#MeToo and a Response to it

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

The Lunatic:
Because it was an active case with a verdict expected soon.

There are hundreds of those every single day. Your point?

There was no discussion value. If there had been discussion value, you would have added a question or commentary to form the basis for discussion. Even you know that it had no discussion value, because you've basically pointed it out (by claiming you were waiting for the verdict before participating in the actual discussion).

As it was, it came off as dog whistling, and even now the only argument I can see against that theory is that, as dog whistling goes, it was so utterly incompetent that everyone immediately saw through it. So either you're bad at dog whistling, or you didn't actually have anything to discuss.

The Lunatic:
Specifically sought out because of its relevance to a current movement, time of starting date, time of expected verdict and because it was one of the first recent results on a search engine.

What relevance?

Again, the movement (and I'll tolerate calling it a movement because the woman who originally came up with it did intend it to be one, but what we're talking about is a hashtag) is about two things.

1) Making people aware of the scale and prevalence of harassment and violence even if they have been protected from actually experiencing it (as the majority of men are). The fact that you think a single instance of sexual assault against a child, however horrific is, in and of itself, something which deserves to be "reported" to this random internet forum suggests you haven't really absorbed that message. Even childhood sexual abuse is not an unusual experience, it is routine and commonplace. It has happened to people I know, and it has almost certainly happened to people you know.

2) Creating a sense of solidarity among survivors and helping them to feel less alone. Again, if you want me to type messages of solidarity to the girl in the case you mentioned, that's fine, but I don't think she's reading this forum or would care what I think even if she was. My sympathy or solidarity will not help her right now. What will help her is growing up in a culture which is able to talk openly about sexual harassment and abuse and where she can find solidarity for herself. What will help her is growing up in a culture which treats her with respect and doesn't constantly replicate the dehumanisation she has already suffered under the flimsy justification that she is female and that it's normal to treat females that way.

The Lunatic:
You're turning me into a strawman rather than address the fact that somebody sexually abused a 10 year old kid. I think that kinda speaks for itself.

Right, but what am I supposed to address about the fact that someone sexually abused a 10 year old kid, because you haven't actually explained that.

And whatever you're going to say, be aware that my addressing it will change precisely fuck all. It happened, just as it happens every day, everywhere, mostly to women and girls and mostly by men and boys. So if you want useless platitudes, I hope you are fully aware that they are genuinely, completely useless, not to mention pretty shallow. If you want to stop being useless, then you need to realize that this is a normal thing which happens every day, and that there are millions of victims and survivors out there every one of whom deserves just as much of my sympathy as this one girl. There will be more tomorrow, there will be more the day after. When that makes you angry, when that is your motivation for political action, maybe we can actually talk about something useful. Until then, stop derailing.

The Lunatic:
But, the fact people lose their shit whenever that isn't the case, and make the topic completely impossible to discuss is awful and seems a lot more like people simply want to use it as a club in the gender war than actually address the issue.

That's an interesting point, given this forum had no thread on Weinstein until this one... which was started to complain about a campaign largely by women protesting about their sexual assault and harassment.

Something to consider when you want to talk about kicking up a gender war: perhaps it's frequently "your side".

When highly partisan people bring up abuse cases which inevitably target their pet hates, it's always going to blur the lines between whether they care more about stopping the abuse or slinging mud at their pet hates. Likewise, they're also usually diminishing the abuse when their pet hate is on the receiving end. We're all here with years of knowledge of what each other has said, we know each other all have angles to push. You, I and everyone else has lots of baggage - it's much more realistic to accept that than protest it somehow shouldn't matter.

Catnip1024:

BeetleManiac:

Catnip1024:
He raped a child and is still part of the same Academy that Weinstein has been thrown out of.

I would argue that that is a totally legitimate reason to draw him into these comparisons.

It does illustrate the brokenness of the system and the hypocrisy of those in power. I'm not sure how that in any way contradicts Saelune's point that Fox News bringing a serial sexual predator back into the fold after his public disgrace is a really shitty thing to do and illustrative of the abusive power structure present in the company. The modern American right wing does have a serious problem with hypocrisy and very toxic ideas about human sexuality.

My point is that this is not an issue which is exclusive to a particular wing. The hypocrisy is across the board.

Let me know when Anthony Weiner gets a job at CNN. Or the Presidency.

Saelune:

Catnip1024:

BeetleManiac:

It does illustrate the brokenness of the system and the hypocrisy of those in power. I'm not sure how that in any way contradicts Saelune's point that Fox News bringing a serial sexual predator back into the fold after his public disgrace is a really shitty thing to do and illustrative of the abusive power structure present in the company. The modern American right wing does have a serious problem with hypocrisy and very toxic ideas about human sexuality.

My point is that this is not an issue which is exclusive to a particular wing. The hypocrisy is across the board.

Let me know when Anthony Weiner gets a job at CNN. Or the Presidency.

*Cough* Bill Clinton *Cough* Sorry about that, I'll go get strepsils...
Now I'd like to ask why you seem to be framing this as somehow being a problem that only affects the right wing? A little Google-fu found this article
https://www.naturalnews.com/2017-10-11-parade-of-dirtbags-ben-affleck-jimmy-kimmel-harvey-weinstein-all-exposed-as-liberal-hollywood-elitists-who-abuse-women.html
Do you want to remind readers what side of the political aisle Jimmy Kimmel falls on?
Since you mentioned CNN...
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/they-have-assault-and-rape-on-their-hands-tapper-rips-media-complicity-in-weinstein-scandal/

Catnip1024:
My point is that this is not an issue which is exclusive to a particular wing. The hypocrisy is across the board.

This is true. There is a question of degrees and in that regard the right wing have been the more egregious offenders. Consider the sheer number of offenders in the right wing who have been exposed and either got away with it or were welcomed back into the fold once public attention was off of them. David Vitter, Ted Haggard, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Sanford, now Bill O'Reilly... And even if we count the ones who didn't get away with it or weren't welcomed back, the hypocrisy is staggering. Mark Foley, Larry Craig, Tim Murphy, Jim West, Bob Allen...

Like I said, the modern American right wing is impossible without hypocrisy. It denies so much of human nature and holds people to standards that are impossible to meet if not outright self-contradictory. A lot of them know they're wrong. They just don't care. To play the "both sides" game is dishonest and shows intellectual paucity.

BeetleManiac:

Catnip1024:
My point is that this is not an issue which is exclusive to a particular wing. The hypocrisy is across the board.

