The #MeToo moment has now morphed into a moral panic that poses as much danger to women as it does to men.
Hope the Oxford guy was wearing his brown pants when he read paragraph nine.
Admirable. The first piece I can recall reading that discusses at least partially how initiation of romantic/sexual activity actually works, and that correctly acknowledges that women do indeed have “power” (and always have) notwithstanding their formal, organization relation to a man who makes his romantic/sexual attraction to them obvious. Berlinski is right to anticipate targeting by the Internet Mob for daring to tell the truth.
But it is unfortunate that Berlinski feels the need to pepper an otherwise serious article with recitations of the anti-Trump catechism. Trump is neither a symbol of crisis, moral or otherwise, nor a legitimate excuse for indulging in the hysteria Berlinski warns against. The overwhelming presence of progressives/leftists/democrats among the newly indicted molesters ought to convince her that Trump has absolutely nothing to do with it. And Berlinski’s assertion: The people now running the United States cannot remotely persuade us, even for five minutes, that they know what they’re doing and are capable of keeping us safe. is risible on its face. First of all, as we discover anew on almost a daily basis, the “people running the United States” are in most cases holdovers from the last Administration (and those that preceded it), proud, card-carrying members of the “deep state” who publicize and glorify their refusals to carry out the policies of the duly elected Executive of this country. Secondly, Trump has been in office a mere 10 months, and the tsunami-like force of the cathartic hysterical outpourings from progressives, leftists and feminists of all sorts cannot have been cathected in so short a time. No, Trump is simply the excuse for the Left’s total loss of control, reason and sanity. Hopefully this purging of emotion will restore some equanimity to the Left soon, but I doubt it. Third, it is those very deep state holdovers and their gods of the prior Administration who demonstrated a total inability to govern this country in accordance with its principles and to “keep us safe.” Obama’s mellifluous sing-song soothed the savage breasts of progressives and lulled them into stupor and torpor while the declared adversaries of the US-maintained “international liberal order” ran amok. I don’t personally care whether Berlinski or anyone else likes Trump or not; but it is terribly depressing to see in TAI publications, as elsewhere, otherwise sound thinkers and decent writers undermine their own credibility by continuing to pretend that Trump ushered in some kind of social pathology that is producing casualties. Aside from that poor girl in Charlottesville, all of the casualties I have seen have been at the hands of the Left.
My sentiments exactly. For the first 3/4 of the essay I was in awe of Ms. Berlinski, her amazingly fresh and thoughtful take on the issue, and her ability to write about it in an engaging and entertaining fashion without becoming trite or demeaning the seriousness of the problem. In a different day and age I might have been moved to proffer a purely platonic hug. Kudos to TAI for publishing it when others demurred. It was a reminder – all too infrequent nowadays – of why I had subscribed to TAI in the first place.
Then came the ritual diatribe against Trump… As delighted as I am to read a serious, balanced, out-of-the-box take on the sexual harassment question, I’m left wondering – once again – where I can go to find similar treatment of the Trump phenomenon.
I didn’t vote for the guy, but Trump Derangement Syndrome is a total turnoff for me. Sorry, Claire – it’s all over between us.
She has to denounce Trump. She has to do this virtue signal or she will not be taken seriously by liberals. she knows this and probably sees the hypocrisy, but it cannot be helped.
If you do not denounce Trump as hitler, admit to the sin of global warming, demand that all gender be fluid, accept white privilege and black lives matter, you simply cannot be taken seriously by a liberal.
Why do you types always have to bring Hitler into things? Trump is too stupid and incompetent to be Hitler, though that is the best I can say for him, a low bar indeed. If you don’t think white people have privilege, and if you don’t think black lives matter, then you also a garbage person.
If you think the son of a coal miner has more privledge than Sasha Obama just because of his skin color, then you have a diseased mind and are a horrible person.
I wouldn’t go that far. I’d just call them a Limousine Liberal.
No, the the limousine liberal is just a naif, who has been insulated from the world by inherited wealth and the efforts of their betters. The people who talk about “white privledge” are straight up evil. Like the Soviets with the kulaks or the Nazis with the Jews, they are trying to de-humanize and stigmatize a mass section of the population.
“de-humanize and stigmatize…”
If you think singling out one wealthy black woman proves that there is no white privilege, then you have no actual mind to speak of.
So who do you want me to compare him to? Oprah, Beyoncé? If your aurgument cant stand up to specifics, then it isn’t much of aurgument at all is it? Why don’t you just admit that you are an evil, genocidial, POS and be done with it?
A woman of similar socioeconomic status, who is undoubtedly worse off than he is. Comparing a poor white man to a famous black person is idiotic. As for evil, you know what’s really funny? Having a tantrum on the internet when someone calls out your white privilege. Rage, snowflake, rage!
Oh, so now you want to talk “socioeconomic status?” I thought that privilege just came from being “white.” Why the change of terms/ sleight of hand sweetheart?
Tantrums, snowflake? Pretty funny coming from someone who starts the conversation by calling people “garbage person.”
Just be honest and admit that you hate white people.
You called me an evil, genocidal POS. “Garbage person” is pretty mild by comparison, toots. Compare the number of millionaires and billionaires in America who are white to those who are black. Compare the number of CEOs, members of Congress, SCOTUS justices, state surpreme court justices, governors, and presidents. Then tell me white people don’t have massive power and control in America, and thus, privilege. Be really specific with me about the racial parity in this country, or admit that you have no real idea what “white privilege” means, except that it offends your white snowflake preciousness. Boo hoo, cupcake.
You start the conversation out with a limp wristed slap and are now complaining that you get a punch in return? Oh wash. As for the rest of your hate filled blather… do the Chinese have Chinese privilege in China? Do the Japanese have Japanese privilege in Japan? Mexican privilege in Mexico? Black privilege in every country in Africa? Why aren’t you over in Africa telling them that they need to acknowledge their black privilege and give up their Supreme Court spots to the Chinese? Yet here you are in this country spouting that same kind of idiotic drivel.
Your “white privilege” narrative is not only stupid and racist, it cannot survive even a close brush with actual facts. Blacks are the most privileged racial group in America. If they had to compete on a level playing field, there would be almost no black presence in any college except an HBU. Blacks are 10% of our population yet they commit 70% of the violent crimes and use 40% of the public aid. And here you are complaining that we haven’t promoted them all to CEOs and Supreme Court Justices. You would be funny if you weren’t so batshit crazy.
I’m not complaining. Your insults do not hurt me, garbage person. I find your ignorance amusing but dangerous. I cannot educate you. You do not understand and aren’t interested in learning. Oh well. Your generation will expire eventually.
You’re right. You cannot educate me. But that is because you do not possess any knowledge or education yourself. I want to thank you though. Every time you let the mask slip and show the genocidial, hate filled face underneath… I win. You can try and hide it, but your real purpose slips out. So thanks for dropping the mask yet again. Reading your comments will just bring more people to my side.
You are right about one thing, my generation will die off. I don’t think you are going to much like the one coming after me though. They seem to be immune to your guilt trips.
But unfortunately, you are wrong. I do possess knowledge and education. My family members have been victims of actual genocide, so you ranting on about metaphorical genocide displays to all what an ass you are. No one is trying to guilt trip you. You’ve got more projections going on than a multiplex on Saturday.
Your uncle may have been in the army also, but that doesn’t mean you know what life in the military is like. Thanks for giving the game away though. I feel sorry for all of the potted plants in your house.
And how can you claim to know fuck all about genocide either? Has genocide touched your life in any real way? You freely accuse others of being “genocidal” for disagreeing with you, which is rank hyperbole, but you don’t know jack about genocide. It’s just a word to you, a mean thing to say to someone who disagrees with you. Pathetic.
Nice try. Genocide is part of the English language. As someone of English descent, I know it’s meaning and can use it properly in a sentence structure. You are the one who tries to personalize it by appropriating your distant relatives’ personal history. I bet you are also the type of person who walks around wearing your grandpa’s army jacket and telling everyone that since he was in the army, you know exactly what it was like to have served in “the Nam.”
Distant relatives? How do you know those relatives are DISTANT? Making shit up again. You also don’t know what my personal record is of military service. Also made up. You are quite the fabricator.
It’s called logic. You should try it sometime. I’ll take you through the steps…,
1. If your direct relatives had been genocided, you wouldn’t be here.
2. The only genocide you can reference happened over 70 years ago. So yeah, that is distant.
Why don’t you tell me about all of your personal experiences storming the beaches of Iwo Jima while you are at it?
1. You do know that people can be the victims of genocide AFTER they have children, don’t you? And those children can survive the genocide. So faulty logic on your part. Moron.
2. There is genocide happening in the world RIGHT NOW. Shall I list them off or do you have Google?
Twist and spit the Talmudic squid ink all you want. You can’t change the fact that you are trying to appropriate other people’s experiences. Their experiences don’t belong to you, so stop it. That’s called stolen valor. Actually I’ve changed my mind. I need a good laugh.. Why don’t you tell us all again how you were standing next to your great-uncle who was also you father while he single handed won the battle of Guadalcanal.
What does the Talmud have to do with this? Oh wait. More Jew-bashing from the hater. You don’t know who my ancestors are, nor do you apparently know to which genocide I am referring. You just keep ASSuming and lying and making things up. God I hope you don’t have children.
Talmudic is a common slang term for convoluted and circular reasoning. Why do you think it is a bad thing? Obviously you hate Jews.
Please us all again about your personal experiences with genocide. Tell us about your personal experiences in WW1 while you are at it.
I think you should stop making Jewish-related slurs regarding me. If you think I am going to share my family history with you, I think you just have just inhaled again. Ya know what? I’ll block your racist ass instead.
Nobody is slurring anyone. You think I mistook you for a Jew and are getting angry about it. You might want to go check the mirror for some anti-semitism, because I doubt you would act that way if you thought someone mistook you for an Irishman.
Also, you do realize that for me to be genocidal, I must be a participant in the mass murder of a group of people based on their identity. Who am I mass murdering? I’m just curious. It would be a big surprise to me, being completely anti-violence as I am.
Of course you are anti-violence. Violence is too honest for someone like you. You just want the state to commit the violence for you. You don’t have to participate in the genocide to be a supporter, moron. Not every Nazi worked in the death camps. You hate a large group of human beings and are working to dehumanize them and delegitimize their existence.
OK, so for you, violence = honesty. But somehow I am genocidal? I don’t want the state to commit violence for me either. That’s what PACIFISM means. As someone who claims to speak the English language, you sure have trouble with basic words. Since I have not killed anyone, advocated killing anyone, or asked the state to kill anyone, no, I am not genocidal. I don’t hate anyone. But you hate blacks and Jews, and that’s just what you’ve said so far. You don’t seem too fond of the Chinese either. Only white people. I haven’t dehumanized anyone. I’ve actively talked about equality while you call me “Shlomo.” Hahaha, you’re pathetic.
Let’s see, you think Affirmative Action = EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY so I wouldn’t mock anyone else’s grasp of the English language if I were you.
You seem to think that I am mistaking you for a Jew and taking it as an insult. Why do you hate Jews so much?
I have not commented at all on affirmative action. Straw man argument and therefore invalid.
Calling a Jew “Shlomo” is an insult.
Yes…you actually did. Stop lying.
Oh bitch please. If genocide doesn’t trigger you, you’re a sociopath.
Hey just one more question for you….
What do you call someone who wants an ethnostate, a border wall, mass deportations and the sterilization of all blacks in their country?
Yeah, and? That has what to do with anything I’ve said? Also, if you think all Israelis feel that way, you are once again showing your ignorance.
It has to do with your rank hypocrisy. Why aren’t you in Israel demanding that all those Israeli men give up their unearned positions of power to Palestinians and Ethiopians? Why don’t you clean up your own country before you try to judge mine?
What the hell makes you think I’m an Israeli who needs to clean up Israel?
I never said you were an Israeli. I said that you are a hypocrite.
Why do you keep ducking the question?
Reread your question.
I did. Why don’t you answer it?
Why are you obsessed with potted plants? Are yours speaking to you? I don’t know of any potted plants that are all white, so you may be experiencing some difficulty. Poor you.
You know all about the potted plants. Stop trying to evade the question. Why do you have one standard for whites in America, and a different one for everywhere else in the world?
The best part? The generation of women who buys this stuff tends to die without issue.
SJWism is a mal-adaptive behavior, and will be bred out of the population over the next generation and a half or so.
With all due respect, I don’t think she’s crazy. I think she’s evil.
I agree. These people want us and our children to die.
Still waiting for your explanation of Mexican privilege since Mexicans hold all the positions of power in their country. Also wondering why you aren’t down there lecturing them about it and demanding they give it up? Are you too fragile for that job?
What the hell are you talking about? It’s too early to hit the bourbon, hon. Mexican is an ethnicity, not a race. WTF.
Who cares? This isn’t a quibble about your racist terms, this is about people who were born into unearned power giving it up to people who have no power. Why do you hate white europeans so much that you create a set of rules for them that you are unwilling to apply anywhere else in the world?
My terms are not racist. Yours are. You are the person who is filled with hate, ascribing hate to me that I do not feel. EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY– where is the hate there? Answer: in your imagination.
So 10 hours ago you were angry that there were too many white devils in positions of power, and now you are you are demanding “EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY.” Did you just have a mental break down?
I never used the word “white devils,” liar. I pointed out the FACT that the vast majority of power positions were held by white men. You cannot deny that, so you make shit up. I am not demanding anything. The only power I have is my activism in government and my vote. I DESIRE equality of opportunity. You have nothing to say to me, since any sane and decent person wants equality of opportunity for everyone, so… you have no point.
No. You just used the term “white privileged”. Which is your attempt to demonize and delegitimization white people in a country that they built.
Nice use of the moat and Bailey though with your retreat to EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY! Nobody believes you though. If you truly believed in EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY you would be out protesting affirmative action and all of the other minority set asides.
White people built… yes. Black slaves built the White House. Chinese immigrants who weren’t even allowed to become American citizens built the railroads. Do you give any shits about them? Do you acknowledge what they built? The crops harvested by slaves that profited only their “owners,” the food they picked that never went into their mouths, for centuries? What white people built– sure I acknowledge it. Do you acknowledge how much of that labor was stolen?
I believe in equality of opportunity. You believe that affirmative action is the biggest threat to that. Therefore, you really have nothing of merit to say.
So black people built one house and the Chinese carried rocks for 500 mikes of railroad. Big deal. Please tell me how different America would be without their presence. I’ll answer for you… it wouldn’t. Except maybe we wouldn’t have had to kill almost a million people in a civil war.
If you really believe that affirmative action = Equality of Opportunity then you are to disingenuous to argue with. All I can tell you is … stay away from my potted plants.
Your racist comment above speaks for itself. They built one house. Hardy har. You’re mentally ill. Go away. Africans did not ask to come here. They were brought here in chains, moron. White people wanted them here and actively fought to keep slavery, so… you’re an idiot.
Ha ha. Racist! You need a new devil word to scare the masses shlomo, we’ve all seen that god bleed by now. You got another house black people built? I didn’t think so. My ancestors built this country. They were nice enough to take your ancestors in 70 years ago and now you hate me because you know that you will never be a part of this history. By the way… Stay away from my potted plants!
Shlomo? Is that meant to imply that you believe I’m Jewish? Bigot, here are some other government buildings erected with slave labor.
I hope that by now pleny of people can see that you are a vile anti-Semite, even without knowing if I am a Jew or not. Fuck off back to the white hood.
Hmm. Are you telling me that those buildings would never have been built without slave labor? Are you trying to say that white people did no work on those buildings at all? Obviously you are and that makes you a racist.
You calling me “Shlomo” is racist. You said that no other buildings besides the White House were built by slaves. I proved you wrong. I made no comment about the efforts of whites. You are the one who can’t admit that slaves built thing or contributed to society. I am not insulting white people by saying they have more power and privilege. It’s just fact. All the value judgments come from you. And all the racial hate.
1. Hmmm. Now you think using and ethnic term is racist? You just told me that race and ethnicity were two different things. I guess everything is racist to you. Try coming up with another word though. The word “racist” is losing its power from overuse by people like you.
2. You proved nothing except that you are a liar. Black people did not build those buildings like you claim. They were built by white architects, engineers, surveyors, and skilled craftsmen. If you had said that blacks helped to build those buildings I would have accepted that. By making a definitive claim you proved yourself to be a liar. If we used your standard we could say that black people built Rome because there was probably a black slave who worked on the Coliseum
Why do you hate white people so much? Why are you trying to rewrite their history to exclude them and marginalize their achievements? Why are you demanding that they give up what their fathers and mothers built for them? Why aren’t you holding any other race in the world to the same standard?
You are exactly right that equality of opportunity is very important, especially if our country’s founding principles mean anything; however, there is a concern and growing unease among many, especially independents, that equality of OPPORTUNITY is, in practice, morphing/has morphed into equality of OUTCOME, which is anathema to many Americans and to the American Spirit in general – at the very best it seems unfair, but at worst, smacks of communism. If you know anything about American political DNA, and I am sure you do, that is a strict nono.
Based on the many studies already done on the 2016 election outcome, this particular concern was the 2nd most important reason many more independents voted Republican – a good 1/3 of the of the independents switched their votes this time compared to 2012 election, and that’s plenty and more to bring about a different result in a national election, Russian interference or not. Also, while programs such as affirmative action were put in place to correct PAST wrongs, the question comes up, when will such programs sunset (1 generation or two or three, etc), because if they don’t and no substantial visible progress is made, such programs will be construed ineffective and institutionalizing/making permanent whatever wrongs they were supposed to cure, and therefore will be considered illegitimate.
I understsand the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. How many generations did we have slavery and lack of female enfranchisement? Maybe that’s how many generations we need to dedicate to leveling the playing field. Not what you wanted to hear, I bet.
You upvoted your own comment? God, you’re desperate!
And look! I downvoted yours!
Tell that to a mestizo living in Mexico.
Tell what to a mestizo? That “Latino” is considered an ethnicity? You can be a white Latino, black, indigenous, or mixed. Latino IS NOT A RACE.
So bloody what? Latinoa/s get discriminated against for who they are. Whether it’s a race or an ethnicity hardly matters.
Go back to the beginning of the convo and read it over. The idiot who replied to me asking about Mexicans in Mexico. If you are talking about RACIAL groups who are discriminated against, such as mestizos, then we are in agreement. Please don’t knee jerk attack me just because everyone else is.
Please don’t knee jerk attack me just because everyone else is.
You might want to ask yourself why you’re the only one Liking your own comments, and why everyone else seems to have a problem with you.
Because this is a hotbed of misogynists who are willing to say some really hateful things to anyone who disagrees with them? Should I shut up because most of the people here disagree with me? No, I’m not going to comply with your implicit demand that I stop commenting because you don’t like what I’m saying.
Also, funny that when I point out that Rosie over there was generalizing about “Mexican power in Mexico” without acknowledging that there is a racial hierarchy in Mexico, instead of admitting that I was right, you attack me personally. Because that’s what you’re here for, not for talking truth.
You ARE an evil, genocidal piece of shit, you ignorant racist cunt.
Ooooh, now we get to the gender-based insults. If you think this comment makes you look good and me bad, well, this goes to the delusional mindset of garbage people like you. Keep it up. You’re doing my work for me.
So if your thing is power, why stop at race? Do English speakers in the US have a privilege? Tall? Smart? Good looking? Ashkenazi Jews? Educated?
And If disproportionate representation = power = privilege then why not stamp out black privilege in professional sports, female privilege in professions like nursing, Jews in entertainment, Catholics on the Supreme Court, Asians in elite universities, etc? Because it’s all arbitrary. We can draw the line anywhere we want to make a victim class and a privilege class. It’s the old haves vs have nots dressed up for the 2000s.
White guys are the new Jews, I tell ya.
We’re all supposed to be richer than God, cleverer than the devil, and each and every one of us secretly rules the world.
Disproportionate representation IN POWER is what matters. Do you think football players matter more than Congressmen? Such simplistic arguments scarcely warrant a response. Nurses? Prove to me that somehow men are being discriminated against in nursing. Are there men who badly want to be nurses, who are just as qualified, but who are being denied en masse?
It’s not arbitrary at all. I listed: the White House and high excecutive branch jobs, supreme cour justices on the state and federal level, CEOs of Fortune 500 companies– those are the power elites, not nurses and NBA stars.
“Social Justice” garbage like Diseased Whore of Burgundy need to change terms and definitions because they are clearly full of shite and/or insane. I’m sure it’s a proud member of the Bottomfeeders Loser Movement.
The idea that “white privilege” is a useful concept in justice is the sort of over-generalization that people should leave behind in high school.
It’s not a “concept in justice.” It’s a fact of our society and its power structures. You can deny it all you want. It’s real.
Real for the 1%, maybe. Real for the 99%? Not so much.
How would you know, really? Are you white? Do you know what life is like for people of color in America? Have you had a frank discussion with a black man about how his life is different from yours? A convo where you listen, don’t argue, don’t belittle, don’t blame, just hear what it’s like? Until you do, you are speaking from ignorance.
Don’t speak unless spoken to? Or maybe not even then?
Not at all surprised at your summary rejection of the concept of listening.
I listen. I understand.
And then I point out what’s BS about what I just listened to.
Pretty simple, really. You should try it…
Your reaction to the CDC numbers was telling. You just don’t read carefully enough to notice data that goes against your sacrosanct “narrative”.
I should try it? What do you think I’ve been doing this whole thread? Pointing out bullshit post after bullshit post. I’ve been listening my whole life.
I do read quite carefully, and I don’t have a sacrosanct narrative. I pointed out that only looking and one year’s data ignores what has happened across a lifetime. Most women (and many men as well) are reacting now not just to a specific instance of abuse, but of a lifetime of abuse, from various people, across many situations. Finally, we’re done.
Women victimizers are next, you wait. I’m sure they exist, and when the pitchforks and torches come out for them, and if they are credibly accused, I will condemn them too, just as I condemn Democrats and Republicans alike.
You so badly want me to be a hypocrite because it fits your sacrosanct narrative, but I’m not your straw man, dude.
DoB, the CDC report clearly shows that the numbers are evening out. Your reaction? That “men are finally speaking up.” That implies that the numbers HAVE ALWAYS BEEN EVEN, or close to it.
That shoots to h*ll the women-victim-narrative that SJWs have been harping on for decades — and that you’ve been harping on here as well.
Honestly, this all goes to show that you’re here not to publish principled arguments, but are pretty much just here to pick fights. Which can all be good fun…
… but it means you’ve lost.
See, this just proves that you’ve been straw manning me all along. No, that is not my narrative. When it comes to lifetime reports of RAPE, it’s almost always men. That is penetration, not forced to penetrate. When it comes to murder, still more women are murdered by men than the other way around. The same for assaults resulting in serious bodily harm. Men are more violent, make no mistake.
However, when you get into areas like “made to penetrate” and unwanted sexual behavior, I’m sure it is and always has been roughly even. When people feel their power is equal, or if they feel more powerful, they will do sketchy shit to their partners. Do I think women are exempt from this? Hell no, and I’ve said as much REGULARLY. If you’ve missed it, it’s because you’ve chosen to miss it because you want to paint me as some SJW man-hater.
I really don’t think I have lost, sorry, because I have NEVER been arguing what you think I have been. Read better.
DukeofBurgundy Jim__L • 7 days ago
“How would you know, really? Are you white? Do you know what life is like for people of color in America? Have you had a frank discussion with a black man about how his life is different from yours? A convo where you listen, don’t argue, don’t belittle, don’t blame, just hear what it’s like? Until you do, you are speaking from ignorance.”
For over 50 years, blacks have lied, insulted, robbed, raped and murdered whites, and enjoyed black racial privilege every step of the way, belittling, blaming, and insulting whites, while the latter listened.
Whites have listened and endured way too much. It’s time for blacks to shut up and listen.
By the way, a “frank discussion” or “convo” goes two ways. But you’re one of those phony “courageous conversation” people, who support dishonest black supremacists always lecturing and hectoring whites, on top of everything else.
Hahahaha you’re a funny little racist POS. Go away.
The Democrats that have been running Chicago for decades obviously don’t think black lives matter – look at the daily carnage of black lives there. But then they are garbage people.
Why do you think I give a tin shit about Democrats? God, it’s either A or Z with you. I’m not affiliated with any party.
Exactly. Tell the person I’m replying to that s/he just lost the thread.
You cite a fake encyclopedia in defense of a fake “law”?
I suppose there’s a certain perverse symmetry there.
Obama brought Hitler into it just three days ago. I’m pretty sure us types didn’t start the Trump = Hitler thing.
Do you have to mimic everything Barack Obama does? Ha.
LOL Chyeah right, DukeofBurgundy. Trump is so incompetent that he made billions, wrote best-selling books, became a TV star, raised a family, and then ran for President of the United States against a woman who had every news medium but FOX shilling for her — and he won. This is what the “orange clown” has accomplished so far as President: https://pastebin.com/BcSAGmDf
(Trump, BTW, and contrary to the ever-present meme, never said anything about doing sexual things with women without their consent. Just after talking about grabbing women “by the pussy,” he very clearly said “When you’re a star, they LET you.” I don’t know what mental universe feminist women live in, but where I come from, it’s hard to have sex without a pussy being grabbed. Good sex anyway. Trump may have been “randy” in his younger days, but — you really want to “slut-shame” him?)
As to “white privilege,” I’m white and know all about that. Come to my ‘hood and let’s talk about it. Better come armed, though. And leave your car unlocked; folks around here will just smash out the windows to get whatever you’ve got in your glove compartment. We can walk down the block and I can show you the house that got shot up in a random drive-by not long ago — a house inhabited by a totally innocent young family, including a three-year old little boy. Sound fun?
He said that he “just starts kissing,” that he can’t help himself. Someone “letting” you grab them is not consent. People freeze up from fear, especially when the grabber is their boss, a rich man with an aggressive legal team. This is a known response to fear-inducing situations and will not exonerate a molester. Did he receive consent? No. And the women did make legal cases on it, so they didn’t see themselves as “letting” him. They did what they did to get away, then they reported it.
Trump went bankrupt twice. The first time, he was saved by the timely death of his father and receiving an inheritance. Dollar for dollar, Paris Hilton has made more money from her inheritance than Trump. I guess the Republicans will be running her in 2024?
To “just start kissing” is the only way to kiss. A man asks to kiss me, I’m already turned off. As are most women, even the heterosexual feminists who won’t admit it.
“Letting” someone do something is absolutely consent if saying no is all one has to do to stop an unwanted behavior. If women have a habit of “freezing up in fear” over a freakin’ kiss, they’d better, um, man up and start using their voices.
What in the Sam Hill do his bankruptcies have to do with anything? He didn’t build his real estate empire with an inheritance; he built it with loans from his father. And whatever money he has, he doesn’t have the money Clinton had collectively from her billionaire donors, and he didn’t have every news medium in the world (but Fox News) shilling for him.
No, sorry, it’s not the only way. If the woman is married (which he directly mentioned– MARRIED), you don’t just kiss her. If you have no prior romantic contact, if she is with another man, if she has no idea it’s coming, then no, you don’t just kiss her. Trump complains in his comments that he was rejected. Why do you think that was? Maybe because she didn’t want him to kiss her? Jeez.
We’re not talking about freezing up in fear from kisses. We are talking about freezing up in fear when a man who has power over you suddenly grabs your pussy. Trump did this to women when they were alone, when they were at the dinner table, wherever. You defend him and blame his victims for not having the exact reaction to prescribe?
Um, yes, he did build his real estate empire on inheritance. His father was the original real estate mogul, not him. He went bankrupt and had to be bailed out by Daddy. Why the hell are we talking about Clinton? This conversation has literally nothing to do with her– but if you want to discuss them, neither Bill nor Hillary inherited shit from anyone. Bill came from dirt poor, and Hillary came from middle class. Both totally self-made people. Despise them all you want, but they earned their money. Trump got his from his father. Inarguable regardless of your feelings.
He said they LET him. Not sure what it is about the word “let” — synonym of “allow” — that you don’t understand. I’m Catholic and against adultery and all extramarital sex, but that doesn’t make Trump’s actions abuse or rape.
We all know Trump’s Dad had money; Trump, fils, still made his own fortune after borrowing money from his father.
Why were you talking about Paris Hilton? As to the Clintons, they made their money through fraud, corruption, and taxpayer rip-offs. Filegate, WhitewaterGate, selling to Russia our uranium, ripping off Haiti, Clinton Foundation games, selling political influence, etc. Do some research.
So all 13 of the women who have accused him are liars? Is that your official claim? Even the 13 year old girl? All of them, even the ones who made their claims before he ran for office?
TRUMP says they “let” him. He also talks about how he “moved on her like a bitch” <– he is describing himself as a bitch, moving on a married woman who refused him. He is admitting that he did not ask consent first. You should probably re-read the transcript before you go after me on this.
As a Catholic, you should have serious moral issues with Trump.
I was talking about Paris Hilton because she made more money, dollar for dollar, from her inheritance (which was smaller) than Trump has. Touting his business acumen when he has failed so often is ridiculous. He is not a business success. We do not actually know what his net worth is nor how much debt he is in, nor to whom (but we can guess about the debt holders). Paris Hilton is just a comparison point for who is better at business.
The Clintons made their money by getting educated, going into law, then going into politics. You can give me a bunch of crap about all the illegal stuff they allegedly did, but if you can't admit one scrap of what Trump did, then I have no interest in giving you an inch of credibility on your mountain of crap about the Clintons. FACT: neither of them was born rich. They got where they were by dint of sheer hard work and ambition. Trump never had to do a lick of work in his pathetic life. Truth, end of story.
Yup. Women lie. Their asses off.
Don’t tell me how to be Catholic, hon.
You’re clueless about the Clintons. (Hey, you know who else wasn’t born rich? Al Capone!)
Don’t tell me how kissing works, HON.
I know plenty about the Clintons. I despise them. However, facts are facts. People interested in truth can admit that regardless of how they feel about someone.
Someone has to tell you how kissing works if you think, “Pardon me, Madam, may I approach you and place my mouth on yours for a few seconds, after which time I will ask you again to ensure you are clearly and legally demonstrating ongoing, enthusiastic consent?” is the way to go about it.
So somewhere between y our disingenuous bullshit and “move on her like a bitch” is how you actually kiss someone without being a fucking perv.
PS– MEN lie their asses off too.
Sure, but the problem is that a lot of men who are just trying to kiss a woman after they’ve gotten the impression she wants it are being hounded. Rupert Myers, Michael Fallon, a friend of mine. In my professional association someone asking a woman up to his hotel room was even described as harassment.
“Why do you types always have to bring Hitler into things?”
Idiot alert! Idiot alert!
I cringed at that too, but there was something ritualistic about that bit. Like geneticists in the USSR during the Lysenko era had to bookend serious papers by bits of Lysenkoist BS.
It is perplexing that an article whose central premise is (quite rightly) to deplore the corrosive consequences of the fact that it now “takes only one accusation to destroy a man’s life” in the present fevered atmosphere of
“a frenzied extrajudicial warlock hunt”, should then casually assert “I’m already convinced that Roy Moore is a sexual predator”. Trying to neutralise this rank hypocrisy by piously affirming that “neither my certainty nor anyone else’s should be allowed to displace the law” just won’t work – the whole point of her own article is that mere personal “conviction” is having effects on men’s lives and reputations that are indeed tantamount to a criminal conviction. Roy Moore had been a controversial figure in public life in Alabama for 40 years, during which he had been scrutinised and criticised but not accused of sexual offences yet suddenly, when running for the Senate, which has a narrow Republican majority, Democratic operatives like Gloria Allred come out of the woodwork, going after him with evidence she won’t submit to independent verification.
Not only is Roy Moore a sexual predator, but he has also lost TWO jobs in the Alabama court system because he is a proven liar and manipulator. That’s the horse you wanna back, eh. OK, go for it. And give more fuel to #MeToo. Don’t cry as it rolls on and on, as long as there is grist for the mill. Keep feeding it if you must. And clearly you must.
If such behaviour really is “proven” (and the last few weeks show that dirt on Moore is liable to be unproven) then by all means put that before the voters – it is highly relevant to fitness to serve as a Senator. Why therefore the absurd theatre of sexual allegations that surface for the first time in a 40 year career in public office?
A lot of allegations against Bill Cosby didn’t come out until decades later. Do you think those women are lying too? Sometimes people will not say anything until someone says it first. The process is terrifying, disturbing, and dredges up a lot of old feelings you work hard to bury.
What was the result of the Cosby case?
“A lot of allegations against Bill Cosby didn’t come out until decades later.”
Cosby never ran for office.
He is a Republican. That means he is automatically guilty!
She was speaking to the anxiety that many women perhaps have for Trump being in office. While debatable, it’s a legitimate point.
No, it isn’t. Women have no special reason to fear Trump. Trump’s boorish behavior toward women in the past does not even come close to the behavior of Clinton both before and while in office, yet there was no moral panic then. (far from it; one noted woman even stated publicly that women ought to fellate him). And as far as sexual harassment generally is concerned, it defies all credulity to suggest that only starting from January 20, 2017 did women collectively and individually become panicked over sexual harassment. Remember, for instance, that all throughout the last Administration, when Trump was still just a gleam in Obama’s eye, we were told repeatedly and insistently that America is a “rape culture.” So please, have a little more respect for the facts here. Berlinski really really really loathes Trump; we get that. That is her prerogative. But that loathing does absolutely nothing to support or advance any argument she tries to make.
Bill Clinton was impeached and disbarred. Al Gore and Hillary Clinton failed to become president. There were consequences for Bill Clinton’s disgusting behavior. Not enough by a long shot, but consequences. Trump has suffered none. That scares people.
There is a very good reason why Trump has suffered none and will continue to suffer none. Religion, the “base” of both Trump himself, and the “base” of most Congressional conservatives as well, likes Trump fine. To them, the female accusers of Trump and Moore are just some plan of Satan in girl suits.
Clinton was impeached (a) for perjury, not sexual harassment or other boorish behavior, and (b) near the end of his second term. He was disbarred after leaving office, not while in it. He also won election even under the allegations of sexual assault. Not only that, he was elected, under the cloud of sexual assault allegations, shortly after the Anita Hill episode where the Leftist-feminist watchword for keeping Thomas off of the Court was “I Believe Anita.”
Gore and Hillary are irrelevant to this matter.
So again, this alleged fear people have of Trump is simply not credible. What they have instead is a visceral loathing of Trump and a passion to see punishment of some sort inflicted on him. The pretext does not matter. Sexual harassment, Russian collusion, the Emoluments Clause–whatever can be made to stick.
The same can be said about clinton..the investigation he was under was about about whitewater or traval gate or any number of administrative grey area things that one can nit pick…how they jumped from that to him lying about cheating on his wife is an issue NO ONE bothered to ask. As far as the GOP was concerned about clinton..as you said..whatever can be made to stick..
You’ll get no disagreement from me that the Clinton impeachment was a petty move and reflected badly on the GOP. But at least the GOP waited until near the end of his second term to do it.
lol..they didn’t wait..the investigation just took that long…in fact the fact that it did happen during the last half of his second term..essentially lame duck status makes it particularly petty because they were just trying to eff up his legacy at that point.
Say what you want about dems doing it now but the idea that new administration hip deep with personal contacts with a enemy of the state and lying about it is real cause for immediate action. Waiting until 2022 (assuming he gets a 2nd term) to bring all that stuff up would be pointless and petty
If his accusers had been believed, Clinton would never have been president. And they had far more credible evidence of rape and sexual harassment.
The worst part? There are Feminists who believed his accusers, and wanted him to be president (and perform sex acts on him) anyway.
Good. He never should have been governor, much less President. Total degenerate scumbag. What, did you expect me to say otherwise?
There was also actual physical evidence against Bill Clinton (remember the blue dress). None against Trump (or Moore for that matter. The yearbook was a clumsy forgery and the “graduation card” convenient at best).
Hard evidence or Not Guilty. The only reason to look at Weinstein is that one of his accusers had a tape and tried to go to a prosecutor at the time. Her bad luck the prosecutor was a Democrat and protecting their bankroll.
Bill Clinton’s sexual interlude with Monica Lewinsky was consensual. She never alleged he assaulted her. He was punished for perjury and obstruction, not rape.
Donald Trump admitted that he grabbed women by the pussy because when you’re famous, you can just do it. He also said that he has to just kiss beautiful women, he can’t stop himself. I call a tape of a person admitting to non-consensual sexual advances, combined with dozens of women who claimed he made just such advances– a predator. Billy Bush freaking lost his job, and Trump got elected.
Roy Moore is innocent? Hahahaaha. The only reason to look at Weinstein is? OK. Delusional rape apologist. People like you are why #MeToo will keep rolling onwards. Keep it up. So will we.
The only reason to look at Weinstein is that one of his accusers has a tape recording (actual evidence, what a concept), and went to the cops at the time.
Now, go and fuck yourself with a frozen swordfish. Sideways.
And a Happy Kwanzaa to you too, sweet cheeks!
Ted Kennedy was a celebrated Senator his entire career.
Disgusting, isn’t it? Thank god things are changing.
NO thanks to Democrats, who have no principles to speak of.
You cannot credibly claim that Republicans have any principles worth bragging about.
He was disbarred. The impeachment motion failed.
Wrong. He was impeached. He was not removed by the Senate. It’s a two part process.
Trump in office causes women anxiety is a legitimate point? Do tell…why? What exactly has President Trump done to cause women anxiety? Be precise please.
So, you’re defending ”grab’em by the pussy?”
I’m defending, ‘they let you do it.’ He’s saying ‘grab em because they let you.’ And yes, I know it’s a shock to hear someone defend a man against charges of sexual assault, but someone’s got to do it.
Thirteen credible accusations of sexual harassment or violence? Repeatedly walking into dressing rooms full of underage naked girls without consent? Saying he wants to have sex with his daughter? Serial adulterer, backs a creep like Roy Moore, who calls his Democratic opponent “Abortion Jones”? Wants to pack SCOTUS with anti-abortion activitst judges? What do women have to fear. Huh. Must be nice to have a dick.
Saying ‘if my daughter wasn’t my daughter, I’d date her’ isn’t sexual harassment. It’s a compliment. My mother says that kind of thing about me all the time. ‘If I was a young lady, I’d like you!’ Awkward maybe, nothing more, unless you’ve been to a university, in which case you’ve been trained to see every mention of attractiveness as an expression of the patriarchy.
If there is no actual risk of physical danger, the proper response to being anxious is to **practice courage**.
It can come in handy for situations with actual risk of physical danger, such as those where men and women alike can be “feeling prickles down our spine as we walk alone on dimly lit streets.”
Note to the wise, men and women alike — try to stay off those streets if there’s a real risk of physical danger. It’s just common sense.
Most sexual violence takes place between people who know each other, not on darkened streets at night.
Most sexual violence happens against men, in prisons.
But the gay lobby doesn’t want you to know that.
Statistically false, but yes, a lot of abuse happens in prisons. It’s male on male. Has little to do with “being gay” and a lot to do with power and control.
If rape was about power and not sex, there wouldn’t be a clear statistical correlation between rape victims and the ages at which people are seen as most attractive (early 20s), which there is.
Younger people almost always have less power. They are easier to intimidate, manipulate, and scare. They are easy prey. You think they are picked simply because they are more attractive, but that is a simplistic view.
The very elderly have even less power, physical or otherwise. And yet they somehow get raped far less often than the young.
They aren’t out and about much either. They aren’t dating or partying or hanging out socially in large groups. Duh.
No, you never see large groups of elderly people on tours or cruises.
Simple fix: don’t be in a room with him alone. Which for 99.9999% of women, isn’t a concern
Good comment! I couldn’t have said it better. However, I’ll add a few thoughts anyhow:
Berlinski starts off brilliantly but then seems confused by the sources of the witch-mongering and resorts rather pathetically to Trump bashing.
I think she’s barking up the wrong tree when she muses that women unconsciously want the “brutes” back. Well, maybe some do, but I think a more important source of the madness is American sexual culture of the past several decades. Consider such phenomena as nonsensical college courses on “gender” and “queer studies,”pathologic rap music, idiotic programs like “Girls,” relentlessly disgusting “comedians,” and the strangely dark Hero of “Transparent” (well-acted by Tambor….who ironically has run afoul of the neo-Puritans while playing a role intended to dismantle the last vestiges of our “unenlightened” culture).
It seems to me that we’re in the early stages of a backlash….with enormous potential for persecution and hypocrisy. I hope in the long run our culture finds a resting place on a middle ground between neo-Puritanism and mindless, artless paganism. Perhaps Lady Chatterly’s Lover – that great polemic on the possibility of marriage as the consummation of healthy sexuality- should be required reading for incoming freshmen.
The current sex panic is perhaps a case of the “the return of the repressed,” as Freud would’ve said; the repressed being not the unbridled id, but rather deep rooted feelings of shame, and an unacknowledged but potent longing for fidelity, chivalry, and courtly love.
“she muses that women unconsciously want the “brutes” back.”
she misses masculinity
Men (as measured by my reading of certain ones’ comments on THIS site), have been quite concerned about what Jessica Valenti, Gloria Allred, Gloria Steinem, Michelle Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Rachel Maddow, (etc., etc.) might do to them on this subject, past or future. I am beginning to wonder if men have any inkling of what Karen Pence, Sarah Palin, Kellyanne Conway, Nikki Haley, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Betsy DeVos, Joni Ernst, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Kay Ivey, Paula White, (etc., etc.) might do to them ON THIS SUBJECT.
#metoo is going to draw a response. The people in power are not going to ignore it. This wedge is TOOOO valuable in the political game. Guys may wish for the old feminists after they find out what conservative ladies could cook up.
Hi-end tax cuts coming! Yay!
the stuff you write is as if a computer were randomly typing out words. make some sense man, please. For the love of all things good, make some sense so I get the point of your writing.
You got it. Don’t bother playing dumb. #metoo is not going away. It WILL culminate in changes demanded by women.
The only question is which women with which agendas and which mindsets about how to make men behave themselves better.
There was a lot of chatter here over the past few months/years, for instance, about the college boy/girl culture and how to address problems. Jerry Falwell, Jr. knows how to do that at Liberty University. You may get his style from his cadre of like-minded females. You may get corporations enacting zero-tolerance policies against men to protect the brands more than anything else. Carrie Nation may smash the boys with a hatchet.
