#MeToo and a Response to it

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

I guess this can work as a thought experiment or something. As "simple" as it may seem, it is able to provoke some thoughts.

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.

Being a guy with a twisted and dark sense of humor I find "jk" a pretty good evasion of responsibility. There was one time in Overwatch voice chat where I maybe should've said something. The guy was pretty toxic in general, but he was our best carry... Anyway, oftentimes I end up challenging misinformed views, and sometimes those are social issues.

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 women don't get to disengage from.

Nope. Discomfort noted. Didn't make me a better person before.

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").

When reading about these things, I expect multiple points-of-view to be covered (and I mean not just by one person). Sort by Controversial on Reddit etc.

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".

Never encountered this in my life.

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.

Same as 4. I'd expect myself to notice if it ever happened, but I can't really know for sure.

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.

I wish I had the courage to compliment a woman. I've mellowed down from a few years ago when I would just diss people for being idiots. Got some deserved rep as a smug, rude smartass. Nowadays I like to get to the root of things. Or at least try. I have a former classmate who kinda sorta calls or at least called people like this, but it was/is towards everyone, including himself.

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

I doubt I need to make any special effort. Good for me.

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". 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".

Seems very mystifying, but what do I know. I don't get any. I'm not too fond of sexual ethics, but I reckon attentiveness as mentioned here should work fine.

8. Don't use gendered or misogynist insults. Bitch, cunt, slut, pussy, fag, 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.

If I want to insult someone, I like to think I'm not being a role-model. I'm going to hit it where it hurts.

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

Case-by-case basis on this. I don't want to go into the mindset that I have to do a double take on everything to make sure I'm not being
something-ist.

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

Funny enough I haven't encountered this in a while. Sure it was around when I was a tween. Anyway, the kids I interact with have made up their minds by now. My 9-year-old god daughter gets her news and life advice from YouTube vloggers.

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.

No. Any train of thought I get from this ends with no. This stuff seems carnival. I can't genuinely turn my masculinity upside down into femininity (yes, a weird phrase) without making fun of it in the process. I think there are ways to "get in touch" with your feminine side - whatever the hell that means - without making it into opposite-day.

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

The Naked Truth was a good sitcom. That's all I can do for now.

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

I try to be factual.

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.

Haha, no.

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.

I'm much worse in this regard than my elders because I'm smarter. I will challenge their bullshit. My grandpa is quite pervy indeed, and I do think his line between what's appropriate and what's not (and when and where) is slowly eroding, and I'm glad he gets called out too (at the dinner table for example *facepalm*).

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

New arguments are hard to come by nowadays. Anyway, instead of dismissing I usually just stay out of it. I don't really run into this shit in my life. Internet doesn't count; no doubt you can find heavy stuff, but it's too detached, too "out there".

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.

I'm very comfortable dropping my two cents in almost all discussions. There are times I've got dumpstered - sometimes fairly and sometimes unfairly. Sometimes shutting up would've been the better option, but otherwise I wouldn't have learned my lesson. So, in a way it could be preferable to instead *get* uncomfortable and then just sit it out, as you can't positively know if people around you will make you regret your words. I'm ready to move past issues that pop up in discussions, but others might hold grudges.

Agema:
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.

1) Not asking for your agreement.

2) Yes, he only targeted early career actresses, like an international Bollywood star. Like Gwyneth Paltrow, who confided in Brad Pitt, who at the time was still a fricking star. Reading on it, only one victim - Gutierrez - seems to have gone to the police, as opposed to his management company. You know, the company run by him and his brother.

3) Don't misrepresent my argument.

4) If I see shit that ain't right, I fucking do something about it. Hollywood had its culture of "Oh, that's Harvey". They're all a bunch of pricks who allowed it to happen.

erttheking:
snip

I still have a lot to say on this but I feel like the discussion won't go anywhere if we keep it here. Its hard to talk about all of this without seriously examining the systems we live in in real detail and that would make for a truly fuck huge post. Then one guy finds some point he doesn't understand or disagrees with and everything following it is null.

So heres my alternative: if you like, lets talk about this on Discord sometime and maybe we can understand each other better. The conversation can flow and misunderstandings can be avoided. Plus we can both call each other idiots when we find some real impasse without dodging around the forum rules as we've been doing until now. Before you get the idea, I'm not asking you to like me - just for a proper discussion.

runic knight:
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.

[quote="RiseOfTheWhiteWolf" post="528.1024434.24142254"]
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?

I'd have to think about that. My line of thinking was more concerning the points about how women are treated in the workspace - addressed with belittling terms and what not. I don't think this has anything to do with sexism - thats a very ill thought out conclusion. The workspace is often an ultra-competitive environment (incidentally, we're hammering that idea into kids earlier and earlier). In these environments we use whatever methods we can to claw our way up over others. Men do it to men, to women, women do it to men and each other, etc. Belittling terms and the likes are just a tool in the fight.

You can expand that to society as a whole, we place competition very highly.

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:
Snip

I certainly see where you're coming from on the block o text front. It IS a bloated mess when you get into things. I'll...think about it.

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:

I'd have to think about that. My line of thinking was more concerning the points about how women are treated in the workspace - addressed with belittling terms and what not. I don't think this has anything to do with sexism - thats a very ill thought out conclusion. The workspace is often an ultra-competitive environment (incidentally, we're hammering that idea into kids earlier and earlier). In these environments we use whatever methods we can to claw our way up over others. Men do it to men, to women, women do it to men and each other, etc. Belittling terms and the likes are just a tool in the fight.

You can expand that to society as a whole, we place competition very highly.

Hmm, I see. I suppose that isn't a bad point to make either. As another poster here mentioned, if they were going to insult someone, they were going to go for the throat to be most effective at it, so the idea of the competition creating the atmosphere where people will try to leverage whatever they can does make sense. The decline of integrity in the pursuit of success in a highly competitive environment would be expected, and with it things like belittling people along whatever points of identity they have, be it gender, political lean, or even job classification itself.

Wouldn't that, not then, make the whole modern feminism and identity politics simply an effort to do the same, only as a more collectivist effect by some women trying to leverage their gender and denigrate men for their own success? Hmm, would explain the rise of opportunists who use identity politics for self gain I suppose.

Catnip1024:
Yes, he only targeted early career actresses, like an international Bollywood star. Like Gwyneth Paltrow, who confided in Brad Pitt, who at the time was still a fricking star.

Yeah. The entire annual box office of the whole of Bollywood is less than one, decent Hollywood blockbuster*. Being an "international Bollywood star" makes you a whole heap of nobody at all in Hollywood. And if you haven't been paying attention to the news recently, you should see the shit that Bollywood producers can get away with against Bollywood actresses - it goes all the way to murder.

