary widely, and the acceptance of that subjective interpretation of harm can be used to damage a person's reputation and livelihood.
I realize defamation only applies if what the accusers are claiming isn't true, but lobbing vague accusations, which cannot be legally denied and are painted with an uncharitable interpretations, still creates damage to the accused socially and financially. This is what I've seen so far in the Aubert case.
I'm going to start by saying this. It goes without saying that there is ALWAYS something that we can do better about things going wrong in our lives. But it’s impossible to be perfect. While you made great points about what the clients can do to take responsibility, 1. there seems to be an assumption that this is not already happening, 2. The question I asked of what exactly them doing that has to do with you or the growth of the masculine when they are being called to take their own accountability remains unanswered. Let's suppose they do everything you think they should do. Okay, now what? A problematic practitioner still walks free to traumatize people and you should be way more concerned about that. Why is it that you read about someone in your community potentially being a predator or at least someone unequipped to practice what he does, and your main concern is whether or not it is true or evidence, instead of your heart mainly going out to those victims. Especially considering the fact that it seems you already are picking up that this guy is a problem?
Think of it this way. You've been dating someone who gained your admiration. You desperately needed a ride somewhere and they offer you one. You know they don't have a driver license, but you know they've been driving for years and you have absolutely no reason to distrust them despite the known proven risks of being on the road. They've always been positive, charming and loving for as long as you knew them. You get in the car and something flips that you've never seen before from them. Suddenly, turns out this person is a nutjob that caused them to decide to drive the both of you right into a wall out of pent up spite. You suffer severe burns and a life changing injuries.
Now, imagine that when the issue gets out publicly through social media or the news, you tap in just to find that the primary concern, as you lay in your hospital in agony is, "Why did that idiot get in the car!", "He should take responsibility for his actions!" “Where’s the evidence!” Again, this person gained your trust and you did something that many people in a needy vulnerable position would do in your place. But instead of wishing for you to heal from your crazy girlfriend, all people care about is your "accountability." Wouldn't that be sick? Disgusting? Strange? Inhumane? How can anyone hear about something so awful and the first place your mind goes to is evidence, and still consider themselves human? There are situations where emotional intelligence is in order. Everything can't be broken down or explained by human logic, especially in this case when much of the existing evidence points to Aubert's guilt despite his intentions. I also believe I need more information before I agree on anything about his character or intentions, but the impact and the outcomes remain. Again, you're already skeptical so you know something is off, not including the fact that more than one entity has had problems with this guy other than the clients (multiple clients actually) INCLUDING Sacred Sons themselves, and other MEN in the group having had issues with him according to their own words. Plus the existing evidence in the Instagram post is telling of very unusual and brow raising behavior despite it probably not being able to hold up in court alone as cold hard proof (How can you prove something that happened in private. You have to look to the context around it). That’s way too many strikes. Even though the clients could have been smarter (though its actually rational that emotionally vulnerable or damaged people with no guidance and in need of help should be expected to make bad decisions), does that mean we just avoid spreading awareness about these things so that people in our community can know what and who to avoid?
Let's say you got everything you wanted. The woman took accountability for what they can do better. Now what? Do we still keep giving out passes just because "there will always be bad people?" What is the proper approach you suggest not from the women who's accountability your not responsible for, but from the accused party himself? You had an opinion about what they should do, what's your opinion about what he should do? You're a good guy, of course you care about the way your community and the vulnerable people in it are being impacted, so it shouldn't be hard.
I know it’s a lot so I’ll mention now that you can treat those questions as rhetorical. I don’t require a response but feel free to post one and I’ll give it a look if I’m in the energetic place. On that note, I encourage you to really consider the perspective in my last response from your heart, not overly relying on the limited nature of the 3rd dimensional human mind. After all, the language of the universe and god source energy is translated through the heart. Remember that if you encounter any more confusion. Where i personally align with your opinion is the desire for more information to be uncovered from all parties involved, but this is a result of Aubert’s silence himself which looks even worse, though I’m pretty sure he’s following the advice of a lawyer. I do have something that may help you get more details. There was a clubhouse link posted to Mikaela’s story that I saved between her and a brother, in which this is being discussed in a bit more detail and I’m curious on your thoughts if you decide to give it a listen. There’s not the cold hard proof that you seem to need in order to take the victims seriously 🤣 But it should give you a little more clarity on the perspective of the clients and Ma’at.
