harvey weinstein

Moderators: Enigma, Sonic#

User avatar
spacefem
member
member
Posts: 8100
Joined: Sat Aug 24, 1:37 2002
Location: Kansas
Contact:

harvey weinstein

Post by spacefem » Sat Nov 11, 6:34 2017

How much are you guys paying attention to the celebrity rape/harassment charges and sheer number of women coming out with stories about how many, many men we used to like are actually harassing jerks?

I realize I should post more on this question, just struggling a lot right now.
bork can eat steak with a spoon.

User avatar
octarineoboe
member
member
Posts: 1057
Joined: Mon May 28, 21:25 2012
Location: Midwestern US

Re: harvey weinstein

Post by octarineoboe » Sat Nov 11, 10:34 2017

I'm paying attention to the number of stories but not all of the individual details, if that makes sense. And I'm paying attention to - and cheering on - the consequences. Weinstein's been fired, Kevin Spacey was replaced in that movie, Louis CK's movie was cancelled. I really do think that indicates something different, that our response to these stories is starting to change.

User avatar
rowan
member
member
Posts: 10084
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 11:01 2004
Location: US

Re: harvey weinstein

Post by rowan » Sat Nov 11, 20:01 2017

I'm mostly noting names but not reading details because frankly I just can't anymore.

It does seem like things are changing though, and that's good. I mean how long have we been talking about this problem... idk I liked the one about driving 'em all into the sea.
spacefem wrote:All your logical argue are belong to us!

User avatar
Nachos
member
member
Posts: 4805
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 6:42 2004
Location: Next Tuesday
Contact:

Re: harvey weinstein

Post by Nachos » Sun Nov 12, 7:03 2017

I feel that this is something that has been happening for so long without any consequences for the perpetrators, that now it is good that there are consequences happening. I feel it's sad that it's just taken so long.
Ugh, I'm tired of my signature.

Taurwen
member
member
Posts: 358
Joined: Sat Jul 2, 9:33 2016

Re: harvey weinstein

Post by Taurwen » Sun Nov 12, 8:01 2017

I feel really strange every time I new name gets dropped. I only have two reactions "Yeah, I heard about him" or "Oh, that's surprising". I can't even work up any outrage. I'm glad things are actually happening. Now we just need to keep at it and not let things like Louis' "apology" smooth things over. Hint: If they really cared about the bad shit they've done, they wouldn't have brushed off the accusations as rumours two fucking months ago.

User avatar
Bork
member
member
Posts: 8467
Joined: Tue Sep 2, 11:44 2003
Location: wherever I am, I'm probably sitting on my ass
Contact:

Re: harvey weinstein

Post by Bork » Sun Nov 12, 12:02 2017

What's getting me is the surprise about how widespread this is. I've seen so many articles about how "It's not just Hollywood with a harassment problem, it's X industry as well!" Like... yeah. It's everywhere. It's fucking everywhere all the time in every industry out there. I worry that, as the apologies get more and more refined, people will start accepting them and things will go back to the way they've always been.
Bork is too lazy to bother thinking up a witty signature. :polarbear:

User avatar
Sonic#
member
member
Posts: 5590
Joined: Sat Nov 7, 9:37 2009
Location: Georgia, US

Re: harvey weinstein

Post by Sonic# » Sun Nov 12, 19:12 2017

octarineoboe wrote:I'm paying attention to the number of stories but not all of the individual details, if that makes sense. And I'm paying attention to - and cheering on - the consequences.
This. I'm surprised that there are actually consequences against the men who misused their positions. Similar claims - or rumors, or what have you - have come up in the past against several of these people, and they didn't stick. Now it feels like these women's claims are being heard, at least to some degree.

I discussed the Louis C.K. case with some of my friends on Friday. Some of it was frustrating - one person wanted to represent at least one of the claims as pretty mundane. It was tough but maybe worthwhile for us to talk through situations where people are not employees but there still might be a misuse of status. That's pretty euphemistic, but it was good to work through situations similar to those that have happened between people in the same field or at the same conference where the come-on itself is inappropriate.