What's was Brad Pitt going to do about it? Why didn't he do anything about it? What's this telling us?

4) If I see shit that ain't right, I fucking do something about it. Hollywood had its culture of "Oh, that's Harvey". They're all a bunch of pricks who allowed it to happen.

Yeah, they all allowed it to happen - but mostly according to you, the victims allowed it to happen.

What I'm mostly getting is that when you see shit that ain't right, you leap straight to judgement before looking at what might be going on.

*: Correction: the Indian national box office is less than one Hollywood blockbuster. The total value of Bollywood is worth about 3 Hollywood blockbusters.

runic knight:
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.

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

...Are... are you sure you want to put these two lines of thought in the same post?

*sigh*

Just, c'mon, you can be better than this. Just not going out of your way to be like this would be a start.

Also:

Catnip1024:
4) If I see shit that ain't right, I fucking do something about it.

That's very easy to say about a situation you aren't actually in, especially one you know you won't ever be in.

In any case, assuming for sake of argument that it's "wrong" of victims not to act a certain way, there's plenty of reasons why someone would make that "mistake", and we see it happening all the time.

Thaluikhain:
*sigh*

Just, c'mon, you can be better than this. Just not going out of your way to be like this would be a start.

Also:

Catnip1024:
4) If I see shit that ain't right, I fucking do something about it.

That's very easy to say about a situation you aren't actually in, especially one you know you won't ever be in.

In any case, assuming for sake of argument that it's "wrong" of victims not to act a certain way, there's plenty of reasons why someone would make that "mistake", and we see it happening all the time.

You misread things. That point was referring to the action of a bystander observing these things. That was not referring to the victims at all.

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:

I still have a lot to say on this but I feel like the discussion won't go anywhere if we keep it here. Its hard to talk about all of this without seriously examining the systems we live in in real detail and that would make for a truly fuck huge post. Then one guy finds some point he doesn't understand or disagrees with and everything following it is null.

Think of the thread! We need more posts that don't fall in line with the usual course of events.

Hey look, another thread about women experiencing sexual harassment that proves why sexual harassment is still a problem in society.

PoundMeToo probably wasn't the best name for sexual assault awareness...

Wrex Brogan:

runic knight:
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.

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?

...Are... are you sure you want to put these two lines of thought in the same post?

Yes Wrex, because unlike statements like "they are not a decent human being", mine is not meant as a moral judgement because of their positon of disagreement, but rather a statement of fact based on the definition. The post quoted in the OP promotes the idea of treating women differently because of their gender. When you encourage the treatment of someone different based entirely on their gender, that is sexism. It doesn't make it not so when it is benevolently done, as it is still based on the idea that women as a gender are a different class of society that needs to be treated different.

What would you call treating someone differently based on their gender, Wrex? Do you think women should be treated differently because of their gender like the OP posts says?

Now, I sure do have opinions about such behavior myself, but do note I am not reducing it to the point that disagreement with me itself is considered morally wrong, which is what my complaint was directed at. You know, the idea that was said that not agreeing with the post quoted in the OP means you aren't a decent person? That thing I was quoting that made it blatantly obvious the sort of argument I was calling out.

I am not saying that you willfully supporting sexist behavior makes you not a decent human being. Now, the actions and tactics you use in the name of that belief, and the underlying motivation behind such behavior, benevolent in form of the sexism or not, would certainly affect my judgement of you there. Got to remember, those Weinstein and Wheton examples I used that show how "benevolent" sexism can still be for horrible motivation. But again, none of that is reducing things to disagreement itself being the factor of morality as I can certainly disagree with someone while still seeing earnest intention in their reasoning even if I disagree and not thing of them as not decent people.

Oh, and I fixed your quotes there Wrex so you actually got the full point I was making there instead of the little snipit you wanted for that would-be gotcha post. You know, that part of my reply where I point out the dishonest behavior like character attacks and insinuations and reiterated my point about those trying to treat women differently because of their specifically gender may be opposed in their position not because those opposing them are not decent people, but because they are decent people opposing the sexism they see.

Wouldn't want people getting a misrepresented view of my actual point and stance there. And we wouldn't want people to assume that you were one of those types who intentionally resort to dishonest behavior like misrepresenting people's words for the sake of character attacks and insinuations, now would we?

Agema:
Yeah, they all allowed it to happen - but mostly according to you, the victims allowed it to happen.

What I'm mostly getting is that when you see shit that ain't right, you leap straight to judgement before looking at what might be going on.

Not at all. I believe in a no blame culture. The system got to the point where this was allowed to happen, and it is the system that needs fixing. Whether that be Hollywood management companies or how we bring up kids.

The whole point of this campaign is to raise awareness, to give victims confidence to speak and to encourage observers to intervene. And... you're having a go at me for having an intervening mentality? Sort your argument out...

erttheking:

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:
Snip

I certainly see where you're coming from on the block o text front. It IS a bloated mess when you get into things. I'll...think about it.

Well just PM me or something when you've made up your mind. I'm quite busy at the moment but we'd surely find some time which suits both of us.

runic knight:
Hmm, I see. I suppose that isn't a bad point to make either. As another poster here mentioned, if they were going to insult someone, they were going to go for the throat to be most effective at it, so the idea of the competition creating the atmosphere where people will try to leverage whatever they can does make sense. The decline of integrity in the pursuit of success in a highly competitive environment would be expected, and with it things like belittling people along whatever points of identity they have, be it gender, political lean, or even job classification itself.

Wouldn't that, not then, make the whole modern feminism and identity politics simply an effort to do the same, only as a more collectivist effect by some women trying to leverage their gender and denigrate men for their own success? Hmm, would explain the rise of opportunists who use identity politics for self gain I suppose.

Thats my line of thinking, yes. Often I get the impression that we (meaning the modern left) don't really oppose oppression, probably because on some level we know that in the big picture we are the oppressors and benefit from that in our everyday lives. And I get it because tackling this kind of global inequality and violence is very hard and scary, mostly because of how radically it would impact our own societies. Even this guilt trip we're driving (which on a side note disgusts me and seems deeply unproductive) might be an easy way out - I know whats wrong, I know a sudden violent (violent in the broadest sense of the word, not talking about riots or whatever here) is needed, but I'm scared and don't want it, so I'll just carry on the same and hope its alright if I feel really really sorry for it. That is admittedly just speculation though. More important than the why is just to recognize that the methods in the OP are a poor way to tackle whatever grief women are facing.

