#MeToo and a Response to it

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

Hey, forum-ites. The following I saw was a post shared by a relative written by someone else (who is not a relative) on Facebook. I read it and decided to post it here. I will first put the entire post in a single quote box and then respond to it.
Given the length of the post, I will assume that the author put some thought and energy into it, and means what they say, but that they don't realise the many logical holes in what they say. So first off...

Today my timeline is full of decent men asking, "How can I help?", in the wake of the viral #MeToo movement created by www.twitter.com/TaranaBurke.
I'm going to take this question as sincere, and give a few suggestions.
SHARING: Yes, you can share this on FB & Twitter; thanks for being interested in doing so. Please credit me & link back to this post (Click the timestamp at the top for the direct link).
** And if you end up being paid to present my work, I welcome fair contributions via PayPal. stamperoo@gmail.com :) **
Here are some concrete ways men* can help:
(*I wrote this specifically for a small group of my own male friends who were explicitly asking for advice after being stunned by the ubiquity of the #metoo abuse hashtag. I wasn't anticipating this being shared so many times. These tips can be used by people of all genders.)
1. Practice these phrases: "That's not cool" and "That's a shitty thing to say". Say them to other men who are saying disrespectful things to or about women.
2. Follow some feminist writers on social media. Sometimes what they write may seem "exhausting" or "too angry". Put aside that discomfort because that feeling is your male privilege allowing you to disengage from an important conversation that womxn don't get to disengage from. Here are some accounts I like- but there are lots. Follow a few.
www.twitter.com/ijeomaoluo
www.twitter.com/manwhohasitall
www.twitter.com/FeministaJones
3. Boost female voices. When there's an issue and you're going to share an article about it- especially if it's a gender issue- take a minute and try to find one written by a woman (same goes for other marginalized groups- seek articles about race written by IBPOC, seek articles about disability by disabled writers, etc. "Nothing about us, without us").
4. Boost what women say at work. Listen for men dismissing women's contributions and make a habit of listening and saying things like "Hey Zahra has a point".
5. Be mindful of how you introduce women- particularly at work functions. Role-model extra respect into your introductions. So often you hear men being introduced with job titles and accolades, and women introduced as "the lovely" or "the beautiful". I guarantee that no matter how good she looks, she'd rather be introduced by her job title and accomplishments.
Relevant Washington Post article: "At conferences, male doctors are introduced as "Doctor Whoever" 72% of the time; female doctors are introduced using the word "Doctor" only 49% of the time." http://wapo.st/2kSWlba
Doing this subtly tells the listener that the women's qualifications are lesser-than. Go out of your way to correct this by introducing women (and others from marginalized groups- racialized, disabled, young-looking, whatever) using their full job titles and accolades.
6. At work or out in the world, don't call women cutesy names like "honey, baby, darling, kiddo, young lady, girl, or dear". This is a subtle way of putting them down, elevating your own status over them as a man who is choosing to vote them as attractive, and reminding them and all present that they're just cute little ladies that nobody should listen to. Make a special effort to speak to women using the kind of person-to-person respectful address you use when speaking with male colleagues. Hint: Use their name. If you slip up and call your colleague "young lady" or some other bullshit like that, it's cool to say something about it, like "I'm sorry I called you that- it's disrespectful."
7. Seek enthusiastic consent in your sexual encounters. If you're having sexy time and the other person stops reciprocating, gets quiet, seems tense or stiff, avoids making eye contact, pauses, or otherwise slows the tempo of the encounter, then you should.... STOP WHAT YOU ARE DOING.
Reframe how you think of consent. You're not supposed to just "go for it" until someone yells NO and that's when you stop. That's old-fashioned and gross. And she might not be able to explicitly say no, because she has very likely been assaulted before and she might freeze when stressed- that's a side effect of all this "me too".
People shouldn't have to explicitly say no. Instead, slow down. At every step, listen with your ears (or ask with your words) for the word "yes", and then you can escalate the encounter together. Seek explicit and enthusiastic and active consent before you proceed. Proceed together. And constantly observe the other person's body language for the hesitations that mean "no". If this means you have to cut down on alcohol or substances to stay present and have self-control, please do that.
8. Don't use gendered or misogynist insults. Bitch, cunt, slut, pussy, f*g, girly, sissy, cuck, etc. Use insults that work on everyone rather than insults that specifically target the feminine as weak, lesser, and undesirable. "Asshole" is a nice multipurpose choice- we all have one.
9. If there are little boys, teen boys, and young men in your life, role-model that the feminine is not less-than. Challenge them on their dismissive ideas around what counts as "girl stuff". Buy them a doll. Paint your nails together. Show up wearing pink. Do something that's coded as* traditionally "feminine" in a way that embraces the feminine as a valid way of being, not in a way that mocks femininity. Buy them books and watch TV and movies that prominently feature female characters. Verbally challenge their stereotypes about what men do and how women are lesser. Seeing women as people starts in infancy.
(*Thanks to a commenter for pointing out that behaviours aren't inherently fem/masc, but rather we code them as such).
10. Be wary of constantly or only telling little girls they're pretty and cute or commenting on their hairstyle & clothing. I know, little girls often wear fun stuff and it's easy to comment on. But it tells her, and the little boys nearby, that girls should be valued first and foremost for their looks.
Instead, try things like "What kind of toy is that? That looks fun, what is it? Are you reading any good books? What's your favourite subject in school? What kind of things do you like to do? Do you have a favourite animal? May I ask your advice, should I purchase the apples or the grapes?" There are so many things to talk about.
11. When a woman is walking alone and you end up walking behind her- especially in dark or secluded areas- please slow down to increase the distance between you, or, better yet, cross the street. Literally go out of your way to help her feel that you're not following her.
12. Teach your elders to do better. Pervy Grandpa and Racist Grandma might seem harmless at Xmas dinner but as their health declines, they will largely end up being cared for by women and POC who don't deserve dehumanizing treatment. Call it out. You can teach old dogs* new tricks, and you should definitely try.
(*Someone below pointed out that this metaphor, equating the elderly to dogs, is disrespectful. I agree with them. I'm not deleting it because hiding mistakes is creepy. I'm sorry I spoke disrespectfully about elderly people- that's a proverb that I'll quit using.)
13. Don't argue so much in conversations around types of oppression that you don't personally experience. Keep an eye open for our culture's gross habit of putting the onus on the oppressed persons to dredge up their pain for inspection (only for us to then dismiss it as "just one instance which they probably either caused or misinterpreted anyway"). Instead, try this- if you don't believe something is an issue, use the Googles. Find, say, three articles *written by people in that demographic*, and read them. Look for patterns in their analyses. You'll find that these ideas aren't weird militant fringe notions- oppression is a widely-accepted and statistically-supported phenomenon and a lot of insightful people are talking about it. Avoid the hot takes and go to the source- the people who experience the issue firsthand.
14. If you feel uncomfortable during conversations about sexism (or racism, or ableism, or cultural appropriation, or whatever- because all these systems are related, google "kyriarchy" to learn more), the only correct response is to be quiet and listen and try to focus on the topic at hand rather than centre your own feelings. It's hard. It's worthwhile.
Thanks for trying to be decent men. We see you.

Okay, let's get cracking. For those who don't know, #MeToo is trending on social media in the wake of the Weinstein allegations. For the record, I am going to point out that as of this time, I am knowledgeable of and aware of the following
1) Weinstein is (was?) very high up in terms of influence in Hollywood
2) Numerous women (names unknown to me at this time, and yes, I could easily look it up) have made allegations against him that he has sexually harassed and/or raped them. I do not know whether or not the accusations are true. I am taking an agnostic stance on the matter, and will let the justice system work it out.

Now from what I can read of the post, the author is (paraphrasing) wanting men to join her, to advocate for her and she gives tips for what they can do to help. Here are some of my responses to this.

(*I wrote this specifically for a small group of my own male friends who were explicitly asking for advice after being stunned by the ubiquity of the #metoo abuse hashtag. I wasn't anticipating this being shared so many times. These tips can be used by people of all genders.)

Keep in mind what she says here. These tips (presumably she means all of them, as she doesn't mention any to be excluded) can be used by people of all genders.

Today my timeline is full of decent men asking, "How can I help?",

There is an implication here that a man who does not ask "How can I help?" is not quote unquote decent. I find this erroneous and unhelpful in and of itself.

1. Practice these phrases: "That's not cool" and "That's a shitty thing to say". Say them to other men who are saying disrespectful things to or about women.

What counts as disrespectful? I notice no examples are given.

2. Follow some feminist writers on social media. Sometimes what they write may seem "exhausting" or "too angry". Put aside that discomfort because that feeling is your male privilege allowing you to disengage from an important conversation that womxn don't get to disengage from.

Remember earlier when I asked you to keep in mind that the author says that ALL of the tips can be followed by people of all genders? So how does a woman have 'male privilege?
I also vehemently disagree with this tip outright, in that it seeks to bar those who have this quote unquote male privilege from even being allowed to think that a feminist writer's posts can seem exhausting or angry. Can we not be allowed to form our own opinions about a blogger?
Also how are women unable to 'disengage'? What does it mean? To stop talking about it?

Boost female voices. When there's an issue and you're going to share an article about it- especially if it's a gender issue- take a minute and try to find one written by a woman (same goes for other marginalized groups- seek articles about race written by IBPOC, seek articles about disability by disabled writers, etc. "Nothing about us, without us").

What about the opposite? If I read a female feminist article about men, does this author advise us to go looking for an article about men written by a man? Also, why should we bother doing this at all? What if I read a gender issue article written by a woman who is not a feminist? Does this author assume that an article about black people written by a black person (for example) will automatically line up with her socio-political views on black people?

4. Boost what women say at work. Listen for men dismissing women's contributions and make a habit of listening and saying things like "Hey Zahra has a point".

Notice how poorly the author here thinks of women. The author thinks women are incapable of making a contribution, or of saying something at work, and NEED men to help her be heard.
What about the situation where a woman says something that is (more or less objectively) unworkable/stupid? Should we still say 'Zahra has a point' and promote the point, simply because Zahra is a woman?

5. Be mindful of how you introduce women- particularly at work functions. Role-model extra respect into your introductions. So often you hear men being introduced with job titles and accolades, and women introduced as "the lovely" or "the beautiful". I guarantee that no matter how good she looks, she'd rather be introduced by her job title and accomplishments.

Here, the author (from my eyes) makes it out like it's either one or the other, like women are only ever introduced as EITHER 'the lovely' OR 'Zahra, PhD in Applied Mathematics'. What if it's both? Is complimenting a woman's appearance verboten?

Relevant Washington Post article: "At conferences, male doctors are introduced as "Doctor Whoever" 72% of the time; female doctors are introduced using the word "Doctor" only 49% of the time." http://wapo.st/2kSWlba

This is steering into compelled speech territory. However I will recognise that it actually is not, given that these are just tips and not laws.

Doing this subtly tells the listener that the women's qualifications are lesser-than. Go out of your way to correct this by introducing women (and others from marginalized groups- racialized, disabled, young-looking, whatever) using their full job titles and accolades.

When? All the time? Notice how the previous tip only talked about 'Doctor', which is a single title, but now we're to do FULL job titles AND accolades? So if someone introduces Michelle Obama, they're supposed to say "Michelle Obama, B.A. African American Studies, J.D."?
Do men get introduced with their full job titles and accolades? "Here's Bob Brown, B.A. Psychology, B.A. Forensics, J.D."?

6. At work or out in the world, don't call women cutesy names like "honey, baby, darling, kiddo, young lady, girl, or dear". This is a subtle way of putting them down, elevating your own status over them as a man who is choosing to vote them as attractive, and reminding them and all present that they're just cute little ladies that nobody should listen to.

Or maybe...just maybe...these names are endearments and intended as such. What if a father is attempting to discipline his daughter and he starts with 'Young lady...!'?
From what I gather, the author of this article thinks 'cutesy names' are said for one reason and one reason only, and does not give any consideration for any other possible reason an individual may choose to use these names.