Thanks for the link! I gave it a listen, and I was surprised by a few things. Mikaela and others involved seem to feel a little too comfortable framing the situation in the most sinister light possible. This is a big red flag for me, and reminds me of other cancellation/accountability abuse I've experienced and witnessed. There is a dismissal of the importance of evidence in backing up claims of harm, yet a comfort moving forward and making things public because Aubert won't be accountable in the way they demand. Even though Mikaela says she has a heap of evidence, none has been provided except a few innocuous texts and Insta stories? This seems to me like a form of blackmail and force that is inherently unethical, in my view.
Everyone should get a chance to be represented in a fair and honest way, and if people are truly interested in accountability, that cannot be specific and has to involve the accused's integrity and choice and *evidence* and shared story, rather than threatening them with reputation destruction and loss of livelihood if they don't cave to demands. I think it is morally disgusting to attempt to force a person out of their line of work (coaching for Aubert) and then tell them to provide funds for the alleged victims. And *then* to frame his continuing to work as being unwilling to be accountable -- that is incredibly harsh and unreasonable.
I feel the same way about journalists and newspapers that are quick to place blame and guilt with very little evidence because it creates a good story and gets clicks. It's always an alarm for me when the story seems a little too clean, too black-and-white, good vs. evil. Mikaela's first information about this case was brought forward by a woman during a workshop (if I recall correctly). Did Mikaela listen to the information, support that person, and then talk to Aubert in a way that gave him respect and space for his own version of that story? Maybe initially she did. But I'd hazard a guess she didn't give him a fair shake because the seed was already planted that he caused harm.
When I experienced accountability abuse, the person who accused me was already being called a survivor before hearing my side of anything, or even giving me a chance to understand what the accusations were. Of course, that person didn't survive anything but a sometimes challenging relationship for both of us. But, because they framed it as being emotionally abusive and applied sinister motives to all of my behavior in the relationship (basically saying I didn't really love them was leading them on for several months, like I was some kind of sadistic psychopath that enjoyed fooling them), the "community" responded as if that was likely true -- because "believe survivors," right?
There was no investigative period or discernment applied. It was never an option to suggest my accuser might be exaggerating details and framing things in a sinister way that was not at all true in my experience. There was zero evidence of "harm," and the details shared with me were vague and confusing. I was forced to step down from leadership roles and accept being excluded from social scenes. Aubert is lucky he got some kind of private mediation -- although I'm not sure who was involved with that. But in the end, because he didn't completely *submit* to all the demands, he got blown up publicly. Submission is not accountability.
So I guess I'll keep waiting, in this case, to have any judgments on Aubert until the evidence Mikaela has is released. Until then, I think it is incredibly harmful, unnecessary, and *unethical* to make things public with vague accusations and a sinister framing of them. Just my take.
Thanks for your thoughtful response, JJ. You're pointing to the nuance and grey areas that are so rarely clear and well-defined. Where is the line between a woman's self-responsibility, and the influence that a coach, therapist, community leader, or other man in a power position has in that relationship with her?
One question that I resonate with, from Kylea Taylor's book The Ethics of Caring, is "Who is this for?"
I think about that question when I read and heard Aubert's messages to his 'clients', or that he would ask them to move closer to him. This is all before we even start talking about sexual assault.
And, to answer your thought experiment: I would show up tor the conversation. I know I have blind spots and I want to see them clearer. Even if "she" was totally in her own trauma and reliving things that had nothing to do with me, I would do my best to gather my resources, ground my body and nervous system into mama earth, and to listen, and let them know I heard them.
