#MeToo has caught on, good thing or bad thing ?

Achasanai

Deleted User wrote: »

Aww.. shucks. You caught me out. Shame on me.

Like seriously? In, what, 10-20 pages of this thread where I have posted you pick this out to comment on? Way to go, nit-picking. :rolleyes:

Pathetic.

Not really. It's one of your main points that the poster can't speak for women on this matter, yet you talk about how all men feel.

If you take your advice on the matter and talk to other women about this matter, maybe your perception will change? And possibly become less hostile to random anonymous people on the internet?

iodd7

One eyed Jack wrote: »

duadara mentioned that I'd struggle to find a woman who hadn't experienced intimidation from men at some point in her life. Now even allowing for that bar that's so low that we're talking about women who have felt intimidated by men as an issue which men should be made aware of, I still wouldn't struggle at all to find plenty of women who have never experienced feeling intimidated by men, and would laugh at the very idea of it and think I really had gone and finally lost my marbles.

I don't think this could possibly be true, and encourage you to go for it and try to find 'plenty' of women who have never experienced feeling intimidated by men. With respect, I don't think you understand how pervasive it is, and I don't think you can be expected to

Achasanai

Achasanai wrote: »

Not really. It's one of your main points that the poster can't speak for women on this matter, yet you talk about how all men feel.

The reason I said you were nit-picking was that I've tried consistently not to talk as if I'm representing all men in this matter. Mistakes happen.

I definitely don't feel that I am talking for all men. I'm speaking of my own experiences, and info gathered from conversations with my friends...

Actually what I spoke about was the differences in perception between people, and how every woman will have a different perception of what harassment/abuse is. (since the metoo campaign has no actual structure to suggest what the accepted idea of harassment/abuse is).

If you take your advice on the matter and talk to other women about this matter, maybe your perception will change? And possibly become less hostile to random anonymous people on the internet?

I have spoken to women about harassment and abuse before. I was a lecturer teaching Business Ethics and the matter of harassment was part of what we spoke about. I also spoke recently to the women in my family about this, and while they did acknowledge a degree of harassment from men, there was nothing compared with the high levels of harassment posters within this thread suggested.

Less hostile? Your first contribution to this thread that I can see was a post pointing this out. Not talking about the metoo campaign, not harassment or abuse, instead to point out that I wrote something like I was speaking for all men.

One eyed Jack

iodd7 wrote: »

I don't think this could possibly be true, and encourage you to go for it and try to find 'plenty' of women who have never experienced feeling intimidated by men. With respect, I don't think you understand how pervasive it is, and I don't think you can be expected to

Ok, you've made your point respectfully so I'll be equally as respectful in return.

It's completely understandable to me at least that you wouldn't blindly accept something which contradicts your lived experiences. Then surely by that same standard you must be able to understand that other people, and not just men btw but actually in my experience just as many women, if not more women, because women by virtue of the fact that they are women, feel much more comfortable in discrediting and dismissing other women's experiences of intimidation, harassment and sexual violence. They are far more likely than men to blame the woman in those circumstances for her behaviour, as opposed to putting the responsibility squarely where it belongs, on the perpetrator (the perpetrator being either a man or a woman). The victim is actually less likely to be supported by a woman, than a man. That's not to say whether a woman does or doesn't believe her, it's to say that a woman isn't as likely to express support for her.

Now, as to whether I would or wouldn't find plenty of women who have never been intimidated by men, it was my own fault I wasn't explicitly clear there. I really would find plenty of women and have found (not that I've ever actively looked for them but hopefully you understand what I mean by that) plenty of women and have already talked with plenty of women and listened to plenty of women, who have told me to my face, as much as they have never and would never let any man intimidate them. I suspected that in far, far too many cases, I wasn't getting the whole story, but if that's what those women needed me to believe in order that they could cope, if that's how they choose to cope, then I would never and have never taken that away from them by putting them in a position where they felt intimidated or uncomfortable in my presence, because I knew if I did that, they shut down, they don't want anything to interfere with how they have chosen to cope with their experiences.

With respect, I don't think you ever could understand just how much I do or don't understand because on here you aren't even getting so much as a glimpse into a person's life. You're getting what they've chosen to present to you, and with the metoo stuff, you're getting even less than that, you're getting a narrative which you can relate to on some level based upon your life experiences. It's no different than when you read a book, watch a film or listen to a piece of music, you're consuming a narrative that you can relate to, and of course that's going to influence your thinking into wanting to believe that narrative, and shutting out anything which contradicts that narrative, and that's why I said earlier that we relate to narratives far more by a couple of country miles than we do statistics. We always have done since the time of our ancestors, and even in modern times we still do, and that's why clickbaity human interest and opinion pieces are far more popular than facts, and why social media is viewed by some people as empowering, and seen by some (because I'm sure I'm not alone in this), as the digital equivalent of syphilis. It's why here on Boards we have some people who imagine themselves to be intellectually above others, and it is this belief which fuels their desire to intimidate, condescend and pour scorn on people they believe are beneath them. It's a classic indication of insecurity in themselves that some people will use any means at their disposal to undermine someone they believe is beneath them in some way, be it regardless of their gender, their sex, their sexuality, their sexual identity, their skin colour, their intellectual ability, their religion or none, you name it, that list could be an infinite number of reasons only truly known to the person themselves.