Make a special effort to speak to women using the kind of person-to-person respectful address you use when speaking with male colleagues.

Really? I'm grinning at this. How does this woman think men address their male colleagues? My best friend, when he calls me, calls me all sorts of dirty names.

Hint: Use their name. If you slip up and call your colleague "young lady" or some other bullshit like that, it's cool to say something about it, like "I'm sorry I called you that- it's disrespectful."

I have female co-workers who call me by that list of 'cutesy names' all the time and never do I think that they are being disrespectful (not automatically). What would make it disrespectful is context, which the author of this article does not take into consideration. Yes, that list of names CAN be used to demean people, but it does not mean that any time a man calls a woman one of them, that he is demeaning her automatically and therefore the list of names is hereby verboten.

7. Seek enthusiastic consent in your sexual encounters. If you're having sexy time and the other person stops reciprocating, gets quiet, seems tense or stiff, avoids making eye contact, pauses, or otherwise slows the tempo of the encounter, then you should.... STOP WHAT YOU ARE DOING.

I take it that in this author's mind that these mean automatically that the partner wants to stop. There could be any number of reasons why one's sexual partner does any or a combination of these.

Reframe how you think of consent. You're not supposed to just "go for it" until someone yells NO and that's when you stop. That's old-fashioned and gross. And she might not be able to explicitly say no, because she has very likely been assaulted before and she might freeze when stressed- that's a side effect of all this "me too".

People shouldn't have to explicitly say no. Instead, slow down. At every step, listen with your ears (or ask with your words) for the word "yes",

Kiss number one. "Can I continue? "Yes". Kiss number two. "Can I continue?" "Yes". Kiss number three. "Can I continue?" "Oh shut the hell up and get to the good stuff!"
Needless to say, this author is being inconsistent. She starts off by (more or less) suggesting that one pay attention to body language, then switches it up to continuous explicit verbal consent.

. Seek explicit and enthusiastic and active consent before you proceed. Proceed together. And constantly observe the other person's body language for the hesitations that mean "no".

Notice that at no point is any consideration given for any body language that indicates yes.

If this means you have to cut down on alcohol or substances to stay present and have self-control, please do that.

One can interpret this any number of ways. Is this a not-so-passive suggestion that men, more or less by default, require substances to stay in control? What if the person quite literally cannot have self-control without the substance (given that it is mentioned separate to alcohol, I can only presume medicinal?)? Is the author being sloppy here, given that this reads like she'd prefer they not take the substance and thus not have self-control, versus taking it and having self-control?

8. Don't use gendered or misogynist insults. Bitch, cunt, slut, pussy, f*g, girly, sissy, cuck, etc. Use insults that work on everyone rather than insults that specifically target the feminine as weak, lesser, and undesirable. "Asshole" is a nice multipurpose choice- we all have one.

What about insults that target the masculine as being negative in some way? No mention given.

9. If there are little boys, teen boys, and young men in your life, role-model that the feminine is not less-than.

I'd challenge this author to tell me just what she thinks about the feminine, given that some of her earlier tips include assumptions that women cannot make their voices heard at work. I myself would feel insulted if a man said "Boost men's voices. Say things like "Rikuo had a good point" ", because it assumes that as a male, I cannot make myself heard. No, I and women have voices and it's up to ourselves to make sure we're all heard. I had to learn how to, and I was (and am to a certain extent) shy when in groups.

Challenge them on their dismissive ideas around what counts as "girl stuff".

Notice the attitude of the author here. She automatically assumes that little boys, teen boys and young men are dismissive about what counts as 'girl stuff'.

Buy them a doll. Paint your nails together. Show up wearing pink. Do something that's coded as* traditionally "feminine" in a way that embraces the feminine as a valid way of being, not in a way that mocks femininity.

What if they honestly have no interest in doing any of that stuff? What if the boy does not play with the doll, ever? That's a waste of money then. Are we then supposed to force them to play with the doll, much as certain families force(d) girls to play with them?
Also what counts as doing something 'traditionally feminine' in a way that embraces it, versus mocking it?
Is the following embracing, or mocking?
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/185yspqj2hqg0jpg/original.jpg
I think that would be a subjective opinion, right?

Buy them books and watch TV and movies that prominently feature female characters.

Much the same here as above. What if they show no interest in those TV shows and movies, for whatever reason? Are we then to force them to watch?

Verbally challenge their stereotypes about what men do and how women are lesser.

This in and of itself is a stereotype, in that it presumes that young boys automatically think of women as lesser. They're convicted of a social sin with no trial!

Seeing women as people starts in infancy.
(*Thanks to a commenter for pointing out that behaviours aren't inherently fem/masc, but rather we code them as such).

And yet the author still suggests painting nails etc, for the express purpose of embracing femininity. If painting nails etc is not inherently feminine...why do them?

10. Be wary of constantly or only telling little girls they're pretty and cute or commenting on their hairstyle & clothing. I know, little girls often wear fun stuff and it's easy to comment on. But it tells her, and the little boys nearby, that girls should be valued first and foremost for their looks.

This shares much the same problem as that list of cutesy names from earlier. Here, the author attaches one meaning or intent behind a comment and does not give any consideration for any other intent. What if a girl spends a lot of time and effort making herself look good? Is it wrong then to acknowledge this, to give her a compliment?
Also notice that no consideration is given for any messages given to the boys. Going by the author's logic, since no consideration is given for how the boys look, this would mean that we as a society are telling boys that their looks don't matter, that it doesn't matter if you spruce yourself up.

Instead, try things like "What kind of toy is that? That looks fun, what is it? Are you reading any good books? What's your favourite subject in school? What kind of things do you like to do? Do you have a favourite animal? May I ask your advice, should I purchase the apples or the grapes?" There are so many things to talk about.

Wait...I've just reread the title of this article. It's about the #MeToo, and sexual assaults that may or may not have occurred. What does this have to do with that?

11. When a woman is walking alone and you end up walking behind her- especially in dark or secluded areas- please slow down to increase the distance between you, or, better yet, cross the street. Literally go out of your way to help her feel that you're not following her.

Wow. I'm guessing that if ever I told the author that I hold doors open for women, I'd be labelled as some kind of sexist. This author though isn't of course. Holding doors open for women is sexist, but crossing the street isn't. Hopefully you readers can understand the sarcasm there.

12. Teach your elders to do better. Pervy Grandpa and Racist Grandma might seem harmless at Xmas dinner but as their health declines, they will largely end up being cared for by women and POC who don't deserve dehumanizing treatment. Call it out. You can teach old dogs* new tricks, and you should definitely try.
(*Someone below pointed out that this metaphor, equating the elderly to dogs, is disrespectful. I agree with them. I'm not deleting it because hiding mistakes is creepy. I'm sorry I spoke disrespectfully about elderly people- that's a proverb that I'll quit using.)

If this author is serious about not being disrespectful, methinks her article would never have been posted in the first place, given how disrespectfully it treats people.

13. Don't argue so much in conversations around types of oppression that you don't personally experience.

Just listen and believe. Also, I'm going to quote this to other feminists, whenever I get into an online argument about what some men suffer in and through society.

Keep an eye open for our culture's gross habit of putting the onus on the oppressed persons to dredge up their pain for inspection (only for us to then dismiss it as "just one instance which they probably either caused or misinterpreted anyway").

Well, they are the ones making the claim, so the burden of proof is on them, whether they like it or not. I will never waiver on this.

Instead, try this- if you don't believe something is an issue, use the Googles. Find, say, three articles *written by people in that demographic*, and read them. Look for patterns in their analyses.

So a white male sociologist cannot be relied upon at all when it comes to research and study about any problems that may affect black women. If I find such articles, I am to dismiss them, and not even bother examining their data, all because of the race and sex of the person doing the study.
[BOLD]drums fingers on table [/BOLD] Are we sure this article's author isn't sexist and racist in and of herself? What if I read an article from a black person dismissing claims of societal oppression of black people?
Also again...what the heck does this have to do with #MeToo?

You'll find that these ideas aren't weird militant fringe notions- oppression is a widely-accepted and statistically-supported phenomenon

Except for where it isn't accepted and supported!

Avoid the hot takes and go to the source- the people who experience the issue firsthand.

Are we supposed to believe these people wholesale? What if a black woman claims she is oppressed, and a white male colleague of mine examines her testimony and points out flaws or holes in it?

14. If you feel uncomfortable during conversations about sexism (or racism, or ableism, or cultural appropriation, or whatever- because all these systems are related, google "kyriarchy" to learn more), the only correct response is to be quiet and listen and try to focus on the topic at hand rather than centre your own feelings.

Shut up, sit down and just accept whatever it is we're telling you, in other words. For someone who talks about feelings a lot, this article's author is amazingly dismissive of a certain demographic's feelings.
If I feel that someone is feeding me bovine faeces...I am not going to be quiet. Hence this response.
Someone who is NOT feeding bovine faeces ought to be welcome of any criticisms, because hey...if their claims are true, they'll stand up to scrutiny. Surely they're not afraid of being exposed for peddling it...right?

Thanks for trying to be decent men. We see you.

Remember at the start the claim that these can apply to people of all genders and races? Yup, total lie.

Wow, is this another movement asking me to handle all women with kid gloves, which they obviously deserve because they are totally equal to men, except apparently not because they need kid gloves, but we should still use them because they are equal and....

Anyone sick of this shit yet? #MeToo

So yet another thread in which women stand up for themselves, and the reactionary internet rabble immediately respond with, "How dare you not be more focused on my problems! To arms!"

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:
Wow, is this another movement asking me to handle all women with kid gloves, which they obviously deserve because they are totally equal to men, except apparently not because they need kid gloves, but we should still use them because they are equal and....

Anyone sick of this shit yet? #MeToo

Yeah, heaven forbid we acknowledge the culture of harassment that exists around women and maybe try to do something about it.

The Escapist never fails to fucking disappoint. I mean Jesus fucking Christ, I do most of what's up there ALREADY! Maybe you should give it a shot because it's NOT! FUCKING! HARD! I mean, help me understand Wolf. What do I need to do? What do I need to do to actually make you give a fuck about another human being?

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:
Wow, is this another movement asking me to handle all women with kid gloves, which they obviously deserve because they are totally equal to men, except apparently not because they need kid gloves, but we should still use them because they are equal and....

Anyone sick of this shit yet? #MeToo

I mean it's not like sexual assault and harassment of women in the work place, college, or even at home is a major problem across numerous disciplines and careers or something.

Almost every single woman I have on Facebook has made that hashtag, ranging from professors I had to young women just barely into college. It's a problem, and infantalizing a movement made to raise awareness about it is not helping. The simple fact is that the majority of the victims are women, and we just elected someone into office that had 15 of them accuse him of sexual assault on top of other allegations that didn't prevent him from getting elected.

Also, like the poster above me said, the above isn't hard to do. In fact, if you're a decent person that cares about women, you're probably doing most of it already.

I don't see why even read this trash after point 2. It's obvious they use the misfortune of other women to promote their pants on retarded ideology that you must not doubt in any way else you are a woman hater.
Do I need to follow Nazi writers to know that Nazism is bad?

inu-kun:
I don't see why even read this trash after point 2. It's obvious they use the misfortune of other women to promote their pants on retarded ideology that you must not doubt in any way else you are a woman hater.
Do I need to follow Nazi writers to know that Nazism is bad?

...Did you honestly just compare feminists to Nazis? I mean, you were talking about a part of the list that said that you should follow feminist writers, and you said "do I need to follow Nazi writers to know that Nazism is bad." Implying that you would follow the feminist writers to learn that feminism was bad, and you did it by comparing it to, well, Nazis.

I'm struggling to see how else that could be taken.

I also feel like the OP hasn't been getting much about feminism; this reads like something I'd expect from the AmazingAtheist.