And yet are “women” demanding this or is it just certain elites who are? My guess is that most women care not a whit about the occasional unexpected kiss or off-color remark/joke. I’d be very interested to know if anyone’s done a survey on that.
I think a lot of women have reasons to wish for better in their workplaces, etc. We should have had this wave 2-3 years ago. Now they all get a Trumpian Supreme Court instead of a human rights Supreme Court. Too bad. Lasts for decades.
That’s because, on the whole, this is NOT ABOUT an unexpected kiss or off-color joke. On the whole, the men who have been pilloried have jerked off in front of people (not just women– ask Kevin Spacey’s victims) who never asked or wanted to see their penises, groped them (grabbing someone’s crotch is not acceptable, ever), or worse, forcibly penetrated them. I get the sense that you guys just want people (not just women, people who accuse men) to shut up and go away so that men can go back to doing whatever the hell they want to whoever they want.
Get any sense you want. But the idea that anyone can be ousted from electoral office or from a job on nothing more than allegations is dangerous. It’s dangerous for everyone and in many different ways. Would you get the same sense if a woman did something similar to a man? Years ago a woman did something to me that, under today’s standards would get a man tossed out of public office and fired from private employment. Should she be disqualified from running for office? Should she be barred from earning a living? If not, why not.
Has anyone been ousted from office? Seems they have chosen to resign. They were not forcibly removed by legal means based on mere allegations. As for jobs, in private industry, you can be fired for whatever reason your employer sees fit. If you are fired for illegal reasons, you have recourse to the law. Theoretically. It’s interesting to me that you are all up in arms about men getting fired (but haven’t offered any proof of a man being fired for an off color joke or shirt), but don’t seem to give a single damn about the many women who have lost out on jobs because they refused to give in to sexual demands. Or who did give in so they could keep their jobs. A much, much more common situation than a man being fired for wearing a bad shirt.
I would get the same sense if anyone committed a sexual act on or in front of anyone else without that person’s consent. Gender is irrelevant, but let’s be factual. It’s mostly men. You cannot deny that. If you report someone for sexual harassment, you should be believed and listened to. When I reported it, before I went into the boss’s office, I was strongly counseled to find as many other people who had experienced similar issues with the man in question. I had to do my own little investigation first. Lots of names came up. Many people wanted this guy gone. So I reported it, and then so did they.
Had it just been me? I wouldn’t have. And I didn’t, for a long time, out of fear that it would be me who lost out at work. When it’s your word v. mine, no guarantees. When lots of people say the same thing? That’s when people get fired. I don’t know what that woman did to you, but yeah, she should have been fired. Prevented from earning a living? I don’t know. No one is FORCED to employ anyone, are they? Would you want her working for you? Would you want Harvey Weinstein working for you? Well, why not? WHAT ABOUT HIS CAREER?
“Has anyone been ousted from office? Seems they have chosen to resign. They were not forcibly removed by legal means based on mere allegations.” Please. You know and I know that they resigned rather than face the contiuning pressure to resign. Their party wanted to get them out of the way so they could get someone else into office. Surely you understand that. For myself, I’d prefer to see them run for reelection. Bill Clinton’s sexual misadventures were generally known in 1992 and people elected him anyway.
“They were not forcibly removed by legal means based on mere allegations.” No legal means were used at all. That’s the point.
“but don’t seem to give a single damn about the many women who have lost out on jobs because they refused to give in to sexual demands. Or who did give in so they could keep their jobs.” You do understand that anyone in that position has legal recourse. There are laws against that behavior. This is a lawless witch hunt, or warlock hunt if you prefer. There is no forum in which to ask the questions “Does the punishment fit the crime?” “Was a crime committed?” “Was any wrongdoing committed?”
“It’s mostly men.” Actually, when it comes to forcible sexual intercourse, the Centers for Disease Control found that men and women are equally perpetrators and victims. As to sexual harassment, more women report it, but of course men are far less likely to report such things so we don’t really know. Or can you cite a study?
As to my own experience (one of several), I want you to understand what happened so you can answer my question. We were friends, but I was not at all attracted to her and never gave her any indication otherwise. I was at her apartment one night when she cornered me and, among other things, touched/grabbed my crotch and ground her crotch into mine. I was concerned about hurting her feelings, so I was confused about how to extricate myself. (I was about 21 at the time.) Fortunately, she eventually backed off. That’s clearly behavior that, if a male TV personality had done it or an office holder, he’d be fired or his resignation would be demanded. So tell me, should the woman in my case be barred from public office in the event she were ever to seek it? If not, why not? You said you’re not sure if she should be barred from earning a living. Are you sure now?
I guess you don’t get a say in how things go. These people chose to resign. You would prefer to see them run for re-election. Well, they probably don’t want further scrutiny because there is more dirt there than you already know about. The move is selfish on their part. No one has been removed. It is their choice to forgo due process.
I already posted my CDC cite. From my link:
“In the United States, an estimated 19.3% of women and 1.7% of men have been raped during their lifetimes; an estimated 1.6% of women reported that they were raped in the 12 months preceding the survey. The case count for men reporting rape in the preceding 12 months was too small to produce a statistically reliable prevalence estimate. An estimated 43.9% of women and 23.4% of men experienced other forms of sexual violence during their lifetimes, including being made to penetrate, sexual coercion, unwanted sexual contact, and noncontact unwanted sexual experiences. The percentages of women and men who experienced these other forms of sexual violence victimization in the 12 months preceding the survey were an estimated 5.5% and 5.1%, respectively.”
So there is my proof that far, far more women experience rape and sexual violence in general. Almost all women who are raped or abused are abused by men. Men experience abuse from both genders. But men experience far less violence overall, so far fewer abusers are women. You can scroll up to find the cite, or post one of your own, but yours better also be CDC.
As for your story, that has happened to me more times that I care to tell you. I have had friends, acquaintances, co-workers, bosses, and strangers just decide it’s fine if they grab my ass, breasts, or crotch. I’ve been kissed many times. Do you know how many of those men I reported? One. Because I have to work with him and children are involved.
This is what you don’t seem to understand, so locked into your feeling of persecution. What happened to you sucked. That woman was wrong and a totally gross jerk. If she did that to you, she may have done it to others. I wouldn’t want her working for me. But if no one reports that, then no one knows. That’s how serial harassers get away with it. People actual FEEL BAD for their attackers. They don’t want to ruin someone else’s life. So this attacker, who actually gives no damns about you, skates away and does it again.
This is the calculus we all do in these situations, in our own hearts– do you think this person is a predator? Did you feel like prey? Did you hate it? Did you want to run away? Are you concerned s/he might do it to someone else? Can you live with yourself if you don’t say anything?
I rationalized away many instances of unwanted touching, kissing, and yes, even sex I didn’t want to happen, because I thought somehow it was my fault, or it was an isolated incident, or I didn’t want to make a scene, or I didn’t want to talk about it because it was so humiliating or creepy, or it was the alcohol that made him… blah blah blah. I regret it now because I have probably enabled some very gross people to continue being gross. I think a lot of people (men AND women) are checking their math and realizing that the hard work of conscience should not fall on them. It’s not up to me to protect a person who was presumptuous with my body. It’s not up to me to figure out whether or not that person is a predator or just a dolt with bad judgment. If it scares me or creeps me out, if the person doesn’t ask at all, if we aren’t in an established romantic relationship, if s/he doesn’t stop when asked, then I have no reason to keep what THEY did a secret. I have no reason to protect them.
If you felt like this woman should have received consequences, then yes, she should have. Yes, it is up to you, not her, to decide if it was wrong, especially if you indicated that you wanted it to stop and it didn’t. Or it’s up to her boss, not you or her, if it comes to jobs. It’s up to her party, then her electorate, to decide. You tell your story and then your conscience is clear. Or you keep her secret if that feels better to you.
Also, damn are you naive if you think one instance of fumbling groping would get anyone fired. Nope. Absolutely not. I can’t think of anyone who has gotten in trouble over one incident. It is always a pattern. One person comes forward. Anyone who cares holds their breath. Inevitably, more come forward. Know why? Because people do NOT report isolated incidents. I was explicitly told it would be foolish of me to report my incident to my boss unless there were other people who had also been assaulted. So please, get off the cross. On behalf of all men who never do stuff like this, please stop defending the men who make all of you look bad.
Sorry to be so tardy. Internet access seriously interrupted last night. Here’s a summary of what I was referring to. It’s from a summary sheet from the CDC.
Approximately 1 in 20 women and men (5.6% and
5.3%, respectively) experienced sexual violence
other than rape, such as being made to penetrate
someone else, sexual coercion, unwanted
sexual contact, or non-contact unwanted sexual
experiences, in the 12 months prior to the survey
Here’s the whole report: Black MC, Basile KC, Breiding MJ, Smith SG, Walters ML, Merrick
MT, Chen J, Stevens MR. The National Intimate Partner and Sexual
Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report. Atlanta, GA:
National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention; 2011.
The reason your data are misleading is that, regarding rape, the CDC defines it as being penetrated by a penis or object. That obviously leaves out a lot of men. But when the issue of consent to sex – the essence of rape – is raised, i.e. “made to penetrate,” then the male/female ratio is close to equal.
As to my story, you still haven’t answered my question. Do you believe that it disqualifies her from employment and/or public office? Let’s assume I learn she’s running for, say, the city council. In your opinion, should I go public with what happened and, if I did, should she withdraw her name from consideration? Should her party do so? All you’ve done is pass the buck to me and others. But I want your opinion, not theirs. I of course have no idea if she did the same or similar things to others.
“Also, damn are you naive if you think one instance of fumbling groping would get anyone fired.” Naive am I? What about the British Nobel laureate who was forced out of his tenured position at a British university based on nothing nearly as inappropriate as sexual groping. In fact, all he did was make a joke at a conference that none of the scientists attending the conference complained about. The complainant was a journalist who reported what he said (there’s no recording of it) and who was later outed for having grossly lied on her resume. I can locate the guy’s name if you’re interested.
And of course on campus, men are pretty much fair game. The number of men who’ve been expelled or otherwise disciplined despite being factually innocent of sexual impropriety is pretty impressive. Over 200 lawsuits so far and the number is rising. And yes, those are single-instance cases. Check out the Matt Boermeester case in which he and his girlfriend both denied any wrongdoing but he was expelled anyway. The Title IX person at USC told his girlfriend that she was a battered woman and didn’t know what she was talking about. Check it out or any of the countless other cases on campuses.
One overall point I’m making is that there are no standards for determining what is right and wrong. Yes, some things are clearly wrong, but much behavior falls into gray areas. Al Franken said that some of the allegations against him are false and about others he remembers things differently from what’s been alleged. Charlie Rose said he thought the women shared his feelings. Much of this is just clumsy behavior or missed signals.
Another point is that there’s no due process of law. There’s no neutral tribunal, no clearly defined right and wrong, no standard of proof, nothing. If a woman feels offended by something, then a man loses his job or his elected office. We’re not punishing behavior, we’re punishing for allegedly creating feelings in another person. If a man makes a move on a woman and she doesn’t like it then he loses his job; if she does like it, he’s OK, despite his behavior being identical in each case.
Another point is that what’s going on is profoundly misandric. Again, what women do to men isn’t even part of the conversation. That’s why I brought up the woman’s behavior toward me. If we truly believe that certain sorts of sexual aggression are problematic, we’d be including both male and female victims and male and female perpetrators in the conversation, but we aren’t.
Another point is that we seem to have lost all perspective. The question of whether the punishment fits the crime is nowhere asked. Should the people of Minnesota lose the man they elected to represent them because Al Franken pretended to touch a woman’s clothed breasts while she was sleeping? Really? Because he kissed a woman who didn’t want to be kissed? And why don’t they get to decide?
You surely understand that this can come back to bite you. Are you really sure that, if you haven’t done anything wrong then you’re safe? Again, countless men like, say, Brian Banks, might once have believed the same, but no longer do. And the guy you voted for and who represents you is just as fair game as anyone else. Are you really OK with him being booted out of office on an allegation?
Witch hunts are never good things and they don’t improve just because they’re “warlock” hunts. Or maybe you think they do.
Nothing is going to come back to bite ME. I haven’t done anything wrong. I did answer your question about what should happen to the woman who groped you. I said it was up to YOU. You have the absolute right to disclose what happened to you if you think she’s a predator, if she hurt you, if you think her moral character makes her unfit for office. What else do you want me to say? Do you want me to tell you how to feel or what to do? We all make these choices for ourselves. Then we live with those choices.
Your interpretation of the CDC data is faulty and self-serving. My cite was very clear that women are the victims of sexual violence at staggeringly higher rates than men. Then you say this: ” regarding rape, the CDC defines it as being penetrated by a penis or object.” You do realize that men can be penetrated by an object, right? Women are three times more likely to be stalked than men. The vast majority of sexual violence and stalking (this is a much wider term than “rape”) against women is committed by men. Sexual violence and stalking against men is about 50/50 men and women perpetrators. But it’s a lot more rare. So it’s safe to say, statistically speaking, women are far more likely to be the victims of sexual violence and stalking, and that the perpetrators are statistically more likely to be male. Rapists specifically are much more likely to be male regardless of the gender of the victim.
Your paranoia is also pretty laughable. A man makes a move on a woman, he loses his job? No, that doesn’t happen. You have never been involved in one of these cases, obviously. It is not so easy as that. And in the few times I have heard about such cases, the situation was far more egregious than failed flirting. It was absolutely sexual violence.
The next point is, if you are stupid enough to attempt to get laid at work, you are an idiot. Don’t try to dip your pen in the company ink. Dating in the workplace is flagrantly stupid. Everyone should stop, men and women both.
Am I OK with my elected representative being booted if he committed sexual violence? Yes. I am not worried about this being a witch hunt. Are you sad about poor Matt Lauer, with his rape button under his desk? Harvey Weinstein, now facing a RICO investigation for the extent of his cover ups? Kevin Spacey, who pounced on an underage boy? Do you care about all the women and men whose careers were harmed, who had to live with the aftermath of an assault? Your sole concern is for the poor men who did something, I dunno, maybe you’ve done before? This is all rationalization. I know plenty of men who have zero problem with #MeToo and who unequivocally support it. All the men who are freaking out about it strike me as having guilty consciences.
Because this is the bottom line– when you report a sexual assault, you have to relive it over and over and over. Man after man after man (it’s always men) ask you to tell the story. They want to know where did he touch you? How many times? Where were you physically? How did you feel? What did you do? Who did you tell? Over and over. Then you get scared because your attacker is going to be confronted, and he’s going to be angry. He knows where you live. He knows your phone number. It’s terrifying. Who the hell would do that for shits and giggles? I’m sorry, but there is no way that accusing men of sexual violence is some sort of parade of fun and pleasure. It sucks. That’s why it was so rare. There are still plenty of digusting cretins walking around like kings of the earth.
The era of the shitlord is coming to an end. If you are a shitlord, you have reason to fear. If not, chill out.
” #metoo is not going away. It WILL culminate in changes demanded by women”
this is how you get more Handmaid’s Tale.
Revenge of the churchladies, eh?
Well, for those of us who keep our hands to ourselves and our jokes clean, it hasn’t come soon enough. 🙂
i submit you are transferring your fears upon men & women you misunderstand, as if all you have is caricature.
I actually don’t have any fears—–and it isn’t caricature to paint a picture with the colors of 8-10 public personalities at a time.
that many colors on one wide brush mix to brown. but that you intended.
Gotta have it both ways, I guess. One would be a caricature and several mix to brown? Got anything better?
As a woman who is the survivor of a violent assault as well as the target of unwelcome, clumsy overtures in the past, I applaud Ms. Berlinski’s courage and clarity. The two things are very different, and no good can come of allowing them to be conflated. And those who would weaponize this issue into a blunt instrument of tribal warfare (I’m looking at you FG) reveal themselves as unserious men who still don’t understand or care about the real victims.
Well, you should be looking at the perpetrators who offended you personally, because I was not one of them. I’m an old guy, long-term married and never messing around in this stuff. Meanwhile, over the objections of 94% of black female voters and over the objections of 69% of Latina voters, 53% of white women just decided to elect Trumpism. This means that the governmental response to #metoo will be from the Trump government and the Trump judges in courts—–for a long time. You SHOULD have been able to receive something from the side represented by the one they derisively call “Pocahontas”, but you won’t.
The discussions on this site about the college boy/girl stuff were numerous and detailed in the past. Some were before the election. You should have seen the male comments—–to know why I made the one I did below.
I don’t think that Ms. Berlinski quite gets it. The power that woman have to confront and hurt mens lives is the point in all of this. It is a win-lose zero sum game sort of thing. And absolutely I agree with her that the male confessions are actually at the same time funny and freightening. But none of this is in any way surprising to me. the root of this is identity politics, gender fluidity, trashing our culture, and social justice. This is what you get…it is communism by another name.
Well said and true. I think the demise of Al Franken’s political career is one of the landmarks on the road to that conclusion. I’m not a fan of either his politics or his comedy, but he was elected by the people of his state to represent them in the U.S. Senate. He now no longer does but without the people’s input. Would they have re-elected him with the knowledge of the allegations and the photos? Who knows? But that’s the point, we never will. The democratic process has been subverted. My guess is that We the People are a lot less concerned about Franken’s behavior than the elites who seek to create public opinion in the image of their own. That was true with Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky and I suspect it’s true here. But of course we’ll never know.
“…he was elected by the people of his state to represent them in the U.S. Senate. He now no longer does but without the people’s input. ”
That’s the one way to make it stop. Run for election or re-election and win.
That’s how Kennedy survived Chappaquidick, how Clinton survived Gennifer Flowers, that’s how Gerry Studs and Barney Frank survived their scandals.
And that’s why Trump is not going to resign over the “Access Hollywood” tape. And why, Moore, if he wins, will be seated in the Senate.
The Senate does have ethics rules. Moore can be removed for violating them without the consent of the people of Alabama.
The Republicans will act shocked but decide that since his behavior took place long ago, it’s none of their business, seat him, and carry on.
Some of them have indicated otherwise. See, there are midterms coming in less than a year. They very much do not want to lose their majorities, but they could. Flipping Congress opens the door to impeachment and maybe America’s first presidential removal. I think the American people would feel safer if there was a Congress capable of and willing to remove Trump if it is proven that he betrayed the American electorate by collaborating with a foreign power. So. The Republicans got a slim majority of white women but not a majority of women of any other race. Suddenly, they might care about women voters.
I know this is scary for a lot of men, but if they would just smile, they’d look a lot prettier.
You are naive. They are funding Moore’s campaign. Guys who oppose Moore like Flake are leaving congress
I am not naive. However, yes, many Republican pigs are going to back him. Doug Jones is behind Moore by a percentage that falls within the margin of error. There is a chance Alabama might save the Senate from having to deal with this moral quandary. If not, hey. Let them seat him. And the #MeToo movement will continue with greater fury with each outrage such as this.
#metoo will have plenty of ammunition. CNN and WashPost are working on the 20-30 congressional harassment cases that have been concealed. Which means 30 more dirtbags get burned down, plus the “Leadership” in both parties that covered it up.
We can only hope. I personally don’t care if the person is a Democrat or a Republican. They need to go. The problem is that Republicans do not seem to care if their candidates are rapists or child molesters. They hate liberals more than they hate sexual assaulters. WTF is wrong with people?
Historically, Republicans are cowards and are the first to throw their own under the bus while Democratic politicians are in power for decades. Think E. Kennedy, Conyers, etc. It is only recently that people on the right have woken up to the playbook of the left and pushed back against the double standard. Now that the Republicans have developed a little spine and rejected this hypocrisy, the left has become desperate. Which is why Democrats have started this hysteria. See? See? We DO really care about women! We’re doing our purges. Now you do yours!
Also, there have been too many examples of Republicans who were unseated due to entirely fabricated stories of ‘sexual harassment’ or ‘pedophilia’. For every Packwood or Hastert there are five who were destroyed by provably false accusations from ‘well vetted’ and ‘well sourced’ media hit jobs.
Which is why the Republicans in Alabama are giving the stink-eye not to Moore but to the WaPo and its ilk.
Also, takes a two-thirds majority to remove a sitting senator. You can only get a two-thirds majority to agree that… Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.
Why don’t you name some names of Republicans falsely ousted for being pedophiles? Liar.
Democrats look like the weaker ones now. Repubs are still pathetic, but D’s are worse. These wimps can’t stand even one cycle of negative media coverage. That is why Trump towers above them all.
Franken was forced out for things which were marginal, but do not justify a resignation in my view.
Franken got greased because of a combination of the Democrat Leadership overcompensating for covering up previous cases (which are about to be exposed).
As well as some Franken 2020 competitors like Warren, Sanders and Gillibrand trying to thin the herd.
Franken was forced out so Dems could credibly demand to remove Moore if he wins.
Who have the Republicans purged? Vitter is still in Congress. Thomas is still on SCOTUS. Moore is on target for the Senate. Also, please don’t assume I’m a Democrat. I hate all scumbags equally.
Vitter was forgiven by his wife, so all clear there. That should be something because I heard- that Wendy Vitter, she makes Lorena Bobbitt look like a sweet and charming school girl….
Would you have been satisfied about Bill Clinton if Hillary said she forgave him?
Sexual assault and harassment are absolutely horrible and must be crushed. However, since those evils predate Trump, I wouldn’t be surprised if this whole category 5 sexual harassment storm that is blowing was orchestrated, deliberately involving a lot of Luminaries on the left like Weinstein (they are mostly Left at this point), just to set the stage to put pressure on Trump? It looks like even ordinary people are thinking that there is no Russia-gate, no Obstruction, no Emoluments, …You know, the plan A fell through, so prep plan B, and when B falls through move on to plan C,…etc. Not hard to orchestrate things like this for people with deep pockets and deep thinking advisers who may be cooking up even deeper strategies….
“Now that the Republicans have developed a little spine and rejected this hypocrisy…”
That remains to be seen. Republican displays of spine can be optical illusions, like the way my late aunt used to think she saw my Nana engaging in voluntary movement, after staring at her in her nursing room bed for prolonged periods.
I forgot about bob Menendez. Give us your best virtue signalling outrage about his use of underage prostitutes !
You’re still on Russia?
Mueller is still on Russia, so yeah, I’m still on Russia. Mike Flynn pled guilty, so a lot of other people are going to be “on Russia” too. I predict Trump resigns for “health reasons” before all that happens.
donks forgive over time, too
“The Senate does have ethics rules. ”
Oh really. What are the Senate “ethics” rules on pleading guilty to leaving the scene of an accident where someone is drowning in the car you crashed. And not informing the authorities until the next day ?
Whataboutism isn’t going to get you anywhere with me. I cannot answer for the bullshit way Chappaquiddick was handled. Rich guys have been literally getting away with murder since forever. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT #METOO is trying to end, but you don’t seem to like it. Can’t please some people.
But that was then. This is now. If you weren’t OK with that, you shouldn’t be OK with Roy Moore either. Or Donald Trump. Or David Vitter. Or Clarence Thomas. Or do you only care if there is a (D) next to the guy’s name? If so, you are a partisan hack who shouldn’t be taken seriously by anyone.
I’m happy if all the molesters get burned down. Once people lose their illusions about their political “heroes”, they will be able to make better decisions about how much they want to be dependent on these douchebags.
I’m just stating the reality. If all the dirt is aired, and the candidate still gets elected, they are fireproofed until something new comes out.
Clarence Thomas. Case in point. ONE woman made claims against him, and if your narrative is correct, she was intimidated by his power and her future threatened. Yet, she followed him from job to job. I do not believe Anita Hill, and, and, if he had been a lesser man, he might have had his career destroyed by her lies.
I believe Anita Hill. Also, ever read one of Clarence Thomas’s opinions? Urgh. The man is not an asset to the Court.
Nobody who was objective believed Anita Hill. Not a single one of her co-workers supported what she said.
She was the first to realize that sexual harassment victimhood, true or false, could make her a celebrity, and she’s been dining out on it ever since.
I am afraid the Senate ethics guide lines require some hard evidence, not as much as ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’, but more like ‘preponderance.’ Then there is the issue of statute of limitations-it was 38 years ago- even if some corroboration/criminal element can be shown. The retraction of the yearbook-woman isn’t helping either…
Worst of all, even if Moore can be removed from Senate, looking at history of his political career, can we be sure that Alabamians will not re-elect him in 2018!!
My understanding is that Franken has not officially resigned.
Do you remember Franken’s original campaign? It was very, very close.
Minnesota can do better.
Really. You’re super worried about false accusations. Well, so far, all of the ones that I’ve heard about have proven true, in an avalanche of women and men who have come forward about the same men, over and over. WTF does “gender fluidity” have to do with any of it?
This is not a witch hunt. There really are that many powerful men who serially abuse people sexually. Their power has made them immune to accusations until now. How is it that you are not cheering for the downfall of someone like Harvey Weinstein? How is it that you are so so worried about this faux “moral panic” but not the actual immorality that is so pervasive at the highest levels of government and corporate power?
This is not a game. The inevitable conclusion, I hope, is that serial sexual abusers will be frightened enough to masturbate in a locked bathroom or the privacy of their own bedrooms like most people do. God.
It’s instructive that “Witch Hunt” is the standard metaphor for this sort of thing, since implicit in the usage is that witches don’t actually exist. That was the whole point applying the term to the anti-Communists in the 50s – to use the excesses of McCarthy and others to imply that the underlying reality (there really were Communists, they really did take orders from Stalin and they really did influence areas of American life) was somehow imaginary. In that context, it is a perfect American metaphor for the current frenzy – because yes, there is a real problem, and at the same time the response to it is conflating criminal conduct with a host of lesser transgressions. The broader the hysteria gets, the easier it is for the truly guilty to hide behind those who are being persecuted for behavior that most people in calmer moments see as (relatively) innocent. Not for the obviously guilty in the early stage – Weinstein isn’t getting his reputation back and the Rosenbergs were executed, but it very much serves the interest of the as-yet unrevealed guilty for the net to spread so broadly that it ultimately breaks under the strain and they can slip away quietly in the aftermath. You don’t have to theorize this outcome – it’s happened before.
Who do you think has been toppled who is innocent? Some of them, like Franken, aren’t so much monsters as run of the mill pigs. But if this were really the hysterical witch hunt you claim, then how is Trump still president? He’s admitted to sexual violence on tape. What about Roy Moore? Not only removed from office by his colleagues in the Alabama court TWICe, but also has nine women all telling the same story about him. He’s about to waltz in the US Senate. Last I checked, Clarence Thomas was still on SCOTUS. You’re not going to convince me that all of this is excessive when the men in the highest seats of power are known predators and no one is willing or able to do anything about it.
She says in the article that she agrees that some of these claims are probably true and that the men involved should be harshly punished. The problem is that there’s been an overreaction so that men who try to kiss woman are now having their careers destroyed.
I really wish I could get some actual examples. Yes, there are some horrible situations of men being falsely accused. Brian Banks and Emmett Till were mentioned, but you can bet your ass race was also a factor for them. Since the #MeToo movement, which is what this article is about, can you name a prominent man, a man in the news, who was fired for what was demonstrably a failed flirtation and not an attempt at coercion? I am ready to listen. And I am sure there will be false accusations at some point. However, the vast majority of these cases have multiple people (men and women) coming forward. That makes me much more likely to believe. If there is only one incident, then I have a hard time calling the person An Abuser.
Rupert Myers, Michael Fallon, Garrison Keiler.
Remember also that many untrue accusations don’t add up to a true one, and that many exaggerations don’t add up to a serious assault.
And that many of these people (esp. politicians) have a lot of people who want to bring them down.
PS– Life lesson. Do not try to kiss people while at work. Do not grab the genitals of people who are your work colleagues. Do not offer unsolicited back rubs. Do not grab breasts or asses. If someone wants you to touch them, the touch will happen in the context of a romantic scenario to which you have both agreed. Work ain’t the place for it. Why is that so hard to understand? This goes doubly if you are married, quadruply if the other person is married.
I’ve never tried to kiss anyone at work, personally, because I’d rather avoid emotional complications. But I know lots of people who’ve gotten together through work, and I’m sure occasionally it begins at work. I haven’t ever grabbed anyone’s genitals or breasts (at least not as a first move), but I have offered a back-rub once (though not at work) and then made out with the woman, who was an old friend who’d had a crush on me for months and had been waiting for me to make a move (as she later told me). As for that romantic scenario ‘to which you have both agreed,’ the key question is, ‘When and how is that clear?’ Granted, going up to someone and grabbing their breasts in the street isn’t an ambiguous case, as we can probably agree. Someone asking you to kiss them isn’t ambiguous either (though nowadays the question itself can be seen as harassment). But most sexual interactions begin in a grey area where neither party is quite clear what’s going on. If a man tries to kiss a woman, that’s not harassment or assault – it’s a come-on. It’s only bad if he insists after she makes clear she’s not interested.
I would just avoid romance at work. It’s a policy that has served me well, and I think more people should try it.
Sure, that’s your choice (and mine). But why rule out the place where a great proportion of people meet their partners (or even just people they have one-off flings with)? Weren’t our laws meant to protect our freedoms? If men are actually insisting when women make clear they’re not interested (after a certain point), that’s not on. But I don’t see why we suddenly need to ban normal sexual interactions from the place where people spend a third of their days.
Many workplaces do ban fraternization. Why? Because it makes for a drama-free(r) environment. I am not asking for a law about it. Merely speaking from common sense.
OK, I guess that’s their choice, although then I guess potential employees should also be free to apply elsewhere if that strikes them as not much fun. I also want to be ‘drama-free’ at work, so I don’t hit on colleagues. But here’s a very important point. If someone does hit on a work colleague, it may not be what we would do, but does that automatically make it ‘sexual harassment,’ accusations of which can have very serious consequences?
A lot of bullshit has happened under the guise of “fun.” Work is not the place to have that kind of “fun.” End of story. Women are just as bad as men with those boundaries. Everyone needs to pull up and change.
Says who? You? Why do you and a small minority of university-feminists in lefty cities get to decide how it’s going to be for everybody else?
I’m not a “university feminist.” I’m a woman who lives in a college town, and I think people have widely varying ideas of fun. The guy who jumped on me, pinned me, had to be burned with a cigarette to let me go, chased me into a women’s room, waited for me in hiding only to jump out again, and who was ultimately chased off by a male neighbor who responded only because I screamed his name… when I confronted him later, he said I should just get over it because I was “no fun.” I don’t think you’re not the right side of this, Sam. The default should fall to the person who is not having fun when this sexual conduct is happening. Your fun is not more important that another person’s right to be free of harassment.
There was a guy (damned if I can find the article or recall his name) who was an attorney in LA. Republican. He accompanied a school field trip for some public reason.
Shortly after that he was elected the head of the Republican Party in LA.
Shortly after THAT he was accused, in a front-page story in the LA Times, of having sexually molested one of the girls on the trip. According to the ‘well documented and sourced’ story he had sat next to the girl on the bus to the site of the field trip, engaged her in conversation, asked sexually explicit questions then stuck his hand between her legs. (The girl was wearing a mini-skirt.) The girl felt ‘humiliated’ and ‘shamed’ and ‘frightened’ and hadn’t told anyone what happened. (Sound similar to the Roy Moore thing?)
He was, of course, ousted as head of the Republican Party in LA, had to quit his law-firm, spent thousands, millions, fighting lawsuits, went bankrupt and that’s the last I’ve heard of him.
Sort of thing a pedophile deserves, right? Awful, awful person!
Problem: Turns out it was entirely fabricated. There were three teachers on the bus. He sat next to one the whole trip. (Thus could not have sat next to the girl.) Furthermore, all three teachers stated unequivocally that no-one not ‘associated’ with the school was allowed to have close contact with the students.
Your prescription for its ending thus does not work. Many men have committed suicide over these sorts of false accusations but they don’t matter. Only the Power and the Party matter.
There have been repeated examples of Republicans and Conservatives being ‘outed’ as ‘pedophiles’ and ‘sexual harassers’ and ‘rapists’ which turned out to be entirely false. (With a few that were not false at all, Packwood and Hastert come to mind.)
The fun thing is… I’ve tried and tried to find an example of a liberal/Democrat who was falsely accused. Many of the current accusations are not the sort of thing that should cause public humiliation but… I cannot find an example of a false accusation against a Dem much less one destroying a career.
Dozens of examples on the Right. One of the reasons that plenty of people in Alabama still support Moore. Most of the accusations have fallen apart very quickly, he was never banned from the Gadsen Mall for one example, and too often despite ‘numerous’ accusations they’ve all turned out to be bull. Ted Stevens is another example.
This isn’t going to go away soon and the damage is going to be severe. But the real damage, yes, is going to be to women. Nobody is going to be able to trust being around them, period, much less anything even slightly risque.
What was this guy’s name? Also, all school buses in my area have cameras on them, so your story is bullshit.
It sounds like it happened a while ago, the buses probably did not have cameras back then…
If you don’t have hard evidence, then I’m afraid by your own standards, it’s hearsay and I have no reason to believe it. Also, the statute of limitations has probably expired, so why are you being a hypocrite by bringing it up?
Testimony is hard evidence.
Not to mention that the point of that comment is not to accuse and punish the girl. It’s to show you that this crap happens more often than you think.
(Where have we seen this pattern of compulsive disbelief before? Oh yeah, women trying to report rape and sexual harassment a few decades ago!)
A few decades ago? How about as recently as last year?
Oh excuse me — you treat people reporting false rape accusations just as badly as others treat people reporting rapes last year. Got it.
“Treating them badly”? Who exactly have I treated badly? I’m trying to counter this “Whataboutism” that is the backlash to #MeToo. Yes, men have been falsely accused. People have been falsely accused since forever, and not just of sexual harassment. Look up how many people have been executed in the US, then posthumously exonerated via DNA evidence. This is not new. What is new is people being able to report sexual harassment and be believed instead of shamed and silenced. This sudden concern about false accusations feels contrived when it’s always been a problem. You brought up Emmett Till. How long ago was that? Do the white men who are now in a tizzy about #MeToo worry about people like Emmett Till? I’m guessing not much, and only as it regards gender, not whatsoever as it regards race.
But men have been convicted of rape for ages, and of sexual assault. There’s been a legal process for ages which is designed to look into serious claims and to reach a conviction if there’s no reasonable doubt than a man did it. The issue is that because men and women are often alone in the situations from which rape claims emerge, it’s often just impossible to find out the truth. Anyway, if there is evidence that assault has occurred the penalties are rightly harsh. What’s new about this movement is 1. the idea that we should bypass due process and just fire men and destroy their reputations as soon as allegations are made, without even investigating them and 2. the massive expansion of definitions of assault and harassment to include things like come-ons and knee-touching.
Yes, testimony is hard evidence. But look around this thread. Thirteen women who have accused Donald Trump– all dismissed as liars. Nine women who have accused Roy Moore– liars. Not good enough for these folks. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of Geoff Smith’s earlier claim that it’s “hard evidence or no conviction.” Thank you for arguing my point for me.
Did you have breakfast today? What about lunch? Has world hunger been solved?
What are these idiotic questions supposed to prove?
Your experience doesn’t invalidate others’.
Neither does yours.
Reminds me of someone I know who was instantly fired after a girl accused him of groping. Three years later, a jury found unanimously that she lied. Three years during which he didn’t get his job back and was ostracised by many former friends and colleagues. And, of course, even after the verdict, the stain remains on his reputation. Meanwhile, she still has anonymity.
“Also, all school buses in my area have cameras on them, so your story is bullshit.” Such certitude, a la “How did Nixon win? Nobody I know voted for him.”
IF you are able to read for comprehension, scroll up. Another person said, “These women’s accusations happened so long ago, they are no longer relevant.” So I mentioned that now, all school buses have camera, so if this accusation happened before cameras, then it’s too old to consider. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, right? Or no, I guess not. And irony is lost on those who haven’t read the whole conversation (or can’t).
The power for women to confront and hurt men’s lives is a negative-sum game, like the Salem witch trials, or the Reign of Terror.
That said, I’m waiting cheerfully for famous Leftists to share Robespierre’s fate. May Franken and Spacey be the first of many!
Hyperbolic much? No one had died. This is not mass murder. Put on your big boy underwear.
Good point – I agree. We shouldn’t exaggerate things. Men aren’t being executed, and women who have their knees touched aren’t being assaulted.
Here you go. This just happened. Read the article– several politicians lost their posts over one accusation. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/13/kentucky-republican-dan-johnson-death
This article is an eloquent plea for women to come to their
senses. The late sociologist of religion, Peter Berger, once posted an article
in his blog here about how the real political division in the US is not between
Republicans and Democrats but between business (the suits) and labor (the
slobs). But what we are now witnessing is another tendency. I have just read
that women Democrats in Congress are now calling on Franken resign. If this
keeps up, we will be witnessing a transformation of the Democrats into the
Women’s Party and a transformation of the Republicans into the Men’s Party.
(The chicks and the pigs?) Our political structure will then be the same as
many small scale societies that divide into a women’s world and a men’s world.
For various reasons this isn’t desirable. It would be much better if we had a
business party and a labor party. But this division of the political into male
and female realms might be the direction we are heading. I must say, however,
that if this were to happen, women would regret it.
Do you live in a parallel universe? 80% of Congress is male. Women are not even close to 50% representation in American government. There is no threat to men that the Democratic Party will become 100% female. How ridiculous. That’s what you’re worried about?
Except, 53% of white women voted for Trump. And, only 20% of Americans (not just women, but Americans total) consider themselves Feminists.
If the Warlock Hunt convinces men that Feminists can’t be trusted with power, well, that’s entirely reasonable.
That said — a lot of people with traditional values are pleasantly surprised by the return of Scandal as a thing, and believe that the pre-PC days of Common Courtesy should return.
No, it’s clear that men can’t be trusted with power. Wait a few years. You’ll be in the minority everywhere. Can’t wait.
You really are a hateful bitter little flabby troll aren’t you? Such vitriol you are the -definition- of why the radical SJW bridage needs to be crushed and subjugated. It is what you desire most to do to others. It was never really about equality with you all, it was about power and domination the very things you rail against.
Flabby? Do you have a palantir? How do you know what my body looks like? Look around this thread and see that I am one person, surrounded by dozens of vitrolic women haters. I have the flu, so I am recreationally dishing it back to them. Can’t handle it? Poor you. I do not seek power or domination. I seek equality of opportunity, and not just for women.
I see no women haters. I see a heckuva lot of people who take issue with your stances and, just as often, the abrasive way in which you take it.
And I do see someone who complains about personal attacks but readily uses them in virtually all her comments. Someone who belittles others for commenting on her posts but has a comment for almost everyone. Someone who whines about generalizations and the demeaning of women but has no problem doing the same to men. Someone who says “poor you” and only a few lines later takes a “poor me” approach. Literally has an answer for everything and so little of it is thought out or substantive, which is sad because I saw your first few posts and they were fairly articulate.
Hey, it’s been entertaining but it’s gotten old too.
Really, so him trying to describe my body is somehow relevant and receives no censure from you? Because he disagrees with me, I’m “flabby” and probably ugly? Yeah, OK, Ace. I have made remarks that advocate for EQUALITY. I don’t just slag off on men for being men. Yet here you are, giving me shit while people make incredibly personal comments about my appearance (how? no pics available, so these are just nasty comments for their own sake), my race (not stated, just assumed), my ethnicity (also never stated, just assumed, along with gratuitous anti-Semitic comments), death wishes, etc. This isn’t whining. It’s just facts. I am not upset by it. I am amused at how easy the simple-minded haters get riled up. Eventually, out come the insults.
I honestly don’t care about your slurs. If it’s getting old, block me. You are free to do it any time instead of letting my lack of substance get under your very thin skin. Run from challenging ideas. You’ve been allowed to do it your whole life because of who you are. Please, be my guest.
I agree that references to personal appearance are not relevant. You are right to point that out, DoB.
Your type has been saying that for years.
And yet, Trump.
And yet, Trump had more minority support than Romney.
Hardcore identity politics is a fad, and will fade and die.
I can wait, it’s all I have to do. 🙂
Yes, please do wait. In 2050, white people will be the minority in the US, and women will hold the majority of advance degrees. Cry then, little brother.
Whether “White” people are a minority in the country, is meaningless — see the debates about “whiteness”.
The fact is that the culture that (traditional) white people represent has a far broader appeal across (again, largely meaningless) racial lines than any Lefties believe.
By the way– if people who hold the majority of advanced degrees got there by Affirmative Action, (of if those degrees are in “-Studies” majors) the value of that advanced degree will be shot to hell.
The majority of degrees overall in the US are in business and business-related majors. As for “affirmative action,” I’m pretty sure you don’t understand how college admissions work.
Wow, nifty self-upvote there.
And I bet then you will conveniently end your complaint about those who have “power” have too much of it.
Sure, I suppose if we let in a million people from Poland and Russia into the US illegally and had programs for men-owned businesses and constantly harped about boys being accepted into STEM, being accepted at universities, and feeling “safe” there, I’m sure the demographics would change again. Guess which little sisters would be crying.
Hyperbole is not your strong suit. You are very poor at constructing meaningful analogies, and per your post above, you are getting tired of having me debunk your poor logic. It’s past your bedtime. Go lie down.
Coming from you, I take that as a compliment. Perhaps your inability to grasp the analogy may be the problem. I exaggerate to clarify.
Oh, were you debunking my logic? I hadn’t noticed. All I read was “This will all change and it will be better”. Yay, good argument.
Oh my, Sunshine. NO ONE can be trusted with power. And women are some of the most hideous offenders. I wake every morning thankful that the totalitarian termagant Hillary is not our president.
And Trump is not a totalitarian dotard? Whatever. So far, men have had the vast majority of power. Give women a chance to show how bad they are and justify your current, completely unsubstantiated claim that women can’t handle it.
The Women and Their Sidekick Blacks Party. The photo heading this essay says it all : white women leading, brown and black women providing diversity cred. No wonder black feminists hate them.
No, honey, black feminists hate YOU.
Hate is probably not helpful.
Republicans and Dems are more divided over married/single than they are over men/women. The idea that the Republican Party is just the White male party is really just propaganda.
