Then why all the #MeToo's? — praxis

Well I was answering Agustinos' question: "Which head is nicer to deal with do you think?"
So my answer is whatI think and becauseI prefer to only deal with my partners heads, either one. Not some fool that pushes himself on me after I make it clear that I am in no way interested.
Make sense?

the lower head is MUCH easier to deal with. ;) — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Then why all the #MeToo's?

But faith is reality, you just admitted so much. And the "says you", "no says you" attitude is reality too. So it's nonsense to say "let's just remove faith from reality, and make this attitude go away, and then we can have a real discussion". A reality without faith is not real, therefore we have to deal with this attitude, it's very real. You can't assume that having faith in non-faith will make faith go away. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is the type of nonsense I'd like to avoid and I'll probably quit this thread soon.

Equating and conflating faith to the point it becomes meaningless is really just semantics. I defined faith earlier in this thread as "the evidence of things unseen". When I say "remove faith" we are removing any evidence submitted for things unseen such as souls, God, miracles and transubstantiation. Instead we can talk about the aesthetic appeal of J-Lo's ass (can we still do that in the #metoo era?), which is actually real but no faith is necessary to hold an opinion on the matter.

I think we might need to have a few weekly prizes awarded on the Forum.
This one gets my vote for "Bleeding Obvious Comment of the Week". — charleton

My point, and I guess this might have gone over your head, is that the Duluth Model doesn't explain or apply to #MeToo. Weinstein doesn't need to force sex on the women in his surroundings to find a way to assert power, it's that he has power that he can get away with forcing sex on women.

As i said above, every man wakes up every morning and has to deny his natural sexuality. — charleton

Nope he doesn't. What you are doing right now, that is part the problem. Framing the situation in terms of repression of normal drives. Unspent libido is easy as fuck to channel away into something productive, and it could always be masturbated away. Sexual violence and domination can be sublimated in any number of ways, or framed as an accceptable game within willing partners.

If one truly wake up every morning feeling that you must somewhat adjust your behaviour in order not to assault someone today, sexually or otherwise, then I can only suggest that one seeks professional help.

Christianity has plenty to answer for, no doubt. But let's be fair: religion isn't the only player in determining the shape of our contradictions. Social practices, economics, politics, jurisprudence, and so on all apply torque. — Bitter Crank

I completely agree with all this. I do think christianity as a centralized religion is the biggest individual force behind it, but that might just be ebcause it's the easiest one to identify.

One thing that is a constant, is that sex always finds a way. Everything from the most boring heterosexually normative sex within the bonds of marriage to exotic polymorphous perversity have all happened over, and over, and over, during every generation to have lived within the Christian sphere of influence (and outside that sphere). — Bitter Crank

Well, christianity didn't manage to completely eradicate sex, but I don't think that's because it wasn't against it. Rather, the reason might be more that sexuality is a strong instinct hard wired into our DNA. I think on global scale people on average have had healthier relationships with their sexuality outside that sphere than inside it (which is a claim I can't promise any sources for and that I make based on my intuition).

And that doesn't make it immoral or wrong. That just means our culture's view on sexuality is very much twisted by christianity's sick view on sexuality. — BlueBanana

Christianity has plenty to answer for, no doubt. But let's be fair: religion isn't the only player in determining the shape of our contradictions. Social practices, economics, politics, jurisprudence, and so on all apply torque. Over the last two millennia Christianity has changed, changed again, and changed once more, as have the societies which preceded the present ones. One thing that is a constant, is that sex always finds a way. Everything from the most boring heterosexually normative sex within the bonds of marriage to exotic polymorphous perversity have all happened over, and over, and over, during every generation to have lived within the Christian sphere of influence (and outside that sphere).