User avatar
Nech
member
member
Posts: 521
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 13:50 2015
Location: Canada

Re: harvey weinstein

Post by Nech » Mon Nov 13, 9:21 2017

Bork wrote:
Sun Nov 12, 12:02 2017
I worry that, as the apologies get more and more refined, people will start accepting them and things will go back to the way they've always been.
This is my biggest fear. Just like the nuanced arguments for attacking vulnerable minorities have become "acceptable" and commonplace, I worry that these apologies will be taken. I feel the C.K one is already on that track, and retroactively why I found it uncomfortable to read. Also the sheer numbers, it almost feels like Hollywood is trying to overwhelm the masses so they stop caring and they can go back to business as usual. I wonder how many consequences will just be shrugged off and nothing will come of it as more and more stories come out to cover up if the consequences actually come to fruition. I think generally, this is making me more pessimistic. :(
Where there's smoke, there's fire. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. So just shut up, and bring some water.

User avatar
Aum
member
member
Posts: 3133
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 23:35 2007
Location: Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ

Re: harvey weinstein

Post by Aum » Mon Nov 13, 12:38 2017

My biggest fear is that it's a meme waiting to be taken over by the establishment. We can rationalize wars and a misogynist POTUS. I'm afraid it's going to become just another news byte.

I didn't participate in #metoo because it's highly triggering. The stories themselves are triggering. The sheer number of them is triggering. And people exposing themselves on a widescale with their stories is triggering because I know, deep down, the people with the real power to make sweeping changes are also the people who perpetuate rape culture and body commodification. I am scared for all these people vulnerably exposing themselves and risking escalation or alienation. That's why I've remained silent.

There's this numb part of me that says, "Rape is just part of humanity, it's never going away", and I shove down any hope of things changing.

The only part of all this that makes me hopeful is that more people are waking up to the daily violence, and maybe we can have some sort of collective monitoring / justice. More people means more power to influence the establishment.

Sorry if this sounds cynical I am just really struggling with this.
The artist's job is not to succumb to despair, but to find an antidote to the emptiness of existence. -W.A.

User avatar
DarkOne
member
member
Posts: 611
Joined: Mon Apr 6, 5:42 2015
Location: US

Re: harvey weinstein

Post by DarkOne » Mon Nov 13, 14:04 2017

I'm on the cynical camp. Yes, it's all the buzz right now. News stories and articles and interviews and some consequences short- or long- term (remains to be seen)... But a part of me thinks "oh NOW its a problem, because it's Hollywood. Before, it was lame; but now, it's juicy.

No one gives a crap when Rose in Wichita is excluded from group lunches because the asswipes in her group keep deciding to have "group lunch" at Twin Peaks and she refuses to go to there, and then they dare call her a stuck up bitch in front of Andrea, who sold her soul to the devil and did agree to go to Twin Peaks in exchange for some social time with the boss. And no one reports on how Betsy in Kansas City told a co-worker if he didn't quit it with the off color jokes she'd take him to HR and suddenly she gets fired for "threatening a co-worker", but really (and what a coincidence) her bosses weren't satisfied with her performance anyway. It sucks to be you, Betsy, because, sorry, you work at an "at-will" state.

But Louis CK drops his pants and everyone loses their shit. Most people don't have their superiors drop their pants in front of them. Many people experience some other sort of more subtle detrimental harassment or discrimination. This whole Hollywood thing feels very voyeuristic to me, like people slowing down on the highway to watch a car crash, or watching the Olympic highlights just to watch the gymnast fall off the beam or the figure skater miss that triple Axel. It feels not real, not relevant. I predict it will have very little effect on corporate culture or the environment at the worker-ant level. I hope I'm wrong, and there is bite to this bark.

2017-11-14 edit: You know what? Maybe I was wrong about no trickle down effects. Maybe the dominoes are falling. It's coming out that G. H. W. Bush was a butt-groper: http://time.com/5019182/george-hw-bush- ... llegation/ Maybe all these stories will be a lesson to the masses. Maybe people will think twice about being wildly -- or even slightly --inappropriate, because it won't be hushed up anymore. If you do it, you'll be outed and risk at best embarrassment, at worst your career, reputation and livelihood.
"Winston Churchill once said 'The eyes are the windows of your face.' " -A man who's very scared of plants.