I think what’s going on is the Kübler-Ross five stages of grief: those who mourn Hillary’s loss spent the first year in denial (attempt to overturn the electoral college, etc.) — now they’re in the anger stage, “purifying” the Democratic party with some crazy notion that the Republicans will then be forced to follow suit. (Hah! The Republican party is the last remaining refuge of the heterosexual white male.) So they’re going after the Democratic party’s biggest donors and supporters, especially H. Weinstein and G. Keillor (the latter for touching a woman’s back! I Ioved Keillor’s remark that over the years scores of women have groped his ass while having pics taken with him.) After the current anger stage will come bargaining, depression, and acceptance. But those with Trump Derangement Syndrome will never reach acceptance, so they can only hope to reach the depression stage, as those who hated Obama wallowed in for years, with only ‘House of Cards’ to give them consolation (b/c they could pretend Frank Underwood was the Prez!).
“The last remaining refuge”? You make it sound like a game preserve or a reservation in the middle of Oklahoma. The Republicans control the White House, House, Senate, SCOTUS, and the majority of state houses. Poor men, stuck with just the Republican Party and 80% of Congress! Are you for real right now?
I don’t like the Clintons. I don’t like Trump. Why? Because I don’t like rapists or their enablers. This probably means you and I can’t be friends either. Oh well.
Do you know WHY the GOP is in charge of the White House, House, Senate, SCOTUS, and the majority of state houses?
Look no further than the backlash against rabid, warlock-hunting SJW’s.
No, you have it backwards. Trump got elected (sort of, comrade). Then the backlash started. #MeToo is anti-Trump backlash, not the other way around. Try reading a newspaper. A real one.
Real newspapers have all gone bankrupt.
I may have overstated… The Wall Street Journal is still around.
SJWism predates the 2016 elections by quite a few years.
SJWism has nothing to do with 19 women, including one child, accusing Trump of sexual harassment or assault. He actually is just a fucking sexual abuser. Full stop.
I don’t know about Trump, but I think SJWism is definitely behind the #metoo movement. Or, to put it a different way, a minority of extreme feminists in universities have been allowed to redefine sexual assault and harassment and to reframe the terms of justice, so that women can accuse men of whatever, and there’ll be real consequences for the men without them even having a chance to defend themselves.
I really don’t think it’s been redefined. 90+% of the accusers have complained of coercive sexual acts that are unacceptable to reasonable people. You are shocked by who has done this and how many there are. That doesn’t make it false.
Rare good sense and penetrating, despairing wit from the luminous pen of Claire Berlinski. This essay alone is worth the price of a subscription to The American Interest. Shrewd observers have been noting for some time that the traditional [political categories of “left” and “right” have outlived their usefulness, so as lunacy overtakes the political world, may I humbly suggest (with a nod to Isaac Babel’s “Gedali”) an “International of Reasonable Men and Women,” with Ms. Berlinski as a charter member.
“The consequences will not just be awful for men. They will be awful for women.”
There you have it. What any man who isn’t an idiot already clued into. Speaking out against this feminist hysteria has already been a professional death sentence for years. It has already caused men to feel afraid, to self-censor, to second guess every thing they do, and to protect themselves by avoiding one-on-one encounters with women they don’t fully trust.
None of it has registered. Because unless it risks backfiring back onto women, nobody of import cares. Not one bit. There won’t be any moving media exposes. There won’t be vigorous public debate. It won’t be seared into the public consciousness with twitter hashtags or moralizing Youtube campaigns.
Sorry space bro, your shirt is oppressive and problematic. Sorry nobel science dude, your self-deprecating joke was triggering. Sorry Google tech-sperg, your rational memo lays bare the blatant and shameless hypocrisy, so you must go. But hello Lindsay Shepard, whose tears make her strong and stunning and brave, and who triggers an international storm overnight.
There’s your heartless patriarchy laid bare, your oppressive web of social constructs, your omnipresent cultural pressure that holds you down. Your privilege is that your unhappiness is seen as a social wrong, and irony of ironies, you take this concern as proof of oppression rather than luxury. “If you’re used to privilege, equality feels like oppression” turns out to be the biggest exercise in projection Western women could possibly have come up with.
Yes, and isn’t it interesting that, throughout her rather long article, she never once mentions the fact that women sexually harass and assault men too? For her, there is but a single type of perpetrator – male – and a single type of victim – female. As with domestic violence, that false construct is one of the many things that ensures that the problem will continue. And as surely as the problem continues, the moral panic she believes she’s bemoaning will continue as well.
The vast majority of rapists and sexual assaulters are men. There are male and female victims. There are also female perpetrators. They should be treated the same way that male perpetrators are. But unless you are infected with PC snowflake-ism, there is no reason whatsoever to dodge the fact that men do this a lot more than women do.
Actually the Centers for Disease Control disagrees with you. Its survey found equal numbers of women forcibly penetrated and males forced to penetrate. Even if men are more likely to sexually harass than women, is that a good reason to ignore male victims, which seems to be precisely the narrative being followed? More importantly, shouldn’t there be some form of due process of law before consequences follow? Colleges and universities are now finding that federal law requires exactly that and are paying a hefty price for their previous ignorance. Should elected officials receive less consideration than college freshmen? If your elected representative were accused of sexual impropriety by a woman, do you think he should withdraw from office based solely on that? If he admits to a minor infraction such as kissing a woman on New Years Eve, should he be removed from office? Is there any infraction too minor to merit the loss of a job or public office?
The CDC said that women commit rape just as often as men? Care to post that citation? Because based on this cite, you are spewing fake news:
I have not ignored male victims. I have been careful to say PEOPLE and include men as victims. The perpetrators are mostly male, regardless of the target’s gender. Facts. So you are throwing your fellow males under the bus when you defend rapists and harassers. Men are harassed and targeted by other men all the time, and men are much less likely to report it, because of people like you. Kevin Spacey has literally been erased from his most recent movie for harassing other men. So please, don’t give me this crap about ignoring male victims. It’s not true.
Al Franken did not resign until there were several allegations by different women. That’s the thing you keep ignoring. In all of these cases, there is a pattern. That’s because these men who get away with it once keep doing it. There is nothing particularly special to them about the people they target except that they have no respect for them and they believe they are entitled to behave as they have. They enjoy it, so they keep doing it. Rarely, if ever, is it a one time thing. It’s VERY difficult to get someone fired or removed over a single incident with no witnesses or DNA evidence.
You are being deliberately obtuse about what #MeToo is about. No one is going after a guy for one kiss on New Year’s Eve. That is a figment of your overheated imagination. This is chronic abuse by a minority of men who do it over and over. You should join with the people who have been harmed in condemning them. They make it bad for everyone else.
Actually, the CDC’s data does say that women commit rape against their intimate partners just as often as men do. More often, actually.
The trick is that, when it happens to men, the CDC doesn’t call it rape. It calls it “made to penetrate”.
You can check it yourself. Open the full report (https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/NISVS-StateReportBook.pdf) and see how many women were raped the year the year before the study, and how many men were “made to penetrate” during the same period.
Go on, we’ll wait.
This lie is boring. Already debunked upthread. You do realize that anyone can read the CDC website. I already quoted their percentages and definitions. Yours are faulty. Dismissed.
Sure, I realize that anyone can read it. And I’m counting on it! Here’s the newest one: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/NISVS-StateReportBook.pdf
On page 217 you can see the number of women raped during the previous year: 1,217,000. And if you go to page 222 you can see the number of men forced to penetrate during the same period: 1,949,000. Which you might notice is more.
Here’s the CDC’s previous study: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss6308.pdf
On page 5 you can see the number of women raped during the previous year (1,929,000) and the number of men forced to penetrate during the same period (1,921,000) which is roughly the same.
Here’s the one they did the year before: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf
On page 8 you can see the number of women raped during the previous year: 1,270,000. And if you go to page 19 you can see the number of men forced to penetrate during the same period: 1,267,000. Which again, is roughly the same.
Please do click the links and check whether or not these figures are real. I’m not talking to you, obviously, since you already “dismissed” every piece of data you didn’t want to know. I’m talking to anyone else reading this thread who might be interested.
Women, lifetime, contact sexual violence: 44,772,000
Women, lifetime rape: 23,616,000
Women, lifetime unwanted sexual contact: 34,233,000
Rape, male perpetrators only: 98.8% (23,333,000 victims)
Unwanted sexual contact, male perpetrators only: 92.6% (32,948,000 victims)
Men, lifetime, contact sexual violence: 19,858,000
MMen, lifetime, forced to penetrate: 7,230,000
Men, lifetime unwanted sexual contact: 12,028,000
Rape, male perpetrators only: 91.5% (total victims: 1,395,000)
Made to penetrate, female only: 76.5% (total victims: 5,463,000)
Unwanted sexual contact: 38.3% male perps (4,610,000 victims), 52.7% female perrps (6,344,000)
The numbers speak for themselves. ~5.5 million males were made to penetrate by women, and experienced 6.3 million acts of unwanted sexual contact by women.
Women experienced about 23 million lifetime rapes and 32 million acts of unwanted sexual contact perpetrated by men. So women are four times as likely to be victimized as men. Shall I explain it again, or have I proven my point? I can read data tables too.
No, you’re pretty far from proving your point.
Lifetime figures explain how things used to be ten, twenty, fifty years ago. But 12-month figures explain how things are now, which is what we are discussing.
Lifetime figures say that men used to rape more, but 12-month figures say that it’s not like that anymore. That is what Robert was saying, and that is what the CDC’s numbers say.
So next time you explain your point, make sure you mention 12-month figures too, and see how they fit your narrative.
No, lifetime figures tell about a LIFETIME. Not 20 just years ago, anything older than the past year. If you read the report and didn’t just cherry pick what you wanted, you’d see that most people who are raped, male and female, are raped before age 25. Sexual violence against the very young is a serious problem, and most of the perps of that are men.
Nice little magic trick you are trying to do, hand-waving away everything except the past year. Next, you should dig into murders, assaults that result in serious bodily injury, stalking, etc. See who commits most of those, and who is more often the victim. As Louis CK ironically said, the single biggest threat to women is men.
ETA: I’m glad more men are reporting assaults. Anyone who forces anyone to do anything should feel the consequences. I would never defend a woman who forced a man to receive unwanted sexual attention. I also do not defend women who are rape enablers like Hillary Clinton. I don’t see a similar unwillingness from you, though.
David’s right, the 12-month numbers are comparable.
You’ve come a long way, baby.
No, you have. Men finally admit when they are coerced. That is progress, and yes, you can credit people like me, who have believed victims all along and encouraged people (not just women, PEOPLE) to tell their truths. People like you, who think anyone who says something you don’t like is a liar, are the reason for the problem. Congratulations. Younger men aren’t buying your bullshit anymore, probably because their moms are women like me, who listen and believe people when they express difficult truths.
How exactly does that fit in with the narrative that women in the past have been basically powerless?
Women in the workplace have historically had less power. Women out at parties and walking along the street have less power, generally. When it comes to two people in a relationship, the power goes both ways, and in those situations, I can believe anyone might abuse anyone else. I’m sure women hit men just as often and men hit women. The only difference is, men are capable of hitting harder in anger, for the most part. So women get hurt and killed more.
You have never understood my narrative. Thanks for illustrating that, Jim.
Twist, twist, twist…
Are you dancing with yourself now? Let’s twist again, like we did last summer…
Safer than dancing with a woman these days!
You should have seen my mom’s left hook! My poor dad didn’t have a chance. Come to think of it, women didn’t need their fists. They could cut any man down with nothing more than their words. The power of life and death is in the tongue.
So according to you, men are less good at talking? Wow, another misandrist. Sad, all this internalized loathing you men carry around. The patriarchy has really done a job on you.
Stating that women are less good at lifting weights does not amount to misogyny. Similarly, stating that men are less good at talking does not amount to misandry. Regardless of whether these statements are true or false.
I don’t believe that men are less good at talking. Your comparison to lifting weights is a really lame false equivalence.
I’m not asking you to believe that men are less good at talking, or that women are less good at lifting weight. I’m asking you to lay off the “omg it’s misandry!!!11one” (or misogyny, by symmetry) hyperbole.
Then men can lay off calling me and other women misandrists. You talk shit about other men much worse than most feminists. Don’t want to look in the mirror? That’s your problem. I’m calling what I see.
Did you get out of the wrong side of bed this morning? I didn’t call you a misandrist. I am not “men”. Quit with the collective thinking. “Men” won’t lay off doing anything until individual men do. Speak to individual men; we’re not a homogeneous Other. I also didn’t “talk shit” about other men. What do you expect me to see in the mirror? I think you’re seeing ghosts.
You have to view it in the larger context of this conversation, where feminist = misandrist by default in many minds who post in the comments threads of these articles. And it is 99% self-proclaimed men doing it. Sorry my comment triggered you. I apologize for calling you a man.
You just can’t get away from collectivist thinking, can you? Instead of thinking as others in this thread as a homogeneous Other who all, to the last man, think “feminist = misandrist”, can you try – just try – to engage with individual opinions? We’re all stating our individual opinions here, so you have the information you need to do so, and have no need to collectivize people by their demographic. I am not the PR exec for Men Inc., and neither is anyone else in this thread. Get that into your collectivist skull.
Since you didn’t even mention the 12-month figures (let alone explain how they fit your narrative) I can only assume you’re not interested in continuing this debate.
If at some point you want to continue it, please feel free to mention those numbers.
I did talk about how they fit my “narrative.” You are the one who is concocting my narrative and then arguing against it, which is strawmanning and therefore dishonest debating.
Plus this is REPORTED data, which we know women under report.
I think everyone underreports. The question is, to whom are they expected to report? Why are people so afraid to report to these authorities? We both know the answer.
How much is under-reported? Some? ALL? None? So we pick a number in between based on the portentous precursor statement, “…which we know women under report”. In math such a quantity would broadly be called a variable. In statistics specifically if taken as an experience frequency it would be called “undefined”. Other terms for the value of that experience would be “unknown” or “undetermined”. For reported data meaningful values can be found. You are in tooth fairy country. Come back to us. Were down here on the ground.
Don’t forget, MORE MEN ARE RAPED THAN WOMEN. However, we laugh at it and make jokes. We think it is hilarious when men are anally raped. Don’t bend over to pick up the soap.
Yes, when you include the male rape victims in prison, there are almost 1/3 more male victims than women. But who cares? Me Too? Grow up! Be a man! And hey, it is just part of the punishment of going to jail….
Also? Try clicking on your own link and see what happens. We’ll wait. And the idiots who upvoted you without trying to click on your link are also morons.
“Nearly 1 in 5 women (18.3%) and 1 in 71 men (1.4%) in the United States have been raped at some
time in their lives, including completed forced penetration, attempted forced penetration, or alcohol/drug facilitated completed penetration.”
“An estimated 13% of women and 6% of men have experienced sexual coercion in their lifetime (i.e., unwanted sexual penetration after being pressured in a nonphysical way); and 27.2% of women and 11.7% of men have experienced unwanted sexual contact
“Approximately 1 in 21 men (4.8%) reported that they were made to penetrate someone else
during their lifetime.”
“One in 6 women (16.2%) and 1 in 19 men (5.2%) in the United States have experienced stalking
victimization at some point during their lifetime in which they felt very fearful or believed that they or someone close to them would be harmed or killed.”
“Nearly 1 in 2 women (44.6%) and 1 in 5 men (22.2%) experienced sexual violence victimization
other than rape at some point in their lives (Tables 2.1 and 2.2). This equates to more than 53
million women and more than 25 million men in the United States.”
“About 1 in 8 women (13%) reported experiencing sexual coercion in her lifetime, which translates to more than 15 million women in the United States (Table 2.1). Sexual coercion was reported by 2.0% of women in the 12 months prior to taking the survey. Six percent of men reported sexual coercion in their lifetimes (almost 7 million men)”
“Most perpetrators of all forms of sexual violence against women were male. For female rape
victims, 98.1% reported only male perpetrators. Additionally, 92.5% of female victims of sexual violence other than rape reported only male perpetrators. For male victims, the sex of the perpetrator varied by the type of sexual violence experienced. The majority of male rape victims (93.3%) reported only male perpetrators. For three of the other forms of sexual violence, a majority of male victims reported only female perpetrators: being made to penetrate (79.2%), sexual coercion (83.6%), and unwanted sexual contact (53.1%). For non-contact unwanted sexual experiences, approximately half of male victims (49.0%) reported only male perpetrators and more than one-third (37.7%) reported only female perpetrators.
So you can see, for the vast majority of victims of sexual violence, men are the perpetrators. Women are not innocent. There are women out there whose comeuppance is on its way, I hope. But there are far, far, far more men who are guilty of this.
I hope this puts your lies to bed for good.
Do dem figuures plead also them times when womyns get preggers with other chilens & also when dey plop them babies out without the consent of de men? How bout them figurs? Are dey real? Rape of Burnward better get her wand readies that is the them nest wave cummin.
Women are not bees. They cannot create offspring without male help. Men who do not want to have babies can provide their own condoms. They can get vasectomies. They can abstain from intercourse. A man’s right to choose ends at the end of his dick, More men should be conscious of that and take steps to prevent conception. In my experience, they leave the birth control up to women, or would actively prefer to forego condoms. Take care of yourselves, boys.
Blah blah blah.
Don’t like when the responsibility for reproduction is put onto you, eh? Then you are not the victim. There are remedies available.
What is unpleasant is your need to control space. Creep.
You my friend are a boorish piece of fuck as fucking stupid as any 17 yr old guy. Get a sex change asshole be honest.
What are you the slimy editor here?
I thought wrongly that if I deleted my comment it would erase your bullshit. Guess not.
I love watching a snowflake lose her shit when presented with facts!
Lose my shit? No, sweetheart. This thread full of men with the vapors that they won’t be able to grab ass freely anymore are the ones losing their shit. Here’s the facts. Read ’em and… resemble them, probably.
Actually, this thread is clearly being dominated by yet another misandrist pile of sh*t trying to pretend that she isn’t. ESAD, honey, we ain’t buyin’ that load of manure anymore.
You need to reread the article, VI.
>No one is going after a guy for one kiss on New Year’s Eve.
This is a LIE! YES THEY ARE GOING AFTER MEN WHO MADE A PASS AT WOMEN DURING A CHRISTMAS PARTY much less stole a kiss. You are dissembling and deceptive.
>This is chronic abuse by a minority of men who do it over and over.
This is chronic abuse by a minority of WOMEN who make false accusations over and over again.
You can shout all you want. I would like to see a citation. Please post a link.
You may well be right.
I suspect Ms. Berlinski felt it best to focus on the moral panic as it stands — with male perpetrators and female victims. Especially as she seems to be addressing mainly the women who can accelerate this moral panic — or stop it.
Who cares where the largest number of perps are. A victim is a victim. Some people have difficulty holding men as victims in the same brain that holds men as perpetrators. It’s a real problem, I’m not belittling it, but lets acknowledge that it’s a limitation of our brain, not a limitation on victims rights (or sympathies). This is a great article, AND there is more to say.
Who do you think doesn’t want to listen to men who report victimization or believe them? Do you think it’s women, belittling male victims of sexual assault? Are most police officers male or female? What about most ER doctors? What about most CEOs and heads of HR? Believe me, your problem with men feeling safe reporting abuse isn’t coming from people like me.
The point was that gender aught to be irrelevant as to who is a recognized victim. It’s no more relevant as to who isn’t listening to victims. The notion that men target women because they are superior leaves the question as to why men target men why women target men but of course and of course why women target other women in greater percentages than men target women.
Women target other women for what in greater percentages?
Women target other women in higher percentages for sexual assault and harassment in intimate relationships than men target women for sexual assault and harassment in intimate relationships.
Google, “rate of Lesbian domestic violence”. The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge study. It’s the largest compilation in existence. http://www.domesticviolenceresearch.org/
Yes, it’s pretty clear that’s it’s men who under-report things like domestic violence and touching. Women are constantly being told it’s sexual harassment whenever a man touches you or gives you a compliment. Men aren’t. Men are even trained not to do anything when a woman hits them.
Men are taught to suck it up, women are taught to call police.
Nowadays they are being schooled to report their difficulties on social media or go to the press. The police seem to have gone out of the loop. It is the public claim that matters. Hence the hysteria.
Yeah, presumably (hopefully) if they brought it to the police the police would know enough to tell them that being touched on the knee isn’t sexual assault. And while they would I hope take serious claims very seriously, they would also know that serious claims need to be proven in a courtroom and that due process needs to be followed.
I acknowledge that both are victims. You don’t see me denying that men get hurt, do you? Or telling men who don’t report their attacks weak? Or telling them not to cry about it? Or implying that how they were dressed or acted caused them to be attacked? No, that’s the men in this thread.
You keep making my point for me, Duke. Gender is not the deciding factor in how we behave. Yet, #MeToo is all about women’s victimization. Men are reporting, some of them openly, some just in the confidence of their therapists offices. It used to be difficult for women to report their abuse at the hands of men. It always was and still is almost impossible for men to report and be taken seriously, or, not be arrested themselves. But at the bottom, the very bottom of the list of believable victims are the women being abused at the hands of other women. They don’t even get therapy. They know better. Why, because there is a universally accepted narrative of women victim, man perpetrator. So, Duke, you’ve been stating that you’re not blaming men. Now may be a good time to stop drinking the cool aid, and think about abuse as human relationship issue.
TO WHOM are men afraid of reporting these things? Do you know how many men and boys have confided in me about their abuse? I had to sit in with a student while he told about his abuse because he couldn’t deal with having his parents in there. I had to listen to it. He came to me. I know there are a lot of men carrying this around. But believe that these men are not afraid of female judgment. They are afraid of men who will shame them and belittle their suffering. Trust.
School teachers and teenage boys?
What about them?
“The vast majority of rapeists and sexual assaulters are men“
Um, nope. That is a lie. I’m too smart to believe what is PROVEN to be a lie. How’s that lie working out for us? Are you getting men to change, or are then going to shun you like you deserve?
I wish men would shun me, except for a select few. Really.
Yes, Ms Berlinski didn’t mention female harassment of males — for the same reason you don’t put out a fire by adding fuel. Read it again, and this time try to remember she’s on your side.
I understand she’s on my side and I appreciate her remarks as far as they go. That doesn’t mean she gets everything right and the omission of any concept of male victimization is a rather gaping hole, don’t you agree? It also strongly reinforces the narrative that’s being relentlessly forced on us, i.e. that this is, yet again, a male perp/female victim phenomenon. That’s no way to fix whatever needs fixing.
She doesn’t have to be right 100% of the time on all things, it’s an impossibility and should be no standard to which to hold anyone. She doesn’t mention female-on-male sexual assault because one, the statistics are so one-sided that your what about argument is fallacious; two, she does tally about the ambivalence between courtship and perforated assault in the article, which you must have skimmed; and three, was not even remotely the point of the article, which is about the modern culture falling for another moral panic.
No, the data aren’t that one-sided. CDC publications indicate 5.6% of women and 5.3% of men reporting sexual assault, harassment, etc. of one sort or another in the previous 12 months. The reason many datasets don’t record male victimization is that the surveys don’t ask the question. I agree that she can write anything she wants, but, by ignoring even the concept of female-on-male sexual assault/harassment, she perpetuates the universal narrative that this is only a male perpetrator/female victim phenomenon. That narrative strongly suggests not a desire to solve a problem, but to punish men, even innocent ones and those whose transgressions are minor.
Recent studies show that things are not nearly as one-sided as we thought: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sexual-victimization-by-women-is-more-common-than-previously-known/
“The omission of any concept of mail victimization” is done on purpose to futheir their evil narrative. It is a lie by omission, done on purpose,and it needs to stop!
Every man in this society today should search the term MGTOW. It’s the future of men’s society which will finally properly answer feminism resolutely.
You are correct, except men are too stupid and ‘pussy-whipped’!
There I said it. The truth hurts don’t it?
Women always want what they can’t have. All you have to do is not be a little bitch and make them work for every second of your valuable attention.
I’ve got great hope for robotics and AI… may be coming just in time, in the interim, the Pence Rule will do just fine…
‘cept I like to hug ’em and kiss ’em and fuck ’em and make love with ’em. Damned if you do, also damned if you MGTOW…
Oh we still do all the above, we just don’t feed the female ego while we’re doing it. You forget, women are as biologically wired for sex as we are. You just haven’t figured out how to get what you both crave without being bogged down by feminist gate keepers.
How do women get to have sex without feeding the bloated male ego?
Um… They could simply walk up to a guy and say ” Hey buddy I’m horny, wanna smash”? No ego’s were fed in that statement. Are women not empowered enough to get what they want?
Yes, be voluntarily celibate. I fully endorse this. Withdraw from society. Bye.
Haha. Do you really want to know why I get more sex than you?
Jesus Christ, you and Kronk aren’t doing this article any favours.
Grow a pair. Do you think a woman’s going to respect you if you can’t even stick up for your own basic sexual needs? They have a word for women who go for guys like you who “feel” they have to apologize for their own gender… Their called unicorns!(because they don’t exist)
Who talks like this?
We’re called real men . You apparently aren’t one of us.
If I heard someone speaking like you in real life I’d be sure I was in the presence of a frustrated virgin.
You would be outside of your bi coastal liberal bubble.
She’s only bring this up because it is negatively effected women. If it only happened to men she wouldn’t care.
That is ridiculous. She blatantly defends men in general in this piece.
Really? You are neieve my friend. Very much so. You must be new to ‘the war on men’. Those of us who have been around understand her tactics; she sees her gravy-train FINALLY coming in to the station! And it’s about damn time! Lots of other feminists are following suite and all I can do is laugh and say TOO FUCKING LATE BITCH!
You are absurd.
Give the man a cigar!
If she were on our side, she would also be far more direct on how FALSE accusations are leading some women to take advantage.
If I do wrong, I deserve to get slapped to some extent. But some women are conflating mole hills into mountains, or likely in the case of Trump et al, making stuff up out of whole cloth for political purposes.
This is far more pernicious than most of what is going on. And she needs to call women out on that as well.
The accusations against Trump pre-date his involvement in politics. Suits were filed well before he was ever a candidate, which disproves your claims that ALL the allegations against him are made up just for political purposes.
The onus, just like that of Bill Clinton, also went through the cleansing blood of the electorate. They weighed his sins and found them mostly irrelevant, just like Bill (Pantsless) Clinton that first time.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Except for the whole Russian thing, yeah.
Where is that evidence again? So far, all we have is Hillary and Obama signing off on selling Russia Uranium. We have a lot of INSINTUATIONS. Hard evidence…not so much. So when you get that, go ahead and let us know. So far you have a huge nothing burger which pretty much shows some Democrat paid Oppo Research was used as an excuse to illegally wire tape Trump and his people.
So I am enjoying all of this immensely.
Yawn. God, no wonder women are so pissed off.
Incentivized to be discontent by rabble rousers such as yourself, preying on their petty annoyances and dissatisfactions.
Pissed off at men seems to be their default setting.
Add a dollop of Lesbian Feminist Misandry and the dial goes up to 11.
Mike Flynn pled guilty. Paul Manafort is in deep shit. The hits just keep on coming, but you aren’t going to believe it, ever, so no reason for me to expend energy trying to convince you. Sad, how shoddy your allegiance to America is.
So…you got nothing on Trump. The fact that you don’t realize that DAs can extort testilying from some witnesses is it’s own blind spot.
I’m pretty sure Mike Flynn has some dope on Trump, considering it was Trump’s election specifically that triggered his meeting with the Russians. He was texting during the freaking Inauguration. Manafort– who hired him? Trump fired him on the strong advice of the Mercers. You going to tell me Big Man didn’t know who his campaign manager was working for? Really?
So you feelz that Flynn has something. That is not the same as evidence. IIRC, the charge is ‘lying to the FBI’ without any underlying crime.
Unlike you, I want the process to work. However, it increasingly seems like Mueller’s whole operation is biased and questionable.
So IF you believe in the rule of law, maybe we recuse his team and put in a new team who haven’t given TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS to the Hillary campaign (on a Federal salary no less!) If you want to have a fair seeming investigation.
However your devotion to truth and fairness seems incredibly predicated on ownership of a (D) next to the name and a (V) between their legs.
Just wait. If Mueller is allowed to finish his job, you’ll see.
The question is what is his actual job: to correctly and legally investigate allegations…or to be a full bore member of the Resistance, intent on destroying or discrediting Trump.
I will allow him the former, but not the later.
He is doing his job. Just let him do it and stop being a hysteric.
Hey VI, you keep finding fools gold and thinking its gold. You need to focus on the corrupt American hating obama and clinton.
Don’t tell me what I need to do. Obama and the Clintons are not government office holders, but nice try at whataboutism. Yawn.
Hey snowflake I do get to tell you what to do because that’s what you asshole SJWs try to do all the time. Although you are all broke, stupid, incompetent, and crybabies. And thank God Jug Ears and the Bitch are no longer office holders but still corrupt and guilty of crimes against the American people. Hang them all. PS your momma said to clean up the basement esp the bathroom.
Hey, cupcake, I am very far from broke. My workplace rating is highly competent. My mother is dead and has been for decades. You really need to stop day drinking.
Hey jackass, you are mentally and emotionally broken. And I doubt you have or have ever had a real job. Sorry about your mother’s suicide but I can understand it having birthed you. You need to stay on your meds and stop your sexual self abused. So go back to elementary school, try to pay attention this time and learn something and get back to me when you grow up. I don’t have the time, energy or patience to fix stupid and you are way beyond stupid.
Because Obama and the Clintons are no longer government office holders, they can be tried in regular, federal court, convicted, and either imprisoned or executed.
Yes, and was that done to Richard Nixon? Scooter Libby? No? Just Democrats, then? And no worries about the foreign-influenced sitting president we have? Because he’s a Republican and you like them? You’re a hypocrite with mental problems. Seek help.
So you were outraged when Prince Teddy met with the Soviets during the run up to Reagan’s election?
Yeah, I thought so. Those folks were communists and that makes them OK.
The indictments had NOTHING to do with Russia. The only Russian connection to the campaign is Hillary, the FBI, and the Democrats conspiring to spring an “insurance policy” on a sitting President in order to damage the country.
So let me get this straight. It is TREASON for Trump Jr. to meet with a Russian lawyer to dig up dirt on an opposiiton candidate. It is so bad that Trump should be impeached. However, the very next day it is….Opposition Research and everybody does it when Hillary pays MILLIONS to Russian lawyers to dig up dirt.
Trump calling news organizations reporting biased and false news “fake news” is a “threat to the Constitution” but the media trumping false stories, lying about a President, making up and drumming up bullcrap…well, that is “perfectly legitimate.”
Screw off. You people are ridiculous.
Both Mike Flynn and Paul Manafort were working as agents of foreign governments while working for the Trump campaign (Turkey and pro-Russian Ukraine, respectively). Failure to disclose that is a crime. It also strongly suggests that Flynn and Manafort’s employers, which were foreign governments, had special influence on the Trump campaign. The FBI has stated definitively that the Russians DID influence the US election. Manafort specifically has received large amounts of money from pro-Putin Russian interests.
This is so not just about lying to the FBI. This is about working for foreign governments while working for a candidate who would be president. If this were true of Barack Obama… just imagine what your reaction would be. Would you be OK with it if Obama’s campaign manager had been laundering millions of dollars he got while working for China? Then lied to the FBI? Would you believe Obama if he claimed ignorance of this relationship, even if China had demonstrably helped him win an election? A very fucking close election?
If you think you’d be peachy keen with it if Obama did it, cool. If not, you’re a hypocrite.
You also do not understand how the first amendment works. The press has a very wide latitude in what it is allowed to publish. The Star, Enquirer, and various trash mags publish bullshit all the time. It’s LEGAL and ALLOWED. What is not OK is for the GOVERNMENT to infringe on their right to publish, to punish them, or to attempt to harm people from exercising their right. See, there is a big difference between what a media outlet is allowed to do and say and what the president is allowed to do and say, because the government is restricted by the Constitution– another document you should read for comprehension, if you can.
DukeofBurgundy The Badger • 6 days ago
“Except for the whole Russian thing, yeah.”
There is no “Russian thing.” Never was. That was just something Obama made up, in order to nullify the election. But you knew that.
The FBI thinks differently. Ask Paul Manafort about the Russia thing.
Dude, the guy’s a billionaire. Yes there are chippies going for the gold.
Suits were filed, yes, but they were filed for breach of contract, not sexual harassment or assault. Breach of contract is when Trump promised something to the woman, and then failed to deliver on his written or oral contract. In both cases, he paid out, which means he either wanted the suit to go away or he did it. But nowhere in any of the suits did it mention sexual harassment or assault. I’m guessing, but he probably promised to invest in their business or hire them for a job, and then after getting what he was after, didn’t do those promised things. But if a woman is sleeping with a man in order to “get” something in return…well, that’s the oldest profession in the books.
False. Jill Harth:
If you have been sexually assaulted and raped, you go to the police, not file a suit in federal court. This was extortion, and if you read on, it states she dropped the lawsuit that coincided with a breach of contract lawsuit by her boyfriend. It also says this: “Potentially confusing matters further, the woman appears to now be a
supporter of Trump’s campaign for the White House. She told the website
Law Newz this week that she would be voting for Trump. “I saw him
[Donald] recently, and he said I looked good,” the website reported her
as saying. “I have nothing but good things to say about Donald.” And this…”Before her lawsuit was unearthed by the legal news website this week,
the woman’s public Facebook page displayed photographs of her with Trump
and posts favourable to the property developer and reality television
personality. These were no longer visible after Wednesday.” Does this sound like a woman who was assaulted and potentially raped or a woman out for money?
She TOTALLY speaks of false accusations! WTF are you going on about? Re-read the damn article!
You’re all still grousing that she didn’t write the column you want someone to write. I don’t deny any of the points you are making, but that doesn’t negate her own point — which is that even somebody who does deny your points should nevertheless find something deeply disturbing and even frightening about how this is playing out.
She’s not on your side. “The law will decide whether the accused are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but I don’t require such arduous proof: I’m already convinced that Roy Moore is a sexual predator and so is Bill Clinton. Neither my certainty nor anyone else’s should be allowed to displace the law. I may be convinced, but I might also be mistaken.”
The very length of the article tends to suggest that she is being reasonable, being sane in a world now gone mad. The article continues to detail how things are right now – – at great length. She does say, “Mass hysteria has set in. It has become a classic moral panic, one that is ultimately as dangerous to women as to men.” She quickly adds,“In recent weeks, I’ve acquired new powers. I have cast my mind over the ways I could use them. I could now, on a whim, destroy the career of an Oxford don…”. She then does the summing up, “I will be believed—as I should be.”…This is a power I do not want and should not have.” Yet she has that power as does every woman who chooses to exercise it. Even if she will not do so, inappropriately, others will. That is the message here. She is stating the conditions on the ground at this time.
“These reservations aside, I am gratified that at last we all agree that a rapist—or a serial groper of random women’s genitals—should be behind bars, not the Resolute Desk. It was outrageous and unjust that we ever thought otherwise.” When have “we” ever thought otherwise? Methinks the lady doth protests too much. She would have us believe she talks about a hysteria out of control when it sounds as if she is similarly afflicted, perhaps as in a cold to the flu.
Donald Trump even got named as a contributing cause to the atmosphere that makes us poor “panic prone” humans launch ourselves into hysteria. I hope she had a good time getting it all out. Not many media authors get to go on at such length for publication. If size matters perhaps the hysteria is such that equal description is required. I do notice that her final concern is for the women who may do harm to themselves.
I think that recognizing that harassment is a problem on both sides might actually help the situation — emphasizing that everyone has something to gain by stopping it.
This is exactly right. The national narrative right now isn’t that men are victims of sexual harassment. There was only one male victim in Time’s “The Silence Breakers” article and he was approached (for lack of a better term at the moment) by Kevin Spacey. Mentioning that this is a two way street isn’t just a losing argument, its just exacerbating the warlock-hunt narrative. It would’ve been tactless for her to mention a double standard like that.
That makes no sense in the slightest and you don’t fool me at all. As well, she is NOT ON MENS SIDE and I invite you to read the first 3 paragraphs again as feminists like her love to slam all males!
I happen to have a good grasp on ireality; you could too in time, if you work at it…
Among my circle of friends, I only know two families who have experienced spousal abuse. In both families, the woman physically assaulted her husband in criminally egregious ways. Neither man hit back.
The big IPV studies show that 50% of intimate partners batter each other. This is called mutual battery. Of the remaining 50% of intimate partner violence 70% of the time it is the female striking the male without reply. In 30% of cases it is the male striking the female who offers no defense. In one line…
For IPV: 50%=Mutual battery, 35%=Female on Male Battery, 15%=Male on Female Battery.
Um… maybe because that wasn’t the topic of the article.
True enough. I hit the trifecta: abused at 8 by an older female relative (as the male, I was blamed and put into coercive therapy, she played the victim, of all things, and got off scot free), I’ve been heavily sexually harassed by a boss who was the most unattractive woman I’ve ever seen (which brings to mind the fact that one woman’s suitor is another’s stalker – the ONLY difference being whether she finds him attractive), and I’ve been stalked by a possessive psycho ex-girlfriend. Power corrupts – as we’re seeing with men, and now, with women, who have the power to ruin men’s careers now with a few well-chosen words.
How idiotic. Really. Has anyone every anywhere been fired because someone didn’t like his shirt? Or for a self-deprecating joke? No. You’re full of it. It’s not about “unhappiness.” It’s about not having your body touched without your permission. It’s about not losing out on career opportunities you’ve worked years for because you don’t accept someone’s sexual advances.
Men feel afraid. Oh, boo hoo. What are you afraid of? Do you touch people without permission? Have you showed someone your dick before even going out on one date? Do you punish people who won’t fuck you? No? Then you have nothing to worry about. Most men have nothing to worry about. Women have been trying to avoid encounters with men they don’t fully trust since… forever. Even that is not foolproof, as women are often raped or assaulted by men in their social or work circles, or god forbid family.
Do you feel uncomfortable? Well, now you have a sliver of understanding what it’s like to be a woman. Now try being a little scared every time you go on a date, walk to your car alone at night, etc. Then get back to me.
“Has anyone every anywhere been fired because someone didn’t like his shirt? Or for a self-deprecating joke? No.”
You might want to read about Nobel prize winner Sir Tim Hunt. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/06/15/nobel-laureate-tim-hunt-says-he-was-forced-to-resign-i-have-been-hung-to-dry-by-academic-institutes/?utm_term=.658564258bd0
I don’t think the comet guy was fired but it was disgusting the ritual auto de fe he had to go through because some mindless millenial journalist who can’t even spell ‘comet’ got ‘triggered’ by his shirt.
Even his (female) boss was clearly unhappy about the situation (having to force him to apologize, not the shirt) but she went along with it.
Women are their own worst enemies.
No. Men are women’s worst enemy. Facts:
NOW we are getting somewhere. The gloves come off and the truth comes out. Congratulations.
Ironically, the people I love the most in the world also happen to be men.
No, you might want to read about him. He doesn’t think women should be in the sciences because men and women who work together must screw, inevitably, and then the women cry because they are crappy at science. What a douche.
Women can’t do science. That’s your final answer. Wow. And people wonder why women are angry at men. Keep it up, but don’t cry about it when women hit back at last.
Let’s stop with the generalizations on both sides. There is no reason to act is if one guy’s comments about women reflect all men’s views. Similarly, there is no reason for one guy to believe that his negative experiences with the opposite sex is adequate to condemn all women. I agree with a number of your arguments, but it is actually profoundly problematic to condemn people without due process or to leave their judgment to the court of public opinion.
Define “condemn.” I can condemn whatever genuinely offends my conscience and I don’t need your approval for that. I don’t have the power to hire or fire anyone. I have withheld my vote from candidates that I believed were sexually violent and I do not regret it. If you’re going to start with #notallmen then we can descend into tired whataboutism that is rampant. Scroll through this thread. It’s me in here, by myself, surrounded by misogynists. I close this browser window more convinced than ever that very little has actually changed in hearts and minds.
You are not surrounded by misogynists. There are a few misogynistic comments, certainly, but there are others, too. This is a weird forum anyway. It’s not a good sample of society or anything else. Having said that, I have enjoyed conversations with a few people here. You may not get many upvotes, but you can always upvote yourself (as you have apparently discovered lol).
If you are a scientist, make a chart. Tick off how many of these comments express over the top fear, loathing, condescension, lies about, or condemnation of women. The vast majority. This is a weird forum, but it seems like every comments section of everything is like this. Also, you can’t really perceive misogyny accurately unless you are a woman, honestly. It’s easy to be dismissive of my feelings from where you are.
But you don’t know where I’m coming from. The problem with focusing on allegations against Clinton or Trump is that it distracts from what Trump is actually doing in office. I started responding to you because when asked what Trump had done to hurt women, you only discussed the allegations against him as a man. You did not discuss some of the policies women might find objectionable, such as changes to the ACA’s birth control coverage mandate, funding cuts to the NIH, or his executive order to revoke part of the 2014 Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces order. The other stuff should be adjudicated in a court of law, but what he’s doing as part of his job is what matters to the citizens he serves. The other stuff distracts from what distinguishes him from the likes of Clinton. Even if you thought Clinton was a pig, which is debatable, he was not a vapid politician and his goals did not amount to turning the presidency into lowbrow reality television. The man was sharp (arguably one of the sharpest presidents we’ve had in recent years). Like or hate his policies, he could justify his decisions and leave the impression that he actually knew something. The same cannot be said for Trump.
I agree with you, and I did mention what Trump was going to do to hurt women, policy-wise, starting with SCOTUS. Maybe not to you, but it’s hard to keep track of where I said what to whom.
Despite having your settings private, it was not hard to determine that in the past you have claimed to be a man and a teacher focusing on English. How have you morphed into a female in the science field here? An actual woman would like to know.
“DukeofBurgundy • 2 years ago
You get an AMEN from this choir member. I work full time as a teacher, and spend much of my free time reading teenagers’ writing and writing my own curriculum. I have kids and I can’t write until they go to bed or are out with their other parent. Yet I still completed NaNoWriMo (the novel wasn’t very good), write at least a story or poem per week, and dream someday of being the next Ray Bradbury or Neil Gaiman. Pipe dream. I have no MFA. I have no connections. I’m just a working dude with a keyboard. So screw me. :(”
You assume “dude” means I’m a man? Wow, get a grip. Also, show me where I said I was a scientist. I have written in the sciences, as I write freelance in a wide array of subjects. My bachelors degree is in the sciences. But I find your desire to know so much about me… creepy.