The reason why I say that I will never ask any woman I've ever known has she ever been or felt intimidated is because if she wanted me to know, she'd already have told me. If she doesn't tell me, she has her reasons not to, and trying to dig it out of her is only likely to lead her to bury it even further down rather than allowing herself to acknowledge it first before she even thinks of allowing me to know that about her.

I really do understand all too well how pervasive it is, but you're right, I shouldn't be expected to. Nobody should, because those expectations create bias which causes a person to listen only to what they already believe, when someone is telling them about their understanding of their experiences.

Retrovertigo

something

Pac1Man

One thing is clear. Many of you are unable to write concise viewpoints. A paragraph will do, not full opinion pieces full of multiquotes that belong in a blog at best.

professore

A theory on why many men, including myself, until I spoke to my daughter and asked her directly, have trouble believing it.

A lot of women complain all the time about all sorts of trivial stuff - and love to outdo each other in how bad THEY have it compared to someone else. People in general do this, but we are discussing women here and in my experience women do it quite a bit more than men in general.

Men assume this is because they have so little going on actually worth complaining about that they make up this stuff (for example ranting for an hour about some friend who passed some snide remark about something they were wearing or whatever). So if some social trend starts, they fall over each other saying how TERRIBLE their lives are and how it's SO BAD for them.

Yet very few women will ever talk about being harassed, sexually or otherwise. Something most men would ACTUALLY listen to and support them with. Also it's not something the average guy sees on a daily basis. So they quite reasonably assume that these women that complain about everything all the time, would surely complain about something more serious if it was actually happening to them.

So when something like this starts, it's a case of here we go again ....

valoren

Yes, it's not perfect and provides a platform for abuse and misuse. That will always be the way. Giving a platform and a voice for those affected must surely be a good thing, and isn't that what social media is all about anyway?

And I think we should realise that the majority of people have the intelligence to differentiate between attention seeking and serious assault, harrassment and rape and to allow for the appropriate channels opened in order to address that.

RobertKK

#MeToo seems to be a women saying they covered up everything from a man looking at them, to being sexually assaulted and letting the perpetrator away with it.

razorblunt

RobertKK wrote: »

#MeToo seems to be a women saying they covered up everything from a man looking at them, to being sexually assaulted and letting the perpetrator away with it.

Which is the point of this thread really. There's some serious stuff being reported but then you have the band wagon jumpers who are trivialising the whole thing, to some girls.

I must say it has opened my eyes to the what women have experienced. I had a conversation with my wife and her friends and the women at work about the whole thing. Most conceded that their experiences would fall in the "trivial" nature of the hashtag and they wouldn't want to compare their encounters to the more 'serious' ones. Very little felt harrassed, but their encounters bordered on sexual assault which is completely mad.

retro:electro

professore wrote: »

A theory on why many men, including myself, until I spoke to my daughter and asked her directly, have trouble believing it.

A lot of women complain all the time about all sorts of trivial stuff - and love to outdo each other in how bad THEY have it compared to someone else. People in general do this, but we are discussing women here and in my experience women do it quite a bit more than men in general.

Men assume this is because they have so little going on actually worth complaining about that they make up this stuff (for example ranting for an hour about some friend who passed some snide remark about something they were wearing or whatever). So if some social trend starts, they fall over each other saying how TERRIBLE their lives are and how it's SO BAD for them.

Yet very few women will ever talk about being harassed, sexually or otherwise. Something most men would ACTUALLY listen to and support them with. Also it's not something the average guy sees on a daily basis. So they quite reasonably assume that these women that complain about everything all the time, would surely complain about something more serious if it was actually happening to them.

So when something like this starts, it's a case of here we go again ....

Sure god love us. Chronic moaners we are. Every last one of us. Tis a wonder anyone listens to us at all.

seamus

valoren wrote: »

And I think we should realise that the majority of people have the intelligence to differentiate between attention seeking and serious assault, harrassment and rape and to allow for the appropriate channels opened in order to address that.

Absolutely.

Ultimately the intention of the campaign is to make people think about their conditioning. Of both women and men.

To run with professore's example, women don't complain about it on an everyday basis not because it's not a big deal, but because they've learned growing up that it's just something that happens. That you will have comments made, people will try to feel you up (overtly or otherwise), people in positions of power will be weird and creepy. But that's just how things are, and unless you want to have to fight your way through life, you just have to get on with it.

So they don't complain because they feel nobody's really listening anyway. Why complain about something you can't change?

When if you step back and think about it, it's not OK that "That's just how things are". Many companies and industries will have examples of people in positions of power where it's an open secret that you don't allow yourself to be left alone with them, or where you are told to "respectfully" decline their advances, or quietly walk away if they get handsy - you don't want to make a scene.

And that's not OK. These people should be called out. There's no reason why their behaviour should be tolerated. It doesn't matter who they are or what they've done - look at Rolf Harris and Jimmy Saville. Scumbags to the core, but protected because they were apparently good for charity.

That's not OK.

But combatting it starts at the bottom. Not at the top with the Weinsteins and the Spaceys and the Colgans of this world. But with everyday people realising that even the most innocuous stuff is not OK. It's not humorous that your Uncle John is known to be a bit creepy with the ladies and everyone laughs at him behind his back.

Young women should be taught that there are creepy fnckers out there which is why they should travel in packs, but that when you get cornered on the street by some freak who makes you fear for you safety, it is perfectly acceptable to scream in his face, to make a scene and kick him in the balls. And to not at all feel ashamed about it, because you did nothing wrong.

