Female sexual harassers and double standards

Outlaw Pete

Grayson wrote: »

To be fair the OP made loads of blanket statements about women and how women have double standards.

No different to the many 'Men think x' or 'Men need to start doing y' statements that were all over the other #metoo thread.

It's clear that their point was that women are bad and don't care if a man is harassed/abused.

Not true at all. You're misrepresenting them. You inferred that as you wanted to.

Either way, why not just attack their views. If they're so preposterous, as you suggest, should be easily done. Saying the thread is really just an excuse for the OP to feel like he's a victim, just comes across as if you have no argument for his opinions and so have chose to try and discredit him instead.

Grayson

Deleted User wrote: »

Apologies. I genuinely got you confused with another poster who was posting in a different thread not too long ago who constantly made blanket statements about men. I realise that it wasn't you.

It's grand. It happens. Thanks for apologising. It's rare to see on the internet

optogirl

Santos Square Extinguisher wrote: »

There's a blatant double standard here. If women expect men to support them when they accuse powerful men of sexual harassment, they should also be willing to support male victims after a powerful woman has been found guilty. But they don't. Instead, they turn on the man and attack him, accusing him of waging a "malicious campaign."

So much for #MeToo.

New York Times story here.

all I've heard and discussed with any of my friends, male and female, identifying as feminists and not, is that this woman's actions are despicable. Just because a few of her friends signed a letter doesn't mean all women think her actions are OK. They are absolutely not.

Feisar

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

And there's the double standard.

I know, it'll take a long long time to change that though.

I think, and it's only my opinion, the thing that needs to change is the notion that the male is the stronger more dominant person in a situation where there is a male and a female present.

PlaneSpeeking

Feisar wrote: »

I know, it'll take a long long time to change that though.

I think, and it's only my opinion, the thing that needs to change is the notion that the male is the stronger more dominant person in a situation where there is a male and a female present.

Whereas it's power - if Meryl Streep wanted to get her a bit of some young one on a film, he might be built like a brick ****house but she has all the power.

Grayson

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

No different to the many 'Men think x' or 'Men need to start doing y' statements that were all over the other #metoo thread.



Not true at all. You're misrepresenting them. You inferred that as you wanted to.

Either way, why not just attack their views. If they're so preposterous, as you suggest, should be easily done. Saying the thread is really just an excuse for the OP to feel like he's a victim, just comes across as if you have no argument for his opinions and so have chose to discredit him instead.

I suggest you go back to where I said that what happened was horrible. To clarify, It seems like the woman who committed those acts was a horrible person and I can't understand why people would defend her. Is that clear enough?

El_Duderino 09

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Feisar wrote: »

I don't think female harassment has the same severity attached to it.

And there's the double standard.

Agreed. There was a thread about Male sexual harassment and lots of men gave examples of being groped and fondled by women in hen groups and similar. They didn’t take it seriously at all and discouraged others from taking it seriously.

If men won’t take it seriously then it’s obviously going to be more difficult to get the general population to take it seriously.

Women have campaigned hard over years to have female sexual harassment taken seriously. It didn’t just happen by itself.

PlaneSpeeking

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Agreed. There was a thread about Male sexual harassment and lots of men gave examples of being groped and fondled by women in hen groups and similar. They didn’t take it seriously at all and discouraged others from taking it seriously.

If men won’t take it seriously then it’s obviously going to be more difficult to get the general population to take it seriously.

Women have campaigned hard over years to have female sexual harassment taken seriously. It didn’t just happen by itself.

It's terrifying seeing a hen party in a bar - if that behaviour was reversed they'd demand the men be fired from their jobs, shamed and ruined.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Women have campaigned hard over years to have female sexual harassment taken seriously.

I didn't realize that women campaigned to have female sexual harassment taken seriously. I thought the position was that all sexual harassment should be condemned. Apparently not.