To paint a picture; if you would visualize oppression as a boot stamping down on a group of people we're not really in the process of lifting that boot. We're just painting it different colours and making it smell better.

McElroy:
Think of the thread! We need more posts that don't fall in line with the usual course of events.

I'll still post, just offer proper conversations when things get more complicated or detailed. Forums are just a poor way to lead the kind of conversation Ertheking and I were having for example. For a start you can just exchange information and ideas more quickly over voice.

Not that I'm planning to talk to every single member of this forum on Discord or something but I bet a lot of people here would have a better impression of me if we were talking there and not in R&P. And I'd probably have a better impression of them too, tbh.

Sorry for breaking this up in advance, you just put so many words on the page that I gotta address, you know?

runic knight:

Wrex Brogan:

runic knight:
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.

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?

...Are... are you sure you want to put these two lines of thought in the same post?

Yes Wrex, because unlike statements like "they are not a decent human being", mine is not meant as a moral judgement because of their positon of disagreement, but rather a statement of fact based on the definition. The post quoted in the OP promotes the idea of treating women differently because of their gender. When you encourage the treatment of someone different based entirely on their gender, that is sexism. It doesn't make it not so when it is benevolently done, as it is still based on the idea that women as a gender are a different class of society that needs to be treated different.

......

What would you call treating someone differently based on their gender, Wrex? Do you think women should be treated differently because of their gender like the OP posts says?

Well when you put it like that, completely and utterly stripped of it's context and nuance, then you know, you are right, it is pretty sexist. But then there's the context and nuance and... whoops.

But hey, if wanting men to treat women equally and respectfully makes people the true sexists in this situation, then... well, you've got a HELL of a hill to fight up on that one.

EDIT: Apologies for the more... aggressive tone here, but I was short on time and bemused at the rather lengthy response to my singular sentence.

Now, I sure do have opinions about such behavior myself, but do note I am not reducing it to the point that disagreement with me itself is considered morally wrong, which is what my complaint was directed at. You know, the idea that was said that not agreeing with the post quoted in the OP means you aren't a decent person? That thing I was quoting that made it blatantly obvious the sort of argument I was calling out.

I am not saying that you willfully supporting sexist behavior makes you not a decent human being. Now, the actions and tactics you use in the name of that belief, and the underlying motivation behind such behavior, benevolent in form of the sexism or not, would certainly affect my judgement of you there. Got to remember, those Weinstein and Wheton examples I used that show how "benevolent" sexism can still be for horrible motivation. But again, none of that is reducing things to disagreement itself being the factor of morality as I can certainly disagree with someone while still seeing earnest intention in their reasoning even if I disagree and not thing of them as not decent people.

...what a fascinatingly sterile approach to the approach of basic human decency. Like, that's literally what the person OP is quoting is asking for, to treat women with equality, which I would argue does constitute a deficit in decency if you fail to do so, because, hey, being a disrespectful cunt who doesn't treat people equally isn't really going to earn you the 5/10 on the 'not shit' scale, and yet twisted enough, cut away enough of the context and suddenly it's asking for 'benevolent sexism' that shows that they're really the sexists, since they're asking you to treat women differently. It's a very... reductive approach.

But, anyway, you seemed to have missed the part I'd bolded that was what I was calling you on - you specifically note that the thread has 'gone to shit' (as usual) and that the comments are now split into two sides - those making arguments that would actually help 'deal' with the situation, and, as I quote, 'with one side putting forth the sexist ideal that women are somehow less than men and thus need specifically different handling'. My, how reductive, and one that does give an implicit moralization, by reducing the varied opinions in this thread down to two sides, positioning yourself in such a way that, maybe you don't necessarily disagree with both sides, but you certainly disapprove of the conduct of one of them.

Now, maybe that implicit judgement wasn't your intentions, which I understand, but honestly, when you start making such sweeping generalizations like splitting the comments section into 'sides', you're just asking for trouble when you go on further to call out people for their own moral reductivism.

Oh, and I fixed your quotes there Wrex so you actually got the full point I was making there instead of the little snipit you wanted for that would-be gotcha post. You know, that part of my reply where I point out the dishonest behavior like character attacks and insinuations and reiterated my point about those trying to treat women differently because of their specifically gender may be opposed in their position not because those opposing them are not decent people, but because they are decent people opposing the sexism they see.

Wouldn't want people getting a misrepresented view of my actual point and stance there. And we wouldn't want people to assume that you were one of those types who intentionally resort to dishonest behavior like misrepresenting people's words for the sake of character attacks and insinuations, now would we?

My, Runic, is that... snark? I thought you were above that, given your judgements against petty character attacks and snarky dismissals! Also disappointingly assumptive, since you're A) assuming I snipped your post out of misunderstanding as opposed to brevity, and B) assumed my motives were that of a 'Gotcha' post.

In all honesty, if it was a gotcha post, I would've included a picture or some snark, my intentions were to just point out the disconnect between the two parts of that post, one where you made a judgement against everyone in the thread, and then... one where you called someone out for reducing everyone they were disagreeing with as not decent, going so far as to insinuate they bared similarities to Weinstein and Whedon.

Like, I mean, you write a lot of words in your posts here mate, you're gonna have some fuck ups sometimes because of that.

Yeah uh.... some people are bad, some people are successful. Sometimes bad people are successful. I don't really know if that's ever going to change.

Bad things sometimes happen to people....
I am going to sound like a huge douchebag in this community, but I really don't feel like putting in all the effort to combat every bad thing in society. As far as I'm concerned, if I personally don't mistreat women, my part is done. I've got videogames to play, love to make, and money to spend.

I'm willing to go out of my way to support and provide council to the women I personally care for. But anyone who thinks I should be intentionally drawing drama my way for the sake of strangers has another thing coming.

Extreme examples occurring in my presence being the exception, I have placed myself between the meek and the abusive a few times, but if I were a smaller less imposing man, that might not be the case.

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

So what issue is this stopping us from addressing?

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.

Empathy is for special snowflakes, Beta males, cucks, and libtards, haven't you been paying attention?

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:

runic knight:
Hmm, I see. I suppose that isn't a bad point to make either. As another poster here mentioned, if they were going to insult someone, they were going to go for the throat to be most effective at it, so the idea of the competition creating the atmosphere where people will try to leverage whatever they can does make sense. The decline of integrity in the pursuit of success in a highly competitive environment would be expected, and with it things like belittling people along whatever points of identity they have, be it gender, political lean, or even job classification itself.