You don't have to go point by point, and I don't even agree with every point that the article makes. However, the reality is that women are treated differently at work for being women to their own detriment. The entire point is just be aware of it, notice it, and try to stop it. It's really not that hard.

inu-kun:
I don't see why even read this trash after point 2. It's obvious they use the misfortune of other women to promote their pants on retarded ideology that you must not doubt in any way else you are a woman hater.
Do I need to follow Nazi writers to know that Nazism is bad?

Because equality for women is totally equivalent to systemic genocide.

erttheking:
What do I need to do to actually make you give a fuck about another human being?

Empathy and compassion aren't things you can force others to have unfortunately. People either typically learn them during developmental stages in life, or have an epiphany after a traumatic event, from what I've seen personally.

erttheking:

inu-kun:
I don't see why even read this trash after point 2. It's obvious they use the misfortune of other women to promote their pants on retarded ideology that you must not doubt in any way else you are a woman hater.
Do I need to follow Nazi writers to know that Nazism is bad?

...Did you honestly just compare feminists to Nazis? I mean, you were talking about a part of the list that said that you should follow feminist writers, and you said "do I need to follow Nazi writers to know that Nazism is bad." Implying that you would follow the feminist writers to learn that feminism was bad, and you did it by comparing it to, well, Nazis.

I'm struggling to see how else that could be taken.

No, I used Nazism as an example of how "you need to see something whether you like it or not because you don't understand it" is stupid.

Though I see how could mistake a dogmatic, hateful ideology that has no basis in reality with Nazism.

inu-kun:

erttheking:

inu-kun:
I don't see why even read this trash after point 2. It's obvious they use the misfortune of other women to promote their pants on retarded ideology that you must not doubt in any way else you are a woman hater.
Do I need to follow Nazi writers to know that Nazism is bad?

...Did you honestly just compare feminists to Nazis? I mean, you were talking about a part of the list that said that you should follow feminist writers, and you said "do I need to follow Nazi writers to know that Nazism is bad." Implying that you would follow the feminist writers to learn that feminism was bad, and you did it by comparing it to, well, Nazis.

I'm struggling to see how else that could be taken.

No, I used Nazism as an example of how "you need to see something whether you like it or not because you don't understand it" is stupid.

Though I see how could mistake a dogmatic, hateful ideology that has no basis in reality with Nazism.

So you didn't compare it to Nazism, but then you decided to go ahead and do it anyway. Classy inu-kun, fucking classy. Also, hateful. Please point out where in that post anything was even vaguely hateful, because as far as I'm concerned, you're officially making shit up so you can ignore people and the problems they're facing.

Clearly the OP doesn't know a lot of women who've dealt with sexual assault, or talk openly about their experiences.

If you take umbrage with the wording of that woman's post, that's understandable, it's a little scattershot.

But as someone who saw basically every single woman I'm linked with on facebook post a Metoo, many of whom shared their horrendous experiences, I think I can safely say that a very large chunk of that message's core rings true. When basically every woman in your life got assaulted by a dude and most of the time they got away with it while the victim was blamed, there's definitely a problem.

Sexual assault is a serious problem that keeps being swept under the rug and we need to talk about it more, and try to bring an end to it.

RikuoAmero:

Also how are women unable to 'disengage'? What does it mean? To stop talking about it?

It means that they can't get away from the conversation because the harrassment keeps happening to them. They can say "Fine, I don't want to talk about harrassment anymore" only to be treated to a half dozen "Heeeyyyy sexy lady, DAMN LOOKITTHAT ASS!" on the commute to work the next day, or worse, bringing the conversation back up again.

It's like living in Florida and being unable to disengage about all this talk about hurricanes. They happen every year. Whether you want to talk about it or not, you're likely gonna have to board up your house again next year when the season starts again.

7. Seek enthusiastic consent in your sexual encounters. If you're having sexy time and the other person stops reciprocating, gets quiet, seems tense or stiff, avoids making eye contact, pauses, or otherwise slows the tempo of the encounter, then you should.... STOP WHAT YOU ARE DOING.
--
-
-
-
I take it that in this author's mind that these mean automatically that the partner wants to stop. There could be any number of reasons why one's sexual partner does any or a combination of these.

By your admission it also means the partner may not want to continue. If that's even a possibility, you should check in with them.

Yeah, it may be that they're suppressing a sneeze or whatever, but if there's a chance they don't want to continue, you should check in. It's the decent thing to do.

Like, if you're at the dentist and you suddenly squeeze your eyes shut, it MIGHT be any number of things, or it might be that the dentist just drilled too hard and you're in actual pain. Either way, you'd feel a lot better if you knew the dentist will stop if that happens, right?

Challenge them on their dismissive ideas around what counts as "girl stuff".
----
-
-
-
Notice the attitude of the author here. She automatically assumes that little boys, teen boys and young men are dismissive about what counts as 'girl stuff'.

Did you....Ever go to school with other dudes?

In grade school I once admitted I enjoyed Sailor Moon. Got mocked relentlessly for a month for liking a girl's show.

In high school (an all boy school too), I had no interest in sex (I'm mildly asexual). Got bullied relentlessly for 5 years, because everyone assumed that because I was a quiet, kindhearted guy with no interest in sex I must be "teh ghey" and probably wearing a thong and not a "real man".

Yeah, there's often this ingrained culture of "Oh, you don't only like manly stuff, you're not a real dude" in school with other dudes. It sucks.

Finally, like several other people said, it's not hard to be a decent human being who cares about consent, and who gives the victim of an assault the benefit of the doubt, because it's painful as fuck to relive that stuff every time you need to tell someone about it.

inu-kun:
It's obvious they use the misfortune of other women to promote their pants on retarded ideology

Is it really retarded to wear pants? I don't think it's an ideological issue at all, just one of comfort.

aegix drakan:
Clearly the OP doesn't know a lot of women who've dealt with sexual assault, or talk openly about their experiences.

If you take umbrage with the wording of that woman's post, that's understandable, it's a little scattershot.

But as someone who saw basically every single woman I'm linked with on facebook post a Metoo, many of whom shared their horrendous experiences, I think I can safely say that a very large chunk of that message's core rings true. When basically every woman in your life got assaulted by a dude and most of the time they got away with it while the victim was blamed, there's definitely a problem.

Sexual assault is a serious problem that keeps being swept under the rug and we need to talk about it more, and try to bring an end to it.

RikuoAmero:

Also how are women unable to 'disengage'? What does it mean? To stop talking about it?

It means that they can't get away from the conversation because the harrassment keeps happening to them. They can say "Fine, I don't want to talk about harrassment anymore" only to be treated to a half dozen "Heeeyyyy sexy lady, DAMN LOOKITTHAT ASS!" on the commute to work the next day, or worse, bringing the conversation back up again.

It's like living in Florida and being unable to disengage about all this talk about hurricanes. They happen every year. Whether you want to talk about it or not, you're likely gonna have to board up your house again next year when the season starts again.

7. Seek enthusiastic consent in your sexual encounters. If you're having sexy time and the other person stops reciprocating, gets quiet, seems tense or stiff, avoids making eye contact, pauses, or otherwise slows the tempo of the encounter, then you should.... STOP WHAT YOU ARE DOING.
--
-
-
-
I take it that in this author's mind that these mean automatically that the partner wants to stop. There could be any number of reasons why one's sexual partner does any or a combination of these.

By your admission it also means the partner may not want to continue. If that's even a possibility, you should check in with them.

Yeah, it may be that they're suppressing a sneeze or whatever, but if there's a chance they don't want to continue, you should check in. It's the decent thing to do.

Like, if you're at the dentist and you suddenly squeeze your eyes shut, it MIGHT be any number of things, or it might be that the dentist just drilled too hard and you're in actual pain. Either way, you'd feel a lot better if you knew the dentist will stop if that happens, right?

Challenge them on their dismissive ideas around what counts as "girl stuff".
----
-
-
-
Notice the attitude of the author here. She automatically assumes that little boys, teen boys and young men are dismissive about what counts as 'girl stuff'.

Did you....Ever go to school with other dudes?

In grade school I once admitted I enjoyed Sailor Moon. Got mocked relentlessly for a month for liking a girl's show.

In high school (an all boy school too), I had no interest in sex (I'm mildly asexual). Got bullied relentlessly for 5 years, because everyone assumed that because I was a quiet, kindhearted guy with no interest in sex I must be "teh ghey" and probably wearing a thong and not a "real man".

Yeah, there's often this ingrained culture of "Oh, you don't only like manly stuff, you're not a real dude" in school with other dudes. It sucks.

Finally, like several other people said, it's not hard to be a decent human being who cares about consent, and who gives the victim of an assault the benefit of the doubt, because it's painful as fuck to relive that stuff every time you need to tell someone about it.

I wonder if the OP has ever spent time in society. Watch how people raise their daughters vs how they raise their sons, it's obvious we can do better to even out the gender differences. Men need to be taught at a younger age to deal with their emotions better so they can handle rejection better without resorting to rape or mass murder
Like holy fuck stopping sex for a second to ask if your partner is okay is like basic human decency, who feels the need to nitpick holes into shit like that

This is really a non-issue. There are far bigger problems that we currently face as a society.

Baffle2:

inu-kun:
It's obvious they use the misfortune of other women to promote their pants on retarded ideology

Is it really retarded to wear pants? I don't think it's an ideological issue at all, just one of comfort.

I think it depends on where they wear there pants. Pants of foot is certainly silly, and makes it difficult to walk, but not retarded. Pants on spleen is just painful. Pants on memories of that day in '87, you know the one, is just uncomfortable because of what could have been if you didn't walk away.
Pants on head? That's just retarded.

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:
Wow, is this another movement asking me to handle all women with kid gloves, which they obviously deserve because they are totally equal to men, except apparently not because they need kid gloves, but we should still use them because they are equal and....

Anyone sick of this shit yet? #MeToo

...yeah, I have a hashtag I'd like to share about this post but it'd get me a ban.

Men ask her how they can help, she gives them back some suggestions and leaves it up to them to follow them. If you don't want to help, fine, it isn't your problem. But for this antagonistic response, there is nothing to say...

RikuoAmero:

(*I wrote this specifically for a small group of my own male friends who were explicitly asking for advice after being stunned by the ubiquity of the #metoo abuse hashtag. I wasn't anticipating this being shared so many times. These tips can be used by people of all genders.)

Keep in mind what she says here. These tips (presumably she means all of them, as she doesn't mention any to be excluded) can be used by people of all genders.

At least you're starting off this farce of an analysis by admitting that you're going to try and semantically carve up her points rather than address them as intended; it's very helpful to know from the beginning that you have no intention of of being unbiased despite what your "totally objective and logical" analysis.[1]

RikuoAmero:

Today my timeline is full of decent men asking, "How can I help?",

There is an implication here that a man who does not ask "How can I help?" is not quote unquote decent. I find this erroneous and unhelpful in and of itself.

Yes. If you either perpetuate through indifference or actively participate in the epidemic of sexism and sexual harassment, you are an objectively awful person. I'm sorry if that hurts anyone precious fee fees.

RikuoAmero:

1. Practice these phrases: "That's not cool" and "That's a shitty thing to say". Say them to other men who are saying disrespectful things to or about women.

What counts as disrespectful? I notice no examples are given.

Did you maybe think to read on to the examples given in the rest of the points? Are you incapable of of realizing disrespectful statements made of others? I mean, I know that MRAs have such low views of men, but this is ridiculous.

RikuoAmero:

2. Follow some feminist writers on social media. Sometimes what they write may seem "exhausting" or "too angry". Put aside that discomfort because that feeling is your male privilege allowing you to disengage from an important conversation that womxn don't get to disengage from.