Cleopatra_

Keepaneye wrote: »

Can we also have a metoo mega thread? Since all your man hating needs an outlet.

Well, I don't hate men or start threads about how terrible men are so your post doesn't make sense.

PlaneSpeeking

Santos Square Extinguisher wrote: »

I didn't realize that women campaigned to have female sexual harassment taken seriously. I thought the position was that all sexual harassment should be condemned. Apparently not.

Not at all, modern feminism couldn't give two ****es for true equality.

It's all about women.

Amirani

Grayson wrote: »

The OP never said "some women". They never said "those women" The OP said women. And it wasn't just once.

In fairness, the rhetoric from many (probably most) vocal feminists never uses those caveats either. The language is always along the lines of "Men need to...", "men are responsible for..."

When people attempt to challenge those statements (in exactly the way you've done), it descends into a #NotAllMen bashing. There's a clear hypocrisy in how these things are viewed. Obviously the incidence is greatly weighted from one gender to another, but that doesn't mean that other incidents are less valid. I'm not sure it's any justification to the victim in this case that more women are victims of sexual assault than men. The particular commentator who criticised the use of Title IX because it's not a female victim is awful.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Someone get LLMMLL..

I’m here.

I believe the Male in this case. Just like I’d believe a woman in similar circumstances.

There’s no issue with feminism here other than many people whether they be feminist, anti-feminist, Fine Gael supporters, vegans, trump supporters etc etc throw their principles out the window to defend a friend.

El_Duderino 09

Santos Square Extinguisher wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Women have campaigned hard over years to have female sexual harassment taken seriously.

I didn't realize that women campaigned to have female sexual harassment taken seriously. I thought the position was that all sexual harassment should be condemned. Apparently not.

Well now you know. Everyone is free to campfire any pet cause they like. Were you expecting women and feminists to do your homework for you?

Like I said if men don’t take male sexual harassment seriously (as evidenced by the thread mentioned above) then why fight on all fronts?

They got female sexual harassment taken seriously which proves it can be done. So the choice is to either do something to have Male sexual harassment taken more seriously or look for ways to make it all feminists’ fault. I wonder which one the big brave vocal bucks of Boards will choose. LOL.

Amirani

LLMMLL wrote: »

I’m here.

I believe the Male in this case. Just like I’d believe a woman in similar circumstances.

There’s no issue with feminism here other than many people whether they be feminist, anti-feminist, Fine Gael supporters, vegans, trump supporters etc etc throw their principles out the window to defend a friend.

Many of those doing the defending aren't actually friends with the assaulter whatsoever though. Those doing the defending aren't really much better than those who would've defended Harvey Weinstein etc.

optogirl

Amirani wrote: »

Those doing the defending aren't really much better than those who would've defended Harvey Weinstein etc.

correct.

El_Duderino 09

LLMMLL wrote: »

I believe the Male in this case. Just like I’d believe a woman in similar circumstances.

To be fair, I can’t say I know enough about the case to say I believe anything. I trust the investigation was carried out honestly so I can work from that assumption, but I don’t believe anything with so little knowledge.

It’s fine to reserve belief and just work with he evidence we have available (which is very limited in this case).

I don’t like #ibelieveher/him as it means jumping to a conclusion.

LLMMLL

Amirani wrote: »

Many of those doing the defending aren't actually friends with the assaulter whatsoever though. Those doing the defending aren't really much better than those who would've defended Harvey Weinstein etc.

It seems like the main thrust of defence is a letter where the signatories claimed to know the professor and some also knew the student.

optogirl

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

To be fair, I can’t say I know enough about the case to say I believe anything. I trust the investigation was carried out honestly so I can work from that assumption, but I don’t believe anything with so little knowledge.

It’s fine to reserve belief and just work with he evidence we have available (which is very limited in this case).

I don’t like #ibelieveher/him as it means jumping to a conclusion.

