Female sexual harassers and double standards

Grayson

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I’d argue half of LON’s readers are men who completely disagree with her. Clicks count whether the clicker agrees with it despises the content.

The bucks in the LON bashing thread keep an avid eye on her content. They all count as clicks

And half of them are probably on boards

I have to admit I generally read Brenda O'Briens columns in the Irish Times.

Silentcorner

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I’d argue half of LON’s readers are men who completely disagree with her. Clicks count whether the clicker agrees with it despises the content.

The bucks in the LON bashing thread keep an avid eye on her content. They all count as clicks

I'd agree, media standards are in the toilet which is why the likes of LON get media exposure, but feminism has been a part of mainstream conversations for a long long time, long before the internet or social media...

Silentcorner

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Why thank you!



If at first they don't listen try and try again. When feminists started they were derided and ridiculed in the media, to the point that most "ordinary" women didn't want to be associated with them. But they persisted. Perseverance pays off and it's more effective than sitting round slagging off feminism for getting the job done

Do you know what, you are right, you only need to look at the issue of domestic abuse, which impacts both genders, to see who "wins" or who "gets the job done"...equality indeed!!

Silentcorner

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I didn’t suggest it has anything to do with integrity. The ‘merit’ is relevance to the public. If people click it, it’s relevant. Outrage clicks are equal to right-on clicks.

Where is the merit in providing a platform for a divisive ideology more exposure than any other?

Again, you are implying that the creating divisions achieves success...

El_Duderino 09

Silentcorner wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I’d argue half of LON’s readers are men who completely disagree with her. Clicks count whether the clicker agrees with it despises the content.

The bucks in the LON bashing thread keep an avid eye on her content. They all count as clicks

I'd agree, media standards are in the toilet which is why the likes of LON get media exposure, but feminism has been a part of mainstream conversations for a long long time, long before the internet or social media...

They push themselves into the conversation. ‘The media’ didn’t just decide to start covering feminism and ‘allotting’ airtime.

The template is there for men’s rights to do the same and experience similar success. Here’s to hoping.

El_Duderino 09

Silentcorner wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I didn’t suggest it has anything to do with integrity. The ‘merit’ is relevance to the public. If people click it, it’s relevant. Outrage clicks are equal to right-on clicks.

Where is the merit in providing a platform for a divisive ideology more exposure than any other?

Again, you are implying that the creating divisions achieves success...

Yeah. Creating divisions can create success in getting media attention. I don’t have to think it’s a good thing to observe that it’s true. If you claim to know anything about how media works then you’ll know that’s true whether you or I think it has merit.

Silentcorner

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

They push themselves into the conversation. ‘The media’ didn’t just decide to start covering feminism and ‘allotting’ airtime.

The template is there for men’s rights to do the same and experience similar success. Here’s to hoping.

I certainly hope, that in the pursuit of equality, people don't use misleading and divisive tactics to achieve their goals, surely a progressive society can do better than that.

Triceratops Ballet

Silentcorner wrote:

Do you know what, you are right, you only need to look at the issue of domestic abuse, which impacts both genders, to see who "wins" or who "gets the job done"...equality indeed!!

What?
Tangential point aside, it's established fact that men can just as easily be victims of domestic violence. We're coming from a period of time though where men admitting that was seen as somewhat shameful socially and some of the ideas that created that mindset are still pervasive in society, which is why it's up to those who know better to educate on the issue and try and put the ideas that men have hide something like that in the past where they belong.

Silentcorner

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah. Creating divisions can create success in getting media attention. I don’t have to think it’s a good thing to observe that it’s true. If you claim to know anything about how media works then you’ll know that’s true whether you or I think it has merit.

Creating divisions is the most effective way of distracting from the root cause of inequality, which isn't gender related, it is class related...such a shame Feminism only concerns itself with the wants of the one particular demographic.

Silentcorner

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

What?
Tangential point aside, it's established fact that men can just as easily be victims of domestic violence. We're coming from a period of time though where men admitting that was seen as somewhat shameful socially and some of the ideas that created that mindset are still pervasive in society, which is why it's up to those who know better to educate on the issue and try and put the ideas that men have hide something like that in the past where they belong.

