Printable View
"The #MeToo moment has now morphed into a moral panic that poses as much danger to women as it does to men." Claire Berlinski
This is a very long, but potently revealing statement on what may criminalize the flirting we've considered as a compliment. Sexual Invisibility will no longer be the domain of the elderly.
https://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/12/06/the-warlock-hunt/ - by Claire Berlinski
Shandi, I agree with her that there has to be a clear definition of predatory behavior and the different degrees of sexual harassment so that punishment/reactions are in proportion. However, I can well understand that many women years ago didn’t react to that behavior because we were never taught that it was okay to do so or that there was anything wrong with it. Males “couldn’t help themselves” and “boys were just being boys” and women had to suck it up, so to speak. I do not agree with her defense of office/workplace flirtations (they do not belong there) and sexually suggestive ones should not occur anywhere IMO unless you are already in a relationship. (Personally, I’m lousy at flirting and have never seen the point of it. If you’re interested in someone, just ask him/her out.) I got the impression that she is a woman who likes and gets attention from men in that way and has used it to her advantage in her life. I googled her and, yep, she’s an attractive single woman. I think to no small degree she was apologizing for men’s bad/unwelcome behavior, letting them off the hook, and I don’t agree with that.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:
In a similar vein, here are a couple of other links:
https://medium.com/@SIIPCampaigns/a-survivors-defense-of-al-franken-ea994c5bbc9a
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/10/dont-let-alt-right-coopt-metoo-agenda?CMP=share_btn_fb
Who this brings to mind is ... Harvey Weinstein.
I think of California in general as embracing the Harvey Weinstein management style - no accountability for anything, anywhere - but that is a separate subject. Let's talk about dealing with people like Harvey Weinstein.
As far as why I feel this way about Harvey Weinstein, I have the impression that he raped about 35 women, and did it with complete impunity - because he was wealthy and connected. And that barely touches the surface of describing his behavior. (The Selma Hayek interview was one of the best ones I've read on Weinstein's sexual harassment behavior.)
For example, the agency that worked for his studio in his earlier years, Creative Artists Agency. Run by Michael Ovitz.
It has been admitted that CAA was involved in recruiting Actresses and other aspiring Film industry employees, to see Weinstein on terms that were terribly injurious to the women.
But nobody has said anything about what that implies - Michael Ovitz would have to have been involved.
Very few news reporting organizations would report the obvious - that the President of CAA (Ovitz) was involved in recruiting Women to perform sexual acts for Weinstein.
It's been admitted that CAA was involved, but nobody has named the then-President of CAA.
Long story short, dealing with Ovitz and Weinstein is a LOT like dealing with Organized Crime. That includes their ability to control the courts.
If Weinstein is Guilty, how is one of his Primary Pimps - Ovitz - not guilty ?
But, getting back to Weinstein, and how to discourage the injurious behavior he got away with for far too long.
I would say, in recognition of the fact that sometimes Vigilante justice DOES work, that the States of California and New York should give Impunity to any Female Victim of Weinstein's sexual crimes, if they shoot him in the groin area. To be clear, with a rifle.
And, under certain conditions - no one else can be hurt, so that drastically reduces the when and where of how his victims could basically, surgically castrate him, without anaesthetic.
Anyway, not to go to far with the Charles Bronson thing, but I think letting the Women that Weinstein hurt, have the OPTION to render him a Eunuch - might be a healing experience for SOME of them.
Or perhaps Weinstein could be Gelded as part of his Court Process. 35 years AND surgical castration - his life would end in prison.
That Weinstein is not already in prison tells us an awful lot about American "justice". It is not a level playing field, it has a Caste system.
More comments on the Berlinski article from me:
I think it’s going to have to start with getting rid of the nearly universal, deeply ingrained objectification of women, which reinforces the notion that women are here to serve and please men, period. I’ve noticed it particularly with older men (the single ones), not so much with the younger ones. I had a conversation with an older male recently. He and the other single men of the same age in his apartment complex were lamenting what they perceived as hostility and indifference coming from single women in the same age range. I asked him what the men were wanting from women. Mostly, they were interested in money, then cooking-housekeeping, then maybe sex. I asked what they were offering the women in return. That surprised him. He couldn’t come up with a single thing, said it hadn’t occurred to any of them to consider reciprocity. I told him maybe they should consider that before they approached any more women.
As for Berlinski, here are some quotes from her piece (in red) accompanied by my opinions:
Anyone who imagines it is easy for a man to figure out whether a woman might like to be kissed is insane. Poor baby. But, really, it IS easy. All he has to do is ASK. It’s just that heretofore he never felt he had to. All that mattered to him is what he wanted to do. (White) male privilege.
