Female sexual harassers and double standards

kubjones

Its good to highlight what can happen to a man after he comes forward with sexual abuse he has experienced, but the way the OP started makes it seem like the abuse is a gender thing, and its not.

It happens just as much to women after they come forward. They'll receive support and abuse from different parties that have particular agendas in mind.

This isn't a Feminist thing. This is a dirtbag thing. It just so happens there is a decent amount of dirtbags that are also recognized Feminists.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

optogirl wrote: »

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.

I would imagine that quite a few of them know her personally, but in academia there are always the usual bandwagon-jumpers, so I wouldn't assume that they're all her personal friends. Still, as you say, personal friendship is no excuse for this.

LLMMLL

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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.

I don’t feel I NEED to believe anyone to create a safe space either.

Standards of belief are impossible to define, and this case is a perfect example of that, with people who might ordinarily believe the victim, rushing to defend the accused because they’re friendly with them.

As for the Belfast rape trial, Comparing whether a non-juror member of the publics beliefs with a jury members beliefs or verdict makes no sense to me.

The jury are not the true knowers of the events. They don’t know if a rape occurred or not. The evidence they get is more comprehensive than the public’s, but not at all comprehensive. There are many aspects of the case they have no access to. So really their personal beliefs about the case are nearly as open to criticism as a member of the publics.

But what’s crucial in a trial is not the jury’s beliefs but it’s verdict. I personally believe the accuser in that case. Would I have convicted though? Probably not.

Cilantro2000

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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)

When did I feign surprise, feminists act how I expect them to act, out of self interest.

I never said people don't campaign for issues that motivated them.

optogirl

Santos Square Extinguisher wrote: »

Oh, don't worry, she wasn't incarcerated

Where have I made any mention of being worried about her being incarcerated? I agree that she is totally in the wrong here - she is at best highly inappropriate and at worst a predator. I feel you aren't getting the rise out of people that you wish you were here so you are pretending we are defending her.

LLMMLL

Santos Square Extinguisher wrote: »

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:



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.

Have they built their careers on decrying sexual harrassment though?

I’d associate Judith Butler, for example, more with impenetrable theorising rather than campaigning against sexual harrassment. Could be wrong though.

Cilantro2000

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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.

Show me evidence that I have "whinged", you seem to want to believe I'm whinging. I'm enjoying the discussion and exposing feminist hypocricy.

Why should I campaign for men's rights, I never said that advancing men's rights or gender equality was a goal of mine.

The reason you want to portray an image that a poster is "whingeing" is because it's a covert attempt to attack a poster's character rather than addressing the substance of the argument.

Malayalam

Ewwwww, cringey :P So much for her grace, keen wit and intellectual commitment. Bad Sex in Fiction award goes to the Professor...

"I woke up with a slight fever and sore throat," she wrote in an email on June 16, 2012. "I will try very hard not to kiss you — until the throat situation receives security clearance. This is not an easy deferral!" In July, she wrote a short email to him: "time for your midday kiss. my image during meditation: we're on the sofa, your head on my lap, stroking you [sic] forehead, playing softly with yr hair, soothing you, headache gone. Yes?"

An elder lesbian turned by a young gay guy though - it has film potential. And what great character names. Um, Avital, no. Oh, Nimrod, yesssss!

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

LLMMLL wrote: »

Have they built their careers on decrying sexual harrassment though?

I’d associate Judith Butler, for example, more with impenetrable theorising rather than campaigning against sexual harrassment. Could be wrong though.

Butler is on record talking about the importance of sexual harassment law, and citing it as one of the major successes of the feminist movement.

Grayson

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.

That's the thing. I think that when someone is accused of something their friends will quite often have trouble accepting it. That's about the only reason I can think of as to why someone would defend those action. It's still wrong but I think it explains why it happens sometimes.

LLMMLL

Santos Square Extinguisher wrote: »

Butler is on record talking about the importance of sexual harassment law, and citing it as one of the major successes of the feminist movement.

That’s building her career on something?

I guess I’ve built my career on decrying sexual harrassment too so. Even though I work in science. Cool.

Grayson

Santos Square Extinguisher wrote: »

Butler is on record talking about the importance of sexual harassment law, and citing it as one of the major successes of the feminist movement.

We need sexual harassment law. Sexual harassment is wrong. And yes, it should be applied equally. But it is a success that we have it. I would consider it a failure if we had no laws about it.

PlaneSpeeking

Santos Square Extinguisher wrote: »

Butler is on record talking about the importance of sexual harassment law, and citing it as one of the major successes of the feminist movement.