Its funny, I had to come on here to establish that fact...and I consume media all the time.

No wonder it was considered shameful socially...

El_Duderino 09

Silentcorner wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

They push themselves into the conversation. ‘The media’ didn’t just decide to start covering feminism and ‘allotting’ airtime.

The template is there for men’s rights to do the same and experience similar success. Here’s to hoping.

I certainly hope, that in the pursuit of equality, people don't use misleading and divisive tactics to achieve their goals, surely a progressive society can do better than that.

Maybe it can, maybe it can’t. That’s a separate issue.

Can men’s rights get the same media attention that women’s rights get? Yes.

El_Duderino 09

Silentcorner wrote: »

Creating divisions is the most effective way of distracting from the root cause of inequality, which isn't gender related, it is class related...

Ah, that’s grand from all the way up on your high horse. We’re back to giving out about feminism and ignoring men’s rights. Seems to be the theme of the day.

I don’t set the media agenda fo there’s little points telling me all this.

Silentcorner wrote: »

such a shame Feminism only concerns itself with the wants of the one particular demographic.

And it does so, marvellously.

Silentcorner

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Maybe it can, maybe it can’t. That’s a separate issue.

Can men’s rights get the same media attention that women’s rights get? Yes.

Its a massive issue, in an age where your gender or race can afford you media exposure it is a dangerous route to take.

You need only look at Brexit to witness how media can inflict damage on society by picking and affording certain narratives media exposure.

Triceratops Ballet

Silentcorner wrote:

Its funny, I had to come on here to establish that fact...and I consume media all the time.

Yeah we all consume media all the time it's the 21st century! I've known since I was a child not to believe everything you read. I'm not sure what point you're even making anymore

Silentcorner

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ah, that’s grand from all the way up on your high horse. We’re back to giving out about feminism and ignoring men’s rights. Seems to be the theme of the day.

I don’t set the media agenda fo there’s little points telling me all this.


And it does so, marvellously.

Well, I don't think there is anything I can say to that...if creating division in society is an ambition then mission accomplished...

Silentcorner

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Yeah we all consume media all the time it's the 21st century! I've known since I was a child not to believe everything you read. I'm not sure what point you're even making anymore

How do you mean you don't know what point I am making anymore...go back and read the interaction....

You claimed it was an established fact that men suffer from domestic abuse as much as women do...I merely stated that I only established that fact from some contributors to this forum, in very recent times I might add..not through mainstream media.

El_Duderino 09

Silentcorner wrote: »

Well, I don't think there is anything I can say to that...if creating division in society is an ambition then mission accomplished...

Yeah I’m not sure you know what you’re point is so maybe you should leave it at that.

Taytoland

Most men will shag anything that moves, so this is why this goes under reported.

Silentcorner

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah I’m not sure you know what you’re point is so maybe you should leave it at that.

Yeah...you're the second person to accuse me of that...you know that creating division in society is immoral...it's not easy to defend is it!

Silentcorner

Silentcorner wrote: »

How do you mean you don't know what point I am making anymore...go back and read the interaction....

You claimed it was an established fact that men suffer from domestic abuse as much as women do...I merely stated that I only established that fact from some contributors to this forum, in very recent times I might add..not through mainstream media.

No they don't, and it's ridiculous to suggest that they do. Men are more likely to be on the receiving end of emotional abuse from women, but that's not considered applicable for domestic abuse. In terms of physical domestic abuse, men easily do it more. It's claims like this that hurt the men's rights movements, just like the nutjob feminist claims hurt their own movement.

Now.. if you wish to point out the seriously high rates of violence in Lesbian couples, sure, that's certainly true, but still not very close to the amount of male led physical violence in straight couples. Although, again, it's worth noting that the amount of female led violence in straight couples for young people is rising as is reciprocal violence between both parties (check US research on the area).