True in a lot of cases but the emails etc pretty much back his version of events up - even the emails alone are completely inappropriate - she simply should not have been engaging in that kind of conversation with a subordinate.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

Amirani wrote: »

Those doing the defending aren't really much better than those who would've defended Harvey Weinstein etc.

Even worse, IMO, because those who defended Harvey Weinstein hadn't built their careers out of arguing that sexual harassment is bad.

optogirl

Santos Square Extinguisher wrote: »

Even worse, IMO, because those who defended Harvey Weinstein hadn't built their careers out of arguing that sexual harassment is bad.

Who are you referring to? I have only seen the letter signed by her friends/colleagues because it was a prominent feminist who tweeted about it pointing at its sh**iness.

LLMMLL

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

To be fair, I can’t say I know enough about the case to say I believe anything. I trust the investigation was carried out honestly so I can work from that assumption, but I don’t believe anything with so little knowledge.

It’s fine to reserve belief and just work with he evidence we have available (which is very limited in this case).

I don’t like #ibelieveher/him as it means jumping to a conclusion.

If there’s a criminal trial, the standards of the jury should be higher than mine, the standards demanded by the justice system.

The university should follow its own procedures, which it probably did and found her at fault.

For me, the university report, plus the info we’ve seen, plus the commonalities of this mans report with the reports of women who have suffered harrassment, all lead me to believe him.

El_Duderino 09

optogirl wrote: »

True in a lot of cases but the emails etc pretty much back his version of events up - even the emails alone are completely inappropriate - she simply should not have been engaging in that kind of conversation with a subordinate.

That’s fair enough. I haven’t seen the emails nor am I going to look for them. I trust the conclusion of the investigation that she harassed this guy.

If she did it and a proper court finds her guilty, I hope they throw the book at her. I also hope it doesn’t hinder the guy’s career to have been dragged through the mud as happens accusers in these circumstances.

Cilantro2000

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Well now you know. Everyone is free to campfire any pet cause they like. Were you expecting women and feminists to do your homework for you?

Like I said if men don’t take male sexual harassment seriously (as evidenced by the thread mentioned above) then why fight on all fronts?

They got female sexual harassment taken seriously which proves it can be done. So the choice is to either do something to have Male sexual harassment taken more seriously or look for ways to make it all feminists’ fault. I wonder which one the big brave vocal bucks of Boards will choose. LOL.

If gender equality is important to feminists one would think they would campaign against harrasment of men by women also.

PlaneSpeeking

Cilantro2000 wrote: »

If gender equality is important to feminists one would think they would campaign against harrasment of men by women also.

I've been told by a feminist colleague that my support for gay rights was wrong as it takes away from "our issues".

Told her to f**k off. The gay community have been more welcoming and accepting than other women ever have. They've got my loyalty.

Was tempted to throw a "that's me exercising girl power" but she's 26 and I doubt has heard of the Spice Girls.

El_Duderino 09

LLMMLL wrote: »

If there’s a criminal trial, the standards of the jury should be higher than mine, the standards demanded by the justice system.

The university should follow its own procedures, which it probably did and found her at fault.

For me, the university report, plus the info we’ve seen, plus the commonalities of this mans report with the reports of women who have suffered harrassment, all lead me to believe him.

I think that’s s true. I think I’m not willing to believe very many things. It bound gown to the difference between trust and belief. For me the standard of belief is much higher than a working assumption of trust.

Based on the evidence and the investigation conclusions, I’m perfectly willing to work from the assumption that he’s telling the truth and she committed sexual harassment. I’m completely open to changing my mind if the evidence changes. I’d apply that standard to all cases like this where I don’t really have any actual first hand knowledge.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

optogirl wrote: »

Who are you referring to? I have only seen the letter signed by her friends/colleagues because it was a prominent feminist who tweeted about it pointing at its sh**iness.

I'm referring to the dozens of feminists and other academics (including men) who signed the letter. Brian Leiter has a copy of it on his blog. The first signatory is Judith Butler, one of the most influential feminist theorists in the world today.