There was some speculation as to whether or not this will result in a movement and I came across a woman who put this revolution into perspective:

"As the day, and the show, went on, her other cohosts weighed in with Al Roker saying he was "still processing" while the newest addition to Today, Megyn Kelly, said that this one hit close to home, "But when this happens what we don’t see is the pain on the faces of those who found the courage to come forward, and it’s a terrifying thing to do. We are in the middle of a sea change in this country. An empowerment revolution. As painful as this moment is for so many here at NBC today, at CBS earlier this month, at Fox News over the last year, in Hollywood this fall, it is a sign of progress. Of women finding their voices, their courage and of the erosion of a shameful power imbalance that has been in place for far too long."

Call it what you will but the "sea change" or an "empowerment revolution" for women to come out of the shadows in regards to sexual harassment they have experienced on the job, is not something that is going to go away, there is no turning back to the way it was.

What I find troubling is how the powerful the viral #MeToo has become... — Cavacava

A particular problem is the duality of the oppressed: they are contradictory, divided beings, shaped by and existing in a concrete situation of oppression and violence. ^
Any situation in which "A" objectively exploits "B" or hinders his and her pursuit of self-affirmation as a responsible person is one of oppression. Such a situation in itself constitutes violence, even when sweetened by false generosity, because it interferes with the individ­ ual's ontological and historical vocation to be more fully human. With the establishment of a relationship of oppression, violence has already begun. Never in history has violence been initiated by the oppressed. How could they be the initiators, if they themselves are the result of violence? How could they be the sponsors of something whose objective inauguration called forth their existence as op­ pressed? There would be no oppressed had there been no prior situation of violence to establish their subjugation.
Violence is initiated by those who oppress, who exploit, who fail to recognize others as persons—not by those who are oppressed, exploited, and unrecognized.

http://www.msu.ac.zw/elearning/material/1335344125freire_pedagogy_of_the_oppresed.pdf

I'm not a big fan of C.K. He's not my cup of tea, most of the time.

I agree.

What I find troubling is how the powerful the viral #MeToo has become.... reminds me of the pitch fork scene in Frankenstein. Social media inveighing social justice by a viral mob, with very little recourse left to those accused. While I think those guilty of assault or harassment ought to be punished, the power of the mob over the course of justice suggests, to me, all kinds of risks.

The Sun's appreciation of a large pair of tits has never been in question, but it is not my go-to source for an understanding of sexual politics. — unenlightened

That's a nicer ad hom than I could think up, and I was sorely tempted. (Y)

I beg to differ... — unenlightened

I never said anyone had to resist potential harassment alone only that it was their judgement about what steps to take. It's up to society to make sure the systems are in place to facilitate a choice concerning reporting and that there is no stigma attached to doing so. But people have different views about what's acceptable and what's not. If someone thinks the appropriate thing to do in the face of a particular comment is to fire back verbally rather than to make an official complaint, that's their business as far as I'm concerned as long as they don't feel the latter option is unavailable or stigmatized. And sure, society has it's part to play though #metoo campaigns and so on in transforming the zeitgeist.

I wasn't invited, and I would have enjoyed it (assuming he does it well). — Bitter Crank

But you're neither funny nor female. Zing... >:)

Well, I think we can agree that the situation in question is very much related to the reasons of sexuality being such a taboo in our culture, which is due at least partially due to christianity's effect on it.

That just means our culture's view on sexuality is very much twisted by christianity's sick view on sexuality. — BlueBanana

:-d Care to provide some substance for this assertion?

Okay, but that doesn't make it moral or right. — Agustino

And that doesn't make it immoral or wrong. That just means our culture's view on sexuality is very much twisted by christianity's sick view on sexuality.

Strange thing, nobody - absolutely nobody - voted in this poll. — Agustino

I misclicked an option in the 2nd poll and can't unselect it, thus I can't vote.
Edit: managed to unselect it but can't vote.

Yes, I always do that. (Y)

Today's WAPO. Full article behind paywall — Baden

If you time it right and press ESC before the paywall shows (but not too early else the page won't fully load) you can read the full article.

(Today's WAPO. Full article behind paywall)

My answer again, political partisanship. Must be incredibly frustrating for them.

