#MeToo and a Response to it

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:

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.

You know, it doesn't set a good tone when you start with a vague cop out argument like people having a lot of different values. But hey, let's go down that route. Which values do you hold that goes against what I said? Which of my proposed ideas do you take issue with? Not talking down to women or making sure they're ok with sex, which do you take issue with. Because most people in polite society agree those are pretty good, so I don't know why you're arguing otherwise.

Good for you, not everyone else is or your partners. I'm sorry you think slowing down if something is wrong to be an alien concept. That's all. Slow down for a second and ask if everything's ok. If they say yes, say ok and keep going. I'm astounded that some people are so viciously against doing so little. Also bonus hypocrite points for arguing that people have radically different values before acting like most people are the same for this.

You'll notice I said rarely and not never. Because you go anywhere and it's always men screaming the most AND the loudest about this. I find that telling. Really? A minority thing? Because social media is being flooded with people recounting their harassment using #MeToo and I saw no signs it was limited to America. But as we've established, I doubt you actually care.

Silentpony:
Pants on head? That's just retarded.

Is it though? I'd say pants are more like a hat than most other forms of clothing. Certainly, if I was going to be caught in a blizzard and I needed to protect my head with some other item of clothing about my person, I think pants would actually be fairly sensible as I could transfer them to my head without much risk of affecting my overally body temperature, whereas any other item of clothing would run the risk of exposing a body part. This is only with boxers, obviously, y-fronts would be rubbish.

Sounds like yet another attempt to subtle blame men for all of women's problems without admitting there's faults on all sides.

So, ultimately, I don't really care.

Now to reply to aegix drakan in post 13.

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

I have actually. Thank you for the completely baseless assumption you made, one you made with literally no information to go on. Two of my sisters, a female co-worker and a female house-mate. Each and every one of them have either directly told me that tips like what the article's author suggests, or I can infer based on how well I know them, would be ridiculous and offensive in and of themselves.

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

I wouldn't say little...

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.

Am I supposed to believe this? Do you believe what I said about myself up above? Do you know, for a fact, that each and every woman you know who posted #Metoo did it for the reasons you think they did? It is a well known phenomenon of humans to 'go with the flow' socially, and not give things much thought.
The women I know on Facebook, quite literally none of them, have posted a Metoo (or if they did, I missed it). Not even the ones who WERE raped.
Strange that. Why...it's almost like the hashtag doesn't really mean anything.

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.

You probably won't believe me, but I have literally never experienced this in person. Not once has anything even remotely like what you describe there happened when I was around.
Now I know...we're not supposed to just go by what we say about ourselves...but then, what does that say to your claim about what all the women you know on Facebook have done?

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.

Maybe I'm just being autistic again, but I see a difference between speech and action. Yes, in Florida, you'll have to board your house up. Doesn't mean you have to engage in conversation about it whenever someone brings it up, that one can't back out of the conversation.
EDIT - Now that you mention it, I should say that I have a coworker who loves to mention football to me. He knows I have literally zero interest, but whenever he passes me or is near me, he'll opine about some team or match. I suppose I have no option but to listen to him about it, I mean it's not like I could just tell him to knock it off? What if I were a woman and he kept doing the same thing?

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.

I did not say one shouldn't check. I commented on what the author said, how she went about saying it.

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.

Yes, I did go to school. Mixed (or co-ed as the Yanks would say). I myself got mocked for liking to play with dolls. This though doesn't mean that I assume that little boys are dismissive of girls.

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".

Anyone who said the same about me got a punch in the eye. I was bullied myself and yet I learned to stand up for myself.

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.

Often...but not always. I don't assume my young nephew thinks of girls as being 'lesser-than' as the article's author says. I don't approach him thinking I need to cure him of some vile mindset that he just has to have by mere virtue of being a male.

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.

There's a difference between giving the benefit of the doubt, and just flat out believing them. My own approach...if it's someone I know personally, give them the benefit of the doubt, listen to them, but do not throw skepticism out the window completely.
Whereas if it's someone I only hear about (such as this case with Weinstein)...I don't give them the benefit of the doubt. Whoever these women are, they'll have to go through the courts. I notice that at least one or two people have pointed out that (several) women put their careers ahead of outing a rapist. If so, what does that say about them, and what they think the lesser of two evils is?

The Lunatic:
Sounds like yet another attempt to subtle blame men for all of women's problems without admitting there's faults on all sides.

So, ultimately, I don't really care.

So how do you blame someone for being sexually harassed or assaulted?

aegix drakan:
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.

Those two separately selected quotes are talking about different severities of harassment. One is the Weinstein type stuff, the other is the "he patted me on the shoulder" stuff. The low level crap is everywhere. The high level stuff could be everywhere, but people clearly ain't talking about it.

Catnip1024:

aegix drakan:
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.

Those two separately selected quotes are talking about different severities of harassment. One is the Weinstein type stuff, the other is the "he patted me on the shoulder" stuff. The low level crap is everywhere. The high level stuff could be everywhere, but people clearly ain't talking about it.

Firstly, Like I said in my post, the high level stuff DOES happen a lot and they DO talk about it. It just often gets swept under the rug when people speak about it, which then lead to people NOT talking about it because they know that the perpetrator, if they have any degree of influence, will often have an army of people defend them and proceed to deny and crush the victim.

Second, the low level crap helps enable the higher levels of crap. Like, for example, calling a black man the N word isn't near as bad as lynching him, but calling him the N word does help contribute to a society that sees black people as "lesser" or that their lives mean less. It's the same shit with the low level crap.

aegix drakan:
Second, the low level crap helps enable the higher levels of crap. Like, for example, calling a black man the N word isn't near as bad as lynching him, but calling him the N word does help contribute to a society that sees black people as "lesser" or that their lives mean less. It's the same shit with the low level crap.

See, my problem here is that a lot of this stuff is only bad in the eyes of certain overly prudish characters. Take microaggressions, for instance. Where I grew up, it is common for people to call others terms like "love" (often regardless of gender) as a term of endearment. Apparently terms of endearment now mark you out as some sort of sexual abuser. This is the shit that loses peoples support.

Physical contact - I personally have no objection to people patting me on the back or putting a hand on my shoulder. That's regular physical contact that has an established role in conversation regardless of gender. Yet to certain individuals, any sort of contact is now fricking haram.

And no, the low level stuff does not enable the high level stuff. One does not go from saying "how do, love?" to rape. That's not how anything works.

Catnip1024:

aegix drakan:
Second, the low level crap helps enable the higher levels of crap. Like, for example, calling a black man the N word isn't near as bad as lynching him, but calling him the N word does help contribute to a society that sees black people as "lesser" or that their lives mean less. It's the same shit with the low level crap.

See, my problem here is that a lot of this stuff is only bad in the eyes of certain overly prudish characters. Take microaggressions, for instance. Where I grew up, it is common for people to call others terms like "love" (often regardless of gender) as a term of endearment. Apparently terms of endearment now mark you out as some sort of sexual abuser. This is the shit that loses peoples support.

Physical contact - I personally have no objection to people patting me on the back or putting a hand on my shoulder. That's regular physical contact that has an established role in conversation regardless of gender. Yet to certain individuals, any sort of contact is now fricking haram.

And no, the low level stuff does not enable the high level stuff. One does not go from saying "how do, love?" to rape. That's not how anything works.

Yaknow, catnip, I'm really starting to feel like you're moving the goalposts on me.

First, you mentioned getting your ass pinched as one of the low level things, then it became "tapping on the shoulder" and now you're saying that "how do, love" is the small things, and I'm really starting to feel like you're trying to make me argue that any term of endearment is somehow a horrible evil, which I'm not going to argue because that would be stupid.

I'm pulling this right back where it belongs.

Tapping someone on the shoulder is generally fine for like 95% of people because it's a standard gender neutral thing and legit the only time I've ever hear anyone ask "hey, can I give you a sympathy pat" was from a friend who just got done dealing with a serial abuser case and was extra-sensitive about any and all consent. Shoulder/back pat stuff is generally a non issue outside of people who have suffered physical trauma and get jumpy about anything entering their personal space.

The stuff I was under the impression we were talking about is the whole "shrugging off touching people on or near your private parts and/or hair/neck/ass or other vulnerable places". Which, if left unchecked, does embolden the Complete Pricks you mentioned to think that pushing the envelope further is ok.

People don't do from "How do, luv?" to rape. That's a duh.

But if people generally get away without even a call-out when touching the inside of people's legs or hair or ass or whatever vulnerable space without permission, then it does send the message it's ok to invade someone's personal space in a sexual way, and it emboldens the pricks to push the boundaries a little more each time. It legit happened to someone I know from school.

The dude was always a little hands on with people, and people kinda let it slide because they thought it was kinda innocent and he apologized very nicely if he went to far and upset someone. Same guy then went on years later to forcibly kiss a friend of mine when alone (and the friend clearly said she had no interest in him) and he basically scared the shit out of her and made her think she was gonna get raped (and he still tried to hang out with her multiple times after that). Same guy then eventually wound up being thrown out of a BDSM group that a different friend of mine was part of because he thought "hey, banging my out-of-town date when she's passed out drunk at a party is a TOTALLY ok thing to do, especially in a group that is very strict about what constitutes consent". Don't know where he is now, but if he someday ends up in prison for drugging someone and raping them, I will not be freakin' surprised.

No, you don't go from silly terms of endearment to rape.

But if you let people get away with touching people's vulnerable spots, the complete pricks you mentioned WILL take that inch and then WILL take a fucking mile if they think they can get away with it.

...You know, I can't help think you're part of the problem if your immediate response to a long post about how men can be supportive of women who have been victims of rape/sexual assault is 'I'LL MAKE A THREAD ABOUT IT ON THE ESCAPIST!'.

Ah well, personal introspection is for chumps anyway.

Wrex Brogan:
...You know, I can't help think you're part of the problem if your immediate response to a long post about how men can be supportive of women who have been victims of rape/sexual assault is 'I'LL MAKE A THREAD ABOUT IT ON THE ESCAPIST!'.

Ah well, personal introspection is for chumps anyway.

I know! Socio-political discussion on the Escapist is just so sub-par, I mean...who would ever think to discuss socio-political issues here ^^? What was I thinking, I mean, it's not like there's a section for political issues, or an active user-base interested in such topics...
I'll take your advice. I'll go looking elsewhere for discussion of political topics, since such are of little interest to you and yours here on this site.

EDIT - Just to correct you, since it seems that you didn't read either the original article or my OP response to it (or both?)...the original article was not about men being supportive of women who have been victims of sexual assault.
After all...what does suggesting men refer to women by their full job titles and academic achievements have to do with victims of sexual assault?
Or suggesting that one not use terms like deary, or sweety?

erttheking:
You know, it doesn't set a good tone when you start with a vague cop out argument like people having a lot of different values. But hey, let's go down that route. Which values do you hold that goes against what I said? Which of my proposed ideas do you take issue with? Not talking down to women or making sure they're ok with sex, which do you take issue with. Because most people in polite society agree those are pretty good, so I don't know why you're arguing otherwise.

Good for you, not everyone else is or your partners. I'm sorry you think slowing down if something is wrong to be an alien concept. That's all. Slow down for a second and ask if everything's ok. If they say yes, say ok and keep going. I'm astounded that some people are so viciously against doing so little. Also bonus hypocrite points for arguing that people have radically different values before acting like most people are the same for this.

You'll notice I said rarely and not never. Because you go anywhere and it's always men screaming the most AND the loudest about this. I find that telling. Really? A minority thing? Because social media is being flooded with people recounting their harassment using #MeToo and I saw no signs it was limited to America. But as we've established, I doubt you actually care.

Beginning a discussion by pretending ones own personal line in the sand is universally and inarguably correct and hoping the other person won't call you out on it isn't a cop out then? Whatever.

I don't really have any values that go against what you said. Thats mostly because - and I have no problem attacking you personally here since you do the same to just about anyone you disagree with in R&P - you rarely, if ever, present any ideas that are actually your own. And you haven't presented anything in this thread. I can't attack your values. The only value I've ever seen you defend here is "whatever the polar opposite of the alt-right is".

What I disagree with is what was quoted in the OP, plus this #MeToo campaign. Ok, so women regularly face harassment (this term is too wishy-washy for my taste though) and rape - I'm on board so far. We should do something about it - still on board. Doing something means speech policing your friends, following 'feminist authors' who may seem 'exhausted or too angry' (read: stupid, backward, sexist) or avoiding women on the street (lmfao) - well, you lost me. I've already began to explain why and already suggested proper alternatives.

Fine, we'll do sex tips with Rise. People make weird faces and noises during sex, if you stopped at every single one to ask "Are you alright?", fuck, just go masturbate or something. Women especially really hate that shit, trust me. I don't understand where your problem is. Whats the big deal about saying "Stop" if you want to stop? Plus, how the hell are you going to have sex if you can't trust your partner to tell you "No" or "I don't like this"? The majority of us just don't have some sexual trauma which renders us mute during intercourse. If you or any of your partners have, I'm legitimately sorry, and totally see the value of taking it slow - do what you gotta do to hopefully enjoy sex again. But insisting this should be some blanket rule for the rest of us is stupid as hell. I expect my partner to either a) be able to say no or b) inform me that she's unable to say no beforehand and feel thats quite reasonable - most women aren't too mentally handicapped for that. Then again, maybe that last bit is just an illusion I have because I see my partners as equals.

Has it occured to you that perhaps not every social media user who uses the hashtag is on board with what the more radical are trying to turn it into?

Has it occured to you that seeing "no signs" it isn't limited to America isn't proof that it wasn't?

Has it occured to you that not every young woman spends 30 minutes a day looking for Twitter trends?

That, perhaps, if you looked it up, the sites 12 year olds might have gotten simular posting numbers for something about One Direction or something, which should give you some perspective on the actual size of the movement?

aegix drakan:
Second, the low level crap helps enable the higher levels of crap. Like, for example, calling a black man the N word isn't near as bad as lynching him, but calling him the N word does help contribute to a society that sees black people as "lesser" or that their lives mean less. It's the same shit with the low level crap.

The impact of microaggressions isn't really proven, more the opposite really.

Replying to RiseoftheWhiteWolf

following 'feminist authors' who may seem 'exhausted or too angry' (read: stupid, backward, sexist

Ah ah ah! You forget, Wolf. As a male (presuming such cuz avatar), that's your male privilege, remember? You're not supposed to go with such opinions. Feminist authors are just not exhausting or angry, capiche? Never! If you think that some feminist authors are like that, you're supposed to ignore that opinion.

Now, repeat it back to yourself ten times and then say sorry to every woman on the thread.

RikuoAmero:
EDIT - Just to correct you, since it seems that you didn't read either the original article or my OP response to it (or both?)...the original article was not about men being supportive of women who have been victims of sexual assault.
After all...what does suggesting men refer to women by their full job titles and academic achievements have to do with victims of sexual assault?

I'm guessing the idea is that sexual assault is so prevalent in our society because women are treated like the lesser sex. Being introduced with your title, without the unnecessary adjectives, presents an air of professionalism, competency, and respect. Adding sweet, lovely, beautiful, etc., puts more focus on physical attributes rather than accomplishments.

Or suggesting that one not use terms like deary, or sweety?

Using those terms with people you're close to is fine, I imagine. Using those terms with strangers presents an air of familiarity that isn't there. It's uncomfortable and disrespectful.

RikuoAmero:

Wrex Brogan:
...You know, I can't help think you're part of the problem if your immediate response to a long post about how men can be supportive of women who have been victims of rape/sexual assault is 'I'LL MAKE A THREAD ABOUT IT ON THE ESCAPIST!'.

Ah well, personal introspection is for chumps anyway.

I know! Socio-political discussion on the Escapist is just so sub-par, I mean...who would ever think to discuss socio-political issues here ^^? What was I thinking, I mean, it's not like there's a section for political issues, or an active user-base interested in such topics...
I'll take your advice. I'll go looking elsewhere for discussion of political topics, since such are of little interest to you and yours here on this site.

...you know, this would've been scathing sarcasm had it not been correct. And 'active user-base'? Making a lot of assumptions here.

EDIT - Just to correct you, since it seems that you didn't read either the original article or my OP response to it (or both?)

...also here.

...the original article was not about men being supportive of women who have been victims of sexual assault.
After all...what does suggesting men refer to women by their full job titles and academic achievements have to do with victims of sexual assault?
Or suggesting that one not use terms like deary, or sweety?

...by reinforcing ideas that they're people to be respected, which does a lot to help combat the social apathy towards victims of sexual assault and abuse? Like, c'mon, if you're going to do a big song and dance of taking down each and every one of the persons points, the least you could do is wrap your head around the core concept.

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:
Snip

The fact that you consider this some personal line in the sand on my part and not a basic bit of decency is something I find to be nothing short of insulting. So no, it isn't a cop out, so how about you explain to me what's so terrible about my "personal line in the sand" before you go get all offended about it...wait, too late.

And yet you felt the need to argue anyway. If you think that this is as simple as you disagreeing with me, you need to pay better attention. This is about you disgustingly dismissing the problems women have and showing solutions that are utterly basic, and that you "apparently" agree with but you're arguing against them anyway because fuck if I know, as handling them with kid gloves. If you can't see the difference, I don't know what to say to you. Hey, Wolf. Let me tell you something. I've thought all of this for a long time. I don't know what to say to someone who apparently can't wrap his head around the fact that I honestly think all of this. I can only draw one of two conclusions. You're intentionally being disingenuous, or you honestly can't comprehend that someone with a mindset like mind exists. But then again I did this crazy thing called actually talking to women about the problems they face. And yes, I did imply that you don't do that, good for you for noticing.

Oh, pointing out that constantly putting down the ideas of women and using gendered insults is a bit screwed up is speech policing. So just to clarify, one of the points in the OP was saying "that's not cool," to friends who were saying disrespectful things about women. That's the ONLY point that really covers reacting to how your friends and co-workers act aside from the one involving correcting racist in-laws, which is something I would think most people already do. Not just about a certain women, but the gender as a whole. So you think taking issue with an entire gender being insulted...is a bad thing. Well then. And no, the feminist writers aren't exhausted, the post said that following them could FEEL exhausting. I know it's basic little details, but the fact that you get them wrong makes me wonder how much of the thing you read before you ran off to be mad about it. And yes, radical thought, maybe help women by hearing what women have to say about women's problems? I don't consider that to be a particularly radical concept.

