#MeToo and a Response to it

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

runic knight:

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.

...wait, hang on, I have to ask - did you actually read the post the OP was quoting? Because, uhhh... that's the context here. I'm not ignoring your point, it's just that your point doesn't hold a lot of traction when the context of the situation is what it is in the quoted post.

...namely that dudes where asking for help in the wake of #MeToo. Your binary, while technically correct in a contextless situation, doesn't work within the given context, since it's her giving tips to people specifically asking how they can help address inequality.

And please don't assume what I'm mentally jumping to, that's just going to make me assume you're playing a round of silly buggers with me.

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.

...You know, this just makes it sound like you're buggered at the implication you could be a non-decent dude. And again, also ignores the context of what OP was quoting.

...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.

damn, I said approach twice in 4 words, teaches me to rush things

It's pretty sterile. Yes, yes, I know the whole 'Thought Police' crap, but it is entirely possible for someones beliefs and opinions to remove them from the realm of 'decency', depending on cultural and social contexts. Actions speak louder than words, but those words don't exist in a vacuum, yeah?

Now, those self-same social and cultural contexts can cause their own whole hot mess of problems, sure, but frankly I'd rather analyze the whole picture than focus only on the parts that involve punching people.

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.

...Context, again. Also a little relativistic judgement, given your judgement of falsehood relies on your binary, which is too narrow a system to accurately judge the quoted text.

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?

...That's not what I'm arguing. Oh, sure, by your contextless binary, maybe, but that binary is horrifically flawed for dealing with the situation at hand, and as such should not be used as any standard of judgement or basis of argumentation. Your two aspects also falter given the assumption that women are being treated equally in the first place.

See, it's like this, if you want a proper argument - if women are being treated equally, then showing them favouratism over their male, intersex and non-binary counterparts is sexist.

If women aren't being treated equally, then the actions being suggested by the woman are not a form of favouratism, but are simply shows of respect and equal treatment (as defined by Western cultural and social practices), in an effort to elevate them from their position of unequal treatment so that they are on-par with their male peers.

It is immoral to treat women unequally. Simple as that, in either aspects of disfavour or aspects of favouratism. It is not, however, immoral to treat women in such a way that elevates them into a position of equal standing with their male counterparts. If I am pouring water into a jug such that it's water level is now equal with another jug, I am not treating one of those jugs unequally, I am simply equaling the water levels of both jugs.

Christ, this is why I always hated moralistic philosophy at University.

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.

...you know, 'I'm sorry you see' is a fuckin' weird sentence, since it's an apology, but it places the onus on me. Fuckin' weird.

And you'll forgive me for this, but I wasn't saying anything about you disagreeing with people. What you did do, however, was reduce the points everyone were arguing about into a binary that failed to address their actual positions, but then went on further to have a go at someone for... supposedly reducing everyone they disagreed with into being indecent people.

Now, as said, maybe not your intention, but certainly was the outcome of that effect.

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.

I follow, but frankly, you're still assuming someone here is trying to put out the fire, or that the people scratching their asses are just scratching their asses.

And also that the people who are trying to put out the fire are actually trying to put out the fire. I know you said you didn't have any problems with the OP, but did you ever stop to think about his motivations for making this thread? Because my money says it wasn't out of the good of his heart in bringing to light the horrible inequalities this madwoman is preaching.

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.

Nah, that was just good-natured (presumably good-natured, Australian humour translates poorly over the internet) ribbing based on your previous comment about snarky character attacks. You know, like:

'Snarky character attacks are wrong'
Me: 'posts something'
'AND THEN THERE'S THIS ASSHOLE'.

I figure at this point everyone still kicking around the Escapist is well-versed in snark, if at the very least to dull the knowledge that we're clinging to an ever-sinking ship that keeps crashing into icebergs.

Or because we're in R&P, and we need to snark because... well, we're in R&P.

(speaking of, it may seem I'm being aggressive this post, but that's honestly just how I tend to approach big pull-aparts like this. I bear you no ill-will or hostility, tone's just a bitch to get across on the internet. Stupid cross-cultural platform...)

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.

Pro-tip: don't compose long-ass posts when you've only got 10 minutes to catch a train. Waaaay easier to read over what you've written and realize you might've come out of the gate swinging by accident.

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.