*Returns serve* (You don't get to gerrymander the terms of the debate to immunize yourself against evidence). Tangent over. Hopefully.

There you go again...Reality = Iceland and Denmark are in the top five most peaceful countries in the world and the top 20 is dominated by western liberal democracies. — Baden

And to judge the "peacefulness" of Western society based on less than 100 years from what were the 2 most brutal and bloody conflicts in human history is childish. — Agustino

*facepalm*

Oh yeah the GREAT Scandinavia :-} - Scandinavia is not peaceful at all. Anders Brevik was from there for example. There are also many Neo-Nazi groups in those Nordic countries too.

And to judge the "peacefulness" of Western society based on less than 100 years from what were the 2 most brutal and bloody conflicts in human history is childish. — Agustino

There you go again...Reality = Iceland and Denmark are in the top five most peaceful countries in the world and the top 20 is dominated by western liberal democracies.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/273159/most-peaceful-countries-in-the-global-peace-index/

You can have the last word on the rest.

You've answered your own criticism, to change the structure of something is not to distill it out. How can one change the structure of something that is no longer there. :s — Baden

Well, evidently those means I mentioned aim to change the structure that has already been placed there by our culture & society through the way we were raised up. If you were raised up differently, in a different society and under a different culture and different circumstances, you would get a different structure in place by the time you grow up. We only need to change it, because our culture and society doesn't get it right from the first place.

Again, sure. And how does that work out in practice and why? — Baden

Depends on the epoch and how influential those practices/beliefs are in culture and society.

Kind of sounds like we're a bunch of chimps or something. :) — Baden

Hominization does happen precisely through cultural institutions, ritual, sacrifice, and prohibitions. If we eliminate those, it's not at all surprising that we start to return to chimp levels of behaviour.

And yet the most liberal societies (e.g.western Europe, particularly Scandinavia) are among the most peaceful that have ever existed. :s — Baden

Oh yeah the GREAT Scandinavia :-} - Scandinavia is not peaceful at all. Anders Brevik was from there for example. There are also many Neo-Nazi groups in those Nordic countries too.

And to judge the "peacefulness" of Western society based on less than 100 years from what were the 2 most brutal and bloody conflicts in human history is childish.

I know that feeling. (Y)

I grant it may not be useful to have gone off on this tangent with Agu. I didn't intend to distract from the practical side of this issue. — Baden

He has that effect.

This thread exposed something that is wrong within me. I just finished an application for an international post in human rights working with children in a developing country. I think I am reaching a point - I'm not there yet - but I am reaching it, of a radical reformation within myself. I feel like I have been on a tangent for long enough. It is time to focus on the practical.

Oh? Then what are we doing in advertising and marketing if not inflaming already existent and basic human desires, re-directing them, and so on so forth? :s What are we doing in psychotherapy, psychoanalysis, moral philosophy, etc. if not trying to change our structure of desire? — Agustino

You've answered your own criticism, to change the structure of something is not to distill it out. How can one change the structure of something that is no longer there. :s

That is true, but to suppose that human beings are primates in the same sense that chimps are is folly — Agustino

I don't. Note the difference between being "like" (in some respects) and being the "same".

Reason can indeed only work with what it is given, but what is given isn't biological in large majority, but culturally mediated. — Agustino

Sure, biology is culturally mediated as is reason itself, and we are disputing extent.

All religions, but especially Christianity and some forms of Buddhism encourage the abandonment of imitative desire as the solution to the ills of the world. — Agustino

Again, sure. And how does that work out in practice and why?

Your liberal society is not liberal at all, but illiberal. When rivalry is allowed to run amok, nobody can enjoy the object of desire - everyone is busy killing each other off, outplaying each other, competing, etc. - we all become fascinated with the rival, and the rival is more punishing than any law would be. — Agustino

Kind of sounds like we're a bunch of chimps or something. :)

Just because there is choice does not mean that there is freedom. The two shouldn't be confused. — Agustino

Amen.