There is no reliable way to know if a hug will feel sexual and domineering to a woman or whether she will find this disagreeable, let alone how she will feel about it twenty years from now. So the lesson to men is clear: Never hug women at work, period. But this is insane. The project of eradicating physical affection from the workplace is cruel to men and women alike, and if it is successful, we will all go nuts. This is bullshit, IMO, and more a reflection of her than of reality. I’ve known too many women, including myself, who have resented having to put up with mens’ lewd remarks and behavior at work because they felt they had no other recourse. My experience is that if women are going to make lewd comments about men, by and large they do so with other women, not with men around. There is no need to eradicate physical affection from the workplace as long as it is consensual, and that means asking first instead of just assuming.
A lewd comment, to be sure. The daily banter of men and women the world around is full of lewd comments. Again, this is more about her than it is about other women. I think most women endure the lewd comments from men or participate in them as a form of defense or because they figure they have to go along in order to get along. It’s still largely a man’s world.
We appear now to be converging upon new rules for interaction between men and women—for example, “Never kiss a woman without explicitly asking her consent beforehand.” Well, yeah! And long overdue.
Women have long been victims, but now we are in so many respects victims no longer. We have more status, prestige, power, and personal freedom than ever before. Why would we want to speak and act as though we were overwhelmingly victims, as we actually used to be? Some women may have more of those things than ever before, but many still don’t, and in most cases, we don’t have nearly enough yet. Expecting our boundaries to be understood and respected is not being a victim.
Why would we even want men to be subject to such strenuous, arduous taboos against the display of their sexuality? Strenuous? Arduous? Give me a break. Just ask, for Pete’s sake! “Use your words.”
Cohen argued that moral panics must be understood in their wider socio-historic context. We may understand them, he proposed, as a boundary crisis: At a time of rapid change, they express the public’s uncertainly about the boundary between acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Amen. I have long maintained that everyone has boundary work to do. Generally, men need to learn to recognize and respect other people’s boundaries, particularly women’s, and women need to learn to assert their boundaries clearly and confidently.
No woman in her right mind would say, “I want the old world back.” We know what that meant for women. Nor would we even consciously think it. But perhaps, instead, we are fantasizing that the old world has come back, rather than confronting something a great deal more frightening: It’s never coming back. Oh, bullshit. It’s never really left. If it had, there wouldn’t be any Harvey Weinsteins, et al. We can only hope it will finally exit—and maybe with luck, gracefully.
I think we are all being called upon to take a major evolutionary leap--to see each other primarily as human beings and equals, and then secondarily as sexual beings. I honestly do think the fate of the human race (or as it is euphemistically put, "the planet") depends on this shift in consciousness.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by wisewomn:
The caste-ing couch? :-)
But, yes, I agree that "justice" is for the wealthy and powerful more often than not. The Rule of Law got thrown out the window a long time ago.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Hot Compost:
As a boomer male, if i were rich and powerful, i would be brought down too. Given my pathetic stories of sexual embarrassment combined with a consistent history of long term parent commitment I think the author in question is hot, not my type, and to the point.
Her most interesting example is Louie ck. I still want to laugh with him. He is what will bring this femchirade down, yes I am a feminist. Feminism is not served by zero tolerance. Franken is another example of over the top. Now the defeat of Moore might be countered by a special election led by feminist torch bearers. If Weinstein really raped 35 women, why no charges?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by wisewomn:
You're going in circles, Rossmen. There are no charges being brought against Weinstein yet because the police are building a case (as the FBI is doing with Trump). They have to cover all their bases because he is rich and powerful.
If you think Louie ck being brought low is over the top, sorry, you are not a feminist. If nothing else, he is guilty of indecent exposure. Franken is another story and why I think there needs to be a definition of the different degrees of harassment and appropriate penalties.
Your dismissal of zero tolerance is glib and unsurprising. You are not a female. You have not been exposed (the appropriate word) to this type of behavior your entire life. By your own admission, you have been guilty of it, so your attempt to dismiss any of it doesn't carry much weight, IMO. No woman should be subjected to this type of male behavior without her consent. Ever. Period.
It's going to be an uphill climb ridding men of the notion that they are entitled to behave this way. It involves the entire culture. What is happening now is a start, however uneven.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:
>>>It's going to be an uphill climb ridding men of the notion that they are entitled to behave this way. It involves the entire culture.
My only deep concern with a great deal of feminist thought is a frequent impulse to paint the male psyche in melodramatic terms. There's vehement reaction to men telling women how they think or feel, but little restraint in telling men how they truly, truly think. In this case, I'm concerned with the word "entitled." I surely don't speak for all men, but as a writer I've had to try tuning in to many male characters (in addition to chronic self-analysis), and I'd phrase the problem more like this: Men have a huge biological urge. They're afloat in a radically chaotic ethical landscape: traditional morality vs. anything goes. They (along with the rest of the human race) have an infinite capacity for rationalization, of which "entitlement" is only one tiny option. Most are clueless on how to express attraction in an acceptable, non-coercive, non-idiotic way (and our stories, movies, all that, offer only counterproductive images). Much more could be said about the confusions of "future shock," but my only point is that the whole issue is ill-served by simplification of the nexus. We haven't solved the drug problem by "Just say no" or by draconian laws. Understanding the conduct isn't excusing the conduct: it's the only first step to changing the conduct.