...I mean, were they? Subjective interpretations are subjective, but honestly their post just came across as bemoaning the people objecting to treating women respectfully as opposed to a broad condemnation of all who disagree with 'em. Which is understandable, there's a definite, if fine, distinction between people who have problems with the suggestions, and people who have problems with the idea of treating women equally.

Now, I get the complaint about the devolving nature of the threads - lord knows I say it myself often enough, and tend to skim peoples responses since I can generally tell their position based solely on their presence and the topic - but it just feels... disingenuous to split everyone in the thread into two groups (when they don't fall into two groups - I mean, where do you put Inu-Kun?) and then go on further to call someone out over a perceived accusation of indecency for disagreeing with the quoted text.

Your intentions were otherwise, but the end result still came out with the connection. And hey, aren't we supposed to be judging people based on their actions? /insertwinkyfaceemoji

Smithnikov:

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?

War, the national debt, the Federal Reserve, opioid epidemic, suicide epidemic, single mothers, etc.

Issues like this one, the NFL controversy, gay marriage, and others are psyops to keep the left and the right distracted while the collapse continues.

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).

No one said that you condone it. You just aren't as offended by these crimes as you are by the idea that in the real world people who are victims of sexual harassment/assault don't behave the way you assume they're supposed to. Nor do you seem all that offended by the fact that when these women come forward, they're almost uniformly attacked as lying sluts looking for a payday.

sensual offender:
War, the national debt, the Federal Reserve, opioid epidemic, suicide epidemic, single mothers, etc.

Issues like this one, the NFL controversy, gay marriage, and others are psyops to keep the left and the right distracted while the collapse continues.

Yes, because you've done such a good job encouraging discussion and citing articles and reports on these super-important topics yourself.

I could write a very long dissertation on this, showing all the data points, but I don't have that kind of time nor interest. Instead, I just threw out a few random examples, just off the top of my head, that demonstrate how people in the West are becoming less and less able to hold together a healthy, functioning society.

StatusNil:

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

Congratulations, you successfully virtue signaled my typo. Your SJW trophy is in the mail.

sensual offender:
I could write a very long dissertation on this, showing all the data points, but I don?t have that kind of time or interest. Instead, I just threw out a few random examples, just off the top of my head, that demonstrate how people in the West are becoming less and less able to hold together a healthy, functioning society.

Then how do you have the time to bitch at the rest of us for not doing the thing you're too lazy to do?

BeetleManiac:

sensual offender:
I could write a very long dissertation on this, showing all the data points, but I don?t have that kind of time or interest. Instead, I just threw out a few random examples, just off the top of my head, that demonstrate how people in the West are becoming less and less able to hold together a healthy, functioning society.

Then how do you have the time to bitch at the rest of us for not doing the thing you're too lazy to do?

I just think that everyone's time would be better spent looking inward for solutions to the problems in their lives instead of arguing over SJW talking points.

sensual offender:
I just think that everyone's time would be better spent looking inward for solutions to the problems in their lives instead of arguing over SJW talking points.

So you make time to bitch at us for not doing work that you're too lazy to do?

BeetleManiac:

sensual offender:
I just think that everyone's time would be better spent looking inward for solutions to the problems in their lives instead of arguing over SJW talking points.

So you make time to bitch at us for not doing work that you're too lazy to do?

Don't shoot the messenger. Besides, your time on this forum is very limited. You have one more strike to go before you're banned.

BeetleManiac:

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).

No one said that you condone it. You just aren't as offended by these crimes as you are by the idea that in the real world people who are victims of sexual harassment/assault don't behave the way you assume they're supposed to. Nor do you seem all that offended by the fact that when these women come forward, they're almost uniformly attacked as lying sluts looking for a payday.

The statement I quoted implied with a 100% certainty that I considered said behavior "alright", which is pretty much condoning it, no?
Secondly, I said Weinstein deserved all the shit that he's currently facing. Which based on facts, is quite a lot: lost his job and wife, he's being investigated and apparently he fled the country. What do you want me to say more? That we should rape his eye sockets and pee in them afterwards? On the other hand we have another bunch of people who are facing 0 negative events who act like these huge victims because they sold their own soul and body for big money and fame. And I merely said they wouldn't get empathy from me and elaborated why. I didn't say they deserved to be shamed, fired, left by their husband/wife, forced to flee the country, etc. So by all means how am I more offended by their behavior than Weinstein's? Simply because I elaborated more on that? Well damn I actually took the time to elaborate a point that was bound to be questioned and scrutinized because it goes against the mainstream reaction. And no I didn't feel like elaborating on Weinstein because everyone would nod and agree anyway considering the reasons are beyond obvious to everyone.