User avatar
Sonic#
member
member
Posts: 5590
Joined: Sat Nov 7, 9:37 2009
Location: Georgia, US

Re: harvey weinstein

Post by Sonic# » Tue Nov 14, 13:05 2017

^ Aum and DarkOne make me think of whether this will trickle down. Harassment goes unpunished in many contexts and most of the time, and it may take time to see the "trickle down" into organizations and regular policies. How does the gossip-y reporting get there? Well, people in each of these organizations have to see the problems and be empowered to do something about it. The leadership has to change and the culture has to change with that.

Just to pick out one thread of discourse where things could go either way post-Weinstein:

The effectiveness of sexual harassment training:

There are more calls to introduce sexual harassment training, which on its face sounds good.
Senate Backs Anti-Harassment Training for Lawmakers, Staff wrote:The Senate on Thursday unanimously approved a measure requiring all senators, staff and interns to be trained on preventing sexual harassment.
A good start. I'm cautious though. They also need to make sure that the training or other policy solutions are effective, especially since we know that much of the training and certification isn't reported and that sexual harassment remains underreported, according to the EEOC:
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Report, v wrote:Much of the training done over the last 30 years has not worked as a
prevention tool – it’s been too focused on simply avoiding legal liability. We believe effective training can reduce workplace harassment, and recognize that ineffective training can be unhelpful or even counterproductive. However, even effective training cannot occur in a vacuum – it must be part of a holistic culture of non-harassment that starts at the top. Similarly, one size does not fit all: Training is most effective when tailored to the specific workforce and workplace, and to different cohorts of employees. Finally, when trained correctly, middle-managers and first-line supervisors in particular can be an employer’s most valuable resource in preventing and stopping harassment.
This report is from June 2016. My hope is that now leaders and organizers will pay fresh attention to this kind of work and make good-faith attempts to improve their spaces.

User avatar
Aum
member
member
Posts: 3133
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 23:35 2007
Location: Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ

Re: harvey weinstein

Post by Aum » Tue Nov 14, 15:37 2017

Sensitivity training is just lip service. It's part of collective denial that pretends like people need to be made aware of something that they weren't aware of before. Providing this kind of training in the midst of a culture that supports rape is the most two-faced thing ever. What we need is more accountability and more punishment. Men will stop doing it when they know they can't get away with it. They don't need sensitivity training to tell them what they're doing is wrong, they already know that.

How about we remove perpetrators from power who admit to doing it, rather than giving them higher approval ratings out of spite? How about actual jail time instead of slaps on the wrist or nothing at all? Until the stakes are bigger it will never end.

The initiatives need to happen quickly. There are already people rolling their eyes at the sheer number of "outings" like they're already tired of hearing about it. "Can we just move on already" -ism is starting. It's to the point where people are assuming that because there's so many call outs that they must be lying and just taking advantage of bandwagoning for selfish or political purposes. It doesn't occur to some people that we have an epidemic of sexual assault truly happening -- no, it can't possibly be that.

I am just really angry. I see the sweeping under the rug in progress. It's practically happening in slow motion, in broad daylight.
The artist's job is not to succumb to despair, but to find an antidote to the emptiness of existence. -W.A.

User avatar
Enigma
member
member
Posts: 3996
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 10:22 2004
Location: Canada

Re: harvey weinstein

Post by Enigma » Tue Nov 14, 15:40 2017

I'm of two minds about this whole thing. On one hand the fact that people are being instantly believed and there are consequences is enormously powerful and very new. Even when things broke in Hollywood before there was doubt and sweeping it under the carpet. There is currently a pretty good environment for anyone looking to tell on their powerful harasser. And there's a great house cleaning happening.