Interesting thoughts, thanks, brother! I personally don't buy into power dynamic arguments (i.e. a man in a "power" position can somehow control other adults through his non-threatening words and actions). I think we all need to move towards a type of consciousness that acknowledges the power of choice we have in the world. The world of consenting adults should not be a place to label "abusers" and "survivors." Take the lessons learned from impulsive, foolish decisions and move forward, but there is no need to find a bad guy in all of it.
I like the question, "Who is this for?" It's a good way to check in with oneself regarding intentions behind actions. But Bastiat probably thought what he was doing for his clients was for them, right? He was giving them a chance to learn about themselves and push some edges. It can easily be framed that way. That's the messiness of all of this. Everyone has their own sense of ethics, and that attracts certain sets of people.
But ultimately, in general, I don't think adults being responsible for other adults' choices should be accepted (rare exceptions to that, of course, such as disabled and dependent adults). I don't think Bastiat's approach is for me, and I wouldn't recommend him to others. There are a lot "spiritual teachers" I'd advise people to stay the hell away from if they asked me, because I think many of them are full of shit. But it's none of my business what consenting adults do and who they choose to take advice from. Even if I think it's a bad idea.
I like your response to the thought experiment. Ideally that would be the case. But also consider that there may be a looming threat of damaging your reputation and livelihood if you don't completely agree with what is alleged. What if just hearing them isn't enough? What if there are unreasonable demands?
Excellent read. In my opinion, it doesn’t have to be one or the other. Collectively, we tend to frame the process of “calling someone out” as negative, violent and hostile, but it can be done constructively (if both parties are willing to recognize it as such and receive it). To call out is the simultaneous action of calling in. 🙏🏽
Love this reframe of 'calling out is calling in' when done constructively and if all parties can hold it. Thank you.
Thank you so much for this thoughtfully constructed discourse 🙏🏽🪶⚖️
And nice to meet you.
Brother, this type of discussion is often missing the balance of what the feminine must do to heal and move forward in an empowered way. It's very easy to say one man is not in integrity, but were the women involved with him in theirs? What responsibility do we all have to own our choices? If someone tells you to move across the country, and you do, are you not acting out of free will and your own integrity?
Holding women in the perpetual victim sphere is damaging and continues a narrative that has been unhelpful throughout time: that women are not responsible for themselves, but men are. Solid boundaries work needs be taught to everyone. We must all know the power we have to make our own choices in any given moment. If women are taken advantage of physically, of course that is clearly wrong. But if they are allegedly taken advantage of emotionally, how can we know if that's true?
There's a reason these kinds of things can't be proven in a court of law. There is way too much gray area. It's dangerous to act as if there's not. It opens up an entire realm of false accusations and power grabs, the likes of which was used to jail black men falsely accused by white women not so long ago. Sure, falsely accusing someone of "emotional abuse" won't land them in prison, but it will damage their lives.
Imagine yourself in this position: an ex accuses you of emotional abuse and you are now being inundated with calls for accountability ... or else. You know you did nothing to your ex to warrant that accusation. She is hurting and lashing out to control your life, framing your texts as abusive, having a trauma response to normative relationship conflict. The "community" is on her side. Your friends turn on you. What does it mean to be a "good man" with integrity in this scenario?
We wouldn’t be having this much needed and long overdue conversation if it wasn’t for the brave and solid women that are willing to shoulder this while everyone calls them angry and vindictive.
The question I am always left with is, “what are the skills our community has to meet the needs of these stories coming forward?”
If sensual assault affects 1 in 3 women and 1 in 4 men, it is not a matter of if but when. And if we are out here doing men’s work, can we talk about the full spectrum of the experience of our bodies and our spirits in these brave spaces? Where is our sensual assault literacy?
Because it’s not just rape that is harm. Unwanted advances, overdoses and climbing on people when they can’t resist. All really disturbing violations. And concerning false accusations, in the case of sensual assault, only 10% are false, so why do we err on the side of lying?
Gratitude to the survivors for digging through their text messages, voice notes and emails despite their own self doubt in an attempt to protect others.
We long for the day that brothers can turn to us and say “what can I do to help amplify your voice, sister?”
Because the women were harmed physically and in so many other ways.