Many of the entitled are blind to their entitlement. I am aware that I am very entitled being Caucasian in this culture...probably unaware of some/many ways I am...but still aware. Caucasian men however may not have that because of the culture they were raised in but I think it might be time to listen to women, people of color, etc AND believe their experience.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by theindependenteye:
>>> Caucasian men however may not have that because of the culture they were raised in...
Last time I checked, so-called Caucasian men have been raised in an incredible diversity of cultures. A lot more have seen the insides of jails than have seen the insides of board rooms. But that's a bit beside the point.
My point in my previous response was that simplistic, one-size-fits-all analyses such as “they feel entitled” don’t do much toward understanding the issue, much less changing it. I don’t know how you know that that’s what they feel, and it’s a slippery term itself. If white rapists feel entitled by their whiteness, to black rapists feel entitled by their oppression? To me, that concept’s on the same level as “Islamic terrorists hate us for our freedom.” Some do, perhaps, but that’s not, IMHO, a very useful analysis except to warmongers. We could debate all week about what “privilege” means, but at the end of that time I’m not sure what would have changed. My own “privilege” comes out of being white, male, American, child of a mother who struggled out of poverty into the lower middle class, high IQ, compulsive hard worker. My capacity to listen to someone or not listen, vote or not vote, agree or not agree, doesn’t come out of some ritual ablution of evil spirits from my psyche; it comes from my attempt to act with relative decency.
Getting off the point, I realize, but one final note. Charging a class of people with failing to recognize their “entitlement,” whether accurate or not, is just plain bad politics in a culture of mindless competition. What sane individual—who probably casts himself as a victim on some level—would conceivably give up his “privilege” if it’s the only thing that keeps him above water? That rhetoric, in my view, just reinforces the dynamic it seeks to subvert. But enough. I ramble.
I see you're stuck on the word "entitlement." It's what popped into my head in the heat of the moment when I was responding to Rossmen. I agree it's not a perfect word in this context, just as it is not when applied to the so-called social safety net.
You're a writer, Eye. Give us a word that describes whatever it is that allows some men to believe that they can display to or impose on any woman with impunity whatever their hormones are urging them to do. At the very least it's a serious lack of impulse control.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by theindependenteye:
https://www.spiritrock.org/calendarDetails?EventID=5908>>>...Give us a word that describes whatever it is that allows some men to believe that they can display to or impose on any woman with impunity whatever their hormones are urging them to do. At the very least it's a serious lack of impulse control.[/quote]
But I fear I’m not a good enough writer to get my point across. No, I’m not hung up on that word, except insofar as it seems the word-of-the-day. My comment was reflecting on our proclivity to assign simplistic motives to people’s acts when (a) the acts themselves are extremely diverse and (b) we don’t know the insides of the guys’ heads. A term like “white privilege” has a concrete meaning in some contexts, but as soon as it emerges into the yawp of public discourse, it’s like a flyswatter gone mad, and the more it’s flapped, the more it becomes the traditional fart in a hailstorm, pointless and impotent. Ditto “entitlement.”
If a single word is needed, maybe it’s “rationalization.” Have you yourself ever done anything you felt, then or now, was shameful, unethical, stupid, or needlessly hurtful? If not, never ever, my deepfelt praise and wonderment. If so, how do you live with that? I had to. I wasn’t thinking. Everyone else was doing it. I deserved it. It hurt me more than it hurt you. She really wanted it. I was the real victim. I paid by feeling guilty. That wasn't the real me. I’d have hated myself if I hadn’t. I could have done worse. It was no big deal. Add your own rationalization. I could go on for hours, as could we all.
Though I have a deep love in my heart for melodrama—I did my Stanford dissertation on it a thousand years ago—I feel we need to move beyond it in the realm of political discourse. The twirling-mustache villain image isn’t useful. No one will cop to it, and as I said earlier on this thread, calling someone out on his “white male privilege” or his sense of “entitlement” will only get you the finger. There’s too much pain out there among those giving pain.
What to do? I have no idea. I’m the court fool, not the duke. My role is only to offer perspective and at times to relieve the grimness. That’s really all I have to say, and anything else would be crap.
can of worms here... I hope Iam not that guy... mmmm But is dress code for women considered Warlocking??? I mean, teah know, the lace bra that is obviously there to attract sexual attention. Mmmm with no note next to the Breasts stating whom they were intended to flirt with. An honest, wise answer for anyof you would be fine... Just another side of the story.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Shandi: