Female sexual harassers and double standards

optogirl

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.

1. They aren't feminist academics
2. How can you be a self proclaimed feminist academic? You either are one or you aren't.

PlaneSpeeking

optogirl wrote: »

1. They aren't feminist academics
2. How can you be a self proclaimed feminist academic? You either are one or you aren't.

It does rather suggest that someone could have called them a feminist academic but in this case they've described themselves as such ?

I agree tho - you are or you are not. But there's a lot I don't get nowadays and I work in education!

super_furry

A lot of people can have very vocal opinions on supporting victims until the accused in someone in their social circle.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

Lux23 wrote: »

They should withdraw their support and apologise to the man.

Neither of those things seems to be happening, alas.

Why would expect women to react any differently? There are idiots everywhere.

These particular women aren't idiots -- they are all highly educated people who hold prestigious professorships at some of the top universities in the world.

You'd also expect them to react differently given that many of them have been involved in shaping the debate around gender, power, and oppression from which the very concept of "sexual harassment" emerged and became enshrined in law.

optogirl

Santos Square Extinguisher wrote: »

Neither of those things seems to be happening, alas.



These particular women aren't idiots -- they are all highly educated people who hold prestigious professorships at some of the top universities in the world.

You'd also expect them to react differently given that many of them have been involved in shaping the debate around gender, power, and oppression from which the very concept of "sexual harassment" emerged and became enshrined in law.

the concept of sexual harassment, and I'm not sure why you've used inverted commas here, arose from sexual harassment, not from debates around gender.

El_Duderino 09

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.

I see it as an issue alright. I think any act of discouraging accusations based on intimidation of any sort is reprehensible. It happens in all cases unfortunately. I’d oppose it in all cases.

If you’re only interested because it’s ‘self proclaimed feminist academics’ doing it in this case, then I don’t know what to tell you.

Lux23

Santos Square Extinguisher wrote: »

Neither of those things seems to be happening, alas.



These particular women aren't idiots -- they are all highly educated people who hold prestigious professorships at some of the top universities in the world.

They are idiots. They're closing ranks to protect one of their own and making a mockery of feminism.

PlaneSpeeking

Lux23 wrote: »

They are idiots. They're closing ranks to protect one of their own and making a mockery of feminism.

i would agree there, not being a feminist in the current sense of the word I may not have much credence in some eyes.

But these were women who made a certain career out of gender politics and painting men as aggressors and women as victims.

I abhor hypocrisy and sadly that is what this is an example of.

Lux23

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

i would agree there, not being a feminist in the current sense of the word I may not have much credence in some eyes.

But these were women who made a certain career out of gender politics and painting men as aggressors and women as victims.

I abhor hypocrisy and sadly that is what this is an example of.

So I assume if the roles were reversed again that you would think a man found guilty of a similar action should be sacked and anyone that defends him is wrong.

PlaneSpeeking

Lux23 wrote: »

So I assume if the roles were reversed again that you would think a man found guilty of a similar action should be sacked and anyone that defends him is wrong.

If there's evidence like the emails in this case, absolutely.

That is about an abuse of uneven power and in the reverse yes, he should go.

The Me Too thing though has gone too far and there's people losing their livelihoods on nothing more than suggestion and innuendo.

Actual proof and you should be fired. No question.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

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

optogirl wrote: »

1. They aren't feminist academics
2. How can you be a self proclaimed feminist academic? You either are one or you aren't.

I'll concede"self-proclaimed" part. Every feminist is self-proclaimed. Strange to jump on that regardless.


Still, I recommend you read the article that OP linked. They were feminists.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/13/nyregion/sexual-harassment-nyu-female-professor.html

But some leading feminist scholars have supported her in ways that echo the defenses of male harassers..

it raised a challenge for feminists — how to respond when one of their own behaved badly.

a group of scholars from around the world, including prominent feminists, sent a letter to N.Y.U. in defense of Professor Ronell. Judith Butler, the author of the book “Gender Trouble” and one of the most influential feminist scholars today, was first on the list.

said she and her colleagues were particularly disturbed that, as they saw it, Mr. Reitman was using Title IX, a feminist tool, to take down a feminist.

PlaneSpeeking

Deleted User wrote: »

I'll concede"self-proclaimed" part. Every feminist is self-proclaimed. Strange to jump on that regardless.


Still, I recommend you read the article that OP linked. They were feminists.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/13/nyregion/sexual-harassment-nyu-female-professor.html

Am I asking a silly question if I ask why it's odd that Title IX was used ?

This case fits exactly in that wheelhouse I would have thought ?

optogirl

Deleted User wrote: »

I'll concede"self-proclaimed" part. Every feminist is self-proclaimed. Strange to jump on that regardless.


Still, I recommend you read the article that OP linked. They were feminists.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/13/nyregion/sexual-harassment-nyu-female-professor.html

but being an feminist and an academic is different from being a feminist academic. I'm a feminist and say, for example, an accountant. I am not a feminist accountant in that I don't conduct my accounting through a feminist lens.

optogirl

optogirl wrote: »

but being an feminist and an academic is different from being a feminist academic. I'm a feminist and say, for example, an accountant. I am not a feminist accountant in that I don't conduct my accounting through a feminist lens.

I didn't realise there was such a thing as a feminist academic in the way you mean feminist accountant. They were feminists and academics. Better now?

From the article actually, its refers to "some leading feminist scholars". Does that imply they are feminist academics like you defined?

optogirl

Deleted User wrote: »

From the article actually, its refers to "some leading feminist scholars". Does that imply they are feminist academics like you defined?

Yeah that makes more sense to me - sorry if it's obtuse.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'll concede"self-proclaimed" part. Every feminist is self-proclaimed. Strange to jump on that regardless.


Still, I recommend you read the article that OP linked. They were feminists.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/13/nyregion/sexual-harassment-nyu-female-professor.html

Some are feminists. Some aren’t. The unifying theme among the signatories is basically being s collegaie, not a feminist.

This isn’t an issue of feminism other than that some people throw their principles out the window to support friends. Feminists included.

PlaneSpeeking

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I was wondering if there was some more interesting point that I was missing but you’ve clarified that there isn’t.

It’s crystal clear that you share an interest in feminism with lots of men.

Feminists focus on women’s issues and men focus on feminists. The result is that women’s rights are progressing and men’s rights aren’t. That’s the important issue as far as I’m concerned

How many times can proponents of men's rights and pure sexual equality be laughed at though ?

Feminism doesn't take it seriously enough so you can see why folk are discouraged.

Talk about domestic violence - "women have it worse"; mention false rape claims "men getting off scot free" - touch on sexual harassment and it's "it;s worse for women".

I can see why it's not more forcefully ran with.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I was wondering if there was some more interesting point that I was missing but you’ve clarified that there isn’t.

It’s crystal clear that you share an interest in feminism with lots of men.

Feminists focus on women’s issues and men focus on feminists. The result is that women’s rights are progressing and men’s rights aren’t. That’s the important issue as far as I’m concerned

That's all grand, just don't go around saying feminism is about equality for all then.

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote: »

That's all grand, just don't go around saying feminism is about equality for all then.

I haven’t! Lol. I’ve probably said a dozen times in this thread that I think feminism primarily focuses on women’s issues.

So what?

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I haven’t! Lol. I’ve probably said a dozen times in this thread that I think feminism primarily focuses on women’s issues.

So what?

Apologies, I've lumped you in with all the rest.

Lux23

Deleted User wrote: »

Apologies, I've lumped you in with all the rest.

Or a vocal minority that you think is representative of feminism.

PlaneSpeeking

Lux23 wrote: »

Or a vocal minority that you think is representative of feminism.

I would argue a fair few younger feminists of today (or those who professionally describe themselves as such) would be anything other that purely women's advancement and not equality.

Can't really see Louise O'Neill and that Mulally sort caring much about men. Sure wasn't O'Neill's handle referring to misandry before she thought better of it her publicist got her to take it down ?

suicide_circus

it's almost as if men and women are unequal in some ways

El_Duderino 09

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

How many times can proponents of men's rights and pure sexual equality be laughed at though ?

Feminism doesn't take it seriously enough so you can see why folk are discouraged.

Talk about domestic violence - "women have it worse"; mention false rape claims "men getting off scot free" - touch on sexual harassment and it's "it;s worse for women".