Wouldn't that, not then, make the whole modern feminism and identity politics simply an effort to do the same, only as a more collectivist effect by some women trying to leverage their gender and denigrate men for their own success? Hmm, would explain the rise of opportunists who use identity politics for self gain I suppose.

Thats my line of thinking, yes. Often I get the impression that we (meaning the modern left) don't really oppose oppression, probably because on some level we know that in the big picture we are the oppressors and benefit from that in our everyday lives. And I get it because tackling this kind of global inequality and violence is very hard and scary, mostly because of how radically it would impact our own societies. Even this guilt trip we're driving (which on a side note disgusts me and seems deeply unproductive) might be an easy way out - I know whats wrong, I know a sudden violent (violent in the broadest sense of the word, not talking about riots or whatever here) is needed, but I'm scared and don't want it, so I'll just carry on the same and hope its alright if I feel really really sorry for it. That is admittedly just speculation though. More important than the why is just to recognize that the methods in the OP are a poor way to tackle whatever grief women are facing.

To paint a picture; if you would visualize oppression as a boot stamping down on a group of people we're not really in the process of lifting that boot. We're just painting it different colours and making it smell better.

Superficial efforts to satisfy emotional needs of the radical left rather than addressing the core underlying problems and facing ugly truths and hard choices. Sounds about right. Politicians want easy answers to convince people to vote for them, so making boogieman that all people have to do is condemn to be good people rather than actually solving problems is expected. That opportunists and charlatans latch on for personal gain is expected too. Same thing happens on the radical right.

I do have to say that I don't agree that people have any reason to be guilty for the actions of others they have no control over, be it their ancestors, their government, or their race. Personal responsibility ends at the individual and attempts to claim beyond that is ridiculous. It is the idea of if someone benefits from another's crime unknowingly, are they responsible for it? The answer is no, though they are responsible for not encouraging and promoting it when their benefiting from it is revealed. Whole problem with the idea of the sins of the father type thing.

Honestly, the modern progressive left has shifted from satisfying some weird sense of personal guilt derived from the fact they aren't oppressed like the non-western world is, into using that sense of guilt to claim an elevated position and leverage moral claims onto those who don't feel it. The bizarre notion that if they condemn rich white people, it doesn't matter that they are rich white people who commit the crimes themselves, because they can be absolved for the crimes by throwing themselves on the cross, and not have to change their ways. The result is akin to the "sunday christian" idea of a sinner confessing on sunday so they personally feel better about thesmelves, then going back to sinning while condemning all who disagree with them to hell. Little surprise you see the hypocrisy of the left in the countless abusers being revealed later despite their words being so supportive of women and minorities. It became the new closet gay ultra-conservative in that regard.

Wrex Brogan:
Sorry for breaking this up in advance, you just put so many words on the page that I gotta address, you know?

Oh I don't mind breaking it up, just when large important swaths of my point get removed entirely for the sake of attempted snide commentary. I usually break posts up myself to address specific points, so I find it is very useful. I do try to keep all but the most irrelevant parts of it though.

Yes Wrex, because unlike statements like "they are not a decent human being", mine is not meant as a moral judgement because of their positon of disagreement, but rather a statement of fact based on the definition. The post quoted in the OP promotes the idea of treating women differently because of their gender. When you encourage the treatment of someone different based entirely on their gender, that is sexism. It doesn't make it not so when it is benevolently done, as it is still based on the idea that women as a gender are a different class of society that needs to be treated different.

......

What would you call treating someone differently based on their gender, Wrex? Do you think women should be treated differently because of their gender like the OP posts says?

Well when you put it like that, completely and utterly stripped of it's context and nuance, then you know, you are right, it is pretty sexist.

No, it is just definably sexist. There is no scale, it is simply a binary statement. See, I think that's part of the issue, you see the description "this is sexist" and mentally jump to idea it is moralizing in saying it is good or bad, and that it is based on some sort of scaling effect where something can be more or less sexist. My intent here was one of a binary state. It meets the definition, and thus is defined as such. There is no "pretty" sexist as a relative notion that can vary compared to other things, which in turn would also tie to your notion of morality based on less sexist = more moral. My point was that it simply was sexist separate of a moral ruling about it being sexist. I tied my moral judgement to the methods and tactics used in the argument instead.

But then there's the context and nuance and...

And you ignore my point in doing so to substitute the point I made for one based on a sliding scale, thus ignoring it entirely in using a definition itself.

Also, it seems like you are trying to argue that context and nuance affect the binary statement I was making, without providing the context or nuance to make that case. I am more than happy to look at it more closely to determine if it is somehow not sexist to treat women differently, but it is probably going to be a hard sell there.

But hey, if wanting men to treat women equally and respectfully makes people the true sexists in this situation, then... well, you've got a HELL of a hill to fight up on that one.

I want to treat women equally Wrex. That is why I do not like the quote in the OP, as they want to treat women differently specifically because they are women. And that is why I called it sexist, because it is, as you even admit above.

What the OP quoted does not want to treat women equally. That is why it is defined as sexist.

If you wish to argue that the sexist behavior encouraged in the quote is moral, that is fine, but that is a separate thing than if it is sexist.

EDIT: Apologies for the more... aggressive tone here, but I was short on time and bemused at the rather lengthy response to my singular sentence.

I take my time explaining things. Even a single sentence can be worthy of deep discussion, especially as an example to be dissected and addressed.

Now, I sure do have opinions about such behavior myself, but do note I am not reducing it to the point that disagreement with me itself is considered morally wrong, which is what my complaint was directed at. You know, the idea that was said that not agreeing with the post quoted in the OP means you aren't a decent person? That thing I was quoting that made it blatantly obvious the sort of argument I was calling out.

I am not saying that you willfully supporting sexist behavior makes you not a decent human being. Now, the actions and tactics you use in the name of that belief, and the underlying motivation behind such behavior, benevolent in form of the sexism or not, would certainly affect my judgement of you there. Got to remember, those Weinstein and Wheton examples I used that show how "benevolent" sexism can still be for horrible motivation. But again, none of that is reducing things to disagreement itself being the factor of morality as I can certainly disagree with someone while still seeing earnest intention in their reasoning even if I disagree and not thing of them as not decent people.

...what a fascinatingly sterile approach to the approach of basic human decency.

Not really sterile.

I don't think someone disagreeing with me about the quote in the OP makes them not decent human beings. I instead look at how they act and behave in the name of their belief, and what their motivation and support of that belief is to make my judgements.

It is not a sterile examination, just not a tribalism-driven one. Someone's opinion on an issue doesn't make them a good or bad person, how they behave and respond does. One's actions determine's one's character, and the actions done in the name of a belief reveal more about someone's character than simply the belief itself.