On the more cynical hand im afraid that this has power because it's a scandal ™ and Hollywood knows being tied to a scandal is bad. The real test will be the staying power.
"Human beings are amazing... we might be horrible, horrible, but we're wonderful too. Otherwise, why go on?"

User avatar
rowan
member
member
Posts: 10084
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 11:01 2004
Location: US

Re: harvey weinstein

Post by rowan » Tue Nov 14, 16:56 2017

I kind of feel like there have been consequences for high profile people in my field though, in the last few years, finally. So this isn't the first set of consequences so maybe for that reason it feels a little more real? Though I worry about everything people brought up here as well.
spacefem wrote:All your logical argue are belong to us!

User avatar
geldofc
member
member
Posts: 368
Joined: Sun Apr 3, 2:00 2016
Location: California

Re: harvey weinstein

Post by geldofc » Wed Nov 15, 0:43 2017

so many men with almost no power act like a wannabe weinstein from my experience. it's not surprising a massively powerful guy like him acts like an abusive, repulsive pig. it's hilarious the fake good guys matt damon etc. are coming out now to support women when they've been shitting on them in public and private for all of their shitty careers.

fuck louis ck, weinstein, kevin spacey, and fuck all of the abusive, shit circles esp in comedy that uphold oppression while falsely parading as being socially aware.
:gf: :devil: :syringe:

Skeezy
member
member
Posts: 298
Joined: Fri Jun 9, 12:05 2017

Re: harvey weinstein

Post by Skeezy » Tue Dec 12, 13:59 2017

I agree with more thorough punishments for Weinstein and Spacey. I feel Luis made a mistake but hopefully wont pay too dearly for it. Hopefully not lifestyle ending. Losing the movie was slap on the wrist and I doubt he'll do something like what he did again.

Most of these high profile workplace scandals are helping to change the landscape. Most of the actions Im hearing about are truly absurd and a large abuse of power. Even out of the workplace/business aspect, a lot it is inexcusable.

I often am worried about men not being allowed to be men. However in these cases that isn't the case. Outside of the workplace I can't really blame some men for having unhealthy flirting practices because some women like forward men and some women dont. It takes a lot of reading and uncertainty to come off correctly.

Once I watched a man use the pickup line to a woman he didnt know, "Hey B****, come here." Now on levels of offensive this takes the cake. What shocked me is she came to him and flirted with him. You have to wonder is this how he approaches most women? and how many women does this actually work on?

Ive had moments, mostly drunken of being lewd myself. About half were recieved with a smile and flirtation and the other half were not interested which was fine. Usually I wasn't so forward that I offend but everyone has there own way of looking at things and its almost unavoidable.

I dont really take to asking permission for everything, especially in a relationship. Ive been with a lot of women who wanted quite the opposite (spontaneity) and actually wanted me to be more forward than I already was. Asking permission, while not bad, can sometimes make it feel somewhat robotic and for some people can spoil the mood.

Anytime anyone advances in a flirtatious manner is a gamble. How its done is all up to indvidual attitudes. Only in my opinion flirtation has no place in the workplace. If your attracted to someone let them know you'd like to see them outside of work for a date/netflix and chill or however you choose to say it, and just be acceptant of the anwser. There should be no continuous flirtation at work, regardless of wether it was a yes or no.

User avatar
DarkOne
member
member
Posts: 611
Joined: Mon Apr 6, 5:42 2015
Location: US

Re: harvey weinstein

Post by DarkOne » Wed Dec 13, 6:11 2017

Skeezy wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 13:59 2017

I dont really take to asking permission for everything, especially in a relationship. I've been with a lot of women who wanted quite the opposite (spontaneity) and actually wanted me to be more forward than I already was. Asking permission, while not bad, can sometimes make it feel somewhat robotic and for some people can spoil the mood.
So I guess the question is: Which one do you value more? A) Ensuring consent, at the risk of spoiling the mood; or B)Preserving the mood, at the risk of sexual assault.
"Winston Churchill once said 'The eyes are the windows of your face.' " -A man who's very scared of plants.