And that when a boss makes disgusting innuendos about you - in private or in front of the rest of the staff - he is the one who should feel ashamed and uncomfortable, not you. That it's OK to tell him that his behaviour is disgusting and inappropriate.

And when we as a society get around to not accepting this low-level stuff, the scumbags who do it won't get far enough in life to be able to institutionally abuse and assault anyone through their power.

#metoo is not about jumping on a bandwagon. It's about revealing a problem that's hiding in plain sight but nobody talks about.

For those who see it as an attack on men; you couldn't be more wrong. There are 3 types of men; Men who don't see it; men who see it and do nothing; and the men who do it. The campaign is not about the last type; they're a minority and aren't going to change their behaviour. It's about getting through to the first two, and opening their eyes.

And it's about getting through to women too - getting them to realise that just because it happens all the time, or it happens to everyone, that it's not OK. That when you tell your daughter to ignore it, laugh it off, and move on, all you're doing is setting her up for a lifetime of ignoring it and pretending it's not happening.

Outlaw Pete

seamus wrote: »

So they don't complain because they feel nobody's really listening anyway. Why complain about something you can't change?

Women don't complain about sexual harassment? Since when? There's been Internet campaign after Internet campaign. Viral videos about street harassment which lead to the issue being discussed to death for six months or more not so long ago.

When if you step back and think about it, it's not OK that "That's just how things are". Many companies and industries will have examples of people in positions of power where it's an open secret that you don't allow yourself to be left alone with them, or where you are told to "respectfully" decline their advances, or quietly walk away if they get handsy - you don't want to make a scene.

And that's not OK.

Eh, sexual harassment in the workplace is in no way shape or form tolerated. It's far from something that needs a hashtag. Serious enough and it would no doubt result in charges being brought as it quite often does.

It doesn't matter who they are or what they've done - look at Rolf Harris and Jimmy Saville. Scumbags to the core, but protected because they were apparently good for charity.

That's not OK.

lol. Come on, man. Who said it was? Find me one person who feels the shielding of Saville, or anyone like him, was okay.

It's not humorous that your Uncle John is known to be a bit creepy with the ladies and everyone laughs at him behind his back.

And Aunt Mary. Don't forget her.

Young women should be taught that there are creepy fnckers out there which is why they should travel in packs...

Careful, telling women they should be taught to "travel in packs" could very well be seen as victim blaming.

...but that when you get cornered on the street by some freak who makes you fear for you safety, it is perfectly acceptable to scream in his face, to make a scene and kick him in the balls. And to not at all feel ashamed about it, because you did nothing wrong.

Cliche overload, Seamus. Something that perhaps needs to be said to a class of 12 year old girls maybe.

And that when a boss makes disgusting innuendos about you - in private or in front of the rest of the staff - he is the one who should feel ashamed and uncomfortable, not you. That it's OK to tell him that his behaviour is disgusting and inappropriate.

You're speaking to women like they're kids, why?

#metoo is not about jumping on a bandwagon. It's about revealing a problem that's hiding in plain sight but nobody talks about.

It's not a problem which is hiding at all and is very much talked about.

For those who see it as an attack on men; you couldn't be more wrong.

No, you couldn't be more wrong as some are absolutely using this to channel their misandry and use it as yet another chance to vent at the white men of the world.

There are 3 types of men; Men who don't see it; men who see it and do nothing; and the men who do it. The campaign is not about the last type; they're a minority and aren't going to change their behaviour. It's about getting through to the first two, and opening their eyes.

You forgot the 4th kind: men who see it, appreciate it's a problem but feel it's being exaggerated by some in order to get attention and that it's overall not the best (or even a good) way to raise the issue given that it started off with accusations of rape and now people are #metoo'ing about insignificant things in comparison. If a billion women shared their stories of how men harassed / raped them, you really think that will change a damn thing. Scumbags now just gonna stop being scumbags are they? Course not and don't tell me that it will make it less socially acceptable for scumbags to be scumbags, as it's not socially acceptable to behave the way some are suggesting it is. Not at all.

On the contrary I can't think of anything in society that would garner more immediate attention that a woman being harassed. I've seen groups of people stop dead in their tracks when it has become apparent that a woman is being harassed by a man, let alone sexually harassed.

Our courts don't tolerate it either.

Shurimgreat

I'd love to see a hashtag where women come out and admit to harassing men with demeaning or sexually related comments. Or admitting to groping men in pubs and nightclubs.

Women do get away with an awful lot too.

Pac1Man

seamus wrote: »

For those who see it as an attack on men; you couldn't be more wrong. There are 3 types of men; Men who don't see it; men who see it and do nothing; and the men who do it. The campaign is not about the last type; they're a minority and aren't going to change their behaviour. It's about getting through to the first two, and opening their eyes.

Oh dear. So you're targeting those who don't partake?

What would you have them (us) do?

seamus

Pac1Man wrote: »

Oh dear. So you're targeting those who don't partake?

What would you have them (us) do?

"Partake"?

Anyway, all that's required of you is awareness. Aware of your own behaviour and aware of other peoples' behaviour.

Simply being aware that this is happening everywhere, means that you'll spot it more readily when it happens.

And that doesn't require you white-knighting when you see it, but a quiet word after the incident; either to the person it was directed at, or the person who did it. It doesn't require grand public explosions and arguments.

