It's just too easy.
And 'the left' has never been particularly tolerant, incidentally.
It's just too easy.
And 'the left' has never been particularly tolerant, incidentally.
No doubt. Huge swathes of them are massive idiots much like the rest of the population.Originally Posted by niko_cee
"Hi, I have the power to destroy your dreams and career aspirations if you don't do give me a blowjob."
You can probably leave the last bit out.
Implicit abuse.
Or change destroy to make/realise/etc.
Systemic racism is executed similarly to systemic sexism, and since both concern the oppression of persons, it is problematic to disavow one without disavowing the other. So Phonics is arguing that if you're against systemic racism, you're a hypocrite if you're also not against systemic sexism.
You stating that the #MeToo movement is problematic because it's "a witch hunt" implies that you prioritize protecting men from sexual assault allegations over protecting victims of sexual assault.
And in either case, it qualifies as coercion.
Would you suck somebody off for a good architecture role?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribalism
Not the main argument but coercion should be spelt with an s. Coersion/Coerzion sounds nicer.
Everything's coercion. No one really wants to be doing 90% of what they have to do on a daily basis.
Nope.
What about for a walk-on in the next Transformers film?
90% of what you do on a daily basis is because people are either threatening you or forcing you? You spend 90% of your day under duress?
Really?
I'm actually a bit mad that you asked this question.
I would probably suck someone off for the job of my dreams. The underlying problem is you're going to need to suck that person off anytime you want anything done for the rest of your career at which point it's not really your job is it.
Don't you want to be an architect as much as these women wanted to be actresses?
It simply isn't duress if the promise is a benefit, however you might like to think otherwise. You don't have to participate.
It's a shitty industry. It's always been a shitty industry. Is it a bad thing all this crap is happening? Absolutely not (by that I don't mean the harassment, but rather the kickback, for clarity). Are there perhaps questions about why it has taken so long? I would say certainly. My original point was that I don't agree that your version of coercion vitiates consent in the context of rape, and that it is therefore disrespectful to actual victims of that crime to try and equate the two. Or perhaps, that none of this ever seems to be provable beyond allegation (of course this is an inherent problem in the crime itself as well).
As far is the rest of the movement is concerned, I have no great qualms with it, other than the cynical observation that the entire industry is built, to an extent, to facilitate the dreams of the beautiful people, and in an environment where sex is no longer a currency, might some of these said people, or their aspiring newgens as existing participants have already made their Faustian pact (or not), find that the industry is no longer as open to them as perhaps it once was. And will that be better, for them?
There's a difference between a good architect job and the opportunity to be Frank Lloyd Wright. (I've never heard of him but he appears at the top of Google under famous architect)
Lets remind ourselves on the point this 'debate' started on
On your wider point: Just as many repercussions of not sleeping with someone is 'You'll never work in this town again' as it is 'I'll give you a job if...'
Weinstein would plant bad stories about those that wouldn't put out across the gossip rags. Agents were told to avoid certain 'troublesome' actresses. etc.
Your question isn't even as horrible as it should be.
Lots of these actresses were faced with "if you don't do this, I will ruin your career" as opposed to "if you do this, I will make your career". The former is worse than the latter.
George Clarke? Kevin McCloud? Le Corbousier?
And in the brave new world it won't be refusing Harvey Weinstein that does for you, it'll be liking something on facebook that the Dalai Lama once glanced at or makes reference to Tibet in a way to the disliking Supreme Leader Xi.
There are may existential threats out there.
Yep and this is one of them so it's not bad for women at the top of their profession to speak out about it.
Actually, further to Panda's hypothetical situation, considering the sheer number of people who have come out and said "well, I'm not like that" I find it hard to believe that Weinstein even really wielded that sort of power, unless all the good guys were also somehow complicit, which somewhat calls their good guy status, and whether you want to be involved with any of them, into question.
It was all an exceptionally well played con.
They should make a film about it.
Never heard of any of them but turns out that the last one did the flats opposite my old place.
Such nice flats. Open plan duplexes. One couple had what looked to be a 30ft Christmas tree. I was so jealous.
It's not the substance of #MeToo that winds people up. It's the fact that it's Hollywood trying to spin a scandal, that should have disbanded the entire concept of Hollywood, into a self-preserving positive.
Fuck off is anyone involved in the acting profession 'brave'. Brave women are women whose already abusive husbands fuck off when the third kid is born and they have to bring them up on the breadline.
Why not both? Bravery is a lot of things, it's not just the most extreme examples.
Because they think they matter and don't, which is never an appealing look.
Although your use of "vitiates" implies you have a good vocabulary, you do not seem to understand 'coercion'. My version of coercion is the one that gets used by legal systems in places like the United Kingdom and Canada, i.e. coercion is the practice of making someone comply with an action by means of threat or force.