Uh oh, there’s that “creepy” shaming tactic. Better run for the hills for daring to look up her bona fides.
Sorry, act creepy, get called creepy. Don’t be creepy.
I find people who have hidden comment histories to be creepy, which is why I looked this dude’s history through Google.
The comments are related to your behavior, not the content, because your behavior is rude and insulting.
I disagree. Look at the OTT insults about the most inane things, like my appearance, which no one can see, my race, which no one knows, my ethnicity, also unknown, etc. Now tell me how my comments have “deserved” that. People love to tell you how much you “deserve” the crap you get. I can’t roll my eyes hard enough at you. You want me to be the model of decorum while swimming in this sea of filth? Give me a break. I’m saying things you don’t want to hear, so of course, to you, I deserve whatever hate I get. Good thing my need for your approval is zero.
You’re not by yourself. I’m right here with you. I have been raped more than once, the first time at the age of 15 by someone I thought I could trust. I have also behaved in a predatory way with men when drunk. 15 years into recovery, I am ashamed of and regret these actions but believe me, they bear no resemblance to the penetrative rapes and serious sexual assaults I have experienced. I don’t think the men I came on to were frightened for their lives. I think they were embarrassed and at times very uncomfortable. I never said to any man while lying on top of him and overpowering him with my superior strength, ‘If you struggle, I will strangle you.’
Thank you for braving this cesspool to comment.
How many woman in STEM are NOBEL laureates?
12 in Physiology or Medicine, 2 in Physics, 4 in Chemistry. Marie Curie won two of them, one in Physics and one in Chemistry. What’s your point? Have you won a Nobel prize?
I rest my case.
What’s your case?
He has no case. “There haven’t been any, so there never will be or should be” is hardly logical, but then, I have a feeling he’s not a scientist. Just a garden variety misogynist.
The funny thing is that only 5 Chinese citizens have ever won the Nobel prize. Are there so few good Chinese scientists out there? I don’t think so. Eight of the top ten students in one of my introductory college Physics courses were Chinese. Also, when you consider less than 900 people have ever won the prize in any field in all of history and there are billions of people on the planet, there are a lot of people who don’t measure up, including mathematicians, for whom there is no prize.
I don’t mean to reply to this comment specifically, just to you and your conversations here generally: these and other subjects/discussions often remind me of an old saying from an old book “in the last days… [people] will be… not open to any agreement”, and also “headstrong”.
Maybe you’ve noticed in your chats, that it seems so hard to iron out any differences in opinion. Or to take a heated conversation to a place where you can get some common ground with the other person. I find this very sad, and I don’t consider myself innocent of it.
When there are people in this thread calling me a genocidal POS, an evil cunt, urging me to commit suicide, postulating that I am fat, ugly, undesirable, unloved and unloveable, telling me to fuck myself sideways with a swordfish, etc., then yeah, very little way to have a decent convo. People who approach conversation rationally get rational responses. Few and far between, sadly.
It’s quite obvious what his case is.
His case is that he’s a sexist. Is that your problem?
If you didn’t figure it out, keep studying.
How recently have women had parity in science undergrad and grad programs? American women couldn’t even vote a century ago. Give women time to catch up to millennia of undereducation. Having Nobel laureates who are obviously sexist bigots isn’t helping anything. It doesn’t help you either, because for all you know, the person who discovers the cure to whatever will kill you is a woman.
Are you referring to Tim Hunt? Honestly, he said something dumb. Pressuring him to resign seems extreme, if that did in fact happen. Also, I have no problem with men winning the majority of Nobel prizes if their work merits that recognition. The emphasis should be on everyone having the opportunity to win. More important, we need to encourage people to take jobs in science. Period.
He said something dumb, but don’t you think that underlying the pressure to resign was his belief, probably oft demonstrated, that women and men cannot work together without fucking, and that women are too emotional to do science? I bet he pissed off a lot of people along the way with that attitude. And that’s how it goes. You act the ass for years and years, complacent in your success and power. Then you get sloppy, blatant, and fall afoul of the zeitgeist.
I beg you to see the bigger picture. You can point to Tim Hunt and say “LOOK HOW UNFAIR OMG FEMINAZIS ARE OTT AND MUST BE STOPPED!” But then, realize that half of women, that is one out of two, has been sexually assaulted. Every other woman you know. And then tell me, how do you expect me to work up the energy to feel bad for Tim Hunt? All I see in this thread is anger at women for finally saying NOPE. You don’t get to touch me when I don’t want you to. You don’t get to talk about my body like it’s an object and then tell me I have no sense of humor when I don’t giggle.
Yes, we need to encourage talented, bright, ambitious people to pursue STEM. Do you think Tim Hunt’s attitudes were doing that? What about the commenter to whom I responded? But it’s me you chastise. Typical.
In the article I read, his female colleagues defended him (including his wife). He did say he was trying to be ironic. Also, he did not say women were too emotional to do science.
This is what he said:
“It’s strange that such a chauvinist monster like me has been asked to speak to women scientists. Let me tell you about my trouble with girls. Three things happen when they are in the lab: you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticize them they cry. Perhaps we should make separate labs for boys and girls? Now seriously, I’m impressed by the economic development of Korea. And women scientists played, without doubt, an important role in it. Science needs women and you should do science despite all the obstacles, and despite monsters like me.”
Also, I responded to you because I thought we could have a conversation. Why would I pick a fight after upvoting some of your other comments? I responded to Attila, too.
I would have believed it was a joke if he didn’t double down afterwards and say, “I did mean the part about having trouble with girls. It’s terribly important that you can criticize people’s ideas without criticizing them and if they burst into tears, it means that you tend to hold back from getting at the absolute truth. Science is about nothing but getting at the truth.”
That, to me, says he believes women are too emotional to do science.
I’m sorry, but in my experience, male colleagues have just as much difficulty accepting constructive criticism as women, if not more, depending on how fragile the ego. They don’t cry. They get angry and sometimes loud, which I guess is OK as long as it’s male anger (that’s how it feels to me right now). So Hunt’s sweeping generalization is sexist. Truer things are said in jest– he hoisted himself on his own petard. The self-pitying “oh a chauvinist monster like me!” makes me roll my eyes.
“Separate labs for girls and boys.” Come on, man. He was not really joking about that, and it’s revelatory of his deep unease with women in his lab. Of course women defended him, just like women always defend the men the love, despite how awful they can be. Do you know how many battles I’ve had with women who still love Bill Clinton? Stockholm Syndrome. We make excuses for them. We doubt ourselves. Deep down, we think maybe they’re right about us, because they’ve always rolled over us, so why fight?
I don’t think my comments were at all out of line. Women, as a demographic, are angry at men. In general. However, when it comes to the men in our own lives, we tend to let them get away with murder. Boundary lines need to be adjusted. When you change a boundary on someone, they display what is called “extinction bursts.” This column and 95% of the comments qualify as extinction bursts. People will get used to it, just like they got used to women voting and black people drinking out of the same water fountains. Anger, denial, bargaining, depression, acceptance. Eventually. With some hiccups along the way.
Meantime, we are in the midst of the extinction burst, and I’m in no mood to coddle anyone’s widdle fee-fees. I’m not talking about you. But look around at this thread and tell me this isn’t ridic.
You make some important points, but I can’t help but feel that it is probably unhelpful to discuss science/scientists/scientific research as if they are exactly equivalent to other subjects. Science is very objective-nearly everything can be proven true or false by an objective SCIENTIFIC experiment, so most of the time it is either wrong or right, no shades of gray as in other subjects. Adult people in science-college and above- (teachers, students, researchers- all) should be ready to issue OR to take a a straightforward, “no, that is wrong/incorrect/invalid.” without it being sugarcoated.
Of course– everyone, in any walk of life, should be able to accept constructive criticism and engage in dialogue about work process and outcomes. However, I don’t think gender is the determining factor behind who is able and who is unable to handle feedback in a mature fashion. Tim Hunt alleges that women cry and need separate labs because having women in labs leads to sex. I think that paints a very unfair picture of women in the sciences, and in general.
But they doooo break down in tears when they can’t handle emotion. It’s observable. YouTube is a great place to observe this phenomenon.
Jerelyn Luther screaming and crying at the Yale professor about “safe spaces”.
Brighton, MN Democrat Mayor Val Johnson crying in committee when someone dares to question her “white privilege” shtick.
Perhaps women aren’t “too emotional” to do do science, but they sure as he11 are emotional and are generally more emotional than men. And female tears, whether you want to admit it or not, have a huge impact on men. Whether that’s nature or nurture, I don’t know…but it sure indicates a level of privilege and power women generally enjoy over men.
Men are quite emotional too. They don’t cry because they are conditioned not to, but the sure do get angry. Male anger is socially acceptable, if not actively condoned. Female anger is labeled bitchy, shrill, emasculating, etc. Female anger that turns into tears is considered weakness. So women have no emotional outlet that’s allowed except stony stoicism or a big, fake smile, I guess. Men can rant, use aggressive language, even get loud, no one minds. Think about that. THAT is power– you are allowed to show anger and be seen as strong, assertive, powerful, and frank. If a woman does it– a harpy.
Women are not “too emotional” to do science. Having emotions and showing them does not make you unable to do science. Stop being sexist, just for a second. The science actually speaks for itself, tears notwithstanding. Maybe if men cried more, they’d rage less.
Seems to me that you’re appealing to the female ideal…that the way women act (crying) is also the way men should act. That’s pretty sexist and discriminatory.
It’s true: Male anger tends to turn to externally expressed anger. Female anger tends to turn to tears.
Female tears have an overwhelming impact on men and discourage men from challenging said woman further. “It’s terribly important that you can criticize people’s ideas without criticizing them and if they burst into tears, it means that you tend to hold back from getting at the absolute truth” is a very real phenomenon. I’ve lived it in my own life.
If you know that your crying gives you an unfair evolutionary or social advantage over men, would you voluntarily choose not to take advantage of that advantage by not crying? I mean, men are told to curb their anger because of the unfair advantage it gives them over women (women shrinking back into the shadows for fear of that male power expressed through anger).
What? Where did I say that men SHOULD cry? They should be ABLE to cry IF they feel like they need to. They should not be seen as less of a man. It’s you who is being sexist by saying that men “don’t” cry. I can tell you that male children cry just as much as female children, until the conditioning sets it. Humans naturally cry when sad. They have to be rigorously conditioned not to, regardless of gender.
Let me also tell you this– male anger has an overwhelming impact on women and discourages women from challenging said man further. Considering that angry men can be violent men, women know to back the hell off. This is why male anger, including at work, is allowed to continue unabated. Meantime, let a woman cry once at work. She will never live it down.
Do you think all women are Academy Award nominees who can turn tears on and off at will? That’s not how emotions work. If you cry, I would guarantee it’s because you can’t help it, because crying in public is pretty embarrassing. I also hate it when people (and there are both men and women who do this) cry as a means of manipulation. I also hate it when people rage as a means of manipulation, and that happens just as often, if not more often because it’s more socially acceptable.
Men are only told to curb their anger when it is over the top. I have seen some pretty extensive expressions of male anger go unchecked. A woman who cries is scoffed at and often will just leave the room. Angry men? As long as they stay within certain lines, no one calls them out on it.
You want women to give in MORE at work? What about men? All these women (and men) coming forward about being molested and abused hasn’t convinced you that male predatory behavior is a much bigger problem than women crying at work?
That statistic is only true if you count comments and whistling and other minor harassment, and is based on one questionnaire. Do you really think half of us women have been assaulted?
Do I think half of women have received unwanted sexual attention? No, I think it’s more than half. Coercion, rape, etc? I think the numbers are about right. One in four seems pretty true, based on the many people I know. I was walking down the street with my young teenage niece and her friend. In five blocks, we were cat called, approached, and commented on three times. This was just half an hour in their lives, at age 14, walking down a city street in the middle of a Sunday afternoon. With an adult (though from behind, you couldn’t tell)!
Now imagine what those girls experience at parties, in school, etc. If it starts that young, and they have a lifetime of it ahead of them… it happens a lot.
So then you retract this absurd statement: “But then, realize that half of women, that is one out of two, has been sexually assaulted,” since catcalls, whistling and other harassment is not sexual assault?
I think a lot more people are in coercive sexual situations than you will ever know. If every woman you know told you the worst sexually invasive thing that happened to her, you would be SHOCKED. I swear to god, every woman I know has some terrible story. And I know of some girls as young as 10 who have experienced sexual violence. So I think you don’t really have a clue. Sadly, most men don’t. In conversations about this topic, men frequently express surprise at the confessions their loved ones have made to them in the wake of all this. You would be surprised and horrified, I assure you. But with the attitude you’re wearing, no one is going to tell you a damn thing, so remain in darkness.
Anecdotal stories do not add up to “half of all women,” as you claimed. Sexual assault and sexual harassment are both terrible and happen far to often, but your massaging the facts does nothing to alleviate the problem, just encourages people to roll their eyes. Considering that you are the only one who has claimed to be a “dude,” and I’ve stated that I am a woman consistently for 2300 posts, you will have to remove that little tactic from your arsenal.
No. Demogorgon. People like YOU roll your eyes. People with compassion listen and understand. You need to seriously self-reflect. Yes, these are just anecdotes– the people who suffered those indignities sucked it up and dealt with it, but you don’t forget it. You carry it. You share it with people who aren’t going to be completely cold and unsympathetic, like you. So you don’t know jack about it, because who would confide in you?
DukeofBurgundy “Unwanted sexual attention” is a nonsensical, dishonest category, invented by feminists to make men look bad. A man only knows if his attention was “unwanted” after the fact.
Then again, feminists are dishonest about all categories of male-female interaction.
Haters gonna hate.
Men and women can’t work together without the question of sex coming up.
Young men and women, in particular, can’t work together without getting distracted by it.
Men and women in my workplace work together without having sex. If you cannot control your sexual urges at work, you have a deep problem. Blaming this issue on women’s presence is ridiculous.
Sure, without having sex. Without having the question of sex coming up? Not a chance.
The distinction there is where all of these debates is coming from.
The topic of people’s relationships comes up. The topic of co-workers having sex with each other does not come up in my workplace. It really doesn’t. It would be totally inappropriate.
Blaming it solely on men is also ridiculous. A woman who walks around the office exuding her sexuality in dress and in action also bears responsibility for the resulting environment.
Oh, so now women are at fault for “exuding sexuality.” Shall we all wear burqas to work so that you can control yourself? Maybe you need to find a life coach who can help you deal with being around attractive women without having uncontrollable urges. Sad that you weren’t properly socialized sooner.
Men don’t wear skirts or plunging necklines, I wonder why that is.
Strange that too many women get defensive about a comment such as the one about “exuding sexuality”. Many men’s responses to the so-called “hostile work environment” could be similar to yours: “Oh, so now men are at fault for exhibiting sexuality? Shall we not speak unless spoken to?”
As to mixing men and women in the workplace, I can say that it can be a problem. I saw it first most of my time in the military, even in a war zone. It’s unprofessional and causes unnecessary friction where there is plenty of it already. We have endless sexual harassment training and still have continuous problems despite 40 years of leadership and training focused on the issue. Socialization only goes so far so one cannot train men and women out of it.
Are you suggesting that men don’t dress and groom themselves for maximal attractiveness? They don’t walk around all summer shirtless? They don’t wear tight pants and shirts? Well, OK, maybe you are blind, and if so, I apologize that you are handicapped.
A woman wearing a low cut shirt or tight dress is not touching anyone without their consent. It’s not an “expression of sexuality.” It’s a fucking dress or a shirt. It’s not an invitation. You know what is an invitation? AN ACTUAL INVITATION. If you can’t wait for that, you need to lock yourself inside your house and call for psychiatric help before you hurt someone.
What’s sad is how sexist you are– against men. You are claiming that men cannot control themselves. A woman in a tight dress that compliments her breasts and shows her legs? Men turn into werewolves. They cannot resist! Completely without free will. That IS what you’re saying. Now, if I said that, you would be whining about misandry. Look inside yourself for internalized misandry. I for one believe that most men CAN control themselves, especially if the organization they’re in expects them to.
Why do you think so little of men? This is truly sad.
That is the reality, whether it fits any fancy political theory or not!
“…and that women are too emotional to do science?”
I feel your pain at such an accusation. It’s similar to the social belief that men are too predatory to be alone with children or to sit beside them on an airplane.
People who think that of men are fucked. I agree with you.
I appreciate that. I’ve been crippled by the looks I’ve gotten from people when I dared to interact with children…girls especially.
So I withdrew. It’s just not worth the risk, as Berlinski so eloquently expressed in this article. So…children–girls especially–will suffer from the lack of male nurture and coaching. It’s sad to watch.
That is terrible and absurd. And this is why men and women need to be together on this. The vast majority of men are not harassers or abusers. My strong feeling is that the same minority of men do the abusing over and over and over, to lots of victims. They get away with it because they become very good at perpetrating and then hiding their tracks, intimidating, or picking victims strategically. I’m sure there are women who do it too. ALL those people need to be unilaterally condemned. If the environment changes so that people all feel safer, then men will also feel safer.
Children are the least likely to be heard when they are abused. It’s hard for them to talk about it. It’s very easy to scare them, and adults are great at not hearing what kids are saying, assuming they are exaggerating, or brushing off their issues as poorly articulated or fabricated. Getting better at hearing kids will also out a lot of bad actors (male and female) and make it safer for people who are not abusers.
I’m really sorry you have been made to feel like you cannot be around children. Children need men in their lives, especially fathers, but also teachers, coaches, etc. A few bad apples ruin everything for all of us.
No, the *reaction* to a few bad apples ruins everything for all of us.
In case you’re wondering, you’re part of the problem, not part of the solution.
No, dear, sorry, the actual rapists and abusers are the problem, not me. Keep trying. Eventually you will understand, maybe if someone you care about gets hurt and you find yourself stuck between believing her and believing the man.
That said, there are definitely guys who shouldn’t be women’s college track coaches.
This is what it’s about. Tim Hunt is the sacrificial lamb, but he’s part of a very large flock that has been barely touched in all this:
So instead of reading what The Duke said, you pull out one obscure example?
Of course a woman wearing a short skirt isn’t an excuse for sexual assault. Everybody knows that. But if a woman goes out to dinner alone with a man, flirts with him, and then he tries to kiss her, it’s ridiculous for her to then claim ‘sexual harassment’ and get him fired (yes, there are examples: Rupert Myers, Michael Fallon, hundreds of less famous men). Of course she can say no, and the man has to respect that, but if he does, it’s not sexual harassment. Also, the woman has a responsibility to signal ‘no,’ and if she doesn’t, she has to take some responsibility for that.
Where is the responsibility of the man to ASK her if she can kiss her. If she “flirts” with him (very subjective) then she has to be the one to tell him no after he tries to kiss her? Of course she should set her boundaries but what about him? Radical consent. Why is a short skirt not a signal but flirting is?
I take it that by using the phrase ‘radical consent’ that you recognise that you can only try to kiss someone if they tell you you can explicitly is a new and unusual idea. Fair enough – you’re welcome to argue for it and try to get that approach enshrined in law. What you’re not free to do is to act like it’s already an accepted norm and apply it retrospectively to get men fired and to ruin their reputations.
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
Your incessant, disingenuous questions identify you as passive-aggressive. Bullshit on your shirt claim.
Yes, yes he is.
It’s a vital part of their intellectual makeup.
Your incessant questions identify you as a passive-aggressive. Men are not afraid, they are justifiably wary of any female coworker. This is making the problem even worse. It ain’t just about sex. Women lie, women gossip, women tattle, they march in groups to the supervisor’s office to complain about some hapless male that annoyed them. On top of that they spend a lot of expense and energy dolling themselves up to attract attention from male coworkers and to irritate their female rivals. Now this #metoo idiocy will be taken up by corporations as one more round of pointless SJW nonsense everyone must be subjected to. Since anything a man does can now be dredged out of his past and used without due process to ruin him then you bet men are going to avoid female coworkers like the plague. The only safe occupations for men anymore are roof or elevator repair.
Some gals demand the freedom to walk stark naked down an urban street & the authority to chastise anyone who gawks at her–unless she approves of that particular gawker. They want the right to tease to the very instant of penetration & demand the right to say “No” & to be obeyed at that instant.
Oddly, I see shirtless men in shorts all summer long. Male nipples everywhere. Completely legal. One female nipple, everyone loses their goddamn minds. Can men control themselves in the presence of a bare female bosom? Or are they just out of control sexual violence machines? Choose your answer carefully, as your above post already shows your hypocrisy and the inherent contradiction in your position.
Shirtless men in shorts *at work*?
You’re not serious.
Do you see shirtless women at work? No, I bet you never see shirtless women except in intimate situations. I see shirtless men out and about all summer long, mowing their lawns, at the beach, walking around the streets. Some of them are at work in various places. Somehow, women manage to control themselves. Weird, isn’t it?
Plunging necklines, rising hemlines, and other flattering ways of dressing at work? Sure, all the time.
Men groom and dress themselves to be attractive just as much as women do. If you deny that, it’s simply because you are not looking.
I work in Silicon Valley. The men are NOT grooming and dressing to be attractive.
The women are.
Can’t control yourself, then? Need some saltpeter and a chastity cage? Or can you act like a grownup? Also, sorry for you, but I see plenty of men around who are well grooomed and dressed for maximal appeal. That doesn’t involve showing a lot of skin, but that’s the patriarchy for you. Demand that feminine attire show skin, then berate women for showing skin. Can’t win for losing.
Across most cultures, though, men are more interested in looks and women in status. Which is probably why women try to use their looks more than men do.
It’s an honest question. A claim was made: a man was fired because of his shirt. It’s passive aggressive to ask if that’s true? Fine, I’ll just be aggressive– I call bullshit on the shirt claim. Better? Actually don’t care if don’t like my questions. You’re a woman hater, so your opinion is meaningless. But what the hell, I’ll tackle the rest. People like you should be challenged more often, with greater force. You’re too used to living in your little echo chamber.
Woman are justifiably wary of male colleagues because they rape, grope, forcibly kiss, fondle, and back women into corners. And you’re worried about gossip. Poor you. Also, you think women “doll themselves up” to attract your attention. Wow, what a narcissist. Female rivals, huh. You have this whole misogynist tale up in your head that is pretty divorced from reality.
I don’t really care if men who don’t trust themselves need to sit home alone because they can’t be around women. Women have been dodging predatory males and working with eyes in the backs of their heads since forever. This unease you are feeling? Multiply it by 100. That’s how many women have felt, if not all the time, at least on numerous occasions in life. Please, avoid me like the plague for anything other than business interactions. That’s fine with me. I don’t go to work to make friends or seek “male attention.” I go there to work. IF you go to work to work, then you should have no problems. But still, you are totally paranoid, which identifies you as someone with a guilty conscience.
Do the paranoid women of the #metoo movement all have guilty consciences about false accusations about men?
No, because I cannot honestly think of a situation where a man I know was falsely accused and had his life ruined. I have read of some in the news (not recently). On the other hand, I know tons of people, men and women, who have been victimized. So many of them have never reported it.
Maybe you haven’t been following the news recently, but there’ve been a whole host of men who’ve been fired from their jobs without even being given the opportunity of defending themselves. Read all the stories in Time and the Atlantic (e.g. by Emily Yoffe) documenting the many male students who’ve effectively been barred from higher education because someone accused them of sexual assault (in many cases, these accusations were proven false). And then there are all the men (Rupert Myers, Michael Fallon) who were fired or forced to resign because of failed come-ons (with no implication that they pushed things after the woman made clear she was uncomfortable). Garrison Keiler got fired and his programs blacklisted because he put a hand on a woman’s back in an entirely non-sexual way.
The person in question was Matt Taylor, who managed to land a craft on a comet and then was publicly humiliated, forced to apologize and have his achievement snubbed, because he wore a shirt with sexy cartoon drawings. Such BS is what gives us all a bad name. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2014/11/14/scientist-apologizes-for-his-sexist-shirt-but-the-internet-still-wants-women-to-shut-up-and-die/?utm_term=.b1c0f114e80c
He apologized. No one even remembers it now except people like you. Oh no. Not APOLOGIZING! The horror!
We going to get an apology for all the men who lose half their life’s work to cheating bitches? How about the men who have spent years in prison because some evil cunt made false allegations? No, they don’t count to vicious hateful bitches like you do they? Some guy who made your ginnie tingle turned you down for being a hideous beast and you’ve been punishing every man alive ever since, right?
Another one with more projections than the multiplex on Saturday. I have never cheated, never sent anyone to prison, never falsely accused anyone, so take out your irrational bile on someone else, Sparky. Keep calling me a cunt. You have a serious problem and I hope for humanity that you never get within 5′ of a woman again. I like how you have to talk about my body, which you’ve never seen, my face, and my sexual organs in order to make your vapid, idiotic “point.” You are the problem. It’s you.
Nobody should be called a ‘cunt,’ but I do find it interesting that feminists can call men ‘trash’ and ‘the problem’ etc. without much pushback.
Lol yeah. People have been fired over their shirts and jokes. Some people have even been fired on hearsay. Ever worked in a “right to work” state or an “at will” company? They don’t even have to give you a reason for firing you.
Example: I work as a welder – primarily shipyard. When doing repair work, there is often a dedicated crew to help make sure you don’t burn the boat down. One of my co-workers was paired with a female fire watch. They worked the entire day without incident, save for a brief spat over him stating – at lunch and off the clock – that he was excited to be going home to see his partner. Lots of people heard him talk about it to his friends. The next day, he was fired for “making a lewd comment”. It was later leaked that she took him to the HR and lied about his words.
In an industry that is already majority male, this kind of bs rolls back years trust and respect for women in the workforce.
We can all cherry pick examples to suit our position, like theres never been a man lying about a situation, your example means fuck all. Men have had decades of treating women poorly forgive us for not giving a crap about ‘rolling back trust and respect’ like there ever was any
I’m a woman, and I assure you that women are more apt to lie, twist the truth, and run to authority figures to narc people out. Women are more apt to be passive-aggressive and indirect for obvious reasons, while men have it out with each other and are much more up front when dealing with their issues. Men will have a knock-down drag-out brawl, and then be drinking buddies a few hours later; women simmer and stew, “ohh, hiiii-ing” each other with fake smiles while ripping each other to shreds behind each other’s backs. If you’re female, you know damn well this is true.
Men are just as passive-aggressive, two-faced, and likely to lie as women.
Sounds like you associate with women like yourself and are just projecting. The women I know are not passive-aggressive, two-faced liars. When those people occur, they can be of any race, gender, age, or social status. Stop perpetuating bullshit stereotypes and associate with a better type of woman.
For a person who whines about being surrounded my misogynists and how women have been treated so badly and unprofessionally, you sure have a knack for making things personal, in a hurry, with those with whom you disagree, male or female.
I’m surrounded by misogynists in this thread, not in real life. I’ve been able to build a pretty awesome life with very few misogynists in it. When I do run into them with internet courage, like you, then it’s time for some school. If you want to see people getting personal, check out the guy who was telling about trying to knock up his wife he’s too afraid to fuck, the woman who keeps calling me “Shlomo,” the guy who told me to kill myself, the one who called me a C-U-next-Tuesday several times, the one who read back two years into my posting history on Disqus, etc. If you think *I* am the one being over-the-line personal, you just haven’t been reading along too well.
Yes, men who say these things aren’t doing their own side of the argument any good.
Interesting that you think ‘the women I know are like this’ is a good reply to statements about women in general. Look up ‘the anecdotal fallacy.’
Being groped, abused, harassed, and threatened at work by male bosses and colleagues has prevented women from trusting men at all. Isn’t it nice that you ever had any trust to be eroded?
Now it’s you who are being paranoid. Some women get groped. Some women get assaulted. A very very small minority of women get raped (in countries like the US). That doesn’t mean that they’re common occurrences, except if you start looking at every come-on as on a spectrum with assault and rape. Most men will stop coming on to women if the woman signals ‘no’ clearly (but remember: that’s your responsibility, just as it’s the man’s responsibility to be receptive to those signals).
A lot more people, male and female, get raped and sexually coerced than the statistics indicate.
How do you know that? Because you believe every report by a woman solely by virtue of the fact that it’s a woman making it? What if I believed a man every time he claimed he’d been the subject of false allegations? Try to be a little more balanced.
My inclination is to believe people who make credible claims of victimization, under all circumstances. I believe I told you what happened when I reported being forcibly groped by a colleague. My HR head said he is going to see if this man has a pattern of “moral turpitude.” If not (and he does, but carefully keeps it outside of work) then too bad if he grabbed your crotch and ass. Too bad you are scared of him. There needs to be a discernable pattern AND an effect in the workplace that cannot be avoided. Otherwise, no remedy. This is why I do not believe there are lots of false firings for harassment. It would require a big conspiracy, a network of credible liars. It’s just not a real thing.
Why would lots of firings for spurious claims of harassment need to be a big conspiracy? It’s a cultural moment where a minority of extreme feminists have gotten everyone scared about men, changed the definition of sexual harassment, and a lot of women are looking back at normal sexual interactions and deciding they need to ‘come forward.’ As for your case, I don’t know the situation so I can’t comment on the truth of it (I’d want to hear the man’s side of the story too), but I do think grabbing someone’s crotch is serious enough in itself that it should be looked into. Having said that, I do think your boss is right that harassment usually has to be repeated behaviour, because often on the first occasion the man can’t know that it’s unwelcome (again, I’d think that most people would understand that grabbing someone’s crotch as a first move is very, very likely to be unwelcome). But I would follow it up with someone else if you can. Anyway, I don’t know if one case should lead us to make conclusions about larger patterns. I was accused of unwelcome advances in a situation where I fully believed (and thought I had good reason to believe) that my approach was welcome, and even reciprocated (I could have sworn – and still would swear – that she was flirting, leaning into me, etc., and she didn’t seem to mind my first moves). This doesn’t make me inclined to believe the man in absolutely every case (though of course the man should always get a chance to state his case). But with the unreasonableness currently on show from the #metoo movement I am starting to lean that way.
Because I HAVE BEEN THROUGH THE PROCESS. One claim is not going to do it. This is a fact. I have experienced this. Have you? No. Then please, stop trying to pretend that your hysterical paranoia is reality. You don’t know what you are talking about.
Eat shit and die, you hateful cunt.
Sorry you have a small penis, hope the next person you harrass puts you in jail
If I do nothing, the only thing I have to worry about is a false accusation. Which, considering Duke, UVA, and the others, turns out to be a very real concern.
Being raped, coerced, or harassed is a much, much bigger concern.
Tell that to Brian Banks.
[I’d say tell it to Moises Arias-Aranda or Emmett Till…but we’ll never be able to tell them anything again.]
Emmett Till was lynched because a bunch of white men were offended that he looked at a white woman. I promise you, not one woman laid a hand on him in anger.
Keep moving the goalposts and you’ll have a nice golf course.
Quite possibly every police officer and everyone else who laid hands on Brian Banks starting with his arrest was male. What has that to do with the price of pork bellies in Poland?
You brought up Brian Banks, so why don’t you tell me? You brought up Emmett Till. He was lynched by white men. Yes, Carolyn Bryant admitted she lied about Till. She is a monster. But if the systemic racism and male violence was not a factor, nothing would have happened as a result. I condemn Carolyn Bryant. Do you condemn Harvey Weinstein, Donald Trump, Louis CK, Kevin Spacey, etc?
Sure, I’m comfortable treating people who’ve been tried and condemned as rapists as rapists. What about people like Damien Green, who’s in trouble because a woman claims he brushed her knee once? What do you say about cases like those?
No response. Interesting.
I like the golf course line, mind if I use it?
So better a hundred innocent males get destroyed than one girl’s crime get dropped for lack of clarity. Keen. Thank you for revealing your preference.
Nope. Straw man. But in reverse, it seems like you’d rather have 100 women get their ass grabbed at the copier rather than one man be falsely accused. Keen. Thank you for revealing your preference.
They have a recourse if groped. A falsely accused and fired person pretty much does not. He is forever ‘Gary Groper’. Which is why the Duke boys will never ever have to work again in their lives, because they CAN’T work again in their lives. Because the damage is THAT BAD.
Megan McArdle wrote a key piece on this as well as one of the comments: If 100 women let their asses be grabbed and suffer in silence then they deserve to have their asses grabbed.
A man recalled his HR class. The women were FURIOUS that the men did nothing about…someone. ‘Someone who’? the men asked. ‘What is he doing?”
Then came spewing out a litany of complaints which left the men gobsmacked. NOT ONE of these women had mentioned it to any of the men. They thought the men ‘just knew’, because all the women whispered it to each other over coffee.
So the men pressed the women: “Who is this dirtbag so we can fix it?”
The men pressed harder!
Cricket cricket. Not ONE of the groped felt it important enough to ‘out’ this guy whom 5 minutes before, they were so indignant over.
So if THEY don’t care enough to speak, please elucidate why I should care?
There is a moral onus for the victim to speak up. If she doesn’t, than that ‘suffering in silence’ is self inflicted.
Anyone with a lick of ethical sense realizes this. You are excused.
Sure, they have recourse if groped. That’s why women who tried to complain about Harvey Weinstein were threatened with lawsuits and harassed so badly that there’s a RICO case involving the conspiracy to silence anyone with an issue. Recourse. Ha. Only now is the default setting becoming “listening, investigating, believing” instead of “blaming, accusing of lying, ignoring.”
It’s so ironic that you are simultaneously stating HOW BAD it is to be accused, how swift and terrible the consequences, and then shitting on women who don’t accuse men. People DO feel bad about ruining other people’s lives. They think, “Yeah, it was shitty that he grabbed my ass, but is it worse than him getting fired? Maybe I should just let it go. I don’t want to be the focus of an exhaustive tribunal. He will deny it, or he will say I liked it, and they might believe him. After all, he’s Mr. X, head of Y, who won Z award, and I’m just me. It’s not worth it. No one will hear me.” The prospect of describing the incident a million times to a million people, mostly men, is also less than appealing. You think you can just suck it up and avoid the guy, hope it never happens again.
It’s not until someone just can’t take it anymore and cracks that everyone feels like they can come forward. It’s a big fucking deal to say, because of something that happened to you, you are going to wreck someone’s career. You want it both ways– OMG YOU ARE GOING TO RUIN HIS CAREER OVER (insert offense here that you think is not as bad) ***or*** WHY DIDN’T YOU TELL YOU MUST BE LYING NOW. Can’t win with you guys.
Not having it both ways: YOU need to decide if you want to ruin someone’s life. You decide if the process, which is built to be FAIR with cross examination, is worth the ass grab, and you decide if the guilt at ruining a life is worth that ass grab.
Well, for many women with empathy, a sense of proportion, and a firm understanding of human nature, they CAN tell the difference between Harvey, who had a few too many to drink at the Christmas party and lost his head for a moment, and Gary Groper, who put his desk next to the supply room on purpose…because.
Strong men are going to have power to hide these things AS LONG AS WOMEN ARE WEAK
OR when a man actually gets involved. It wasn’t a Dame who broke this news. And it was very liberal media outlets who tried to help Weinstein hide it FOR DECADES.
You are not being particularly well serviced by your fellow ideologues.
Are you saying Harvey Weinstein was innocent, or did you pick the name Harvey by coincidence? Because that guy is most definitely NOT innocent.
Women are SYSTEMICALLY weak because they don’t run most things. You can be personally strong and decide to suck it up. You can be personally strong and decide to report it. I don’t think it’s for you, standing off to the side, to decide what constitutes strength. Women trying to please you are going to come up short regardless, I have a feeling.
I happen to like the rule of law and evidence. I happen to like due process. I happen to like a COURT releasing information, instead of a bunch of horrible hectoring harpies who ‘DOX’ someone to ruin their reputations in politically questionable and very unaccountable ways.
So you are defending Harvey Weinstein. OK. Garbage person.
Are you saying that Weinstein doesn’t deserve his day in court? St. Thomas More disagrees with you…and he was a far more nuanced and thoughtful person than yourself.
So I will go with him. The law protects the innocent and the guilty from people like you.
He deserves it and I hope he gets it in spades. Did you know that in the UK, Canada, and Australia, there is no statute of limitations on rape? But there is in the US. I can only imagine that law is in place to protect rapists. I hope Harvey Weinstein does hard jail time. Fuck that guy. Do I support Miramax firing him? Sure. They are an at-will employer. That’s capitalism for you. Don’t like it? Move to Cuba.
You are factually incorrect. Alabama, for one, has NO statute of limitations on rape. But I bet California does. Why do you think that is?
Follow up question: Let us say that evidence is looked for…and found wanting. After all, a lot of this stuff happened decades ago…when these women were still hot. No evidence so there is a hung jury (yes, there were women on the jury who actually respect the rule of law)
Harvey is let free because that is how the system works. You still going to dox and try to ruin the guy?
Follow up on the follow up: Did you hate that the Republicans did the same thing to St Bill Clinton back in the day?
You don’t need to answer, because I am not sure you will provide an honest one. Just pointing out potential disrespect for the rule of law and hypocrisy.
The two basic rules of a feminist society:
If it hurts a man, it’s okay–even if it’s manifestly unjust and unfair. A writer at Vogue said she’d happily pay the price of falsely accused men if it meant tearing down the patriarchy. Of course, she isn’t paying the price. The man is paying the price–and that’s her okay by her. I bet she even expects men to pay for dates.
If it hurts a woman, it must be stopped–even if it’s merely a minor discomfort. If a feminist princess can feel that pea under a stack of mattresses, why something must be done about it.
I don’t know one single solitary woman who thinks it’s ok when men get hurt. I’d like to see the specific comments of this Vanity Fair writer. I don’t think any of the accusers of these famous men were complaining of “minor discomforts.” What constitutues a minor discomfort to you anyway?
That’s Emily Lindin of Teen Vogue — and she’s not exactly the only one.
Her (very badly made) point is that it’s impossible for this problem to be solved without anyone innocent getting caught in the crossfire. I hope no innocent people have to suffer. But should the entire movement cease immediately to prevent any possibility of error?
“Oh, I know he didn’t mean that! He just calls you names because that’s his way of saying he likes you!”
Should innocent people – mostly men – be made to suffer for a “movement?”
Some would say yes, because “the movement” is so important.
And politics is very important. The Third Reich, Stalinism, Maoism – these were all very important movements, historically.
And key aspects of these movements – censorship, group think, rigid and reflexive ideologies, and above all a demonization of groups like kulaks, Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, etc – are very similar, if slightly more mild, to the far left, radically political and “progressive” feminism of today.
Feminism demonizes men. Its central tenets – “rape culture,” “patriarchy,” “male violence” – indict men as a whole. All men. One half of all humanity.
And, much like Stalinism or National Socialism, feminism offers no good alternatives, and no clear ways to go forward, besides punishment, suffering, totalitarianism, and destruction.
I’m well aware arguments like these will be waved away with accusations of misogyny or criticisms, albeit valid ones, of Donald Trump or whomever. That still doesn’t disprove the argument that modern, third wave feminism is hateful, destructive, and unjust.
“I hope no innocent people have to suffer. But should the entire movement to cease immediately to prevent any possibility of error?”
Founding principles of our democracy are that we are a nation of laws and that it is better to set 10 guilty people free then incarcerate one innocent person. Although we don’t have the best history with regard to implementing these philosophies, I am very wary at the recent insistence that we must “believe” accusers full stop and throw these principles away altogether
I guess the only time you look in the mirror is to check your makeup.
Feminists are famous for their lack of self-awareness. They can see the microscopic mote in a man’s eye but can’t see the log in their own.
Love it that whenever men get angry and reply, it’s made up crap about my appearance.
Feminists are also famous for having no sense of irony and no sense of humor–or, in this case, no sense of how a figure of speech works.
My comment has nothing to do with your appearance.
There are plenty in this thread, and yes, your comment did relate to my appearance.
No, it didn’t. Idiot.
Triggered? Nah, bruh, just pointing out your idiocy. Go look back at what you said and notice some inherent assumptions you made. If you are willing to reflect, that is.
Are you willing to reflect?
Yes. Are you?
Pearls and swine and all that.
Yes, you are a pig, but what of that?
Have some more burgundy. Soon you’ll feel right as rain.
I don’t drink, but you go ahead.
Then maybe you should try putting down that two-ton chip you carry around on your shoulder. At least your back would feel better
DukeofBurgundy TLC • 6 days ago
“There are plenty in this thread, and yes, your comment did relate to my appearance.”
Your previous misrepresentations seemed to be borne of stupidity. Now, you’re flat out lying.
“You don’t use a mirror except to check your makeup.” That is a comment about my appearance. Maybe that’s what you use a mirror for, but don’t project that onto me. Thanks for calling me a liar when clearly you are just a jackass with no real point to make.
Who are you, Amelia Bedilia? Your literal interpretation of the statement has caused it’s meaning to fly right over your head. And yes, I know. You didn’t see anything fly by.
You missed the point entirely. Go back to the log jab stuck in your eye.
Go get your own mirror. I think you will find a sequoia protruding.
Take the following situation: A man yells at a woman. A woman hits a man.
Which one gets accused of domestic violence?
Is this a Zen koan?
I’m a woman and I know a lot of women who feel this way. There is a huge revenge component in today’s feminism. I know women who victimize men sexually, though they do it differently. For instance, I know a woman who accused her ex-husband of molesting their daughter because he wouldn’t give her more money. I know a woman who made a false allegation of rape because a man didn’t want a long-term relationship, “he deserves it, right?” she asked. I also know dozens of women who said “yeah, I’m on the pill” knowing that they weren’t or that they had missed a couple days. If men start #meToo campaign about that one they will match the women’s complaints in no time.
Well, there are fucked up evil people in every walk of life. Anyone who would put their kid in the middle like that is a disgusting person. But the plural of anecdote is not data. Statistically, unreported abuse is much more frequent than false claims.
Yes, ‘the plural of anecdote is not data’! A perfect apothegm for the #metoo movement.
What you have just said about “unreported abuse” is not strictly true. Unreported abuse undoubtedly exists. Anecdotes suggest, do not determine that possibility. How large a percentage of reported abuse is the unreported is undetermined. Even if it is tantalizing it is still unknown. Do you know how I know? It is unreported.