I didn't say making a weird face or a weird noise. No one said that. Some of the things brought up were no longer making eye contact and slowing down, or just stops talking. You know, tell tale signs that something might be up. So you're pulling a strawman argument on me? Can't say I'm surprised. "What's wrong with saying stop?" Well, see, here's the thing. A lot of times women feel pressured to keep going. I've talked to women who were uncomfortable with being touched but let it go because they felt like they were obligated to do it. It's particularly common with women who are in their first relationship and are inexperienced. "The majority of us don't have some kind of sexual trauma," you just can not stop it with the strawman arguments around here. It reflects poorly on your arguments that you feel the need to rely on them so much. And I find it rather telling that you react to this utterly basic and harmless concept by lashing out and accusing people of having traumas and mental handicaps. Jesus Christ, who murdered your fucking dog? Is it really that much of an alien thought to you that, if something has noticeably changed, that maybe you should slow down for half a second and as "you ok?" If there's an obvious and noticeable change, not the "weird noise," you strawmanned out of me. I mean, worse case scenario the first few times are a little awkward but then you get a feel for it and everything is hunky dory, that hardly sounds like a horrible fate.

The fact that you consider anything happening here to be radical is something I can't help but laugh at. Radical...fucking radical. How low are you setting the bar that "don't be disrespectful to women and follow some feminist writers," to be radical?

Yes, it has. But then again you've offered me up zero proof of that concept, so it's not a thought I spent a lot of time on.

Yes, though I fail to see how that strengthens your argument. If anything it weakens it, because not every young woman looks through twitter trends and there's still an utter flood of this tweet. I'm sorry, what was your point here?

That the size of women talking about their harassment is the size of a following of a very popular band? Damn, that's terrifying...again, what point are you trying to make here? Because you're doing an utterly lousy job of it.

I read the original post, but I couldn't get through all of your response, sorry. Its not that I was mad or anything, its just jesus christ there's a lot of text there and I'm only trying to kill a little time.

So if you take the time to render the original post waaaaay way down, you get to some pretty bog standard shit. Have respect for one another, respect professional boundaries - you'll find all this in your employee handbook. Yes you have one, and yes its in there. There's actually standardized training now that includes all this stuff, damned if I can remember what the code for it is. something -9. Most companies require it. And its good bog standard shit. Its the kind of shit that its good to see and say "yeah, that's the standard shit we expect of everyone at this company". Y'know, its nice straightforward social requirements codified into a company approach to employee reactions. Break a rule, be punished. Effective.

The suggestion of following social media of feminists and etc, while coming from the right place, is a little trite and might backfire more than anything. To start, not everybody gives a shit about that kind of social media blogging. Then we have to consider the roughly 100 billion different interpretations and misinterpretations of feminist ideals and you realize the chances of ending up trying to educate yourself from weird ass shit without realizing it. Then we add in the danger of making feminist ideas into homework. I don't come home from work excited to read through ten pages of people being angry about shit. If you tell me I gotta do this every time I read a non-feminist (calling it normal feels wrong) writing, even if I go into it with best intentions I'm going to start hating it and hating the people who perpetuate it.

The idea of boosting is, once again, a nice thought but ultimately it doesn't measure with typical business sense. I'll "boost" the things that will make me and those I associate with look good, boost profits, or please clients. I try to avoid slamming bad ideas just for the sake of morale, but I sure as shit won't decide what to back or not based on gender.

The sex one is... The sex one. I agree with getting real, serious consent before sex. That said, right after the lights go down and "Go Go Power Rangers" hits the ipod, looking for consistent body language doesn't really work... I've had women ask me to punch them square in the head during sex, and mean it. Don't take anything, yes or no, as given without actual verbal statements. God knows you don't want to loosen the swing when she wanted you to tighten it.

The insult one is kind of weird. The purpose of insults is to hurt, so yeah, people are going to use the whole list when they get in the mood. I'm not trying to defend this, and I get the impression she's talking about casual insults and/or trash talk, but that's all basically covered in the above "bog standard shit".

Regarding talking/not talking about the crap is reasonable advice, but not really for learning. More just for avoiding confrontation, you might figure out something eventually by listening this way but it isn't really a fast track to insight, and might lead to the same frustration/backfiring of just being bored or tired of listening too it.

Okay, so I've dated someone with a serious trauma disorder and I fail to see what is so difficult.

"Enthusaistic consent" means that someone is actively reciprocating. It does not mean that someone has to tell you verbally to continue. If you're attentive to the person (or people) you're having sex with, it should be pretty obvious whether they seem to be having a fun time. A lot of potential problems can be spotted just by being attentive to someone's body language. Can they make eye contact or focus, are they staring off into space, are they covering their body with their hands. If someone suddenly goes limp or silent, you check them. If someone starts crying or seems distressed, you check them. Checking someone can be very quick, doesn't have to be verbal and doesn't necessarily have to break the mood, what's important is that you don't just carry on if you're not sure (because that's the bit which won't hold up in court).

Like, if you're not paying attention to the people you're fucking, I'm not sure you're going to be having the best sex to begin with. At that point, why not just go masturbate or buy a cheap steak and go to town, then you won't have to worry about consent.

Yeah, looked at the OP and...

...look, basically, this is another opportunity for people to lecture other people about the best way to treat people. Weinstein gets outed, and all of the sudden the Internet is full of women who speak for all women and men who speak for all men. It's the same rigmarole that goes down every time a major public figure is revealed to be an old-timey rapist.

The topic isn't really complicated. Treat women like decent human beings, and treat human beings as other people worth a modicum of respect and attention. Don't be a dick. That's all.

aegix drakan:
Yaknow, catnip, I'm really starting to feel like you're moving the goalposts on me.

First, you mentioned getting your ass pinched as one of the low level things, then it became "tapping on the shoulder" and now you're saying that "how do, love" is the small things, and I'm really starting to feel like you're trying to make me argue that any term of endearment is somehow a horrible evil, which I'm not going to argue because that would be stupid.

They are all insinuated as wrong in the OPs quoted bit. Ergo they all fall under minor stuff. Microaggressions are one of the buzzwords of the here and now, and while you may not argue that way a number of people would. The local Women in STEM group for one.

snip

But going by your defined context, I kind of agree, but still believe that dicks will be dicks. If you don't name and shame them individually, at the time and to their colleagues, there is no incentive for them to stop. If the colleagues weren't even willing to listen to you before, are they any more likely to because something was trending? Doubt it. It doesn't change their opinion of the individuals involved.

Avnger:

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.

Good, let's talk about it. (not that i completely agree with the OP, but a discussion is more interisting than reading blogs and counter blogs)

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.[/quote]Agree with the actively participate part, but not with perpetuating through indifference..

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.