Like, that's literally what the person OP is quoting is asking for, to treat women with equality

That is false.

The person the OP quoted is not asking for equality. They are asking for specific behavior towards women that is different from behavior towards men.

The OP themselves seems to oppose that, so I have no qualms with them, just the person they quoted who made suggestions toward men on how to behave toward women.

which I would argue does constitute a deficit in decency if you fail to do so, because, hey, being a disrespectful cunt who doesn't treat people equally isn't really going to earn you the 5/10 on the 'not shit' scale, and yet twisted enough, cut away enough of the context and suddenly it's asking for 'benevolent sexism' that shows that they're really the sexists, since they're asking you to treat women differently. It's a very... reductive approach.

Again, that is false.

They are asking for women to be treated differently, given special consideration, and judged, aided, supported, and behaved around based on their gender.

That is not treating them equally.

You are arguing that treating women differently as the person quoted suggests is a good thing.

You seem like you are arguing that sexism is a good thing here and are claiming that not being sexist (not supporting treating women differently based on heir gender) makes you not a decent person.

There is two aspects here.

Do you want to treat women equally?

and

Is it more moral to treat a woman unequally as the quote proposes?

But, anyway, you seemed to have missed the part I'd bolded that was what I was calling you on - you specifically note that the thread has 'gone to shit' (as usual) and that the comments are now split into two sides - those making arguments that would actually help 'deal' with the situation, and, as I quote, 'with one side putting forth the sexist ideal that women are somehow less than men and thus need specifically different handling'. My, how reductive, and one that does give an implicit moralization, by reducing the varied opinions in this thread down to two sides, positioning yourself in such a way that, maybe you don't necessarily disagree with both sides, but you certainly disapprove of the conduct of one of them.

Now, maybe that implicit judgement wasn't your intentions, which I understand, but honestly, when you start making such sweeping generalizations like splitting the comments section into 'sides', you're just asking for trouble when you go on further to call out people for their own moral reductivism.

I am not reducing the judgment of morality based on disagreement, which was the point of my using that term in response to someone who was making such a moral claim with regard to being a decent human being. Disagreeing with my opinion is not the criteria of a decent human being. Pointing out a trend among the posters where one group of them is supporting treating women differently because they are women and the other opposes that notion and instead seems to want to address the core problem is also not making a moral statement about them because of their opinion on the issue (isn't making one at all at the surface, but I'll grant that the tone is disapproving of the group supporting the benevolent sexist stance, though not because of that stance itself)

Furthermore, your own personal moralizing about sexism being good when done benevolently as the person quoted by the OP supports are irrelevant. I am sorry you see my statement as moralizing against those being sexist in calling for treating women differently, that was not source of my disapproval.

That source in my post was the lack of actually addressing the problem, with the supported sexist behavior of treating women differently being condemned only because it distracted and avoided actually solving the problem and was part of, as I said in that reply, devolving the discussion.

Think of it like this. If you are scratching your ass beside a burning building and I say "one side is scratching their ass, and the other side is actually trying to put the fire out", my problem is not with the fact you are scratching your ass. I am not moralizing your scratching of your ass. I am disapproving that you do it instead of actually trying to put the fire out. My moralizing extends as far as "you aren't helping fix this" or perhaps "you are actively harming attempts to fix this".

You follow?

Compare that to the "if you don't agree you are not a decent person" which I called out for moral reductionism.

Oh, and I fixed your quotes there Wrex so you actually got the full point I was making there instead of the little snipit you wanted for that would-be gotcha post. You know, that part of my reply where I point out the dishonest behavior like character attacks and insinuations and reiterated my point about those trying to treat women differently because of their specifically gender may be opposed in their position not because those opposing them are not decent people, but because they are decent people opposing the sexism they see.

Wouldn't want people getting a misrepresented view of my actual point and stance there. And we wouldn't want people to assume that you were one of those types who intentionally resort to dishonest behavior like misrepresenting people's words for the sake of character attacks and insinuations, now would we?

My, Runic, is that... snark? I thought you were above that, given your judgements against petty character attacks and snarky dismissals! Also disappointingly assumptive, since you're A) assuming I snipped your post out of misunderstanding as opposed to brevity, and B) assumed my motives were that of a 'Gotcha' post.

If you thought I was incapable of snark, I honestly don't know where you got that idea. Though I am less likely to sprinkle it in amid the points and arguments than some, I will still do so. Snark for the sake of itself is simply worthless though, and less than worthless when used in place of or in excuse for arguments and points. Perhaps that was the confusion, the large amount of times I have to call out when there is nothing but snark in a reply and it is nothing more than an ad hom instead of just a playful barbed comment amid an actual point. I suppose having to play school teacher and remind folks that snark is not a substitute for an actual argument does force me to be a lot more humorless than I would like. Snark is a sometimes food, like cookies. Some people just like to gorge on cookies.

also
A) I assumed you snipped it with intention, not out of misunderstanding.
B) I assume your motives based on what is presented, and what was missing.

But in fairness, I will readily admit those are assumptions that are pretty irrelevant to the overall. It is certainly not kind toward you though, and since you did seem to want to pull back from the aggressive tone, I will try as well.

In all honesty, if it was a gotcha post, I would've included a picture or some snark, my intentions were to just point out the disconnect between the two parts of that post, one where you made a judgement against everyone in the thread, and then... one where you called someone out for reducing everyone they were disagreeing with as not decent, going so far as to insinuate they bared similarities to Weinstein and Whedon.

Like, I mean, you write a lot of words in your posts here mate, you're gonna have some fuck ups sometimes because of that.

My complaint was toward the devolving itself of these sorts of threads between the posters that support the notion of sexism in the name of benevolence being good because it supports women to treat them differently (several doing so while morally condemning those who disagree no less), and those who disagree with that idea who have been arguing the topic closer toward the core problems and toward actual solutions to the core problems. This was not limited to this thread, but the usual trend itself for threads on this topic.

My judgement was towards those using disagreement on the thread as a means to determine if someone is a decent person or not, judging them based entirely on if they agree and reducing the moral complexity of the issue into a single question of "do you agree with me" as if they were arbiters of human decency.

I get the idea you are trying to get across. But you are mistaken in the comparison.

On one side, you have me complaining about the usual devolving nature of these threads into sides because of the trend of specific posters.

On the other you have me calling out someone saying that disagreeing with them means they aren't decent human beings.