May this action continue to protect future people from his poor coaching practices because it already has.
🙏🏽🪶✨
deeply heard. grateful to the women who are courageous and willing to bring their stories forward despite the likelihood of being shut down, or ignored.
Thank you for the numbers and valuable perspective, Mikaela.
I have been sitting with the question you asked here and one answer that comes up is, if those of us doing men's work aren't building the skillset needed to meet the needs of these stories coming forward, then what exactly Are we doing?
So I am curious to dive deeper into this.
Hello Mikaela, thank you for sharing your thoughts! I am very interested in this subject because I was falsely accused of "emotional abuse" with zero evidence, yet it destroyed my life. I know 3 other men and one woman who this happened to in the last couple of years in my local community. It appears to be a growing problem in leftist/progressive/queer communities. Some call it cancel culture. I call it abuse.
Folks who have survived this kind of abuse are often the most displaced people within those leftist queer subcultures. They get ostracized, even when it's clear they are not abusers. All that needs to happen is a seed of doubt be planted in people's heads, and there is is no coming back from that. It's a form of abusive gaslighting that is incredibly painful to experience and can easily lead to a destruction of livelihoods and sever social connections.
That is why I believe accusations need to be approached with a lot of care without feeding into a public accountability (possibly humiliation) campaign that could possibly (probably) cause more harm to the accused and others involved. Care, in my view, involves acting from a place of irrefutable and clear evidence of abuse, and to move forward privately. Yes, there was a study in 2010 that claimed 10% or less of *rape* accusations are false, but has there ever been a study done in a queer/leftist community to see how many false allegations of "abuse" there are? Especially "emotional abuse?"
I'll bet the number is way higher, because in these communities, often evidence is not as important as believing the accusers. The accusations can be vague. A person can say they "felt abused" and not have a clear example of it. Or they can exaggerate harm and use many mechanisms that are baked into that subculture to amplify what are normative conflicts and disagreements.
I don't know all the details of Aubert's accusations. I'm waiting to understand more. I think it's also important to include his voice in all of this. I keep hearing about evidence, but the little bit I've seen are texts suggesting his clients move to Austin. This seems to be a framing of his actions as a coach as inherently abusive, and I just don't see that. But maybe I'm missing something.
He also gave ketamine without being certified to do so? And layed on top of one client? (*Sounds* potentially bad -- what are the details/context/evidence?) I know a lot of spiritual coach types who give psychedelics and "hold space" for clients while they trip. Should they be certified by the state to do so? I'm not sure what the end game here is by publicly calling out a small spiritual influencer like this.
I think there are many things wrong with the coaching/spiritual guru world (not a fan, personally), but as long as it's consenting adults, it's really none of my business. Let adults make their bad/dumb/desperate choices and move on with their lessons. No one is being forced to do anything in the scenarios I've heard so far. I believe we all need to awaken to the power of our choices and stop blaming others for them.
I appreciate you being willing to dialogue. I hope there is peace and healing and humanity to be found in everyone involved in this situation.
It’s interesting how so many men make this argument about what women can do to take responsibility, or “heal and move forward in an empowered way” because in my view that’s exactly what the women were doing by investing in Aubert’s “healing” services in the first place. These women were clearly in dark places and decided to take actions to claim power over their lives and well-being just like youre insinuating they should do. And out of that desire to take responsibility over their wellness, they sought help like they should have by trusting who they were thoroughly convinced was a divine masculine brother from the organization of the seemingly trustworthy Sacred Sons. He was in the professional position to create the safe container they needed to do just that, and he instead traumatized those clients further.