This is true. There is a question of degrees and in that regard the right wing have been the more egregious offenders. Consider the sheer number of offenders in the right wing who have been exposed and either got away with it or were welcomed back into the fold once public attention was off of them. David Vitter, Ted Haggard, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Sanford, now Bill O'Reilly... And even if we count the ones who didn't get away with it or weren't welcomed back, the hypocrisy is staggering. Mark Foley, Larry Craig, Tim Murphy, Jim West, Bob Allen...

Like I said, the modern American right wing is impossible without hypocrisy. It denies so much of human nature and holds people to standards that are impossible to meet if not outright self-contradictory. A lot of them know they're wrong. They just don't care. To play the "both sides" game is dishonest and shows intellectual paucity.

One of the biggest issues with the American right-wing and this hypocrisy is the "Christianity"
they believe in[1]. All a conservative has to do is say they "asked God's forgiveness" and, suddenly, nothing they did matters anymore. The forgiveness of sins in Christianity is used as a get-out-of-jail-free card; a couple of my favorite examples of this are Gingrich and Sanford.

[1] Scare quotes used with deliberate intent here. Jesus must be questioning whether his sacrifice was worth it with how hatefully twisted his message has become due to some (particularly many evangelical and born-again) denominations

Avnger:
One of the biggest issues with the American right-wing and this hypocrisy is the "Christianity" they believe in. All a conservative has to do is say they "asked God's forgiveness" and, suddenly, nothing they did matters anymore. The forgiveness of sins in Christianity is used as a get-out-of-jail-free card; a couple of my favorite examples of this are Gingrich and Sanford.

Totally. Anyone with an ounce of honesty and integrity can see how galling it is for the religious right to claim moral superiority and act like America's designated adults when they're seen wearing super-expensive suits and jewelry with fake Jesus smiles standing next to Donald Trump, a man who never met a Deadly Sin he didn't indulge in. Hell, back in the 80's evangelicals were using Trump as the perfect illustration of everything good Christians were supposed to shun.

BeetleManiac:

Avnger:
One of the biggest issues with the American right-wing and this hypocrisy is the "Christianity" they believe in. All a conservative has to do is say they "asked God's forgiveness" and, suddenly, nothing they did matters anymore. The forgiveness of sins in Christianity is used as a get-out-of-jail-free card; a couple of my favorite examples of this are Gingrich and Sanford.

Totally. Anyone with an ounce of honesty and integrity can see how galling it is for the religious right to claim moral superiority and act like America's designated adults when they're seen wearing super-expensive suits and jewelry with fake Jesus smiles standing next to Donald Trump, a man who never met a Deadly Sin he didn't indulge in. Hell, back in the 80's evangelicals were using Trump as the perfect illustration of everything good Christians were supposed to shun.

It's that whole "prosperity doctrine" thing that's so endemic in the GOP, that Jesus will make you stinking rich of you're a good and honest man despite consistently condemning excessive wealth in all four books of the Gospels. He literally assaulted money-lenders and bankers.

American conservative politics is what happens when you mix the Protestant work-ethic with borderline worship of capitalist, free market principles. There are politicians and priests here that see things like public healthcare as borderline blasphemy for a reason, because if someone is sick, dying, and poor, it's obvious that God doesn't favor them and the state shouldn't get in the way of divine retribution.

BeetleManiac:
This is true. There is a question of degrees and in that regard the right wing have been the more egregious offenders. Consider the sheer number of offenders in the right wing who have been exposed and either got away with it or were welcomed back into the fold once public attention was off of them. David Vitter, Ted Haggard, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Sanford, now Bill O'Reilly... And even if we count the ones who didn't get away with it or weren't welcomed back, the hypocrisy is staggering. Mark Foley, Larry Craig, Tim Murphy, Jim West, Bob Allen...

Like I said, the modern American right wing is impossible without hypocrisy. It denies so much of human nature and holds people to standards that are impossible to meet if not outright self-contradictory. A lot of them know they're wrong. They just don't care. To play the "both sides" game is dishonest and shows intellectual paucity.

As the other poster pointed out, there are a string of left wing names as well. Counting and trying to out-do each other solves no issues, and is no use. A better question would be one regarding power structures and cultures within these large organisations, particularly these media ones with cult like figures, and how they could be changed to reduce the issue across the board. Because at the end of the day, the media is all the same in terms of structure and obsession with views and reputation.

But surely if one is talking hypocrisy, surely speaking out about women's rights whilst being a rapist is kind of the ultimate in hypocrisy. I can't think of much more severe degrees of offence...

RikuoAmero:

Saelune:

Catnip1024:
My point is that this is not an issue which is exclusive to a particular wing. The hypocrisy is across the board.

Let me know when Anthony Weiner gets a job at CNN. Or the Presidency.

*Cough* Bill Clinton *Cough* Sorry about that, I'll go get strepsils...
Now I'd like to ask why you seem to be framing this as somehow being a problem that only affects the right wing? A little Google-fu found this article
https://www.naturalnews.com/2017-10-11-parade-of-dirtbags-ben-affleck-jimmy-kimmel-harvey-weinstein-all-exposed-as-liberal-hollywood-elitists-who-abuse-women.html
Do you want to remind readers what side of the political aisle Jimmy Kimmel falls on?
Since you mentioned CNN...
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/they-have-assault-and-rape-on-their-hands-tapper-rips-media-complicity-in-weinstein-scandal/

All of you are missing my point. I am saying that right-wing sex-offenders are being found out as sex offenders and getting rewarded for it! Bill Clinton did not get his job back after the scandal, not that he could. He did not get elected post-scandal.

But O'Reily? He is getting his job -back- after he got caught.

Catnip1024:
As the other poster pointed out, there are a string of left wing names as well.

To repeat, it is a question of degrees.

Counting and trying to out-do each other solves no issues, and is no use.

This is not one-up-manship. This is recognizing bullshit for what it is. And playing the, "Both sides are just as bad," game is transparent bullshit.

But surely if one is talking hypocrisy, surely speaking out about women's rights whilst being a rapist is kind of the ultimate in hypocrisy. I can't think of much more severe degrees of offence...

Again, you are pointing to one case. I am pointing to an entire political party and the donor class that supports them. So please put your dick away because you've already lost the measuring contest.

BeetleManiac:
This is not one-up-manship. This is recognizing bullshit for what it is. And playing the, "Both sides are just as bad," game is transparent bullshit.

As is playing the "well, your side is worse..." game.