- A man not actually doing anything about it is not more guilty than a women not actually doing anything about it

- Honestly, i don't see a lot of harrassment in my life. The last time i heard a misogynistic joke from a coworker was 5 years ago and is still in memory because it is so incredibly rare. Might be a cultural thing. But i am hard pressed to remember any incident where i even could have objected to any harrassment.

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.

There is lot of stuff written about it. But imho most is rubbish.

It is really hard and expensive to investigate this stuff scientifically with the sampling problem, proper setup, reagional differences, age differences and sampling size. So many writers tend to extrapolate from anectodical evidence and their personal opinion about society. Add in some confirmation bias and the result is most of the stuff ever written about male privilege (that lack of proper facts does include people refuting it existence.)

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

Personally i don't really care about the gender of writers. And i am not convinced, i should.

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.

Actual studies say that that really depends on the workplace, region and profession.

In many cases it has been proven, in many cases it has not been proven. And most combinations have never been analyzed at all.

I will agree that most likely on average some bias against women still exists. There have been far more case studies that could show discrimination against women than those that could show discrimination against men (which tend to happen only in jobs associated with women).
The problem is that most studies agree that those biases are in general unsconcious. And for any smaller corporations/institutions nearly impossible to see compared to individual differences.

So how could you eve know if something like that existed in your workplace ? How could you ever know if your judgement is correct or if you share such a bias ? The studies tend to also agree that this problem (not seeing female accomplishments) is shared by both genders, so those questions have to be asked everyone.

So, what can be done about that ?

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?

In all workplaces i have been equal treatment in this case was the norm. That is three universities and one corporation.
But all of them not English-preaking, so again this might be cultural.

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.[/quote]I agree with your perception of the use of terms like that.

I have never heard anyone do it in decades of professional work.

That is also true for the later male to male conversations covered later where i also don't share the OPs experience. People use the names for their coworkers. Titles are ommitted, bt last-name basis is nearly as common as first name basis. Those are coworkers, not close friends

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.

"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.

I know this came up a couple of years ago.
When i discussed it with my then girlfiend, she thought it was stupid. When i discussed it with some couples, they thought it was stipid and would not fit their sex life. Personally i don't think it really is a good idea to ask for every step again. A sound "No" should be a better way to handle misunderstandings and spontaniously changed mind. And if fear so say "No" is brought up as an argument that would also be true for fear to not say "Yes".

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.

Agree.

If we can throw people in prison for sitting (severely) drunk behind a driving wheel, i don't see why we should absolve them of consequences for doing stupid things while drunk anywhere else.

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.

My language tends to prefer insults based on feces instead. It took me surprisingly long to get this particular quirk of the English language due to it never being covered in school or any proper English courses.

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?

Schools differ a lot. The school i visited the longest time emphasized hard science for everyone above everything. While we did get twice as many boys as girls, the hobbies that those that were present persued didn't differ in a recognizable way. People were also bullied for being bad at science, not for having the wrong hobby.

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

True.

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.

While seeming plausible, i am not sure the influence of commenting looks of girls on their later life has been proven or quantified. Neither am i sure how much more often girls get praised for looks instead of other achievements.

But the advice is still good if applicable

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.

This particular advice of the original article assumes some kind of deficit i am not really sure actually exists.

"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."

I disagree with the original point here. Why should i take a detour only because someone might be paranoid ? Seems pretty excessive.

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

While again not agreeing with the OP, i find the idea of "teaching" people who are so senile that they need care not particularly promising.

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.

Here i agree with the OP. Having a conversation about something means that it goes in both direction.

And yes, the affected group has burdon of proof of discrimination. If they can't convince the non-affected group that it actually happens or of its size, that is on them.

Appeal to authority (the authority being belonging to the affected group if the phenomenon exists as described) simply doesn't work.

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?

Viewpoint is nothing but anecdotical evidence. If i have to rely on that, i prefer to go with personal experience and experiences of persons i know and trust.

I am inclined to believe peer reviewed studies or hard statistics. Missing that, i am inclined to believe even a white male social scientist more than a nonwhite female nonacademic if it is about stuff going beyond personal experience. Credentials trump race and gender here.

EvilRoy:
I read the original post, but I couldn't get through all of your response, sorry. Its not that I was mad or anything, its just jesus christ there's a lot of text there and I'm only trying to kill a little time.

No worries, I can understand. I'm not the only one who's gone TL;DR, so I'm not offended if you didn't want to read the whole thing.

Have respect for one another, respect professional boundaries - you'll find all this in your employee handbook. Yes you have one, and yes its in there.

Here is where I disagree with you. My employee handbook does NOT say to refer to women by 'full job titles and academic achievements'.
Besides, what the original article advocates for is not summed up as basic respect. It belittles women as somehow being incapable, requiring a man to have her be heard in the workplace. I'd love to see that in an employee handbook.

There's actually standardized training now that includes all this stuff, damned if I can remember what the code for it is.

If so, not at my workplace. I'd actually be frikkin' pissed if it did, since the justification for this training would be an assumption that I and other employees do not treat each other with basic respect, which we do. I wouldn't want to be pulled into a training seminar and told "We're here today to deprogram your negative attitude towards women". I resent being told by people who do not know me that I have this that or the other wrong with me.

The suggestion of following social media of feminists and etc, while coming from the right place, is a little trite and might backfire more than anything. To start, not everybody gives a shit about that kind of social media blogging. Then we have to consider the roughly 100 billion different interpretations and misinterpretations of feminist ideals and you realize the chances of ending up trying to educate yourself from weird ass shit without realizing it.

Yup, which is why the tip falls completely on its face. Just follow feminist writers? Okay! Guess I'll follow Christina Hoff Summers. That and being told that if I feel like the feminist I'm reading is being angry is my male privilege? So male privilege is feeling emotions? Having opinions?
There's something fascinating there to be explored. So if having male privilege means being able to form opinions...then what does that say to the author's attitude towards women? Since women don't have male privilege...they then are unable to form opinions?
I'm not saying that this is exactly what the author thinks, but just pointing out that the author's mode of thinking makes no logical sense. Surely the author would be aghast at my logical implication...but then what leg would she have to stand on to deny it?

If you tell me I gotta do this every time I read a non-feminist (calling it normal feels wrong) writing, even if I go into it with best intentions I'm going to start hating it and hating the people who perpetuate it.

You're not allowed to feel angry, as a male. That's the implication I got from the article. Just read feminists, and squash that feeling of anger inside of yourself.