They ahould start naming names and bring down the fucking hammer on Hollywood.

sensual offender:

Smithnikov:

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?

War, the national debt, the Federal Reserve, opioid epidemic, suicide epidemic, single mothers, etc.

Issues like this one, the NFL controversy, gay marriage, and others are psyops to keep the left and the right distracted while the collapse continues.

I didn't know it was an either/or dichotomy.

sensual offender:
I could write a very long dissertation on this, showing all the data points, but I don?t have that kind of time or interest. Instead, I just threw out a few random examples, just off the top of my head, that demonstrate how people in the West are becoming less and less able to hold together a healthy, functioning society.

Yes, yes, yes, we know; put the women in their place, do our part to expel the degenerates, free sex for incels, remove international Jewry, ect...

Some of us do lurk in /pol/...

Smithnikov:

sensual offender:
I could write a very long dissertation on this, showing all the data points, but I don?t have that kind of time or interest. Instead, I just threw out a few random examples, just off the top of my head, that demonstrate how people in the West are becoming less and less able to hold together a healthy, functioning society.

Yes, yes, yes, we know; put the women in their place, do our part to expel the degenerates, free sex for incels, remove international Jewry, ect...

Some of us do lurk in /pol/...

Those are not mindsets that I even bother to entertain. Maybe you should do a little less lurking, those alt-right sites are practically all honeytraps.

Double post, my bad.

sensual offender:
Don't shoot the messenger. Besides, your time on this forum is very limited. You have one more strike to go before you're banned.

I'm deeply touched by your concerns. Still wondering why you expect us to do all the intellectual heavy lifting around here.

generals3:
The statement I quoted implied with a 100% certainty that I considered said behavior "alright", which is pretty much condoning it, no?

Nope.

Secondly, I said Weinstein deserved all the shit that he's currently facing. Which based on facts, is quite a lot: lost his job and wife, he's being investigated and apparently he fled the country. What do you want me to say more? That we should rape his eye sockets and pee in them afterwards?

No. Just don't qualify it with, "Fuck all the people he wronged!"

So by all means how am I more offended by their behavior than Weinstein's? Simply because I elaborated more on that?

Yes. You've shown a higher degree of concern for the victims not acting like how you demand victims act than just broken the system is that this kind of shit could go on for years and be so thoroughly enabled.

Well damn I actually took the time to elaborate a point that was bound to be questioned and scrutinized because it goes against the mainstream reaction. And no I didn't feel like elaborating on Weinstein because everyone would nod and agree anyway considering the reasons are beyond obvious to everyone.

You could have just not said anything. That was always an option. Did you feel that we needed to be enlightened by your failure of human empathy?

You dedicated only one or two sentences to agreeing that Weinstein is scum. You then added an all caps "BUT" and spent the next two paragraphs complaining about everything else. Everything after the BUT is apparently what you really wanted to talk about and what you've put more thought into.

sensual offender:

BeetleManiac:

sensual offender:
I could write a very long dissertation on this, showing all the data points, but I don?t have that kind of time or interest. Instead, I just threw out a few random examples, just off the top of my head, that demonstrate how people in the West are becoming less and less able to hold together a healthy, functioning society.

Then how do you have the time to bitch at the rest of us for not doing the thing you're too lazy to do?

I just think that everyone's time would be better spent looking inward for solutions to the problems in their lives instead of arguing over SJW talking points.

Found the guy who likes Jordan B Peterson!

Not that you're wrong though.

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:

sensual offender:

BeetleManiac:

Then how do you have the time to bitch at the rest of us for not doing the thing you're too lazy to do?

I just think that everyone's time would be better spent looking inward for solutions to the problems in their lives instead of arguing over SJW talking points.

Found the guy who likes Jordan B Peterson!

Not that you're wrong though.

Haha, I consider Peterson to be fiercely intelligent, though I don't agree with him on all the issues.

BeetleManiac:

Nope.