Come on, buddy, that wasn't an excuse for all the Trump Clinton crap, it's not an excuse here. There is shit on both sides. Why are you so intent on trying to portray one as worse? What is in it for you, that it is more worthwhile to sling mud than to think about a solution? Considering the same overarching factors apply to both sides, the same consequences apply to both sides, and the same actions could probably fix the issues on both sides.

And I wasn't aware that an entire political party and the donor class that supported it had been convicted of rape. I would have thought that that would be bigger news, somehow...

Catnip1024:
Why are you so intent on trying to portray one as worse?

Because they fucking are. Because one is actively undermining women's rights and reproductive health while claiming they're doing it for the good of "the family." Because one has made the demonization and oppression of LGBTQ people part of their platform. Because one side knows how wrong they are and they do it anyway.

What is in it for you, that it is more worthwhile to sling mud than to think about a solution?

And here we go with the cliched attempt at shaming me for not coming up with solutions while you yourself have posited nothing of real substance on that front. Right on schedule.

Let's reverse the question. What's in it for you that we only ever play the "Both Sides!" game? What do you get out of this by minimizing other people's transgressions and watering down the conversation?

And I wasn't aware that an entire political party and the donor class that supported it had been convicted of rape.

Neither were Trump or Bill Clinton. Nor has Weinstein. Yet. Don't move the goalposts when someone is looking directly at them.

Catnip1024:

BeetleManiac:
This is not one-up-manship. This is recognizing bullshit for what it is. And playing the, "Both sides are just as bad," game is transparent bullshit.

As is playing the "well, your side is worse..." game.

Come on, buddy, that wasn't an excuse for all the Trump Clinton crap, it's not an excuse here. There is shit on both sides. Why are you so intent on trying to portray one as worse? What is in it for you, that it is more worthwhile to sling mud than to think about a solution? Considering the same overarching factors apply to both sides, the same consequences apply to both sides, and the same actions could probably fix the issues on both sides.

And I wasn't aware that an entire political party and the donor class that supported it had been convicted of rape. I would have thought that that would be bigger news, somehow...


"both sides...both sides"

BeetleManiac:
snip

Okay buddy, this is going to be my last response to you in this one, since you clearly have no interest in actually talking about the issue rather than your own personal agenda which you intend to override every thread with.

I've already touched on a number of things that need to be looked at to address the issues:
- The cult of personality around certain prominent media individuals - be it Saville, Cosby, Weinstein, or Reilly. The boards are clearly more afraid of losing them than fostering a good working environment, and head towards actively covering up incidents rather than dealing with them.
- The fact that complaints against the company co-owner in this particular instance were made to the company rather than the police, or an agent, or so forth. There's room for improvement there, be it better police relations, an independent industry helpline, or just more accountability.
- In the general working world, a properly empowered ethics board at large companies. HR generally exists at most, but from what I've seen tends to dance to the company tune. There needs to be a more ingrained independence, possibly reporting to a separate board member.
- And that's not even touching on the societal issues that allow this sort of thing to happen. Undue deference to authority, general acceptance of shit, and reluctance to break cover and be the first to speak out. I don't have the answers to that one, but at least I'm looking at the issue rather than aiming at people I don't like.

Catnip1024:
Okay buddy, this is going to be my last response to you in this one,

You tease. You'll get a lot further if you stop assuming anyone who disagrees with your disingenuous "Both Sides Are the Same!!" game is stupid.

Saelune:

RikuoAmero:

Saelune:
Let me know when Anthony Weiner gets a job at CNN. Or the Presidency.

*Cough* Bill Clinton *Cough* Sorry about that, I'll go get strepsils...
Now I'd like to ask why you seem to be framing this as somehow being a problem that only affects the right wing? A little Google-fu found this article
https://www.naturalnews.com/2017-10-11-parade-of-dirtbags-ben-affleck-jimmy-kimmel-harvey-weinstein-all-exposed-as-liberal-hollywood-elitists-who-abuse-women.html
Do you want to remind readers what side of the political aisle Jimmy Kimmel falls on?
Since you mentioned CNN...
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/they-have-assault-and-rape-on-their-hands-tapper-rips-media-complicity-in-weinstein-scandal/

All of you are missing my point. I am saying that right-wing sex-offenders are being found out as sex offenders and getting rewarded for it! Bill Clinton did not get his job back after the scandal, not that he could. He did not get elected post-scandal.

But O'Reily? He is getting his job -back- after he got caught.

That might have been because he had reached his two term limit. The relationship between Clinton and Lewinsky took place between 1995 and 1996, and came to light in 1998, in the middle of his second and last term as President . So even if Clinton had wanted to run again, he couldn't have, as US Presidents are limited to two terms. Either way, while he was impeached, he completed his second term, so that counts as 'getting his job back after the scandal', or the next best thing to it in my book.
Have a look at this Wikipedia article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-presidency_of_Bill_Clinton

Wow...looks like he's kept himself busy since leaving the Oval Office.

If one read this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_sexual_misconduct_allegations
the opening section reads somewhat like what happened with Trump during the election campaign.

RikuoAmero:

Saelune:

RikuoAmero:

*Cough* Bill Clinton *Cough* Sorry about that, I'll go get strepsils...
Now I'd like to ask why you seem to be framing this as somehow being a problem that only affects the right wing? A little Google-fu found this article
https://www.naturalnews.com/2017-10-11-parade-of-dirtbags-ben-affleck-jimmy-kimmel-harvey-weinstein-all-exposed-as-liberal-hollywood-elitists-who-abuse-women.html
Do you want to remind readers what side of the political aisle Jimmy Kimmel falls on?
Since you mentioned CNN...
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/they-have-assault-and-rape-on-their-hands-tapper-rips-media-complicity-in-weinstein-scandal/

All of you are missing my point. I am saying that right-wing sex-offenders are being found out as sex offenders and getting rewarded for it! Bill Clinton did not get his job back after the scandal, not that he could. He did not get elected post-scandal.

But O'Reily? He is getting his job -back- after he got caught.

That might have been because he had reached his two term limit. The relationship between Clinton and Lewinsky took place between 1995 and 1996, and came to light in 1998, in the middle of his second and last term as President . So even if Clinton had wanted to run again, he couldn't have, as US Presidents are limited to two terms. Either way, while he was impeached, he completed his second term, so that counts as 'getting his job back after the scandal', or the next best thing to it in my book.
Have a look at this Wikipedia article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-presidency_of_Bill_Clinton

Wow...looks like he's kept himself busy since leaving the Oval Office.

If one read this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_sexual_misconduct_allegations
the opening section reads somewhat like what happened with Trump during the election campaign.