I can see why it's not more forcefully ran with.

And you have no end of people whinging about feminism. This thread is a prime example.

But it doesn’t stop them pushing the stone up the hill an inch at a time. Case in point, after decades of campaigning about sexual harassment, women’s sexual harassment is taken more seriously than men’s sexual harassment.

If they were deterred by people laughing at them or whinging about them, they wouldn’t Have had all that success.

Lux23

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I would argue a fair few younger feminists of today (or those who professionally describe themselves as such) would be anything other that purely women's advancement and not equality.

Can't really see Louise O'Neill and that Mulally sort caring much about men. Sure wasn't O'Neill's handle referring to misandry before she thought better of it her publicist got her to take it down ?

That's two peoples - the definition of a minority.

PlaneSpeeking

Lux23 wrote: »

That's two peoples - the definition of a minority.

I'll not argue with you - it is definitely a minority, but a vocal one that seems to allow no dissent.

optogirl

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I would argue a fair few younger feminists of today (or those who professionally describe themselves as such) would be anything other that purely women's advancement and not equality.

Can't really see Louise O'Neill and that Mulally sort caring much about men. Sure wasn't O'Neill's handle referring to misandry before she thought better of it her publicist got her to take it down ?

Christ can we get over Louise O'Neill? I honestly rarely, if ever, hear about her anywhere other than on Boards. What have LON and, as you charmingly call her, 'that Mulally sort' got to do with this thread?

Lux23

optogirl wrote: »

Christ can we get over Louise O'Neill? I honestly rarely, if ever, hear about her anywhere other than on Boards. What have LON and, as you charmingly call her, 'that Mulally sort' got to do with this thread?

It's ridiculous, the only people that ever talk about her are men.

PlaneSpeeking

optogirl wrote: »

Christ can we get over Louise O'Neill? I honestly rarely, if ever, hear about her anywhere other than on Boards. What have LON and, as you charmingly call her, 'that Mulally sort' got to do with this thread?

Making a point about so called feminists who have zero interest in equality and are clearly only concerned with women's advancement whether fair or not.

Chill baby, chill.

PlaneSpeeking

Lux23 wrote: »

It's ridiculous, the only people that ever talk about her are men.

I'm not a man. Sadly.

Lux23

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I'm not a man. Sadly.

My apologies.

El_Duderino 09

Double post

El_Duderino 09

Cilantro2000 wrote: »

There you go again, trying to attack my character by pretending I made slurs which I have not.

I will repeat my point again if you wish, the stated goal of feminists is gender equality, the evidence suggests that is not the actual goal.

Wow. Mind blown.

You’re tiny point registers marginally above irrelevant. And is that it? Does your point go any further or is that as far as you’ve gotten?

El_Duderino 09

Cilantro2000 wrote: »

"Humour" was the first tactic to avoid defining whinging, now "Triviality" is the next tactic.

Oh yes. The definition of whinging is trivial.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

optogirl wrote: »

the concept of sexual harassment, and I'm not sure why you've used inverted commas here, arose from sexual harassment, not from debates around gender.

You are just displaying ignorance now. The term "sexual harassment" was first coined at a feminist consciousness-raising session at Cornell in 1974, and is inextricable from the rise of first-wave feminism. Sexual harassment legislation emerged in the US in the early 1980s when the EEOC explicitly defined it as a form of sex discrimination prohibited by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. All of this arose from academic and political debates around gender issues in the '70s.

Lux23

Santos Square Extinguisher wrote: »

You are just displaying ignorance now. The term "sexual harassment" was first coined at a feminist consciousness-raising session at Cornell in 1974, and is inextricable from the rise of first-wave feminism. Sexual harassment legislation emerged in the US in the early 1980s when the EEOC explicitly defined it as a form of sex discrimination prohibited by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. All of this arose from academic and political debates around gender issues in the '70s.

So you think this woman should have gotten away with it?

lastsaturday

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

As a man I would love to be sexually harassed by a female co worker.

Is not fun when they're butt ugly and their breath smells of garbage

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

Lux23 wrote: »

So you think this woman should have gotten away with it?

What on earth in what I wrote leads you to that conclusion?