The letter praises Ronell’s “brilliant scholarship" and laments the damage done to her reputation. But imagine people praising Kevin Spacey's brilliant acting as a defense against sexual harassment allegations.

PlaneSpeeking

Santos Square Extinguisher wrote: »

I'm referring to the dozens of feminists and other academics (including men) who signed the letter. Brian Leiter has a copy of it on his blog. The first signatory is Judith Butler, one of the most influential feminist theorists in the world today.

The letter praises Ronell’s “brilliant scholarship" and laments the damage done to her reputation. But imagine people praising Kevin Spacey's brilliant acting as a defense against sexual harassment allegations.

Done that. It did not end well.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Incredibly disappointing to see the likes of Judith Butler involved in this. Slap in the face to victims tbh. I'd imagine the burden of proof was pretty damn high. Yes it's most usually women harassed by men and usually men in the position of power but that's fcuk all comfort to male victims. Can't see this guy's life in academia being easy now.

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Feisar wrote: »

I don't think female harassment has the same severity attached to it.

And there's the double standard.

Still waiting on your Cool Girl Medal and Certificate of Male Approval to arrive, huh? I'm sure they're in the post, you can relax a bit.

Cilantro2000

Dangelo Clever Sluggishness wrote: »

Incredibly disappointing to see the likes of Judith Butler involved in this. Slap in the face to victims tbh. I'd imagine the burden of proof was pretty damn high. Yes it's most usually women harassed by men and usually men in the position of power but that's fcuk all comfort to male victims. Can't see this guy's life in academia being easy now.



Still waiting on your Cool Girl Medal and Certificate of Male Approval to arrive, huh? I'm sure they're in the post, you can relax a bit.

Why are you attacking a poster?

El_Duderino 09

Cilantro2000 wrote: »

If gender equality is important to feminists one would think they would campaign against harrasment of men by women also.

Well now you know. So how will you react? Do something about it or whinge about the fact that feminists didn’t do your homework for you?

Ps. I ask in jest. I know you’re going to continue to whinge about feminists not doing men’s rights work on men’s behalf. Then feign surprise that feminists focus on women’s issues. Rinse and repeat.

LLMMLL

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I think that’s s true. I think I’m not willing to believe very many things. It bound gown to the difference between trust and belief. For me the standard of belief is much higher than a working assumption of trust.

Based on the evidence and the investigation conclusions, I’m perfectly willing to work from the assumption that he’s telling the truth and she committed sexual harassment. I’m completely open to changing my mind if the evidence changes. I’d apply that standard to all cases like this where I don’t really have any actual first hand knowledge.

Think we’re pretty much saying the same thing. I’d also change my mind if the evidence changed. “Belief” doesn’t imply certainty. That’s “knowing”.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Cilantro2000 wrote: »

Dangelo Clever Sluggishness wrote: »

Incredibly disappointing to see the likes of Judith Butler involved in this. Slap in the face to victims tbh. I'd imagine the burden of proof was pretty damn high. Yes it's most usually women harassed by men and usually men in the position of power but that's fcuk all comfort to male victims. Can't see this guy's life in academia being easy now.



Still waiting on your Cool Girl Medal and Certificate of Male Approval to arrive, huh? I'm sure they're in the post, you can relax a bit.

Why are you attacking a poster?

I'm not. Better "attack" a male one too I guess lest I undermine the entirety of feminism.

LLMMLL

Santos Square Extinguisher wrote: »

I'm referring to the dozens of feminists and other academics (including men) who signed the letter. Brian Leiter has a copy of it on his blog. The first signatory is Judith Butler, one of the most influential feminist theorists in the world today.

The letter praises Ronell’s “brilliant scholarship" and laments the damage done to her reputation. But imagine people praising Kevin Spacey's brilliant acting as a defense against sexual harassment allegations.