Oh please do elaborate how. No seriously enlighten us with your infinite wisdow how that is even possible.
It doesn't matter how often I read:

"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."

Every time the conclusion is the same. This sentence makes no sense unless you go by the hypothesis i consider it quite alright to tie sexual favors to promotions in a professional environment.

No. Just don't qualify it with, "Fuck all the people he wronged!"

I never said "fuck them all". I said: "Why should I empathize with people who had the opportunity to do what's right but instead went along with it for money and fame" (and did so for years, even after they amassed enough wealth and fame to live a much better life than average Joe regardless of the outcome).

Yes. You've shown a higher degree of concern for the victims not acting like how you demand victims act than just broken the system is that this kind of shit could go on for years and be so thoroughly enabled.

Actually it is important to be concerned about the behavior of these "victims". They kept the whole system alive by putting money and fame before morals and integrity. And why should I show concern about Weinstein who is already facing the full wrath of society? He lost professionally, socially and likely will legally. This event already showed people who act similarly what can happen if their misbehavior is brought up to light. Now we need to show the "victims" that it's important to put morals in before money so that other pricks like Weinstein can be brought to light.

You could have just not said anything. That was always an option. Did you feel that we needed to be enlightened by your failure of human empathy?

And did you feel we needed to be enlightened by this useless paragraph showing a failure to stand your ground without throwing an insulting "Ad Hominem"?

You dedicated only one or two sentences to agreeing that Weinstein is scum. You then added an all caps "BUT" and spent the next two paragraphs complaining about everything else. Everything after the BUT is apparently what you really wanted to talk about and what you've put more thought into.

Again, why dedicate more to a statement with which everyone agrees and knows the reasons why? No really, why? To waste my time and everyone else's? I think it's a lot more interesting to talk about things where people disagree than just have one big circle jerk.
But you clearly don't like having your views challenged...

Smithnikov:

sensual offender:
I could write a very long dissertation on this, showing all the data points, but I don?t have that kind of time or interest. Instead, I just threw out a few random examples, just off the top of my head, that demonstrate how people in the West are becoming less and less able to hold together a healthy, functioning society.

Yes, yes, yes, we know; put the women in their place, do our part to expel the degenerates, free sex for incels, remove international Jewry, ect...

Some of us do lurk in /pol/...

That must be where you learned to strawman in such an obnoxious and idiotic fashion.

generals3:
Actually it is important to be concerned about the behavior of these "victims". They kept the whole system alive by putting money and fame before morals and integrity. And why should I show concern about Weinstein who is already facing the full wrath of society? He lost professionally, socially and likely will legally. This event already showed people who act similarly what can happen if their misbehavior is brought up to light. Now we need to show the "victims" that it's important to put morals in before money so that other pricks like Weinstein can be brought to light.

This is slightly unfair. If you're the first person to come out about things, there is every chance that no one will follow you. And then you'll be left with everyone roasting you, your career will be dead, you might even have a massive lawsuit against you.

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:

This is slightly unfair. If you're the first person to come out about things, there is every chance that no one will follow you. And then you'll be left with everyone roasting you, your career will be dead, you might even have a massive lawsuit against you.

There is a chance, but that would tell a lot about the others. Let's just look at the context here:

- Weinstein has been doing this for decades
- We know it was a public secret in Hollywood and everyone was aware of his behavior to a certain extent
- Consequently, unless we assume they are all too scared to lose money and/or hypocrites, we can safely expect at least a couple of people to come out
- Additionally some stars who have been big shots and earned a lot of money for quite some time have remained silent for decades. Take Gwyneth, who was sexually harassed/assaulted by him in the 90's. Surely she has had sufficient time to amass such an amount of fame and wealth to be able to deal with a potential backlash in case everyone bailed on her? No?
- Next, we are not talking about people who had their lives threatened or risked ending up starving on the streets either.
- And lastly, considering it was public knowledge in Hollywood why didn't victims try to contact each other to plan a coming out together?

This whole situation suggests a whole lot of leniency for the sake of keeping the status quo and out of fear to lose some of that wealth and fame. I don't respect that. Because that attitude allowed him to continue with his sick actions.

generals3:

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:

This is slightly unfair. If you're the first person to come out about things, there is every chance that no one will follow you. And then you'll be left with everyone roasting you, your career will be dead, you might even have a massive lawsuit against you.