A whole mess o’ rationalization and hand-waving. If you were the sort of man who could listen to women without injecting your condescension and doubt into the discussion, you would hear horrifying stories from probably every woman you know. Try it sometime. Ask sincerely and compassionately. Then listen in silence with a concerned look on your face. When she’s done, say, “I’m sorry someone did that to you.” You will hear things that will really open your eyes. And men have such stories too. Very unlikely they will tell another guy, but I’ve heard plenty over the years from male friends, a few partners, and students.
The reason this is all so surprising and dubious to you is because you are not the kind of person that people confide in about their abuse. I am, due to my job, but also my personality. I’ve been slandered up and down this comment thread, but believe me, I have been the confidante of many a sad person. The world can be a dark place, and if you live in a clean, well-lit place, you simply have no idea. I wish you could accept that instead of being so damn defensive.
“A whole mess o’ rationalization and hand-waving.”
Bye. *waves hand*
What a touching and sensitive reply. No wonder you have no idea what really goes on in the word. Who would confide in a sweetheart like you?
You may be who and what you say you are. I am 67. You would be the first I have met. What is new about what you say in my experience is the set of associations and the values you assign them. This is a game called. A is good, B is bad, C is middling good, D is a little less so. You have been case-making for women as victims and men as well, louts. Neither of these things is true but the “worth” you are assigning and arguing for is based on these baselines. I’m not buying, I’m bye-ing. *waves one hand, displays the international sign for you are NOT number one with the other*
I have not been uniformly labeling men as louts. I have been including men among the victims. However, the people you report these incidents to are almost always men. If you feel dismissed or belittled, it’s men doing it, trust.
I’ll confide in everyone here. My ex-wife was unfaithful, verbally and physically abusive, dishonest, and nasty. She also experienced a grand total of zero consequences for any of her abuse. My lawyer’s office was full of men with very similar stories.
All but two of my female bosses (most middle managers are female, it seems) were incompetent, unreasonable, dishonest, and stingy. Two were not, they were excellent. But eight were nightmares. My male bosses have by and large been decent.
My female professors were tough graders and with a few exceptions poor lecturers and mediocre researchers. My female coworkers are okay, of middling skills, and of middling trustworthiness.
Lots of women are fine. Many others are absolutely ghastly human beings.
They experience few consequences for even abysmal behavior, don’t really care about anyone but themselves, don’t make any efforts towards discipline, self control, or creativity, but also in most circumstances demand perfection from men in every sphere. Or else they sicc some sort of authority on us, and are usually successful.
Yikes, you have some issues to work out. It’s not normal to think so lowly of an entire sex
No, not the entire sex. Not all women, and not even most of them, are bad people.
But some bad people are women, and it’s obviously a really bad idea for us to place ourselves completely at their mercy.
You’re a misogynist. You need to work on your bigotry. Good luck with that.
I’m of the quaint opinion that men and women are bad in equal proportions, albeit in different ways.
I don’t think one gender is morally superior to the other. I don’t think women deserve extra special privileges that men must provide.
I see women as competent, capable adults, who must, if they expect to have all of the rights males have, and if they wish to be fully treated as equals, must also accept our responsibilities.
Women must also learn to accept men, as the author of this piece admirably has.
I imagine these views could be seen, incorrectly, and very lazily so, as misogyny.
It pales in comparison to the man hating much of our society enshrines, from the draft to divorce court and throughout the weltanschauung of most of our leftist elites.
It’s not misogyny. But it is sample bias – legitimate sample bias. The men who behave the way he describes women behaving, or are as incompetent or even just middling as he describing women being, don’t last or at least don’t advance in business. But women do, regardless, because of the way things are set up. Therefore in any business environment, except the most demanding of actual results, badly behaving women are far more prevalent for their numbers than badly behaving men. (These are statistical generalities of course; not true for specific cases, e.g., Weinstein, but largely true overall.)
” If you were the sort of man who could listen to women without injecting your condescension and doubt into the discussion” …. perhaps there’s a reason he’s so dam’defensive …?
Her description is not an isolated, rare occurrence. Women trap men into babies with lies about birth control all the time. Perhaps 1/3 of men have had to deal with this at some point. Women lie about “abuse” or “sexual assault” in almost 1/3 to 1/2 of divorce cases. These are not evil women who are rare. These are normal, everyday women who are common as pavement.
While it’s true that a great, great many women throw the word “abuse” around during divorce, I do not believe these are intentional lies but rather the product of getting all worked up by their attorneys and reevaluating memories of past events with the spouse from the perspective of somebody who now hates the person
“But the plural of anecdote is not data.”
That’s one of my favorite lefty phony wisdom lines.
An anecdote is an individual case. If data is not the plural of anecdote, then there are no data.
Thanks for playing.
Anecdotes do not necessarily illustrate larger truths. Your obnoxious dismissal of EVERY anecdote uttered by a woman or person of color about abuse illustrates that you also do not put much stock in anecdotes unless they say what YOU want to hear. So GFY.
“Statistically, unreported abuse is much more frequent than false claims”
How would you even begin to gather that statistic? It rings true, but the word statistically doesn’t seem like it belongs in that sentence.
That’s *probably* True, but if it’s unreported, how do we know?
Also, essentially all “abuse” of men goes unreported. We have exactly zero way of comparing the degree to which minor, unreported “offenses” happen to men vs women
DukeofBurgundy TLC • 7 days ago “I don’t know one single solitary woman who thinks it’s ok when men get hurt.”
Either you don’t know any women, or you know only angels.
I know individual women who want to harm individual men. I don’t know women who want a manless society or any of the other bullshit you are trying to peddle.
I don’t think you or other misandrists want a truly manless society. We are still far too useful.
I think you want a society where men bring women only good things, while the women, in return, do as they please towards men, in a consequence free environment.
We very nearly have that now, in the west. Female privilege in the west, particularly amoung the middle and upper classes, is vast.
I agree with you mostly, but there have indeed been plenty of people coming out of the woodwork with very minor stories. Look at Patricia Arquette for example, she was upset at Oliver Stone for sending flowers after having a meeting to discuss a potential role that was sexual in nature (even though she acknowledged it’s common to receive flowers after meeting with a director and that they may have just been sent automatically by his secretary). Someone else accused jimmy Fallon of putting his hand on her knee while they were talking many years ago ( Who among us has not had somebody put their hand on our new all we are having a serious conversation?). There are tons more like this including a lot of people who were simply asked out by somebody they wish and ask them out (basically somebody who for whatever reason it was not in their perceived ‘league’ – too fat, too old, too whatever). Unfortunately though there’s no way to know if somebody would be interested in going out with you until after you ask.
The notion that it’s entirely up to the victim to determine what offense has been committed is problematic, because you and I could be talking, and you could put your hand on my knee to comfort me when I say something sad. Then, if I get to define the interaction all by myself as the “victim,” I can ‘perceive’ your action to be sexual assault and demand you be fired or jailed. Intentions do matter.
A lot of you guys are making a mockery of the author’s empathy for men. I understand you’re angry, but comments like this just make you sound like bitter, sexist jackasses.
The only thing that concerns me about your post is that you think I’m mocking the author. I like this article quite a bit. It’s one of the better articles I’ve read on the subject. The author deserves kudos for writing it.
As to the rest, well, feminism is what it is what it is. Calling me “sexist” doesn’t change that.
He didn’t say you were mocking the author. He said you were making a mockery of the author’s empathy for men. He means that angry, shallow, male responses that drip with sexism make the author look foolish for defending men. I agree with the author and her article, so let’s not write comments that make her want to retract it.
I guess any reply by a male is shallow, is that your point?
Talk about sexist.
My original comment was directed more at feminists in general than the author. Apparently, I didn’t make that sufficiently clear. What I wrote is true about a feminist culture, which makes it necessary for someone to point out that hurting men can end up hurting women–a point the author makes very eloquently.
“I guess any reply by a male is shallow, is that your point?”
No, if you re-read my whole comment, I think my point is clear.
You wrote “angry, shallow, male responses that drip with sexism make the author look foolish for defending men.” I can only assume you included my comment among these “angry, shallow, male responses.”
So, yes, your point is clear and I understood it perfectly.
The author does not mock men. Nor does she sympathize with the “plight of men” in the present panic over sexual harassment. In fact her closing remarks are to women. Specifically not to hurt themselves by buying into the panic and accusing some man of a less than legal, possibly imaginary violation. Her concern is for women. Just as Hillary Clinton pointed out that the primary victims of war were women. He perspective is the same. She seems reasonable but seeming so and being so can vary.
The willful blindness is incredible.
Facts are facts.
60,000 men kill themselves every year yet the lions share of suicide prevention funding goes to women who kill themselves at around 1/12 the rate (4,000 per years). Nobody cares.
More men are physically abused by women than the converse yet 90% of the funding goes to women and there are not even any battered men’s shelters.
More women go to college than men, yet women still get preferences, special classes, entire departments filled with rabid, frothing at the mouth man haters devoted “helping” women, and the men get lectures that all men are rapists the second they step in the door.
More men die of prostate cancer- an easily preventable and monitored illness- than women die of breast cancer. Yet we have an entire NFL month devoted to pink ribbons and almost 4 times the funding for breast cancer over prostate cancer. A fraction of the publicity for breast cancer used for prostate cancer would save many men’s lives. Nobody cares.
I could go on for many paragraphs but the truth is easy to see.
If men die horribly well, boys will be boys. What are we supposed to do? It’s not worth getting upset about!
If women are merely slightly inconvenienced. OH MY GOD IT IS A CRISIS. WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!
What? Men have it bad also? Well then you must hate women you homophobic misogynist virgin.
You are wrong about breast v prostate cancer:
172,258 men in the United States were diagnosed with prostate cancer.
28,343 men in the United States died from prostate cancer.
236,968 women and 2,141 men in the United States were diagnosed with breast cancer.
41,211 women and 465 men in the United States died from breast cancer.
According to many men posting in this comments section, men are better at science. Men dominate the medical and research fields. Men control the majority of funding. Why are those men not spending their time, effort, and money on prostate cancer R&D and screening?
It’s true that twice as much money is spent on breast cancer research as prostate, but still, more women are diagnosed with and die of breast cancer. Does that make you wonder?
There is nothing in our society for men to defend, certainly not women.
When a society has nothing left to defend, it follows that no one will defend it. I say let it crash, myself.
Be careful what you wish for, comrade.
You’re throwing out the baby with the bath water. That people have gotten sucked up into another moral panic has little to do with an idea that women aren’t window dressing and men’s property and playthings. In the article she clearly states repeatedly this fact, but you seem to be more interested in skimming the article for antifeminist talking points than construction a valid argument for why the moral ambivalence around rapidly changing interaction and courtship rules in the light of no clear set of rules to transition to may cause panic.
It’s (nearly) a corrupt argument. Basic fairness and decency towards men is not sufficient–that the outcome “will be awful for women” is the main thrust. Berlinski’s singular experiences, e.g. one-on-one tutorials, et al., are the necessary evidence for what’s jeopardized by the moral panic witch hunt–and the reason to oppose practices like the Pence rule. That the Pence rule preceded the current atmosphere goes unremarked, i.e. that one’s career and reputation were already at risk was a factor in the calculation of trade-offs leading to the Pence rule, seems a big omission in an overly long exposition.
And I can’t help but notice, at the outset of her essay she says, “Sexual predation tends to be a lifelong pattern.” Followed later by her opinion, “I’m already convinced that Roy Moore is a sexual predator…” Irrespective of the veracity of the evidence against Roy Moore (from 38 years ago), there’s no evidence proffered of a lifelong pattern. Swing and miss.
And her defense favoring some of these characters, e.g. Leon Wieseltier, is pitiful, amounting to: he’s got away with this for decades and nobody complained before now. It’s Leon being Leon, at least he’s no longer “snorting coke off of his interns’ rear ends.” As if he became a better class of a meglomaniacal a–hole. Swing and miss.
The consequences will be awful for some men, as careers and reputations are destroyed–some deservedly so, some definitely not deserving. Will any women suffer the awful consequences of career and reputation destruction? Nope. So the framing of equivalence–a moral equivalence of the consequences between men and women–is wrong. Swing and miss.
“I’m not sure what, precisely, is now driving us over the edge.”
I have a suggestion, though it is extremely unpopular: Income Inequality and wage stagnation. Why do I say this is extremely unpopular? Well, because of what has caused them: It just happens to be very much linked to womens entrance into the labour force.
With womens entrance to the labour force, we didn’t suddenly increase the demand our society generated: a married woman who doesn’t work eats just as much as one who does, she needs the same number of roofs over her head, the same number of garments are worn. So little increase in demand… but a definite increase in the supply of labour. So we get wage stagnation. And there are two very obvious solutions to this problem: kick women out of the labour force, or kick men out. Given the tone of the article, I’m relatively sure Ms. Berlinski is aware which of these solutions is being actively courted.
Inequality requires no understanding of supply and demand as Wage stagnation does: rather it requires knowledge of the bicameral nature of families and society more generally. A labour force participation rate of 60% is high enough that, given a marriage rate of 80%, every family can have a job/income, as well as the single people… but only if there are NO dual income families. Once dual income families start to make an appearance, as there has been no increase in demand for goods, families/people start to drop out of society: the income that would have previously sustained them is now in the hands of a family that *already* has an income. Those opposed to second wave feminism had a pithy line: “A married woman who works is stealing food from another families table.” Please see the attached images for a visual representation.
So we’ve split society into “haves and have nots” so that married women can now be part of the labour force. And the REAL fun in this situation is that women do not marry men who make less money then they do (See: Hypergamy). So if we follow this current moral panic to its logical conclusion of “men do not work with women, and as women are present in every workplace, men do not work” then we end up with NO ONE getting married anymore. And because marriage becomes a thing of the past, our labour force participation rate needs to be 100%: everyone has to support themselves.
The formula to determine expected labour force participation for a monogamous society is: 1 + ((marriage rate * (percent of families that are dual income – 1)/2), so given my own countries (Canada) 2016 marriage rate of 0.67, and dual income rate of 0.69, to have full labour force participation, Canada needs 89.6% of people to have a job. It currently has a labour force participation rate of 65.4% (Unemployment of 6.9% which is included in this number. If we remove it the people who actually have jobs is 58.5% of the 16-65 population). Canadas “real” unemployment is somewhere in the range of 31%… though it is difficult to know how many of that 31% with no official income are living via welfare, disability, or the black market. As a note: this formula does NOT work for societies that engage in polygamy or polyamory, so do not try using it when looking at countries like Saudi Arabia.
Married Womens entrance to the labour force has had an incredibly high cost. I haven’t even touched the birth rate problems it’s generated (though paradoxically, birth rates likely have more to do with womens entrance into higher education, rather than access to contraceptives and work hours). But, as this is *offensive* to many, the mere mention of this as even a possibility carries incredible costs. If this lies at the heart of our moral panic, there is no confronting it… moral panics end when those in authority wish them to, and as it is the very women in authority who are pushing this particular problem, and the men in authority have no standing to push back, this issue is likely to stay with us until some external force appears. What that external force may or may not be, I leave as an exercise to the reader.
We live in interesting times.
I agree with so much of this. The moral panic totally worries me, and I think it’s crucial that we don’t conflate flirting with rape.
That said, I have to strongly disagree on some of this… maybe it’s different in a more casual office, but I work in your typical corporate office building (in ad sales marketing) and it would be incredibly out of place for men to make lewd jokes, or have physical contact with anyone other than the occasional “congrats on a successful pitch” or “have a great holiday break” hug. We’re all friendly, and we banter about pop culture and have lunch and work great together as a team, but there’s nothing sexual, and it should stay that way. I would never say that a lewd comment at work would “traumatize” me, and I don’t think someone’s career should be ruined over that, but I just don’t think flirty banter belongs in an environment where we should all be professional equals. (Social life is totally different. At a bar hanging out with male friends, the lewder the better. And to her point about not being surprised about someone like Louis CK, I totally get that. But the comedy world is a very different world than my workplace.)
I also in no way relate to the desire to go back to the old ways of feeling protected by brutes. Huh?? Nothing makes me happier than the fact that women now have just as much of an opportunity as men to join the military and lead in government. The person I want in charge of our nuclear program is whoever is the smartest and most strategic. Couldn’t care less about their gender. “We are the grown-ups now” is all I’ve ever wanted as a woman! It doesn’t frighten me, it makes me excited to see what we can accomplish.
It’s funny that we get berated by people like Berlinski for being surprised that Louis CK was as creepy as we thought he was pretending to be. Oh, sorry. I had hoped it was just a comedy routine. Seriously, now we have to look at every artist’s art that is sexually explicit and take it as gospel truth about their lives? She is the one perpetuating a moral panic. I assume that people make art that is art, not actual biography. How presumptuous of her to scold people for thinking Louis CK, a comedian, was delivering a routine and not a memoir. Whatever, lady.
Obviously, the art is not the artist, but where do you think creators find their materials but from their own experiences?
How do people write horror, science fiction, fantasy, or historical fiction? I do not assume that a person who writes about something has lived it because that is a patently absurd way to view art.
There’s a good doc on HBO now about Steven Spielberg. I think you’ll be surprised about how much personal experiences find their way into art. Writers are always told, write what you know.
So every male director or screenwriter who has written about rape is a rapist? Is that your contention? Imagine if I said that. You’d be frothing at the mouth about misandry and how I am unjustly accusing people with no proof. But here you are, claiming art = biography, so we all shoulda known about Louis CK and it’s the victims’ faults for not clairvoyantly knowing he would strip, whip it out, and wank at them randomly.
My point is, separate the art from the artist unless there is compelling reason to do otherwise. Your view of art is idiotic. Try again.
I agree – we shouldn’t assume people are rapists because they make jokes about rape.
A guy says to his friends, ‘I’m trying everything, but can’t seem to get laid.’ His friends say, ‘have you tried rohypnol?’ He says, ‘Yeah, it just makes me fall asleep.’
If you think that makes me a rapist, or even that it means I think rape isn’t a horrific crime that should be harshly punished (which, for the record, I do), you’ve spent too much time on ‘liberal’ college campuses.
Nice sentiments and totally pointless.
Because too many women have been ‘triggered’ by things so totally harmless that women are becoming more and more radioactive to hire. Perhaps it’s a millennial thing but when someone says something like ‘nice blouse’ or ‘you’re looking good today’ and it turns into an HR complaint (which they do)… women in general are proving themselves radioactive.
Also, any male who is willing to ‘socialize’ with a female co-worker and ‘engage in lewd banter’ is taking his career in his hands. One complaint about something said, even in a social setting, and the male is automatically judged and condemned.
As to the ‘welder who told an off-color joke’: Just as every woman has ‘examples of sexual harassment’, every man has examples of ‘idiotic charges that got me/my close friend censured/fired.’
I’ve had totally baseless accusations thrown at me for public statements. (I’m a public figure.) And had to track down witnesses to the statements (done at panels) and point out the falsehoods. This is an ongoing issue and it’s an issue created by the SJW Left which is primarily female. (The accusations were by women and the person ‘judging’ the statements were by a woman. Who had to get overruled by… a higher level woman.)
So… Yeah. Women are probably going to be slowly shoved out of the workplace because they’re simply too radioactive to employ.
Which is sad and disheartening. But… it’s also sad reality.
J’accuse! J’accuse! J’accuse! All it takes.
This is so idiotic and oh so human. It would make me weep but I prefer to laugh at the absurdity.
Hire a woman, hire a lawsuit.
Discriminate against women, hire a lawsuit. Moron.
Shouldn’t you be on Jezebel instead of replying to EVERY single thread here? This is the problem with the rabid SJW girl, they make a hobby of being radioactive and hostile. It is no wonder so many folks want to be around them…
But you cannot resist replying to every single post I make. It’s kind of sweet, really. It seems like maybe you have a crush.
Something that you’d get in trouble for if you were a man saying it to a woman.
Interesting fact — the rise in percentage of people finding spouses online has risen almost entirely at the expense of the percentage of people finding spouses at work.
Oh, and the marriage rate in total is declining.
People should not be having romances at work. It’s always been a bad idea.
Says the amorphous SJW blob who has never been looked at twice and never been kissed. Did you ever notice at any of your SJW rallies there are FEW attractive women around. I wonder why that is?
You could bounce a quarter off my abs, babe, but you’ll never get the chance.
Well, but the law is meant to protect people’s freedoms. And surely we don’t want to live in a society where people are scared of sexual interactions. How about we go back to the idea that people can come onto whomever they want, as long as they don’t use their power as a lever (as in a quid pro quo, you sleep with me, I promote you kind of thing); and the only problem is when men don’t take no (or a signal of no) for an answer.
Always been a bad idea, when 20% of people found their spouses that way?
Not so much.
Yes. so much.
Have you ever met any actual human beings? Male or female?
I don’t shit where I eat. If you do, that could explain your faulty cognitive functioning.
Equating shitting with flirting is sort of an odd orientation. But to each his own.
You are the one in hysterics about the possibility of being falsely accused of sexual harassment. I proposed an easy way to avoid that: do not try to have sex with your co-workers. Simple, elegant solution. Goes for both men and women. Keep your pants zipped and skirt smoothed down around colleagues and employees. Seek sex in your social life. That would protect you from the scary, scary women who want to smear you with false accusations. But no. So are you saying you can’t control yourself? Why is my idea so terrible?
Look, I don’t come onto my colleagues partly because I like to keep work and my personal life separate. That’s my choice. But others should be free to choose differently. Now we’re at the stage where you’re saying ‘If you don’t want to be falsely accused, don’t come on to anyone.’ Imagine if I said, ‘If you don’t want to get assaulted, don’t go out to clubs in suggestive clothing.’ How is that any different? People should be free to do legitimate things, things that are explicitly protected by our laws. It’s not a crime to come on to a woman, even at work. If she says no and then you insist, that’s a crime. Otherwise it’s just called normal human interaction.
No, no one is saying that, literally no one. I am saying, keep it out of the workplace. Get affirmative consent, and stay in tune and emotionally connected throughout. Treat each other like live humans with a meaningful inner life and you will be fine, I promise.
“Get affirmative consent…”
That’s feminazi garbage; it’s not romance.
And take your phony “Godwin’s Law,” and shove it.
Godwin’s Law not phony. I didn’t make it up. If you don’t get affirmative consent, don’t cry when someone accuses you of harassment. Affirmative consent is not hard to get. It doesn’t require a form filed in triplicate. You’re just mad because you can’t freely grab ass anymore without consequences. OH POOR YOU.
“You’re just mad because you can’t freely grab ass anymore without consequences.”
Oh, but I can, so I’m not mad!
You’re talking as if work is totally separate from your social life. That’s not really how it works.
I don’t date people I work with. It’s a bad idea. You are free to have bad ideas, but when they turn out bad, don’t say you were never warned.
As an adult, the workplace is where you spend like all you time and most of the people you meet are through work. It’s so much more natural to form relationships with people who you have built lots of common experiences with, struggled through projects with, developed camaraderie as teammates, etc. The whole “don’t shit where you eat” thing falls apart if you don’t even have the space or means to shit and eat in two different places. What are people to do- just start hitting on strangers on the subway? Isn’t that somehow more inappropriate?
Can’t have it both ways, Ace. Either you fraternize at work and take the risk of drama where you earn your bread, or you don’t fraternize at work and lose out on dating opportunities. I know which is more important to me.
I do so enjoy having comments I spend time and effort creating being “flagged as spam.” Guess I was correct when I wrote “I have a suggestion, though it is extremely unpopular: Income Inequality and wage stagnation.” in response to “I’m not sure what, precisely, is now driving us over the edge.”
Oh well. Some views are just too “hateful” to be confronted. Sunlight as a disinfectant? Clearly a lie… shadows are so much better. Apparently.
Of course, it all circles around to Trump. How could we not see that?
IT TOOK 10 PAGES TO GET THERE TOO…..why couldn’t she just be up front about the hate?
I get the feeling that Clare gained a lot of insight into the current Zeitgeist, and is trying to navigate a difficult situation – she feels strongly about the moral panic, that much is clear, but to make the tribe- her tribe- take at least a passing interest in what she is saying, she HAD to resort the SOP of invoking and demonizing Trump. What is funny and sad is that we all know that many, many people that voted for Trump said that did so holding their noses, only because their assessment was that it was lesser of the evils- a purely political decision, nothing personal. If for some people following the rules of the game is not acceptable because it did not produce their preferred outcome, and they want to by whatever means force the winner to be loser, I think as s a country we are in for for a heap of trouble……
Yeah, and the article was so great up until she got onto the whole Trump thing. I don’t think it’s got much to do with Trump because this whole thing has been going on since before he started running and this issue is just so much bigger than Trump. This has more to do with the fact that 50 or so years ago, our the sexual revolution changed things and now people just don’t know what the rules are anymore. I have always heard that anything between consenting adults is okay. That’s been the dominant ideology in our culture for a while. But now some of these guys that are being outed are being outed for following those rules. They asked for consent. And now people are finding out the hard way that underneath the rule about “anything between consenting adults is okay,” there is fine print that no one told us about. For instance, apparently it’s some kind of pseudo-rape or it’s coercive in some way if you are a powerful guy and the girl you have consensual sex with works in the same industry as you. Another one is that apparently you *can’t* ask for a woman’s consent to watch you masturbate. So how does it work then- do you need to ask for her consent to ask for her consent?
This realization happened many years ago to most men. The horse is gone from that barn. It lived to a ripe old age and died in the next county.
What you’re noticing is that certain protected classes: entertainers, journalists and some politicians are no longer protected. Because they can no longer protect each other. And the reason it’s happening now has nothing to do with Trump.
When Weinstein was outed, we kept hearing about “open secrets” that “everyone knew.” Secrets held among a class of utterly dispensable children. They didn’t have to play by the rules established decades ago. Watch how much I care that they’re being burned by those rules now.
Oh no! No more Kevin Spacey? How will I find the strength continue? No one’s going back and compensating the welder who was hounded out of a job for telling a bad joke even though he clearly meant to give no offense. The random jerks caught up in it were disposable to you. You just thought that the wealth, visibility and self-congratulations made you’re tribe indispensable. You were wrong.
Oh you’d still enjoy anything edited by Wieseltier? Who cares? As you point out, he was another open secret being protected by hypocrites in between the time they took to deliver biting sermons about a “War on Women.”
You don’t get to have those open secrets anymore. Sorry. Learn to carry on, I suppose.
You’re living in a world that was built by shrill half-wits over 30 years ago. The pain you’re feeling is a discovery of how disposable you are. I mean if someone as essential as Louis CK can get blacklisted, well then no is safe! Right?
And, yes, it’s not good for anyone and you, at least, have the sense to see it’s going to be bad for women. Frankly, I think it’ll be worse but I guess we’ll see.
Do you actually know any men who have been hounded out of welding jobs for telling off color jokes? I don’t. I know women who have left jobs, left parties, left social circles to avoid men who were serial molesters but who no one would do anything about. Like Harvey Weinstein, only writ smaller. Men like this are everywhere, and they are protected both by other men and by women like Claire Berlinsky, offering apologia and claiming that women are so eager to go after a man for flirting. Nope. Disclosing sexual harassment or abuse is humiliating, scary, and can be dangerous. There is nothing glorious or fun or exciting about it. There is no reason to put yourself through it unless you have to, which is why a lot of women just walk away rather than tell the story (and you can’t just tell it once, you have to tell it over and over and over, to man after man after man as the report goes up the chain).
I don’t know the specifics of every case in the news right now. I do know that personally, unless multiple people come forward about the same person, I remain skeptical. However, in all the major cases, there have been many people, over a period of time, who have been abused by the same man. That is when it reaches the level of firing someone. It’s not as easy as you all seem to think to get someone fired over what amounts to hearsay. No, people claiming harassment are not automatically believed.
Also, if you think Louis CK was essential to anything, you need to get a life.
Disclosing sexual harassment that actually happened can indeed be humiliating, scary and dangerous. That makes it more likely that a given story will be false — after all, if you weren’t actually a victim, it’s much easier to “relive” something that’s fiction.
As for automatic belief, I’ve actually been told by, respectively, a college decision maker and a business manager: “If she says it’s harassment, it’s harassment” and “Harassment is whatever the other person perceives as harassing.”
What twisted logic this is. It’s so incredibly hard to report harassment, so people who do must be liars??? Really. No, sorry, that’s idiotic. No one wants to be under that kind of scrutiny about a sexual act. A lot of women are only coming forward now because they believe that now, finally, the default response will be belief and not the automatic assumption that she’s a lying slut.
Nope, actually the logic is spot on. And he’s not saying that all people that report harassment are liars, just that liars will do so at a greater rate, because it’s impossible to experience any trauma from an incident of harassment that never happened.
No, they won’t, because the scrutiny is very harsh. A liar does not want to be under that spotlight. Also, how the fuck would you know? Have you ever gone through the process of reporting workplace harassment? Or are you talking out your ass?
Well, going my what’s happening at the moment, it looks like any woman who says anything happened is automatically believed, without even any investigation or a chance for the man to give his side of the story. Now THAT’s privilege.
” “If she says it’s harassment, it’s harassment” and “Harassment is whatever the other person perceives as harassing.”” Of course, sexual harassment (male inflicted or female)is a thing, very real and pervasive, but herein lies the major problem in effectively tackling it – because of such incredible, and completely useless flexibility and ambiguity-which can only be political in nature- the potential for false accusations and misplaced punishment will continue to exist as long as there are no well-defined behavioral norms. And it is very hard to have such norms because of the volatile, ever-changing nature of male-female interactions, especially hard in a college setting. The only effective way is to have very strict, very explicit, very detailed work-place behavior norms, and if necessary even segregated work-areas. In light of this, the comments of Dr. Tim Hunt, the disgraced Nobel Winner from Britain about having separate laboratories for males and female researchers, don’t sound so ridiculous.
It’s a form of Humpty Dumpty-ism… “When hear you use a word, it means exactly what I think it means, no more, no less.”
Until I change my mind, and it means something completely different.
A Lefty’s Lament-
First they came for the televangelists, and I did not speak up. (Except to pile on, because I hate Christians).
Then they came for the blue-collar worker, and I did not speak up. (Except to pile on because, I was not a construction worker.)
Then they came for the boorish Hollywood executives, and I did not speak up. (Except to pile on because let’s face it, Weinstein hasn’t had a hit in YEARS.)
Then they came for the Leftists, and there was no one left to speak up for me.
“But could we at least get enough of a grip to realize that it is a moral panic—and knock it off? Women, I’m begging you: Please.”
Not a chance ! CNN and WashPost are working on a story that 20-30 more members of Congress are also sexual predators.
One thing we can be certain of: strong bipartisanship on this one ! Both parties will be well represented.
Also, all of the current leadership (both Parties), with the possible exception of Schumer, would have been involved in covering these cases up.
So many more DC Swamp dirtbags will be burned down before this is over – and it couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch !
Thanks for the cautionary article. Sorry to see its much-needed message already being hijacked by those more interested in politics than in humanity. Trump may have been skewered in this article, but so was Bill Clinton. The villains are everywhere, and as she cautions many of us are becoming villains, too. Don’t be a lemming, step back and think about what’s going on and what the consequences will likely be for ALL of us.
Excellent piece. Here’s mine:
Unexpected advances are not on a continuum with sexual abuse. People are sometimes open to persuasion. And genuine consent is not necessarily explicit.
Ms Berlinski, because she’s willing to accept unsubstantiated accusations (no photo as with Franken, no tape as with Weinstein, no blue dress as with Bill Clinton) against Trump and Moore is saying that the rules are what they have ALWAYS been:
That simplifies all of this doesn’t it? All of this is about protecting women from men found to be undesirable.
None of this came up when Weinstein was putting Oscars into the hands of young starlets.
Now that he hasn’t had a hit in years? Sorry Harvey!
I also notice that most of these actress accusers are more or less washed up. They also all seem to have been “legitimate” actresses. It doesn’t appear that any who wouldn’t have gotten a part at all without the casting couch are coming forward.
I’d note also that Ashley Judd’s racecar driver ex married a younger prettier woman who had his child this summer and Ms. Judd was high profile in that march back in the spring and now in this situation.
Ashley Judd’s ex husband is totally irrelevant to this situation. She broke the case and she can take credit for this vermin being brought to justice, finally. All you care about is that her ex found a younger, hotter wife? Sexist pigs make the crispiest bacon. Now it’s clear why guys like you find all this so scary. Worried, are ya? Awww. Poor you.
She knew for years, and didn’t speak up.
She gets credit for that, too.
You’ve obviously never tried to report sexual harassment. Especially while legally restrained by a NDA that opens you up to legal liability if you say a word against the studio, its execs, or a project you’re in. So you have no idea what you are talking about.
If there’s a crime, NDAs mean nothing.
You have no idea what you’re talking about.
You have no idea what YOU are talking about. Weinstein and Miramax are now being investigated for RICO violations stemming from the ongoing, targeted harassment and surveillance of any woman who even comtemplated telling on him. Even Ronan Farrow was approached and threatened before he released his piece. Do some reading with your blinders off.
You know, Ive had enough of reading your holier than thou garbage. You think attacking every post on here is somehow making you win something for women or that youre slaying people with your self perceived bad assery in the intelligence department. You are so wrong on so many levels it would take me two days to point out and ‘slay’ all of your deranged points that are obviously colored by scorching misandry. Grow the hell up for christ sakes. Heres an example: Women make up over half of child molesters/abusers and committing violence on children at a rate of three to one because society fins it socially acceptable for women to assault EVERYONE. You see int movies on television and noone bats an eye because of this idiotic acceptance of womens anger at men for simply being born the physically inferior of the species. I know, crazy right? Thats right you batshit lunatic, I learned all about it because It happened to me, with three different women from the ages of four to six you sanctimonious bitch. One of the instances when i was four they came in with nylon stockings over their head to disguise themselves laid me down on the bed and molested me. Another babysitter, did it to me and when blew the whistle on her they made me go to her apartment and have her apologize to me while I sat there in her kitchen. That was it. So dont you effing dare say people take men seriously about it. They dont and men ARE victims too . Another thing: according to nationwide police information females make false assault/rape claims at a rate of about 75 percent many of them because they want to get back at an ex or other examples and that information is swept under the rug because of feminist idiots like you who think your the only victims in the world. I know this first hand as well as It happened to me three times, and two of the women admitted they lied, the third denied ever making the claim. So just shut your mouth and go throw some karate kicks in the mirror to your imaginary oppressors you loser.
It seems like it should be glaringly obvious, but it isn’t….
If men had it how they’ve wanted it for centuries, women should really pay attention to that and COMPROMISE. Men want faithful wives for company, emotional support, and to have and raise (their) children. There is NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS, and a LOT right with it. Society has thrived on this deal for a long time.
Women absolutely have justified complaints. Brutish men (also officially deprecated, if sometimes ineffectively, under traditional systems), zero opportunities (well not really, see the likes of Queen Victoria and Ada Lovelace), to name a couple.
But in solving those complaints, if the solutions preclude what makes men happy, they’re throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Society will not re-form in a stable way.
Or rather it will — but only after the backlash against the Feminists puts us back on a stable track.
Because of non-disclosure agreements, aggressive threats to sue, and a network of spies and harassing underlings so extensive there is a RICO investigation into it:
Pfft. They could have come out with this whenever they wanted.
Pffft you are wrong.
and women never try to intimidate men into silence by getting them fired, shouting at them if they express a non-feminist thought, etc.
Men are often worse at picking up interpersonal cues (ie: more socially inept) than women. Society will not be well served by treating earnest puppy-like but socially inept males as serial rapists…the birth rate is suffering as is.
No one is mistaking a social inept failed flirtation for rape. Rape and sexual violence involve non-consensual touching of a sexual nature. If that’s how you flirt, you have a serious problem and should get a life coach or something before you try to interact with other humans.
The birth rate needs to drop. Overpopulation is the bane of this planet. If it means fewer creeps reproduce, all to the good.
overpopulation got you down? you first.
Oh, an invitation to suicide now? You must feel really threatened by me. Take a Xanax and lie down before you stroke out.
Not many people are treating honest come-ons as rape, true, although some people are now treating sex that has been consented to as rape (e.g. Felix Desmarais in thespinoff.co.nz). And plenty of people are confusing come-ons with sexual assault, and compliments with sexual harassment.
No one is mistaking a social inept failed flirtation for rape? They are not confusing them, but lots of people seem to think those things are in the same realm of “bad.” The fact that some of the celebrities getting “outed” along with Weinstein-level predators didn’t do anything but make an inappropriate comment one time to a female coworker (like Matthew Weiner, the creator of Mad Men) is troubling. This whole #metoo thing is not just about rape. If you think this is all about rape and sexual violence, then you are either not paying that much attention to this issue or you are just too hysterical to have a civil discussion about this. Your other comments on this board suggest the latter.
Matthew Weiner told his co-worker he was entitled to see her naked, and when she didn’t get naked, he fired her, even after she won an Emmy. Guess that’s cool with you, Andy. Of course it’s not just about rape. It’s also about coercion, harassment, and in general creating a hostile environment.
As for who is hysterical, check out the men who are declaring permanent celibacy, paranoid fear of even looking at a woman, calling for gender-segregated work places, and wishing death on me. Then let me know who is hysterical.
This has morphed into a witch hunt similar to the day care hysteria in the late 80s, early 90s were people served jail time based on fantastical, coached evidence.
There were lots of women who looked the other way and/or actively helped these pervs. I want to them to pay a price also. I want their names published and shamed.
It seems to me that the old fashioned Victorian morality and code of conduct had something going for it.
“looked the other way or actively helped” http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/30/opinions/women-complicit-harassment-lauer-roxanne-jones-opinion/index.html
This woman gets it. Unfortunately, it’ll fall on deaf ears? Why? Because of exactly what the author stated at the top of this article. “now I have too much power. I have the power to destroy someone whose tutorials were invaluable to me and shaped my entire intellectual life much for the better.” The author may realize the dangers of having too much power, but that’s not going to change the opinion of an ambitious woman at work trying to eliminate the competition for a promotion. If all it takes in a vague accusation to eliminate the competition, then I ask who ISN’T going to use that to their advantage?
The social contract has been broken. There will be no more casual discussions at the water cooler. There will be no more “Invaluable tutorials that shaped my entire intellectual life”. There will be for your male counterparts, but not for you. Want in on the car pool? I’m not driving you home alone after everyone else has left the car. Mentoring? Not likely! Vote for you in an upcoming election? Why would I want to put other men at risk to lose THEIR jobs by putting you up there with them? See where this is going?
You can also eliminate the following. Sleeping your way to the top. The pussy pass. Marrying/dating a coworker.
Completely your own fault. You declared war on men a long time ago and it’s only now that men are actually seeing that they’re at war.
– Former nice guy
Men have been enjoying the world with their boots on women’s necks for thousands of years. A couple of years of women being heard and NOW it’s war? Hey chump? It’s ALWAYS been war, but you’ve had all the power, so you never had to notice until now. That’s called privilege. Losing it is scary. So now you’re a little scared. That’s a little taste of what it’s like to be a woman in the world.
Bullshit, you live in a phantasy world.
Bullshit, YOU live in a fantasty world.
Is this why women do measurably better at school and university in almost all developed countries now? Is this why women live longer? Is this why men have such high rates of incarceration, suicide, and workplace death?
Could it be that women function better in a society where physical attributes are no longer paramount, and without the old boy’s network to prop them up, we are now seeing that they fail on their merits? Which really does suck because I have a son who I want to succeed.
I don’t know about that. It’s possible. But my point is that it does suggest that there’s no patriarchy (at least in contemporary Western democracies).
You forget that men had their boots on the necks of other men too. “We’ve” (I wasn’t around a thousand years ago) not had all the power, unless you consider the privilege of being drafter to fight a king’s, emperor’s, or president’s war as power. What cracks me up is how people can associate so much with a group like that as if it’s their own little tribe. Us vs them is how you really see it, huh?
Actually Adam Carolla made a good point in a podcast this summer about how women see the world. He said imagine going into a bar where everyone is seven feet tall and about 280 pounds of muscle (his proportions weren’t scientific but this was off the cuff). It was an interesting insight into how to imagine walking around being a woman. So while we feel for you, the odds are much more that a man will be hurt by a man than woman hurt by one.
Also, if it’s strictly a power issue, then when pushing for laws and rules which favor women in hopes of getting more power, don’t begrudge men if they don’t want to let go of it, to the extent they had it in the first place.
Yes, you are right. The patriarchy hurts men too. I freely and totally agree with you. The elder men with the most resources get all the best shit, while the lower status men get screwed. Yet here you are, defending the hell out of the patriarchy. Women do it too. I don’t get it. If it’s hurting you, why are you so for it?
No one ever wants to let go of power. It’s true. But yes, I do blame people who enjoy having their boots on others’ necks. What am I supposed to do, pity them their loss of power? Nope.
I appreciate you ceding a point or two. Sincerely.
I guess i don’t think of it so much as a patriarchy as simply power paradigms which existed for one reason or another. But fine, let’s call it a patriarchy but let’s also remember that women benefited too. Aristocracies, monarchies, and old democracies have women power brokers too. And women were and have been beneficiaries of men’s toil and sacrifice. Like all power, it’s a two way street. In our modern society, older men worked to get where the were, hence the better stuff. It’s not hurting me, nor is it hurting women. But that’s another debate.
I’m defending rationality, justice, and calmness. If that’s patriarchy, let’s have more of it and less emotional reaction, payback, and hysteria.
People (men and women) who enjoy having their “boots on others’ necks” are individuals. That’s all I’m saying. Address the individual and not address the group because it’s a good meme, hashtag, or slogan. We should get out of the “let’s round up all the men who may have done something wrong ever, possibly…just in case” mentality that seems to be growing. Because if it persists, there will be a backlash. And nobody will be safe or happy.
I think you are conflating patriarchy, which hurts men with less power as well as the majority of women, with an equitable distribution of power, more collaboration than hierarchy, and accountability for everyone who has power. That is no a patriarchy, which tends towards op-down autocracy by nature. I am not a fan of top-down autocracy, even when I am possessed of some of the power. I feel better about decisions when they are multi-lateral. Do you? Or is it “Father knows best”?
I discovered at a very young age that the people wielding power in most situations have feet of clay. The more voices you hear, the more likely you are to reach a just and equitable resolution. I am not about oppressing people, ever however my opponents on this thread might paint me.