Judith Butler is only really prominent in academic feminism. I doubt the vast vast majority of feminists have read or have any hope of understanding her work. I know I don’t.

mrkiscool2

To be fair to OP, I understand the frustration. I personally don't like "Not all Men!" as it's a cop out from the actual discussion we should be having. But there is absolutely no question that some of the people who get p1ssed off at the men who say this then use "Not All Women!" arguments when it comes to that. As someone in education, seeing anything like this, particularly the huge increase in female teachers being charged and then getting a slap on the wrist, if anything, for grooming and engaging in sexual conduct with a student.

I think any harassment should be called out. It's fair and reasonable to expect people who know someone to defend them. However, there is a double standard and it needs to be rooted out. Abuse is abuse, no matter the perpetrator. We shouldn't belittle anyone for expressing their concerns unless it's proven to be a lie by investigation (which it hasn't been, in this case).

Cilantro2000

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Well now you know. So how will you react? Do something about it or whinge about the fact that feminists didn’t do your homework for you?

Ps. I ask in jest. I know you’re going to continue to whinge about feminists not doing men’s rights work on men’s behalf. Then feign surprise that feminists focus on women’s issues. Rinse and repeat.

On what basis do you say I'm whingeing, I'm discussing, not whingeing.

The goal of feminism is gender equality, nominally at least. If this is true they should be campigning for the advancement men's rights and circumstances when they are lesser than women's.

I also find it curious why you think men should campaign on men's behalf, isn't that generalising and sexist?

optogirl

Santos Square Extinguisher wrote: »

I'm referring to the dozens of feminists and other academics (including men) who signed the letter. Brian Leiter has a copy of it on his blog. The first signatory is Judith Butler, one of the most influential feminist theorists in the world today.

The letter praises Ronell’s “brilliant scholarship" and laments the damage done to her reputation. But imagine people praising Kevin Spacey's brilliant acting as a defense against sexual harassment allegations.

well if he was a brilliant actor that would be one thing....

glib remarks aside, the very same thing happened with an academic in Canada - signatories defending him included Margaret Atwood in a surprising turn of events. I think it harks back to what LLMMLL said - when it's your own friends or someone you hugely admire being accused, your objectivity is compromised.

El_Duderino 09

LLMMLL wrote: »

Think we’re pretty much saying the same thing. I’d also change my mind if the evidence changed. “Belief” doesn’t imply certainty. That’s “knowing”.

I think we are.

I just don’t like the idea of believing either side in a case where I’m only getting snippets of information. I tend to wait until the court reaches a verdict as they’re the ones with enough information to reach a valid conclusion.

During the Belfast rape trial I remember wondering how anyone could believe either side before the trial had finished and the jury reached a verdict.

I don’t feel I need to #believeanyone to create a safe environment for people to bring accusations forward and allow the accused to defend themselves.

Automatically believing one side or the other is what leads to big problems in these cases. Not saying that’s what you’ve done in this case.

El_Duderino 09

Cilantro2000 wrote: »

On what basis do you say I'm whingeing, I'm discussing, not whingeing.

The goal of feminism is gender equality, nominally at least. If this is true they should be campigning for advance men's rights and circumstances when they are lesser than women's.

I’ll demonstrate.

Do you believe feminism is actually primarily focused on gender equality or primarily focused on advancing women’s issues?

LLMMLL

Having seen a copy of the letter now, it’s pretty clear that it’s her colleagues defending her, not feminists. Many of the signatories do not work from a feminist perspective at all.

Cilantro2000

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I’ll demonstrate.

Do you believe feminism is actually primarily focused on gender equality or primarily focused on advancing women’s issues?

In effect I believe it is a trade union for women, advancing conditions for first world women is the priority even if that creates more inequality and unfairness. This is all done under the banner of equality so they can campaign as if from a position of moral superiority.

I find this amusing and enjoy highlighting the duplicity.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

optogirl wrote: »

...when it's your own friends or someone you hugely admire being accused, your objectivity is compromised.