There is a chance, but that would tell a lot about the others. Let's just look at the context here:

- Weinstein has been doing this for decades
- We know it was a public secret in Hollywood and everyone was aware of his behavior to a certain extent
- Consequently, unless we assume they are all too scared to lose money and/or hypocrites, we can safely expect at least a couple of people to come out
- Additionally some stars who have been big shots and earned a lot of money for quite some time have remained silent for decades. Take Gwyneth, who was sexually harassed/assaulted by him in the 90's. Surely she has had sufficient time to amass such an amount of fame and wealth to be able to deal with a potential backlash in case everyone bailed on her? No?
- Next, we are not talking about people who had their lives threatened or risked ending up starving on the streets either.
- And lastly, considering it was public knowledge in Hollywood why didn't victims try to contact each other to plan a coming out together?

This whole situation suggests a whole lot of leniency for the sake of keeping the status quo and out of fear to lose some of that wealth and fame. I don't respect that. Because that attitude allowed him to continue with his sick actions.

Aye, thats true. Some of the bigger stars certainly had the power to come out later on but didn't. Fuck em. Usually I wouldn't say people have a duty to put these stories out there since there is a lot of shame involved but in this particular case their silence meant a lot more people got harrassed.

Don't forget though: if I remember correctly there were a number of actresses who were slimed on by Weinstein and didn't take it. Until recently no one had ever heard of them. Presumbly because they didn't spread their legs to further their career.

As far as I can tell, people only seem to want to discuss abuse when it can be used against men.

Perhaps another movement will come along, but, in my experience, the moment anyone seeks to talk about anything other than abuse being committed by men, it's apparently completely unacceptable.

generals3:
This sentence makes no sense unless you go by the hypothesis i consider it quite alright to tie sexual favors to promotions in a professional environment.

They could be saying that your priorities are fucked up. That's certainly what I'm saying.

I never said "fuck them all". I said: "Why should I empathize with people who had the opportunity to do what's right but instead went along with it for money and fame" (and did so for years, even after they amassed enough wealth and fame to live a much better life than average Joe regardless of the outcome).

Exactly, you said fuck 'em all because they don't behave the way you assume real victims are supposed to act.

They kept the whole system alive by putting money and fame before morals and integrity... Now we need to show the "victims" that it's important to put morals in before money so that other pricks like Weinstein can be brought to light.

The easiest thing in the world is to be brave against a threat you don't actually face.

And did you feel we needed to be enlightened by this useless paragraph showing a failure to stand your ground without throwing an insulting "Ad Hominem"?

Just you.

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:

Don't forget though: if I remember correctly there were a number of actresses who were slimed on by Weinstein and didn't take it. Until recently no one had ever heard of them. Presumbly because they didn't spread their legs to further their career.

And that obviously suck, and for those who stood up, kudos. But unfortunately this whole situation reeks of crappy Hollywood pseudo holier-than-thou attitude with all these big shots coming out and making big speeches... After staying in the dark for years/decades.

The Lunatic:
As far as I can tell, people only seem to want to discuss abuse when it can be used against men.

Perhaps another movement will come along, but, in my experience, the moment anyone seeks to talk about anything other than abuse being committed by men, it's apparently completely unacceptable.

When 93 fucking percent of the assault is done by men, maybe that's why the conversation is about men. Fucking hell.
http://www.casa.org.au/casa_pdf.php?document=statistics

The Lunatic:
As far as I can tell, people only seem to want to discuss abuse when it can be used against men.

As far as I can tell, people only seem to not want to discuss abuse when it might lead them to ask difficult questions about why men abuse women (including transwomen and non-binary people) at the rate and severity they do. What people don't want is people trying to prevent anyone asking those questions with pointless derailment or facile "not all men" nonsense.

If you actually looked through the hashtag (which you didn't, of course) you would have found examples of the thousands of men who used it to share stories of abuse or harassment, as well as queer women talking about IPV in their relationships with women. There have also been some really excellent critiques of the gender-normative nature of the campaign in intersectional feminist circles.

But the simple fact is that, for men, abuse and harassment is something they only have to worry about in a few very special contexts. For women (and other gender non-conforming groups) it is a normal and everyday experience. If having this pointed out upsets you more than the fact that this is the reality you live in, then you've pretty much outed yourself as part of the problem.