"Kyriarchy"? Bollocks, I say, unable to avoid the pointed paronomasia. You don't have to be an adherent of this Xenu cult to understand how power works, and it will even distort your possibly otherwise sound judgment if you are. And just what about all those Male Feminist Allies turning out to be habitually abusive to the point of criminality calls for MOAR Male Feminist Allies?

If "we need" some cultural change, it should be more along the lines of curbing all the rampant misandry. Assign some positive value to masculinity, so it won't just be a slight matter of degree to men whether they act like decent people or Harvey W. Clearly there's an element of "might as well shoot the sheriff if I'm gonna hang for stealing a horse" to all these self-loathing guys who have internalized the doctrine of inherent male villainy. And obviously some comfort in making the Correct noises at least, despite all those "regrettable incidents". Used to be there was an ideal of gentlemanly behavior that extended to private actions instead, but Progress happened.

Yeah, obviously there would be more to say and this is a kind of a kneejerk, drive-by post. But I have to tend to a medical matter right now, so no can elaborate.

I've followed the issue and I can't help but feel little to no empathy for Weinstein's "victims". Don't get me wrong, Weinstein is clearly a dick who used his status and wealth unethically and he deserves the shaming he currently faces. BUT as far as I know all these actresses and actors who were victims and/or didn't speak out didn't do so because their life was at risk. No it was because their ludicrous wealth and fame was. And I'm sorry but I won't feel sorry for people who are willing to physically and/or morally prostitute themselves for massive wealth and fame. I don't earn millions a year nor am I famous yet I live a perfectly good and happy life so clearly these people didn't need to whore themselves to Weinstein. We're not talking about poor people risking to end up on the street and being forced to fuck to get the only job potentially available to them. No we're talking about people who were willing to throw away their moral and physical integrity to become a member of an arrogant elite club.

Now on the general discussion that has come out of this, it sickens me how some high profile people are using this as an excuse to make insane generalities. Just yesterday I had to hear Trevor Noah tell us that it isn't a "Hollywood" problem but a "Men" problem. Well if he treats women like that maybe he should confess but I ain't nor is anyone in my department, my circle of friends, etc. So no it's not a Men's problem. It's a problem among some men who hold power and decide it's ok to use it unethically. And I'm willing to bet that some women with power do that too. Yes sexual harassment and abuse of power on the workplace is still a problem and it has to be fought. But it's not by making stupid generalizations that we will solve this.

generals3:
I've followed the issue and I can't help but feel little to no empathy for Weinstein's "victims". Don't get me wrong, Weinstein is clearly a dick who used his status and wealth unethically and he deserves the shaming he currently faces. BUT as far as I know all these actresses and actors who were victims and/or didn't speak out didn't do so because their life was at risk. No it was because their ludicrous wealth and fame was. And I'm sorry but I won't feel sorry for people who are willing to physically and/or morally prostitute themselves for massive wealth and fame. I don't earn millions a year nor am I famous yet I live a perfectly good and happy life so clearly these people didn't need to whore themselves to Weinstein. We're not talking about poor people risking to end up on the street and being forced to fuck to get the only job potentially available to them. No we're talking about people who were willing to throw away their moral and physical integrity to become a member of an arrogant elite club.

But it's not by making stupid generalizations that we will solve this.

Hmm, yes, I see. We wouldn't want to make stupid generalizations.

The powerful never have the backing of powerful organizations which could render even attempts at criminal charges useless.

Better they all risk throwing away their dreams and careers so some chodes on the Internet and prominent right-wing pundits can call them hysterical feminazis for complaining about some aggressive flirting.

God forbid we generalize about men. Everybody else is fair game.

EDIT: Like, I like my job. Remember donglegate? Or whatever we ended up calling that thing? Where a gal at a convention tweets about a dude making a penis joke, a kerfluffle happens, and they both get tired? Except, the dude finds a job a few weeks later while the gal gets doxed, death threats, stalkers, the whole, disturbingly expected, nine yards, not getting employed again for a year?

Yeah. Not hard to see why people are willing to let a bunch of shit slide. The first person over the top gets shot.

altnameJag:
Hmm, yes, I see. We wouldn't want to make stupid generalizations.

Indeed, making a generalization about a small select group of people who belong to a certain class, environment (etc.) is clearly much less stupid than generalizing 3.5 Billion people. Wouldn't you agree?

The powerful never have the backing of powerful organizations which could render even attempts at criminal charges useless.

Better they all risk throwing away their dreams and careers so some chodes on the Internet and prominent right-wing pundits can call them hysterical feminazis for complaining about some aggressive flirting.

God forbid we generalize about men. Everybody else is fair game.

How is the military relevant here? Or Bill cosby? Or O'Reilly? Was I referring to those people or cases? No. I was referring to actors and actresses who surrendered their own dignity in order to stay on the good side of someone (Weinstein) who could either make them millionaires or doom those poor victims to a mediocre middle class life. (And even so, who knows it was more bluff than anything else)

Do these powerful people often have a lot of backing? Sure. But clearly not enough to be untouchable otherwise this thread wouldn't exist. "The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing". And that's what happened, except "good" should be replaced by "money and fame hungry". They wanted wealth and fame and they got it, and now they complain that they got a bad deal, shouldn't have accepted that deal than. And let's not forget that by abiding to his demands and/or not bringing his behavior to light they reinforced his feeling of invincibility and encouraged his behavior.

generals3:

altnameJag:
Hmm, yes, I see. We wouldn't want to make stupid generalizations.

Indeed, making a generalization about a small select group of people who belong to a certain class, environment (etc.) is clearly much less stupid than generalizing 3.5 Billion people. Wouldn't you agree?

The powerful never have the backing of powerful organizations which could render even attempts at criminal charges useless.

Better they all risk throwing away their dreams and careers so some chodes on the Internet and prominent right-wing pundits can call them hysterical feminazis for complaining about some aggressive flirting.

God forbid we generalize about men. Everybody else is fair game.

How is the military relevant here? Or Bill cosby? Or O'Reilly? Was I referring to those people or cases? No. I was referring to actors and actresses who surrendered their own dignity in order to stay on the good side of someone (Weinstein) who could either make them millionaires or doom those poor victims to a mediocre middle class life. (And even so, who knows it was more bluff than anything else)

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about people willing to let a lot of bad behavior from people with immense power over the directions of their careers slide. I wasn't aware there was a minimum wage someone had to get to before it was wrong.

Do these powerful people often have a lot of backing? Sure. But clearly not enough to be untouchable otherwise this thread wouldn't exist. "The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing". And that's what happened, except "good" should be replaced by "money and fame hungry". They wanted wealth and fame and they got it, and now they complain that they got a bad deal, shouldn't have accepted that deal than. And let's not forget that by abiding to his demands and/or not bringing his behavior to light they reinforced his feeling of invincibility and encouraged his behavior.

