Female sexual harassers and double standards

PlaneSpeeking

B0jangles wrote: »

Your workplace is the most astonishing place - according to your many, many stories, it manages to fulfill every anti-feminist stereotype in one convenient location!

It's a university - they're not exactly known for rational thinking any more!

Put it this way, we were baffled as to why all these changes were being made right up until the moment the website and emails had the "Investors in Diversity" logo. Al about box ticking and optics, not social change.

The "Social justice activist" colleague I've mentioned is just mental anyway.

No one sees the irony in celebrating the achievements of women in the last 200 years who had to work twice as hard to be thought of a half as good - by moving the goal posts!

El_Duderino 09

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

You are very very wrong there.

Was Ed Westwick "reported to the authorities" ? No he was sacked from several jobs, airbrushed out of one already filmed - all based on tweets.

Me Too is a mindless witchhunt, nothing more.

I don’t know anything about that case, or most individual cases for that matter. I take it at face value. It offers support and strength in numbers. The message ‘you are not alone’ gives the encourage to come forward.

The opposition to metoo is strange to me. I don’t get it. It’s like saying it’s 90% good but it creates potential for 10% harm. So it’s hypocritical and bad.

PlaneSpeeking

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don’t know anything about that case, or most individual cases for that matter. I take it at face value. It offers support and strength in numbers. The message ‘you are not alone’ gives the encourage to come forward.

The opposition to metoo is strange to me. I don’t get it. It’s like saying it’s 90% good but it creates potential for 10% harm. So it’s hypocritical and bad.

MeToo as a movement is hypocritical itself though.

B0jangles

I'm just looking forward to the day you tell the story of how the new department head is a black one-eyed muslim lesbian refugee who didn't even apply for the job!!!!

No, seriously, you're great value .

PlaneSpeeking

B0jangles wrote: »

I'm just looking forward to the day you tell the story of how the new department head is a black one-eyed muslim lesbian refugee who didn't even apply for the job!!!!

No, seriously, you're great value .

Department head is a bald man from Dublin.

Disbelieve all you like, I really don't care. What would be the point in making **** up ???

Last three jobs had female only shortlists, this is not a new thing. I should know, I was on one of them.

El_Duderino 09

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

MeToo as a movement is hypocritical itself though.

Expand on that.

I would contend that some people within the movement might well have acted hypocritically. But how is the movement itself hypocritical?

keffiyeh

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Gender quotas/Women only shortlists
Refusing better qualified men promotion so as to advance women to higher roles
Giving women easier targets to attain the same standard as men

And that's just in my place.

This guy is also in threads related to racism screaming 'read a book' at people lol

Now which recent group out there is known for both racism and sexism hmmmmmmm

HHMMMMMMMMMMMMM

keffiyeh

keffiyeh wrote: »

This guy is also in threads related to racism screaming 'read a book' at people lol

Now which recent group out there is known for both racism and sexism hmmmmmmm

HHMMMMMMMMMMMMM

Well, knock yourself out, dismissing a poster rather than the actual content of their posts. Care to get stuck in there and actually argue?

Well, no. Since gender quotas are inherently sexist in nature, considering it's an environment that was protected under the law to be equal. Equal in terms of opportunity. Now, alas, women submitted under the gender quotas are now considered to be superior to both the men and any other women already in the industry (but not chosen for the quota). Go team Equality!

Unless you want to start picking on my reputation as a poster? I'm perfectly happy and capable of defending my posts, and attitude.

El_Duderino 09

givyjoe wrote: »

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

Sounds like you couldnt come up with a decent argument so attempted a person low blow. Smooth.

No, its literally what I've stated. You may not be, but I'm unfortunately extremely famliar with this posters particular brand of posting. EL dude has long been banging the 'whinging' drum at every turn. It's blatant trolling that's been used multiple times in multiple threads.

Any chance you could expand your opposition to campaigning to change attitudes towards Male sexual harassment?

If you need to deliver another personal swipe along with the explanation, then feel free to do so, but do please explain your opposition to campaigning to highlight male sexual harassment.

Cheers.

tritium

Malayalam wrote: »

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/

Speaking of Asia Argento

https://www.rte.ie/entertainment/2018/0822/986711-asia-argento-denies-sexually-assaulting-underage-teen/

I’m finding this one a little creepy given Argento has been so vocal around #metoo tbh. It has echoes of the Cristina Garcia case, another prominent figure who seems to have been given almost a pass on shady sexual behaviour

keffiyeh

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, knock yourself out, dismissing a poster rather than the actual content of their posts. Care to get stuck in there and actually argue?

Well, no. Since gender quotas are inherently sexist in nature, considering it's an environment that was protected under the law to be equal. Equal in terms of opportunity. Now, alas, women submitted under the gender quotas are now considered to be superior to both the men and any other women already in the industry (but not chosen for the quota). Go team Equality!

Unless you want to start picking on my reputation as a poster? I'm perfectly happy and capable of defending my posts, and attitude.

If I do, he literally is only able to respond with 'read a book'. What you're accusing me of is the very thing I'm accusing him of haha. Think, for just a second.

PlaneSpeeking

keffiyeh wrote: »

If I do, he literally is only able to respond with 'read a book'. What you're accusing me of is the very thing I'm accusing him of haha. Think, for just a second.

She. Don't you misgender me.

El_Duderino 09

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

She. Don't you misgender me.

I see this ironically so often and I’ve only once heard said in a serious context.

Happened in a podcast I was listening to last week.

Caller: she’s an astrophysicist
Host: she’s a ‘they’
Caller: yeah she’s an astrophysicist.
Host: no no. That person is non binary they don’t identify as male of female. Best way to refer to them is ‘they’.
Caller: I didn’t know that
Host: that’s fine. You weren’t to know until now.

But I’ve seen so many ironic cries of ‘don’t misgender me’.

PlaneSpeeking

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I see this ironically so often and I’ve only once heard said in a serious context.

Happened in a podcast I was listening to last week.

Caller: she’s an astrophysicist
Host: she’s a ‘they’
Caller: yeah she’s an astrophysicist.
Host: no no. That person is non binary they don’t identify as male of female. Best way to refer to them is ‘they’.
Caller: I didn’t know that
Host: that’s fine. You weren’t to know until now.

But I’ve seen so many ironic cries of ‘don’t misgender me’.

I'm generally not arsed but this site has a history of people deliberately calling me a bloke. It's annoying.

keffiyeh

keffiyeh wrote: »

If I do, he literally is only able to respond with 'read a book'. What you're accusing me of is the very thing I'm accusing him of haha.

No, she is referring to personal experience. You and others are dismissing her personal experience. Fine. However, you're also trying to dismiss the content of her posts by default.

I'm backing up that other poster with regards to gender quotas. Care to argue the point... or is it simply to dig at a poster...?

Think, for just a second.

That really is quite offensive.

El_Duderino 09

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I'm generally not arsed but this site has a history of people deliberately calling me a bloke. It's annoying.

Ha. You dont mind misgendering in general for other people but it’s kinda serious when it’s happening to you.

Good thing you wrote this in a thread about hypocrisy.

PlaneSpeeking

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ha. You dont mind misgendering in general for other people but it’s kinda serious when it’s happening to you.

Good thing you wrote this in a thread about hypocrisy.

What are you going on about ?

El_Duderino 09

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

What are you going on about ?

I’m not sure how I could bed any more clear. You said you’re not arsed about ‘misgendering’ in general, but it’s annoying when it happens to you.

Pretty self explanatory.

It’s a side point, so don’t worry about it

PlaneSpeeking

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I’m not sure how I could bed any more clear. You said you’re not arsed about ‘misgendering’ in general, but it’s annoying when it happens to you.

Pretty self explanatory.

It’s a side point, so don’t worry about it

Er no, you don''t get to accuse me of something, run off and say no more.

When I have I deliberately misgendered someone ?

optogirl

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Er no, you don''t get to accuse me of something, run off and say no more.

When I have I deliberately misgendered someone ?

How has anyone deliberately misgendered you? How are we to know what gender you are?

PlaneSpeeking

optogirl wrote: »

How has anyone deliberately misgendered you? How are we to know what gender you are?

CF some posters still here, and some thankfully banned.

Why the f**k would someone waste time discussing female related stuff - admittedly with a non-feminist slant if they were not really female ??

Be the height of pointlessness that.

Add to that the snide crap I put up with from one poster who thinks we all should be part of the sisterhood and you can see my frustration.

keffiyeh

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

She. Don't you misgender me.

For those who don't know, 'did you just assume my gender' is an 'alt-right' meme that is never used by people who are actually transgender. Just trolls. There was even a bit of hubub about it two days ago.



https://kotaku.com/cyberpunk-2077-tweets-transphobic-joke-studio-apologiz-1828502562


https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/did-you-just-assume-my-gender

strandroad

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Why the f**k would someone waste time discussing female related stuff - admittedly with a non-feminist slant if they were not really female ??

Be the height of pointlessness that.

Seriously? You just described 50% of AH lads at least.

You're misgendered because it's highly unusual for a female poster to have such militant anti-feminist views. Put it in your sig line and it will be clear.

keffiyeh

strandroad wrote: »

it's highly unusual for a female poster to have such militant anti-feminist views.

^^^^100%^^^^

PlaneSpeeking

strandroad wrote: »

Seriously? You just described 50% of AH lads at least.

You're misgendered because it's highly unusual for a female poster to have such militant anti-feminist views. Put it in your sig line and it will be clear.