Sadly, it is the nature of these titanic sea changes in culture that there is backlash, and then backlash against the backlash. I really don’t think there’s much any of us can do about it except be skeptical but open, listen carefully, remember everyone’s humanity, and think long-term. What I see here is a lot of shouting. You do seem to be a bit out of the norm here, but at least there is some evidence that people of good will can disagree without resorting to vileness.
I agree with much of this. I dislike autocracy too. The question is whether in countries like NZ or Canada today the men are really oppressing the women. And given that women do better than men by some measures (educational achievement, longevity, not being put in jail, etc.) I don’t think they are.
I applaud you for stating the obvious: Women are self-destructive idiots.
Comment after comment on various sites that you probably don’t read have noted that ‘I avoid hiring women at all costs.’ For this very reason. Ditto ‘persons of color’ for false or underwhelming (but still costly) EEOC complaints. ‘He microagressed me by handing me a package of ‘skin’ colored band-aids that were white skin color!’ ‘He sexually harassed me by saying my blouse looked nice!’
Keep this up long enough and our society will manage to roll back not only Third Wave feminism but we could push for full-on Saudi Arabia. (Since the Left is all about supporting Islam and women wearing hajibs might as well, right?) Heck, the Harvard Black Student Union is all about Jim Crow. Why stop at Third Wave? We can just go back to women are too fragile for the workplace and need to stay home and have babies and ‘blacks only’ water fountains.
(Given what is going on currently as well as things like the outcry about Larry Summers at Harvard, especially the female biology professor who was complaining that she felt ‘faint’ and ‘nauseated’ by his simple question… honestly, modern women are living up to every Victorian standard of the ‘chauvinist’ men who said women are ‘too fragile’, ‘too stupid’ and ‘too emotional’ to have the Franchise. Those ‘bigoted’ men, in long-distant hind-sight, appear to have more sense than their ‘progressive’ counterparts.)
Yes to all of the above. And women will have caused it. And when they don’t advance because you can’t possibly risk having an ‘off-the-cuff’, ‘out of school’ personal conversation with one in any privacy whatsoever… they’ll blame men.
What’s crazy is… I’ve been a supporter of women in the workplace my whole life. I’m married to a power-woman.
And I’m past thinking those Victorian men were right.
Because women are self-destructive idiots.
PS: If anyone ever accuses me of something (not even sure what) you won’t see me doing the ritual auto de fe. I don’t bow.
Sure, go on record as saying “We avoid hiring women at all costs.” Great way to get your ass sued, and rightly so. Also, sorry charlie, but the best educated, best trained people these days are women. Women have eclipsed men as graduates of universities of all types. Go ahead and fail because you are misogynist gynophobe and probably and incel. Poor you.
Hey sugar tits, being a graduate of the indoctrination camp that is the modern university isn’t exactly a gold star or a merit badge. STEM major? Maybe… otherwise, not so much. Isn’t there some baking or cooking you should be doing instead of replying to EVERY SINGLE MESSAGE here, FFS?
Hey, honey rectum, if you don’t like my posts, block me.
I haven’t derided everything you’ve said.
Was I talking to you? I believe I was replying to a lovely gentleman who called me “sugar tits” and told me to go kill myself.
The order of the replies got mixed up. Ignore that other guy, obviously.
How can you have so much time to response to every post?
If you think this is good for society or the world, I feel sorry for you.
Please, go on: I’m interested why you think some fields being numerically dominated by women and others by men is a bad thing.
You’re not really interested, because whatever I say, you will deride. It’s getting boring.
Which is better?
No, please, I am interested (nor have I derided everything you’ve said, though I’ve disagreed with much of it). Why is it a problem that most engineering PhDs are held by men, but not that most social psychology PhDs are held by women?
Thank you. As a husband and hopeful father, thank you.
Women as a gender are to blame because you married a woman you are afraid of? Dude, what? We are supposed to pity you being afraid to ask a woman out, when women are afraid of being raped, beaten, assaulted, and murdered? God, how do you tolerate your own self-pity?
Context: do you understand it? My statement is in line with the article. Yours is not.
I am most certainly afraid to be a man in this society. Every passing day, it is drilled into me that I should be ashamed of myself. If I find a woman attractive, I’m objectifying; if I strike up a conversation, I’m harassing; if I lean in for a kiss, it’s assault; and if either or both of us get drunk, it’s rape – or even sober, according to one article.
What I take from this article is something that I’ve felt for years: the current model of feminism isn’t for equality and awareness, but to scream at men for being men instead of screaming at monsters.
I am not a fucking monster. I’m tired of being treated like one. However, to not be treated thus, I must bury my own sexuality and passion and emotion to please the mob. It’s harmful.
I have been afraid since before I hit puberty. Afraid of real violence, which I have suffered numerous times. You are excessively worried about being accused of something– not worried about whether or not you are or have assaulted anyone, only afraid of being accused. Hmmm. Problematic. But your fear is delusional, while the statistics back me up totally that women have far more to fear from men than the other way around.
You’re afraid that you are too socially inept to score with your actual wife? Somehow this is feminism’s fault? Pathetic. The vast majority of men do not live in fear of sexual harassment allegations. If you do, seek therapy. And if your wife is such a gorgon, seek a divorce lawyer. Sheesh.
You aren’t listening, or apparently even willing to listen, but I’ll try again:
I. Was. Worried. Before.
Yeah, “most” don’t worry about it, but I do.
Why? Because I became conscious about equality at roughly the same time everyone started to jump on the bandwagon. Because I have been abused by more than one partner and done my best not to become the abuser. Because, after learning more about equality and women’s rights, I was still told I ought to be ashamed to be fucking born with a penis. (No, really. This was said at a discussion panel.)
But yeah, you can just assume I’m blaming women in general. You can just rant and rave about me being pathetic. Go ahead and ignore that I’m stating that I have insecurity issues because that’s what feminism had taught me over the years.
Or maybe you’re angry because I don’t want to be ashamed.
Whoever told you to be ashamed to be born with a penis is an asshole. What kind of fucked up discussion panels are you going to?
Just go to a modern university and they’ll tell you things like ‘believing white men are trash is the pre-condition for any real progress.’
I hear you, man. Getting accused of being “violent” by someone who hits you makes you think your life’s script was written by Kafka.
Don’t worry — Reigns of terror end. Feminists are bound to lose in the long run, because their beliefs are deeply maladaptive, for a culture’s health down through the years.
Hang in there, it will get better.
I have nothing by sympathy for you, Arthur. It’s amazing to me how quickly an extreme form of feminism has spilled out of universities into society at large, demonising men and making a fair hearing all but impossible. Any men reading this: we need to try to stop being scared and to discuss these things openly with women, even when they shout at us and de-friend us. It’s not just us who are under threat: it’s all men, and justice itself.
Also, you seem to think I’m afraid of my wife. Not true at all. I’m afraid of what feminists say about me and my wife. This has come up, and some very hateful things were said. Things that made me think very dark thoughts.
Well, lemme ask you this: Am I not allowed to liberate myself from what I view as aggression? Is your pain so great that I am not allowed to voice my own? If you answered yes, then I suppose you are among those who are blindly angry and lashing out at anyone not angry for the same reasons.
I told you to get a divorce lawyer. Not sure how that indicates that you are not allowed to liberate yourself from aggression. Absolutely, liberate yourself. Get divorced. Don’t let anyone hurt you. Document your injuries and get her arrested, if that is what you think is best. I would not remain with someone who inspired such terror in me.
Jfc… MY WIFE IS NOT THE PROBLEM. PEOPLE LIKE YOU ARE.
Me? There is literally not a man alive who is afraid of me. I’ve never hit someone in anger. I’ve only reported one of the many assaults I’ve suffered, and that because my workplace contains children. It was for their safety, not mine, that I put myself through it. I want equality of opportunity for all people. I don’t want anyone to be harmed by anyone. WTF is YOUR problem? Your fear is not caused by me.
Are you not paying attention to your own words? You’re belittling and condescending, and doing everything you can to delegitimise my experience and feelings. You have spent the entirety of your comments telling me how much worse it is for you, and targeting the insecurities born of being shamed for my gender and sexuality.
You’re not the only one to do this. I want you to f*cking stop.
In aggregate, it is more dangerous to be a woman. You are more likely to be raped and murdered. I acknowledged that you were assaulted. I was sincere in telling you to get away from and prosecute anyone who hurts you. If my so-called “belittling” is just as scary and dangerous than an actual sexual abuser, in your mind, then you cannot be reasoned with. I clearly stated anyone who shamed you for having a penis is an asshole. Apparently nothing I say will satisfy you, as you are now writing a script and saying it to yourself regardless of what I actually say. That’s called a straw man argument. I want you to FUCKING stop.
Yo, when someone says they are hurt, you shouldn’t say that you have it worse. I’ve tried to explain to you my position and reasoning. I never once denied your argument that women have long been the victims of injustice, but I hold fast to my words: Angry “feminists” have put the fear of whatever god(s)(esses) you believe in into me about being my loving, passionate, and sexual self, and that has damaged me in ways I don’t suppose you could understand with your very narrow view. However, you’ve decided to attack me. You’ve taken individual parts of my statements out of context, and you’ve driven this thread away from its intent – which was to thank the author of this article for publishing this piece that resonates with my personal feelings about the social justice mob mentality. Ffs, you decided to tell me to get a divorce 3 times, before I broke it down that my wife is not the problem I’m facing. I’ll say it again: You’ve decided to attack me. Moreover, I’ve seen you saying roughly the same things in other threads, so I’m gathering that you really just want to pick fights. If your intent was to bully me into submitting to your opinion, then you are not a good feminist, and I can place you among the many people that have drilled my insecurities into me.
You are wasting your time and words talking to a robot. This is “one” of the mob mentality collective and for as special as a snowflake as she sees herself with her “victim oneupsmanship” she may as well have a bar code on her forehead. They are ALL like this and their goal is to oppress, deny, and tell you what is best for you. This has been the case with communists throughout history. This latest iteration is no different. They must be dealt with in the same manner as they have been historically. They only understand the very things they claim to rail against but greatly desire. Power and intimidation. So next time, instead of wasting all the time beating around the bush just tell her she won the victim olympics and to go and make you a sandwich and not talk so much…
I only agree with your assessment that this person is a mob mentality robot. None of the rest of it.
Which is why you will continue to cuck, pander, apologize, and waste your breath. Those of us who are “woke” already know that attempting to reason with the unreasonable and rationalize with the irrational is a waste of time. We will deal with them as we’ve seen the historically expedient way to do so was / is. I wasn’t posting for your approval btw, simply to educate but you’ve drunk the kool-aid as well so keep wasting your time.
I have to tell you– most men do not live in fear as you do. Really. None of the men I know appear to be as worried as you are. My partner, my close male friends, my work associates, all seem very glad and supportive about #MeToo. Their reactions are not to immediately make it all about themselves and how worried they are that they will be falsely accused.
And that is really the crux of it. #MeToo is about women (and men) coming out with their horrible experiences, sometimes after years of silence that has been eating away at them. It is men like you who are reacting to this, which has a lot of pain behind it, and fear, by making it all about themselves. Your fear of a false accusation is not more important than the voices of people (men and women) who finally feel safe enough to call out their abusers. You are hijacking the story.
If you are also a victim of abuse, which it sounds like you were if someone hit you, then of course everyone should support you. You should be able to tell your story and get justice. If I am “internet bulllying” you, then I’m sorry, that’s just not a real thing. I don’t know who you are. I’m not trying to hurt you. Check out the guy who was calling me an evil cunt and wishing death on me elsewhere in this thread. THAT is someone trying to silence and shame someone. Nothing I’ve said to you is at all trying to harm you. I don’t have to agree with every word you say in order to be “a good feminist.” I would say your comments on my feminism are irrelevant to me.
Consistently cherry-picking the parts you want to argue, refusing to acknowledge the parts that you didn’t want to hear, twisting words to fit your needs, effectively telling me to “man up” (in that you implied I was socially inept and demanding pity,) insisting that my experiences couldn’t possibly be any worse than your own… Yeah. You’re a fucking bully, and a horrible example of feminism. People like you chase away allies. People like you are why I don’t call myself a feminist anymore.
Dude, you are demanding pity. You are making youself the victim of #MeToo when the actual victims, in many cases, have been forcibly penetrated, forced to watch someone masturbate, groped, forcibly kissed, forced to give or receive oral sex, etc. But somehow, this is all about how afraid you are. You can call me names all you want. If you feel bullied, you can block me and never see another word I say. I cannot get you fired, harm you, slander you, or lay a paw on you. You can escape from me with zero consequences. So please do.
My feminism has no bearing on your relationship, just as angry men have none on my own relationship.
No, any problem between you and your spouse is between you two. Take personal responsibility and don’t pin the blame on outside parties.
I should have bought stock in tiny violins. Or cheese (to go with their whines).
Oh just wait. You’re next to be called a bully, a C-U-next-Tuesday, and all kinds of other delightful names. I sure am glad you’re here, though, because this comments section is a hot mess of crazy.
Did you see the Cathy Young piece where she looks at data about how men get more online abuse than women? Not that I think it’s acceptable either way, but I don’t think we should pretend women have it worse when that doesn’t seem to be the case. (For the record, I don’t think it’s very persuasive when people call others c*&nts.)
No, I didn’t see that Cathy Young piece, and you didn’t post a link, so
‘Online Harassment Affects Men Too’. Time
The way public schools operate nowadays, you should be worried walking (as well as many other things) your daughter to school…Better let your wife go with you as well…you know, to protect you….
The only thing missing from this well written and much appreciated perspective is some comparison between the travails American women are claiming to have endured and the very real epidemic of sexual assault being perpetrated on German and Swedish women by their influx of “refugees”. Trump at least has reversed this tide which would have become a deluge under Clinton.
And the author dares seeing it from a man’s viewoint, which is that to have female companionship he must make some moves which very often end in rejection and humiliation. This sex harassment jihad is making workplace females toxic and men will rightfully be even more inclined to avoid them.
You had me believing your line of thought was reasonable until you started in on your Trump is a “dotard” bullshit. You’re just another feminist, unfortunately.
I’ll say this….At a previous employer in California, I was verbally harangued by several women because I refused to participate in a carpool with them. I told them “I’m sorry, I don’t ride in a vehicle with a woman when my wife isn’t also present”. I was told that I was discriminating against their gender. In return, I asked “do you want your husband or boyfriend spending 2 hours a day with another woman alone?”…..they had no answer.
If I were entrepreneurial, I would start a male-only company. Not because I don’t like women….but because I want men to be able to work hard, be themselves and be able to get the most out of them. I also counsel any young man who will listen, including my own sons, to stay away from women altogether. I ask them to look at the MGTOW movement and what it has become….its booming…..for a reason….all of which you state here. There is no good reason to accept the risk of being in ANY kind of relationship with a woman today……professional, personal, sexual or otherwise. The risks are simply too high for the rewards that come with it.
Don’t look now but Roy Moore’s accuser just admitted that she forged part of the signature she used as evidence against him……today’s women are suck fucks.
Since you’re married how about you just control your urges and take the ride like a big boy. Unless you fear youre in a car with a bunch of women plotting to set you up and falsely accuse you of crap then it shouldn’t be a problem.
As far as the male-only company..its because you really don’t like women. And that mindset is a hop and skip from white male only company because minorities blah blah and white straight male only company because gays blah blah..
Regardless of what any one accuser said moore still admitted that as a grown adult he dated underaged girls.
Funny…..Pence hasn’t had a problem….I’ll stick with his advice.
neither has bill gates or barack obama or pretty much the large majority of men. Pence is paranoiac posing as straight laced christian.
Enjoy being blocked! God bless!
You would not start a male only company because such systematic discrimination is explicitly illegal. Duuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhh.
Unlike women-only gyms.
That I am sure employ men.
Yeah, but they don’t allow male customers. Which for some reason isn’t considered bad, whereas men-only clubs…Patriarchal.
I think men’s only clubs do exist. The NFL, NBA, MLB, etc…
Interesting you say that, because that’s a really good case that we can use to learn something about how equality of opportunity works. Those aren’t men’s-only clubs by definition (there was briefly a female goalkeeper in the NHL, for example). They’re leagues that select the best athletes, and women almost never make it into the top tier of athletics because they tend to be physically weaker, slower, and less coordinated than men. There’s nothing unjust about that, unless you think competition is inherently unjust (and if you do, consider how just non-competition and fixing is).
Obviously, that women aren’t as effective elite athletes as men doesn’t have any bearing on whether they should be considered politically equal, which I think they should.
I think there should be distinctions on things..if a guy allegedly SAID something 20 years ago that’s one thing and if a guy allegedly DID something 20 years ago thats another..
Its ridiculous that sexuality is on a spectrum but bad behavior is treated as black and white with no gradations.
In all of these case the people accused have some sort of leverage or power which colors their actions and the response to them. Aint no one accused a box boy or mail room clerk of doing crap.
you have people who are used to getting a wide latitude in how their behavior is tolerated.. in many cases there are other issues at play ..weinstein was long accused of being a gross bully and abuser of his underlings sans the sexual stuff. Quite a number of people have said cosby was generally a prick himself…same for kevin spacey.
In all 3 cases you have people who have some level of respect and power in their spheres meaning there is nothing to check them period. And in other industries and places you see the same kind of pattern.
One of my own sources of dissonance on this is on the one hand I’m expected to accept that anything a man can do a woman can do better and even backwards and in high heels including going to war and occupy the executive seat of a world superpower yet they are traumatized by an off color joke or awkward advance? Women can’t handle an unwanted hand on a knee but want to go to war?
That’s because you are buying into Berlinski’s bullshit. Women are not unable to handle an off color joke. Women have been sucking up sexual violence with a short straw forever. FOREVER. If you think what you are hearing now is too much (and make no mistake, you are totally triggered, and it’s sad to watch), believe that this is just the tip of the iceberg. Women have been handling rape, harassment, stalking, coercion, and abuse and you haven’t heard jack about it until now. Please.
Very few women get raped and assaulted in Western democracies. A lot of them do in war zones like the Congo, sure, and many were in the past. The fact that lots of women are going on social media to say someone touched them on the knee or whatever is NOT good evidence that there’s more sexual assault going on than we thought. Look up ‘self-selected listener opinion poll’ for the obvious methodological error of inferring that from #metoo.
IF all you’re hearing is about knee-touches, you are not reading thoroughly or well.
Some of the posts concern more serious allegations, yes. That’s one of the problems with people inferring that we have a big problem with sexual assault and harassment from women posting #metoo stories. They run the gamut from knee-touching and ‘he said I looked good without makeup’ to actual rape and child abuse. There’s no way that can give us a real picture of the state of sexual assault. All it shows is that women are putting trivial episodes in the same category as serious ones.
Plenty of women want to join the military and are more than happy to go to war of need be. If you’re referring to selective service, keep in mind that women weren’t responsible for creating this legislation (I’m personally in favor of some type of mandated public service).
I can make about 83% of men crawl from a room with tails between their legs as a result of my off-color humor, but this typically takes place at a social event, definitely not an office. And a male boss who places his hand on an employee’s knee is also probably just as eager to avoid combat as anyone.
Article is much too long (paid by the word?). My impression, though, is as an engineer, we rarely worked with female professional engineers. Although one was a naval architect (no not that navel, it’s the the one that assesses the design and stability of ocean going vessels), I wonder if male dominated engineering fields will begin subtly excluding those rare females that do apply to avoid the risk of organizational upheaval due to some real or perceived sexual impropriety.
Bill Clinton paid dearly for his transgressions. $850,000 to Paula Jones in a settlement and she is still not happy. He was impeached, not convicted, but impeached nonetheless. He lost his law license for at least 10 years and paid hefty fines. He and HRC were the targets of the Whitewater Investigation to the tune of $50 million dollars and no witch was found in that hunt, but he and HRC did incur millions of dollars in legal fees. There are quite a few other women, but the investigations into their complaints has not yielded any charges that are criminally or civilly prosecutable. even my republican prosecutors. HRC almost left him and that is why he went into therapy to deal with his issues. I think the reason so many like the writer always mention Mr. Bill, is that the punishment he incurred isn’t enough for them. They want to see him in jail – no one is going to put a POTUS in jail, so get over it. Bill Clinton, since leaving office, has worked to help make the world a better place [in the manner of Jimmy Carter] and well, too many disregard his efforts. What a shame. This pundit piece is just another excuse to soften the blow the boys feel with their bad behavior towards way too many women. I think the writer needs to stop worrying about the “moral panic”, which really doesn’t exist and realize that what little pay-back women are now getting is nothing compared to what the boys have gotten away with for decades and decades.
That is chump change for him. He didn’t get run out of office in spite of many things that would have sunk anyone with an (R) after their name. Give it a rest. Progressives wouldn’t have any standards if they didn’t have double standards. Some on their side are finally getting the results of their foolishness, but it is an attempt at a controlled burn (to limit the damage to other progressives) rather than applying the same standard.
Another reply notes it correctly, the writer here finds Roy Moore guilty by one accusation with low credibility, but fights against accusations of those she favors. She is quite the hypocrite, as most progressives are.
In relation to Donald Trump, I think said women’s hysteria is because they sense his innate goodness and thus feel safe, finally, to call out the males who have gotten away with so much at them. In other words, they think POTUS Trump IS Daddy and feel safe in consequence to come forward finally with what has been occurring. Claire, you’re right to be not hysterical but upside-down regarding this particular hysteria’s occasion. Like yourself, women do not need to “come forward” with their experiences, and most will not for the same reasons you do not, but let those who do do. Take the advice of Gamaliel.
Someone smoked the bad crack today.
Was it you?
No, dear, it was you. Call 9-1-1.
The reason for this panic is very simple. The Left’s cultural revolution smashed itself on the rocks at the very moment that its adherents thought a permanent victory had been achieved. Now the gods of the copybook headings are returning and the Left has gone into self-destructive hysterics.
What we are seeing now is a purge of the political class like a coyote gnawing its own leg off to escape a trap. The trouble is, some vengeful Feminists see it as an opportunity to tar all men with the Rapist in Waiting brush.
I rather expect this to burn itself out quickly. Feminists are fools and are seen to be fools. Without having the whip hand, they can’t enforce their paranoid edicts and their grip is weakening. Once people take the next step and push the argument to its logical conclusion, which is that men and women are all sinners and it isn’t possible to single out one sexual for damnation, then there will be a great sobering.
Well that was melodramatic.
Wasn’t it, though? Outing sexual predators = the decline and fall of Western civilization. And they said hysterics were only for people with wombs. What a laugh.
Hold on, where does he say that ‘outing sexual predators = the decline and fall of Western civilization’?
“The Left’s cultural revolution smashed itself on the rocks at the very
moment that its adherents thought a permanent victory had been achieved”
In other words, “Trump, and not Hillary aka Obama II, following Obama”- This the truest, most accurate observation, according to my sister, who is a lawyer helping the indigent with social and health services. She had/having a whale of time calming many of them down, trying to explain that Federal government policies have very little effect on her clients at this time. Understandably, vast majority of them have no interest or understanding in things like ISIS/Syria/Russia/NK/TPP/NAFTA/Travel Ban, etc.
>> No woman in her right mind would say, “I want the old world back.” <<
There's no old world coming back but…
… not too far in the future we will have full segregation of the sexes. Beginning in school and going on through universities. Because it will have become obvious that the conditions that allow one sex to thrive are toxic for the other whichever way it goes. (The way it is today, boys are massively underachieving at school and dropping out of uni … they need a different environment. If however that environment was established everywhere it would be detrimental to girls again)
Mandatory segregation of the sexes at the workplace will be without alternative due to exactly what Berlinski describes.
The pain inflicted by having men & women being in each others presence at the workplace but not allowed to naturally, instinctually interact will be unbearable for both.
We'll be going through a brief interlude of arbitrary seething chaos (infinite number of genders, people going to whichever bathroom they want) and after that, immiscible separation.
After segregation, not far off is the day when the moment where a woman allows a door to fall closed while she is alone with a male who is not a family member or guardian, will be defined as her consent to sex. You may begin picking up stones.
Berlinski's Freudian observation is apt and calls to memory a similar comment of the currently ubiquitous Jordan Peterson. I'm aware invoking Peterson is almost as bad as a Godwin's law move but anyway.
The postmodern left, and postmodern feminism (both very different from what the Left and feminism were originally about) have in fact fully signed on for this … though they may not be aware of it. They have done so by embracing Islam as an ally against the oppressive phallogocentric cis-white-male patriarchy they wish to destroy. Islam is in fact fully willing and capable to deliver exactly the results described above… it just probably won't stop there. (You have to realize that what they have in the Islamic Republic in Iran is actually close to a best-possible case of that ideology).
If you sniff around the edges of the alt-right fringe you'll find 'white reconquistadors' who are arguing similar outcomes when it comes to the relation of the sexes.
The experiment of equality and liberation… an experiment we can now judge to be uncontrollable, failed, and fatal, grew out of Western culture, that horrible creature, with all its deplorable aspects. No movement for universal equality and liberation, ever, not in untold thousands of generations of human toil, without that horrible cis christian colonialist toxic whiteness etc etc … the baby has not only been thrown out with the bathwater it's also been shredded and composted.
But, the Western culture with all it had accomplished through the high middle ages, the scholastics, the renaissance, the enlightenment – it has been hollowed out from the inside, the killing blows have been delivered, it is a corpse still on its way to hit the floor but it's already dead. Nietzsche diagnosed its death all those years ago, all Western cultural development after that was 'farewell intercourse' with the deceased body, which trivially explains the inherent nihilism of nearly all art, culture and politics since then. (google the term 'farewell intercourse' for a laugh or two. It's Islamic.)
The suicide of the West started long before postmodernism and what they call SJWs today, both the depraved perpetrators of the debauchery we witness and the hysteric persecutors of anything and everything are merely symptoms… they are the maggots and scarabs on the decaying flesh, not the arrow that pierced the heart.
The sentiments we see today all across the West make it clear that our culture will fall back to times even before the Magna Carta.
It's gonna be back to the Dark Ages.
In that context, Islam of course isn't the worst thing to throw your lot in with.
They sure know how to manage that kind of society.
In a perverse way they sure know ho to create … "safe spaces" … for women too…and as Berlinski and Peterson both observed, on some deep unconscious level women recognise this, that's why Sharia endorser Linda Sarsour is an icon of female liberation today.
Compared to that, attaining some kind of 'Neo-Victorianism' would be an almost miraculous success.
Maybe we can manage something that would appear somewhat cultivated to Erik Bloodaxe and his Vikings.
For those who are childless, or place no worth in the idea of having children (it accelerates climate change and is egoistic, you know) … that is for those who've embraced post-modernist intersectional non-values … enjoy the ride because it's all, all downhill from here. It's gonna be wild. positively spectacular. Since you're going to die anyway and have no stake in the future why not pour some oil into the fire.
As for the rest of us…
Segregation of the sexes is not about to happen. The Handmaid’s Tale was not a documentary. Stop fear mongering.
It’s not about fear and it’s not about Margaret Atwood’s political fantasy. It’s about an inevitable generational bottom up shift in behavior that follows a cultural shift that’s already happened.
Having the sexes intermingle and interact freely is possible in a society of high established trust built from individuals with an internal locus of control. (If you’re not familiar with the terminology, wiki helps). The first is necessary so that interactions outside of family/clan aren’t fraught with danger (clannish societies tend to segregate). The second is essential to properly deal with and correct any misbehavior.
That’s not the society we have any more today though; we’ve gone through the phase change to a low trust society where the majority of people have an external locus of control. Low trust comes with diversity and identity politics (which means that whoever you are, you’re supposed to believe more than half of all people are always out to get you), the external locus of control comes with victim culture, oppressor/oppression obsession, etc.
‘Toxic masculinity’ is already an established concept but of course the Mike Pence approach shows the mirror to that. The flipside to toxic masculinity is going to be a fear of the presence of women being basically an entrapment. Right there we get to the archetypes of negative sexual dynamics. (Re-)Segregation will be seen as a relief just for taking away that negativity.
Berlinski addresses the work place, now look at everything starting from elementary school through the interactions of adolescents up to university. Sex segregation is sooner or later the logical consequence when you look to create safe spaces, and find that the attempt to create equity of outcome only creates new inequalities. For instance boys are grossly falling behind in education (mostly due to the educational environment having become gynocentric), which will over time induce parents to favor segregation both for their male and female children.
Add to that the fact that while the fabric of our culture has been eroded, and fails up to live to its own ideals, we now have in our midst, in the shape of Islam, another culture that successfully practices segregation wherever it gets the chance.
At some point people are going to look to what works, and emulate it.
When Western culture was at its confident high point, and lived up to its own ideals (which were not the same as today) that is what a lot of other cultures who considered themselves to be falling behind did – without ‘converting’ to being Western, they emulated a lot of Western cultural traits, most precisely those they thought were central to the success of the West.
Today Western culture is neither confident, nor able to live up to its self-professed ideals, and is fast falling behind other cultures. It’s only fair in that situation to emulate from other cultures those things that are central to their success.
What goes around…
Don’t worry about people who don’t want to have kids. They’ll be irrelevant in 30 years.
Recently in a shop as I started to ;leave it I noticed that a young woman apparently intended to do the same. As I stepped out of the shop, I held the door open for the young woman, but she refused to exit the shop, evidently for no er reason than I was holding the door open for her.
I’ll never know if her refusal to leave the shop was an expression of her independence of male dominance, or whether she was repulsed by my appearance, I one severely wounded-in-action in Viet-Nam & left even more homely than I had been before having been clobbered in ‘Nam.
Tell me, what am I to do in such a situation. At age 77 & a product of small-town Kansas I’m not about to modify my social standards. Women & children are always going the first to board lifeboats
But as Ronald Reagan said, “If women don’t want men to look, they shouldn’t wear low-cut dresses.”
You’re fretting over nothing, especially at your age. Why don’t you just shrug and let her open the door, making a note for next time?
First of all, Michael Reagan said this, not Ronald Reagan, who is dead and currently unable to tweet. Second, I am glad when anyone is polite enough to hold a door for me. I hold the door for whoever is behind me. Sorry that woman was rude to you. She should have said thanks, then held the door for whoever was behind her. There is no reason to make everything into some battle of the sexes bullshit.
I remember a cartoon my mother showed me (as an adult thank you) from the ladies at work. Going back and forth about power between the male and female drops her pants and that pretty much ended the debate. And I learned a valuable lesson.
It’s funny that when I debunk the false claims that women commit sexual violence as often as men, it gets flagged as spam. I’m reposting the CDC link here:
That’s relevant to some of the conversations above, but not to the article, which I agree with more than some of the comments here. The article basically says, ‘Yes, some men are rapists, but #metoo is over-reacting, and branding a lot of things as assault which aren’t.’ That’s the main problem right now.
Too little, too late. I hope you all enjoy the world you have created. My parents often warned me “Lie down with dogs and get up with fleas” but I never thought I would see this permutation of that old chestnut.
I find it comical that this is all such a grand mystery. Radical Jewish agitators like Hannah Rosin, et. al. have been pushing this agenda to destroy men since the inception of 3rd wave feminism. You are reaping the whirlwind you sewed yourselves. Enjoy it! Soon you will have offices and corporations full of “empowered” women and cucked emasculated men only.
This article was nominally useful and perceptive until the anti-Trump screed and tirade sent it completely off the rails into deep liberal lunacy territory. Funny that… considering the article rails against that exact type of behavior, innit?
Men who get along fine with women and don’t molest them are cucked and emasculated? Huh. You are pretty sexist against men. That really sucks.
Feminists and their allies are reaping what they sowed. Will innocent women loose out on opportunities due to men playing it by Pence Rules? Sure, and they deserve it for not reining in their harpy sisters.
Perhaps you ought to be reining in male peers?
When a woman is doing the hiring, “Pence rules” are irrelevant.
Most men wouldn’t support a guy that is a REAL sexual or otherwise harasser.
Really? I think that’s bullshit. Republicans seem very willing to support many real harassers, while constant cries of “Bill Clinton!” resound from sea to shining sea, even this long after he leaves office.
Your grip on reality seems tenuous at best. What party actually keeps getting ARRESTED for misconduct, or stepping down?
Republicans like Trump, Moore, and Vitter lack the moral fortitude to admit the wrongs they’ve done and step down. That’s not a virtue. Not that you’d know much about virtue.
Clinton, Franken, Conyers, Weiner, Weinstein, Affleck, etc. all Democrat and/or liberal. The problem with your side is that you are good at virtue-signaling, saying the right stuff, but you don’t mean it. The things you project on Republicans are the things you believe deep down. The Left is waging a war on reality, truth and beauty, and you will lose.
I condemn all the Democrats you listed. I despise them all. They are shit. Don’t tell me what my values are. You’re projecting yours onto me.
‘They are shit’ seems a bit much. How about ‘I believe they are guilty as charged’?
I believe they are guilty as charged. Now you.
Some of them strike me as deserving punishment – mainly Weinstein, at least for some of the charges. But I haven’t looked into the cases in a lot of detail. I look forward to them coming to trial so that we can find out the truth.
You have no values, you’ve proven that.
Wow, so I guess if you are OK with innocent women losing out on jobs, then you are OK with innocent men being falsely accused?
False equivalence. Innocent women WILL loose out on jobs due to innocent men being falsely accused, and the remaining men using the Pence method for protection.
No, this is what will happen. Women are going to keep eclipsing men in academics and achievement. Companies who discriminate will lose out on the best and the brightest by hiring only men. Eventually, such loss will cause their companies to fail. Or, their policies of discrimination will be revealed and they will get slapped with a titanic law suit. I know you are comforting yourself with this idea that men will be able to punish women by excluding them from the world, but you’re delusional.
Damn you drank the Kool Aid. The reason women are excelling at college is because college is anti-male, as is modern K-12 that drugs boys into being girls. Thousands of years of history have proven that men are better and more driven in certain fields, yet you deny it. Science! has now proven women and men literally think different yet you still deny it.
For thousands of years, women were not allowed in combat.
With good reason. The few that can do it well enough aren’t worth the hassle it creates on the men. Look at the cluster in the Navy where we pay them basically to get pregnant and drop out.
Funny how DoB changed the subject after I posted the study that found that 40% of rape claims were false.
For the record, I think it’s probably somewhat less than that, but the nature and number of ‘he said, she said’ cases means we’ll never really know. And more importantly, we never know in any particular case whether it’s in the ‘false claims’ basket or the ‘true claims’ one. Hence our very robust procedures, built up over years of democratic processes, to make sure we take a good, close look at things and try to reach the truth in an objective way. Procedures which extreme feminists now want us to chuck out.
College is anti-male? Did you go? Or is this just sour grapes? There has not been a level playing field until very recently. Now that it’s gotten a lot better, women are excelling. So crybabies like you claim that college itself is sexist. Wow. Try a little harder. Maybe you could have passed college, dude. Stop blaming everyone else for your failures and take personal responsibility.
I went to college and got a real degree. College doesn’t mean CRAP as most degrees and colleges are worthless now. Nice appeal to authority though. The Ivy League isn’t exactly covering itself with honor nowadays. Not that a leftie like you knows anything about honor.
College does mean crap, cupcake. Many careers are literally unavailable to you without proper credentials, which include diplomas. Mine requires at least a Masters. Nice ad hominem about my alleged lack of honor though. Fail.
So you admit you’re an Ivory Tower dipshit with no real world experience. Color me unsurprised.
You are a laff riot. Just who is going to repair the elevators so all those gals can get to their desks?
Women elevator repair people. Duh.
Name one. Stock photo models don’t count.
HAHAHAHA suck it lame ass.
I simply do not think that the number of false accusations is anywhere near the ballpark of unreported assaults on men and women. MEN and WOMEN. A lot of people have been swallowing a lot of bullshit for a long time. Maybe the next backlash is going to be men reporting harassment, by men and women. I hope for that more than I hope for innocent people being accused.
Studies have shown something like 41% of rape accusations are false, so lots of blame to go around. I do agree that men under report harassment, and the weekly stories about female teachers sleeping with students is not a good sign either.
Did you know that 37% of statistics are totally made up by liars? Shut up and sit down.
Kanin, Eugene J., “False Rape Allegations”, Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 1, Feb 1994
Your side lost. Trump won, Elections have consequences. Deal with it.
Yeah. I don’t talk to women I am not very familiar with unless I absolutely have to. I didn’t realize how this phenom. had affected my behavior over the past few years but after thinking about it, indeed that it has. So while as time goes on, I increasingly know fewer women and have fewer and fewer in my life, it doesn’t really bother me. In fact life is both simpler and easier. And knowing a woman, unless she is only one or two who are intimately acquainted with you (mom, or a gf, etc.), does pose something of a hazard for a man these days. I liken it to talking to an on-duty cop. Talking to police is by and large safe but some number of cops are always looking for a reason to arrest someone. If even it’s 1 in 100 cops, why risk it by casually chatting with even one? Unless I have some business with a cop, I don’t talk to him. Looking over my behavior the past few years, I see that I have adopted a similar approach with women. The outcome hasn’t been all that bad. Like I said, life’s simpler for me and I like it that way. Not that I don’t like women or having them in my life, just the risk of associating with them has gotten a bit too high. ‘Tis a shame, really, but perhaps in time this current round of nuttiness will pass. I just wonder if it will pass before I croak. I only have about 25 to 30 years left. 🙂
Please clarify: does your hand involuntarily grab asses? I don’t understand this “risk.”
The risk isn’t that your hand involuntarily grabs asses. The risk is that you’re dancing with a woman at a club, you kiss, you put your arms around her and then your hand on your ass and then she goes off and accuses you of molesting her. Or of kissing you without asking. And before you know you’ve been fired and have to issue grovelling apologies (see Rupert Myers’ piece in The Spectator)
So you are inherently biased against women and police officers? Uh oh. Someone has a guilty conscience.
Hit the nail on the head with on-duty cop analogy….
Nice to have evidence that there are still some sane women left.
Although a simplification, we might think of Democrats as
being pro-woman, and Republicans as being pro-(white) male. So rather than
being symbolized by the Donkey and the Elephant, we might think of the two
parties as the Chicks and the Pigs.
The #Metoo movement is a battle between the Chicks and the
Pigs. In this battle, Franken’s fate has shown that a basically decent man can
admit his mistakes, apologize, and then lose his job. Moore, on the other hand,
has been accused of far more serious things. These two responses to sexual
allegations, mildly offensive in one case criminal in the other, are
diametrically opposed. The fate of the #Metoo movement hangs on the balance of
Tuesday’s election. If Moore loses, the differences between Franken’s approach
and Moore’s will be decided. When faced with accusations, whether you admit and
apologize or stubbornly deny, you will be punished. The Chicks will have won. On
the other hand, If Moore wins, it means that the best strategy of anyone
accused of sexual misconduct will be to deny.
The Chicks might claim that in the event of Moore’s win they
can claim the moral high ground. This is only true if no further allegations of
sexual misconduct by male politicians is forthcoming (highly unlikely). If
Moore wins, other women considering speaking out will understand that one’s
chances of a favorable outcome are greater if one speaks out against the male Chicks
rather than the Pigs. Moreover, male politicians of all stripes will understand
that one gains nothing by being forthcoming about one’s failures, and start
denying. Thus a Moore victory will signal the end of the #Metoo movement with a
net gain for the Pigs.
You are pretty astute. However, I think the game may be much bigger. The whole thing is about taking down Trump after 2018 election. If this sexual harassment tsunami can be kept going, it can make the House flip. Then the impeachment is guaranteed of course, either on sexual harassment charge or obstruction charge, with conviction in Senate possible but not guaranteed-depends on how bad the damage in the Senate will be. If Senate also flips-highly unlikely-its icing on the cake- no more Trumpian judges or Agency heads. Remember the impeachment can commence even with less-than-adeqate hard evidence – Congress need not meet the ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ standard at all. Even with no conviction, it will be a mega-drama and huge nuisance, and given the Mr. Trump’s penchant for self-sabotage, such a circumstance will almost seriously damage the Trump candidacy or victory in 2020. Of course, if things go that way, in January 2021, the will be a dozen sexual harassment/assault charges will be waiting to greet him, with endless litigation and expense. Depending on what happens with Mueller’s investigations, there may be an Obstruction of justice charge waiting as well whether or not there is any evidence of collusion.
Roy Moore’s election is a wild card. Republicans cannot afford to lose the Senate seat, so they hope Moore wins. And they will seat him in the Senate, but only for a short while b/c they can’t afford to have him there with all his baggage when 2018 elections arrive.So the only option they have – to have the cake and eat it too-is to eject him by 2/3 majority, and let the Republican Governor of Alabama appoint a Republican Senator-Luther Strange, may be? If that happens, it will be interesting to see the reaction of Alabama voters!
If there is any truth to the guesswork above, it means there are powerful people who can create a very volatile, chaotic situation using social and moral issues, and manipulate some special group of people, just by releasing some heretofore secret information- very scary if one thinks about it!
How is Trump’s history of sexual malfeasance “secret”? Nineteen women have accused him across many years. His first wife accuses him of rape in her biography. Many pageant contestants have spoken about him walking into dressing rooms unannounced and ogling them. This does not even count the 19 who have said he forcibly touched them in some way. He’s ON TAPE BRAGGING. Trump was a flawed candidate no one expected to win. He came with big skeletons in his closet. Only Hillary Clinton could have fucked up the 2016 election, and fuck it she did. But Trump’s issues were not manufactured or fabricated. To the contrary, they were expertly covered up or hushed, but now they are rising up.
I hope the whole house of cards (see what I did there?) comes tumbling down. The sooner the better. If it takes some scumbag Democrats with it, all the better.
He’s on tape saying that some women let you grab their crotches if you’re a rich, self-confident businessman, which for all I know may well be true.
Yet if you read the entire comment, he talks about moving on a married woman “like a bitch,” forcing his attentions on her and being rejected. Then, having admitted failure, he talks about how you CAN get away with it if, instead of hitting on rich married women, you grab those who are less powerful than you. It’s all very clearly stated for those interested in hearing it instead of contorting themselves to excuse it.
Sorry, can you paste that bit here? I don’t know where to find the full transcript.
Google is your friend. The transcript is literally everywhere. I posted it elsewhere in this thread, so look around.
OF course he’s going to say they “let” him. What is he going to say? “She fought, a rictus plastered on her face, her body coiled in disgust, quaking only slightly from fear and revulsion as I shoved my shrimp fingers in her dry vagina”? Come on now.