Remember earlier when I asked you to keep in mind that the author says that ALL of the tips can be followed by people of all genders? So how does a woman have 'male privilege?
I also vehemently disagree with this tip outright, in that it seeks to bar those who have this quote unquote male privilege from even being allowed to think that a feminist writer's posts can seem exhausting or angry. Can we not be allowed to form our own opinions about a blogger?
Also how are women unable to 'disengage'? What does it mean? To stop talking about it?

This point was very obviously aimed solely at men... fucking duh. Again, playing the "innocent objective analyzer" is insulting to all of us mate. Do you really believe men are too stupid to parse which of these points is aimed at them alone and which are aimed at both genders?

No where in that statement does she mention men being unable to form an opinion about feminist bloggers. I have to ask one more time, why are you trying to limit men's abilities Rikou?

If you don't understand male privilege, there is plenty of literature to fix that ignorance; there's no need to pretend these aren't academic terms with very specific meanings.

Women are unable to disengage because they live this disrespect daily. Men are able to disengage because they generally only deal with it if they seek out knowledge or understanding of it. If you don't understand this article, which your points so far make very evident, asking for help is better than angry faux analysis.

RikuoAmero:

Boost female voices. When there's an issue and you're going to share an article about it- especially if it's a gender issue- take a minute and try to find one written by a woman (same goes for other marginalized groups- seek articles about race written by IBPOC, seek articles about disability by disabled writers, etc. "Nothing about us, without us").

What about the opposite? If I read a female feminist article about men, does this author advise us to go looking for an article about men written by a man? Also, why should we bother doing this at all? What if I read a gender issue article written by a woman who is not a feminist? Does this author assume that an article about black people written by a black person (for example) will automatically line up with her socio-political views on black people?

Why is the idea that when you are looking for knowledge about how a group experiences discrimination that you should listen to people who have lived that discrimination? I would think that should be an obvious point to someone approaching this with such a rational viewpoint. Shocker: reading different viewpoints particularly from underrepresented sources is a good thing.

If you want to learn about some of the gender related problems that men have, yes reading an article written by a man is a good idea. However, that generally refers to an opinion of an informed and learned person rather than the usual crop of Breitbart, (as someone mentioned above, AmazingAtheist, etc.

No where in the post does she mention feminist writers; she specifies women writers. Me thinks you overplayed your partisan hand here mate.

Again, no where in the post does she mention a specific socio-political view. Me thinks you again overplayed your partisan hand.

RikuoAmero:

4. Boost what women say at work. Listen for men dismissing women's contributions and make a habit of listening and saying things like "Hey Zahra has a point".

Notice how poorly the author here thinks of women. The author thinks women are incapable of making a contribution, or of saying something at work, and NEED men to help her be heard.
What about the situation where a woman says something that is (more or less objectively) unworkable/stupid? Should we still say 'Zahra has a point' and promote the point, simply because Zahra is a woman?

That's not what the article is saying, and your attempts to rewrite her words and have us accept that are, once again, insulting to all of us reading your post.

Gender bias in the workplace is a significant issue. Women's contributions are regularly overlooked, not given their proper respect, or outright claimed by male coworkers or bosses.

Please do some very basic research at least then come back when you're ready to participate in this discussion with a proper knowledge base.

Here's a couple of articles to get you started:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/unofficial-prognosis/study-shows-gender-bias-in-science-is-real-heres-why-it-matters/
http://commons.emich.edu/honors/409/?utm_source=commons.emich.edu%2Fhonors%2F409&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

This point is related to that bias and how suggesstions from female employees can often be coopted by male coworkers or simply ignored outright. If it's a shitty idea, then don't recommend it.... duh?

RikuoAmero:

5. Be mindful of how you introduce women- particularly at work functions. Role-model extra respect into your introductions. So often you hear men being introduced with job titles and accolades, and women introduced as "the lovely" or "the beautiful". I guarantee that no matter how good she looks, she'd rather be introduced by her job title and accomplishments.

Here, the author (from my eyes) makes it out like it's either one or the other, like women are only ever introduced as EITHER 'the lovely' OR 'Zahra, PhD in Applied Mathematics'. What if it's both? Is complimenting a woman's appearance verboten?

When the woman is there in a professional manner, you should address them in a professional manner. This really isn't that damn hard mate. I'm once again shocked (not really) that your eyes are misrepresenting this woman's point. Also, yes complimenting a woman's appearance is poor form in any type of professional setting. Let's try to make this simple: if you wouldn't introduce your male boss to a group of clients in that manner, don't introduce your female coworker or boss in that manner. Why is trying to get people to treat two genders identically like pulling teeth?

RikuoAmero:

Relevant Washington Post article: "At conferences, male doctors are introduced as "Doctor Whoever" 72% of the time; female doctors are introduced using the word "Doctor" only 49% of the time." http://wapo.st/2kSWlba

This is steering into compelled speech territory. However I will recognise that it actually is not, given that these are just tips and not laws.

Doing this subtly tells the listener that the women's qualifications are lesser-than. Go out of your way to correct this by introducing women (and others from marginalized groups- racialized, disabled, young-looking, whatever) using their full job titles and accolades.

When? All the time? Notice how the previous tip only talked about 'Doctor', which is a single title, but now we're to do FULL job titles AND accolades? So if someone introduces Michelle Obama, they're supposed to say "Michelle Obama, B.A. African American Studies, J.D."?
Do men get introduced with their full job titles and accolades? "Here's Bob Brown, B.A. Psychology, B.A. Forensics, J.D."?

She is saying to treat women with the same respect that you would treat a man. Your attempts to turn that idea into some awful or inordinately difficult task is demeaning to men and a poor reflection on yourself.

RikuoAmero:

6. At work or out in the world, don't call women cutesy names like "honey, baby, darling, kiddo, young lady, girl, or dear". This is a subtle way of putting them down, elevating your own status over them as a man who is choosing to vote them as attractive, and reminding them and all present that they're just cute little ladies that nobody should listen to.

Or maybe...just maybe...these names are endearments and intended as such. What if a father is attempting to discipline his daughter and he starts with 'Young lady...!'?
From what I gather, the author of this article thinks 'cutesy names' are said for one reason and one reason only, and does not give any consideration for any other possible reason an individual may choose to use these names.

Though I personally believe she is maybe reaching a bit with this point, I can see her intention. 'Cutesy' names can be incredibly demeaning if you haven't earned the right and permission to use them. If you're dating a woman and call her "dear" with her happy acceptance, good on you. If you're calling pretty much any other woman "dear," you're being degrading.

Maybe I can put this in a way that you can understand. If someone you don't know intimately calls you "chief" or such out in public, it's generally not a positive thing; it's meant as a slight or way to put you off. Using terms like "dear" or "baby" to women you don't know intimately is the same thing except with the addition of centuries of sexism attached.

RikuoAmero:

Make a special effort to speak to women using the kind of person-to-person respectful address you use when speaking with male colleagues.

Really? I'm grinning at this. How does this woman think men address their male colleagues? My best friend, when he calls me, calls me all sorts of dirty names.

Interesting. While in the office, you speak to your male coworkers using terms like darling, etc? Her post isn't addressing private comments between close friends. It's addressing colleagues and coworkers in public.

RikuoAmero:

Hint: Use their name. If you slip up and call your colleague "young lady" or some other bullshit like that, it's cool to say something about it, like "I'm sorry I called you that- it's disrespectful."

I have female co-workers who call me by that list of 'cutesy names' all the time and never do I think that they are being disrespectful (not automatically). What would make it disrespectful is context, which the author of this article does not take into consideration. Yes, that list of names CAN be used to demean people, but it does not mean that any time a man calls a woman one of them, that he is demeaning her automatically and therefore the list of names is hereby verboten.

By using those terms in a public setting with people you are not intimately familiar with, you are demeaning them as something other than a coworker and equal. Yes, you are also being slighted if a female coworker calls you "honey;" just because you don't take offense to it doesn't mean others don't have the right to do so.

RikuoAmero:

7. Seek enthusiastic consent in your sexual encounters. If you're having sexy time and the other person stops reciprocating, gets quiet, seems tense or stiff, avoids making eye contact, pauses, or otherwise slows the tempo of the encounter, then you should.... STOP WHAT YOU ARE DOING.

I take it that in this author's mind that these mean automatically that the partner wants to stop. There could be any number of reasons why one's sexual partner does any or a combination of these.

"There could be any number of reasons" ---> ex-fucking-actly. Hence, you stop what you're doing and ask what's going on. You don't know what is wrong, therefore, find the hell out.

RikuoAmero:

Reframe how you think of consent. You're not supposed to just "go for it" until someone yells NO and that's when you stop. That's old-fashioned and gross. And she might not be able to explicitly say no, because she has very likely been assaulted before and she might freeze when stressed- that's a side effect of all this "me too".

People shouldn't have to explicitly say no. Instead, slow down. At every step, listen with your ears (or ask with your words) for the word "yes",

Kiss number one. "Can I continue? "Yes". Kiss number two. "Can I continue?" "Yes". Kiss number three. "Can I continue?" "Oh shut the hell up and get to the good stuff!"
Needless to say, this author is being inconsistent. She starts off by (more or less) suggesting that one pay attention to body language, then switches it up to continuous explicit verbal consent.

The fact that you are having such trouble with the idea that consent is a continuous thing that can be taken away at any time is rather... troubling.

RikuoAmero:

. Seek explicit and enthusiastic and active consent before you proceed. Proceed together. And constantly observe the other person's body language for the hesitations that mean "no".

Notice that at no point is any consideration given for any body language that indicates yes.

Notice that at no point do the words "explicit and enthusiastic, and active consent" remove consideration of body language indicating consent. It's almost like you that made up thing entirely.

RikuoAmero:

If this means you have to cut down on alcohol or substances to stay present and have self-control, please do that.

One can interpret this any number of ways. Is this a not-so-passive suggestion that men, more or less by default, require substances to stay in control? What if the person quite literally cannot have self-control without the substance (given that it is mentioned separate to alcohol, I can only presume medicinal?)? Is the author being sloppy here, given that this reads like she'd prefer they not take the substance and thus not have self-control, versus taking it and having self-control?

Wow, you were so intent on coming up with literally anything wrong with what this women was saying that you purposely misrepresented her words this hard? There is literally only one interpretation of her words, if you are even trying to stay with what she said.

Let me try and repeat this for you: If alcohol or substances impede your ability to stay present and have self control, cut down or avoid them please.

RikuoAmero:

8. Don't use gendered or misogynist insults. Bitch, cunt, slut, pussy, f*g, girly, sissy, cuck, etc. Use insults that work on everyone rather than insults that specifically target the feminine as weak, lesser, and undesirable. "Asshole" is a nice multipurpose choice- we all have one.

What about insults that target the masculine as being negative in some way? No mention given.

Because this is an article about female experiences of sexual harassment? I mean she didn't write anything about the failing educational systems in American inner-cities either. Your response here is nothing but whataboutism at its finest.

RikuoAmero:

9. If there are little boys, teen boys, and young men in your life, role-model that the feminine is not less-than.

I'd challenge this author to tell me just what she thinks about the feminine, given that some of her earlier tips include assumptions that women cannot make their voices heard at work. I myself would feel insulted if a man said "Boost men's voices. Say things like "Rikuo had a good point" ", because it assumes that as a male, I cannot make myself heard. No, I and women have voices and it's up to ourselves to make sure we're all heard. I had to learn how to, and I was (and am to a certain extent) shy when in groups.

Your projection of your personal opinions of women onto this author is not the same as this author's opinions. Your response here also does nothing to argue against her quote. You're simply making up nonsense to have looked like your rebutted every point she made.

RikuoAmero:

Challenge them on their dismissive ideas around what counts as "girl stuff".

Notice the attitude of the author here. She automatically assumes that little boys, teen boys and young men are dismissive about what counts as 'girl stuff'.

Are you really that utterly clueless or are you just feigning it for effect? The idea that effeminate actions, hobbies, interests expressed by boys causes them to be bullied by other boys is about as radical and untrue as the theory of gravity. Were you ever a child? Did you ever attend school?