The idea of boosting is, once again, a nice thought but ultimately it doesn't measure with typical business sense. I'll "boost" the things that will make me and those I associate with look good, boost profits, or please clients. I try to avoid slamming bad ideas just for the sake of morale, but I sure as shit won't decide what to back or not based on gender.

Yup, which is why I find modern feminism and social justice to be asinine. It's a real world example of a systemic violation of the Wizard's Second Rule. Basically, they have all these great and good intentions...but don't think one iota about what their intentions actually result in. There's no analysis of their own ideas, suggestions and tips. The author's thought process probably went like this
"Hmm...women aren't being heard at the workplace. I know! I'll suggest to men to boost their voices, promote their idea!"
and that's it. No analysis on whether it's feasible, workable, what people might think upon hearing this suggestion. Just something that sounds good on its surface, with no further examination.

The sex one. I agree with getting real, serious consent before sex. That said, right after the lights go down and "Go Go Power Rangers" hits the ipod

Gotta be honest, got a good belly laugh out of that one. Just the thought of getting freaky...to the tune of POWER RANGERS of all things.

looking for consistent body language doesn't really work... I've had women ask me to punch them square in the head during sex, and mean it.

Which is why I took exception to the tip. I'm not against the whole concept of checking with one's sexual partner...just the way the author wrote the tip, as if she had all the answers and the rest of us are complete idiots who need this enlightenment, as if we're completely unfamiliar with the concept of consent.

The insult one is kind of weird. The purpose of insults is to hurt, so yeah, people are going to use the whole list when they get in the mood. I'm not trying to defend this, and I get the impression she's talking about casual insults and/or trash talk, but that's all basically covered in the above "bog standard shit".

Not going to say your impression is wrong, just I got a different vibe. I've got a cozy relationship with friends and co-workers, and here comes this article's author saying "Don't use these words like sweety and dearie, and don't use this list of insults". Well...who the heck are you lady to come barging into everyone else's relationships as if what you suggest is objectively true? I get her heart is somewhere in the right place, but as I said before about not really thinking too much about it...

evilthecat:
Okay, so I've dated someone with a serious trauma disorder and I fail to see what is so difficult.

The attitude I get from the author's article is that many, if not most, if not all women (I remember seeing a comment earlier in this thread saying JUST THAT) have had sexual traumas in their past, all with no evidence given.

If your partner honestly did have a trauma, then of course...take care of him/her. Be careful. Did you need that spelled out to you though? Were you completely unaware of the concept of taking care, of seeking consent, of being careful? Was it a foreign concept to your mind, up until these brave feminists strode in giving enlightenment to the unwashed masses?
I'm going to guess...no, to the above questions.

"Enthusaistic consent" means that someone is actively reciprocating. It does not mean that someone has to tell you verbally to continue.

Please re-read the original article, the big long quote box. I'm getting the strong impression that most of the people on this tread criticising myself are portraying the original as saying stuff that it doesn't actually say.
The original article says and I quote

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.

(emphasis mine)
I must say, I do find it strange that I, the non-feminist, am paying more attention to what this woman says...than my critics.

If you're attentive to the person (or people) you're having sex with, it should be pretty obvious whether they seem to be having a fun time.

This would be in disagreement with the original article though. Again, with that continuous verbal permission thing.

[quote="Wrex Brogan" post="528.1024434.24142471"]

...you know, this would've been scathing sarcasm had it not been correct. And 'active user-base'? Making a lot of assumptions here.

...so what I said sarcastically is actually TRUE? There is no active user base discussing socio-political issues?
I get it, the Escapist has gone down hill. I've been on the site for a heck of a lot longer than you have (at least assuming that that is your original account), just nowhere near as active in the forums.

...by reinforcing ideas that they're people to be respected, which does a lot to help combat the social apathy towards victims of sexual assault and abuse?

Sorry, there's still a huge disconnect in my mind. Again, I have to ask...what does suggesting referring to women by 'full job titles and accolades' (quoted from the original article) do towards helping victims of sexual assault? Does it prevent the assault? Does it help in the aftermath?
Does a potential rapist think "Oh, there's Professor Jane Doe, B.A. Forensics, J.D. Better not rape her, she's got all those fancy letters after her name!"?
I've known four women who have told me they were abused and/or raped...and the LAST thing I would do is say "Ok here's what'll help you...being introduced by your full job title and all your degrees".

Like, c'mon, if you're going to do a big song and dance of taking down each and every one of the persons points, the least you could do is wrap your head around the core concept.

It would help if the ideas or tips being given made even the slightest bit of sense!

So there you go. Please help me understand how referring to women by full job titles and academic accolades helps either prevent sexual assaults/rapes, or in the aftermath of such an attack.

They seem like mostly good suggestions in the Op, and also utterly trivial to work into your life if you weren't doing it already.

So of course, it's asking for way too much and we must instead pick apart the precise wording of her suggestions in case we learn something.

RikuoAmero:
The attitude I get from the author's article is that many, if not most, if not all women (I remember seeing a comment earlier in this thread saying JUST THAT) have had sexual traumas in their past, all with no evidence given.

Well, it's kind of true..

Any time you get together with someone female, there's a good chance (about 1/5) that they've been sexually assaulted in the past and it's almost inevitable that they've been sexually harassed. Now, neither of these things necessarily imply that someone will go on to develop a trauma disorder, because trauma is a very complex and individual thing. Many of those women may not even be aware that they have been sexually assaulted, because we grow up in a culture where only a very small range of violent sexual assault (ideally by strangers) are perceived as real or valid.

However, all women also grow up in a culture where it is necessary and healthy to be afraid of men. Most learn, to some degree or another, to be afraid of men. Most women are also heterosexual, so they still want to have sex with men. Some women may even wish to engage in submissive or masochistic behaviour with men, even if they are actually terrified of or living with memories of real violence. The point is, someone should not need to explain to you that they were sexually abused as a child and may become paralysed with fear during sex for you to take the effort to ensure you are not assaulting them. Someone should not need to explain that they may decide at some point that having sex with you wasn't a good idea but may be worried about how you will react if they try to make it stop. These things are inherent to any sexual situation.

Now, of course, you can't know how someone is feeling inside. That's okay, you're not expected to, but you are expected to take reasonable precautions to be able to make an informed decision. That means, if this ends up in court, you need to be able to explain why you thought your partner was giving you consent, not simply that they didn't resist or didn't tell you to stop. This means it is incumbent on you, if you aren't sure, to take steps to find out (which may be as simple as looking at someone or checking they are responsive).