Unless you’re convinced they’re blatantly lying due to your own anecdotal experiences despite the overall facts outside of your own reality, what more ownership do you expect them to take than to get themselves professional help? And why should a conversation resulting from the sexual misconduct of a spiritual wellness professional -and how that negatively impacted his clients- include how those clients must heal and move forward for any other reason than to help and serve those clients? Not to imply that the feminine was partially responsible or even misconstruing what happened to them in order to defend who you probably perceive to be the real victim, the masculine you identify with, as represented by Aubert himself, by insinuating falsehood and therefore gaslighting the victims. All because some woman at some point in your life hurt you. I am truly upset about that, and sorry that you and few people you know were victims of false accusation. That said, does that justify coming to a space that is calling forth accountability from a problematic practitioner (in other ways than sexual misconduct apparently) and projecting that past onto these strangers who did nothing at all to you? Gender is brought up quite a bit in this topic which is equally as understandable as it is not central in my opinion. Because the way I see it, this isn’t as much a matter of “power” over a woman that was abused by the man, but the position of powerful influence that a professional spiritual wellness practitioner has over a vulnerable client seeking help regardless of gender. This would be equally as unacceptable if Aubert was a woman and the clients were male, in which case I strongly believe your attitude towards him and the clients would be the complete opposite than it is now. You wouldn’t be implying what you’re implying, and you would jump at the opportunity to hold the woman accountable.
But as stated, if female victimhood is a trigger for you, remove the factor of gender and focus on what the main issue is: A wellness professional not being professional at all when they accepted wellness of their paying, vulnerable and trusting clients in their hands by agreeing to assist them.
“But ultimately, in general, I don't think adults being responsible for other adults' choices should be accepted (rare exceptions to that, of course, such as disabled and dependent adults).”
- When you are putting yourself in a position of power, in this case a professional healer in an organization designed to LEAD the way in their healing process with your services, you are stepping up to a position of authority. You are accepting responsibility when that person pays you or invests in your services. One of the most masculine principles I know is the phrase, “with more power comes more responsibility.” This isn’t just some situation between two regular adults in a mundane non-professional setting, like a brother and sister or two equal friends. This was a man who is accepting the role of a healer and a leader, therefore simultaneously taking the well-being of the people who are coming to him for help into his own hands. He literally vouched for responsibility over these vulnerable people with his actions. And likely did not tell them what they were in for if they were so shocked about it like a professional should do.
I’d like to ask you what your true intentions are in expressing this statement? What does calling in this “balance” from the feminine do to serve your growth process as a masculine? What does that have to do with YOU or other men in general taking accountability? Why do you need this from someone else before you can own your part in the problem. You say there’s a balance needed, when you fail to recognize that it was responsibility that was the direct driving force behind why they trusted Aubert in the first place. And the masculine in the situation STILL abused his power. After that, you’d think there would be nothing more to say.
I’m really curious as to what exactly that female responsibility would look like to you in this case? If the women involved stepped forward and made a public statement of accountability, what should that look like to you considering the position they’re in? I have my own idea because it directly applies to my life as a woman, but as a man, what do you think they should be accountable for in this case and how would them owning up to that serve your growth process as a divine masculine brother? Looking forward to your response potentially.
I appreciate the thoughtful reply, Madonna. You bring up a lot of really good questions that have me thinking more deeply about this particular scenario. I'm grateful you have taken the time to express all that you have. However, I am still left with the question of evidence. I keep hearing that there was sexual assault, but the only situation has been in regards to him laying on top of a client during a ketamine session? I am still wanting to understand exactly what Aubert did that was so unethical, and what evidence there is. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for this if there is going to be a public campaign that could potentially damage his life, as well as cause unnecessary strain on others involved.
He invited clients to live in Austin. Are there some that came and greatly benefitted from the experience? Or did every single one feel "harmed" by that? What does it mean they felt harmed? I presume innocence until guilt is proven. I believe this is the best way we as humans can approach these sticky subjects. Due process has protected people from being falsely accused and presumed guilty for many years, including slaves and other oppressed groups.
I realize there are many cracks in the rule of law, but these "call outs" or "call ins" -- whatever you'd like to call them -- have a lot of potential for abuse, because there is usually no one holding the accusers feet to the fire to provide ample evidence. And who gets to play judge, jury, and even executioner in these scenarios? When it's a matter of subjective ethics or accusations that are not held up in a court of law, there is no system available to provide a framework and ideally hold *everyone* accountable. But maybe that exists within the coaching world, and I am unaware?