RikuoAmero:

Buy them a doll. Paint your nails together. Show up wearing pink. Do something that's coded as* traditionally "feminine" in a way that embraces the feminine as a valid way of being, not in a way that mocks femininity.

What if they honestly have no interest in doing any of that stuff? What if the boy does not play with the doll, ever? That's a waste of money then. Are we then supposed to force them to play with the doll, much as certain families force(d) girls to play with them?
Also what counts as doing something 'traditionally feminine' in a way that embraces it, versus mocking it?
Is the following embracing, or mocking?
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/185yspqj2hqg0jpg/original.jpg
I think that would be a subjective opinion, right?

Buy them books and watch TV and movies that prominently feature female characters.

Much the same here as above. What if they show no interest in those TV shows and movies, for whatever reason? Are we then to force them to watch?

One has to introduce them to these toys, actions, hobbies, etc to give them an option to form an interest of not. If you always tell a boy that "dolls are for girls," you'll never know if they honestly interest them

RikuoAmero:

Verbally challenge their stereotypes about what men do and how women are lesser.

This in and of itself is a stereotype, in that it presumes that young boys automatically think of women as lesser. They're convicted of a social sin with no trial!

Uh no... Stop playing the poor male victim card. It's demeaning to the rest of us men.

If they don't have any stereotypes, awesome! There's nothing to challenge then; feel free to completely ignore this point when that occurs.

RikuoAmero:

Seeing women as people starts in infancy.
(*Thanks to a commenter for pointing out that behaviours aren't inherently fem/masc, but rather we code them as such).

And yet the author still suggests painting nails etc, for the express purpose of embracing femininity. If painting nails etc is not inherently feminine...why do them?

As far as our society goes, those behaviors are feminine. In the womb or in other cultures, what is feminine may differ, but in our culture, the actions she has described are those associated with femininity.

RikuoAmero:

10. Be wary of constantly or only telling little girls they're pretty and cute or commenting on their hairstyle & clothing. I know, little girls often wear fun stuff and it's easy to comment on. But it tells her, and the little boys nearby, that girls should be valued first and foremost for their looks.

This shares much the same problem as that list of cutesy names from earlier. Here, the author attaches one meaning or intent behind a comment and does not give any consideration for any other intent. What if a girl spends a lot of time and effort making herself look good? Is it wrong then to acknowledge this, to give her a compliment?

If you only comment on a person's looks, they believe that's all that matters. This is extremely basic psychology (as in like first couple of weeks in a high school class material). Humans are wired heavily to Pavlovian training particularly when we are young. The behaviors that you reward or praise a person for when they are young are going to cause behavior patterns that can last for a lifetime.

RikuoAmero:

Also notice that no consideration is given for any messages given to the boys. Going by the author's logic, since no consideration is given for how the boys look, this would mean that we as a society are telling boys that their looks don't matter, that it doesn't matter if you spruce yourself up.

"Because this is an article about female experiences of sexual harassment? I mean she didn't write anything about the failing educational systems in American inner-cities either. Your response here is nothing but whataboutism at its finest."

Feel free to write that article yourself if it worries you. However, I'm going to go out on a rather sturdy branch here and say that you never will because you're more interested in "fighting those dirty feminists" than making a positive influence in men's lives.

RikuoAmero:

Instead, try things like "What kind of toy is that? That looks fun, what is it? Are you reading any good books? What's your favourite subject in school? What kind of things do you like to do? Do you have a favourite animal? May I ask your advice, should I purchase the apples or the grapes?" There are so many things to talk about.

Wait...I've just reread the title of this article. It's about the #MeToo, and sexual assaults that may or may not have occurred. What does this have to do with that?

We forgive you for not understanding how the issue of sexual assault and harassment of women is based on how women and girls are viewed and treated in general. If you empower young women and remove the societal norms that are sexist, you will be able to eliminate a large majority of the "casual" harassment cases.

RikuoAmero:

11. When a woman is walking alone and you end up walking behind her- especially in dark or secluded areas- please slow down to increase the distance between you, or, better yet, cross the street. Literally go out of your way to help her feel that you're not following her.

Wow. I'm guessing that if ever I told the author that I hold doors open for women, I'd be labelled as some kind of sexist. This author though isn't of course. Holding doors open for women is sexist, but crossing the street isn't. Hopefully you readers can understand the sarcasm there.

"I don't really have anything that directly rebuts this woman's point, so I'm going to make a nice strawwoman and beat on that instead."

RikuoAmero:

12. Teach your elders to do better. Pervy Grandpa and Racist Grandma might seem harmless at Xmas dinner but as their health declines, they will largely end up being cared for by women and POC who don't deserve dehumanizing treatment. Call it out. You can teach old dogs* new tricks, and you should definitely try.
(*Someone below pointed out that this metaphor, equating the elderly to dogs, is disrespectful. I agree with them. I'm not deleting it because hiding mistakes is creepy. I'm sorry I spoke disrespectfully about elderly people- that's a proverb that I'll quit using.)

If this author is serious about not being disrespectful, methinks her article would never have been posted in the first place, given how disrespectfully it treats people.

The only people possibly disrespected in this article are those who find the idea of treating women and men equally offensive.

Also, "I don't really have anything that directly rebuts this woman's point, so I'm going to make a nice strawwoman and beat on that instead."

RikuoAmero:

13. Don't argue so much in conversations around types of oppression that you don't personally experience.

Just listen and believe. Also, I'm going to quote this to other feminists, whenever I get into an online argument about what some men suffer in and through society.

No what she said, but nice strawwoman again. She brings up the point that it's rather easy as a non-affected group to dismiss the criticisms of an affected group.

See: white slave owners claiming slavery was a good and natural thing for black people.

RikuoAmero:

Keep an eye open for our culture's gross habit of putting the onus on the oppressed persons to dredge up their pain for inspection (only for us to then dismiss it as "just one instance which they probably either caused or misinterpreted anyway").

Well, they are the ones making the claim, so the burden of proof is on them, whether they like it or not. I will never waiver on this.

When you dismiss any evidence out of hand, claim they're just being "unreasonable" or "emotional", say all events are one-off occurrences, of course you'll never waiver on it.

RikuoAmero:

Instead, try this- if you don't believe something is an issue, use the Googles. Find, say, three articles *written by people in that demographic*, and read them. Look for patterns in their analyses.

So a white male sociologist cannot be relied upon at all when it comes to research and study about any problems that may affect black women. If I find such articles, I am to dismiss them, and not even bother examining their data, all because of the race and sex of the person doing the study.
[BOLD]drums fingers on table [/BOLD] Are we sure this article's author isn't sexist and racist in and of herself? What if I read an article from a black person dismissing claims of societal oppression of black people?
Also again...what the heck does this have to do with #MeToo?

Again, not what she said. Read the viewpoint of people actually dealing with oppression shouldn't be this radical idea. The fact that you find it so it, again, a poor reflection on you.

Combating the ignorance of people who claim that sexual harassment isn't a problem is combating sexual harassment. Is that really such a hard idea to see?

RikuoAmero:

You'll find that these ideas aren't weird militant fringe notions- oppression is a widely-accepted and statistically-supported phenomenon

Except for where it isn't accepted and supported!

Using reddit and the chans as your sources of information is definitely the way to truly understand the world /sarc

RikuoAmero:

Avoid the hot takes and go to the source- the people who experience the issue firsthand.

Are we supposed to believe these people wholesale? What if a black woman claims she is oppressed, and a white male colleague of mine examines her testimony and points out flaws or holes in it?

Primary sources -> secondary sources -> other sources. It's a rather basic hierarchy that is used regularly in academia, science, and scholarly fields. I know I was introduced to it at about the age of 9 in school. Did you miss that day?

RikuoAmero:

14. If you feel uncomfortable during conversations about sexism (or racism, or ableism, or cultural appropriation, or whatever- because all these systems are related, google "kyriarchy" to learn more), the only correct response is to be quiet and listen and try to focus on the topic at hand rather than centre your own feelings.

Shut up, sit down and just accept whatever it is we're telling you, in other words. For someone who talks about feelings a lot, this article's author is amazingly dismissive of a certain demographic's feelings.
If I feel that someone is feeding me bovine faeces...I am not going to be quiet. Hence this response.
Someone who is NOT feeding bovine faeces ought to be welcome of any criticisms, because hey...if their claims are true, they'll stand up to scrutiny. Surely they're not afraid of being exposed for peddling it...right?

Being uncomfortable is not a basis for criticism; neither is ignorance of the topic, which much of your post here is based on. Proper, well-grounded criticism is always welcome; the crying of the poor internet MRAs and alt-right that they're being called out for their horrible behavior is not proper criticism.

RikuoAmero:

Thanks for trying to be decent men. We see you.

Remember at the start the claim that these can apply to people of all genders and races? Yup, total lie.

And this part was clearly pointed only at the men. Are you incapable of making such a basic distinction, or are you assuming that everyone reading your post is incapable of it?

[1] Note: Why do so many alt-righters think feigning this type of response makes their arguments better? It's both insulting to readers and to themselves.

erttheking:
Yeah, heaven forbid we acknowledge the culture of harassment that exists around women and maybe try to do something about it.

The Escapist never fails to fucking disappoint. I mean Jesus fucking Christ, I do most of what's up there ALREADY! Maybe you should give it a shot because it's NOT! FUCKING! HARD! I mean, help me understand Wolf. What do I need to do? What do I need to do to actually make you give a fuck about another human being?

I totally agree about acknowledging the culture of harassment! Hell, I'd be on board with actually doing something about it too - thats where 99% of people seem to drop out because complaining about something is more fun.

However, the post isn't asking me to do anything proper, its asking me to do things which are backwards, ideologically rather than practically motivated and in large parts benefit women who are already the furthest removed from oppression and harassment while doing nothing for the ones who are ACTUALLY struggling. In short, its exactly the kind of thing you'd buy into. Bonus points for implicating I'm a sociopath merely because I spent more than 2 seconds actually thinking about this. The text is ideological trash with no real value.

NemotheElvenPanda:
Also, like the poster above me said, the above isn't hard to do. In fact, if you're a decent person that cares about women, you're probably doing most of it already.

I'll get on it once I've got to terms with doing useless things and sucking in the bedroom. So never.

McMarbles:
...yeah, I have a hashtag I'd like to share about this post but it'd get me a ban.

Congrats

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:

I totally agree about acknowledging the culture of harassment! Hell, I'd be on board with actually doing something about it too - thats where 99% of people seem to drop out because complaining about something is more fun.

Well, if you have a solution to do something about the culture of harassment that will actually do something, then please, share.

Because until then, you're self-admitting to be part of that 99% who'd prefer to complain.

So please, share.

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:

erttheking:
Yeah, heaven forbid we acknowledge the culture of harassment that exists around women and maybe try to do something about it.

The Escapist never fails to fucking disappoint. I mean Jesus fucking Christ, I do most of what's up there ALREADY! Maybe you should give it a shot because it's NOT! FUCKING! HARD! I mean, help me understand Wolf. What do I need to do? What do I need to do to actually make you give a fuck about another human being?

I totally agree about acknowledging the culture of harassment! Hell, I'd be on board with actually doing something about it too - thats where 99% of people seem to drop out because complaining about something is more fun.

However, the post isn't asking me to do anything proper, its asking me to do things which are backwards, ideologically rather than practically motivated and in large parts benefit women who are already the furthest removed from oppression and harassment while doing nothing for the ones who are ACTUALLY struggling. In short, its exactly the kind of thing you'd buy into. Bonus points for implicating I'm a sociopath merely because I spent more than 2 seconds actually thinking about this. The text is ideological trash with no real value.

NemotheElvenPanda:
Also, like the poster above me said, the above isn't hard to do. In fact, if you're a decent person that cares about women, you're probably doing most of it already.