From what I can see, this whole movement was created by the NYT. For months prior to the Weinstein article, the NYT was publishing article after article on sexual harassment. What’s really striking is just to what an extend we are manipulated by the creators of public opinion, be that the NYT, Fox News, or PBS.
Most thoughtful column I have read on the recent events. I wish I could write like her. Ms. Berlinski did better than most writers in physically describing her encounter with the Don. I didn’t have to wade through 1000 words of ‘sexual harrasment’, ‘unwanted touching’, ‘sexual assault’, ‘inappropriate sexual behaviour’, drivel to try to find out what she alleged happened. I don’t use the word ‘alleged’ to be snarky but because what some women are saying recently are allegations, not God’s truth revealed through them. I could easily read 10000 words on Judge Moore without coming across such simple dedclarative sentences as hers.
Ms. Berlinski’s comments on Trump, and to a lesser extent Moore, jumped off the page at me as out of place in this column. I would expect Ms. Berlinski to be intellectually and emotionally spent after the effort put into this piece. There are intellectually credible reasons for not jumping on the anti-Trump bandwagon. It might take more energy than she can spare to drill down into these reasons, given her other interests and duties. She might find reasons as compelling as those she presented so well above. E.g. during the campaign Trump proposed better relations with Russia and perhaps withdrawng from NATO. He also opposed contronting the Russians in Syra. Biliions of dollars in spending were threatened. Fast forward. Now there is more MSM anti-Russian rhetoric than during the cold war. Every day. I used to think the ‘military-industrial complex’ accusers were nut jobs. Now I see that people like Dennis Kucinich were right and I feel sick.
My point is that the mob hysteria taking down Sen. Fraken et al. is not limited to the ‘sexual harrassment’ issue. It is everywhere. See Russia above. Perhaps it is because students have been taught to feel rather than to think. Perhaps it is because serious literature teaching has been watered down; soon to be replaced by reading nothing longer than shampoo bottle labels and watching images on TV.
Ms. Berlinski should ask herself whether it is possible she has accepted ‘conventional wisdom’ on topics like Trump.
QET said it better than I could:
“But it is unfortunate that Berlinski feels the need to pepper an otherwise serious article with recitations of the anti-Trump catechism. … I don’t personally care whether Berlinski or anyone else likes Trump or not; but it is terribly depressing to see in TAI publications, as elsewhere, otherwise sound thinkers and decent writers undermine their own credibility by continuing to pretend that Trump ushered in some kind of social pathology that is producing casualties. “
Bravo Ms Berlinski for a refreshing dose of sense. Thanks. /Sam Abrams – [email protected]
I find it absurd that her conclusion is to blame President Trump. She needs to think a bit harder about where the idea of endless victimhood come from. He is irrelevant to all of this, he is the response of many Americans to the lies they were being fed by both parties over the past years since George W. Bush was president and probably well before that.
We are soon going to reach the bottom level of the ideas of the postmodern academic left and its belief that any matter can be decided on the merits of the matter’s political correctness.. What she fails to give sufficient weight to is that ‘feeling’ something undesirable has happened to a person is not the same things as ‘having’ something undesirable happen to a person.
We are in a state now where judgement is replaced by feeling. No justice can come from such a place. The central idea of postmodernism is that the truth is not relevant to to any aspect of human life and knowledge. If this is not the stupidest idea to gain traction in a society I am open to suggestions of what else might be.
So, we can only hope that the truth will prevail. The concept of innocent until proven guilty is a key to any law driven society, if I were accused of being a harasser of women I would say nothing other than, prove it. Then get ready to sue the liar for defamation.
I wanted to like this essay, but on the one hand you call for reason instead of “moral panic,” and then you turn around and make comparisons with Stalin show trials and refer to sympathetic men as “castrated.” Let me just say that I’ve never kissed a woman without at least very clear implied permission. You can ask for permission, which contrary to some assumptions, can be very romantic and even a turn on. Or you can lean in slightly, and if she leans in with you, to feel it out. If she doesn’t, then you lean back and if it turns out she wanted the kiss she will come towards you. Either way, it’s never failed. I’ve known when a woman wanted a kiss – every single time. And I’ve never grabbed a woman’s butt without consent. Nor rubbed her back without consent. I don’t say this to blow my own horn, but to point out that it’s really not hard. I won’t impose the Pence Rule. I have no fear of being alone with a woman. Absolutely none, no hesitation, no fear that I might be taken the wrong way – I am absolutely confident that there is no woman in my past who will accuse me of assault, and absolutely confident that no woman in my future will do so.
I think the author of the piece likes the cat and mouse games in the traditional sex roles, and that’s her prerogative, and maybe my reaction is based on the fact that I find the whole “Baby it’s cold outside” coy courtship play boring. I personally wouldn’t lament its loss and in fact I was annoyed at one point in my youth when I felt like it was actually expected of me. But if you really enjoy it and want it in your life, then I suggest you come up with some kind of protocols for communication. But there’s no reason another woman should have to suffer a sexual battery or even simple battery so that you can enjoy yourself without feeling “unPC” or whatever.
THANK YOU! I wish there were more men like you around.
Obviously feminists wish there were more men who support them around, because it gives them more power. So what?
Eric, I say this with the best of intentions. I was like you until fairly recently. I believed in the good will of women and their reasonableness. The problem is that a lot of women nowadays, especially in ‘liberal’ towns and universities, have been exposed to a particularly extreme brand of feminism, which teaches them that men are constantly oppressing women (despite the fact that women in the US and UK in many ways live better lives than men, in terms of education, life expectancy, etc.) This leads them to see things in a certain way, and to be disinclined to give men a fair trial or even a fair hearing. You should be aware that there are women who now believe that even if they consented to sex they can redefine a consensual interaction as rape retrospectively (see Felix Desmarais in TheSpinoff for just one example). There are women who will accuse you of victim-blaming if you point out that a woman rubbed herself against you while dancing, and that might explain why you tried to put your arms around her. And there are plenty of women who will take an innocent comment about appearance and tell others you’ve been ‘sexually harassing’ them (one man I know was told he was harassing a woman because he told her she looked good without makeup). I wish you well. But be careful. We no longer live in a world of equality under the law, still less of equality in the way men and women are viewed.
They didn’t have a problem with men being dumped on but if it inconveniences them then they don’t like it.
“I’m not as much of a hateful bitch as they are”
Sorry, not enough. Men are quitting a system that offers them nothing. Go ahead and replace us with 3rd world illiterates and savages and enjoy your “victory”.
Not to worry Claire Berlinski, flirtation and romance and sex will continue to flourish as it always has. But this moment is not about that. It’s about unfettered power and patriarchy and privilege for a few, “while everyone else gets to plaster a rictus smile over their quiet desperation.”
I must live in a fortunate bubble, because all of my male friends and 98% of present and former coworkers know how to respectfully interface with women. It’s incredibly easy not to pelt someone with unwanted attention.
I wouldn’t say flourish. All the contradictory rules and training has taken a lot of fun out of the work place. I went from an all male field to a majority-female organization and it was night and day. Replacing patriarchy with matriarchy is no solution and power goes both ways; power is quite fettered.
It’s more about professional feminists enraged that the voters rejected their candidate and are now trying to push men out of public life.
“Women have endured far too many years of harassment, humiliation, and injustice. We’ll tell you when it’s gone too far.”
The sleight-of-hand here is to focus on injustices against women by men – ignoring any the other way around – and exagerating them to the maximum.
The bad logic is a) saying that this means women (meaning the feminist saying this nonsense) get to decide when enough men have been sacked over mere allegations, and b) the implicit idea that generations of women supposedly suffering means that present & future generations of men have to suffer as a result. This is clearly unfair
Another corrupt piece of feminist thinking here – treating women & men as two big groups. You are not an individual with individual rights, you are a member of a group (men or women) and must be treated according to the experiences of that group – as interpreted by gender-politics nutters.
You are against treating women and men as two big groups? Does that mean you don’t see any significant differences on average in social roles or cultural attitudes for these two “groups”? If you think there are some differences, say for example what share of nurses are women, how can you explain it without using the category “women”? Just wondering
“You are against treating women and men as two big groups?” Etcetc
That’s misreading what I said. My position is that you shouldn’t treat an individual as if they were the whole group, or some selected subgroup: “all white men are privileged so you’re privileged, so shut up when a woman speaks”, “all Germans are responsible for what happened in Nazi Germany so Manfred who was born in 2001 should be executed for war crimes”
No one would say the latter, but we keep hearing the former as though nothing were amiss.
I keep seeing the argument (if you can call it that) that modern men should be pilloried because there were instances – possibly exaggerated in number and severity – where other women were mistreated by other men in history. Its illogical and fundamentally unjust.
I do think men and women can be studied as different groups in science, but that’s a quite a separate point. Perhaps that wasn’t clear enough as I originally wrote it
Your statement are not equivalent: all Germans are responsible vs all men are privileged. Of course the privileges of men in U.S. Society are no longer coded into law, as they once were. So being a male in our society no longer offers the same privileges . Nevertheless can we say that being male in our society offers certain privileges no matter what your individual personality? One privilege I’d note is a significant less element of fear. Unlike most women, I feel less fear to walk about the streets of my city after dark. I’d argue to that the less fear i experience reflects the actual fact that the threat of violence is less. Numerous studies note that for certain professions male pay is higher than female, no matter what my individual character. Other studies show that, in as, women do a disproportionate share of the house work. So I wonder if your preference for individual assessments of responsibilities blind you to the broader social context?
Interesting reply, thanks. Firstly, if we say men have certain privileges, then surely women have some too: greater care over women’s health, safety and feelings. Google Sonja Starr for 1 of several bits of research showing women get significantly smaller sentences for the same crime. And women know that their children are theirs, and have much more control over family matters & reproduction.
The element of fear is a reasonable point. I tend to think women are more careful (& maybe fearful too) by nature – I’ve seen research to show men take more risks, eg: behind the wheel of a car. One reason for such fears is the relative strengths of the sexes, and men’s rather ..er.. single-minded attitude to sex. Also that women are bombarded with the message to be careful on nights out & in general.
I think the pay-gap phenomenon has been shown several times to be the result of women’s choices & the fact that babies need a mother, in reality, more than a father in the 1st yea. This last is also in other ways a privilege for women.
If I was a woman I’d certainly think it was unfair, even so, how politics is dominated by men. I’d even agree to quotas if I didn’t have such a clear view of feminism & the arguments given above. Bear in mind we were fairly close to simultaneously having female leaders in the UK, France, the US & Germany this year.
“Those in doubt can may consult pre-2017 television and cinema, where men routinely kiss women without asking permission.”
This made me immediately think of the book and movie “A Room With a View.” Cecil is a dispassionate prig who asks to kiss Lucy and then does a terrible job of it. George is an emotional romantic who grabs her and kisses passionately without any notice – twice. Who does Lucy marry? George, after ending her engagement to Cecil. George’s father points out that George “tried when he should not have tried,” but Lucy ends up being glad he did. So is the audience, because nobody wants to live in a world of Cecils. Until now, I guess.
Ignore this second comment, my edit of the first one did go through after all.
The Onion did an article a number of years back, about how many romantic comedy heroes of yesteryear would be slapped with charges nowadays..
That is really crux of the matter – actions (or sins) of past when societal mores were very different should have any (significant) bearing on the present and future. We all agree Society of course needs to progress in terms of equality, etc., so many of the past attitudes need to change (and many have changed), but how will it end if many of the past actions that were acceptable then are treated like punishable crimes now, with devastating consequences? There are some unquestionably egregious examples such as Weinstein that need much harsher treatment, but Franken? Where to draw the line, and equally importantly who should draw the line, and what are the criteria? One thing is certain: no good comes out of deliberately creating and intertwining moral and social issues with politics to fulfill an agenda…
What Franken did was not acceptable under either the old rules or the new; it was only possible because the old rules were being systematically attacked, because Baby Boomers were bored.
The rules have changed quite suddenly though. Now we’re told you have to ask a woman if you want to kiss her. That’s an extreme view that goes against the whole of human history, but it’s now being used to ruin men’s careers, even against the settled and democratic law of the land. This movement is really about a tiny minority of men who needed to be exposed, and a slightly less tiny minority of university feminists who believe that all men are evil agents of the patriarchy.
This article echoes the concerns I’ve had many weeks, until she skids at the end. The momentum to conclude men/masculinity are today’s pariah hits a pothole and derails to “it’s all Trump.” Having a husband and a son, I am concerned with the tenor across all institutions, so reactive to trip wire feminism while bludgeoning anyone with XY chromosomes.
“But could we at least get enough of a grip to realize that it is a moral panic—and knock it off?. Women, I’m begging you: Please”
Begging is the last thing you want to be doing with these types. Important point. They are ruthless and power hungry
Yes, victims of sexual assault are ruthless and power hungry. Eye roll.
I’m sometimes staggered at this number of idiots lining up to misrepresent my arguments on this subject.
It simply suggests that you don’t have a rational point to make, so you’ve decided to use an irrational one instead.
Why don’t you make your point then, Sparky.
Funny thing thing that I just watched this quite intelligent woman in a youtube video so was not surprised to find she had been propositioned several times as she is quite pretty and the conversation was very good to. It was a conversation on Maggie Thatcher. Her dad is also very deep as a writer in my opinion.
The article, though long some may say though I would not, does cover much ground from a woman’s perspective that has obviously put some thought into it. I agree with a bunch of it and am lukewarm as to other parts, but it is a decent basis for argument, but it will not be the beginning of any conversation, rather she will be seen as a woman’s uncle tom, but as she stated, there will be many that say I agree in the shadows.
From a man’s point of view I would say this issue is just plain overblown and she makes that argument well, but I mean also that if women do not complain in a timely manner then it is not harassment, it is buyer’s remorse, as they waited and didn’t get what they expected as a benefit of putting up with the actions,
I am sure there are real cases where women didn’t say anything because it would affect their career trajectory, however, that is a decision made with full knowledge that she has put that career ahead of her own self, and I think that would be the reason for distress rather than the action itself. Betraying oneself is a crime that rarely goes unpunished even when the offender gets what they have coming.
The flipside , of course is when women do stupid stuff to men. When a woman at work heard I do not care to be touched by folks without an invitation, she then made it a point to come up behind me a playfully poke me in the ribs. I explained I do not care for the poking soi next time she came up behind me and started to massage my neck. As, a man, I stood up and in front of co workers told her in a firm manner that I had told her not to touch me in a nice way in the past, now I was telling her point blank, do not touch me period. This works and would work for women also and this person was in my chain of command and it was said in a calm manner in front of witnesses so if any further action would be needed I would have folks that knew I had drawn the line. It really is that easy
This is bullshit:
> if women do not complain in a timely manner then it is not harassment, it is buyer’s remorse, as they waited and didn’t get what they expected as a benefit of putting up with the actions
Buyer’s remorse? Has it occurred to you that a woman can be harassed, abused, even raped by someone that isn’t offering her anything? He just happens to be willing to cross that boundary. Calling a man out on something like this means he could lose his job. He will likely call you a liar, try to turn the tables. You have to tell the story over and over. Then, who knows, he might go after you. There are a ton of reasons not to report it, not the least of which is that you might not be believed. You might be blamed. You might get a reputation for stirring up trouble. Has NOTHING to do with “buyer’s remorse.” Nothing is being bought here.
And if only it were as easy as you say. Did you have any material fear from this woman? Did she get you alone, in front of no witnesses?
When folks say thing such as your statement here it makes one wonder if they were born in a test tube.
We all have mothers, sisters, aunts, cousins, friends that are women. I am 53 so there have been many women in my life that have spoken on these situations as it is not new under the sun
What do you mean in asking did it ever occur to me as if I have never talked to a real woman.
Yes, the woman was a superior in my case as for your other rant have fun believing no one like me could possibly understand. It matters not to the point I made
What are you babbling about?
I think he means all the cases where women accept come-ons, participate in sex, reap the benefits of attention by powerful men, etc. – and then decide years later that they were ‘assaulted’ or ‘exploited.’ In a lot of these cases I agree that there was exploitation, but I’m not sure it was by the ageing man.
Many of the Weinstein actresses! There’s also a woman at my work who got a promotion because she’s dating her boss. (She only came to town because she started dating him, then suddenly got a very good job and a promotion above other people who’d been around longer). Now, I think this situation is wrong and I’ve said so. The question is, who’s doing wrong, him, her, or both of them? You might say that he’s exploiting his power for sex, and I think that’s probably right. But you might also say that she’s exploiting her attractiveness and youth for advancement, and I think that’s also true. I think a balanced view is that BOTH parties are in the wrong. If you just blame the man, how is that treating the sexes equally?
According to the US federal government, sexual harassment is determined by the feelings of the offended, not the intent of the perpetrator.
Why does the predator’s so-called (stated) intention matter? Grab my tits or ass, force me to kiss you, then claim “I meant it to be flirting!” Well, you should have asked before you touched.
Because the so-called predator may not be one in the first place. Your choice of words explains precisely why the alleged victim may not be a victim at all: suppositions are not always correct. Intent is the difference between manslaughter and first degree murder. And the intent may be right when the reaction to the behavior is wrong such as the case of that guy who used the word “niggardly” in a meeting and a woman was ignorant of the word. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/williams/williams020499.htm
Let me state this clearly: if you put your hands on me without any sort of prior consent, that is not OK. This is not a court of law, where we are doing some legal post-mortem. This is life, where if you grab or force people to touch you, whatever is in your head, you are violating consent. You can make up whatever story you want where it’s OK that you did it, but what matters about my body is if I wanted you to touch it, not your made up stories about why it’s OK. Clear?
Harassment is not only touching, although it can be. In the real world people touch people all the time, with and without sexual intent. Pats on the backs or shoulder or knee (I’ve experienced them all, from men and women) are not prefaced with “May I give you an atta boy?” But the reality is some women will misinterpret this, others will use this as leverage against that person, and hopefully most will see it as a harmless human interaction. In the broader sense, even in romantic interludes, consent is not always required since no means no is, for the time being, the law in most states.
Of course, we can just use clear cut examples to make a point but real life is much more complicated, as the author notes. So, to answer your question: it’s not really that clear.
Yes, harassment is also verbal, which is harder to prove if the perpetrator is sneaky.
You are conflating a touch on the arm (attaboy) with grabbing a tit or ass, which has happened event to someone as popular and famous as Taylor Swift. The guy did it on the red carpet, in front of numerous people. Even though she has body guards, this was not prevented. Then, when she accused him, he called her a liar and sued her.
So whose fear is misplaced here? The person who is afraid they might be groped by someone, or the person who is afraid a harmless touch will lead to some warlock hunt allegation? Here is what I can tell you– despite what you and a lot of men here seem to think, accusing someone of harassment or abuse is DIFFICULT. It’s not something that happens on a whim, for petty reasons. The scrutiny you fall under is intense– as it should be, but not to be undertaken recreationally.
If you just keep your hands to yourself when in doubt, you will be fine. Where you put your hands is totally uder your control. It’s not under my control what other people may do to me, and my response to it is going to be challenging even if I’m 100% in the right. Please unskew your thinking here. You are pre-occupied with this idea that the big risk here is an innocent touch will be misinterpreted and lead to… what, being burned at the stake? Whereas my concern is that a person (MALE OR FEMALE) will be touched in a violating way. I think my priorities are in line with reality.
I’m not conflating the two at all; I’m saying that women have the potential to. Look at the
Keillor case, based on his remarks (yes, biased) that’s what happened. Whether it’s true or not, I don’t know but it’s certainly plausible.
Both fears could be misplaced, or neither. It all depends on the situation. Right now there is a media hunt for stories like this so it’s more likely the fears of the harmless toucher are more valid.
Please don’t tell me what is and isn’t difficult. You don’t know me and nothing I’ve written can be construed as thinking accusing someone is an easy matter. I’m sure it is indeed difficult. As it should be, as you said. Because whether in the workplace, the school, or in the legal system, the burden of proof is with the accuser and the accused has the benefit of the doubt.
But let’s not kid ourselves. Just as some people can instinctively lie to the police when pulled over, just as some men exaggerate their sexual conquests, just as some people inflate their income to their banks pre-2008, yes *some* women can lie about these things quite easily. Which is sad because it undermines the real victims of sexual assault or harassment.
On the contrary, I think you have the skewed thinking here and you project it on those who reply to your comments. I’m not pre-occupied with anything other than the truth. We’ve seen trendy witch hunts go down before many times in our history and, yes, I do have a concern that taking the road of good intentions will be littered to many personal hells, which is unnecessary. The past crimes against women in no way justifies lack of justice and doing right by (mostly) men who are caught up in a modern day Salem. I can be both concerned with people who are violated and not want people to lose their jobs over a trivial interaction, at the same time. They are two sides of the same coin and this is not an either/or proposition.
I already said that I hope no innocent people are caught up in this. No one seems to hear me saying that. I am more concerned that there are abuse victims who can’t speak out than I am about men throughout this thread who are afraid they might be wrongly accused. They’re worried about something that hasn’t happened and likely won’t. I’m worried by people who have already been hurt, who need to feel safe enough to speak of it. I can’t worry about theoretical false allegations, and I actively condemn proven false ones.
That’s understandable. We all look out for our own interests ultimately. Sorry if I missed you saying that you hope that innocents aren’t caught up. You’re concern isn’t misplaced. But neither is mine, despite your dismissal. It’s more likely than you think and I’ve seen/heard it in action so it’s much more than theoretical. False accusations are real right now they are more ready to be believed than ever.
Having said that, I completely understand your desire to champion the cause of people (women) who have been victimized. I wish you well regardless of our disagreement on the emphasis and tone.
The ‘ask before you touch’ thing is a newfangled radical feminist approach. Argue for it if you want, but it goes against the way things have been done for the whole of human history, the way things are done in 99% of the world now, what lots of women have told me they want (they often think asking is unsexy), and the settled democratic law of the US and other nations. It’s more ‘touch somewhere relatively innocent, then move on to more erogenous zones if the woman seems happy with that.’ Of course, sometimes the woman will have a neutral tone at first, but then will warm up and start participating. All that is perfectly normal, except that a small minority of radicals have decided to criminalize it, to what end I don’t know.
Also, of course, you’re meant to ask again every time you make a fresh move. Like ‘Can I please kiss you?’ ‘Can I please put my hand on your breast?’ ‘Can I please digitally penetrate you?’ and so on. If that sounds annoying, be aware that you risk a lawsuit nowadays if you don’t do it. And, of course, it doesn’t matter if she’s your girlfriend or your wife, because that could be relationship rape (see the guy in the US who was kicked out of college for assuming he could kiss his sleeping boyfriend). How you’re meant to ask about every move you make is beyond me. For example, strictly speaking I should ask ten seconds after putting my hand on your breast to make sure you still want it there. But why wait a whole ten seconds? What if you’ve changed your mind after 5 seconds? Sexual assault!
I completely agree. It seems that so-called feminists are becoming Puritans, with a whole laundry list of rules to be followed during the courtship dance.
Some men also lie quite easily. That’s how these things devolve into he said/she said. I can tell you now, regardless of what is being said here, most HR departments won’t do shit based on one claim of non-violence harassment. It has to be witnessed or there have to be multiple accusers. It’s not easy to just pop off and accuse someone, then have it go somewhere. Remember that you then have to work with the person you accused. Not fun. This idea that someone might do it for for shits and gigs is just weird to me.
If not shits and giggles, how about heroization on social media, career advancement, fame and money?
Many of these accusers remain anonymous or are already famous. Or hey, look at Anita Hill and Monica Lewinsky and all the women who spoke out about sleazy men. Everyone loves them, right? No one craps on them and calls them liars. Look at how people in this thread have spoken of Trump’s and Moore’s accusers? Do you see heroization? Also, do you have any comprehension of what the complaint process is like with sexual harassment? It is terrible. There is no fame or money in it for most women. This is a fantasy you have concocted.
I am with you. I do NOT want to live in a puritan society. I love men, ‘warts and all’ and in recent months of this hysteria, I think more women need to take responsibility for some of the situations they put themselves in. Do they not realize that this kind of hysteria makes women look weak, unable to take care of ourselves? All the work that was done in the 60s to help women find their independence, power is now being undermined.
Calling out a person who abused you is weak? What planet do you live on?
Calling someone out decades after the fact and only after many others have gone before you comes across as weak. I agree with Rae, it does undermine the supposition that women are independent and strong when they can’t reply appropriately to an inappropriate behavior. I’m not saying it’s easy, but let’s not make heroines out of would-be victims.
You just don’t get it. It seems likely it has never happened to you. It’s not easy to step forward and possibly ruin someone’s life, even if he’s hurt you. Sometimes, you can’t bring yourself to do it until you realize, shit. He’s done this to lots of people. I wasn’t some special case. It wasn’t an isolated incident. I don’t have to keep this to myself. That is why one person comes forward, and then more say, “Oh crap, this guy is a serial abuser. I have to back up this other person.” Because without back up, it’s just he said/she said or he said/he said, or she said/she said. That is why sometimes people with old abuse don’t come out until later. Also, sometimes the people in power won’t listen, but later, those people have changed, and the ones in charge now will.
Do you get it a little better now? Telling victims who finally are able to speak that they are weak for not acting on your timely is cruel.
I can’t think of more propitious circumstances for saying something than the ones in vogue now, where the woman always has to be believed, and anyone even doubting her story is labelled a misogynist!
Fading superpower? Why defecate on an otherwise well written piece by throwing in a bunch of empty, anti-American agitprop? Trump is far from dead. And the winning has only begun. We have gone from an accomplishment-free, Communist street protester, to a hyper-competent leader with a lifelong history of success.
Two bankruptcies makes a person hyper competent? His approval rating is in the 20s. You’re funny.
One of the best articles I’ve read in quite a while. My wife is shouting “Yes! Bravo!” Some women get it.
In my state, some of the female legislators have been demanding “protection” from their male counterparts, who’ve done things like make “lewd comments” and “leer” at them and, horror of horrors, even flirt with them (Steve Lebsock). My thought: the best way to protect these female legislators is not to vote for them. In the past, I confess I’ve voted for women, little realizing how I was contributing to their being sexually harassed. But my eyes have been opened. Never again. Women are better protected if they stay home and bake cookies.
As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for because you might get it.
Why would you vote for someone who leers at women and thinks it’s appropriate to pursue sex in the workplace over someone who wants people to behave with some decorum? Your logic is fucked.
You don’t get it. If women want to be protected, the best way to protect them is to not put them in harm’s way. If women can’t handle a dirty joke, why should anyone believe they can handle the tough issues legislators often have to deal with? Women need to decide if they want to be delicate flowers or tough cookies.
There is a difference between a dirty joke and a “joke” whose intention is to make the listener feel degraded. Also, highly doubtful one joke is going to land someone in trouble unless it’s a real whopper. In order for HR to give a shit, you’d have to either really be offensive, in front of lots of people, or have a pattern of making comments that make lots of people feel like crap. Or have you never been involved in HR or dealt with a situation like this? Just making shit up, are ya?
Why is the onus on women here? Can people who make joke that have no place at work control their stupid mouths? Men have to decide if they are professionals or if they are only fit to be in a locked room, alone. You can control yourself, can’t you? Then why don’t you do it and solve the problem?
There’s no “onus” on women. They’re demanding protection. If they want protection, I say give them protection.
And I don’t have any problem controlling myself. I just have a problem when you want to control me.
I don’t want to control you. I want you to control yourself. You’re the one saying, if women “can’t handle a dirty joke.” That is putting the onus on these supposed women. Why not say, “If men can’t prevent themselves from making gross sexual comments in public, then they should stay home and make me a sandwich”? You control your mouth, your hands, and your dick and no one will have a bad word to say about you. Simple, and takes the burden off everyone else.
It would be nice to live in a world where no one needs protection, but that’s not the world we live in. We have laws for a reason.
And you’re wrong about women. They do want protection and society puts a premium on protecting women–not so much on protecting men. If a man hears a dirty joke, he’s not going to look around for somebody to protect him. A woman will.
As to controlling men, that’s exactly what you want. And if you want nothing to do with me, why do you keep responding to me?
I don’t think you are in a position to speak to what women want. Women want to feel safe. You are mistaking that for wanting protection. We do not want men to protect them. We want men to control themselves. I literally do not know a single woman who wants protection from a dirty joke. You are hysterical. You need to lie down. I do not want to control anyone but myself. This worry about controlling others is 100% on your end.
Well, I never accused feminists of being honest.
And tell me, what does justice look like when it comes to a man telling a woman a dirty joke?
And you can say women don’t protection, but then say they want to feel safe. That’s distinction without a difference. And who is supposed to make them feel safe?
Give me an example of a real man who received serious consequences for telling a dirty joke. I would like a link or cite. If it’s a one-time lapse in judgment, all the corrective necessary is a scoff. If the guy has a pattern of making lewd, detailed, suggestive jokes and comments, then he’s trying to make people feel creepy. He should be told by someone to stop. If he doesn’t, then he lacks the self-control to be in that workplace. Consider if you made the same joke to a client or customer whose personal proclivities were unknown to you and that person complained to the boss. The joke teller would get in trouble, probably, for harming the business. Is that OK with you? Why are employees valued less than customers?
Nobel prize winner Sir Tim Hunt lost his job because he made a self-deprecating joke about falling in love with the women in his lab. And Larry Summers lost the presidency of Harvard for suggesting that perhaps genetic differences explain why men do better than women in math. So, yes, this stuff happens.
But you’re right–women are not that offended by dirty jokes. Nor are they all that offended by lewd comments or a man making a pass at them. Even naked men don’t offend them that much; after all, female journalists sued to have access to men’s locker rooms.
And if you’re right that women don’t want protection, then why do women object to all this stuff? I guess a lot of them are like you: they really hate men. Assuming all your claims about women are true, that’s what we’re left with. A lot of women, like you, are full of self-righteous anger at men.
And despite all your ill will towards men, you still dispute my claim that in a feminist society it’s okay to hurt men.
This is a refreshing article but I’m not surprised when I see it coming from Claire Berlinski. Nevertheless, I remain convinced that the SJWs are in search of the single most dysfunctional personal in the world and when they do that person will be anointed the sole arbiter of all social customs and mores. But we will have distilled the entire matter down to the point that all we will have to do is request a thumbs up or thumbs down. It won’t be necessary to argue the facts.
That’s the thing — any law that allows the listener to define words being spoken effectively outsources legislation to *the craziest person in the room*.
It’s a ghastly act of horrible judgement.
Sadly, it’s often men with power who are the craziest person in the room. People who hear “no” spoken in various and twist it into “yes.” People who look at how someone is dressed and decide that the onus is on her if a man interprets her outfit as an invitation and not just clothing. In your mind, the SJW is the craziest person in the room and not the sexual abusers who seem to run so many things.
Well, what about the feminists who are now twisting ‘yes’ into ‘no’?
Can you give an example of what you mean?
Felix Desmarais, TheSpinoff.co.nz
If only I could give 5 Recommend votes to just one article each year, I’d give them here.
In a way, we all want the “old days” back. We evolved in a world of constant danger. Simply getting a steak for dinner involved battling mammoths, and saber toothed cats. Throughout recorded history as well, there was the constant threat of war, invasion, highway bandits, you name it. Although none of us would choose to go back to those days, there still that itch evolved into us that needs to be scratched. That’s why extreme sports are becoming so popular, and video games, and violent films. None of us wants to BE in danger, but we still have that need to feel like we are.
This is not your thread. This thread is on a public message board about an article. It’s an article about the #MeToo movement. My comments related to yours in context of the article. This is not all about you.
I am sorry for your pain (something I have said over… and over… and over). Are you sorry for mine? I have been hurt– physically, materially hurt– by men on numerous occasions. You demand compassion for your fear. Where is yours for my actual suffering? And that of many women and men harassed at work or in the streets or in their homes, who are afraid to tell?
The issue is that I have friends who never seen police or law do anything about their assaults and let the person go free. There are higher chances of cops not believing you or victim blaming you. It happens. I think Metoo was about showing just how often sexual assaults happen. In the work place, many friends where not taken seriously, and this can lead to poor self-esteem. The issue is its hard to prove this type of thing because its usually a he/she said thing. But it doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. False accusations are very less likely to happen. Many women and men of sexual assaults never see justice. Most are never charged and it has to do with the system and how these types of crimes are treated. There has to be a change in the way they are dealt with and making sure victims have support to help them.
Oh my. As I prophesied nearly five years ago we are now at the end of days in which women’s victimhood power decapitates the ruling structures of our society. God speed to you all in liquidating our society. I wonder if anyone is working on an arc?
Decapitating… who? When the president is a self-proclaimed sexual abuser and Roy Moore is about to waltz into the Senate? A few entertainment figures are going down. Is anything really changing?
How did that waltz go?
Badly! Thank you, black women of Alabama!
Yeah – which might suggest that we’re not quite living in the patriarchal society that you think we’re living in.
Black women of Alabama usually vote Democrat anyway – it’s the suburban white Christians who seem to have stayed home who seem to have swung this one for the Dems.
Small moments of breakthrough do not mean that the fight is won.
> By the majority feminist opinion that I’m supposed to be ashamed of my gender.
Is BULLSHIT. This is not the majority feminist opinion. This is a fictional narrative you have created to make yourself the victim. No one thinks that all men should be ashamed. NO ONE. You can tell me all kinds of anecdotes about feminists who said this to you, but as someone who I am sure knows a hell of a lot more feminists than you do, I can tell you right now that only the most fringe elements feel this way, and those are people I do not associate with.
Over the centuries, we had developed a system whereby society could function efficiently despite the flaws of human nature. I was taught rules that together constituted being a “gentleman”.
But people have been rushing headlong towards dismantling all of those systems since at least the 1960s. This has been done by people who consider themselves our moral superiors, and probably never even considered that the rules they were dismantling were put in place to solve real and universal problems.
But these are very complicated issues. My background is mostly military, and most of my career has happened at a time when integration women into all aspects of military life has been occurring. On one hand, it is fair to allow people to participate in every aspect of military life, regardless of sex. On the other hand, when you put a bunch of mixed gendered 20 year olds together, then add isolation and stress, you are going to have not only pregnancies, but endless drama and distraction. It is as inevitable as the tides. Thus far, the proposed solution to those issues is to devote more and more time to counseling, lectures, and teaching the ever changing policies. And of course, it is not working. The shift in the power dynamic is also causing serious problems. As the article suggests, fear of accusation has become a large motivator. And not just for men who actually engage in fraternization. I have personally seen cases where women have threatened to make such accusations when they were angry at superior officers and NCOs for unrelated issues. The potential cost for a career officer of such an accusation is essentially life ending. The cost to a female enlisted Marine for being found to have made a false accusation is comparatively minimal. With that sort of power dynamic, the potential for abuse is endless.
Of course, I am not speaking of actual harassment and assault. Obviously, those are things that happen. And should be punished harshly.
Perhaps the answer lies with socializing our children better. Teach children that their bodies are theirs, not to be touched by others without consent. Teach them to show others similar respect. Don’t make female chastity some barrier to be overcome, and male sexuality an unstoppable engine that men are slaves to. Teach kids to respect each other, stop instilling these idiotic stereotypes about how all men are ______ and all women are ________. Takes a while to bear fruit, but it’s much more effective than forcing people to sit through sensitivity trainings.
Part of that is basic manners, which were developed over a very long time by people with some experience in human fallibility.
But I am primarily addressing both the power dynamic of the threat of being accused, and the messiness and fallout of consensual relationships. In my military career, I never had to deal with any actual assault, and very few harassment incidents.Mostly it was what you might think of as high school relationship drama, but amplified by military living and working conditions. Of course, the constant harassment training ensures that everyone is very aware of the consequences of an accusation, and there is a lot of fear involved. Those of us who are older and more senior have to be extremely careful about phrasing and personal space. And we have to worry about the conduct of the younger troops, who can rarely anticipate the fallout effects of their fraternization.
I find that one of the few advantages of forward deployment is that we can return our full attention to the actual mission.
I spend a lot of time among teenagers, and I have witnessed various types of sexual harassment. Literal ass-grabbing, pulling off clothing without consent, bra strap snapping (seems like a joke but is actually both painful and embarrassing), extremely lewd comments, written and verbal (these go both ways, gender-wise), demands for and distribution of nude pics (this is always of girls, but both girls and boys forward the pics), etc. I’m surprised that I see this among kids and you have never seen it in the military. Makes me go, “Hmmm.”
Everyone should be careful about phrasing and personal space at work. I work with kids. Of course I walk on eggshells. You think women are bad? Heh. You have to be perfectly behaved to work with kids or you can forget it.
The behavior I see in the military has been somewhat different than what you describe. There has been harassment and scandals relating to image distribution, but I have not personally had to deal with any of those. They certainly happen, but I am going to try to comment only on behavior that I have witnessed.
Grab-assery and crude language have been a part of military life forever. There are, I think, levels of crudity that are a natural result of the close-quarters comradery experienced by combat troops. The challenge, even in a purely male environment, is to keep it from rising to a level where it becomes counterproductive. If you try to suppress it completely, you also lose combat effectiveness.
One of our oldest traditions is separation of officers and enlisted troops. That sounds like unnecessary classism, but it serves a critical purpose. It is important to keep the junior officers mostly out of the enlisted spaces, because the enlisted men need a place they can go to let off steam and bitch about the officers. I think this applies to the sexes as well. More so, even.
I don’t really want to go off on a big tangent about women in combat or the military.
I do not envy you your time dealing with teenagers.
Grab-assery and crude language are also part of being a teenager. Weirdly (or not), boy grab at, paw, touch, and physically harass each other much more than they do girls. They almost always protest it’s just horsing around. I have seen grab-assery that was not consensual too. 9 times out of 10, the girl will BEG me not to get the boy in trouble because she fears backlash. It’s infuriating.
That illustrates a good point. Women, in my experience, do not want to be treated like “one of the guys”. Sometimes they express that sentiment, but it is usually about being treated how they imagine “being one of the guys” might be. The young men I work with are older than your teenagers, and all have some level of self discipline. So they know better than to do most of the things you have described. But when we are in situations where women are part of the unit, there is always the question of how to treat them, and how to act in their presence. Almost every time we have been in such a situation, the crudity and intrusions on personal space moderate naturally. But there is always a level of tension that develops. Flirtations and advances happen, even if not acted upon. Fraternization leads to jealousies and break-ups, which are poison in a closed environment where people cannot choose to avoid each other. Other sources of tension are the fact that women almost always have better living conditions and more privacy, and are not expected to do as much physical labor. Again, these things are normally accepted more or less cheerfully, but it always affects group cohesion, even if subtly.
Is fraternization strictly forbidden? That should be enforced rigorously.
The thing about not teaching children that men tend to be a certain way and women tend to be a certain way is that it’s not true (as decades of large-n transcultural studies have shown). Men and woman are different, and some of those differences are natural (genetic). The scientific consensus on that is about as strong as the scientific consensus on climate change. There’s a piece on that out now in Psychology Today, actually.
It is forbidden in almost all circumstances. However, there is reality to contend with. Young people can be very innovative when they wish to steal a moment alone.
Just because something is “fair” doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.
Here you go at last– Jim_L admits that he is anti-fairness. His reason? He doesn’t think it’s a good idea (but really, it’s because men won’t self-police and exert the self-control we all know they have). I rest my case.
Procrustes was “fair” in providing accommodations for his guests.
Everyone breathed a sigh of relief when Theseus took him down. Same thing is likely to happen to SJWs in the very near future. =)
I don’t even believe in SJWism. It’s just a mean name you call women and their allies that you dislike.
DoB, what you’re doing here is nothing but SJWism.
Twist, twist, twist.
I reject your label.
/shrug. Continue your struggle against reality all you like.
To put it kindly — A rose by any other name is still a rose.
You really aren’t in a position to tell me what I am. I am 100% positive you would not like it if I slapped the label I find most appropriate on you.
I’m in a position to tell you what you’re posting, just like any other literate person on this thread.
If it’s not really “you”, you might consider altering your communications to more accurately depict your point of view.
As it is, you’re earning the label.
No, you can give your interpretation, which I feel very sure is going to be waaaaaaaay off the mark.
What you’re doing here is misogyny. Period. Full stop.
Also, Procruses violated the rules of hospitality by harming his guests. Cutting off people’s legs is not quite the same as letting women serve in the military and then not grab assing. If this nuance is lost on you, seek professional help.
He ignored the fact that there are natural differences between human beings, and treating everyone identically can cause more harm than good.
If this is lost on you, try suing every teacher you’ve ever had… or admitting that maybe you’re a slow learner.
No, I’m pointing out a false equivalence inherent in your crap analogy. Try again unless it causes you more thinky pain.
Surely you are not saying
the context and the rules in the civil society regarding male-female
relationships, should be the same in a military setting?. Military is not a democracy, there is
no vote-taking before decisions are made, no reckoning with ‘feelings’,
and to be honest, it sole job is very unpleasant – to inflict heavy
pain, damage and death on the enemy. It it not a normal or sane
environment – there is good reason for saying ‘War is hell’.
is NOT to say that women can’t join the military, but very careful and
thought planning and extensive, long-term training is a must BEFORE
whole-sale personnel changes are made in the military.
It will take a long time-years at least- and enormous
patience as essentially the entire institution needs to re-done.
I really don’t see your point. Everyone in the military is highly trained. I am not sure why you think males are so lacking in self-control that they cannot be trusted to be around women soldiers. That is what you are saying, right? They don’t know right from wrong. They cannot help themselves. Women must be protected from them because men are inherently rapey, violent, dangerous? What a misandrist view. I am sorry about your self-loathing.
Whatever the context and the rules in the civil society regarding male-female relationships, it is obvious that in a military setting, especially when deployed, the whole picture is so different, even unique, so normal rules don’t, and shouldn’t apply. Military is not a democracy, there is no vote-taking before decisions are made, no reckoning with ‘feelings’, and to be honest, it sole job is very unpleasant – to inflict heavy pain, damage and death on the enemy. It it not a normal or sane environment – there is good reason for saying ‘War is hell’.