Or they tried bringing his behavior to light, but their agents didn't care and the DA was paid off. But sure, blame them. It's their fault after all. Damn them for not potentially giving up on their dream job and immediately crusading with all of their he said/she said accusations which always work out for the morally correct but weaker party.

Edit: Christ, I thought I could be naive, but I'm cynical enough to know that accusations against the rich and powerful without massive amounts of corroborated and ideally physical evidence is useless. And that's if the prick isn't actively "donating" to the guy who decides if you can even prosecute. Oh, but you can find that mythical pro-bono lawyer willing to take on a massively funded defense in a civil suit, because that's a thing that's not going to get laughed out of court. Maybe a tabloid would take your side, but only if they got a bone to pick with the guy.

EDITedit: So yeah, keep your head down and take the payment. Unless you win the goddamned jackpot, the only thing you get for complaining too much is vilification.

Until you can compare enough notes to actually take a swing at the bastard, anyway.

altnameJag:
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about people willing to let a lot of bad behavior from people with immense power over the directions of their careers slide. I wasn't aware there was a minimum wage someone had to get to before it was wrong.

I have never said Weinstein's behavior wasn't wrong nor that the situation wasn't wrong. This said to determine how much these "victims" deserve empathy yes there is a minimum wage. Because being given the choice between starvation and not or normal life and absurd wealth is clearly not the same. I can totally understand why someone would let their morals slide a bit for the former for the latter it shows a lack of actual moral integrity.

Or they tried bringing his behavior to light, but their agents didn't care and the DA was paid off. But sure, blame them. It's their fault after all. Damn them for not potentially giving up on their dream job and immediately crusading with all of their he said/she said accusations which always work out for the morally correct.

In some cases they did. And for those who did try to bring it to light, kudos. But most remained silent until just now, when they knew they wouldn't risk their ultra privileged lifestyle doing so. That shows that their desire for wealth and fame was clearly stronger than their disgust towards Weinstein's behavior and actions. It's not like their lives were at risk or that they were risking ending up on the streets. Their "sacrifice" would have been one that 99% of the population wouldn't even be able to make because they'd never be given the choice of achieving such wealth and fame to begin with. And i'm supposed to feel sorry for them?

Tell me, would you feel sorry for a politician who had to betray his conscience to become a senator/president/minister/whatever because of pressure from lobbyists and other powerful organisations? Or would you tell him he should just have stayed true to himself and remain a mayor instead of following the money?

generals3:

altnameJag:
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about people willing to let a lot of bad behavior from people with immense power over the directions of their careers slide. I wasn't aware there was a minimum wage someone had to get to before it was wrong.

I have never said Weinstein's behavior wasn't wrong nor that the situation wasn't wrong. This said to determine how much these "victims" deserve empathy yes there is a minimum wage. Because being given the choice between starvation and not or normal life and absurd wealth is clearly not the same. I can totally understand why someone would let their morals slide a bit for the former for the latter it shows a lack of actual moral integrity.

Oh yeah, because potentially losing your job to report an incident that might, possibly get brought up as corroborated evidence a decade down the line is a sane thing to do.

Or they tried bringing his behavior to light, but their agents didn't care and the DA was paid off. But sure, blame them. It's their fault after all. Damn them for not potentially giving up on their dream job and immediately crusading with all of their he said/she said accusations which always work out for the morally correct.

In some cases they did. And for those who did try to bring it to light, kudos. But most remained silent until just now, when they knew they wouldn't risk their ultra privileged lifestyle doing so. That shows that their desire for wealth and fame was clearly stronger than their disgust towards Weinstein's behavior and actions. It's not like their lives were at risk or that they were risking ending up on the streets. Their "sacrifice" would have been one that 99% of the population wouldn't even be able to do because they'd never be given the choice of achieving such wealth and fame to begin with, and i'm supposed to feel sorry for them?

"Most" had agents and publishers and enough world experience to to know that their he said/she said accusations had no weight. Why go to HR is HR isn't going to do anything? Why give up what is otherwise your dream job on useless virtue signaling? Are you truly unable to empathize with Terry Cruz getting groped at a party because he didn't immediately cause a scene?

"Who's going to believe you? Few.
"What are the repercussions? Many.
"Do you want 2 work again? Yes.
"Are you prepared to be ostracized? No."

Are you actually that devoid of empathy?

Tell me, would you feel sorry for a politician who had to betray his conscience to become a senator/president/minister/whatever because of pressure from lobbyists and other powerful organisations? Or would you tell him he should just have stayed true to himself and remain a mayor instead of following the money?

Buddy, it's the politician in that situation with the veto power, especially the higher they get in the chain. Our democracy is sick, but corporate doners aren't the be all/end all unless you're in the wrong goddamned party.

Do you just not get power differentials?

I just want to chime in on this discussion between altnameJag and generals3, with a thought I had. So Jag is pointing out that Weinstein did his sexual abuse, then used his money, power and influence to either pressure the actresses themselves or law enforcement to protect himself, and that as a result, the actresses can (in so many words) be excused for keeping silent, because of course, they couldn't do anything to Weinstein.

Except...what I find strange is this.

Where is Weinstein now? What has happened to him? Last I heard, he fled the US, after losing his job, and after pretty much most if not all mainstream publications are talking about this. Law enforcement investigations have been launched too.
I'd like to ask Jag, and others though - does this match up with what you were saying earlier? That to paraphrase you, he was more or less untouchable?

altnameJag:

Oh yeah, because potentially losing your job to report an incident that might, possibly get brought up as corroborated evidence a decade down the line is a sane thing to do.

So are you saying that people who put their career at risk by bringing up misbehavior are insane? I applaud those people and consider them to be courageous.

"Most" had agents and publishers and enough world experience to to know that their he said/she said accusations had no weight. Why go to HR is HR isn't going to do anything? Why give up what is otherwise your dream job on useless virtue signaling? Are you truly unable to empathize with Terry Cruz getting groped at a party because he didn't immediately cause a scene?

That example is barely comparable, here he talks about the problem of someone of his stature causing a scene and consequently potentially being considered guilty of assault (i suppose). And he did confront the executive and got (albeit a half baked one) an apology. I also wonder what he means with "groped"? I have had my ass spanked by random women at parties and that's a totally different thing than being told "massage me or don't make millions". But anyway, yes he should have brought it further up, if he felt that the groping was totally unacceptable and worth more than a small apology at least. Considering he still doesn't name anyone he clearly still doesn't feel it's bad enough to be brought to light entirely. (Or he's selling out potential future victims for $$$)

And why go to HR if HR isn't going to do anything? What about "ethics", "morals" and "integrity"? Again, Weinstein has been brought down. So clearly it could have been done. Defeatism is not an excuse.