I'll get on it once I've got to terms with doing useless things and sucking in the bedroom. So never.

McMarbles:
...yeah, I have a hashtag I'd like to share about this post but it'd get me a ban.

Congrats

You've got an odd way of showing it, seeing as how half the suggestions posted would fall under basic decency and yet you just dismiss it as treating women with kid gloves.

I'm sorry, calling out women's viewpoints being dismissed and making sure they're comfortable with sex is backwards? I know if I wasn't feeling up to sex and showing signs of discomfort I'd appreciate a woman asking if I was ok instead of just merrily carrying on. It's asking for basic awareness. But sure, act like being dismissive towards women who are being shut down and treated as being lesser as saying it like it is. I can't help but notice it's always men talking down points made by women in this regard, I very rarely if ever see women tearing into these arguments, and never as viciously as men do. And I didn't imply anything. I am seriously seeing a lack of empathy on your part.

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:

However, the post isn't asking me to do anything proper, its asking me to do things which are backwards, ideologically rather than practically motivated and in large parts benefit women who are already the furthest removed from oppression and harassment while doing nothing for the ones who are ACTUALLY struggling.

Where are you getting this from? There's nothing in the post itself which would rationally lead to this conclusion. It's just absolute nonsense.

The thing about things like this is, it absorbs people into it. People want to contribute to jump on the bandwagon. If people were really getting harassed to that extent, why has nothing been said up to now?

I'm conflicted over the Weinstein thing. On the one hand, the guys a prick and deserves everything that's happening to him. On the other hand, all those actors were able-minded people totally capable of reporting him to the police. This isn't like the Saville thing, where the police were demonstrably complicit. The fact that nothing has reached the police until now shows that they were wilfully complicit for whatever reason.

And now people are conflating this with minor petty shit using this hashtag, which over-eggs the issue. If you use #metoo on the grounds that someone once grabbed your arse on the train, hell, that has even happened to me.

This suffers from the same problem that all feminists movements do, the alienating language that describes men as offenders and women as victims. Its always, "How you can stop sexual assault by men against women." rather than, "how you can stop sexual assault".

This kind of language would be really cringe worthy in other aspects. Can you imagine a violent crime awareness movement that said things like, "If you see a black person committing a violent crime, or if you know a white person who has been the victim of a violent crime, speak up and make your voice heard."

Catnip1024:
The thing about things like this is, it absorbs people into it. People want to contribute to jump on the bandwagon. If people were really getting harassed to that extent, why has nothing been said up to now?

They HAVE been saying things before now.

But when it's an isolated voice and an isolated incident it tends to get ignored or swept under the rug. As a result, you rarely hear about it unless it happens to someone close to you.

When you know that happens, it gets harder and harder to speak up when it happens to you because you begin to think "Why bother saying anything, no one will do anything about it and people start whining about me saying it and accusing me of deserving it because I was wearing a skirt".

However, when there's a big wave of people saying it all at once, well, that not only gives people more courage to stand up and say it too, but it makes the whole thing a LOT harder to just ignore.

And yes, it really does get swept under the rug. Some of my friends do volunteer social work of various kinds, and the shit I have seen get poo-poo'd and swept aside by various groups, including the police, is staggering. And I'm in a pretty liberal city.

I'm conflicted over the Weinstein thing. On the one hand, the guys a prick and deserves everything that's happening to him. On the other hand, all those actors were able-minded people totally capable of reporting him to the police. This isn't like the Saville thing, where the police were demonstrably complicit. The fact that nothing has reached the police until now shows that they were wilfully complicit for whatever reason.

Yes, because standing up and accusing a popular person who wields a significant degree of influence in your region of profession is a great way to guarantee job security. /sarcasm

People tend to close ranks and protect those powerful people even after an accusation. And those people often know that. I've seen this shit happen with people close to me. Someone raises a stink and then rather than believe the victim (or even the 11+ victims) people WILL choose to protect the popular guy and try to shush and shame the victim.

Not to mention, the cops would be loath to prosecute someone with power and money unless they have a perfectly open-shut case because it's REALLY not going to be easy to do. And since sexual assault and rape are often really hard to prove and often devolve into he-said-she-said...

And now people are conflating this with minor petty shit using this hashtag, which over-eggs the issue. If you use #metoo on the grounds that someone once grabbed your arse on the train, hell, that has even happened to me.

Well, then yes, you could use it too.

Just because you can laugh off a stranger touching your ass with sexual intent doesn't mean everyone can.

Catnip1024:
The thing about things like this is, it absorbs people into it. People want to contribute to jump on the bandwagon. If people were really getting harassed to that extent, why has nothing been said up to now?

I'm conflicted over the Weinstein thing. On the one hand, the guys a prick and deserves everything that's happening to him. On the other hand, all those actors were able-minded people totally capable of reporting him to the police. This isn't like the Saville thing, where the police were demonstrably complicit. The fact that nothing has reached the police until now shows that they were wilfully complicit for whatever reason.

How dare those women fear for the repercussions of exposing their careers and reputations to revenge, blackballing, and men judgementall saying "they were wilfully complicit for whatever reason." I mean it's not liked this

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/from-aggressive-overtures-to-sexual-assault-harvey-weinsteins-accusers-tell-their-stories:
has has been an open secret to many in Hollywood and beyond, but previous attempts by many publications, including The New Yorker, to investigate and publish the story over the years fell short of the demands of journalistic evidence. Too few people were willing to speak, much less allow a reporter to use their names, and Weinstein and his associates used nondisclosure agreements, payoffs, and legal threats to suppress their accounts."

Catnip1024:

And now people are conflating this with minor petty shit using this hashtag, which over-eggs the issue. If you use #metoo on the grounds that someone once grabbed your arse on the train, hell, that has even happened to me.

How dare these attention-whoring women air their stories of sexual assault. I mean don't they understand that no one cares they were harassed and attacked?

==========================================================================

It's almost like you just delivered two completely contradictory messages in order to ensure you were able to victim-blame all of the women you possibly could. I mean we all know its those stupid broads' faults for what men do to them.

aegix drakan:
They HAVE been saying things before now.

But when it's an isolated voice and an isolated incident it tends to get ignored or swept under the rug. As a result, you rarely hear about it unless it happens to someone close to you.

When you know that happens, it gets harder and harder to speak up when it happens to you because you begin to think "Why bother saying anything, no one will do anything about it and people start whining about me saying it and accusing me of deserving it because I was wearing a skirt".

However, when there's a big wave of people saying it all at once, well, that not only gives people more courage to stand up and say it too, but it makes the whole thing a LOT harder to just ignore.

And yes, it really does get swept under the rug. Some of my friends do volunteer social work of various kinds, and the shit I have seen get poo-poo'd and swept aside by various groups, including the police, is staggering. And I'm in a pretty liberal city.

Okay, and that's cool and all, but what does this achieve? Recognition of an issue? The issue exists and people know it exists. Do you know what sort of people do this sort of thing? Complete pricks. Do you know what sort of person isn't going to give a shit about a social media campaign? A complete prick.

Yes, because standing up and accusing a popular person who wields a significant degree of influence in your region of profession is a great way to guarantee job security. /sarcasm

People tend to close ranks and protect those powerful people even after an accusation. And those people often know that. I've seen this shit happen with people close to me. Someone raises a stink and then rather than believe the victim (or even the 11+ victims) people WILL choose to protect the popular guy and try to shush and shame the victim.

Not to mention, the cops would be loath to prosecute someone with power and money unless they have a perfectly open-shut case because it's REALLY not going to be easy to do. And since sexual assault and rape are often really hard to prove and often devolve into he-said-she-said...

If you prefer job security over your personal wellbeing / security, that's your personal choice. At least at their level it is. At the breadline, it's a different issue.

Somehow, when I clicked on this post I was already able to preempt every single argument it would contain.

Okay, so, for those who have completely missed the point. The point is that almost every single woman (including transwomen) has experienced some form of gender based violence or harassment. Those using the hashtag are the tip of the iceberg.

Some men, too, have also experienced gender based violence or sexual harassment. Let me talk about one of my experiences, for example.

A few years ago, a man approached me in the street and struck up what seemed like a friendly conversation. This made me uncomfortable, but I chose to go along because I felt that being hostile or rude was more likely to provoke a negative response. At some point, he asked me if I was gay. I froze up, realising he'd read my gender presentation as queer in some way, and stupidly decided not to lie (I told him I was bisexual). His tone suddenly changed, and he began to tell me loudly and aggressively about the sexual acts he was going to make me perform. I tried to tell him I wasn't interested, but he simply continued, becoming increasingly aggressive until I walked away, at which point he followed me down the street for some distance.

This is gender based harassment. It's actually a fairly mild incident of gender based harassment (I've rarely been on a night out where one of my friends hasn't experienced something worse). While the language was threatening and the guy in question could very easily have physically overpowered me, as far as I can remember he never actually touched me. The reason why it is gender based violence is that he read my physical appearance as more effeminate and from that assumed either that I could be sexually coerced, or that I would somehow be receptive to this kind of aggression.

I felt absolutely terrible after that experience. I didn't tell any of my friends, even though I knew they would understand and be comforting, because I felt humiliated. I felt like something very personal and intimate to me had been turned against me, it's not an experience which is easy or comfortable to describe, but suffice to say I'd rank it alongside some pretty extreme incidents of physical violence I've suffered in terms of how it impacted me. It still impacts how I behave to this day, especially in queer spaces and around men I don't know. When a strange man approaches me, I instantly weigh him up as a potential threat and find myself checking if I could get out of the situation.

The thing is, if I had been assigned female at birth, the chances are I would have learned to do this before I hit 20. Every single female friend I had went through a similar experience (often several) in their teens. Some went through it on an almost daily basis. Many were also sexually assaulted or suffered physical violence at the hands of male partners or friends. For me, I just happened to be presenting as feminine in the wrong place and at the wrong time, but for women every place is the wrong place and every time is the wrong time. That is why we have to admit that this isn't random violence, it isn't decided by lottery, it's gender based.

If you're not ready to face the problem, then you are the problem. If you're not suddenly realizing that almost every woman you know has experienced something like this, and if that doesn't shock you and motivate you into action, then what actually will? There are problems with the hashtag (particularly the heteronormativity and cisnormativity it kind of implies, and the erasure of violence and harassment against non-binary people and queers) but if it actually offends or upsets you, then maybe look at why that is. What exactly are you defending?

Avnger:
How dare those women fear for the repercussions of exposing their careers and reputations to revenge, blackballing, and men judgementall saying "they were wilfully complicit for whatever reason." I mean it's not liked this

It's down to a personal choice. If you choose to continue to be browbeaten into putting up with shit, yes, poor you, but also, that is entirely your choice. You could change career. You could come forward alone. Clearly none of them felt that strongly about it.

How dare these attention-whoring women air their stories of sexual assault. I mean don't they understand that no one cares they were harassed and attacked?

==========================================================================

It's almost like you just delivered two completely contradictory messages in order to ensure you were able to victim-blame all of the women you possibly could. I mean we all know its those stupid broads' faults for what men do to them.

Well, not at all. The first message is, if shit happens, stand your ground and name the fucker. Don't post an anonymous social media message to waste everybodies fucking time whilst letting the prick get away with it. It is your choice and nobodies responsibility but yours to look after yourself. If anyone else chooses to, good for them, but at the end of the day it is down to you.

Social media campaigns to "raise awareness" or "show solidarity" which don't actually deal with the pricks responsible are completely fucking pointless. Pricks don't give a shit about social media campaigns. It's self-congratulating and missing the issue.

Okay people, looks like I poked a hornet's nest in here. I'm going to respond now (about four hours after posting my OP). First off, gonna read the responses, then get to writing (which is more than I can say for some people here...)