El_Duderino 09

Cilantro2000 wrote: »

For a point that is so irrelvant you can't answer yes or no if you think it's true.

It's like you have been programmed so that you can't say anything critical towards feminism.

There isn’t a single ‘feminism’ so I can’t really answer a question about its goal.

AudreyHepburn

I’ve always said that as women we have the most blatant and ridiculous double standards when it comes to our interactions with men. The fact that a certain section of women up a fuss when men so much as wink at them whole the same time having the temerity to effectively sexually harass men without recourse really bothers me and makes me ashamed of my gender.

Being female doesn’t give you a free pass to behave whatever way you want, nor does the fact that many men treat women badly.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

The more I read the letter and the article the angrier I get.

She said she had "no idea" her behaviour and communications were unwanted, how in the name of God could she think they were appropriate? She's 30 years older, has his future in her hands and the imbalance of power between them is extreme. Even take her at her word that the claims of sexual contact are spurious, that kind of communication in that kind of relationship is so clearly inappropriate.

She seems to have some kind of wacky eccentric persona, but even if her intention was just to engage in a bit of harmless queer on queer sh1ts n giggles...tough sh1t, she doesn't get to decide how he responds to that.

As for the letter, her "grace and wit", her reputation, her intellect, none of that precludes her from being an harasser, none of it gets her a pass. Character references from peers in sexual misconduct cases are fcuked, the implication is "they're not that kind of person". Of course if you're working with her you don't see that side because harassers and abusers don't punch up, or even across, it's always, always down. THAT'S THE WHOLE ****ING POINT. It's embedded in power relations and operates systemically; this being a female perpetrator and male victim is unusual yeah, but she is the bloody patriarchy in this context.

Sake.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You could take that approach but you’d be objectively wrong. I’m a men’s rights supporter. And I’m looking for the men’s rights angle in this story. But that’s not what the posters want. They want to bash feminists.

Ironically it’s the feminists who are taking the men’s rights position

You’re not advocating for men’s rights. You’re discussing (whinging about) feminists. Pointing out that they’re focused primarily on women’s issues. Then what? Where does your argument go after that little point that I already agree with? Make the same point again? And again? And again?

The message from your posts is clear. You’re primarily posting about feminism. I don’t know if you’ve posted anything men’s rights related.

Yes this could be a good win from men's rights point of view.
It reminded me a bit of terry crews, i've been vaguely following his story as it is so shocking.
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2018/06/26/terry-crews-asked-withdraw-harassment-suit-remain-expendables-films/737022002/

What hope does anyone have when a famous actor like him is getting assaulted and it's still covered up. It does need more publicity and support.

Will I Am Not

There’s a clip on YouTube with Ricky Gervais as a guest on The View, think Loose Women in the US.
The first thing that happens to him when he sits down is he’s more or less groped after talking about not being a touchy feely type.
Minutes later he’s called sexist over a joke, he makes them look silly when he explains it to them.
Then he’s asked why there are no women on a comedy discussion show he did with Jerry Seinfeld, Louis CK and Chris Rock. He’s asked this without a hint of irony, by a woman sitting on a panel of 5 women on a discussion show.

These type of women see sexism as a one way street. Sexism towards men simply doesn’t exist in their minds. You see it all the time.

Edit-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rc-sT0EpPdo

mvl

Santos Square Extinguisher wrote: »

But how did Ronell's female colleagues respond to the news? A group of them sent a letter to NYU, defending Ronell and trying to smear her accuser. The signatories include a number of top feminist professors, among them Judith Butler, author of the well-known book Gender Trouble. "“We have all seen [Ronell's] relationship with students, and some of us know the individual who has waged this malicious campaign against her,” they wrote.