In cases where a victim may appear to voluntarily agree to performing sexual acts in exchange for not having the perpetrator ruin their career (e.g. an actress and Weinstein), this apparent voluntary agreement does not qualify as 'consent' because the perpetrator is exploiting the significant asymmetry of power/influence between them. The voluntary agreement is occurring under duress, and the performed acts are occurring as a transaction whereby the victim is receiving far less benefit than the trauma induced. Had the victim genuinely consented to the act, then the act would not need to be transactional in order to occur.
Yes, there are victims of sexual assault and rape who saw absolutely no benefit to their lives whereas some of these actresses did. This does not disqualify those actresses being victims, and stating that this understanding of 'coercion' is a disservice to other persons is much the opposite: many women have been victimized by people in order to retain or gain employment, and redefining 'coercion' to disqualify actresses is the same action to disqualify these women in parallel situations.
Lots of reasons.
1. "He's my friend, there's no way what they're saying is true!"
2. "He may have done it, but he's still my friend."
3. "If I say anything, he'll ruin my career."
4. "I don't know what to do in this situation, so I will ignore it."
5. "Well he didn't pin them down in a back alley, so surely that can't be rape, right?"
It's so easy to be a bystander that there's an effect named after it.
If public figures who are able to bring mass public awareness to issues like sexual assault in a way that makes many people reconsider their actions or be brought to some form of justice doesn't matter, then surely the victims who aren't famous matter even less.
What's the name for someone like Gwyneth Paltrow not bothering to say anything during the decade (at least) when she was clearly big enough not to have her career sunk?
Coward? Bystander?
Considering I got an e-mail about sexual harassment in the work place in my 35 people organization as well as colleagues from my old place at DuPont having to go to multiple workplace trainings (employees: 52k according to google) that referenced/quoted experiences from #MeToo, I'd argue they do make it matter.
I understand that you suffered in silence in your misery for years at your job but that's not a good thing. If you had people at the top of your company that thought the same way to change processes for the better, you'd probably still be in Little Korea rather than dealing with the Irish.
Self serving. I didn't particularly like Ulma Thermans #MeToo piece where she listed several things that were massively out of line and stories that she heard from others but didn't act on yet the only thing people remember is her looking mad on the red carpet one time. Human beings are for the most part shades of grey, it's why the Good ones and the Bad ones stand out.
Beneficiary.
The victims who aren't famous matter much more, because, like the children who were/are molested by non-celebrities, they have no mass media power to help lift themselves out of it.
So sexual assault is more acceptable if the victim gets some money or fame out of the abuse. Gotcha.
Guess we should stop talking about this then because there's no way dialogue and discussions in one subculture could possibly permeate into others.
So Andy Woodward is a media attention grabbing arsehole but the other 42 victims of Barry Bennell are brave?
So, let's have it right, motherfuckers.
Sexual assault is bad. Harvey Weinstein and whoever else is guilty of this ought to be tried and punished in a court of law.
What is also bad is the obsession with identity politics and the self-congratulatory narcissism of Hollywood - the campaign that's going on. These are some of the most privileged people on the planet parading their victimhood, cheered on by tabloid muck-rakers and a celebrity-obsessed audience wanting to vicariously wallow in the outrage. Their primary effect is to make harassment seem ubiquitous thus distorting normal sexual behaviors, promoting anxiety among women at the prospect of encountering it and anxiety among men at the prospect of being accused.
Statistics were presented earlier in the thread concerning false accusations being at around 5% for sexual assault. I suggest that this is far higher when the subjects are prominent individuals of any stripe. Add to that a bandwagon effect, trial by media and a very substantial grey area around consent when it's of the "sleeping with the boss to get a job" variety and it becomes an excuse for point scoring and self-justification.
There is a proportion of "the left", itself obsessed with identify politics - especially gender politics - which is determined to chastise men collectively for this. I was actually told in a conversation by one of these people that as a male I ought to examine my own behavior. Maybe I should, but the idea that the crimes of Hollywood film producers should occasion it is bizarre.
If this amount of effort were focused on some of the far more egregious problems in American society, who knows where we could get to?
Keep at it, mate. You're a cretin.
Okay, so you've dredged that I'm up and I'm not seeing an issue. The wider point - rapey people are best dealt with in an atmosphere free from hysteria.
Keep at it, mate. You're a cretin.
White women being systematically raped - "It's not the immigrants fault, culture you know!"
White women being systematically raped - "They should shut up, they are privileged and don't deserve a pedal stool!"
Your lies make Baby Jesus cry.
What is it about prominent people that makes you think the incidence of false sexual assault accusations will be 'far higher' among them than others, Henry?
You're not someone to be taken seriously in general, but that's just fucking gratuitous.
Accusations against, not accusations made by.
And fuck you too.
He's lost his mind.
Meltdown imminent.
Can't believe people from Hollyoaks won an Oscar on the one year I didn't put a bet on that happening.
Such a legend.
Watched Three Billboards last night, and Sam Rockwell was phenomenal in it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