Okay, what I've decided to do is respond in individual posts to people who responded directly to me, or very closely indirectly. I will give priority to Avnger (Post 20) since that person has given the most amount of effort in responding directly to me. Note that I will not be doing nested quotes because I just can't quite figure out the HTML for it.

At least you're starting off this farce of an analysis by admitting that you're going to try and semantically carve up her points rather than address them as intended;

Au contraire. I tried to take her at her word as much as I possibly could. Which is why I pointed out the duplicity of her initially saying that her tips are for 'people of all genders', while in fact they were aimed at men.
As for carving up points and addressing them...are you sure you want to accuse me of that, given what you yourself did, in response? Not that I have anything against the format of your response (doing as I did i.e. quoting in sections, and then responding point by point), but it sure does smack of double standards. Unless you mean something different?

it's very helpful to know from the beginning that you have no intention of of being unbiased despite what your "totally objective and logical" analysis.

I never once claimed I was trying to be 'totally objective and logical'. If you got that vibe, that is entirely your own impression. While I did aim for it, given that I acknowledge no human can be without bias, I therefore did not claim to be 'totally objective'.

Yes. If you either perpetuate through indifference or actively participate in the epidemic of sexism and sexual harassment, you are an objectively awful person. I'm sorry if that hurts anyone precious fee fees.

This is your subjective opinion, and not something to be treated as objective fact. I of course disagree, and I have a different picture of what counts as a 'decent' person. I see no reason why I should be bound by your standard, or the standard of the person who wrote the original article my OP was responding to.

Did you maybe think to read on to the examples given in the rest of the points? Are you incapable of of realizing disrespectful statements made of others? I mean, I know that MRAs have such low views of men, but this is ridiculous.

Since the original author and I are coming from different points of view, that is why I asked. Also, since you say I should have read the examples in later points...what examples? Is it the 'exhausting or angry' conclusions one might make of a feminist writer's article? Or the cutesy names (that I pointed out are not objectively disrespectful)? I suppose you're talking about Point 8. Again, I have to point out...they're not objectively disrespectful.

This point was very obviously aimed solely at men... fucking duh.

Precisely my point. Glad you agree with me! The author started her article by saying "These tips can be used by people of all genders.)" and yet both you and I agree that the people she's really speaking to (and speaking down to) are men.

Do you really believe men are too stupid to parse which of these points is aimed at them alone and which are aimed at both genders?

I'm not the person who wrote the original article (just the OP response). I'm not the one who wrote a list of tips trying to pass them off as being for people of all genders, then proceed to give a list of tips that are heavily weighted towards men.

No where in that statement does she mention men being unable to form an opinion about feminist bloggers. I have to ask one more time, why are you trying to limit men's abilities Rikou?

She is trying to limit the conclusions/opinions men may make about feminist bloggers. She says it there " Follow some feminist writers on social media. Sometimes what they write may seem "exhausting" or "too angry". Put aside that discomfort because that feeling is your male privilege".
So follow some feminist writers...but you're not allowed to have the opinion that [Insert Feminist Writer here] is being exhausting or angry. She did not say that men are physically unable to form the opinions, just that they are not allowed to say them, to ignore such opinions if they happen to think them.
Notice that nowhere in my post (either here or in my OP) do I suggest that ANYONE follow some writers and to ignore a negative opinion they may come away with about said writers.

If you don't understand male privilege, there is plenty of literature to fix that ignorance; there's no need to pretend these aren't academic terms with very specific meanings.

So male privilege now constitutes thinking that a given feminist writer's articles are exhausting or angry, and that one should not think such things or express said opinion. I'll add that to my list. It seems that each and every day, something new is added to that list, that I get a different answer as to what exactly male privilege is from person to person.
This is just like what happens whenever I go on discussion forums to discuss atheism and theology. I keep getting different meanings for what the word God means.

Women are unable to disengage because they live this disrespect daily.

All women? Is a person who is a woman automatically getting disrespect?

Men are able to disengage because they generally only deal with it if they seek out knowledge or understanding of it.

All men?

If you don't understand this article, which your points so far make very evident, asking for help is better than angry faux analysis.

If you're reading anger, whether faux or real, that is your impression. I was actually more...should I say amused while writing my OP.

Why is the idea that when you are looking for knowledge about how a group experiences discrimination that you should listen to people who have lived that discrimination?

Which is why I brought up the point about people of that group who reject the idea that they are under discrimination. What is one to do then?

If you want to learn about some of the gender related problems that men have, yes reading an article written by a man is a good idea. However, that generally refers to an opinion of an informed and learned person rather than the usual crop of Breitbart, (as someone mentioned above, AmazingAtheist, etc.

So ask a man about men's problems...but not these men...no reason given. Is it because what they say does not align with your own socio-political beliefs?
Doesn't this then mean that this advice of 'listen to people from the group when assessing the group' is null and void, since I'll automatically run into a range of opinions and viewpoints?

No where in the post does she mention feminist writers; she specifies women writers.

*Cough*. To quote, "Follow some feminist writers on social media." Are you equating feminists with women as a whole?

Again, no where in the post does she mention a specific socio-political view. Me thinks you again overplayed your partisan hand.

The article mentions following feminism, which in my eyes, is a specific socio-political view, although broadly speaking.

That's not what the article is saying, and your attempts to rewrite her words and have us accept that are, once again, insulting to all of us reading your post.

That is what I inferred from what she wrote, just like you are inferring things from what I myself write. If one is not to infer things, then I suppose both of us can start all over, and retract what both of us have said?

Gender bias in the workplace is a significant issue. Women's contributions are regularly overlooked, not given their proper respect, or outright claimed by male coworkers or bosses.

Even if all those were true, the tip given by the author would not help in my opinion.

This point is related to that bias and how suggesstions from female employees can often be coopted by male coworkers or simply ignored outright. If it's a shitty idea, then don't recommend it.... duh?

The same can happen to men by other men, women by other women, and men by women. What happens if a woman steals an idea from another female coworker? The article's author doesn't have a tip for that.

if you wouldn't introduce your male boss to a group of clients in that manner, don't introduce your female coworker or boss in that manner.

I would. I wouldn't say the word 'lovely' of a male boss, but some other word...perhaps 'charming' or 'hard-working' or something like that. What is this strange fear of compliments being paid all about? I've told female coworkers a few times that I like what they've done to their hair, and no-one complained about it, whether behind my back or to HR or to my face.
Are we supposed to say "Here's John/Jane Smith, PhD." and be completely 100% neutral on what we think about them?

Why is trying to get people to treat two genders identically like pulling teeth?

Strange. I could say the same about the author of the article.

She is saying to treat women with the same respect that you would treat a man.

I don't introduce men or women with their ' full job titles and accolades'. Like the example I gave, I have never and probably will never say "Here's Bob Brown, B.A. Psychology, B.A. Forensics, J.D." I might give a brief overview e.g. "Here's Bob Brown, J.D."

Your attempts to turn that idea into some awful or inordinately difficult task is demeaning to men and a poor reflection on yourself.

I am not saying it is awful or inordinately difficult...just pointless. Why should we introduce Mrs. Obama with her two degrees? Is it wrong if I just say "Michelle Obama, J.D."?
Remember what the author wrote. "FULL JOB TITLES AND ACCOLADES" (emphasis mine). So going by that, (and since you are opposed to my criticism of it), that would mean having to introduce Mrs. Obama with both degrees, that just the one is somehow wrong.

Though I personally believe she is maybe reaching a bit with this point, I can see her intention. 'Cutesy' names can be incredibly demeaning if you haven't earned the right and permission to use them.

I agree that they can be demeaning...just that I disagree with what I think the author's thoughts are, that the names ALWAYS are demeaning.
At no point in my life did anyone ever ask me permission before calling me names like 'sweety', and yet it doesn't bother me. Does it bother women as a whole? Automatically?

If you're calling pretty much any other woman "dear," you're being degrading.

My grandmother did that. I suppose she was being degrading, and generally a horrible person all around then?

If someone you don't know intimately calls you "chief" or such out in public, it's generally not a positive thing; it's meant as a slight or way to put you off.

If someone does say that to me, I can tell them off, all by myself. I don't need to write articles saying that others cannot and should not say them.

Using terms like "dear" or "baby" to women you don't know intimately is the same thing except with the addition of centuries of sexism attached.

That's your opinion, one I am not bound to accept. As I said before, my grandmother did that, and yet I would bet a significant some of money you're not going to suggest she was being sexist (to note, she tended to say dear to the general public, and reserved baby for her grandchildren).

Interesting. While in the office, you speak to your male coworkers using terms like darling, etc?

No. My point was that my family, friends and coworkers who are male like I am, we do not address each other with terms like darling. We instead use what you might think are dirty terms, and consider THOSE terms to be respectful. "Hey idiot" is a term we're all comfortable with using. So to go by the author's logic, I should start saying to women "Hey idiot", and yet I bet both you and she would baulk at this.

It's addressing colleagues and coworkers in public.

Coworkers too, at least for me. At least not when we're on the shop floor...got to have some level of professionalism! But in staff only areas, or off-duty...yeah, our language can get a little blue, if you know what I mean...

By using those terms in a public setting with people you are not intimately familiar with, you are demeaning them as something other than a coworker and equal.

As I explained...context. The female coworkers who call me names like sweety, are not being demeaning to me (not in my eyes). Are you going to argue that if a person does it, regardless of who they say it to, or what context, that it IS demeaning?

Yes, you are also being slighted if a female coworker calls you "honey;" just because you don't take offense to it doesn't mean others don't have the right to do so.

I would be insulted if someone else took offense on my behalf. So you answered the previous question. I AM being slighted, and that is just an objective fact. Great.

"There could be any number of reasons" ---> ex-fucking-actly. Hence, you stop what you're doing and ask what's going on. You don't know what is wrong, therefore, find the hell out.

Which I never implied one shouldn't do. I was merely commenting on the language the author was using, the strong implication that she was giving (at least in my eyes) that such body language automatically means the woman wants to stop.

The fact that you are having such trouble with the idea that consent is a continuous thing that can be taken away at any time is rather... troubling.

Did you not pay attention to what she wrote? 'At every step'. So yes...ask each and every time one kisses. Which would really put a dampener on the action. There's a strong disconnect between watching body language in her previous tip, and then asking for a verbal yes at every step.

Notice that at no point do the words "explicit and enthusiastic, and active consent" remove consideration of body language indicating consent. It's almost like you that made up thing entirely.

They do. If one is supposed to ask for a yes 'at every step' (as the author says), then this removes the need entirely for watching body language.

Wow, you were so intent on coming up with literally anything wrong with what this women was saying that you purposely misrepresented her words this hard? There is literally only one interpretation of her words, if you are even trying to stay with what she said.

Let me try and repeat this for you: If alcohol or substances impede your ability to stay present and have self control, cut down or avoid them please.

Upon rereading and reflection...yes I misinterpreted what she meant here. So I will retract my criticism of her point here about alcohol and substances.

Because this is an article about female experiences of sexual harassment?

Precisely my point. She is a feminist and more than likely both you (and her) present yourselves as being about equality...and yet this article is only concerned with female experiences of sexual harassment.

Your projection of your personal opinions of women onto this author is not the same as this author's opinions. Your response here also does nothing to argue against her quote. You're simply making up nonsense to have looked like your rebutted every point she made.

Can women make themselves heard at work?

Are you really that utterly clueless or are you just feigning it for effect? The idea that effeminate actions, hobbies, interests expressed by boys causes them to be bullied by other boys is about as radical and untrue as the theory of gravity. Were you ever a child? Did you ever attend school?

Yes, I was obviously a child, and yes I attended school...and yes, since you're so interested, I did try to play with dolls and was mocked for it by others.
However, unlike the author of this article, I don't assume that little boys are automatically thinking that feminism is 'less than'. I don't assume that little girls think masculinity is 'less than' either.