Fair point, I would be an "original/old school feminist" I suppose - I believe we are equal, we have the same chances, we can TRY to achieve whatever we want (maybe not all but who can ?).

I believe men and women are different - some of us are physically weaker, some are not. If you are not good enough to make it in a field, tough - pick another one, don't move the goalposts.

Respect the women who came before and did it without help - e.g. I'm looking at a statue of Constance Markiewicz, one of my heroes. She had no special treatment for being female! Kicked arse like no one's business!

Definitely take your point there though.

PlaneSpeeking

keffiyeh wrote: »

^^^^100%^^^^

And this is why stereotypes are bollocks.

Dividend Accrual

This case is typical of the hypocricy and nonsense of modern feminists. The typical feminists has no interest in gender equality, it's merely a gambit to advance their interests.

I think a large cohort of feminists are women who are bitter that they can't gain attractiveness through power and status that men can, that bitterness ia exacerbated when they see younger women getting more attention from men. They become bitter at men, and want to be "valued" for more than their looks. In reality what they want is to be attractive to men and the power that comes with that.

keffiyeh

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

And this is why stereotypes are bollocks.

'read a book'

PlaneSpeeking

keffiyeh wrote: »

'read a book'

"let it go"

El_Duderino 09

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Er no, you don''t get to accuse me of something, run off and say no more.

When I have I deliberately misgendered someone ?

I think you’ve got it all wrong.

You said you’re not arsed about misgendering. But when people think you’re a bloke, then it’s annoying.

Its amusing that you’re not arsed unless it’s happening to you.

Don’t worry too much about it.

PlaneSpeeking

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I think you’ve got it all wrong.

You said you’re not arsed about misgendering. But when people think you’re a bloke, then it’s annoying.

Its amusing that you’re not arsed unless it’s happening to you.

Don’t worry too much about it.

I'll go slowly.

I'm not arsed generally about being misgendered MYSELF.

I am arsed about people DELIBERATELY doing this.

If you are a post op trans man or women, I will refer to you are he or she as appropriate.

However I will not call you "ze" or "xy" or any of the made up nonsense.

Now can we go back to the debate or must it be all about nitpicking me ?

El_Duderino 09

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I'll go slowly.

I'm not arsed generally about being misgendered MYSELF.

I am arsed about people DELIBERATELY doing this.

If you are a post op trans man or women, I will refer to you are he or she as appropriate.

However I will not call you "ze" or "xy" or any of the made up nonsense.

Now can we go back to the debate or must it be all about nitpicking me ?

Ha. Except the ‘don’t misgendering me’ post earlier when nobody was deliberately misgendering you. It’s amusing that it’s become an alt right satirical expression.

Away you go back to the debate.

optogirl

Dividend Accrual wrote: »

This case is typical of the hypocricy and nonsense of modern feminists. The typical feminists has no interest in gender equality, it's merely a gambit to advance their interests.

I think a large cohort of feminists are women who are bitter that they can't gain attractiveness through power and status that men can, that bitterness ia exacerbated when they see younger women getting more attention from men. They become bitter at men, and want to be "valued" for more than their looks. In reality what they want is to be attractive to men and the power that comes with that.

can't gain attractiveness through power? To quote Jimmy Rabbitte - what poxy magazines have you been reading?

optogirl

optogirl wrote: »

can't gain attractiveness through power? To quote Jimmy Rabbitte - what poxy magazines have you been reading?

Don't give him any attention

PlaneSpeeking

optogirl wrote: »

can't gain attractiveness through power? To quote Jimmy Rabbitte - what poxy magazines have you been reading?

I know at least two people who would, ahem, "seek physical intimacy" with Hillary.

It has to be the power surely ???

Dividend Accrual

optogirl wrote: »

can't gain attractiveness through power? To quote Jimmy Rabbitte - what poxy magazines have you been reading?

I'm not sure I understand your point.

PlaneSpeeking

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ha. Except the ‘don’t misgendering me’ post earlier when nobody was deliberately misgendering you. It’s amusing that it’s become an alt right satirical expression.

Away you go back to the debate.

Ah look, the Nazi slur now.

Away you go to the ignore pile.

El_Duderino 09

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ha. Except the ‘don’t misgendering me’ post earlier when nobody was deliberately misgendering you. It’s amusing that it’s become an alt right satirical expression.

Away you go back to the debate.

Ah look, the Nazi slur now.

Away you go to the ignore pile.

Nazi slur?

I think you’ve lost the run of yourself now. Ignore what you want.

Ideas are kept very safe by blocking foreign ideas.

WinnyThePoo

strandroad wrote: »

Seriously? You just described 50% of AH lads at least.

You're misgendered because it's highly unusual for a female poster to have such militant anti-feminist views. Put it in your sig line and it will be clear.