A simple acknowledgement that the people around aren't tolerant of the behaviour can often be enough to empower an individual to stand up for themselves and another to filter and rethink their behaviour.

seamus

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Women don't complain about sexual harassment? Since when? There's been Internet campaign after Internet campaign. Viral videos about street harassment which lead to the issue being discussed to death for six months or more not so long ago.

I love how your go-to example of "complaining about it" is internet campaigns and viral videos.

Which is actually my point. Because I was talking about women in everyday conversations. The women around you; wives, sisters, cousins, daughters, your own mother. Ever heard them complain about it at the end of the day? Probably not. Or probably once or twice after a bad incident.

And that's the point. It's easy to think that it's happening to someone else when it's a viral video and some shared page on Facebook. It brings it into a lot more focus when the people you know all pipe up and say "me too". Your disbelief tends to evaporate.

But, look, you're not going to agree with me on this point, because you've gone down the rabbit-hole where this is all just a big male-bashing agenda by man-haters who are trying to undermine the decent honest men of the world by calling them all rapists, while the rest of the female population are just fine and dandy and see no problems.

kylith

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I'd love to see a hashtag where women come out and admit to harassing men with demeaning or sexually related comments. Or admitting to groping men in pubs and nightclubs.

Women do get away with an awful lot too.

You know that men are using #metoo as well, right?

Outlaw Pete

seamus wrote: »

I love how your go-to example of "complaining about it" is internet campaigns and viral videos.

Well, this is an Internet campaign too. I guess you might retort by saying that #metoo is being discussed offline also but so were much of the discussions after the street harassment video went viral too. Newspaper articles, morning show discussions, opinion pieces. This is bigger, for sure, but the end result will be the same.

Which is actually my point. Because I was talking about women in everyday conversations. The women around you; wives, sisters, cousins, daughters, your own mother. Ever heard them complain about it at the end of the day? Probably not. Or probably once or twice after a bad incident.

You have a habit of asking questions and then answering them yourself.

Yeah, a few times women I know have mentioned situations but no more than the men in my life have tbh. Indeed I had my jeans pulled down from behind in Temple Bar one night by some drunk girls, posted about it on Boards. Seen a guy get his kilt lifted in public exposing his privates, posted about it on Boards also. Same with groping: had it done many a time and seen it done to blokes many a time also. Not something I'm overly bothered about though but it does irk me that it's spoken about as if men are animals that need to be trained and women constantly walking around in fear never dreaming to touch the opposite sex in an inappropriate manner themselves.

Of the women that I heard recanting experiences: largely it was stuff like guys not taking 'no' for an answer quick enough and perhaps blocking their way briefly for a time. Asshole behaviour and nothing #metoo will ever change given that it's always been unacceptable. Often heard from a girlfriend about how some guy would have maybe been touched one of her friends inappropriately and there would be chatter about it for a bit and then next thing you know the girl would be dating that 'asshole'. Ask most guys that have stepped in when they felt a woman was being disrespected and I bet you will hear many a story about how the girl turned on the guy.

Lots of fingers being pointed at men needing to change their behaviour but women enable a lot of this nonsense too. Some of Weinstein's female staff took large sums of cash in exchange for keeping their mouths shut for example. Maybe if there seemed like a genuine wish for society to address this across the board no matter the gender you would get more people on board but right now it's a feeding frenzy for the anti patriarchy folk / virtue signalling brigade, both telling one another how fantastic they each are.

And that's the point. It's easy to think that it's happening to someone else when it's a viral video and some shared page on Facebook. It brings it into a lot more focus when the people you know all pipe up and say "me too". Your disbelief tends to evaporate.

Eh no, seamus, it doesn't. Are you even reading the opposing view points on this thread at all like? Much of what you are saying was addressed waaaay back in the thread.

But, look, you're not going to agree with me on this point, because you've gone down the rabbit-hole where this is all just a big male-bashing agenda by man-haters who are trying to undermine the decent honest men of the world by calling them all rapists, while the rest of the female population are just fine and dandy and see no problems.

I addressed your views but you're just labeling mine as paranoia and needless defensiveness fueled by ignorance.

Well, I posted this already but I'll post it again as it seems you haven't read much of the thread. It's written by Michelle Malkin, a woman, and ordinarily I wouldn't mention it or feel it all that relevant, but with respect you do seem to give women's views on such matters more credence than you do men's.

Beware the Rape Allegation Bandwagon

"#MeToo" is the social media meme of the moment. In a 24-hour period, the phrase was tweeted nearly a half million times and posted on Facebook 12 million times. Spearheaded by actress Alyssa Milano in the wake of Hollyweird's Harvey Weinstein sexual harassment scandal, women have flooded social media with their own long-buried accounts of being pestered, groped or assaulted by rapacious male predators in the workplace.

Count me out.

It's one thing to break down cultural stigmas constructively, but the #MeToo movement is collectivist virtue signaling of a very perilous sort. The New York Times heralded the phenomenon with multiple articles "to show how commonplace sexual assault and harassment are." The Washington Post credited #MeToo with making "the scale of sexual abuse go viral." And actress Emily Ratajkowski declared at a Marie Claire magazine's women's conference on Monday:

"The most important response to #metoo is 'I believe you.'"

No. I do not believe every woman who is now standing up to "share her story" or "tell her truth." I owe no blind allegiance to any other woman simply because we share the same pronoun. Assertions are not truths until they are established as facts and corroborated with evidence. Timing, context, motives and manner all matter.