Kwak:
When 93 fucking percent of the assault is done by men, maybe that's why the conversation is about men. Fucking hell.
http://www.casa.org.au/casa_pdf.php?document=statistics

In a lot of places in Australia, rape and other sexual abuse refers to penetration, and in others specifically refers to it being against women.

So, yeah, no shit.

evilthecat:
Snip

Well, there's pretty firsthand experience of this forum not caring when the victim wasn't male.

So, I mean, cite random "Twitter"s all you want, we have it evidenced on this forum.

The Lunatic:
As far as I can tell, people only seem to want to discuss abuse when it can be used against men.

Perhaps another movement will come along, but, in my experience, the moment anyone seeks to talk about anything other than abuse being committed by men, it's apparently completely unacceptable.

Maybe when your side stops shaming men and calling them beta faggots or manginas for being abused, that can start to get some traction. Might outghta stop flippantly using male rape and sexual abuse as part of gamer lingo, that'd be nice too.

Smithnikov:
Maybe when your side stops shaming men and calling them beta faggots or manginas for being abused, that can start to get some traction. Might outghta stop flippantly using male rape and sexual abuse as part of gamer lingo, that'd be nice too.

My side?

What side is that exactly?

Why is everything always about sides? I personally think we should tackle them all equally, and have only ever advocated for this. And most certainly I've never called anyone a "Beta faggot" nor shamed anyone for being sexually abused.

Whitbane:
They ahould start naming names and bring down the fucking hammer on Hollywood.

Hell, bring down the hammer everywhere. There isn't an industry in America where this shit doesn't happen.

Maybe we start listening and believing people who come forward with this stuff the first time, instead of waiting for decades and being shocked at open secrets.

The Lunatic:

My side?

What side is that exactly?

The right wing.

I hesitate to say alt-right, but it probably applies. I'll reserve it for now.

Why is everything always about sides?

You tell me.

I personally think we should tackle them all equally, and have only ever advocated for this. And most certainly I've never called anyone a "Beta faggot" nor shamed anyone for being sexually abused.

So, who do you donate to?

Smithnikov:

The right wing.

I hesitate to say alt-right, but it probably applies. I'll reserve it for now.

I'm right wing for voting centre-left and advocating on tackling sexual assault in all forms it takes?

Huh.. Okay, well. Moving on.

You tell me.

You're the one who brought it up. If I had to guess it's to do with these things typically being framed through the lense of feminism, which typically employs Frankfurt School of thought. Whereby things are always phrased in terms of "Oppressor" and "Oppressed".

Personally, I think that's awful unhelpful and only makes people unwilling to work together.

So, who do you donate to?

Oh, well, personally last year I donated a few hundred to Survivors Manchester and did a series of fundraising events which brought in a fair bit more.

Whilst, they are indeed male focused, it's difficult to find a unisex group. However, I figure given so much funding and charity goes towards women-focused ones, attempting to even the balance isn't the worst thing to do, and Survivors seem pretty genuine and open to aid both men and women.

The Lunatic:

I'm right wing for voting centre-left and advocating on tackling sexual assault in all forms it takes?

You're right wing for posting stories of sexual abuse with a deliberate "SEE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU LET TRANS PEOPLE IN BATHROOMS?!" angle. Among many, many, many other postings.

You're the one who brought it up. If I had to guess it's to do with these things typically being framed through the lense of feminism, which typically employs Frankfurt School of thought. Whereby things are always phrased in terms of "Oppressor" and "Oppressed".

More like "redpilled" and "bluepilled".

Also "Kekistani" and "Normie"

Smithnikov:
You're right wing for posting stories of sexual abuse with a deliberate "SEE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU LET TRANS PEOPLE IN BATHROOMS?!" angle. Among many, many, many other postings.

No I didn't. I posted a story where a little girl got sexually assaulted and will likely suffer horrible trauma for the rest of her life and people were too busy focusing on the fact I off-hand mentioned that the person who did it was transgender to pay much mind to that. It seems people only really care when it's a male perpetrator.

Very strange. It seems people would rather sling mud and accuse than express sympathy for a child who was abused.

More like "redpilled" and "bluepilled".

Another dumb ideology. What's your point?

 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