"Who's going to believe you? Few.
"What are the repercussions? Many.
"Do you want 2 work again? Yes.
"Are you prepared to be ostracized? No."

His behavior was a public secret. If bringing it up to the front pages gets you ostracized by the clique clearly they are all rotten to the core. What about the other victims? Would they have joined the bandwagon? Remained silent? Or like now corroborate the stories?

Buddy, it's the politician in that situation with the veto power, especially the higher they get in the chain. Our democracy is sick, but corporate doners aren't the be all/end all unless you're in the wrong goddamned party.

Do you just not get power differentials?

For someone who said: "I wasn't aware there was a minimum wage..." I find that last question rather ironic. Because it is exactly because of power differentials that this case deserves so little empathy. Weinstein didn't have the power to make anyone rot on the streets. Just to make it much harder to make millions, something the vast vast majority of people won't be able to in their entire lifetime. Weinstein isn't the be all/end all either, Hollywood isn't. It's only if you want to be part of the top 1% working in the movies industry. Are we going to pretend Weinstein was some kind of all mighty God with an infinite span of reach? No. Just like with donors. Having them funding your campaign rather than the opponent can change a lot and severely increase your chances for success. So by the power differentials theory it's very very close. Just look at Bernie, he got screwed by the establishment for not selling out on his ideals and he lost to Hillary... Hillary!

altnameJag:
Terry Cruz

Terry Alan Crews you mean. If you're using their name, might as well avoid misracinating a Black PoC as a Hispanic PoC.

image

RikuoAmero:

Where is Weinstein now? What has happened to him? Last I heard, he fled the US, after losing his job, and after pretty much most if not all mainstream publications are talking about this. Law enforcement investigations have been launched too.
I'd like to ask Jag, and others though - does this match up with what you were saying earlier? That to paraphrase you, he was more or less untouchable?

And you know why that is? Because the truth was finally exposed by journalists. They did the digging, they got the anonymous statements needed and the evidence (like the recording of Weinstein in action) to make news out of Weinstein's behavior. Why it happened now is not exactly hard to see either, with the increased focus on sexual abuse in public discourse and the increasing understanding that it is unacceptable behavior that the victim should not be ashamed of having been subjected too. After 30 years, the cat finally came out of the bag due to changing social attitudes and diligent journalistic work.

This is not some weird conspiracy shit, this is simply how open secrets about powerful people eventually breaks. Sooner or later too many people know about it and too many victims are fed up with keeping silent about their mistreatment and when one starts talking to journalists, the snowball starts rolling.

generals3:
Weinstein didn't have the power to make anyone rot on the streets. Just to make it much harder to make millions, something the vast vast majority of people won't be able to in their entire lifetime. Weinstein isn't the be all/end all either, Hollywood isn't. It's only if you want to be part of the top 1% working in the movies industry.

Don't know much about Hollywood do you? There are thousands, if not more, actors and actresses in Hollywood trying to score big. Until you become a name among the big studios, you are relegated to background work, commercials, theater or even side-jobs outside of the movie industry (hence the joke about LA restaurants having the best looking waiting staff in the world), all of which tends to pay badly in a city where living is expensive. Even if you score a medium or big role (one scene wonder or even supporting actor), you can still be replaced by any of those thousand others actors out there who want to score big. So when you get a chance at a break and gets told it is dick sucking time or you'll never be considered for a role by the biggest production company in the world ever again, that's not just denying someone millions. It is quite often the threat of a death blow to a career that you already invested tens of thousands of dollars and many years of hard work into.

If you want to be a movie actor in the USA on any project besides indie projects and shitty C-list productions, you need to be in Hollywood and you need to stay off the blacklist of the major companies. Not only because that's where the money is, if you become one of the 0.1% or so of actors that becoming top billing material, but that's also where the serious work is. It is quite similar to a doctor who wants to be a neurosurgeon. You can do appendectomies in any old hospital, but if you want to do brain surgery you need to get into one of the prestigious university hospitals.

The fact that you people seem to think it is quite alright that someone should be stopped in their career because the manager wants sexual favors for the chance of promotion is mind blowing. I mean, applied to any other field, like the doctor above, it sounds just like the stupid, counter productive shit that it is ("Oh, so you were the best in your class and has excellent recommendations as a surgeon? Let's do doggy and I'll hire you."). But when it is actresses being exploited we should just assume that they are spoiled princesses, not the victims of a sexual predator that threatened their career to get his way?

Gethsemani:

The fact that you people seem to think it is quite alright that someone should be stopped in their career because the manager wants sexual favors for the chance of promotion is mind blowing. I mean, applied to any other field, like the doctor above, it sounds just like the stupid, counter productive shit that it is ("Oh, so you were the best in your class and has excellent recommendations as a surgeon? Let's do doggy and I'll hire you."). But when it is actresses being exploited we should just assume that they are spoiled princesses, not the victims of a sexual predator that threatened their career to get his way?

Aside from the fact LA isn't the only place movies are being made and that, again, Weinstein's reach isn't infinite, what the hell is that all about?

Where did anyone condone Weinstein's behavior? No but seriously try and quote me or Rikuo where we said that his behavior is fine because "Hollywood" (or just in general).

generals3:

Where did anyone condone Weinstein's behavior? No but seriously try and quote me or Rikuo where we said that his behavior is fine because "Hollywood" (or just in general).

Get better reading comprehension. I never said you condoned Weinstein, I said you blamed the victims. There's an important difference to be had there.

Gethsemani:

Get better reading comprehension. I never said you condoned Weinstein, I said you blamed the victims. There's an important difference to be had there.

The fact that you people seem to think it is quite alright that someone should be stopped in their career because the manager wants sexual favors for the chance of promotion is mind blowing.

That amounts to condoning the manager's behavior.
No one is saying that asking for sexual favors in exchange of a promotion is alright. Consequently it is not quite alright that someone gets stopped in their career because of someone's sexual appetite. That statement simply cannot be true without implying we condone such behavior.

Gethsemani I would appreciate it if you could quote me condoning withholding career opportunities for sex. No with regards to the weinstein case all I have commented on is the dichotomy between claiming he is more or less untouchable... With him losing his job his marriage and fleeing the country.

 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