Skeezy
member
member
Posts: 298
Joined: Fri Jun 9, 12:05 2017

Re: harvey weinstein

Post by Skeezy » Wed Dec 13, 13:33 2017

@DarkOne
Well I usually just try to read the girl Im dealing with. As it stands most guys I know, especially already in relationships jist go ahead and try and if she doesnt want to she will make it known. Or you eventually grow to learn each other or you never find that middle ground and both parties end up miserable.

Dating its harder to decipher but yes Ive always tried my hand and accepted whatever outcome. A rub a kiss on the neck and the hand creeps closer, she'll either stop me or she wont. Worked all through teens and 20's but always after I already knew they were interested.

Lastly some women (not all) need to grow up. No one wants to put themselves in the other persons shoes. Ive seen a lot of women get agitated with men that have old pickup lines or they dislike them off the top, for whatever reason and say men need to stop being so 50's etc. among other comments. To that I say, try being really attracted to someone and having the balls to put yourself out there to face rejection. Most women dont have to deal with rejection, or actively pursue men on a regular basis, and when they do get rejected, they have an unequivelant over the top reaction. Most Men however are used to rejection, so they just try their line or whatever and if it works fine if not have a nice day. The rare cases when men dont take rejection well are the problem.

The worst is women who get approached in a respectful manner only to reply with rudeness. A simple, "no thanks" would suffice more than half the men who approach you. For every one thing you could bring up about the sexes, the opposite sex could see it the other way around. Men get just as agitated with women as women get with men. If women dont accept that men are men to some degree we will never see eye to eye because you can't make a man, not a man.

There is sexual assault but the line should be commonly known. If your interested in a man you have to learn him just like he has to learn you. I see a tendecy in women to think they run what goes and with that attitude you dont need a man, you need a submissive. I know the struggle for equality etc. Just make sure you arent overstepping logic and trying to eliminate mens behavior entirely from the picture as that would be entirely selfish and unequal

User avatar
DarkOne
member
member
Posts: 611
Joined: Mon Apr 6, 5:42 2015
Location: US

Re: harvey weinstein

Post by DarkOne » Wed Dec 13, 22:51 2017

Paraphrasing the wise Zaboo, there is so much fail in that statement I can hardly begin. I will take the liberty of summarizing that rant as "B", which is regrettable, but not entirely surprising. At least not in this current environment with all the revelations of men acting like they are god's gift to women.

I really shouldn't waste the time, but here it goes [my thoughts as I was reading, in red]:
Well I usually just try to read the girl Im dealing with. [Usually? Wondering about the rest of the time. Use of the word "girl" also tickles me.
I expect condescension ahead]
As it stands most guys I know, especially already in relationships jist go ahead and try [yes, answer B it is. wondering if you need new friends. Also, implied generalization #1: "most guys you know" is representative of "most guys". And normalization: because my buddies do it, it's ok] and if she doesnt want to she will make it known [great, he thinks silence is consent, can't be bothered to verify]. Or you eventually grow to learn each other or you never find that middle ground and both parties end up miserable. [Or, you know, one can ask and be sure, and if the answer is No, accept that and carry on with life. No need to either find middle ground or be miserable.]

Dating its harder to decipher [Generalization #2. True for you is not universal truth] but yes Ive always tried my hand and accepted whatever outcome [even if it's unintended sexual assault? lovely]. A rub a kiss on the neck and the hand creeps closer, she'll either stop me or she wont [see about implied consent above]. Worked all through teens and 20's but always after I already knew they were interested. [good for you... wondering about them...]