Ofcourse it does in your book. Your book is right-wing.

Catnip1024:

- And that's not even touching on the societal issues that allow this sort of thing to happen. Undue deference to authority, general acceptance of shit, and reluctance to break cover and be the first to speak out. I don't have the answers to that one, but at least I'm looking at the issue rather than aiming at people I don't like.

Well, one, stop trying to get people to speak out to stop. You seem to be more critical of those who speak out, yet you seem to acknowledge that speaking out is important.

And undue deference to authority? If thats so, why do you push this 'both sides is wrong'? One side is in power, and you keep neglecting that.

You cannot type that genuinely, since you seem to work against this entire point constantly yourself.

Saelune:
Well, one, stop trying to get people to speak out to stop. You seem to be more critical of those who speak out, yet you seem to acknowledge that speaking out is important.

And undue deference to authority? If thats so, why do you push this 'both sides is wrong'? One side is in power, and you keep neglecting that.

You cannot type that genuinely, since you seem to work against this entire point constantly yourself.

Not a single one of my criticisms has been about people speaking out. It has been about people not speaking out, in the context of a societal issue. I criticise them, and the people who knew and did nothing, because generally it's easier to get normal people to change their ways than sociopathic rapists. Hence why #metoo is being used by victims and not harassers.

There is more to power than who has their finger over the red button. Weinstein ran his company. He was in power to the people who came into contact with him, whose livelihood depended on his goodwill. Reilly clearly had massive influence, and power through that, despite not running the company. Power does not equal government. Left or right, president or opposition, is irrelevant to the people affected.

Saelune:

RikuoAmero:

Saelune:
All of you are missing my point. I am saying that right-wing sex-offenders are being found out as sex offenders and getting rewarded for it! Bill Clinton did not get his job back after the scandal, not that he could. He did not get elected post-scandal.

But O'Reily? He is getting his job -back- after he got caught.

That might have been because he had reached his two term limit. The relationship between Clinton and Lewinsky took place between 1995 and 1996, and came to light in 1998, in the middle of his second and last term as President . So even if Clinton had wanted to run again, he couldn't have, as US Presidents are limited to two terms. Either way, while he was impeached, he completed his second term, so that counts as 'getting his job back after the scandal', or the next best thing to it in my book.
Have a look at this Wikipedia article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-presidency_of_Bill_Clinton

Wow...looks like he's kept himself busy since leaving the Oval Office.

If one read this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_sexual_misconduct_allegations
the opening section reads somewhat like what happened with Trump during the election campaign.

Ofcourse it does in your book. Your book is right-wing.

Wrong. I have never once identified as right wing in my life. All you are aware of is that I have a few posts here pointing out that what is being criticised about the right wing is also true about the left, and somehow in your mind that translates to me being right wing.
Grow up and learn some rational skepticism and logic please. One is NOT right wing simply for criticising the left.

Are you going to stand by your previous comment about how Clinton didn't run for office "due" (paraphrased) the sex scandal?

Wrex Brogan:

...you're presuming it involves unequal treatment. Personally I don't find 'treat women as you do men' kinda advice very unequal.

Entries provided in the quote demonstrate several examples of treating women differently. RikuoAmero there touched on some clear-cut examples, and when I first posted I touched on others. I'll touch on the full list a little further down.

That is the problem, it is not saying "treat women like you do men" it is saying "treat women differently because they are women" with those examples. it isn't pushing equality, it is using perceived inequality to push other inequality.

...the same as, the same as men. Specifically meant for women, but encouraging people to treat them the same as their male colleagues. That's the jist of it.

Unless you call your male colleagues 'sweety' and introduce them as 'The Lovely Bob johnson', I'm getting confused as to how you're drawing it out as unequal treatment.

Ok then, lets examine the list. For space and page-stretching, it will be in the spoiler.

I know, that was long, but even giving credit where it was questionable on this list, over half the list clearly promotes unequal treatment based on gender, or only can apply equally vaguely in concept but never in application.

...not quite, but ok. 'social and cultural contexts' in this regard is the fact that, socially and culturally in the Western world, what the quoted OP is describing is pretty bog-standard shows of respect - calling someone their full title, not using cutesy nicknames when you're not familiar with them, not focusing on their physical appearance, being considerate during sexual intercourse... all signs of basic respect. A solid 5/10 for following them.

Except the other half of the list relates to telling people how to treat a gender differently, or based on issues where the equal application clearly was not meant at all. As such, no, it is not promoting equality, even if you wish to argue that it is promoting something moral.

Disagreement/Agreement with the OP has no impact on your morality, but, frankly, if you are enraged or incensed at the idea of treating women equally, then you're probably not a very decent person to begin with. And failing to express the bog-standard shows of respect as outlined by the quoted OP means you're probably not a very decent person either, since as they say, they can apply to anyone.

And to be fair, I did address you responding to someone else, that was just further down.

(also I think we've been conflating 'decency' with 'morality' a lot here, whoops)

Decency is tied to morality, both are judgements of character and it is rather difficult to define cases where someone is not one without the other, save weird or unusual circumstances. For the sake of general conversation, I have been using decency as a base level of acceptable social morality. Basically, the first benchmark of being a decent human being is to be have a level of morality. But that really doesn't affect any points I made either way.

The problem here is that the op's post is not talking about treating women equally, but rather about treating them specifically based on their gender and the majority of points I touched on above explains. The conflict then is that the person saying "if you don't support equality, you are not a decent person" is supporting inequality themselves.

While you can argue that the unequal treatment is the more moral choice, the framing of the position is false.

The quote is promoting unequal treatment, generally to counteract what they see as inequality, but still promoting unequal treatment of people based on gender.

Supporting that while condemning those who don't support equality is a paradoxical position unless you are arguing that you are not a decent human being.

Oh boy, yeah, we really have been conflating morality and decency a lot here. Whoops.

...yes it does. If the context of the behaviour is that it is the culturally accepted standards of respectful behaviour, then failing to follow it for a specific gender is sexist, but expressing it to all genders makes it not sexist, since you are no longer treating any specific gender differently from another.

Likewise, failing to express it to all genders makes you a disrespectful prick, but not a sexist. And overexpressing it to a singular gender makes you a sexist.

Like, I'm not actually disagreeing with you that Sexism follows a binary scale, I'm disagreeing with your use of the binary to deduce that this is a sexist situation, when it's a situation that's about addressing an inequality within society, namely the inequal treatment of women.

It is a sexist solution to inequality.

That's it, that's the whole point right there.