Triceratops Ballet

Silentcorner wrote:

You claimed it was an established fact that men suffer from domestic abuse as much as women do...I merely stated that I only established that fact from some contributors to this forum, in very recent times I might add..not through mainstream media.

So the mainstream media is a sham we're agreed. But it's purpose is not to inform or educate it's to make money it gives you a taster of some information and you go off and find out more on your own. That doesn't mean men's rights can't use is as effectively as women's rights activists.

Silentcorner

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

So the mainstream media is a sham we're agreed. But it's purpose is not to inform or educate it's to make money it gives you a taster of some information and you go off and find out more on your own. That doesn't mean men's rights can't use is as effectively as women's rights activists.

Ya, you might be right, men seem to have accepted their fate and always have done, women get off their behinds quicker and act collectively, probably because they have had to.

You have to be balanced when it comes to gender equality, I don't see that balance in mainstream media or social media, I don't know if we will ever see that balance...my opinion of mainstream media is in the gutter at this stage.

El_Duderino 09

Silentcorner wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah I’m not sure you know what you’re point is so maybe you should leave it at that.

Yeah...you're the second person to accuse me of that...you know that creating division in society is immoral...it's not easy to defend is it!

A few posts ago you were telling me I don’t know how media works. When I describe how media works you call it immoral.

Yeah, you don’t really have a cogent point.

I didn’t say anything was moral or immoral. I did say that the media is there to be used however a group wants to use it.

At the moment men's rights don’t have much media profile compared to feminism and they don’t get much done compared to feminism.

I hope men’s rights groups can find a way to engage the public and advance their goals.

Triceratops Ballet

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

It's not that unusual really, most women I know identify as feminist and I don't know a single one who doesn't care about men's rights. We all have men in our lives the things that affect men affect all of society.

Most women I know identify themselves as 1st/2d wave feminists and disavow any connection with the 3rd/4th wave feminists. The majority of women I've spoken to about feminism, do actually believe that equality has been reached and we just need time for culture/society to catch up to the changes in the law.

Feminism has garnered media exposure because it's over a hundred years old and has made huge leaps forward in a relatively short space of time. It got that attention by refusing to be ignored. A women's march, for better or worse that brings the centre of major cities all over the world to a halt is going to make headlines. If men did the same it would make headlines. The attention of the media is up for grabs, those who shout loudest get it.

As you say, Feminism has been around for over 100 years and it's based around very famous and justifiable injustices. The fight for women's rights is established as part of our history, and the culture itself. We all know of the Suffragettes, and their march for equality. And that's why modern feminism is so effective. It has the foundation laid by previous generations which has created a momentum to any claims that relate to women's rights. Absent that momentum, Feminism starting within the last decade would have the same problems as male rights groups.

Why? Because the world has changed. Global telecommunications, and shifts in the perception of common people. Peoples' attention spans have gotten far shorter, and the amount of groups seeking more rights have skyrocketed, all with access to promotional media. The attention of people have been diffused by the constant bombarding of claims for more rights by just about every segment of society. Then, it's also worth considering that the discrimination was institutional and therefore easier to point out as being unfair. With men's rights, there is the expectation that equality has been reached (or it's within reach), and men are being unreasonable to expect any stepping away from that... because any rights that men gain would mean that women would be losing some rights. It's less about equality and more about one gender being superior to another. Modern Feminism has encouraged that belief that women's rights is about equality, even though in many cases, their campaigns have sought rights far in excess of actual equality.

There's also the aspect that with Feminism, or Black Rights movements, there are people from the past who stand out as rolemodels (Emmeline Pankhurs, Martin L King, etc) for those following after. The momentum is there through the connection with these people, and allows more recent speakers/leaders to claim a connection with them for legitimacy. Men's rights movements don't have that momentum, or connection with the past. In fact, the past is simply justification that their claims for men's rights are groundless... after all, men held down women. Men held down black people. (in both instances, you rarely hear of the women who held down women or held down black people).

The truth is that Feminism is successful today due to its history. That history provides a foundation for anyone to speak of women's rights/issues. To say that men can simply apply the same system, ignores (or dismisses) that history.