Lastly some women (not all) [nice, referring to women as "women", not a patronizing "girls", and avoiding the generalization!!] need to grow up [nope, never mind. Patronizing AF]. No one wants to put themselves in the other persons shoes. [senseless generalization #3, and a false one at that. He'll probably claim "no one in that group of some women who need to grow up", but I'm not buying it. sneaky way to pretend to not generalize.. eh, carry on with the car crash.] Ive seen a lot of women get agitated with men that have old pickup lines [pickup lines... :lol: ] or they dislike them off the top, for whatever reason [and is this not their right... why? and "for whatever reason". Nice, no differentiation between "because I don't like his shirt" and "because he's a rapist" ] and say men need to stop being so 50's etc. among other comments. [not sure what was so good about the 50's for women, but, yeah, this is not on his priority list...] To that I say, try being really attracted to someone and having the balls to put yourself out there to face rejection. [1- no thanks, I don't need to try to have balls. yes, i know what you meant, but it's interesting that instead of saying "have the courage" you choose a gendered idiom that subtly, but generally, undermines the opposite sex. Do you even realize how mysogynistic the speech is... And 2- Entitlement much? Just because someone risked rejection, they deserved something? Not how that works.] Most women dont have to deal with rejection [Generalization #4, this is getting old, or maybe I need to read this source material from which he's getting all these statistics?] or actively pursue men on a regular basis [Generalization #5], and when they do get rejected [Generalization #6 coming my way, hey this guy seems to know a lot about women... oh, wait, no, just mansplaining female courting behaviors, nevermind], they have an unequivelant over the top reaction. [I think he meant disproportional... "over the top" :lol: I'm picturing borderline hysterical] Most Men however are used to rejection [generalization #... eh, whatever, next generalization], so they just try their line or whatever and if it works fine if not have a nice day. The rare cases when men dont take rejection well [whaaaat? :lol: :lol: I really need to get ahold of this research with all these statistics, I'm curious about the definition of "rare"] are the problem [no, not "the"... "a", there are plenty more, like, generalization, entitlement, blah blah...]

The worst is women who get approached in a respectful manner only to reply with rudeness [Oh, where to begin? Entitlement. Oh the gall to be impolite in the face of an unwanted approach. Maybe SHE should pretend like it's the 50's. And "the worst"? Here I thought the worst in this scenario was possible sexual assault.. my bad] A simple, "no thanks" would suffice more than half the men [made-up statistics #... lost count of these, too] who approach you. [And what about the rest for whom this is not sufficient? Should she explain the reasons for her rejection so that those people are happy? Yeah, no. What would suffice, for what percentage of men, is IRRELEVANT. She owes these people Nothing.] For every one thing you could bring up about the sexes, the opposite sex could see it the other way around. [Like, for example, this very statement, which really says nothing] Men get just as agitated with women as women get with men. [Wait, I thought most men handle rejection well, and most women don't...] If women dont accept that men are men to some degree we will never see eye to eye because you can't make a man, not a man. [EEEEEK. Define "man". Do you really mean "man"? Or did you mean "manly man"? Or perhaps "man's man"? Or manly man's man? These are all different.]

There is sexual assault [finally, we agree on something] but [of course] the line should be commonly known [this is deeply ironical, since it seems like you may not see it]. If your interested in a man you have to learn him just like he has to learn you. [more mansplaining] I see a tendecy in women to think they run what goes [generalization and I don't even know what this one means] and with that attitude you dont need a man, you need a submissive. [oh, clearly, man and submissive are mutually exclusive. From this I take "man" here is "alpha manly macho man"] I know the struggle for equality etc. [does he?] Just make sure you arent overstepping logic [ironic, again] and trying to eliminate mens behavior entirely from the picture as that would be entirely selfish and unequal [i.. what??? I'm spent. thank god this read is over.]
Don't bother with a response. Not worth your time.
"Winston Churchill once said 'The eyes are the windows of your face.' " -A man who's very scared of plants.

Skeezy
member
member
Posts: 298
Joined: Fri Jun 9, 12:05 2017

Re: harvey weinstein

Post by Skeezy » Thu Dec 14, 8:10 2017

@DarkOne

Not going to re-tread all that. I did read it, and believe your enititled to your opinion. I do think your being so particular about finding fault that you complicate and over scrutinize the most basic of statements.

Also Im beginning to hate the term mansplaining for rebutle to something that should be a given. The word itself is sexist, making anyone who uses it regularly a hypocrite if they say they strive for equality. It allows any woman/feminist to write off anything a man says instead of taking it for what its worth. Its much like trying to console someone who abuses alcohol because they lost a parent, back to healthy state of mind. No matter how true the words or credible the advice, their rebutle, "Your parents are still alive." Its dismissive and thats its main use.