It does not matter if you want to address inequality yourself to determine if it is sexist or not, what matters is if the proposed solution itself adheres to that definition. And it does.

Everything else, any judgements on it, the morality on it, the measure of a decent human being, they are all disconnected to that definition. It does not make it not sexist to use sexism to fight sexism any more than it makes it not violent to use violence to fight violence.

I called it benevolent sexism from the start. It still is.

"Failing to express it to all genders" makes it sexist. And probably a prick (hey, another gendered insult), but still sexist.

So there is no question this is sexist. It undeniably is.

Questions about if it is moral are still open to argument.

...see above for the context.

And, uhhhhhh... it kinda does matter if women are being treated equally or not, since that would determine whether or not a solution would be something to address the inequality or whether it would be a sexist action to conduct. Nor is it a judgement of 'balancing inequalities' to right a wrong, it's upholding a standard as set by the cultural rules of social conduct in regards to respectful treatment.

Or, well... decency.

No, the action's motivation itself being based on gender determines if it is sexist or not. That you want to fight sexism does not make a solution no longer sexist when it specifically treats women differently because of their gender.

There is a difference between encouraging treating people equally and just adding a new way to treat someone differently based on gender. That list, every suggestion is worded as the latter.

And even giving benefit of the doubt and trying to apply them equally instead, half the list simply does not work in theory or in practical application, further revealing the intention was not about promoting equality, but about adding new sexist "rules" to counteract perceived existing sexist situation.

A few of the rules can be argued are calling for a standardized equal treatment. Many do not, be it promoting the difference and specifically calling for different treatment based on gender, or by the flip side clearly not being intended to be equally applied.

Good, I'm glad we both agree that sexism is treating one gender differently to another.

Now we're just disagreeing on whether or not this constitutes unequal treatment. You think it does, believing it asks to treat women differently to the norm.

I think it doesn't, because it's simply holding people to treat women at the same level of respect they show men, i.e. decency.

Hence why I've been banging the drum of context so much - you're not necessarily saying anything wrong, it's just that, given the contexts, you're misapplying everything to make a ruling that this is benevolent sexism. When, given the contexts, it isn't, since it's... well, just asking people to be respectful instead of wankers.

Also the water-jug analogy was the best I could do, I probably could've clarified that with 'so I can fill my big 10 litre jug later' but ehhhhh, shit happens.

I touched on the full list above, so I hope it addresses this portion already.
I don't see that list as asking for equal treatment at all, I see it as asking for special consideration for gender in response to perceived existing inequality. Too many of the points raised are outright encouraging the gender divide and differential treatment, or are incapable of being reversed with to represent equality itself.

Ehhhh, depends on the definition, how you interpret it and how you apply it. The problem is that you're applying the definition based on your own subjective interpretation (which, to be fair, we're all doing anyway) of the matter at hand, wherein it doesn't apply so easily, and reduces the broader issue to the narrow band of your perspective. And while I can't comment on the morality of wet t-shirt contests, it could be argued that there's an inexorable tie between disrespecting women and immorality...

And I haven't been questioning your personal stance on sexism, just your application of binaries to a complex situation. And while sexism and being moral (and being decent) are separate things, given how western culture functions they are also tied closely together - it's a hard thing to be both sexist AND moral, outside of certain subjective interpretations.

Interpretations such as benevolent sexism?

I'm applying the definition as it fits. While we are arguing if the list itself constitutes promoting unequal treatment the logic on that point is already proven.

:If treating someone differently based on their gender is sexist (and it is)
:And If the list is promoting treating someone differently based on their gender (and I have argued it is)
:Then that proposed solution is sexist.

I... was drawing your hypothetical out further, to show the problem of making swift judgements off of a cursory glance. Sorry, didn't really specify that.

Ah, ok. fair tactic then.

Ehhhh, to be fair to you, if you'd made the complaint now it'd certainly be more accurate...

*looks up* Yikes. At least this one lasted longer than the usual threads.

I don't want to say that I called it after having admitted it wasn't helping things much when I did so, but, well, you are right. Yikes.

RikuoAmero:

Can I marry you, Sir Knight? Yup, everything you wrote there is what I myself believe, but never so eloquently put.

As for the OP you ask why they brought up the topic, and then immediately make an assumption about their motivation. I assume they made the topic because it was a god source for one. What does that matter one way or the other though? I don't get what you are trying to argue here.

Remember I said a relative had shared the post? Yeah, that relative is someone I like and admire...but is what I would otherwise call an SJW. I didn't want to post my thoughts on the list of tips on Facebook and cause some sort of family squabble, so thought hey I could cause a discussion here on an anonymous forum, one of the few that at the time of posting I already had an account for (as in, I wouldn't have had to go through the rigmarole of setting up a new account).

It is a good set up for a topic, despite the downward tread discussions seem to have taken.

Also, no, I need a ring of at least 3 crackjack karats or higher

RikuoAmero:

Saelune:

RikuoAmero:

That might have been because he had reached his two term limit. The relationship between Clinton and Lewinsky took place between 1995 and 1996, and came to light in 1998, in the middle of his second and last term as President . So even if Clinton had wanted to run again, he couldn't have, as US Presidents are limited to two terms. Either way, while he was impeached, he completed his second term, so that counts as 'getting his job back after the scandal', or the next best thing to it in my book.
Have a look at this Wikipedia article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-presidency_of_Bill_Clinton

Wow...looks like he's kept himself busy since leaving the Oval Office.

If one read this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_sexual_misconduct_allegations
the opening section reads somewhat like what happened with Trump during the election campaign.

Ofcourse it does in your book. Your book is right-wing.

Wrong. I have never once identified as right wing in my life. All you are aware of is that I have a few posts here pointing out that what is being criticised about the right wing is also true about the left, and somehow in your mind that translates to me being right wing.
Grow up and learn some rational skepticism and logic please. One is NOT right wing simply for criticising the left.

Are you going to stand by your previous comment about how Clinton didn't run for office "due" (paraphrased) the sex scandal?

I dont care if you call yourself right wing. You keep espousing right-wing views.

As for Clinton, who knows? He certainly doesnt help your point either though.

Catnip1024:

Saelune:
Well, one, stop trying to get people to speak out to stop. You seem to be more critical of those who speak out, yet you seem to acknowledge that speaking out is important.

And undue deference to authority? If thats so, why do you push this 'both sides is wrong'? One side is in power, and you keep neglecting that.

You cannot type that genuinely, since you seem to work against this entire point constantly yourself.