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote: »

The truth is that Feminism is successful today due to its history. That history provides a foundation for anyone to speak of women's rights/issues. To say that men can simply apply the same system, ignores (or dismisses) that history.

Ah that’s just skirting the issue. Whether men’s rights could faithfully replicate precisely what women’s rights groups did is irrelevant. Men can get publicity, push their issues into public discourse, get people talking, debating, discussing and change attitudes. But instead we hear loads of whinging about feminism, and very little about men’s rights

Silentcorner

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

A few posts ago you were telling me I don’t know how media works. When I describe how media works you call it immoral.

Yeah, you don’t really have a cogent point.

I didn’t say anything was moral or immoral. I did say that the media is there to be used however a group wants to use it.

At the moment men's rights don’t have much media profile compared to feminism and they don’t get much done compared to feminism.

I hope men’s rights groups can find a way to engage the public and advance their goals.

You're leaping all over the place there now.

I know what I said, read the point I was responding to again, regarding your understand of media.

I said, and maintain, that creating division in society is immoral to achieve one's gains...which unless you can argue differently, is in my opinion....

Its hard to believe that you care for the rights of men, when, you believe creating division is the most effective way of achieving success...

Silentcorner

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ah that’s just skirting the issue. Whether men’s rights could faithfully replicate precisely what women’s rights groups did is irrelevant. Men can get publicity, push their issues into public discourse, get people talking, debating, discussing and change attitudes. But instead we hear loads of whinging about feminism, and very little about men’s rights

But that is what creating divisions does...and just because people don't agree with you or feminists does not make them "whingers"....you're sense of self awareness is...well typical!

El_Duderino 09

Silentcorner wrote: »

But that is what creating divisions does...and just because people don't agree with you or feminists does not make them "whingers"....you're sense of self awareness is...well typical!

It’s the whinging about feminism that’s makes it whinging. Senselessly focusing on a trivial point about what’s in the ‘feminism’ mission statement. And completely ignoring the interesting topics like men’s and women’s rights.

Its senseless and trivial. It’s not big and it’s not clever. It’s whinging like a child and little else.

Silentcorner

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It’s the whinging about feminism that’s makes it whinging. Senselessly focusing on a trivial point about what’s in the ‘feminism’ mission statement. And completely ignoring the interesting topics like men’s and women’s rights.

Its senseless and trivial. It’s not big and it’s not clever. It’s whinging like a child and little else.

You do know that repeating something over and over doesn't make it so right...its in the same league as putting your hands over your eyes and thinking you're invisible!!

Silentcorner

Silentcorner wrote: »

You do know that repeating something over and over doesn't make it so right...its in the same league as putting your hands over your eyes and thinking you're invisible!!

maybe the posters on this thread could stop doing it so

Silentcorner

bluewolf wrote: »

maybe the posters on this thread could stop doing it so

We live in hope sir!!

El_Duderino 09

Silentcorner wrote: »

You're leaping all over the place there now.

I know what I said, read the point I was responding to again, regarding your understand of media.

I said, and maintain, that creating division in society is immoral to achieve one's gains...which unless you can argue differently, is in my opinion....

Its hard to believe that you care for the rights of men, when, you believe creating division is the most effective way of achieving success...

I said how the media decides to run stories and you called it immoral. Whether it’s moral or not, that’s how it works.

I didn’t say creating division was the best way of doing anything. If you’ve a problem with how the media works, then take it up with the media. But whatever you do, don’t put words in my mouth again. Cheers.

givyjoe

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It’s the whinging about feminism that’s makes it whinging. Senselessly focusing on a trivial point about what’s in the ‘feminism’ mission statement. And completely ignoring the interesting topics like men’s and women’s rights.

Its senseless and trivial. It’s not big and it’s not clever. It’s whinging like a child and little else.

You do a fair bit of whinging about the whingers yourself.

Silentcorner

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I said how the media decides to run stories and you called it immoral. Whether it’s moral or not, that’s how it works.

I didn’t say creating division was the best way of doing anything. If you’ve a problem with how the media works, then take it up with the media. But whatever you do, don’t put words in my mouth again. Cheers.

