|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2017 16:38:50 GMT
The thing is though Matthew it isn't a mutually exclusive situation. And taking women seriously doesn't mean not taking Men seriously. But the simple maths of the matter I'm afraid is that more women find themselves in these situations than men. I've actually seen some lovely things on my social media from men (mostly gay men in this instance) sharing similar experience of sexual harassment and abuse that stem from the same places as that which women receive. It's all about patriarchal society's expectations of the 'man up' mentality or 'real men' and it indeed all stems from the same sordid place. And women have supported that/these men.
I also think you're very much misunderstanding what #notallmen is used to mean, because you are doing exactly that. Trying to brush aside these very real instances with the idea that not all men do that, and that in calling out men on that means somehow women are 'picking' on men.
We aren't picking on men. We're simply trying to create a world where we don't have to fear a job only comes at the price of a sexual favour. Or that we will be believed when we say someone assaulted us.
None of us want men who suffer the same abuse to be silenced or brushed aside because we've bloody well lived being silenced and brushed aside. Women are not the enemy either and I for one don't appreciate being made out to be one simply for lending my voice to this cause. Because this cause isn't trying to put down men it's trying to get on with our lives in peace.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2017 17:15:28 GMT
That's sort of like when people complain about rising divorce rates though, overlooking that it doesn't just mean "more marriages are failing than ever before". We were more peaceful Back In The Day because we'd been conditioned to Not Make A Fuss, not because we were necessarily any less likely to be the recipients of unwanted attention. I'm not sorry that things feel less peaceful now, as I've watched young women become much more aware of and willing to speak up when things just aren't right. I wish I'd had that strength and support when I was younger, or at the very least I wish my parents hadn't brought me up to be polite to strangers, but I'm glad things have swayed that way now. Long overdue!
|
|
1,465 posts
|
Post by foxa on Oct 18, 2017 17:43:17 GMT
I think it can be exhausting not knowing the rules. The train example, TM gave earlier is interesting. Anecdotally, I see women giving up seats to other women (say, pregnant women) most commonly. Some men, I think, fear being snapped at if they offer. Some think women have too much anyway so if they want equal rights then they can stand. And some folks are just too busy looking at their phones. And I think all the not knowing what to do and how it will be received is tiring for everyone (but, optimistically, maybe a necessary stage.) It's that trying to figure out who needs/wants help and offering it rather than a clear - ah, it's a woman, ah it's an old person - rule. I offered a seat to man much older than me who seemed tired and he took it, but looked a bit depressed so I wasn't sure I'd really helped.
|
|
4,799 posts
|
Post by The Matthew on Oct 18, 2017 18:01:27 GMT
The thing is though Matthew it isn't a mutually exclusive situation. And taking women seriously doesn't mean not taking Men seriously. But the simple maths of the matter I'm afraid is that more women find themselves in these situations than men. Yes. I know that. I keep saying that. What I'm trying to get across is that the fact that (many) more women than men find themselves in those situations does not invalidate the experiences of men as individuals. I keep saying that I've found some of the things that women have said distressing, and the response I get is always "ah, but more women suffer than men". How is that taking the feelings of men seriously? I don't use Twitter so perhaps it has a wider use than the one I know because I've only encountered it here, but when it's used here it is always used sarcastically to dismiss a man's opinion as being unworthy of being heard. The pattern is: Someone makes a stupid generalisation in which they tell men what men think. Several men point out that this isn't what men think at all. The original poster snidely responds with "Sorry, I forgot to add #notallmen", implying that they're going to disregard what actual men say in favour of the generalisation. It's used in an extremely contemptuous and dismissive way. On this forum I don't remember it being used any other way. I'm not trying to brush aside the experiences of women, and if that's the impression I'm giving then it's certainly not intentional. I don't think that the women here are intentionally picking on men. But when I say that I've found some of the comments here deeply hurtful I'm not saying it "just for funsies", to use a phrase from earlier in the discussion. The distress is real. But all I get back is comments about how women are affected more than men, as if I'm trying to steal distress from women and you have to claim it back for your exclusive use. But don't you see that when you resort to saying things like "the simple maths of the matter..." you are brushing aside men who have suffered the same? The fact that more women suffer doesn't mean that women suffer more, and from the male side this attitude does come across as dismissive.