I believe the phrase to be "hoisted by one's own petard".

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

Grayson wrote: »

We need sexual harassment law.

I agree.

However, it's ironic that a prominent feminist who has previously cited sexual harassment law as one of the major successes of the women's movement is now defending a female harasser and trying to smear the reputation of her victim.

Cilantro2000

I have a question I'll put out there.

Why would a woman be primarily interested in sexual harrasment against women rather than on men also?

LLMMLL

Santos Square Extinguisher wrote: »

I agree.

However, it's ironic that a prominent feminist who has previously cited sexual harassment law as one of the major successes of the women's movement is now defending a female harasser and trying to smear the reputation of her victim.

I don’t think anyone disagrees with you that Butler is being insanely hypocritical and awful.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

LLMMLL wrote: »

I’d associate Judith Butler, for example, more with impenetrable theorising rather than campaigning against sexual harrassment. Could be wrong though.

Ah she's not that difficult surely?

But, just watch a fcukload of RuPaul. Same thing but far more willy and bum jokes.

LLMMLL

Cilantro2000 wrote: »

I have a question I'll put out there.

Why would a woman be primarily interested on sexual harrasment against women rather than on men also?

Theres two aspects to it. Being very simplistic, it arose as an issue because women are harassed by men more than men are by women.

And when the harrassment of men by women is raised as an issue, it’s usually to try and shut feminists up rather than support the Male victims.

Take this thread as an example. It seems to have been started to bash feminism by associating some academics defending their friend with feminists in general. Doesn’t seem to be much concern for the victim.

LLMMLL

Dangelo Clever Sluggishness wrote: »

Ah she's not that difficult surely?

But, just watch a fcukload of RuPaul. Same thing but far more willy and bum jokes.

She’s pretty bad:

“The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.”

cfuserkildare

Cabaal wrote: »

So one or two cases like this justify not supporting women when men harass women?
that doesn't seem logical.

Even if some women attacked this man then if that means you use this as a reason to not support other women when they are sexually harassed then you need to take a long hard look at yourself in the mirror.

Cabaal,

That is a Very Self-Serving response to a Very serious issue!!!

Perhaps removing your Blinkers and looking at how the world Really is today might help??

Cilantro2000

LLMMLL wrote: »

Theres two aspects to it. Being very simplistic, it arose as an issue because women are harassed by men more than men are by women.

And when the harrassment of men by women is raised as an issue, it’s usually to try and shut feminists up rather than support the Male victims.

Take this thread as an example. It seems to have been started to bash feminism by associating some academics defending their friend with feminists in general. Doesn’t seem to be much concern for the victim.

People are not obliged to feel concern for the victim. I feel zero concern just as I feel zero concern for people starving in third world countries. Feminisim is discussed because I think a lot of people can sense the machiavellian duplicity with which many feminists operate.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

LLMMLL wrote: »

That’s building her career on something?

She's built her career on the notion of gender as "performatively constituted" through speech and action and has talked about acts of sexual harassment as instituting heterosexual subordination. Maybe come back to comment when you've actually read some of her work.

optogirl

Santos Square Extinguisher wrote: »

She's built her career on the notion of gender as "performatively constituted" through speech and action and has talked about acts of sexual harassment as instituting heterosexual subordination. Maybe come back to comment when you've actually read some of her work.

Ah come off it Vox - Wikipedia gave you a fair hand up here. And what have performative notions of gender got to do with her stupidly defending her friend? Don't claim to be some kind of Butler scholar here. She's not Queen Feminist and her actions here speak more to her own inability to appropriately absorb the facts because she is blinded by loyalty than to the entire thrust of feminism.

LLMMLL

Santos Square Extinguisher wrote: »

She's built her career on the notion of gender as "performatively constituted" through speech and action and has talked about acts of sexual harassment as instituting heterosexual subordination. Maybe come back to comment when you've actually read some of her work.

There is no way I’m ever reading her work. Would rather poke my eye out.

El_Duderino 09

Cilantro2000 wrote: »

When did I feign surprise, feminists act how I expect them to act, out of self interest.

I never said people don't campaign for issues that motivated them.

To be fair, it wasn’t you who feigned surprise

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.

This seems to be a really insightful argument for some people. Pretending to be surprised by the same thing again and again.

Feminism primarily focuses on women’s issues. Men’s rights activists are free to piggyback on feminists success. If you care about men’s rights issues, you’ll focus on the men’s rights issue at play. If you care about whinging about feminism, then you’ll continue to whinge about feminism.