Focusing on one aspect, I now have a question.

Do you think couples in general dont have to learn each others sexual traits, likes, and dislikes regardless of gender?

because in your post you make the whole Idea sound absurd.

Edited for post below closure:

Funny, thats how I view all the red in your post.
Like I said, try putting yourself in the other persons shoes. Mockery does not validate the high horse you seem to be on. I also noticed you couldnt answer the question because it would point out flaws in your arguements way of thinking. Instead of bringing points and substance, you are just dismissive in general. I'll stop there.
Last edited by Skeezy on Thu Dec 14, 10:09 2017, edited 12 times in total.

User avatar
DarkOne
member
member
Posts: 611
Joined: Mon Apr 6, 5:42 2015
Location: US

Re: harvey weinstein

Post by DarkOne » Thu Dec 14, 8:42 2017

Yeah, when I said "don't bother", I should've finished with "because I've used up all the time I want to use on this." And now I've gone over. I cannot relate to any of the people in your broad representations of men and women. The people around me do not fit those behaviors. So I am choosing to disengage because, yes in general, that rant was ill-sourced, generalized and made no sense to me. Feel free to engage others. I'm out.
"Winston Churchill once said 'The eyes are the windows of your face.' " -A man who's very scared of plants.

User avatar
Sonic#
member
member
Posts: 5590
Joined: Sat Nov 7, 9:37 2009
Location: Georgia, US

Re: harvey weinstein

Post by Sonic# » Thu Dec 14, 10:58 2017

I agree. The generalizations don't describe how I understand people to work in general. To give two examples, I know plenty of instances of men who give over-the-top reactions to being rejected. Roy Moore's threat to a woman who rejected him comes to mind: "'You’re just a child, and I am the district attorney. If you tell anyone about this, no one will ever believe you." Yelling, calling a woman a bitch, bad-talking the woman behind her back - I've seen a lot.

I've also known a lot of women who have been rejected. I've rejected some women myself. I've never felt threatened or like the reaction was "over the top." Mostly it's been cordial or the other person kept it together until I was gone. Once I broke up with someone and made her cry; I don't consider that over-the-top either because we were in an established relationship.

I wouldn't have replied line-for-line like DarkOne did, but I largely agree with her that you were generalizing a lot about both men and women. Telling women how they should act to men[1] is mansplaining: adults generally do understand that relationships involve engaging with people's modes of communication, so it's strange that you feel as a man that it should be explained to you women

A bit of recap: the topic started with Harvey Weinstein and other men harassing and raping women. Skeezy moved the context to talking about whether "men" are "allowed to be men." DarkOne asked in reply,
Which one do you value more? A) Ensuring consent, at the risk of spoiling the mood; or B)Preserving the mood, at the risk of sexual assault.
When I talk about explicit consent, I'm talking about the one sure way to "learn [the other person]": speech. Having a conversation. Using our words. Honestly, I'd probably not be interested in someone who saw conversations about consent and what we liked as a bad thing or (worse) as unmanly.[2] That noise is one thing that gives the Harvey Weinsteins of the world cover, as a chorus of people have said in their defense that maybe the women like or liked not talking about consent, so how could the men have known? In a nutshell, toxic masculinity uses the man who wordlessly grabs what he wants to defend rapists and sexual harassers.

[1]
If your interested in a man you have to learn him just like he has to learn you.
[2] No dominant worth their salt would go into a scene without having established in conversation safe boundaries for conduct. Establishing consent is great for both doms and subs.

Skeezy
member
member
Posts: 298
Joined: Fri Jun 9, 12:05 2017

Re: harvey weinstein

Post by Skeezy » Thu Dec 14, 12:12 2017

Sorry for the topic shift. I must say sonic, I admire your posts. I dont know wether your humoring me or not but you make me think about your posts.