He/She was going under the name peterparker before.

strandroad

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

He/She was going under the name peterparker before.

Yep same style same issues and pp was misgendered a lot too (the name was not helping in fairness). There really are not too many anti-feminist women on boards.

valoren

Part of me thinks that the ferociousness of Argento's involvement in and her becoming a leading proponent of the #metoo campaign has all been a manipulation tactic on her behalf. She would have been fully aware of the inappropriateness of her own involvement with a 17 year old and so when the Weinstein big bang happened she exploited her own consensual sexual involvement with Harvey and may have indeed invented an earlier assault with him.

Anything she could have dreamed up would have fit the ongoing and burgeoning narrative in order to portray herself as one of the victims. All she needed to do was keep the details in line with what was already in the public domain i.e. hotel rooms, back rubs etc. The idea here being that this would have the strong potential to deflect from her own underage predilection. Should her own tawdry carry on emerge, she would already have her victim narrative in the public domain on the platform that who would have the gall to attack a Weinstein victim such as herself yet tellingly the flaw as it were was that Argento, who was a leading proponent of #metoo, presumed that taking care of her own skeleton in the closet by giving Bennett $380,000 would have sufficed into getting him to keep his mouth shut. The significant amount of money involved is also telling. It was meant to protect her own victim narrative and the large payment matched her #metoo credibility and status. Unfortunately it wasn't enough as Bennett conscientiously called her flagrant hypocrisy to account.

El_Duderino 09

strandroad wrote: »

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

He/She was going under the name peterparker before.

Yep same style same issues and pp was misgendered a lot too (the name was not helping in fairness). There really are not too many anti-feminist women on boards.

I doubt anyone misgendered a poster named PeterPaker deliberately.

Yet if someone who is misgendered every day in their real life and corrects people, they’re a snowflake with a meme.

strandroad

valoren wrote: »

Part of me thinks that the ferociousness of Argento's involvement in and her becoming a leading proponent of the #metoo campaign has all been a manipulation tactic on her behalf. She would have been fully aware of the inappropriateness of her own involvement with a 17 year old and so when the Weinstein big bang happened she exploited her own consensual sexual involvement with Harvey and may have indeed invented an earlier assault with him.

I'm not at all surprised that it's the damaged ones with broken careers and dodgy activities who placed themselves at the helm - they had nothing to lose. What would someone like Salma Hayek for example gain by becoming a spearhead activist? She has a production company to run, roles to play and ad campaigns to take part in. Let's not forget though that the movement allowed the likes of Annabella Sciorra speak out - even if journalists were around it for years it did need the momentum Twitter storms brought, and many bad practices to chance.

Argento needs to go if on the balance of probabilities she's guilty of same, and it will be interesting to see if and when a self-styled figure can be purged. There's a police investigation I think which could well help with that.

riffmongous

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

He/She was going under the name peterparker before.

I thought they were banned from AH?

WinnyThePoo

riffmongous wrote: »

I thought they were banned from AH?

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057870308
'mistaken identity ':pac:

freshpopcorn

Mod Note. Please discuss the topic and not other poster.

El_Duderino 09

strandroad wrote: »

I'm not at all surprised that it's the damaged ones with broken careers and dodgy activities who placed themselves at the helm - they had nothing to lose. What would someone like Salma Hayek for example gain by becoming a spearhead activist? She has a production company to run, roles to play and ad campaigns to take part in. Let's not forget though that the movement allowed the likes of Annabella Sciorra speak out - even if journalists were around it for years it did need the momentum Twitter storms brought, and many bad practices to chance.

Argento needs to go if on the balance of probabilities she's guilty of same, and it will be interesting to see if and when a self-styled figure can be purged. There's a police investigation I think which could well help with that.

So have we abandoned the innocent unless proved guilty? That’s what the dreaded metoo people did with Casey Afkeck apparently. Surely nobody in this thread would stoop to the same level as those dreadful creatures by assuming guilt.

strandroad

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So have we abandoned the innocent unless proved guilty? That’s what the dreaded metoo people did with Casey Afkeck apparently. Surely nobody in this thread would stoop to the same level as those dreadful creatures by assuming guilt.

Not sure what point you're trying to make, I don't go by innocent until proven guilty myself but rather by balance of probabilities.

El_Duderino 09

strandroad wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So have we abandoned the innocent unless proved guilty? That’s what the dreaded metoo people did with Casey Afkeck apparently. Surely nobody in this thread would stoop to the same level as those dreadful creatures by assuming guilt.

Not sure what point you're trying to make, I don't go by innocent until proven guilty myself but rather by balance of probabilities.

It’s alright. Another poster this morning was giving out that metoo people assumed Casey Afleck was guilty. They claimed it was a double standard for a man and wouldn’t be applied to a woman