I don't know if you are actually reading my posts, but I didn't say anything of the sort...I even cleared the confusion up in a different post...you clearly ignored it...

Go back and read post #239...

El_Duderino 09

givyjoe wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It’s the whinging about feminism that’s makes it whinging. Senselessly focusing on a trivial point about what’s in the ‘feminism’ mission statement. And completely ignoring the interesting topics like men’s and women’s rights.

Its senseless and trivial. It’s not big and it’s not clever. It’s whinging like a child and little else.

You do a fair bit of whinging about the whingers yourself.

Maybe I do. My main focus is men's rights. People who enjoy whining about feminists probably wouldn't understand.

El_Duderino 09

Silentcorner wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I said how the media decides to run stories and you called it immoral. Whether it’s moral or not, that’s how it works.

I didn’t say creating division was the best way of doing anything. If you’ve a problem with how the media works, then take it up with the media. But whatever you do, don’t put words in my mouth again. Cheers.

I don't know if you are actually reading my posts, but I didn't say anything of the sort...I even cleared the confusion up in a different post...you clearly ignored it...

Go back and read post #239...

Ah gerrup outta that. I quoted you a couple of posts above this one talking about mortality. It's nothing to do with what I said.

And the main point was that I didn't say dividing people was he best way of doing anything. That's you going off on a tangent. I asked you not to put words in my mouth again not be grateful if you'd take heed.

givyjoe

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Maybe I do. My main focus is men's rights. People who enjoy whining about feminists probably wouldn't understand.

Ha..You could have fooled me... And everyone else.

El_Duderino 09

givyjoe wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Maybe I do. My main focus is men's rights. People who enjoy whining about feminists probably wouldn't understand.

Ha..You could have fooled me... And everyone else.

Some people are easily fooled. Especially those who don't take the evidence I to account.
It's plain as day that I support men's rights. It's the whole reason I get frustrated when indeed so much energy wasted whining about feminists and so little energy on men's rights.

I don't know if you have any interest in men's rights or not.

Mailcoachinn

I was out last night and some random drunk girl grabbed me by the front of my trousers. I pulled back and told her to fcuk off before shouting every name under the sun at her. The guys in the pub looked at me like I had two heads. Her friends told me that I was being over-dramatic. I told them that if I had done that I’d be up in court with my name all over the papers if I did something similar. Apparently it doesn’t work both ways

El_Duderino 09

Mailcoachinn wrote: »

I was out last night and some random drunk girl grabbed me by the front of my trousers. I pulled back and told her to fcuk off before shouting every name under the sun at her. The guys in the pub looked at me like I had two heads. Her friends told me that I was being over-dramatic. I told them that if I had done that I’d be up in court with my name all over the papers if I did something similar. Apparently it doesn’t work both ways

The guys in the pub should be educated. They mustn’t be feminist or care about male sexual harassment.

Just to clarify, is the point that people should be upset about being touched up in a pub, or they shouldn’t be upset about being touched up in a pub? Or the actual subject isn’t important as long as both men and women are treated equally?

Mailcoachinn

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The guys in the pub should be educated. They mustn’t be feminist or care about male sexual harassment.

Just to clarify, is the point that people should be upset about being touched up in a pub, or they shouldn’t be upset about being touched up in a pub? Or the actual subject isn’t important as long as both men and women are treated equally?

The point is that unwanted sexual touching should not be tolerated regardless of source

Malayalam

Slavoj Zizek, everyone's favourite stuttering philosopher and master of the habitual tic, says that his old pal Prof Ronell was merely engaged in everyday ''eccentric rhethoric'', so, yeah, everyone can safely go back to doing whatever they were doing before. It's not like poor Avital is Asia Argento or anything :rolleyes:

https://thephilosophicalsalon.com/a-brief-post-script-on-the-case-of-avital-ronell/

El_Duderino 09

Mailcoachinn wrote: »

The point is that unwanted sexual touching should not be tolerated regardless of source

I agree with that. How could we make that happen?

givyjoe

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I agree with that. How could we make that happen?