Because I reserve the right to vet the claims of individual sexual assault complainants instead of championing them all knee-jerk and wholesale as "victims," I've been scolded as insensitive and inhumane.

"TIMING DOES NOT MATTER," a Twitter user named Meg Yarbrough fumed. "What matters is what is best for EACH INDIVIDUAL victim. You should be ashamed of yourself."

CNN anchor Jake Tapper informed me, "People coming forward should be applauded." But applauding people for "coming forward" is not a journalistic tenet. It's an advocacy tenet. Tapper responded that he was expressing the sentiment as a "human being not as a journalist." Last time I checked, humans have brains. The Weinstein scandal is not an excuse to turn them off and abdicate a basic responsibility to assess the credibility of accusers. It's an incontrovertible fact that not all accusers' claims are equal.

Some number of harrowing encounters described by Weinstein's accusers and the #MeToo hashtag activists no doubt occurred. But experience and scientific literature show us that a significant portion of these allegations will turn out to be half-truths, exaggerations or outright fabrications. That's not victim-blaming. It's reality-checking.

It is irresponsible for news outlets to extrapolate how "commonplace" sexual abuse is based on hashtag trends spread by celebrities, anonymous claimants and bots. The role of the press should be verification, not validation. Instead of interviewing activist actresses, reporters should be interviewing bona fide experts.

Brent Turvey, a forensic scientist and criminal profiler who heads the Forensic Criminology Institute, is author or co-author of 16 criminal justice books, including textbooks on rape investigation, crime reconstruction, behavioral evidence analysis and forensic victimology.

Turvey's most recent book, written with retired NYPD special victim squad detective John Savino and Mexico-based forensic psychologist Aurelio Coronado Mares, is "False Allegations: Investigative and Forensic Issues in Fraudulent Reports of Crime."

Based on their review of decades of scientific literature, Turvey and his colleagues explode the "2 percent myth" peddled by politicians, victims' advocates and journalists "claiming that the nationwide false report rate for rape and sexual assault is nonexistent." In fact, the statistic was traced to an unverified citation in a 1975 book by feminist author Susan Brownmiller.

"This figure is not only inaccurate," Turvey and his co-authors conclude, "but also it has no basis in reality."

Published research has documented false rape and sexual assault rates ranging from 8 percent to 41 percent. Savino notes that in his NYPD's Manhattan Special Victim Squad, "our false report rate was in the double digits during all of my years. Sometimes, it was as high as 40 percent." Turvey, Savino, and Mares make clear to students that based on the evidence — as opposed to Facebook trends:

"False reports happen; they are recurrent; and there are laws in place to deal with them when they do. They are, for lack of a better word, common."

They are common because people lie for all sorts of reasons — from the need for attention to the lure of profit, out of anger or revenge, to conceal crimes or illicit activity, or because of addictions or mental health issues. Unlike activists or advocates "steeped in bias, denial or self-interest," Turvey and his colleagues teach criminal investigators and students that true professionals "do not seek confirmation of beliefs or ideas: they seek eradication of false theories. All reports of crime must be investigated. Otherwise, they are merely unconfirmed allegations that the ignorant or lazy may pass along as truth."

Rape is a devastating crime. So is lying about it. Ignorant advocates and lazy journalists can be as dangerous as derelict detectives and prosecutors driven by political agendas instead of facts.

When #MeToo bandwagons form in the midst of a panic, innocent people get run over.

One eyed Jack

seamus wrote: »

Absolutely.

Ultimately the intention of the campaign is to make people think about their conditioning. Of both women and men.

The problem is that while that may be perceived by some people to be the ultimate intent of the campaign, the reality is that like any social media campaign, because of the nature of social media, it's going out to a broad audience, and it's been hijacked by groups with their own agendas that they want to put forward, hence the earlier stuff about white straight males, and men are the greatest threat to women. It's those kinds of views are getting more of an airing and more shares and likes because they rile people up. That distracts from the many more moderate voices in the campaign which are largely ignored. The more extreme a point of view, the more it gets publicised and dominates a campaign until all that can be seen are extreme views and those who agree with them, pitted against each other.

To run with professore's example, women don't complain about it on an everyday basis not because it's not a big deal, but because they've learned growing up that it's just something that happens. That you will have comments made, people will try to feel you up (overtly or otherwise), people in positions of power will be weird and creepy. But that's just how things are, and unless you want to have to fight your way through life, you just have to get on with it.

So they don't complain because they feel nobody's really listening anyway. Why complain about something you can't change?

Because it relieves stress and frustration, is the most obvious answer that comes to mind. Personally I don't think though that phenomenon is actually peculiar to either sex, certainly not from childhood when children are more taught to be resilient, and still are in my experience for the most part taught to be resilient, although when I say 'taught', they're not actually taught it by anyone as such, it's something they pick up on and learn as they're growing up, so while I do see where you're coming from, I would suggest that it applies equally to both sexes, but in different ways for the most part, because of the differences in how they are often raised and how they are perceived, and how they perceive themselves.

When if you step back and think about it, it's not OK that "That's just how things are". Many companies and industries will have examples of people in positions of power where it's an open secret that you don't allow yourself to be left alone with them, or where you are told to "respectfully" decline their advances, or quietly walk away if they get handsy - you don't want to make a scene.