The men’s rights issue at play is substantive. Male sexual harassment is an important issue the choice is simple for me. Unfortunately it seems simple for you too.

LLMMLL

Cilantro2000 wrote: »

People are not obliged to feel concern for the victim. I feel zero concern just as I feel zero concern for people starving in third world countries.

*nods politely*

Feminisim is discussed because I think a lot of people can sense the machiavellian duplicity with which many feminists operate.

Nah feminism is being discussed because the anti-feminists thought they had a new stick to beat the feminists with.

Then it turned out every feminist on the thread supported the victim and thought the letter signatories were idiots. Didn’t work out so well.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Santos Square Extinguisher wrote: »

LLMMLL wrote: »

That’s building her career on something?

She's built her career on the notion of gender as "performatively constituted" through speech and action and has talked about acts of sexual harassment as instituting heterosexual subordination. Maybe come back to comment when you've actually read some of her work.

Those are different things. Those are just "how she acted in this situation" and "probably the first sentence you get when you Google her".

Cilantro2000

LLMMLL wrote: »

*nods politely*



Nah feminism is being discussed because the anti-feminists thought they had a new stick to beat the feminists with.

Then it turned out every feminist on the thread supported the victim and thought the letter signatories were idiots. Didn’t work out so well.

They support the victim just like they support gender equality. Judge people by their actions not what they say. Look at the causes which feminists actually support through actions. Haven't seen many campaigning for equal treatment by the courts funnily enough.

LLMMLL

Cilantro2000 wrote: »

They support the victim just like they support gender equality. Judge people by their actions not what they say. Look at the causes which feminists actually support through actions. Haven't seen many campaigning for equal treatment by the courts funnily enough.

I’m a feminist and I support equal treatment by the courts.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

LLMMLL wrote: »

Dangelo Clever Sluggishness wrote: »

Ah she's not that difficult surely?

But, just watch a fcukload of RuPaul. Same thing but far more willy and bum jokes.

She’s pretty bad:

“The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.”

That is...worse than I remember from her. Though in fairness it's a particularly clumsy passage that won her an award.

I think I read her immediately after Slavoj Zisek though, compared to which she's a goddamned Ladybird book.

Cilantro2000

LLMMLL wrote: »

I’m a feminist and I support equal treatment by the courts.

Good for you, if most feminists were like you then I would expect to see them campaigning for equal treatment by the courts. As it stands, in juridictions all over the world women get much more lenient treatment on average for the same crimes.

El_Duderino 09

LLMMLL wrote: »

I’m a feminist and I support equal treatment by the courts.

Id bet any money that doesn’t count because reasons.

Edgware

I remember a girl at work trying to get in past a man in the canteen and she said " get your big arse out of the way" Imagine the uproar if a man had said that to a woman.
It took a while for her to work out what he meant when he replied " ah girl, you need a big hammer to drive a nine inch nail"

Cilantro2000

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Id bet any money that doesn’t count because reasons.

You're missing the fundamental point of criticism against feminists, what they say and what their actual motivations and goals are are often very different.

LLMMLL

Cilantro2000 wrote: »

Good for you, if most feminists were like you then I would expect to see them campaigning for equal treatment by the courts. As it stands, in juridictions all over the world women get much more lenient treatment on average for the same crimes.

Well I’m an average person with limited time and areas of interest. Just like everyone else. Campaigning takes a lot of time. Most people (feminists non feminists animal rights people etc etc) will pick issues close to their heart or something they’re interested in. It’s ridiculous to try and tell them what they SHOULD campaign on.

I have to agree with el_duderino here. If it’s something you’re particularly concerned about then you should campaign on it. If you don’t have the time or energy that’s fine. But it’s nobody else’s responsibility to do it, and that is not something they should be criticised for.

PlaneSpeeking

Edgware wrote: »

I remember a girl at work trying to get in past a man in the canteen and she said " get your big arse out of the way" Imagine the uproar if a man had said that to a woman.
It took a while for her to work out what he meant when he replied " ah girl, you need a big hammer to drive a nine inch nail"

One of the trainers here calls all the men she works with "pet".

I'd say most might not be bothered but the point is a man would never get away with it.

I get "my dear" - not sure what to make of that.

dark crystal

Cilantro2000 wrote: »

Or talking to a man's groin which women often do.

They must be all amazingly short women :eek:

El_Duderino 09

Cilantro2000 wrote: »

LLMMLL wrote: »

I’m a feminist and I support equal treatment by the courts.