Fair enough.

I think it's more problematic in this case because many of these academic signatories have built their careers on decrying sexism and sexual harassment. But when one of their own is accused, they write things like:

We testify to the grace, the keen wit, and the intellectual commitment of Professor Ronell and ask that she be accorded the dignity rightly deserved by someone of her international standing and reputation...

Imagine someone appealing to the "international standing and reputation" of a prominent male sexual harasser and demanding that he be accorded the "dignity" that he "rightly deserves."

The doublethink exhibited by these academics is utterly bizarre.

El_Duderino 09

Cilantro2000 wrote: »

I also find it curious why you think men should campaign on men's behalf, isn't that generalising and sexist?

I think anyone can campaign for any cause.
In reality think people campaign for causes that they are most motivated to campaign for. So people are most likely to campaign for a cause that’s close to their heart. Very simple stuff really.

If an issue is import to you, you should do something about it (feigning surprise that feminists don’t do it for you does not constitute doing something)

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

LLMMLL wrote: »

Having seen a copy of the letter now, it’s pretty clear that it’s her colleagues defending her, not feminists. Many of the signatories do not work from a feminist perspective at all.

It's not just her colleagues. There are signatories from universities all over the USA, and even signatories from universities in Germany, Italy, and elsewhere. Not all signatories are self-described feminists, but many of them are.

optogirl

Santos Square Extinguisher wrote: »

Imagine someone appealing to the "international standing and reputation"

We don't have to imagine. It happens. It's even used as a reason not to incarcerate in many cases - his 'good standing', his ' being from a good family', his 'diminished career and social standing'. etc etc.

Billy Mays

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

It's terrifying seeing a hen party in a bar - if that behaviour was reversed they'd demand the men be fired from their jobs, shamed and ruined.

It's not really though is it?

valoren

Her colleagues leaping to her defense are suffering cognitive dissonance.

Their esteemed colleague, close friend is exposed as an abuser and to resort to accusations of maliciousness on the part of her accuser becomes a consoling option.

The emails provided as evidence indicate that she is clearly guilty of being a bollox but the mental stress is reduced because they surmise that her accuser, despite being completely correct and vindicated with actual evidence, must surely be trying to destroy their colleagues reputation and while they all ostensibly defend her reputation collectively choosing to zero in on that singular aspect then it negates the discomforting prospect of confronting or daresay challenging the stark reality that their colleague, one of their own, has been an abusive bollox.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

optogirl wrote: »

We don't have to imagine. It happens. It's even used as a reason not to incarcerate in many cases - his 'good standing', his ' being from a good family', his 'diminished career and social standing'. etc etc.

Oh, don't worry, she wasn't incarcerated -- her punishment was suspension for one academic year. She'll be back dealing with students and graduate students again in no time.

optogirl

Santos Square Extinguisher wrote: »

It's not just her colleagues. There are signatories from universities all over the USA, and even signatories from universities in Germany, Italy, and elsewhere. Not all signatories are self-described feminists, but many of them are.

I would imagine that a lot of those people are her colleagues - they may not work in the same University but the in the world of academia I'd be surprised if most of those signatories did not know her or work with her in some capacity. Doesn't excuse their blindness to her behaviour.

El_Duderino 09

Cilantro2000 wrote: »

In effect I believe it is a trade union for women, advancing conditions for first world women is the priority even if that creates more inequality and unfairness. This is all done under the banner of equality so they can campaign as if from a position of moral superiority.

I find this amusing and enjoy highlighting the duplicity.

Do you know it’s primarily about women’s issues but you’re happy to feign surprise that it’s not equally advancing men’s issues (as I called it, ‘whinging’)

You asked how I know you’d whinge about feminists rather than do anything about Male sexual harassment. Well, I didn’t think you’d demonstrate my point so succinctly! Hope that clears it up for you.