In one sense, I do understand why society is becoming "liberal" - sacrificial mechanisms no longer work to keep the peace. But this becoming more "liberal" is identical with becoming more violent - violence becomes harder to control. — Agustino

And yet the most liberal societies (e.g.western Europe, particularly Scandinavia) are among the most peaceful that have ever existed. :s

Right, you take the naive view that they are already inflamed, increased and redirected - naturally. Just look at chimps — Agustino

Hmm, but... Nevermind.

Actually, society does need radical reform. I'm with you there. I'm probably not with you in terms of the type of reform or the extent of its effects.

Well, this is it, really. — TimeLine

I grant it may not be useful to have gone off on this tangent with Agu. I didn't intend to distract from the practical side of this issue.

And Kudos to you for thinking through the "why" she did what she did and how you handled it would have ramifications that might just feed the dysfunction at home, that leaves her searching deeply for validation of feelings of love outside of her family. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

It is the ethical responsibility towards those who are at a disadvantage; children, persons with a disability, most human rights abuses exemplify this lack thereof and it is why here in my state in Australia, we legislatively have enforced the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities that confirms human rights and freedoms vis-a-vis responsibilities as not being mutually exclusive.

The problem is not liberal society and it is not primate behaviour, instinct genes, testosterone, or what women are attracted to. The problem is men behaving badly. Let's stop saying it's 'natural' and also stop saying it's acceptable or that women like it really. — unenlightened

(Y) Well, this is it, really. Even further still, there is a constant assumption that I lack intelligence, undermining my capacity, disrespecting me and attempting to reinforce an assertive power over my quiet nature. I am attractive, so I must be stupid. Just shut the fuck up and take your clothes off. When I was studying my PhD, my supervisor went on the attack because I refused to adopt a Marxist angle in my research - your methodology is too feminine - and the IR department itself had appalling stats in relation to female academics. When I was at work, I had a younger man bully me with indirect threats in his vicious attempt to try and gain authority over me, despite the fact that he lacked the skills and character appropriate for such a role; power is imagined.

And, do you know what I did? I tried helping him secure that very role. Why? To save myself from the hurt he was inflicting on me emotionally. Then you look at all those girls wearing tonnes of make-up, avoiding an education or a career, and taking selfies or trying to be "beautiful" and that is what they are trying to do too, save themselves. It is almost ideological. Women who return to their violent husbands are experiencing psychological and emotional trauma and violence - whether gender-based or not - need not only be physical.

Well since we're sharing, I was groped while working as a childminder by the neighbour's prematurely sexualised seven-year-old girl. A highly inappropriate, unwelcome piece of sexual harassment that was mildly traumatic for me, but I imagine was an expression of a much more traumatic upbringing from her side. But since I was the person of power in the relationship, I was able to deal with it. If I had had an ounce of respect for the local child social services, I might have talked to them, but as it was, I was confident they would only make things worse for everyone. — unenlightened

un, I have been thinking about what you said here. To begin with, I am incredibly grateful that I knew making a pass at my Science teacher would be inappropriate but I sure hope he knows how many girls in my class that were totally in lust with him. He was such a catch that a group of us girls took Summer school Science just to see him.

I think that what I was feeling normal and was glad that if he did know, that he didn't act upon it because there is a chance that because of what was happening at home, I would have fallen for him and his advances that never came. Kudos to Mr. Oberland!

And Kudos to you for thinking through the "why" she did what she did and how you handled it would have ramifications that might just feed the dysfunction at home, that leaves her searching deeply for validation of feelings of love outside of her family.

Same reason I've never met a leprechaun, I suppose. — Wosret

No Wos, it's actually quite a rational and mathematical reason. What's a superhuman? 1 in how many human beings? 1/10,000? 1/100,000? 1/1,000,000? If it's either of those 3, then the expected value of you having met such a person and known them rounds off to 0. You probably have met and known in your life less than 5,000 people. So you wouldn't exactly expect to have met and known a superhuman.

Same reason I've never met a leprechaun, I suppose.