And yes, this applies to all forms of sexual consent. It's not a gendered thing. However, it's more pertinent to women because, again, women are far more likely than men to be unable or frightened to communicate verbally, or to decide that just letting someone finish is just the price they have to pay or is going to go easier on them than making a scene over it. If someone is pretending to enjoy something when they're not, that's fine, you weren't to know. However, again, if someone goes limp or quiet or otherwise seems distressed, you should be paying enough attention to spot that. If someone simply isn't resisting, that doesn't mean they've consented.

RikuoAmero:
I must say, I do find it strange that I, the non-feminist, am paying more attention to what this woman says...than my critics.

You did, of course, miss the word "escalation".

Sexual encounters don't just randomly commence when someone falls on someone else's dick, they start with people normally being fully clothed and in normal situations and then escalate to become increasingly sexual. Since this can be a pretty fraught time in terms of consent (especially with new partners who don't know each other well) it is quite important that people communicate. In practice, that doesn't have to be verbal communication unless you're unsure. However, consent only applies on an act by act basis, you can't assume that because someone is okay with kissing you that they want you to fist them in the butt.

Verbal consent should be the ideal, and should always be the fallback if you're not sure.

Catnip1024:

But going by your defined context, I kind of agree, but still believe that dicks will be dicks. If you don't name and shame them individually, at the time and to their colleagues, there is no incentive for them to stop. If the colleagues weren't even willing to listen to you before, are they any more likely to because something was trending? Doubt it. It doesn't change their opinion of the individuals involved.

The whole trending thing is at least a step towards making their colleagues aware that it's a serious problem. If your whole facebook feed is full of almost every woman you know saying they were assaulted, it'll be enough to make some people pause think that maybe they need to keep their eyes open in the future, and makes them a bit more likely to call shit out when it happens.

Will it make everyone aware there's a problem? No, this thread is proof of that. But if it changes even a few minds and makes even a few people more aware, then it's at least some kind of productive step towards taking action against this shit.

Because right now the only other solutions I've seen are "More capitalism" and "Give girls more tools to succeed and stand up for themselves and the problem takes care of itself! (Which is kinda what's happening now but apparently them pointing out there's a problem is "treating them with kids gloves")". :s

Catnip1024:

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.

We have plenty of research to tell us exactly why many people don't report their sexual assaults (or to an extent even non-sexual assaults) to the police. It's not like there's a shortage of reporting of it in newspapers or magazines, either. And it's nearly all easily available over the internet.

What is therefore most bewildering is how many people manage to not know reasons why it isn't always reported.

* * *

Or, perhaps, just talk to real people, and be sensitive when you do. Probably everyone knows someone who has been severely sexually assaulted or harassed - we don't realise because they often don't want to talk about it. But enough listening, friends, trust and time, eventually you'll hear some experiences.

RikuoAmero:

Wrex Brogan:

...you know, this would've been scathing sarcasm had it not been correct. And 'active user-base'? Making a lot of assumptions here.

...so what I said sarcastically is actually TRUE? There is no active user base discussing socio-political issues?
I get it, the Escapist has gone down hill. I've been on the site for a heck of a lot longer than you have (at least assuming that that is your original account), just nowhere near as active in the forums.

There's like 8 guys and maybe 4 of 'em are taking the piss, so, no, there really isn't. Hell most of this thread has been back-forth between the same people who are in EVERY other politics thread.

...and yes, I'm one of the people taking the piss out of everything. I've been here faaaaar too long to take anything seriously anymore.

...by reinforcing ideas that they're people to be respected, which does a lot to help combat the social apathy towards victims of sexual assault and abuse?

Sorry, there's still a huge disconnect in my mind. Again, I have to ask...what does suggesting referring to women by 'full job titles and accolades' (quoted from the original article) do towards helping victims of sexual assault? Does it prevent the assault? Does it help in the aftermath?
Does a potential rapist think "Oh, there's Professor Jane Doe, B.A. Forensics, J.D. Better not rape her, she's got all those fancy letters after her name!"?
I've known four women who have told me they were abused and/or raped...and the LAST thing I would do is say "Ok here's what'll help you...being introduced by your full job title and all your degrees".

...so you missed the whole 'combat social apathy' thing in that sentence there, yeah? It's almost like there's more to this whole shin-dig than simply comforting the victims, almost like changing how men see women could be of benefit somehow...

Like, c'mon, if you're going to do a big song and dance of taking down each and every one of the persons points, the least you could do is wrap your head around the core concept.

It would help if the ideas or tips being given made even the slightest bit of sense!

So there you go. Please help me understand how referring to women by full job titles and academic accolades helps either prevent sexual assaults/rapes, or in the aftermath of such an attack.

...by reinforcing ideas that they're people to be respected, which does a lot to help combat the social apathy towards victims of sexual assault and abuse? Introducing someone at an academic event by their full academic title (which is what the tip actually was, mind) is pretty basic respect, as far as things go, so kinda weird that you're making such a big fuss about it when it's just a single facet of the whole 'treating women with equality and respect' thing.

And if I have to explain how 'treating women with equality and respect' helps prevent sexual assaults and provides support for the victims then, well...

bastardofmelbourne:
Yeah, looked at the OP and...

...look, basically, this is another opportunity for people to lecture other people about the best way to treat people. Weinstein gets outed, and all of the sudden the Internet is full of women who speak for all women and men who speak for all men. It's the same rigmarole that goes down every time a major public figure is revealed to be an old-timey rapist.

The topic isn't really complicated. Treat women like decent human beings, and treat human beings as other people worth a modicum of respect and attention. Don't be a dick. That's all.

You'd think that would be common sense but apparently common decency is just too much to ask for some people and if we start showing empathy, the evil FEMONISS win.

Agema:
We have plenty of research to tell us exactly why many people don't report their sexual assaults (or to an extent even non-sexual assaults) to the police. It's not like there's a shortage of reporting of it in newspapers or magazines, either. And it's nearly all easily available over the internet.

What is therefore most bewildering is how many people manage to not know reasons why it isn't always reported.

* * *

Or, perhaps, just talk to real people, and be sensitive when you do. Probably everyone knows someone who has been severely sexually assaulted or harassed - we don't realise because they often don't want to talk about it. But enough listening, friends, trust and time, eventually you'll hear some experiences.