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Oct 18, 2017 18:09:19 GMT
Heard on the radio (LBC) this morning that in today's Daily Fail a WOMAN 'jornalist' reported, that woman make these things up, just so they can get on television for Woman's Hour.
Come on I am shocked that these Jurassic attitudes still exist and more surprised it was a lady writer to publish this, perhaps this lady wrote this article whilst wringing out laundry on the mangle!!!
|
|
4,799 posts
|
Post by The Matthew on Oct 18, 2017 18:11:40 GMT
Heard on the radio (LBC) this morning that in today's Daily Fail a WOMAN 'jornalist' reported, that woman make these things up, just so they can get on television for Woman's Hour. It's the Daily Mail. They make everything up. Can you blame them for assuming everyone else does too? (Yes. Yes, you can.)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2017 18:13:24 GMT
Ok firstly, google is your friend. So here is some information on what 'Not All Men' means in a wider context. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NotAllMenAnd I think to be honest this is your current problem-you don't seem to be coming from a very wide perspective, indeed you seem very much to be limiting it to this board. Whereas the rest of us are having a much broader conversation. If you have had negative encounters with women hear, I'm sorry to hear it, but I suggest you raise that with your fellow moderators if it crosses a line, or with the women involved when it happens. Because that is not the wider issue, that seems in fact to be a personal issue between you and some comments made. That's not to disreard it but that is not the issue at hand. I can't keep saying it in different ways so I'm saying it once more: Women wanting their sexual assault to be recognized does not invalidate the experience of men. To borrow from a friend on this: Yes we recongise that men can be sexually assaulted but can we please have one conversation where men do not make it about them. That concern is a sincere one, but only when it is raised as it's own thing and not as a counter argument to women asking to be recongised and listened to.
|
|
1,465 posts
|
Post by foxa on Oct 18, 2017 18:19:23 GMT
I typed a reply and then deleted it. I feel sure if we were sitting in the same room, Matthew, we could make sense of this, but I don't think it's going to happen here - and I certainly don't want to be called a dick of Trumpian magnitude if I try.
|
|
4,799 posts
|
Post by The Matthew on Oct 18, 2017 18:40:52 GMT
I typed a reply and then deleted it. I feel sure if we were sitting in the same room, Matthew, we could make sense of this, but I don't think it's going to happen here - and I certainly don't want to be called a dick of Trumpian magnitude if I try. I'm sure it would be far easier in the same room. One of the problems with public discussions is that everything's on record and you can't take anything back. That rather strangles people's ability to say what they're really feeling. It reminds me of a debate on abortion we had at school once, where everyone calmly presented their intellectual arguments and then someone wiped out every other opinion in the room by quietly telling us all how she'd felt about discovering her parents had planned to abort her. That level of openness made possible in a closed environment gave us all an appreciation of just how complicated an issue it was and reset everyone's opinions at a stroke. Personal experience can focus the attention magnificently.
|
|
3,926 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Oct 18, 2017 19:16:52 GMT
I don't use Twitter so perhaps it has a wider use than the one I know because I've only encountered it here, but when it's used here it is always used sarcastically to dismiss a man's opinion as being unworthy of being heard. The pattern is: Someone makes a stupid generalisation in which they tell men what men think. Several men point out that this isn't what men think at all. The original poster snidely responds with "Sorry, I forgot to add #notallmen", implying that they're going to disregard what actual men say in favour of the generalisation. It's used in an extremely contemptuous and dismissive way. On this forum I don't remember it being used any other way. I haven't seen this #notallmen hashtag specifically but I do think there seems to be a strong tendency on the part of some women in today's society to patronize & belittle men. I don't know if this is considered to be a feminist revenge for centuries of patriarchy or what. Surely if we as a society are supposed to be aiming for sexual equality then that means neither gender should make sweeping negative generalisations about the other gender. The thing that surprises me most about the Weinstein case is that every article on it seems to say that all women experience sexual harrassment/assault. I'm currently feeling like I'm the only woman on the planet who has never been sexually harassed (unless you count being wolf-whistled at by a builder when I was 17, which I don't think really counts) let alone assaulted. I can only think that being plain & liking to dress in a fairly covered-up way, due to my OCD, has the advantage that men aren't interested in harrassing me.