Which brings me to responsibility. You asked how the women who are accusing Aubert of harm or abuse could take responsibility. Did they make the choice to take on Aubert as a coach? Yes, they did. Did they make the choice to move to Austin? Yes, they did. Did they make the choice to have a ketamine session with a coach/teacher/whatever who wasn't certified to do so? It seems that's the case. Each step along the way, they had choices to make. And they made them. As far as I know, no one threatened them or forced them in any way to make those choices. Were they smart choices? Not in my view. Were they done with due diligence and awareness every step of the way? Probably not.
I understand everyone has dark times, trauma, etc. but are we really saying that completely absolves people of the choices they make and the responsibility they have for that? I've met people who have had bad relationships or made dumb choices as adults and then learned and moved on without the need to blame everyone else. I've met people who have had bad relationships or made dumb choices as adults and then lamented over the fact that these things "happened to" them. Who do you think are the happier, more empowered and successful individuals?
So to take these women's experiences with Aubert and steer them towards a "it happened to you" scenario is actually damaging them more, in my view. It's telling them, "Yes, you made all the right choices. It's him that's the problem." And that's not being truthful or helpful. Because there were many things they could have done differently. I believe that is what should be focused on in cases where the ethics are subjective and debatable. (Of course, this doesn't necessarily apply to situations that actually "happen to" a person, such as rape and violence.)
As for Aubert, what little I know about the guy is enough to have me extremely skeptical of him. I feel that way about anyone who calls themselves a "healer." I think there is a large percentage of the population that would never give this dude or people like him their money. Not everyone is duped by these people. The ones that are should take a hard look at why they were attracted in the first place, and get a grip on the reality that outsourcing your inner authority will always lead you astray. There will always be thousands of Aubert's and others like him roaming the earth. I don't think they are all ill-intentioned, but most of them probably have no business giving others advice and being paid for it. Just my opinion.
But everyone has to navigate these things for themselves and see what lessons they get out of it. Like I said in an earlier comment, there is no need to make anyone a "bad guy" (unless there is truly criminal behavior). It's just part of the messiness of being human. Roll with it and learn and move forward. But always recognize your choice. That is where your power is and always will be.
You're pointing to something that's real and true, JJ. And from a certain perspective, it is easy to say that everyone is responsible for themselves, and if bad things happen, then learn from it and move on.
It's also an easy thing for one man to suggest that there's no need to create a 'bad guy' when it's possible they have a good heart but maybe are just a bumbling idiot no one in their right mind should pay for advice.
That's not the case here.
Aubert is a smart, articulate, and hurting human who has proven himself capable of gaining a high degree of trust and influence with other smart, capable, hurting humans. Maybe he's so deep in his wounding that he can't see or hear clearly, but that doesn't excuse his behavior, nor is it a reason for the women he's harmed to say so.
And seeing as our criminal codes were written by and largely enforced by men, using the current justice system as a measure with which to decide whether a woman's story of such violations are worthy is an act of avoidance rather than of curiosity.
I hear all of that, for sure. But I'm still not seeing what the harm is here that requires Aubert to be taken to task. His methods don't seem inherently harmful. I'm sure many others in the spiritual/coaching world suggest people move to another city, and then they do. Like, psychics, for example. Are we going to hold them accountable, too, for the advice they give and is taken? Or do we wait until someone decides the advice "harmed" them and then go after them?
I know the coaching world is different, but there doesn't seem to be any uniform code of ethics, so it seems odd to act as if there are. It just keeps coming back to people taking advice from people that maybe they shouldn't have in the first place, and making choices based on that advice that are questionable.
If it's acceptable to claim harm and damage a person's reputation and livelihood in doing so, shouldn't there be a clearer definition of ethics for that to be acceptable? As I asked earlier, did some people move to Austin on Aubert's advice and greatly benefit from it? If so, why don't their experiences matter? There is a code of ethics for massage therapists, but if you get a massage from someone who isn't licensed, that code can't all of the sudden apply if you get a sketchy massage. But the law can and should.