I just wanted to speak on the generalization. Even on the board women complain about men approaching them and their annoyances or likes. In general men approach women directly more than women approach men. (I get directly approached by a woman, on the street, on average about once every 2-4 years). Since men tend face more rejection most experienced men cast a web. This means they approach many women in hopes that 1 or more will say yes. This is part of the reason women get approached so often compared to men. I have never seen a public open environment where women did majority of the pursuit. Usually women dont pursue men in the same way, mostly with indirect flirting, gifts and sometimes directly (usually in certain settings), vs males who do the same but for the most part are more direct in general thus the various comments about how men approach women spread throughout posts. Since men face a lot of rejection they will either become acceptant of it or lose self esteem and perhaps not approach women at all.

Roy Moore's case falls more into the abuse of power, selfishness, and yes over reaction to rejection. His abuse of power either made him unrealistic to rejection or, he is just fully committed to doing the wrong thing and its just more abuse. I think its the latter.

Some men do have problems with rejection if they arent used to it or acceptant of it. Rejection is extremely hurtful to those who are unprepaired, even nice rejections. As much as I see women annoyed by being approached by men who didnt react badly, there is 0 empathy for the man who got rejected who may or may not have a had a shell to protect his self esteem. Its not easy for a lot of men to approach a women they are highly attracted to. A lot of men especially those who have been rejected and havent had a woman say yes after a few tries, begin to think of themselves poorly. How often do you see men lash out at women after rejection? vs the sheer amount of men approaching women. Admittedly bad reactions do happen though.

Men need to stop acting 50's, approach me how I want to be approached, ask for consent etc. Where is the equality in that? I see a list of things men should do and change but if someone where to suggest women should do anything its mansplaining? Even in the context I used, the should is referring to both genders but, since its partly referred to women its de-validated? Im sorry but Im taking from just that one word (mansplaining) that women should never be expected to do anything, yet the men have a list of things provided by women, a small part of which are because of minor annoyances. I understand the word can be used constructively and has been in most informational instances about feminism but outside that, I mostly see it used to dismiss counter interests.

User avatar
Enigma
member
member
Posts: 3996
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 10:22 2004
Location: Canada

Re: harvey weinstein

Post by Enigma » Thu Dec 14, 15:26 2017

I feel like any dude coming in here saying women aren't rejected as much/never approach men should have to sit down to a one hour lecture on my romantic history first.

Both genders get rejected and it hurts both equally. Men don't have a monopoly on that.

I thought we were talking about sexual assaults? Why are we now on the topic of men's feelings?
"Human beings are amazing... we might be horrible, horrible, but we're wonderful too. Otherwise, why go on?"

Taurwen
member
member
Posts: 358
Joined: Sat Jul 2, 9:33 2016

Re: harvey weinstein

Post by Taurwen » Fri Dec 15, 7:08 2017

Yea, men cast a pretty wide net, but that also means women get approached a lot. So throw some numbers into that. A woman gets approached by 100 men in a year, 50 of them take the "no thanks" and leave. 25 call her a bitch and go on their way (to her face or to their buddies). 20 won't leave her alone until she rest outright rude or give them some magical answer that denotes she isn't interested but not because of them (normally a lie about a boyfriend) 4 get overly agitated but nothing happens and 1 gets violent.
A woman is always on the look out for that one man a year. A woman might as well be rude out the gate as it will get rid of more men than the "no thanks" with little change in how many call her a bitch, and being blunt so quickly might stop some of the people who would continue to pursue her anyway. Some lie about the boyfriend right away, but it's such a shitty cop out ( I mean, I get really really angry when it's the thing that gets a guy to go away).

And here we are, catering to the feelings of 95 men instead of understanding that women have a legitimate reason to be wary.

Also, I learned within six months of become sexually active to not fuck people who thought consent ruined the mood. They are either terrible people, or their lack of imagination leads to subpar activity.
And I don't want to compare women to dogs or anything, but I can't stop laughing at the idea of someone asking a dog if they want a treat/walk/whatever and the dog getting mopey and being like "Well I did... Before you asked me."

Locked