Good for you, if most feminists were like you then I would expect to see them campaigning for equal treatment by the courts. As it stands, in juridictions all over the world women get much more lenient treatment on average for the same crimes.

If most men cared about family courts and were willing to campaign on it like feminists campaign for issues they care about, there would be a real chance of change in a decade or 2.

Unfortunately it’s much easier and gratifying for some to whinge interminable about feminists.

LLMMLL

Edgware wrote: »

I remember a girl at work trying to get in past a man in the canteen and she said " get your big arse out of the way" Imagine the uproar if a man had said that to a woman.
It took a while for her to work out what he meant when he replied " ah girl, you need a big hammer to drive a nine inch nail"

Is the man you? And you came up with the response later on that night and wish you’d said it?

PlaneSpeeking

dark crystal wrote: »

They must be all amazingly short women :eek:

I've looked at the odd pec now and again but even at 5" 1' I'd find that tricky!

I was about to reply to this thread. Life is too short.

PlaneSpeeking

I would respectfully suggest that "Men's Rights" do not have the cachet that women's rights do - and that isn't anyone's direct fault.

In a perfect world I would dearly love to see true equality, i.e.

Both men and women competing equally for roles. jobs etc - with the same level of skills etc needed (i.e. not infantilising some women by allowing a lesser standard to be accepted);
High achievers - great people/thinkers/philanthropists etc of whichever gender - to be lauded;
An end to gender quotas - I've never been given preferential treatment for my sex and never expected it;
Both mother and father are considered equal parents when child custody is decided;
Female on Male and Female on Female domestic violence and assault to be given equal credence and not brushed under the carpet as sadly in can be;
Sentences are carried out due to the offence, the previous criminal history of the perpetrator and not on gender. With few exceptions, women's crimes are left to slide;
Anonymity for both parties when a claim of sexual assault or rape is made;
Bad behaviour of women to be called out as unacceptable - the end to the double standard.

I'm sure there are others but these are just the ones that I have either experienced or know of people who have.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Is crotch staring really a thing? Honest question lads, metoo it?

I'll readily admit I've had to check myself not to be leery when interacting with a handsome man but a trousered dick doesn't draw the eye, speaking personally.

Edgware

dark crystal wrote: »

They must be all amazingly short women :eek:

That reminds me of the one about Simon the dwarf telling the girl she had lovely hair!

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

This character.



Chance would be a fine thing. Finding men’s rights activists would be tough and fair play to those who actually do it.

Finding men who like to whinge about feminists is like shooting fish an a barrel.

See this thread for example. A story about a man who was sexually harassed by someone in authority, made a complaint and had it investigated and found he was in fact harassed. It should be an empowering story about a man who was in a position of vulnerability and was taken advantage of by his superior, came forward and got help. It could be inspirational to other men in similar situations to encourage them to speak out and not expect to be treated badly.

But instead this thread is focused on... whinging about feminists. Shame.

Um... a group of self proclaimed feminist academics attempted to band together and have the complaint squashed. Then the punishment was as little as a one year suspension from her job.

If you don't see an issue there, we're all wasting our time.

Yer Da sells Avon

I can safely say that no woman has ever stared at my crotch area during a conversation, and that's despite the fact that it's very difficult to miss.

Malayalam

Dangelo Clever Sluggishness wrote: »

Is crotch staring really a thing? Honest question lads, metoo it?

I'll readily admit I've had to check myself not to be leery when interacting with a handsome man but a trousered dick doesn't draw the eye, speaking personally.

Hahah must admit I have never done that either. If I find myself interacting with a very attractive man I become awkward and blush so badly I just want to run away immediately. Whatever is the opposite of poker face.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Um... a group of self proclaimed feminist academics attempted to band together and have the complaint squashed. Then the punishment was as little as a one year suspension from her job.

If you don't see an issue there, we're all wasting our time.

It wasn’t feminist academics. It was academics who worked with the accused.

Lux23

They should withdraw their support and apologise to the man. Seems like she got off lightly too.

This isn't an unusual occurrence, friends of male sexual harassers will often react in the exact same way coming to the defence of their friend? Why would expect women to react any differently? There are idiots everywhere.

PlaneSpeeking

Malayalam wrote: »

Umm. Congratulations, I guess.

I'd say size is in the eye of the beholder a lot of the time - unless on the train the other night I was actually sat next to Dirk Diggler's stunt double, no need for such wide manspreading lads!