And that's not OK. These people should be called out. There's no reason why their behaviour should be tolerated. It doesn't matter who they are or what they've done - look at Rolf Harris and Jimmy Saville. Scumbags to the core, but protected because they were apparently good for charity.

That's not OK.

You're right, it's not ok that that's just how things are, but again that applies to both sexes, but the ideological wheels soon come off the cart so to speak when an individual is often faced with the reality of their own particular set of circumstances and themselves as a person. All too often they know the help and the support is there, but they fear for the potential outcomes for themselves and for the people that they care about, and aren't given to thinking about the impact of their individual decisions on wider society as a whole. That's why scumbags thrive in secrecy, because they too are quite aware that their target so to speak, will maintain a dignified silence rather than face the wrath of exposing themselves to public scrutiny.

But combatting it starts at the bottom. Not at the top with the Weinsteins and the Spaceys and the Colgans of this world. But with everyday people realising that even the most innocuous stuff is not OK. It's not humorous that your Uncle John is known to be a bit creepy with the ladies and everyone laughs at him behind his back.

Spot on, couldn't agree more, but people generally already know that much, and will unfortunately weigh the consequences of either telling creepy uncle John to FRO themselves, or telling someone about creepy uncle John. If we're talking about children, there's statistically speaking the potential for creepy uncle Johns victim to either be a male or female (in childhood, child abuse stats are abotut 50/50. It's when they get to late adolescence that the figures for young women will spike, and diverge into the 80/20 female/male ratio).

Young women should be taught that there are creepy fnckers out there which is why they should travel in packs, but that when you get cornered on the street by some freak who makes you fear for you safety, it is perfectly acceptable to scream in his face, to make a scene and kick him in the balls. And to not at all feel ashamed about it, because you did nothing wrong.

I have a fundamental disagreement with this kind of thinking, because it puts the responsibility on women who are doing nothing wrong, for the behaviour of the people who would want to wrong them. You're essentially in your first paragraph suggesting a paradigm shift, and then above you want to maintain the traditional paradigm which has been demonstrated to be largely ineffective? Children in the US for example learn the buddy system in kindergarten, all it takes is opportunity, and generally the perpetrator is in a better position to do a threat assessment than the victim. That's why rather than encouraging young women to aim for a shot to the groin (which 9 times out of 10 they won't land, but they've just escalated the situation and put themselves in even greater danger), there isn't really any kind of advice you can give to someone to prepare themselves for a situation like that, because nobody bloody expects it, and running if it's at all possible means he's also much more likely in a better position to be able to outrun her. A person who intends to commit any wrongdoing, also intends to give themselves every advantage in committing the act.

And that when a boss makes disgusting innuendos about you - in private or in front of the rest of the staff - he is the one who should feel ashamed and uncomfortable, not you. That it's OK to tell him that his behaviour is disgusting and inappropriate.

And when we as a society get around to not accepting this low-level stuff, the scumbags who do it won't get far enough in life to be able to institutionally abuse and assault anyone through their power.

All well intended and good in theory, but the boss doesn't pick his victims if he gets a sniff that they may actually be able to fight back, or ever muster up the courage to do as you suggest when they have to weigh up taking a stand against the potential consequences of taking a stand. Unfortunately the low-level stuff is just that, and that's exactly why society as a whole generally isn't too bothered one way or the other. Again society sees the extremes, not the everyday stuff. And even when we talk about society as a whole, we aren't really talking about a homogenous group, we're talking about a population of smaller groups, with their own cultural, ethnic and social norms within that group.

#metoo is not about jumping on a bandwagon. It's about revealing a problem that's hiding in plain sight but nobody talks about.

That nobody talks about? Can't get my head around that one. While I understand we may not move in the same social circles, the idea that nobody, or even to be fair that only some people talk about this stuff, or are only talking about it now because of a social media campaign, is giving that campaign way, way, waaaay more credit than it's due. People have spent decades, hell if I'm being fair, people have spent centuries talking about this stuff. That's how we got to where we are today as a society. The idea that nobody talks about it or only very few people talk about it is about as insular as the claims from posters earlier on in the thread that they learned from their grandmothers that men were a threat to them! There's nothing hiding in plain sight about the treatment of females of all ages in society. It's bloody blatant. It was and has always been obvious, but it's because it actually is seen as acceptable norms by both men and women themselves, that it continues. It will continue long, long after the social media campaign has run out of momentum.

For those who see it as an attack on men; you couldn't be more wrong. There are 3 types of men; Men who don't see it; men who see it and do nothing; and the men who do it. The campaign is not about the last type; they're a minority and aren't going to change their behaviour. It's about getting through to the first two, and opening their eyes.

And it's about getting through to women too - getting them to realise that just because it happens all the time, or it happens to everyone, that it's not OK. That when you tell your daughter to ignore it, laugh it off, and move on, all you're doing is setting her up for a lifetime of ignoring it and pretending it's not happening.

I see it as both an attempt to attack men (white straight men particularly), and an attempt to engender women with a victim "survivor" mentality. The problem with that though is that such a polarising campaign needs men to feel guilty for something they haven't done, and women to feel like victims for something that hasn't happened to them. The men who do it don't give a fcuk, and the women whom it has happened to are too embarrassed and ashamed and spend enough time blaming themselves and trying to maintain a shred of dignity to ever think they could be in a position to have their voices heard among the confusion of ideological platitudes.