May I add here a note about the Al Braken case - where you had a group of women staffers defending the accused="staunch supporter of women’s rights" ?
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/female-franken-staffers_us_5a0f060ae4b045cf4371109c

- Sounds to me women can be "fairer" than what OP suggests

Keepaneye

There's no one more whiny than a male feminist so desperately seeking approval from women.

blackcard

Watching a sports programme on sky sports this evening when there was a discussion between the three panellists, 2 males and 1 female. Twice the female panellist put her hand on the thigh of one of the males, she also put her hand on his knee. I didn't think it was harrassment, I very much doubt that an issue will be made of it, I certainly wouldn't make an issue if I was the male involved. I am fairly certain the gesture was made in a
friendly manner. I wouldn't dream of attempting of doing the same to a female even if it meant in a friendly manner. There are different standards but I wouldn't make a big deal about it as I understand that because males are generally physically more powerful, their actions can be more threatening.

mrkiscool2

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

No, it doesn't become a meaningless words. The first and second wave feminists had pretty core ideals and goals, third and fourth wave feminism seems to be a step in multiple directions, as one would expect when different issues are being tackled (AKA not legal rights but more so attacking discrimination and other systems that specifically subjugate women).

Except that first and second wave feminism happened at the same period as the Unions, and the representation of workers in society. The fight for employee rights happened alongside the fight for female rights, and there could be a connection or parallel drawn between them. Feminism wasn't solely about women's rights, considering the sheer numbers of men who supported feminist views on equality, rather than simply seeking rights solely for women. Also helped that the last three wars the US experienced, massively shook up their society and the perception of normal people towards gender roles.

Third wave feminism essentially happened as those rights became available to women. The creation of anti-discrimination or sexual harassment laws in the workplace occurred, for the most part, at the beginning/middle of third wave feminism.

And then we have fourth wave feminism, which exists in a western world where women are legally completely equal with men. They have exactly the same rights, and in many case, have superior rights based on both social perception, but also the double standards of feminism to demand equality but to ignore all the benefits still lingering from their past oppression.

Modern feminism goes so many different directions because they're fighting society now. This isn't about the law anymore. The law is/was converted to being equal for women (at least until gender quotas came in). Instead, legal equality is not good enough, and cultural change is required. In spite of the acknowledgement that Cultural change takes time, the demands for change are all about... now.

There are multiple different types of feminism, each having a different view on what feminism should be. They still all strive towards a common goal, equal rights for women. That's in literally every definition of all feminists. One can be both a feminist and men's right activist. One can be a feminist and not think that the issues male face are the same as women.

Quite true. There are heaps upon heaps of "types" of feminists. And that is why it's interesting. When it comes to the behavior of feminists, we are told that they are individuals, but when it comes to the behavior of men, we are told we are collectively responsible for their behavior. Hence another double standard that is actively encouraged.

Also, how can you support equality but not strive for it? That means you are happy with the status quo, which therefore means you aren't really for equality.

Except that equality is here. Or at least it was. Legal equality existed in Western countries for a decade or so, until feminists decided that it wasn't enough. Women needed more help in the workplace. More help in the courts. etc.

The problem with your last statement is it's more of the either you're with us or you're against us, and if you're with us, then you must accept our definition of equality. Not that you'll ever come out and define what equality is... but instead, feminist backed initiatives for equality will drop the word repeatedly, but every aim of the initiative will be directed at helping women. Just women.

In spite of all the benefits that women have in Western countries (legal/social), in addition to living longer, and generally avoiding the more dangerous jobs in society, there always needs to be more done to help women... and very little for men.

Go ahead. Look at the equality initiatives from both the EU and UN, and compare how many of the initiatives are designed to help men/women... And then consider, under the law or society, what rights men have that women don't, and vice versa.

If you're even remotely honest, you'll notice that equality is not equality. it's just a "nicer" way to say feminism.

El_Duderino 09

Keepaneye wrote: »

There's no one more whiny than a male feminist so desperately seeking approval from women.

Well, there’s men who can’t get women and turn any situation into a whine fest about feminism. Those blokes are pretty whiny.

El_Duderino 09

Cilantro2000 wrote: »

You've returned to your tactic of attacking people's characters, you've yet to define whining because it would mean the tactic wouldn't work.

I'm not whining at all, perfectly content and happy having a discussion

Can you honestly not even provide one example where a feminists has campaigned for women to lose unfair advantages in pursuit of equality? Given you are adamant that there exists feminists whose goal is gender equality I would have thought you have a basis for that belief.

Ha happy having a discussion-as long as it’s limited to your line point of whinging about feminists duplicity.

I already told you, I’m an example of someone who supports men’s rights and women’s rights. So I’m feminist and support men’s rights. What more do you need to know?