One has to introduce them to these toys, actions, hobbies, etc to give them an option to form an interest of not. If you always tell a boy that "dolls are for girls," you'll never know if they honestly interest them

Did I say or suggest that I myself advocate 'dolls are for girls'? Nope, that's your personal opinion. I have a young nephew. If he wants to play with dolls...he can. I'm not going to take his dolls off him. I'm just not going to go out of my way to paint his nails, or have him wear pink, or to play with dolls with him, all to satisfy an ideology. This is not the same as saying if he suggests it in and of himself, that I would say no.

Uh no... Stop playing the poor male victim card. It's demeaning to the rest of us men.

I'm only going by what the author said. She left no room in what she wrote for any individual young boy to maybe not think of women as lesser. According to what she wrote, young boys have these stereotypes, and that's that. We have to challenge them.

Since you are apparently not going by what the female author said, my eyebrow is raised.

If they don't have any stereotypes, awesome! There's nothing to challenge then; feel free to completely ignore this point when that occurs.

Where in what the author wrote, did she allow for this possibility? The only 'If' she allowed when talking about this subject was whether one has young boys in their lives or not. "If there are little boys, teen boys, and young men in your life," So assuming one says yes, she then proceeds to assume that these young boys have these stereotypes.
I'm sorry if I'm being autistic or something, but I cannot see where she gives the possibility for them to not have the stereotypes.

As far as our society goes, those behaviors are feminine. In the womb or in other cultures, what is feminine may differ, but in our culture, the actions she has described are those associated with femininity.

I'm confused. I thought the idea was to remove any stigma of femininity with these behaviours...and yet, we're supposed to do them as a challenge to what these young boys think of as girl stuff? Why approach them from that angle? So we're invoking the stigma...while trying to remove it?

If you only comment on a person's looks, they believe that's all that matters. This is extremely basic psychology (as in like first couple of weeks in a high school class material). Humans are wired heavily to Pavlovian training particularly when we are young. The behaviors that you reward or praise a person for when they are young are going to cause behavior patterns that can last for a lifetime.

I suppose this means that each and every girl complimented on her looks is then never going to change her behaviour?
Unlike you, I'm not afraid to give compliments. I don't worry about what the girl may do ten or twenty or thirty years down the line, because quite frankly, I give them more agency than you yourself do.

If you empower young women and remove the societal norms that are sexist, you will be able to eliminate a large majority of the "casual" harassment cases.

How does teaching women to fear compliments on their appearances, that they need men to help them be heard in the workplace 'empower' them?

"I don't really have anything that directly rebuts this woman's point, so I'm going to make a nice strawwoman and beat on that instead."

Well...is it sexist to hold the door open for women? If it is...how is it not sexist to do this tip, to cross the road? Also, something that I should have done, something that I missed...just to poke some fun. "Literally go out of your way to help her feel that you're not following her."
Great...this author would be an advocate for Sargon of Akkad's "I wouldn't even rape you" tweet!

The only people possibly disrespected in this article are those who find the idea of treating women and men equally offensive.

Nope. As I explained, she treats women disrespectfully by assuming they need a man's help to be heard in the workplace. My female relatives have opined to me that they find such thinking offensive.
She also treats young boys poorly by assuming that they hold girls and femininity in low regard.

No what she said, but nice strawwoman again. She brings up the point that it's rather easy as a non-affected group to dismiss the criticisms of an affected group.

So if I were to act as an MRA, can I use this point, in discussions with feminists?

See: white slave owners claiming slavery was a good and natural thing for black people.

Every race has been enslaved at one point or another in the past. It's not a crime (for lack of a better term, my mind is brain-farting right now on better words I could use) that only whites are guilty of.

When you dismiss any evidence out of hand, claim they're just being "unreasonable" or "emotional", say all events are one-off occurrences, of course you'll never waiver on it.

...I could have sworn I advocated for the exact opposite of what you accuse myself of. I advocate for evidence, for people to fulfill their burdens of proof ("I was oppressed!")...and yet somehow you think this means I dismiss evidence out of hand.

Again, not what she said. Read the viewpoint of people actually dealing with oppression shouldn't be this radical idea. The fact that you find it so it, again, a poor reflection on you.

I don't see how she could have implied it any other way. So if one goes to investigate whether or not black people are oppressed, read (only?) articles by black people...but then we run into the problem of articles by black people who claim there is no oppression going on. At which point the advice is null and void, it's pointless.

Using reddit and the chans as your sources of information is definitely the way to truly understand the world /sarc

I'm going to have to ask you just where you saw me quote reddit and the chans...ANYWHERE! Is this an implication that academia is united on this one topic, that there aren't academicians who disagree?

Primary sources -> secondary sources -> other sources. It's a rather basic hierarchy that is used regularly in academia, science, and scholarly fields. I know I was introduced to it at about the age of 9 in school. Did you miss that day?

This response does not refute the point I made. If a white male colleague of mine points out discrepancies in what a black woman says she is experiencing, then this is a problem for the article's author, in that she very strongly urges readers to just go with the minorities' claims.
Which is hardly a basis for healthy skepticism and rational thinking.

I'd rather just examine the claims and any data cited in justification, and not worry about what race/sex the claimant is. If blacks are really being racially oppressed, then the truth of the claim does not rest on whether or not it is a black person saying it.

Being uncomfortable is not a basis for criticism; neither is ignorance of the topic, which much of your post here is based on. Proper, well-grounded criticism is always welcome; the crying of the poor internet MRAs and alt-right that they're being called out for their horrible behavior is not proper criticism.

I feel uncomfortable when told young boys think girls are 'lesser-than'. Yet, according to the article's author..."the only correct response is to be quiet and listen and try to focus on the topic at hand rather than centre your own feelings."
I am to be quiet. I am not to express myself.

aegix drakan:
Well, if you have a solution to do something about the culture of harassment that will actually do something, then please, share.

Because until then, you're self-admitting to be part of that 99% who'd prefer to complain.

So please, share.

Well, there are two major approaches I have seen work wonders.

The first, which I am not a big fan of, works best in parts of countries or cultural groups where the supreme ideological good is religion and a strict interpretation of the family unit. You simply replace this supreme good with a more superficial capitalist worldview where the highest ideal isn't God or family but consumption and wealth. Capitalism doesn't really recognize gender rolls, it just splits into rich and poor instead of man and woman, etc etc. I'm not a capitalist so I hate this one and would even find a society which is extremely socially conservative (with all of the things that entails) preferable. You may see that differently.

The second is to simply give women the tools they need to succeed and let them do what they like. Major factor here being education. Girls who are raised to be independent and given access to quality education will naturally develop the strength of character to make complaints about words like "honey" or "cunt" lose their relevance for a start. The problem is that we don't raise children to be independent, be they boys or girls - our education system across the West still operates from a basis which hasn't changed for at least 2 centuries (the idea that children have some inate resistance to discipline that absolutely must be broken) and, well, I doubt I have to write an entire paragraph on helicopter parenting. It produces dysfunctional adults, the difference being that we tell men to suck it up and move hell to fix mistakes already made for women. Men undergo a trail by fire which they are increasingly failing (see suicide rates, less men studying, less young men earning less than young women, killing frenzies etc) while we prop up women more and more. That would be completely unnecessary if we just stopped what makes those props necessary in the first place.

Just to be clear I'm not going all MRA on you here - I'm not claiming men are treated worse than women or whatever. Both genders suffer equally from this approach, albiet in different ways. The solution to both is the same though.

Now those are the ones I can tell you work without a doubt. I have this idea that todays sexism is more of a symptom of capitalism and percieved scarcity in what should be a post-scarcity society (this goes for all oppression not just between genders). But theres probably already 30 triggered Harry Potter liberals letting me know I'm a terrible sexist right now so I'll leave it here.

erttheking:
You've got an odd way of showing it, seeing as how half the suggestions posted would fall under basic decency and yet you just dismiss it as treating women with kid gloves.

I'm sorry, calling out women's viewpoints being dismissed and making sure they're comfortable with sex is backwards? I know if I wasn't feeling up to sex and showing signs of discomfort I'd appreciate a woman asking if I was ok instead of just merrily carrying on. It's asking for basic awareness. But sure, act like being dismissive towards women who are being shut down and treated as being lesser as saying it like it is. I can't help but notice it's always men talking down points made by women in this regard, I very rarely if ever see women tearing into these arguments, and never as viciously as men do. And I didn't imply anything. I am seriously seeing a lack of empathy on your part.

Well, you see, this is quite interesting. The core message of your first sentence is that you have found out what falls under basic decency and what doesn't. Unfortunately there are about 7.6 billion who draw the line at a radically or slightly different point than you - more if you're super into animals or something. I'm not ready to recognize your line as the one we should follow and you're not ready to recognize mine, so the basis of this discussion should be where actual harm begins and ends, not some vague idea of basic decency. Which one could argue is inherently culturalist by the way. You're super into -ists and -isms so you should know that.

Concerning sex - if I wasn't feeling up to it or whatever I had no trouble saying so. Neither did any of my partners. I'm sure there are people out there with issues who can't but their existence shouldn't really dictate bedroom etiquette.

In my experience the reason you don't see women ripping into this stuff is because they just don't spend much time discussing it. Whenever this weird nu-feminist stuff has popped up in conversations the women I know - educated, uneducated, white, arab, whatever - react with disdain. Like, I had an ex who had a tumblr account and even she hated this stuff. Maybe its a loud minority or maybe its an American thing. I do have a family member who teaches gender studies but she's a weird one anyway.

First of all, nice to see you go from

Catnip1024:
If people were really getting harassed to that extent, why has nothing been said up to now?

To

Catnip1024:
The issue exists and people know it exists.

Which either implies something disingenuous is going on, or that's a record time for flipping your opinion around to accepting something you just one post ago suspected wasn't happening to that extent.

I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt that it's the latter and address the rest of the post.

Catnip1024:
Okay, and that's cool and all, but what does this achieve? Recognition of an issue? The issue exists and people know it exists.

What's the point in arguing against corruption at the political level? Recognition of an issue?

What's the point in arguing that corporations have made the middle class shrink and shrink into poverty? Recognition of an issue?

What's the point in covering news about terrorism or crime? Recognition of an issue?

What's the point of pointing out anything that's a problem? Recognition of an issue?

It's almost like Recognition of an issue is the first step in doing something about it.

You can't use chemo to remove cancer if you don't show the patient that it's THERE.

Do you know what sort of people do this sort of thing? Complete pricks. Do you know what sort of person isn't going to give a shit about a social media campaign? A complete prick.

True. But if you get enough people to realize the problem and start noticing that they hang out with complete pricks and start personally calling them out, it might impact them enough that they'll either go fuck off in a corner somewhere or be shamed/scared into not saying or doing shitty things quite so much.

Or maybe it'll make people with some degree of influence/power who aren't complete pricks push for solutions that will deal with the complete pricks in a more direct manner, say tighter workplace guidelines that will get the complete pricks fired if they're found to be harassing people.

Alternatively, what is your solution to the complete prick problem? Ignore it and hope it goes away?

If you prefer job security over your personal wellbeing / security, that's your personal choice. At least at their level it is. At the breadline, it's a different issue.

Well, hey, glad to know that risking being homeless because you can't pay your bills is something you have no problem doing.

Because like I said, this doesn't just happen to people who are rich and famous actors who could potentially live off their current money. In fact it's kinda rare for the rich and famous to end up in that situation because the abuser knows that they have leverage. Most of the time, the assholes go after people they know are vulnerable.

This kind of shit happens to all kinds of people. And right now all they can do is take the abuse silently and desperately look for work elsewhere away from their abuser while just taking it. That's not ok.

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:

NemotheElvenPanda:
Also, like the poster above me said, the above isn't hard to do. In fact, if you're a decent person that cares about women, you're probably doing most of it already.

I'll get on it once I've got to terms with doing useless things and sucking in the bedroom. So never.

*Blinks*
I beg pardon?

Being decent to women is useless or "sucking in the bedroom"?

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here