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Oct 18, 2017 19:26:36 GMT
No, it just means you've been lucky. Doesn't matter how you dress - women in burkas get assaulted/harassed. It's not really about sexual attraction, it's about power - or at least, it's the power that turns them on, not your physical appearance. Some of the time it's reallyabout showing off in front of other men and just being a plain old bully. .
I haven't been harassed at work, but then I work in a very female-dominated industry. Things like that are more likely to make a difference than what you wear.
|
|
3,926 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Oct 18, 2017 19:42:45 GMT
I haven't been harassed at work, but then I work in a very female-dominated industry. Things like that are more likely to make a difference than what you wear. The company I've temped for for 10 years has about an even gender balance, I'd say. I've never felt that my gender has caused any sort of bias at work & I've never heard any rumours of anyone else having problems with sexual harrassment or suchlike, so I guess I'm fortunate it's a decent company from that point of view.
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Oct 18, 2017 20:02:27 GMT
It's a lot to do with the culture. Any culture where individuals can accumulate a lot of power and influence with little oversight or accountability is ripe for abuse.
|
|
5,582 posts
|
Post by lynette on Oct 18, 2017 20:42:23 GMT
Had lunch with three pals today and each of had a tale to tell of sexual misbehaviour at work. And three of us are well retired. Plus ca change, eh?
|
|
2,520 posts
|
Post by n1david on Oct 20, 2017 17:04:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Oct 20, 2017 17:51:17 GMT
Yes. I see he has all his excuses lined up.
|
|
2,206 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Oct 20, 2017 19:26:40 GMT
Yes. I see he has all his excuses lined up. Shocked me to see you quoting the guardian Jan. I know nobody reads/watches Rupert Murdoch news, obviously, but my computer blocks the Daily Mail and Telegraph. Thought yours would the Guardian
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Oct 20, 2017 19:33:01 GMT
Yes. I see he has all his excuses lined up. Shocked me to see you quoting the guardian Jan. I know nobody reads/watches Rupert Murdoch news, obviously, but my computer blocks the Daily Mail and Telegraph. Thought yours would the Guardian No, I am quite happy to read opposing arguments, you should give it a try. Why you are all quite so opposed to Murdoch is a bit opaque, he supported Labour for many years, got them elected really. Actually I bet I’m one of the few here not lining his pockets via Sky
|
|
2,206 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Oct 20, 2017 19:42:29 GMT
Shocked me to see you quoting the guardian Jan. I know nobody reads/watches Rupert Murdoch news, obviously, but my computer blocks the Daily Mail and Telegraph. Thought yours would the Guardian No, I am quite happy to read opposing arguments, you should give it a try. Why you are all quite so opposed to Murdoch is a bit opaque, he supported Labour for many years, got them elected really. Actually I bet I’m one of the few here not lining his pockets via Sky I had a thing about Peter Hitchens for awhile in that respect, haven't found anyone else worthy yet. Any recommendations?
Not having Murdoch got Labour elected. Blair was really popular, and the Tory's he beat in all the election wins were unelectable.
I reckon there would be a few here who refuse to give Rupert Murdoch any of their hard earned cash though. A good board this.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Oct 20, 2017 19:49:23 GMT
No, I am quite happy to read opposing arguments, you should give it a try. Why you are all quite so opposed to Murdoch is a bit opaque, he supported Labour for many years, got them elected really. Actually I bet I’m one of the few here not lining his pockets via Sky I had a thing about Peter Hitchens for awhile in that respect, haven't found anyone else worthy yet. Any recommendations?
Not having Murdoch got Labour elected. Blair was really popular, and the Tory's he beat in all the election wins were unelectable.
I reckon there would be a few here who refuse to give Rupert Murdoch any of their hard earned cash though. A good board this.
Murdoch supported Labour in those elections though, given the supposed influence the left claims the Sun has now you can’t have it both ways and say it didn’t have a significant impact then. The way this board lights up when a Game of Thrones actor is in a play makes me think many people are happy to fund Sky and Murdoch whilst also moaning about them.
|
|
18,777 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Oct 20, 2017 19:50:41 GMT
No, it just means you've been lucky. No it doesn’t. It means she hasn’t experienced it. You can’t just dismiss an opinion like that unless you accept that the people who have experienced it have been UNlucky.
|
|
2,206 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Oct 20, 2017 19:59:24 GMT
I had a thing about Peter Hitchens for awhile in that respect, haven't found anyone else worthy yet. Any recommendations?