Jesus wept.. by doing what he did? But let me guess, you think he should be on the streets marching or setting up a #himtoo campaign. :rolleyes:

El_Duderino 09

givyjoe wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I agree with that. How could we make that happen?

Jesus wept.. by doing what he did? But let me guess, you think he should be on the streets marching or setting up a #himtoo campaign. :rolleyes:

Now you're catching on! Good for you GJ
In all seriousness do you really think shouting fcuk off and calling her every name under he sun is actually the way to make it happen? Lol.

This is what happens when you spend inordinate amount of time giving out about feminists campaigning and changing public attitude to things. Now you're willing to do rolley eyes at the idea of publicly campaigning for something you want.

givyjoe

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Now you're catching on! Good for you GJ
In all seriousness do you really think shouting fcuk off and calling her every name under he sun is actually the way to make it happen? Lol.

This is what happens when you spend inordinate amount of time giving out about feminists campaigning and changing public attitude to things. Now you're willing to do rolley eyes at the idea of publicly campaigning for something you want.

So let me get this (with a) straight (face).. you think instead of calling out bull**** at source, he should instead say nothing and get on the campaign trail.. yes.. im really catching on. Here's some more rolleyes :rolleyes:

Tell me, what's the difference (aside from scale) between a thread on boards and a #metoo hashtag. By your 'logic' and 'standards', both sets of participants are whingers.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

In all seriousness do you really think shouting fcuk off and calling her every name under he sun is actually the way to make it happen? Lol.

Why the "lol"? How would a woman respond if a drunken man grabbed her crotch? Would you lol at her if she told her assailant to fcuk off?

El_Duderino 09

givyjoe wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Now you're catching on! Good for you GJ
In all seriousness do you really think shouting fcuk off and calling her every name under he sun is actually the way to make it happen? Lol.

This is what happens when you spend inordinate amount of time giving out about feminists campaigning and changing public attitude to things. Now you're willing to do rolley eyes at the idea of publicly campaigning for something you want.

So let me get this (with a) straight (face).. you think instead of calling out bull**** at source, he should instead say nothing and get on the campaign trail.. yes.. im really catching on. Here's some more rolleyes :rolleyes:

Tell me, what's the difference (aside from scale) between a thread on boards and a #metoo hashtag. By your 'logic' and 'standards', both sets of participants are whingers.

Lol. I didn't say it was either/or. You did that, not me. I would definitely say it's sensible to call it out at source. First he needs to express himself and make it clear he considered it sexual harassment it might cause some people present to have a chat about what happened and whether its ok or not for a woman to grab a man. All good stuff.

But it's ridiculous to think that's the single (let alone best) way to achieve change. Mass movements mean the conversation reaches thousands or hundreds of thousands of people at once. It forces the conversation in the general public, on social media, Radio TV, and down the pub where the incident happened.

So what's your opposition to grouping together to change attitudes en mass? Why, when the feminists do it so successfully you think it's only worth rolley eyes?

El_Duderino 09

Santos Square Extinguisher wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

In all seriousness do you really think shouting fcuk off and calling her every name under he sun is actually the way to make it happen? Lol.

Why the "lol"? How would a woman respond if a drunken man grabbed her crotch? Would you lol at her if she told her assailant to fcuk off?

Lol at the idea that shouting and roaring is good and mass activism is rolley eyes.

It strikes me that some men are so in love with the idea of being the bigger victim in the victim pool, that they'd roll their eyes at a proven solution.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Lol at the idea that shouting and roaring is good and mass activism is rolley eyes.

It strikes me that some men are so in love with the idea of being the bigger victim in the victim pool, that they'd roll their eyes at a proven solution.

If a woman were to shout at a man who grabbed her crotch, would you roll your eyes?

And you think men who experience sexual harassment at the hands of women are just in love with the idea of being victims?

Women do sexually harass men. If all you can do is laugh and roll your eyes at the idea of men complaining about this, then you're just vividly illustrating the double standards that I started this thread to illustrate.