Individual cases are kind of understandable. But on this scale, the fact that nobody had the guts to go to the cops. Or the media. Or so on. Some of these actresses were kind of stars already at the time, it's not like they would die if they lost a bit of work.

I'm very much a believer in personal responsibility. And as to your other point, the people I know did go to the police. They did take action. Because that's how you stop the same shit happening to someone else.

aegix drakan:
The whole trending thing is at least a step towards making their colleagues aware that it's a serious problem. If your whole facebook feed is full of almost every woman you know saying they were assaulted, it'll be enough to make some people pause think that maybe they need to keep their eyes open in the future, and makes them a bit more likely to call shit out when it happens.

Will it make everyone aware there's a problem? No, this thread is proof of that. But if it changes even a few minds and makes even a few people more aware, then it's at least some kind of productive step towards taking action against this shit.

Because right now the only other solutions I've seen are "More capitalism" and "Give girls more tools to succeed and stand up for themselves and the problem takes care of itself! (Which is kinda what's happening now but apparently them pointing out there's a problem is "treating them with kids gloves")". :s

See, I get that I don't exactly have the average mindset when it comes to job security and avoiding conflict with management, but the idea that somebody would ignore someone getting handsy with another member of staff when they clearly didn't like it is kind of fucked up anyway. They clearly have no actual inclination to help in the first place.

If they didn't see anything, then it comes back down to he said she said which means nothing will change.

The streets a different issue and largely depends on location. Places with a proper community spirit probably wouldn't put up with that shit. London probably would let it slide because people have no interest in anyone but themselves.

I mean, sure, have your hashtag if you want. But it's a far cry from fixing the issue. People should be bloody-minded enough to kick up a fuss without moral support or backing.

Catnip1024:
Individual cases are kind of understandable. But on this scale, the fact that nobody had the guts to go to the cops. Or the media. Or so on. Some of these actresses were kind of stars already at the time, it's not like they would die if they lost a bit of work.

None were stars at the time. Of course they weren't, because this abuse was leveraged by power. They were early career actresses picked on because they were vulnerable. A powerful Hollywood producer is capable of setting back or destroying careers, not just through denial of access to his/her own productions but through influence over others in the business.

And perhaps you haven't noticed, but plenty of women did report it - at least to his company, if not the police. He's known to have settled a load of cases. His company was told, and said things like "Oh, that's just Harvey". Lots of the people who worked with him obviously knew. He was powerful enough that he could all but silence many of his accusers, or be excused by the system he worked in. That is power in action.

Actually, why the fuck am I even arguing about this.

Okay, I accept you think the victims were selfish cowards interested only greasing the cogs for their next salary cheque. It doesn't matter what humiliation and shame they felt, how powerless they felt, how they thought a "he said she said" would get them nowhere, whether they just wanted to get their ordeal done and out of the way into the past rather than drag out with the risk of more loss and no conviction (Bill Crosby, anyone?), or whether they had a dull acceptance from years of harassment and abuse that that was just the way it was and they had to deal with it. It doesn't matter if they despair at the battalion of media and public commentators who will judge them that they did something to bring it on themselves or are just lying to eke out a payday... probably mostly the same one's who'll barrack them for staying silent if turns out the guy was definitely a rapist.

I accept that in your comfortable world where you don't have to deal with any of that shit yourself or communicate with anyone who can express these things to you, it's a nice and simple abstract moral and intellectual debate point that doesn't need to be dirtied with the messy realities of psychology. I accept you have no need to find and no interest in finding out anything about these things, and it's just easier to believe that the abuses of this world would end if just the victims did the perfectly right thing according to your existing notions of how the world works. And I accept you've find a convenient little sample of people to reinforce your opinions on it all and don't feel the need to expand your horizons.

I just happen to respectfully disagree with just about everything you think on the matter.

And as to your other point, the people I know did go to the police. They did take action. Because that's how you stop the same shit happening to someone else.

Yeah, and I'm guessing the other ones you don't know about saw your attitude to sexual assault victims and declined to tell you.

Well, the thread already devolved into the same crap these discussions usually do, with one side putting forth the sexist ideal that women are somehow less than men and thus need specifically different handling, and the other side pushing for actual solutions that would tackle the problem at the core. Things like "literally change how you behave around them" come off patronizingly sexist. It is more of the usual "blame that gender" crap, albeit a lot less toxic compared to the usual tone that sort of thing comes in. The OP touches on a lot of the issues with the post well enough.

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:

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.

Now this, this I like as a point in this discussion. The idea that sexism is a consequence of a capitalist society. Scarcity, or just the illusion of it, would affect behavior when it comes to consumer goods and we have a long line of examples of companies using it to sell products. To tie back to the nature of the site itself, many video game companies like to use scarcity to help promote sales, with Nintendo being a big example of that. And this idea does touch on how the fear of a coming shortage will also drive sales up. Many large storms make things fly off shelves to prove that. Going back to the notion of sexism and the like, if we apply the idea that the capitalist spirit is part of why sexism for any gender exists, wouldn't the currently dividing pool of potential mates also tie into creating the idea of scarcity in desired mates and thus drive more "sales" there as well?

McMarbles:

bastardofmelbourne:
Yeah, looked at the OP and...

...look, basically, this is another opportunity for people to lecture other people about the best way to treat people. Weinstein gets outed, and all of the sudden the Internet is full of women who speak for all women and men who speak for all men. It's the same rigmarole that goes down every time a major public figure is revealed to be an old-timey rapist.

The topic isn't really complicated. Treat women like decent human beings, and treat human beings as other people worth a modicum of respect and attention. Don't be a dick. That's all.

You'd think that would be common sense but apparently common decency is just too much to ask for some people and if we start showing empathy, the evil FEMONISS win.

Then we have the usual character attacks and insinuations like these...

You know, the suggestions are running counter to the notion that women are not delicate flowers who need to be handled with kiddie gloves in a way that admits one views them as not equal, and are actually just regular human beings the same as every non-woman, and perhaps the people who are calling that aspect of the post out are not the evil monsters you would maliciously demonize them as just because they don't agree with something you do.

Would it be far if you were called sexist and lacking "common decency" for wanting to treat women entirely differently because of their gender? Heck I could point out how your condemnation of those who disagree put you in such lofty company as serial adulterer Joss Whedon and recent benevolent sexist-turned-sexual-harassing-pariah Harvey Weinstein even.

Or maybe, you know, just hold it with the moralizing relative reductionism and snarky character attack potshots?

 Pages PREV 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