Pac1Man

seamus wrote: »

And that doesn't require you white-knighting when you see it, but a quiet word after the incident; either to the person it was directed at, or the person who did it. It doesn't require grand public explosions and arguments.

White knighting is exactly what that is. The company I keep don't partake and I don't either. There is not a chance I would walk up to some strange bloke and have a 'quiet word'. That could go seriously wrong.

I'm responsible for my own actions and mine alone. It's these types of suggestions that have me take no notice of this crusade.

anewme

Just reading the thread on Michael Colgan.

If this has come out as a result if the publicity surrounding Metoo, then it's been worth it.

RabbleRouser2k

anewme wrote: »

Just reading the thread on Michael Colgan.

If this has come out as a result if the publicity surrounding Metoo, then it's been worth it.

There's an article in the Irish times today, about it. I'd link it here, but no point-it's behind a paywall.

anewme

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

There's an article in the Irish times today, about it. I'd link it here, but no point-it's behind a paywall.

I was able to access it for some reason, horrendous stuff, what an asshole. Id say he bullied them all, men and women and a culture of fear existed for everyone.

Floppybits

anewme wrote: »

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

There's an article in the Irish times today, about it.  I'd link it here, but no point-it's behind a paywall.

I was able to access it for some reason, horrendous stuff, what an asshole. Id say he bullied them all, men and women and a culture of fear existed for everyone.

This bullying in the workplace seems to be a common practice in the Ireland. Thankfully I have never come across it but I have come across a lot of people usually in smaller companies that have to put up with this kind of behavior and dread going into work.  I have asked why don't you stand up to them or make a complaint and they say they wont get promotions, be seeing a troublemaker, there is no point in complaining nothing will happen. This is both men and women.

iodd7

Floppybits wrote: »

This bullying in the workplace seems to be a common practice in the Ireland. Thankfully I have never come across it but I have come across a lot of people usually in smaller companies that have to put up with this kind of behavior and dread going into work.  I have asked why don't you stand up to them or make a complaint and they say they wont get promotions, be seeing a troublemaker, there is no point in complaining nothing will happen. This is both men and women.

Yes, have worked all over and really bad behaviour seems to be tolerated in Ireland far more than elsewhere

Floppybits

iodd7 wrote: »

Yes, have worked all over and really bad behaviour seems to be tolerated in Ireland far more than elsewhere

I have worked all over and maybe I have been lucky but I have never encountered this anywhere I have worked, didn't hear much about either from friends in those countries. But in Ireland it seems to be common. 
Then again some people don't help themselves, I had a friend moaning saying his boss had a go at him because he didn't answer his personal mobile one night, I said are you on call? He said no, that he gave his number one time because there was an issue and since that time he keeps getting called.  I told him to either ask to be paid an on call rate and that also covers the company providing you with the phone, or just don't answer the calls from work.  And he is not the only one, had another friend saying her husband was the same. Why are people doing this? Why do employers think this is ok?  The crazy thing is that these people are doing nothing about it.  
Apologies for going off topic. 

backspin.

'A Welsh Government minister has taken his own life just days after being suspended by the Labour Party in Wales over allegations of sexual misconduct.

Carl Sargeant, a married father of two and minister in the Welsh Assembly, was found dead at his home in Connah's Quay in North Wales after Labour announced the investigation on Friday.

Carwyn Jones, the Welsh First Minister, said that Mr Sargeant was being investigated over a "number of incidents" after women came forward with allegations'.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/07/welsh-labour-politician-carl-sargeant-found-dead-sacked-last/

I don't think its fair to name the accused until their are convicted of a crime.

Floppybits

Thats the problem now. Anyone it seems can be accused and found guilty in the court of social media. Something like this was bound to happen. I was actually expecting George Hook to do something like this after his problems.

RabbleRouser2k

backspin. wrote: »

'A Welsh Government minister has taken his own life just days after being suspended by the Labour Party in Wales over allegations of sexual misconduct.

Carl Sargeant, a married father of two and minister in the Welsh Assembly, was found dead at his home in Connah's Quay in North Wales after Labour announced the investigation on Friday.

Carwyn Jones, the Welsh First Minister, said that Mr Sargeant was being investigated over a "number of incidents" after women came forward with allegations'.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/07/welsh-labour-politician-carl-sargeant-found-dead-sacked-last/

I don't think its fair to name the accused until their are convicted of a crime.

The above article kinda irks me. If what he is claiming is true, that he has no idea who she is-then her claims are libellous.

If on the other hand, he's lying-well, everyone knows what that means.

The amount of people who believe her and are instantly jumping on the 'edit his wiki and call him a rapist' train is quite disturbing. She may very well be disturbed, he may very well be a scumbag-it's hard to know. But his claims he never even met her adds another layer to the story.
It's either terribly honest, or delusional.

anewme

It said women rather than just woman in the articles I've seen.

But how can someone be sacked without even being told what the allegations are against them?

backspin.

Hangings too good for this monster..

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/bbc-axes-aled-jones-from-christmas-episodes-of-songs-of-praise-after-sexual-harassment-allegations-a3708681.html

Vile beast Jones sent inappropriate text message a decade ago

backspin.

backspin. wrote: »

Hangings too good for this monster..

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/bbc-axes-aled-jones-from-christmas-episodes-of-songs-of-praise-after-sexual-harassment-allegations-a3708681.html

Vile beast Jones sent inappropriate text message a decade ago

He says he 'never meant to harass or cause distress', but it doesn't say the extent of the harassment. I doubt it was a single off-color text if he's apologising for harrassment and distress.

backspin.