I'm aware of with some of the problems with the rule of law in our country and others, but I also think it's more fair in many ways than this random accountability policing. At least it requires due process and evidence -- which, again, I have seen very little of in Aubert's case that is incriminating. (Please point me to any that is.)
I want to be clear I'm not defending Aubert and his sense of ethics. I'm addressing the concern that ethics can be randomly chosen and defined based on individual perception of harm, which can vary widely, and the acceptance of that subjective interpretation of harm can be used to damage a person's reputation and livelihood.
I realize defamation only applies if what the accusers are claiming isn't true, but lobbing vague accusations, which cannot be legally denied and are painted with an uncharitable interpretations, still creates damage to the accused socially and financially. This is what I've seen so far in the Aubert case.
*to not say so
i think. all the double negatives and toddler brain don't mix so well 😆
I'm going to start by saying this. It goes without saying that there is ALWAYS something that we can do better about things going wrong in our lives. But it’s impossible to be perfect. While you made great points about what the clients can do to take responsibility, 1. there seems to be an assumption that this is not already happening, 2. The question I asked of what exactly them doing that has to do with you or the growth of the masculine when they are being called to take their own accountability remains unanswered. Let's suppose they do everything you think they should do. Okay, now what? A problematic practitioner still walks free to traumatize people and you should be way more concerned about that. Why is it that you read about someone in your community potentially being a predator or at least someone unequipped to practice what he does, and your main concern is whether or not it is true or evidence, instead of your heart mainly going out to those victims. Especially considering the fact that it seems you already are picking up that this guy is a problem?
Think of it this way. You've been dating someone who gained your admiration. You desperately needed a ride somewhere and they offer you one. You know they don't have a driver license, but you know they've been driving for years and you have absolutely no reason to distrust them despite the known proven risks of being on the road. They've always been positive, charming and loving for as long as you knew them. You get in the car and something flips that you've never seen before from them. Suddenly, turns out this person is a nutjob that caused them to decide to drive the both of you right into a wall out of pent up spite. You suffer severe burns and a life changing injuries.
Now, imagine that when the issue gets out publicly through social media or the news, you tap in just to find that the primary concern, as you lay in your hospital in agony is, "Why did that idiot get in the car!", "He should take responsibility for his actions!" “Where’s the evidence!” Again, this person gained your trust and you did something that many people in a needy vulnerable position would do in your place. But instead of wishing for you to heal from your crazy girlfriend, all people care about is your "accountability." Wouldn't that be sick? Disgusting? Strange? Inhumane? How can anyone hear about something so awful and the first place your mind goes to is evidence, and still consider themselves human? There are situations where emotional intelligence is in order. Everything can't be broken down or explained by human logic, especially in this case when much of the existing evidence points to Aubert's guilt despite his intentions. I also believe I need more information before I agree on anything about his character or intentions, but the impact and the outcomes remain. Again, you're already skeptical so you know something is off, not including the fact that more than one entity has had problems with this guy other than the clients (multiple clients actually) INCLUDING Sacred Sons themselves, and other MEN in the group having had issues with him according to their own words. Plus the existing evidence in the Instagram post is telling of very unusual and brow raising behavior despite it probably not being able to hold up in court alone as cold hard proof (How can you prove something that happened in private. You have to look to the context around it). That’s way too many strikes. Even though the clients could have been smarter (though its actually rational that emotionally vulnerable or damaged people with no guidance and in need of help should be expected to make bad decisions), does that mean we just avoid spreading awareness about these things so that people in our community can know what and who to avoid?
Let's say you got everything you wanted. The woman took accountability for what they can do better. Now what? Do we still keep giving out passes just because "there will always be bad people?" What is the proper approach you suggest not from the women who's accountability your not responsible for, but from the accused party himself? You had an opinion about what they should do, what's your opinion about what he should do? You're a good guy, of course you care about the way your community and the vulnerable people in it are being impacted, so it shouldn't be hard.