Not a single one of my criticisms has been about people speaking out. It has been about people not speaking out, in the context of a societal issue. I criticise them, and the people who knew and did nothing, because generally it's easier to get normal people to change their ways than sociopathic rapists. Hence why #metoo is being used by victims and not harassers.

There is more to power than who has their finger over the red button. Weinstein ran his company. He was in power to the people who came into contact with him, whose livelihood depended on his goodwill. Reilly clearly had massive influence, and power through that, despite not running the company. Power does not equal government. Left or right, president or opposition, is irrelevant to the people affected.

And yet you keep trying to go "but both sides are bad therefor lets ignore the issue".

More to power? Sure, but President of the US is still the fucking President of the US. And the US government is decidedly right-wing right now and you CANT IGNORE IT so stop trying to.

Go figure the people making and deciding laws...are powerful.

Im pretty sure everyone getting kicked out of the US, having their lives upended consider Trump powerful.

That is the problem, it is not saying "treat women like you do men" it is saying "treat women differently because they are women" with those examples. it isn't pushing equality, it is using perceived inequality to push other inequality.

Aye. It is what I see a lot of when it comes to modern social justice. They say there is this inequality that is systemic...but yet, it is illegal in reality. We have organisations like the BBC claiming that there is racism in the workplace. So we have a perceived implicit discrimination...and so the solution is for explicit discrimination, literally writing in the job advertisements that it's for non-whites only?

Saelune:

RikuoAmero:

Saelune:
Ofcourse it does in your book. Your book is right-wing.

Wrong. I have never once identified as right wing in my life. All you are aware of is that I have a few posts here pointing out that what is being criticised about the right wing is also true about the left, and somehow in your mind that translates to me being right wing.
Grow up and learn some rational skepticism and logic please. One is NOT right wing simply for criticising the left.

Are you going to stand by your previous comment about how Clinton didn't run for office "due" (paraphrased) the sex scandal?

I dont care if you call yourself right wing. You keep espousing right-wing views.

As for Clinton, who knows? He certainly doesnt help your point either though.

Please educate myself and readers on how criticising the left and pointing out its as bad as the right...is espousing right wing views.
As for Clinton...how does he NOT help my point? You didn't explain. You just declared that he doesn't, and left it at that. You heavily implied that he didn't 'get his job back' i.e. the presidency due to his sex scandal, and I pointed out that he couldn't have either way, given the scandal came to light during his last legally allowed term as president.

RikuoAmero:

Saelune:

RikuoAmero:

Wrong. I have never once identified as right wing in my life. All you are aware of is that I have a few posts here pointing out that what is being criticised about the right wing is also true about the left, and somehow in your mind that translates to me being right wing.
Grow up and learn some rational skepticism and logic please. One is NOT right wing simply for criticising the left.

Are you going to stand by your previous comment about how Clinton didn't run for office "due" (paraphrased) the sex scandal?

I dont care if you call yourself right wing. You keep espousing right-wing views.

As for Clinton, who knows? He certainly doesnt help your point either though.

Please educate myself and readers on how criticising the left and pointing out its as bad as the right...is espousing right wing views.
As for Clinton...how does he NOT help my point? You didn't explain. You just declared that he doesn't, and left it at that. You heavily implied that he didn't 'get his job back' i.e. the presidency due to his sex scandal, and I pointed out that he couldn't have either way, given the scandal came to light during his last legally allowed term as president.

Its certainly not a left-wing view. You arent left wing, and if you claim you arent right-wing, then what are you?

And fuck being on the defensive. Prove right-wingers arent rewarded when stuck in sexual assault/rape scandals. Why is O'Reily getting his job back? Why did things like 'grab em by the pussy' not stop Trump from being President?

Saelune:

RikuoAmero:

Saelune:
I dont care if you call yourself right wing. You keep espousing right-wing views.

As for Clinton, who knows? He certainly doesnt help your point either though.

Please educate myself and readers on how criticising the left and pointing out its as bad as the right...is espousing right wing views.
As for Clinton...how does he NOT help my point? You didn't explain. You just declared that he doesn't, and left it at that. You heavily implied that he didn't 'get his job back' i.e. the presidency due to his sex scandal, and I pointed out that he couldn't have either way, given the scandal came to light during his last legally allowed term as president.

Its certainly not a left-wing view. You arent left wing, and if you claim you arent right-wing, then what are you?

And fuck being on the defensive. Prove right-wingers arent rewarded when stuck in sexual assault/rape scandals. Why is O'Reily getting his job back? Why did things like 'grab em by the pussy' not stop Trump from being President?

There is a thing called being centrist? Ever hear of it? Personally, last time I took a political leanings quiz, I came out as being left centrist.

Its certainly not a left-wing view. You arent left wing, and if you claim you arent right-wing, then what are you?

Apparently I'm whatever Saelune declares I am to be, despite the fact that as of October 2017, this is the only thread I've been on (minus a couple of minor comments on other threads that I don't intend to get into a big debate over, not like here), and thus, any declarations on what my political leanings are would have to be without merit. You'd have pretty much nothing to go off on.

Prove right-wingers arent rewarded when stuck in sexual assault/rape scandals.

Did I ever make the claim that right wingers aren't being rewarded?
No.
What happened with myself is that I saw the claim that right wingers are being rewarded, and did not disagree with it. No what I saw fit to do was point out how that is something not exclusive to the American right.
Given how incredibly biased your own political leanings are Saelune, you saw someone who wrote something criticising the left and automatically in your mind, that translates to that person being right wing.

Why is O'Reily getting his job back?

You'd have to ask the people giving him his job back. I personally don't care about O'Reilly, since I'm not American nor do I watch broadcast television.

Why did things like 'grab em by the pussy' not stop Trump from being President?

Do you want an objective answer, or just my opinion? Maybe its because saying a thing, even something as stupid as that, does not constitute being found unfit for office.
There's more to the quote unqoute qualifications for POTUS than whether or not one has bragged about moving on women.

RikuoAmero:

Saelune:

RikuoAmero:

Please educate myself and readers on how criticising the left and pointing out its as bad as the right...is espousing right wing views.
As for Clinton...how does he NOT help my point? You didn't explain. You just declared that he doesn't, and left it at that. You heavily implied that he didn't 'get his job back' i.e. the presidency due to his sex scandal, and I pointed out that he couldn't have either way, given the scandal came to light during his last legally allowed term as president.

Its certainly not a left-wing view. You arent left wing, and if you claim you arent right-wing, then what are you?