Not having Murdoch got Labour elected. Blair was really popular, and the Tory's he beat in all the election wins were unelectable.
I reckon there would be a few here who refuse to give Rupert Murdoch any of their hard earned cash though. A good board this.
Murdoch supported Labour in those elections though, given the supposed influence the left claims the Sun has now you can’t have it both ways and say it didn’t have a significant impact then. The way this board lights up when a Game of Thrones actor is in a play makes me think many people are happy to fund Sky and Murdoch whilst also moaning about them. Yeah we have a right wing written press, but not one here who would ever claim Murdoch and the scum won the 1992 election or any other. And neither would you.
GoT is on HBO?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2017 21:50:24 GMT
I thought it was just a matter of time before this happened. Perhaps there will be more revelations to come. Anyone even vaguely associated with Theatre has heard the stories.
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Oct 20, 2017 22:41:01 GMT
No, it just means you've been lucky. No it doesn’t. It means she hasn’t experienced it. You can’t just dismiss an opinion like that unless you accept that the people who have experienced it have been UNlucky. The proposition is that the way women dress can stop them being the target of harassment. There is ample evidence that this is not true. Women are harassed and assaulted wearing all sorts of different clothes in all sorts of different situations. People are unlucky when something bad happens to them that is very uncommon and lucky when something good happens to them that is very uncommon. Never having been harassed or assaulted is rare enough to count as 'luck', because of its statistical unlikelihood. For women who are assaulted to be just 'unlucky' it would need to happen very rarely. Sadly that is not the case. Frankly if clothing really is a factor in women and girls being harassed and assaulted then my school was culpable for making us wear our school uniform and PE kit, since so many of us were harassed and assaulted while wearing them. No-one ever suggested that - the idea that clothes are a factor is trotted out to shift blame to the victim, so it never arises when they have no choice over what they were wearing.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2017 12:33:33 GMT
Indeed as kathryn says women are 'lucky' to escape such things, as it is all too common experience. Just as there are x number of women who worked for Weinstein we would say those who escaped any harassment are 'lucky' because the likelyhood was, in working with him that they would have. There's plenty of evidence out there for this, which particularly at present, minimal googling will find. The frequent dismissal of what women are saying on the issue, is in of itself, indicative of the wider problems. Just as it's not our job to avoid sexual harassment it shouldn't be our job to educate on it either. Anyway I actually clicked on here to share Dan Reballto's blog on Max Stafford Clark which manages to walk the line between being outraged and sorry for the victims while also considering how tricky it is to reconcile personal actions (in Dan's case a vague acquaintance with the man) and feelings about the person's contribution to the field. www.danrebellato.co.uk/spilledink/2017/10/21/max-stafford-clark
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Oct 21, 2017 12:38:18 GMT
Murdoch supported Labour in those elections though, given the supposed influence the left claims the Sun has now you can’t have it both ways and say it didn’t have a significant impact then. The way this board lights up when a Game of Thrones actor is in a play makes me think many people are happy to fund Sky and Murdoch whilst also moaning about them. Yeah we have a right wing written press, but not one here who would ever claim Murdoch and the scum won the 1992 election or any other. And neither would you.
GoT is on HBO?
Correct, I think the Sun is largely irrelevant in the way people have voted in any election which makes it strange why people get so upset about it. GoT is shown on Sky here isn’t it ? No idea really.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Oct 21, 2017 12:44:11 GMT
Indeed as kathryn says women are 'lucky' to escape such things, as it is all too common experience. Just as there are x number of women who worked for Weinstein we would say those who escaped any harassment are 'lucky' because the likelyhood was, in working with him that they would have. There's plenty of evidence out there for this, which particularly at present, minimal googling will find. The frequent dismissal of what women are saying on the issue, is in of itself, indicative of the wider problems. Just as it's not our job to avoid sexual harassment it shouldn't be our job to educate on it either. Anyway I actually clicked on here to share Dan Reballto's blog on Max Stafford Clark which manages to walk the line between being outraged and sorry for the victims while also considering how tricky it is to reconcile personal actions (in Dan's case a vague acquaintance with the man) and feelings about the person's contribution to the field. www.danrebellato.co.uk/spilledink/2017/10/21/max-stafford-clarkRupert Goold said that people were sometimes indulged because they were regarded as being “a character”. I think he means specifically Stafford Clark but it is a shrewd observation, look at the way the likes of Oliver Reed and O’Toole any other number of drunks have got away with unprofessional behaviour.