Candie wrote: »

He says he 'never meant to harass or cause distress', but it doesn't say the extent of the harassment. I doubt it was a single off-color text if he's apologising for harrassment and distress.

Look at the top comment in the daily mail article.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5139023/BBC-axes-Aled-Jones-Songs-Praise-Christmas-shows.html

I know people like to scoff at the daily mail readership (Stats below - look at the female readership numbers) but the up ticks dwarf the down ticks. People need to be careful that the public don't grow skeptical of these harassment claims. Calling out the likes of Weinstein is vitally important but we have to be careful that clumsy men aren't tarnished with the same brush.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/380710/daily-mail-the-mail-on-sunday-monthly-reach-by-demographic-uk/

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/26/us/politics/hillary-clinton-chose-to-shield-a-top-adviser-accused-of-harassment-in-2008.html


We always knew how she treated Bill's women, but we didn't know she protected abusers like Burns Strider in 2008.

Then she rehires him to run Correct The Record for 2016, and he abuses more women. The she's at his house a few months ago if you look at his Twitter. We can only assume he's been at it for a decade because of her actions in 2008.


No doubt many view Hillary as a real #metoo but she's really a #ienabletoo. And you'll all ignore it.

Fann Linn

[Deleted User] wrote: »

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/26/us/politics/hillary-clinton-chose-to-shield-a-top-adviser-accused-of-harassment-in-2008.html


We always knew how she treated Bill's women, but we didn't know she protected abusers like Burns Strider in 2008.

Then she rehires him to run Correct The Record for 2016, and he abuses more women. The she's at his house a few months ago if you look at his Twitter. We can only assume he's been at it for a decade because of her actions in 2008.


No doubt many view Hillary as a real #metoo but she's really a #ienabletoo. And you'll all ignore it.

That doesn't count.
Hilary is one of the 'good guys'.

Greybottle

I'm sure Marian Finucane and the usual anti Clinton supporters in RTE will be out condemning her for this.


Or possibly not.

AudreyHepburn

The Weinsteins and Spaceys of the world absolutely deserve everything they get, of that there can be no doubt. But I have to be honest and say, as a woman, that I really feel this who MeToo thing has gotten out of control.

It seems to be the case now that any man with any connection to Hollywood is fair game and that any little insignificant touch or brush or silly text can be seen as serious sexual misconduct.

And the most worrying part is that a lot of people seem to think it’s acceptable to demonize men and ruin their careers and lives for even smallest and inconsequential of incidents.

Trial by media is not and never should be acceptable.

Vorenus400

Deleted User wrote: »

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/26/us/politics/hillary-clinton-chose-to-shield-a-top-adviser-accused-of-harassment-in-2008.html


We always knew how she treated Bill's women, but we didn't know she protected abusers like Burns Strider in 2008.

Then she rehires him to run Correct The Record for 2016, and he abuses more women. The she's at his house a few months ago if you look at his Twitter. We can only assume he's been at it for a decade because of her actions in 2008.


No doubt many view Hillary as a real #metoo but she's really a #ienabletoo. And you'll all ignore it.

Im pretty sure Hillary lost the presidential election and lots of people have called her out for supporting Bill and allegedly trying to silence his accusers. Are there many people in Ireland who think Hillary is a good or sincere person? If this was Bernie Sanders then maybe it would be shocking.

Vorenus400

Vorenus400 wrote: »

Im pretty sure Hillary lost the presidential election and lots of people have called her out for supporting Bill and allegedly trying to silence his accusers. Are there many people in Ireland who think Hillary is a good or sincere person? If this was Bernie Sanders then maybe it would be shocking.

There were plenty of people who didn't give a shlt about it when she was mocking Trump at the Grammys.

The mental gymnastics needed to a be a feminist and then laugh with her a couple of days after it comes out that she protected an abuser is fascinating.


Hypocrites the lot of them. She should be condemned for rehiring him.

Guilt by association and trial by media sweet combo bro

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Guilt by association and trial by media sweet combo bro

Me? Or other #metoo stuff here?

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Me? Or other #metoo stuff here?

This thread in the main but you for the wholly unrelated bump

I always thought when celeb posted #metoo, it was an invitation? such is the nature of "celebs" and the Faux liberal agenda de jour!

oh #metooplease!!!

Hector Savage

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44035718

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has resigned following allegations of assault by four women.

The resignation came after the New Yorker magazine published a report quoting the women who accused Mr Schneiderman, 63, of hitting them.

Two identified themselves as former girlfriends of his.

Mr Schneiderman - who contests the allegations - has been a vocal supporter of the #MeToo movement against sexual harassment.

Always the same, these virtue signaling tossers have always something to hide.

Pac1Man

Always be wary of the male feminist.

Hande hoche!

A few years back, quite odd all the same.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/522117567352410113

wexie

Hande hoche! wrote: »

A few years back, quite odd all the same.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/522117567352410113

I think that would technically make it guyliner...

Hande hoche!

wexie wrote: »

I think that would technically make it guyliner...

Good point. I enjoy the specifying the brand aspect of it.

wexie

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Good point. I enjoy the specifying the brand aspect of it.

Kinda odd indeed, he seems pretty sure as well like.

Maybe it was Maybelline?