And fuck being on the defensive. Prove right-wingers arent rewarded when stuck in sexual assault/rape scandals. Why is O'Reily getting his job back? Why did things like 'grab em by the pussy' not stop Trump from being President?

There is a thing called being centrist? Ever hear of it? Personally, last time I took a political leanings quiz, I came out as being left centrist.

Its certainly not a left-wing view. You arent left wing, and if you claim you arent right-wing, then what are you?

Apparently I'm whatever Saelune declares I am to be, despite the fact that as of October 2017, this is the only thread I've been on (minus a couple of minor comments on other threads that I don't intend to get into a big debate over, not like here), and thus, any declarations on what my political leanings are would have to be without merit. You'd have pretty much nothing to go off on.

Prove right-wingers arent rewarded when stuck in sexual assault/rape scandals.

Did I ever make the claim that right wingers aren't being rewarded?
No.
What happened with myself is that I saw the claim that right wingers are being rewarded, and did not disagree with it. No what I saw fit to do was point out how that is something not exclusive to the American right.
Given how incredibly biased your own political leanings are Saelune, you saw someone who wrote something criticising the left and automatically in your mind, that translates to that person being right wing.

Why is O'Reily getting his job back?

You'd have to ask the people giving him his job back. I personally don't care about O'Reilly, since I'm not American nor do I watch broadcast television.

Why did things like 'grab em by the pussy' not stop Trump from being President?

Do you want an objective answer, or just my opinion? Maybe its because saying a thing, even something as stupid as that, does not constitute being found unfit for office.
There's more to the quote unqoute qualifications for POTUS than whether or not one has bragged about moving on women.

Centrists seem too intent on defending the current right-wing government. If you're really a centrist, then you need to balance out the imbalance which favors the right currently.

You are what you are regardless of what either of us -say- you are. But you should be aware of what your views actually are and not assume that you are whatever you say you are. Alot of people claim they are not right-wing these days yet do nothing but defend Trump, defend sexism, defend racism, defend Christianity, but take issue with gay rights and Muslims and blacks.

I could say I am 6'4. Im not, but I could say it. I wont suddenly grow bigger though.

Yes you did, by contesting me saying they are. Thats kinda how disagreeing works.

Maybe you should care about O'Reily. You seem to care so much about Clinton.

Trump has said alot of things. Alot of things that if Obama has said just one of those things, it would have been treated as a bigger deal. But I guess bigots are less picky who lets them oppress people.

You are what you are regardless of what either of us -say- you are. But you should be aware of what your views actually are and not assume that you are whatever you say you are.

Which is a great refutation of modern identity politics, where what one SAYS they are dictates (to a lesser or greater extent) how one feels they ought to be treated by society.
What are my views? Remember, when it comes to myself, all you, Saelune, have to go on for what it is that RikuoAmero is like...is this thread.

Centrists seem too intent on defending the current right-wing government.

Which government? In case it has escaped your notice, despite the fact I've said it at least once in this thread, I am not American. So please do not do what the rest of the world thinks a stereotypical American does, one who assumes that their country and government are the only ones worth even thinking about.

If you're really a centrist, then you need to balance out the imbalance which favors the right currently.

Okay...by doing or saying what exactly? What if I think the imbalance swings the other way?

Alot of people claim they are not right-wing these days yet do nothing but defend Trump, defend sexism, defend racism, defend Christianity, but take issue with gay rights and Muslims and blacks.

Is that all of what constitutes right wing? Are there no shades or differences in behaviour?

I could say I am 6'4. Im not, but I could say it. I wont suddenly grow bigger though.

I could say I'm a six year old girl and abandon my several children...but that doesn't change what I biologically am.
Notice that what you are saying defeats modern identity politics, which I would guess is not your goal.

Yes you did, by contesting me saying they are. Thats kinda how disagreeing works.

Did what? I'm not exactly sure what this is referring to. I am going to out on a limb and guess that this refers to the disagreement re: Clinton between you and I. You inferred in Post 161, that if one is Right Wing and a Sex offender, you get rewarded for it. A casual reader would infer that this is a behavior more or less exclusionary to the right wing, that this is your claim (that sex offence is restricted to the right wing and/or that only the right wing rewards sex offenders).

Maybe you should care about O'Reily. You seem to care so much about Clinton.

Because one is a media personality not well known where I am and the other once held the most important and powerful office in the friggin' world, one who did arguably good things in my own country.
Yeah, go on, keep pushing your American-centered viewpoint. There's more to the world than just America.

Trump has said alot of things. Alot of things that if Obama has said just one of those things, it would have been treated as a bigger deal.

Really? So 'grab em by the pussy' has NOT garnered a lot of attention, is NOT treated as a big deal?

But I guess bigots are less picky who lets them oppress people.

Go on. I fucking double dog dare you to explain how I am an oppressor. Go on. Justify the charge. Explain how you somehow know that I am an oppressor, going off of a single comment thread that was initially about a facebook post that was ostensibly about treating women equally to men (but really wasn't, once one read the list of tips).

RikuoAmero:

You are what you are regardless of what either of us -say- you are. But you should be aware of what your views actually are and not assume that you are whatever you say you are.

Which is a great refutation of modern identity politics, where what one SAYS they are dictates (to a lesser or greater extent) how one feels they ought to be treated by society.
What are my views? Remember, when it comes to myself, all you, Saelune, have to go on for what it is that RikuoAmero is like...is this thread.

Centrists seem too intent on defending the current right-wing government.

Which government? In case it has escaped your notice, despite the fact I've said it at least once in this thread, I am not American. So please do not do what the rest of the world thinks a stereotypical American does, one who assumes that their country and government are the only ones worth even thinking about.

If you're really a centrist, then you need to balance out the imbalance which favors the right currently.

Okay...by doing or saying what exactly? What if I think the imbalance swings the other way?

Alot of people claim they are not right-wing these days yet do nothing but defend Trump, defend sexism, defend racism, defend Christianity, but take issue with gay rights and Muslims and blacks.

Is that all of what constitutes right wing? Are there no shades or differences in behaviour?

I could say I am 6'4. Im not, but I could say it. I wont suddenly grow bigger though.

I could say I'm a six year old girl and abandon my several children...but that doesn't change what I biologically am.
Notice that what you are saying defeats modern identity politics, which I would guess is not your goal.

Yes you did, by contesting me saying they are. Thats kinda how disagreeing works.

Did what? I'm not exactly sure what this is referring to. I am going to out on a limb and guess that this refers to the disagreement re: Clinton between you and I. You inferred in Post 161, that if one is Right Wing and a Sex offender, you get rewarded for it. A casual reader would infer that this is a behavior more or less exclusionary to the right wing, that this is your claim (that sex offence is restricted to the right wing and/or that only the right wing rewards sex offenders).