|
|
1,465 posts
|
Post by foxa on Oct 21, 2017 12:46:21 GMT
I heard of a woman who was assaulted when wearing a Jabba the Hutt costume - so really, go figure.
There was a period of my life - from ages 14 - 26 - when I received a ridiculous amount of unwanted sexual - I don't know what to call it - harrassment, assaults, encounters (most frequently men exposing themselves to me - this happened to me in NYC to an almost, but not quite, comical degree.) I didn't dress in an enticing way (often baggy jeans, boots, loose flowing tops, no low necklines) but I did look, I think, rather shockable. At least that was the only reason I could figure out why I was such a frequent target - they wanted to upset someone and I looked like someone who could be upset. Maybe I was unlucky. Or maybe this just happens a lot to a lots of women. Anecdotally, I would guess the latter.
(For what it's worth - I found it much worse in the U.S. than here - one of the many things I liked about England.)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2017 12:47:28 GMT
Indeed as kathryn says women are 'lucky' to escape such things, as it is all too common experience. Just as there are x number of women who worked for Weinstein we would say those who escaped any harassment are 'lucky' because the likelyhood was, in working with him that they would have. There's plenty of evidence out there for this, which particularly at present, minimal googling will find. The frequent dismissal of what women are saying on the issue, is in of itself, indicative of the wider problems. Just as it's not our job to avoid sexual harassment it shouldn't be our job to educate on it either. Anyway I actually clicked on here to share Dan Reballto's blog on Max Stafford Clark which manages to walk the line between being outraged and sorry for the victims while also considering how tricky it is to reconcile personal actions (in Dan's case a vague acquaintance with the man) and feelings about the person's contribution to the field. www.danrebellato.co.uk/spilledink/2017/10/21/max-stafford-clarkRupert Goold said that people were sometimes indulged because they were regarded as being “a character”. I think he means specifically Stafford Clark but it is a shrewd observation, look at the way the likes of Oliver Reed and O’Toole any other number of drunks have got away with unprofessional behaviour. Indeed, indeed. I've heard that defense- the 'Oh he's just a bit of a character' all too often in life too. It's also a valid point that being drunk/a bit of a drunk is also used as a means to excuse people. Re: Stafford Clark I didn't hear anything personally outside of him being frankly just a bit of a dick to people (and I've known a few who worked with him) but his was always a case of everyone hearing a lot of rumours, and there being little concrete to pin on him. So once again respect to the ladies who stepped forward knowing they did have something concrete, they've helped a lot of others.
|
|
923 posts
|
Post by Snciole on Oct 21, 2017 15:55:46 GMT
I've heard rumours about the other AD mentioned in Prebble's piece and I feel very guilty and complicit that I knew and said/did nothing.
The issue that these are rumours, you can't go to anyone with rumours; you hear he has done something to someone. That someone doesn't have a name because it is second/third-hand information and, oddly, not that important to the story. The story becomes about the offender, how they aren't the good guy (and in cases of sexual assault it is usually guys) and I don't know what it is about human nature but we enjoy tales of the powerful being sh*tty.
I also think women (and many men) need to seriously consider whether they have been harassed and assaulted and just dismissed it. I count myself as one of those who have been 'lucky' but only because my stories are minor (being grabbed and kissed on a boat, creepy landlord, creepy man and van etc etc) rather serious cases of assault (though there are of course issues of being sober enough to consent and all those considerations where women blame themselves).
The serious, humiliating cases stay with you. Someone confided in me that they do had an incident with MSC. It is not someone you would expect with all the stories going around but it shows to me he was a predator who could make or break people based on his power over them. Now he is not a well man he lost that power and people aren't afraid of him anymore.
|
|