It is NOT to say that women can’t join the military, but very careful and thought planning and extensive, long-term training is a must BEFORE whole-sale personnel changes are made in the military..Civilian policy makers and military brass are deluding themselves and just asking for trouble if the normal processes such as counseling, sensitivity training, etc. are adequate to deal with problems in the military setting. Soldiers face the high-level of stress whether deployed or not, the heightened sense of risk, alien locations, unfamiliar cultural surroundings, and intangible but extremely frustrating experiences of dealing with frenemies; the perspective is not merely different but distorted. Decades of development of operating instincts, and even more deeply ingrained institutional philosophy can’t just be changed trivially – it will take a long time-years at least- and enormous patience as essentially the entire institution needs to re-done.
The burden to have self-control is all on the men? As if female soldiers never have consensual sex? Shouldn’t they keep it in their pants too? Or do you on a subconscious level think that men should be the responsible ones, the grownups who are expected to make it all work out, in a way that women are not because it’s not fair to hold women responsible in the same way as men? Is it possible that deep down, you think that gender equality is just a bunch of BS?
Have you looked into the rates of sexual assault and rape in the military? If not, go look. I’ll wait until you come back and blame it on women for wanting to be soldiers.
Wasn’t talking about sexual assualt. Was referring to the distraction and drama that is created by coed soldiers hooking up. Sexual assault is a whole other thing. Max Blancke didn’t even mention sexual assault except that it happens and men should be severely punished for it. What he DID mention is having witnessed cases where female soldiers used the threat of a false accusation of sexual assault to manipulate superior officers. When there is an incredibly harsh penalty for merely being accused of sexual assault but there is no corresponding penalty for making a false accusation, you have a serious problem. We didn’t have these problems in the military before it was coed, did we? If the military ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Do we really NEED female soldiers?
I laughed out loud at the part about how our current moral panic is because Trump got elected. (Lord, is there *anything* that’s not that man’s fault?) That’s even more specious than claiming the Salem witch trials were cause by the English Civil War and crop failures.
Hey, I’ve been damaged by a lifetime of patriarchy and yet I’m still close with respectful men. Perhaps you can learn how to manage your feelings from those of us who have had to do so for a very long time.
This “warlock hunt” is a backlash. After many decades of pressure building up, it finaly exploded. The list of women (and men also) suffering sexual abuse is huge and, like the paedophiliac priests that cast a bad light on the church, that will cast a bad light on men too. But the pendulum will come back when the pressure builds up on the other side too, but it is impossible to know when and how.
You make very good points. But has the pendulum come back towards Catholicism though? I don’t think so. The new pope is much more liberal than previous recent posts. He is also outside the “establishment” cardinal circle of Rome. I would hope that it’s a lot easier now for people to report abuse by priests, and that victims are believed when previously, they were not. But still, many injustices committed by the Church have not been addressed. Watch “The Keepers” on Netflix to see how long it can take to address such wrongs, and how hard it is to fix and atone for past evils.
It wasn’t conservatism that kept ephebophile (not pedophile) priests moving around; it was the opposite. Bishops listened to secular psychologists who assured them that, with treatment, such problems were curable. The problem wasn’t kiddy-diddler priests (though there were a few of those as well, just as among any population of men); it was homosexual priests who abused their power against post-pubescent, underaged boys — i.e., teenaged boys. Catholics can’t state the real problem without repurcussions from, um, certain groups. Further, that sort of problem is vastly larger in public schools than it was in the human element of the Church. See http://www.fisheaters.com/clergysexabuse.html
Oh, now rape apology too. Watch “The Keepers.” It’s not about a gay priest. You know that heterosexual priests raped girls and women too, don’t you? Or is your anti-gay agenda as strong as your anti-woman agenda? If you think rapist priests only came about with modern psychologists and their bad advice, you’re as delusional as you are bad at giving romantic advice.
Yeah, I know heterosexual priests have raped people. So have pedophile priests. But the vast majority of the problem was one of homosexual priests raping/abusing post-pubescent teenaged boys. Those are the facts, and my re-stating them doesn’t make me “anti-gay.”
Really depends on what you consider the line between ehebophilia and pedophilia. It’s defined as a predilection for people 15 and older. Unfortunately for your claim, the vast majority of victims are 14 or younger.
> The largest group of alleged victims (50.9%) was between the ages of 11 and 14, 27.3% were 15-17, 16% were 8-10 and nearly 6% were under age 7. Overall, 81% of victims were male and 19% female. Male victims tended to be older than female victims. Over 40% of all victims were males between the ages of 11 and 14.. 80% of abuse victims were male, and 40% of those victims were between 11 and 14.
The term “hebephilia” has been coined for those who prefer people between 11-14, but that term has not caught on. Those whose paraphilia draws them to children 14 and under are considered pedophiles. I think I can safely say, then, that most of the priests involved in this scandal meet the definition of pedophile. Pedophilia is a distinct paraphilia. It is not the same as being gay.
The church part was an example of how the crimes of some of its members reflected badly on the entire church. This bad light on men will lead to demonizatio n and ultimately make the pendulum swing back, which is unpredictable
Well said. One observation: at this rate, it may not be long before we see an accusation against a prominent woman. Men may be more prone to it, but I suspect I’m not the only guy who’s had a female coworker get a little too handsy with him when drunk, or met a girl who refused to take “no” for an answer at a party in college.
It would be rather antiquated to presume that powerful women in business, politics, and journalism have never had too much to drink and made an ill-considered pass at a man, or been a bit too sexually aggressive, or misread someone’s intent. After all, western societies no longer limit a woman’s flirting strategy to twirling her hair and blushing when a man presents himself. And with the increased opportunity for women to be forthright about their sexual interest comes the attendant opportunity to make the same mistakes men make – and the risk of being punished for it in the public square.
If this turns into a true moral panic, then, it may only be a matter of time before women start seeing themselves on the receiving end of accusations. We’ve already seen a hint of it, with an apparently well-known female contestant from The Voice being accused on Twitter of forcing herself on another woman. Perhaps men are more hesitant to say #metoo. But that could well change.
Do not read my comment as a resort to “whataboutism,” that weakest of moral arguments. By all accounts, Harvey Weinstein shouldn’t be in rehab for sex addiction – he should be in jail. But moral panics risk getting out of hand, as this article ably demonstrates. And when Robespierre was sharpening the guillotine, he surely didn’t foresee that one day his own head would be beneath it.
You are correct. Women will be accused, and if they are guilty, they should be. No one should get a pass.
And so it begins: http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article189932394.html
This panic has been ongoing for years. It has just gotten obvious now because the men with power in the media and politics are catching the hell the rest of us have been facing for years. I do not as a matter of policy ever sit in an office with a closed door. Why? Because I have no intention of being hauled in front of an EEOC board a.k.a a kangaroo court.
My family depends on my income. I will not risk it. I do not close the door for some, and leave it open for others. I just leave it open. All that said, I do discriminate. I will in a very low voice correct a younger male engineer, pointing out his failings and shortcomings. The younger females do not benefit form this. Why? My family depends on my income. I will not risk it.
So you practice a variation of the Pence Rule, good for you. But why do you think now, men with power are getting outed and punished? Time is just catching up with them(a coincidence) or there is super-clever sinister plot that we poor common people are not aware of?
There author did point out some truths. Panics occur when the society is stressed. The freakout over Trumps election is a stressor in some circles. Intersectionalism stresses everyone, especially its adherents, the feminist brand of this offshoot from post modernism is no exception. So we have a stressed populace, especially on the coasts where these men are getting tried in the media.
Is there some mastermind to all this? No. Post modernist thought in the late 60’s saw that Marxism had failed, and so in lieu of a class struggle, race was put in its stead. This is the basis of intersectional thinking. Read Derrida and Foucault(sp?). those two were two big influences in the 70’s. What we have is the acadmey’s 80-100 year obsession with socialism bearing poisonous fruit and the academy has a huge impact on society.
Just for the record, I do this too. I never close the door with a student in my office, because I don’t trust that I will be treated fairly in the case of allegations that I’ve done something wrong. I’ve also not come onto a woman in months (I’m single), because of the #metoo stuff. Feminists may say I’m paranoid, but then, I think they’re paranoid for treating every awkward come-on as harassment. And we’re told to listen to to women. So how about listening to men? A lot of us are scared to even approach you now. Is that the world you wanted? The only good thing that might come of it is that you might be forced to take the lead more now, which is what you said you wanted. But the fact is that you don’t, because female sexuality doesn’t work that way.
Let me distill this article down to its real essence for you:
“Poor men, evil women have castrated you! Women beware, if you keep on speaking out all men will come to fear and hate you! I’m begging you, women, please stop. PLEASE!”
And then: “Oh, men, by the way, I’m crowd funding to write a book. If you like what I’m saying and want to hear more, send me some money.”
It’s like feeling sorry for that predatious imposter currently sitting in the white House because his life is inconvenienced due to Meuller’s investigation.
Or as another reader (a guy) observed, it’s like feeling sorry for the Nazis whose lives were disrupted when the Allied Forces came in to restore sanity.
Yes – things like due process and equality are very valuable. I totally agree. As is the rule of law, the law as decided on by the whole community, not just a minority of extremists. And all that means that if a man tries to kiss a woman and then stops when she moves away, that’s not assault because it doesn’t meet the legal definition of assault. It means that when a man is accused of assault he has the right to a fair trial and to a presumption of innocence. And it also means that women have to take responsibility for their actions, including false and spurious accusations. Sorry if that makes you and your intended feminist readers uncomfortable.
It sickens me when I read the toxic masculinity that spills over in the comments below. “female hysteria..not-all-men…women assault too, …we can’t flirt anymore, where is the fun?!”
If this were an article about systemic racism you all would be saying,” I don’t see color, not all white people…but I’m not racist…black on black crime…slavery is over so get over it etc.
We have a system that is set up to foster sexual harrassment and rape culture. The comments on this thread serve the purpose of refuting the authors argument. Men need to hear that it is ALL not O.K. before we can come back to the middle where flirting is o.k.
None of this even addresses non-famous men who transgress every day or the burden of sexual assault and harassment that is disproportionately effecting women of color and those in poverty who can’t afford to speak out. Who can’t afford to loose that extra shift at the poultry plant or the hotel kitchen. All of this exposure of men in power will take YEARS to trickle down to the common assaulting man.
Radical consent is what is needed. Men don’t practice it because they are afraid of surely being told no. That is why they do it. Fear of rebuff. If men can’t understand signals then get a code book and keep your hands, emails and flirting to yourself until you learn the signals or…ASK before you act.
I question that these are “career ruining” allegations anyway. Men will line up to hire them within the quarter. Just watch! But will the Women who came forward be treated to the same amnesia? I think not! They will be seen as far to dangerous to hire.
What, did Jezebel link this article? “radical consent”? Please. If you cannot see how men who are absolutely innocent of harassment or worse might be concerned at the tenor of the climate, then I don’t really know what to say. And that goes doubly if you just rolled your eyes at ‘absolutely innocent’.
Of course, I’m not talking about people who are innocent. Absolutely innocent people shouldn’t be worried. But groups of women don’t come out of the woodwork with similar allegations about men who are innocent. They just don’t.
Granted, there is a serious problem. I have a wife, sister and daughters, and am absolutely willing to do my part. It is certainly no trouble for me to behave correctly. I think that one of Claire’s points is that the cure threatens to be worse than the disease.
I also have a 16 year old daughter. The men dating our daughters are getting the idea now (I hope) that their transgressions will not be tolerated. That their victims will not keep their secrets. Unfortunately, our daughters are also still in the position of being the gate keepers in every sexual situation. They are told just to laugh it off and smile or he may get offended. While all of the metoo exposure is going on, porn is teaching these future men that women are just a moaning collection of body parts there for their liking. That consent isn’t sexy. That she wants to be taken. Radical consent isn’t radical. It is what men have expected in every situation …their explicit consent before things go forward. Be it professional, personal or sexual. The Metoo revolution started in October and already people are saying enough!? Once Trump comes down with the house …we can move to the little guy!
We’ll just have to agree to disagree on the radical consent issue. Humans are just not that amenable to lists of acceptable behavior or prerequisites. And the author of the article that you linked is extremely non-mainstream, and most men are going to be uncomfortable (being polite here) having a gay rights activist lecturing them on the proper conduct towards the opposite sex. In the end, what should be asked of us is to behave decently, and to not suffer clear indecency in our fellows. This imperative in no way is feminist, nor is it really incompatible with patriarchy. The situation you describe above with a teenaged daughter is also resolvable with the traditional father casually cleaning his gun while talking with a daughter’s prospective boyfriend. So we are not going to really agree here, but this is one case where a large subset of feminists and right-libertarian / traditionalists such as myself have common cause – the stigmatization of abusive, or even just piggish, behavior (this latter for a social stance more than a criminal one), and the critique of pornography as inherently tied in with abuse.
Thanks for having the conversation with me. I don’t think that the author was just talking about the opposite sex. Radical consent is being discussed by many..not just radicals. I think that there is room to consider the idea. We seek radical consent in so many non sexual arenas that if it seems uncomfortable, we should ask why? Do you monitor your children’s phones and computers?
“the cure threatens to be worse than the disease.”
That is a fear but not the reality. Every case should stand it’s own merit but when you have multiple women saying it happened in almost all of the current cases being discussed we shouldn’t leap to that conclusion for any reason, not even fear.
The problem with this article here is that it’s clearly a FUD piece. I pointed that out in my first comment. And your responses are promoting that FUD, but the reality is there in nothing of substance there.
You’re repeating that FUD over and over here but show us someone who’s been falsely accused by one woman in this “#MeToo” wave who’s career was tanked as a result.
The author didn’t and you can’t either. The sky simply is not falling because of this.
This is a straw man argument.
“…Why would we even want men to be subject to such strenuous, arduous taboos against the display of their sexuality? These taboos, note carefully, resemble in non-trivial ways those that have long oppressed women. In a world with such arduous taboos about male purity and chastity, surely, it is rational for men to have as little to do with women as possible. What’s in this for us?”
The issue is not the display of their sexuality, it is the unbridled diisplay of their sexuality to people who do not have the ability to ignore it.
I dare say that a simple standard of free expression is the ability to ignore expression that one does not wish to listen to. In this context that requires the rigorous standard of respect in how one’s sexuality is expressed directly to another person.
Pretty simple actually.
It seems to me that the author is trying to excuse bad but sometimes fun behavior, not to improve social interactions, or most importantly to change the social imagination so those in power are expected to fully respect those not so blessed.
‘The issue is not the display of their sexuality, it is the unbridled diisplay of their sexuality to people who do not have the ability to ignore it.’ If you mean that a boss shouldn’t say to a woman ‘watch me masturbate, or I’ll fire you’ I’ll be the first to agree. But people often act these days as if when a man comes onto a woman, she’s unable to say anything. If a man says to you that you’re hot, or puts his arm around you, you can use your words and tell him to go away. If you think that’s too strong, you can say, ‘I need to go get another drink’ or whatever, and the vast, vast majority of men will accept that and back off. To believe that women aren’t able to use their words or to take actions is incredibly patronising, and not very feminist.
What you allude to is exactly “the ability to ignore it”. However, if someone comes on to an employee under them, or some other person whose life or career they have the power to control in some way, is the come on something the person can “safely and effectively” ignore? At what point does the come on end and the intimidation begin? This by the way obviously applies to both sexes.
I think that it’s complicated. I can imagine cases in which there’s an implicit threat, and I can imagine cases in which there’s not, and a boss comes on to a subordinate in an entirely acceptable way (see the Allison Benedikt piece on office flirtation, on the boss that she ended up marrying). So it depends. Personally, I try to err on the side of caution, and would never come on to a subordinate. But I accept that these things sometimes happen, and it’s not always exploitation, although it sometimes is.
10 years from now, when “social scientists” look back and wonder where the ostracization of women began? Well, it wasn’t here, today, but this is the epicenter. And 10 years from now, when women are complaining even louder than today that “good men are hard to find”? Remember these words ladies – You brought this on yourselves.
Right. Men are just going to become celibate, or “choose” to be gay, rather than deal with women. Shaaaaa. I’ll believe that when pigs fly our your ass, George. Men being unable to stay away from women (or other men) is what this is about. You’d have us believe that sudden, as a result of #MeToo, men are going to just give up on sex and women altogether? I call that an empty threat, but knock yourself out. The world would be better off if you types took a vow of celibacy, it seems.
Well, they’ll turn more to porn and prostitutes for sexual satisfaction, and to non-Western women for relationships. I’ve already started steering clear of women who say they’re feminists on Tinder. I’m not against feminism of the JS Mill or Mary Wollstonecraft variety, but the kind of feminists women get taught at universities these days is androphobic and even misandrist. Why would I risk being accused of sexual assault? If men are so awful, surely these feminists will be glad when we leave them alone?
You have a very skewed view on all this and you’re missing out. Enjoy non-Western women… who I’m sure really love you for your personality.
Well, I think my last girlfriend did (and maybe for my relative status, which is something that women are often attracted to). And by the way, she thought the extreme feminism of US college campuses was just laughable.
Her opinion is as meaningful to me as a dog barking in the distance.
If I was a feminist, I would say: did you just compare a woman to a dog?
The more important point is: yes, you’re right! Maybe you did look up the anecdotal fallacy! What’s more important is the majority view, and note that the majority of women even in countries like the UK do not describe themselves as feminists, because they think it’s morphed into a sort of extremism. Not to mention the vast majority of women outside the English-speaking world.
Are you telling me to stop talking?
You haven’t the slightest clue what a feminist would say, so just stop, OK?
The author uses the categories ” moral panic” and “hysteria.” Moral panic in every case, I believe, applied to distant social others, whether juvenile delinquents, supposed ethnic criminals, commies, etc. Social panics involved fears over threatening, mysterious and usually society marginal groups. Instead, here, we are talking about personal experiences. Hence the unpacked category of “hysteria” is more relevant, but it is also more transparently unconvincing, or, worse, depends upon maligning victims in psychological terms. What’s been remarkably apparent is how those accused of sexual harassment or worse turn out to have engaged in theses actions serially. In other words, the extensive smoke reveals not hysterical women, but serious crimes.
So it’s availability bias, with moral panic and hysteria stacked on top.
‘In other words, the extensive smoke reveals not hysterical women, but serious crimes’. Some of it does, some of it doesn’t. It certainly doesn’t reveal that sexual assault is very common.
Okay. I’ve read the entire thing. First, the title: “The
Warlock Hunt.” There has NEVER been a Warlock Hunt, unless there’s a movie that
I missed. The Witch Hunts and Witch Trials of Salem were called just that – “Witch
Hunts.” To superimpose the word “Warlock” in the place of “Witch” is to create
a false equivalency. No one in Salem, or Europe for that matter, is on the
record as ever hunting “Warlocks.”
Now that that little diatribe is over, on to the substance
of the piece:
It was not just one woman who brought down these men. It
took DOZENS to bring down Bill Cosby, the same for Harvey Weinstein. On the
other hand, it only took ONE MAN to bring down Kevin Spacey; I believe that
this is because society values the words of MEN more than the words of WOMEN.
There’s also that whole icky homo thing, if we listen to the first guy, we
really don’t have to talk about it anymore, do we? Oh we do. Well, ew. (where’s the sarcasm font when you need it?)
I think that this is a rational response to what has become
an increasingly irrational situation. I’m a big believer in the idea of “the
Pendulum” approach to social issues: There will be an immediate over-reaction,
but eventually, the pendulum will swing back and centre itself. We are
currently on the big swing, and isn’t it about time? For too many years
(decades, eons) men have been treating woman like property, like THINGS. Good
grief, women weren’t even considered “Persons” under British Law at the start
of the 20th century.
When the author starts talking about what people “should
have” known, before going to someone’s room, my bullshit detector goes off, big
time. This smells a little too much like blaming the victim, to me. I do agree
that people need to be careful, that it is helpful to be aware of yourself,
your surroundings and your own limits regarding things like intoxicants.
There is definitely a knee-jerk chain reaction currently
occurring. There will have to be, eventually, a way to judge these things on
some sort of scale: an unwanted hug IS very different from raping a 12 year
old, after all. But right now, women are flexing their power and that scares
the shit out of men, and I suppose, some women. And although I support this
flexing of muscles, I am reminded of the Anti-Pornography Activists of the 1990’s
who, after attacking genuine pornography, began going after things the
Michelangelo’s David, and the Venus de Milo, for being naked. Oh, the Horrors! “Will
no one think of the Children?” Let’s not get co-opted by prudes.
To finish, I think that this article is an important part of
the Pendulum Swing, if only to get us to the point where it begins to swing
back to the middle. I disagree with many of the points made, but I applaud the
writing of it, which opens this vital dialogue.
“It now takes only one accusation to destroy a man’s life.” … “In recent weeks, one after another prominent voice, many of them political voices, have been silenced by sexual harassment charges.” … Leon Wieseltier, David Corn, Mark Halperin, Michael Oreskes, Al Franken, Ken Baker, Rick Najera, Andy Signore, Jeff Hoover, Matt Lauer, even Garrison Keillor—all have received the professional death sentence.”
Everyone of those men on your list except Jeff Hoover has more than one woman pointing a finger at them, and it was taxpayers who paid the settlement for Jeff Hoover’s gropings. He didn’t pay a thing.
As a man who has no fear of anyone’s finger pointing at me with the words “Me too” connected to it I have no “moral panic” or problem with this. What I do have is three daughters who’ve all been groped by men and a sense of gratitude for the women standing up to it.
As for my daughters, they were all taught how stop a jerk like that in his tracks, so justice was immediate for them and those who groped them and severe enough that I didn’t feel the need to get involved in it, but I did feel the urge, and very strongly.
You, Claire , are not making anything better for my daughters or any women anywhere with this piece. You are diminishing the real problem and making excuses for this crap and have now become part of the real problem of men abusing women, and I don’t appreciate your efforts.
Either stand up and fight with women or sit down and shut up because you ignore too much and I’ve pointed enough of it out above to prove it.
That’s not much empowerment or agency you are willing to grant Claire here. She has to join the matriarchy or sit down and shut up? How about if we grant her the option of following her own conscience and critical observations? You know, like any other sentient being?
“It now takes only one accusation to destroy a man’s life.” is a lie, and I’ve pointed out the lie. Lying is not “critical observation” or “sentient”.
I don’t see the ‘It now takes only one accusation to destroy a man’s life.’ statement to be a lie, but an abstract statement. She did not say that there are many documented examples of one accusation destroying a man’s career, but the principle would be that in general, accusations themselves can in general destroy a man’s career, whether substantiated or not and without due process. You are taking an imprecise statement and attributing malevolent intent to it. I will add that one accusation or incident of non-criminal wrongthink is indeed enough to gravely damage a career, as the case of Brendon Eich shows. I suspect that her real crime in your eyes is simply her dissent.
Brendon Eich spent his money to support a law that discriminates against gays. No one was forcing him to get “gay married” but he had no problem jumping in the way of those who wanted to get married. I have no problem seeing him gone from Mozilla. None at all.
You stick your nose in other’s business in a public way and sometimes that comes back to bite you in the ass. That is what happened to Brendon Eich. Karma is involved with all of these cases and no matter what you say it’s justice.
And to be honest, I feel that men who are whining about this “Me too” thing are flat out guilty of it themselves and trying to cover their butts in case someone in their past pops up. Too bad. Live with it. The women they harassed have been since they did it so it’s their turn now. Again, Karma.
I don’t have to worry about that, and I truly hope they’re all feeling the heat right now, and I know many of them are.
Once again in two examples you criminalize dissent from the standard leftist view. You also seem to be insinuating that anyone who disagrees with you in the #MeToo matter, such as myself, is directly a sexual harasser and/or predator. Leftist revolutions tend to devour their own, and you might not be as safe as you imagine. Anyway, given your evident absolutism on these matters, I see nothing to be gained by further exchange. In the end, for me, the ideas of equality before the law and due process are not negotiable. I will not take counsel of the madness of crowds and moral panics. And there are a lot of people out there who are going to fight you on this. I know that I will.
No one is being charged with a crime or receiving criminal punishment but you feel they are and now stretch the facts to imply there are problems where none exists. No man involved in “Me Too” has been falsely accused and terminated from a job. Not one I know of, but that is one of your fears.
And Eich has no moral or legal right to assume a CEO position must be granted to him without any regards at all to his funding his morals into our politics and lives. I have never stuck my nose into his bedroom or judged who he’s married to, but he spent money to do that to me and everyone I know.
You’re ignoring why he was let go and trying to turn it into something it’s not. He was actively stomping on millions of individuals rights here. I abhor that behavior enough to not use products that support those who do it and actively encourage others to do the same. I am not alone with that abhorrence. That’s why he was let go.
Look at all the examples of male students, documented in Time, the Atlantic, and other moderate magazines, who’ve been barred from higher education because of claims of assault that were later proven to be false. If that’s not ruining someone’s life, why is touching their ass traumatic?
Thank you, Bill. Now expect a deluge of hate. Not from me– I wish there were more men like you. Bravo for raising brave, strong daughters.
Fabulous piece. You managed to articulate what a lot of us are thinking about minor BS being elevated to felony level. Thank you. And a nod to those commenting below about aggressive women: Yes, there are lots of them out there lined up around the block to get into rich men’s pants. The real abusers “score” a lot more times than they strike out, or they wouldn’t keep trying. Somebody should explore that angle, too.
Who has gotten convicted of a felony? Do tell. As for so-called gold-diggers: PRE NUP UP.
All the make students documented in articles in Time and the Atlantic (Emily Yoffe) who engaged in consensual sexual activity and were charged with rape and sexual assault.
I would propose that the “boundary crisis” we are seeing includes such factors as rapidly increasing climate change, environmental damage, overpopulation, mass species extinction, and threats to human energy and financial systems. It is now conceivable that our global industrial society will unravel, and much sooner than many might suppose. Given that, perhaps there is a desire, not for “brutes,” per se, but for strong and confident male figures who can act in protective and adaptive ways in a harsher, more competitive, more dangerous, and rapidly changing world.
Fantastic piece. Nothing to add, beyond my thanks to you for writing it, and American Interest for printing it.
I literally never want to talk to a woman again in my life. They’re hysterical psychos.
Don’t let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya! Buh-bye!
A paranoid post, and an irrational reply.
A snotty reply, but not an irrational one. He will not be missed.
Snooty, I would imagine (though I can’t see your nose). Especially if you’re the kind of person who enjoys films that consist entirely of Lesbians and butterflies
I don’t, actually. I like Westerns and sci fi.
So women should care, not because this effects men, but because it effects women. Having women care about men’s feeling is too much to ask but men must avoid women being uncomfortable. Men see this hypocrisy like a neon sign and are acting accordingly. It is socially acceptable for women to condemn men to the oppression/tyranny they faced historically while simultaneously admitting how terrible that oppression was. Our society doesn’t care about men and will only marshal to address problems when they face women. This is why men are bailing out of society at all levels and going out of their way to avoid women. This is much more then men refusing to mentor women. This is men actively avoiding women in the work place and withdrawing from any social activity with women.
I really have not noticed men trying to avoid women. Maybe it’s just you.
There’s an interesting article in Quillette by a practising psychotherapist who said that he has many men tell him that they don’t come onto women anymore and prefer to look at porn because they’re afraid of being accused of sexual assault. When the therapist mentioned this in a TV interview, it was edited out.
Those men are self-selecting out of the dating pool and gene pool. That is their choice. I have actually been raped and sexually assaulted, but I don’t cower in my house in fear. Seriously.
Yeah, and I had my genitals fondled by an older man when I was 16. He desisted when I made clear I didn’t want it, and – amazing, I know – I don’t even claim victimhood or describe it as a assault (I see it as a come-on)! Also, if you think it’s fine that those men are self-selecting out of the dating pool, fine. But let’s now not hear any complains from women in their 30s about how hard it is to find a man.
Aren’t you lucky that he desisted when you asked. That has not been my experience.
When they don’t, then that’s bad.
And should be followed up.
‘Gee, ya think’ should also apply to statements like ‘If a woman doesn’t signal a come-on’s not welcome, the man has no way of knowing.’
Gee, ya think?
Men should fear women like this. She admits to exploiting her cleavage with a man who later grabs her at a party. Since she enjoyed this power the incident is fine with her. But she also claims to have had a stalker and wants us to believe he was a lifelong predator… that her admitted enjoyment of sexual exploitation of other men had nothing to do with his behavior. See men, when women like this play their game they set the rules. As soon as you as you cross the line that they set you are relabeled a lifelong predator and prosecuted. But of course she wants you to continue to allow her to use her sex appeal to exploit you while you take on all the risk. Feminists dream come true.
Yes – and the line is a moving one, and they always get to define where it is.
Do anyone know why commen secstion dominated by one boorish asshole/
Duchess of blood clot?
The latest development…
A woman wants Congress to investigate the “fact” that Trump kissed her against her will back in 2005.
A woman wants Congress to investigate her assertion that Trump groped her in first class back in the 1970’s.
A third woman, who dedicated herself to the life of the beauty pageant contestant, complained that Trump looked at her like meat. Duh.
Do we REALLY think that Congress needs to get into this stuff? Do women REALLY think that doing this makes them look good? equal? worthy of respect? none of the above?
It is all just stupid.
Nineteen women have accused Trump. NINETEEN. Some of these claims do go back for decades, which only shows that they were not politically motivated.Then you have Trump on tape saying:
> I moved on her, actually. You know, she was down on Palm Beach. I moved on her, and I failed. I’ll admit it. I did try and fuck her. She was married… I moved on her very heavily. In fact, I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said, “I’ll show you where they have some nice furniture.” I took her out furniture —I moved on her like a bitch. But I couldn’t get there. And she was married. Then all of a sudden I see her, she’s now got the big phony tits and everything. She’s totally changed her look.
> Yeah, that’s her. With the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything… Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.
^^^ Is this not an unconditional admission that he “tried to fuck” a woman who was married and did not want his sexual advances? He took her out on false pretenses and “moved on her like a bitch.” You can use your imagination about what that meant, though I guess it wasn’t polite or hands-off.
Then you have “I just start kissing her.” His is while he was married to the First Lady, btw. Trump is literally eating Tic Tacs in case he compulsively kisses a beautiful woman. He “doesn’t even wait” FOR CONSENT. He grabs them by the pussy WITHOUT ASKING because he believes that they will “let him.”
And you have the nerve to doubt that this man committed non-consensual sexual acts? Would you let him alone with your attractive young daughter? He cannot even refrain from making sexual remarks about his own attractive daughter. REALLY. Give me a fucking break.
So what? Guys do this stuff all the time. He’s a pig…or at least he was. Did he harass anyone who works for him to have sex?
Besides…my point is that none of this has anything to do with requiring a Congressional investigation. It is just bad male behavior. On top of that, it all came out before he was elected.
I don’t like it as behavior…but everyone knew about it and none of it is illegal…just bad manners.
Anyone who is so inclined is welcome to not like the guy or criticize him for his behavior. I have. But CONGRESS? Get some perspective.
BTW – Franken should not have resigned. There are no accusations of Senate workplace problems. Conyers, yes.
He ran Miss Universe and lots of the contestants complained that he deliberately walked in on them naked without consent (four times, official complaints). Yes, he did molest a woman who was working with him. Summer Zervos was a contestant on The Apprentice. Etc. Do you really need me to look this up? There’s a whole wikipedia page full of names, dates, and situations.
I think grabbing a woman’s pussy is more than bad male behavior. Look at the Bill Clinton spectacle and tell me if that was worse. Consensual head from an intern. Horribly uncool and gross, but not illegal. Definitely sketchy. He committed perjury as a result. I am sure Trump would do the same under the same circumstances, and I would love to see that trial.
Don’t ask me to defend JFK. I think people forgave a lot of his foibles after he got his head blown off at work. K?
Frat boy stuff. Stop trying to make it sound worse than it is. I don’t support it or approve of it. But you need to get some perspective.
Nah, sorry, you need to get some perspective. I wish you could have your penis ogled by a large, aggressive, boorish gay man who openly brag of grabbing dudes by the cock because he’s rich and he can if he wants. Then he should grab you by the back off the neck and force his tongue in your mouth. I mean, it’s frat boy stuff, so maybe you should just sack up and deal with it.
Sure…he gets punched. But I don’t expect Congress to investigate it. That’s the stupid part.
Right. So you never have been in a predatory sexual situation with someone who is a foot taller than you, heavier by 100 lbs., gives no fucks what you want, and ALSO has power over your career. You don’t get it. You never will unless it happens to you, and it probably won’t. So sit there and trivialize it from a position of arrogant ignorance. Tell everyone else how they should handle it like it’s an action movie, with a single violent blow that would stop it all in its tracks.
GOOD FOR YOU that you believe it would roll off you like water off a duck’s back. You actually do not seem to comprehend the wide range of normal human responses to sexual trauma. Everyone should handle it as minimalistically as you want because a politician you like is accused. I do wish you could see how utterly morally bankrupt and tone deaf your stance is, but I think I used my holiday miracle on Doug Jones already.
And you have demonstrated that you do not want to deal with my actual point.
I am done.
Does ‘they let you do it’ imply that Trump was doing these things un-consensually, or consensually?
At last, a good question.
“Letting” someone do it does imply tacit permission. This does not mean that it was desired or welcome…just that no resistance was being put forth. What we saw with Conyers and Franken is clearly aggression. (BTW – Since Franken’s behavior predated his time in the Senate, I don’t think he should step down. He is being used by the party to demonstrate some kind of purity on the part)
From the point of view of how I was taught to treat women by my parents , neither is acceptable. I don’t approve of unwanted sexually aggressive behavior by either sex towards the other.
That said…I think that in the case of beauty contests and Hollywood, there is a culture I would not approve of in which not only men feel free to be assholes but women tacitly allow themselves to be taken advantage of in order to further their careers. In both of these worlds, the women bear a share of the responsibility.
Hey…if someone grabs your ass, slap him or shut up. And if you choose the latter then don’t come around 10 or 20 years later and complain. You had your shot.
Exactly. It’s a big grey area and a lot depends on the case. I think that in most cases grabbing a woman’s crotch would be a very big first move, and in lots of cases I would call it sexual assault. But what if the woman is very obviously flirting, is dressed suggestively, and is dancing by rubbing her body against yours? I’d still think that was a very strong first move, but I could imagine it done in a context where most people would say that it looked like the woman wanted it. Of course, most cases don’t involve a man grabbing a woman’s crotch. (What Trump seems to be suggesting is that if you’re a rich and powerful businessman, some women just allow you to grab them, without complaining – and that doesn’t strike me as improbable, actually.) A lot of cases involve ‘levelling up’, which is a very common procedure. You can see it in any nightclub. The man dances closer to the woman, and if she seems happy with that, he puts his hands on her waist, and if he seems happy with that, they start ‘grinding’ pelvis to pelvis. Maybe the man then kisses the woman. Now, it just seems absurd to me to say (as many feminist do nowadays) that that’s assault because the man didn’t ask the woman explicitly if she wanted that. Men overwhelmingly come on to women, not the other way round, and if a woman wants a man to stop all she has to do is say so (of course it’s unacceptable if a she does signal she doesn’t want something unambiguously and the man wilfully ignores that). But if you didn’t say so, why is that the man’s fault?
(What Trump seems to be suggesting is that if you’re a rich and powerful businessman, some women just allow you to grab them, without complaining – and that doesn’t strike me as improbable, actually.)
Correct. But guys still shouldn’t do it. But they do. It’s not good but it isn’t the end of the world, either. People need to get perspective on this stuff.
Trump says they “let” him, but he is an unreliable narrator. Do you think he picks up on body language, on a subtle “no”? Does he respect other people’s marriages? (Answer: no– the woman he “moved on like a bitch” was married and rejected him). Did you know that people do freeze up and dissociate when undergoing trauma?
Your apologia is vomitous.
I believe I told you that I was done with you.
I don’t know if Trump picks up on body language or not. I haven’t been around him when he’s hitting on women. I haven’t looked at the case in detail, with both sides getting a chance to tell their story in a fair-minded environment. Proud Skeptic, I agree that grabbing a woman’s crotch is a bold move. But who know? If I was a rock star (or a super-rich businessman) I could imagine being in a situation where lots of women were throwing themselves at me, and I got used to the idea that they liked being grabbed. I don’t have a lot of groupies in my line of work, and female come-ons to me are rare, so I take things more slowly. But that doesn’t mean a woman has never wanted to be grabbed on the crotch before. If it was just a random grab, and the woman didn’t do anything to make Trump believe she wanted it, then that’s assault. But he does say, ‘they let you’ not ‘I force them even when they tell me they don’t want it.’
As for marriages, DoB, I personally would never hit on a woman in a relationship (at least, an exclusive relationship). But that’s my policy (based partly on moral beliefs and partly on expediency). But I’m sorry to have to tell you, but some people have affairs, and when that happens it may be cheating but it’s not necessarily sexual assault or harassment (assuming that both parties consent to it, which is what ‘an affair’ means). This is the thing about the #metoo movement – people mix up their conservative and sometimes puritanical moral views with assault and harassment.
As for people freezing up, it’s junk science: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/09/the-bad-science-behind-campus-response-to-sexual-assault/539211/
I see you have spent a great deal of time thinking about this. As you apparently understand, it is not as black and white as people want to make it. There are lots of industries…and especially the most powerful people at the top…who not only exhibit the worst in male behavior but are exposed to some of the worst in female behavior.
In my book, nobody gets off Scot free. Men should keep their hands to themselves. Women should take responsibility for their part in these melodramas.
Like you, I live in a simple world where this kind of stuff doesn’t happen. I have had, over the last 40 or so years, a few opportunities to act like an ass around women who were acting like asses. Luckily, I take my marriage vows seriously and abstained from bad behavior. Many men wouldn’t.
Anyway, though I don’t condone the kind of male swinish behavior that seems to be all over the news these days, for most of it I don’t think it is anything more than bad behavior. There are exceptions, of course. Conyers seems to be one of them. I think Franken is no big deal. I think Moore should have owned up and apologized or at least explained. Bill Clinton is far worse than anything Trump is accused of…and the Democrats aren’t getting a pass from me based on their recent political tactics. It will take much more than bumping two people out of safe seats to impress me.
Block me or stop replying, Hysteric.
The poor shrinking violets. He saw stuff? Shocking. Why are they in beauty pagents? To show off their stuff. Besides, liberals want transgenders guys to get undressed next to normal girls. That is, they allow normal girls to be exposed. In fact, liberals want to cram the exposure of normal girls to these guys. Why such a problem with this situation?
They are not in beauty pageants so that Donald Trump can look at their naked bodies. There are awards, scholarships, and plenty of reasons to be in a pageant besides wanting some hideous rich POS to look at your labia without your permission. Why the hell are you bringing transgender women into this? The only place such undressing would happen is in a gym locker room, and in that case? Who cares. All girls there. The problem is that they DO NOT WANT DONALD TRUMP TO OGLE THEM NAKED. Or forcibly kiss them. Or grab their pussies. Or back them up against a wall and push himself up against them. Picture him doing those things to the woman you love the most. If, in fact, there is one.
So what? I agree. Most of the claims against Trump are either trivial, stupid, or false.
A long read, for sure. There is a lot to digest here. I think for the most part I agree with the sentiments. I am not at all surprised by the rampant strawmanning of the ideas down in the comments section. Besides being what the internet seems best at (misunderstanding and then conforming that into the readers ideological position), nuance is something that can be overlooked in narrative format like this piece.
I am also glad that someone else sees this as a type of moral panic, and that I see too many parallels to the “Satanic Panic” from the 1980’s.
A large dollop of this is media invention. When they start publishing stories about “almost harassment”, and “near sexual assault”, you know they’re reaching for the bottom. Moreover, I don’t think women are fooled. They know who the bad guys are, and aren’t.
An educated, rational, balanced journalist with a humanitarian ethic who isn’t blindly following the mob. Hallelujah. I was about ready to declare the fourth estate a graveyard, but I’m downgrading that to a disaster zone in a ghetto. Intelligence lives.
Beautifully written and reasoned out article, until it devolves into the abyss and off the deep end with the cliche nonsense about Trump. It is utterly shocking and sad that so insightful an article written by an otherwise intelligent woman, would leave out the obvious effects of decades of cultural marxism and post modernism being used to intentionally orchestrate that which at first the author bemoans, then claims she couldn’t know the source from whence it comes, and then throws up her hands and blames Trump. What a disappointment in the end. Trumps emergence is a reaction TO the same marxist insanity that has also led to this aspect of the mass hysteria.
When the hijab becomes a symbol of female empowerment, you know the world has completely lost its mind.
Where to begin? Well, if you are in fear to walk down a street by yourself late at night blame the femnists who have try to emasculate men. The new Beta Male will not run to your defense. He will run to a safe space. But If I am on that street and you cry for help, I’m coming to help you. And I am armed. Heavily.
No, I blame the person who is attacking me on the street late at night for attacking me. Blame feminists. You’re crazy. Also, I’m armed, so thanks but no thanks for your help.
Claire this is a very insightful article. You took much of my own perspective on this topic to much more articulate levels.
I believe you are right on target with your observations and ideas. In the Al Franken caseI find it ironic that so many Democrat U.S. Senators who play a role in the branch of government that is supposed to be a buffer from populace hysterics should be so heavily swayed by craven political impulses to join the bandwagon to please the surge of a populace mob. I don’t think the founders of the United States would think their plans went so well in this case.
Now that I think about it I have a hundred stories of women who have demeaned me by trying to use their sexuality to get me to buy something or to hire them. I have stories of women bosses who tortured and harassed me because they hated men. I even have stories of a woman who attacked me with knives because she couldn’t have 100% of my attention. Should I accuse them now? Try to bring them down years later? Even if I did, no one would listen.
Did they hate you or did they hate men? Or do you have a persecution complex? Or maybe you are a thin skinned snowflake who cannot take criticism at work, so it must be that your boss hates you. You know who else acts like this? Little kids. They always think their teacher hates them if they get a bad grade or are called out for misbehaving. No capacity for self-reflection.
Yes, I have a friend whose ex-girfriend brandished a knife at him when he dumped her. Of course he didn’t go to the police or anything. I wonder what DoB would say if a woman talked about a man attacking her with knives and then someone accused her of having a persecution complex.
That’s not what he was talking about. He said his female bosses were out to get him because they hate men. This was not about knife wielding psychos. This was a man claiming that his woman boss only had a problem with him because of his gender. MORE THAN ONE woman boss. That does sound a bit daft, no?
Not to me. I live in a R