I will reply to this soon! Great thoughts & questions
I know it’s a lot so I’ll mention now that you can treat those questions as rhetorical. I don’t require a response but feel free to post one and I’ll give it a look if I’m in the energetic place. On that note, I encourage you to really consider the perspective in my last response from your heart, not overly relying on the limited nature of the 3rd dimensional human mind. After all, the language of the universe and god source energy is translated through the heart. Remember that if you encounter any more confusion. Where i personally align with your opinion is the desire for more information to be uncovered from all parties involved, but this is a result of Aubert’s silence himself which looks even worse, though I’m pretty sure he’s following the advice of a lawyer. I do have something that may help you get more details. There was a clubhouse link posted to Mikaela’s story that I saved between her and a brother, in which this is being discussed in a bit more detail and I’m curious on your thoughts if you decide to give it a listen. There’s not the cold hard proof that you seem to need in order to take the victims seriously 🤣 But it should give you a little more clarity on the perspective of the clients and Ma’at.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zSNPruA-vZ-RkXPVQSlU6oRsTcTYo7p2/view?fbclid=PAZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAaaP7GaHwhbA0GJ4Q6qfGwNP48NKR3rGKVh8Zn3TFIeIjWgd-aWI1XZIEMA_aem_AXZ3Bcnz0JoXx8GZ77uiQhLNHKsnMOBJaK25SGkdoNGlZq8hgpcFRlkViABfqwPZIgjzeD_ZFkC6BSXo6FwUFet0
Thanks for the link! I gave it a listen, and I was surprised by a few things. Mikaela and others involved seem to feel a little too comfortable framing the situation in the most sinister light possible. This is a big red flag for me, and reminds me of other cancellation/accountability abuse I've experienced and witnessed. There is a dismissal of the importance of evidence in backing up claims of harm, yet a comfort moving forward and making things public because Aubert won't be accountable in the way they demand. Even though Mikaela says she has a heap of evidence, none has been provided except a few innocuous texts and Insta stories? This seems to me like a form of blackmail and force that is inherently unethical, in my view.
Everyone should get a chance to be represented in a fair and honest way, and if people are truly interested in accountability, that cannot be specific and has to involve the accused's integrity and choice and *evidence* and shared story, rather than threatening them with reputation destruction and loss of livelihood if they don't cave to demands. I think it is morally disgusting to attempt to force a person out of their line of work (coaching for Aubert) and then tell them to provide funds for the alleged victims. And *then* to frame his continuing to work as being unwilling to be accountable -- that is incredibly harsh and unreasonable.
I feel the same way about journalists and newspapers that are quick to place blame and guilt with very little evidence because it creates a good story and gets clicks. It's always an alarm for me when the story seems a little too clean, too black-and-white, good vs. evil. Mikaela's first information about this case was brought forward by a woman during a workshop (if I recall correctly). Did Mikaela listen to the information, support that person, and then talk to Aubert in a way that gave him respect and space for his own version of that story? Maybe initially she did. But I'd hazard a guess she didn't give him a fair shake because the seed was already planted that he caused harm.
When I experienced accountability abuse, the person who accused me was already being called a survivor before hearing my side of anything, or even giving me a chance to understand what the accusations were. Of course, that person didn't survive anything but a sometimes challenging relationship for both of us. But, because they framed it as being emotionally abusive and applied sinister motives to all of my behavior in the relationship (basically saying I didn't really love them was leading them on for several months, like I was some kind of sadistic psychopath that enjoyed fooling them), the "community" responded as if that was likely true -- because "believe survivors," right?
There was no investigative period or discernment applied. It was never an option to suggest my accuser might be exaggerating details and framing things in a sinister way that was not at all true in my experience. There was zero evidence of "harm," and the details shared with me were vague and confusing. I was forced to step down from leadership roles and accept being excluded from social scenes. Aubert is lucky he got some kind of private mediation -- although I'm not sure who was involved with that. But in the end, because he didn't completely *submit* to all the demands, he got blown up publicly. Submission is not accountability.
So I guess I'll keep waiting, in this case, to have any judgments on Aubert until the evidence Mikaela has is released. Until then, I think it is incredibly harmful, unnecessary, and *unethical* to make things public with vague accusations and a sinister framing of them. Just my take.