Maybe you should care about O'Reily. You seem to care so much about Clinton.

Because one is a media personality not well known where I am and the other once held the most important and powerful office in the friggin' world, one who did arguably good things in my own country.
Yeah, go on, keep pushing your American-centered viewpoint. There's more to the world than just America.

Trump has said alot of things. Alot of things that if Obama has said just one of those things, it would have been treated as a bigger deal.

Really? So 'grab em by the pussy' has NOT garnered a lot of attention, is NOT treated as a big deal?

But I guess bigots are less picky who lets them oppress people.

Go on. I fucking double dog dare you to explain how I am an oppressor. Go on. Justify the charge. Explain how you somehow know that I am an oppressor, going off of a single comment thread that was initially about a facebook post that was ostensibly about treating women equally to men (but really wasn't, once one read the list of tips).

Direct quoting helps otherwise people wont see your response so easily.

The views you have are what they are. A right-wing view is a right-wing view. I have some views considered right-wing, but mostly my views are left-wing. Enough that I support left-wing groups over right-wing. But if I said I was right-wing, no one who has any knowledge of my views would be inclined to believe me.

You can say you're Christian, but if you dont believe in Jesus and the Christian God, then you're not really Christian are you?

You have posted in other threads and none of them have left me with any belief that your views line with mine. You oppose those I agree with, side with those I do not. If you find yourself agreeing heavily with runic knight, well I know my opinion of him and would make sense then to associate that with you to some degree, atleast in terms of sharing views.

Right-wing governments keep popping up around the world though. Modern politics are very interconnected, especially with big powers like the US. And if you're going to play the 'Not American' card, then dont talk about American politics. Clinton, O'Reily, Trump, Weinstein, USA each. So are we talking American or not?

Things are favoring right-wing. If you are a centrist, then focus on your issues with the right. If and when things shift left, then so should your attention. If you wanted to make a fair fight out of two people, one big and strong, the other small and weak. Its not really a 'centrist and balanced move' to give them both the same weapon. Cause it still just helps the big guy.

If you think the imbalance is the other way, you are wrong.

The right, particularly in the US has defined itself on its bigotry. In some alternate world of equality, there may be a fair right-wing view, but not here. The right has constantly and consistently fought against equality for anyone who is not a straight white rich male. They let blacks get shot, gays get fired, women get raped, and poor people robbed by evil business practices.

Identity politics was created by the bigots. Dont blame the victims. But thanks for more reason to consider you right-wing.

My point was that right-wing sex offenders get away with it far better than any left-wing sex offender. I do not defend Weinstein in the slightest. I do not defend Weiner. But why is O'Reily getting hired back? Why is Trump President?

Again, if you are going to talk about the US, dont play the "Not an American" card. If you want to admit ignorance because you are not American, that is fine, but you are not doing that. And no, I am not saying that as an insult. I admitted my own foreign ignorance on the topic of Catalonia, cause there is likely tons of stuff I dont, wont, and cant know without living there.

Considering Trump is still in power and the right doesnt talk about it, apparently it is not a big deal. Tons of people who claimed he was wrong for it still voted for him.

See my post that you hopefully just finished reading.

The entire campaign made women in my life uncomfortable. Could be the circles we run in, but my wife of 20 years has yet to be sexually harassed by anyone; many of our female friends report working in offices all their lives without encountering some of this harassing behavior. Most of the women I talked to said they were simply "opting out" of this latest internet craze - #metoo was actually started by a black woman over a decade ago but it was largely ignored at the time - and this too shall pass.

For everyone that seemed to want to share their victim status there seemed to be another, somewhat embarrassed woman that just wanted to get back to the business of living her life as a non-victim.

As for women telling me how I should behave because I'm "part of the problem" - just no. I've never assaulted or abused or forced myself on a man or a woman and I'm not going to take responsibility for a "rape culture" I had no part in creating, if it indeed exists. I fear this might backfire on women because I know a lot of men now in professional positions that are simply saying, "I won't be alone in a room with a woman, it's too risky. If she gets pissed at me she can say anything and ruin my career."

I respect the right of men to protect themselves. Women too. A shame how the genders just seem to be involved in a petty war at the moment.

The Gnome King:
The entire campaign made women in my life uncomfortable. Could be the circles we run in, but my wife of 20 years has yet to be sexually harassed by anyone; many of our female friends report working in offices all their lives without encountering some of this harassing behavior. Most of the women I talked to said they were simply "opting out" of this latest internet craze - #metoo was actually started by a black woman over a decade ago but it was largely ignored at the time - and this too shall pass.

For everyone that seemed to want to share their victim status there seemed to be another, somewhat embarrassed woman that just wanted to get back to the business of living her life as a non-victim.

As for women telling me how I should behave because I'm "part of the problem" - just no. I've never assaulted or abused or forced myself on a man or a woman and I'm not going to take responsibility for a "rape culture" I had no part in creating, if it indeed exists. I fear this might backfire on women because I know a lot of men now in professional positions that are simply saying, "I won't be alone in a room with a woman, it's too risky. If she gets pissed at me she can say anything and ruin my career."

I respect the right of men to protect themselves. Women too. A shame how the genders just seem to be involved in a petty war at the moment.

image

Saelune:
And yet you keep trying to go "but both sides are bad therefor lets ignore the issue".

More to power? Sure, but President of the US is still the fucking President of the US. And the US government is decidedly right-wing right now and you CANT IGNORE IT so stop trying to.

Go figure the people making and deciding laws...are powerful.

Im pretty sure everyone getting kicked out of the US, having their lives upended consider Trump powerful.

I'll say to you the same as I said to BeetleManiac. Since you obviously have no intention of actually discussing the thread rather than forcing your own personal agenda on to things, we are kind of done for this thread.

I mean, fucking hell, look at yourselves.

"Harvey Weinstein sexually assaulted dozens of women, and it turns out this could be a widespread problem in Hollywood"
"Yeah, but the right..."

"Here's some potential discussion points on how the issues could be addressed"
"HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST THESE WHILE TRUMP IS STILL IN CHARGE"

Fine, whatever, good day to ye.

The Gnome King:
... #metoo was actually started by a black woman over a decade ago but it was largely ignored at the time - and this too shall pass.

A black woman? Well that certainly changes everything. I feel so used, somehow dirty and ashamed.
Omg, #metoo!

 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