Oh very robust. — StreetlightX

Like citing the entire Internet in support of an argument?

Oh very robust.

Are they strong on social commentary then, I can't say I've heard of them!

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=the+internet&gws_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=PyVXWsqTDM2TsAeAj7Ao

http://bfy.tw/4LT

Well, if you've still no idea what I'm talking about I'm not sure I can help. I'm very interested, however, in debates about societal norms (it's kind of my job) so I'd be grateful if you could direct me to the public forums where societal attitudes to sexuality are being discussed. So far I've only been able to find ones where women are relating stories of how men have approached them in ways they did not like. That's not a conversation.

The me2 movement has been the source of some of the most intense and widespread conversation regarding sexual conduct in the public sphere in a long time so I still have no idea what you are talking about. Not that this had anything to do with what I said or posted at all.

And the qualifier about gay men simply meant that the exact same thing applies to them, only obviously, with other men.

You said that men could self-monitor, which requires that they 'know' what appropriate behaviour is in order to adjust theirs to it, right?

I argued that 'appropriate' behaviour was not a given thing, but something negotiated by all members of society at any given time and that such a negotiation was not taking place, but rather a series of accusations as if the negotiation had already taken place and men were simply wilfully ignoring the results.

You suggested that men did know what appropriate behaviour was because they exhibited it in their relations with other men who were not potential sexual partners.

I said that this does not constitute proof because we're talking here solely about what is appropriate behaviour in the relationship between people who are potential sexual partners. To examine this you would need to look at how gay men approach other gay men.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

The straight ones anyway. — StreetlightX

Exactly, so its about attitudes to sexuality, not women, which is exactly what I said.

But of course men can self-monitor. They do it with other men. The straight ones anyway. It's literally as simple as that.

Couldn’t men just as easily self-monitor? — StreetlightX

Of course not. To do so presumes that there is some universally known code of appropriate behaviour that men are simply wilfully ignoring when they make unsolicited advances and initiate unwanted contact. As there is no such code, I can't see how men could possibly self-monitor, to what would they be comparing their behaviour? If the me-too movement were saying that 'women' do not want to be approached or solicited in this way then 'men' could take that as given and adjust their behaviour accordingly. Unfortunately, one Twitter movement is not capable of speaking for the whole of women-kind and so such is not possible. I'm old enough to remember the considerable force within feminism some years back to stop calling women who expressed their sexuality 'sluts'. There was some resentment among feminists that men could sleep around and make advances and be seen as macho, but if women did the same they were discredited.

If the MeToo movement were quietly saying that a lot of women no longer appreciate this behaviour, then I would have more respect for it as a tool for social change, but it's not. It's saying that this view (somehow extended to all womenhood) is the way things always have been and men should somehow have known this all along, despite no-one having ever brought it up before.

It's odd in a society so invested in cultural relativism in other areas that such a movement is unquestioningly adopted as just 'the way things are'. Last I checked society could potentially have all sorts of attitudes to sexual advances ranging from the full-on free-love of the Bonobo's to the totally repressed Calvinist abstinence. We get to decide by talking openly about it what kind of society we want at any given time in our history, but the key thing is 'talking' about it, not throwing accusations and presuming that everyone should just agree with whatever movement happens to be fashionable at the time.

Excellent article by Sara Maurer on how Daphene Merkin's critique misses the dimension of labour in the me2 movement:

"Merkin may be faithfully representing the women she knows, but her picture does not reflect the concerns of most American women, almost all of whom work because they need the money and not because they are seeking sexual partners. I would like to suggest to Merkin that this majority of women sees the #MeToo movement not as about fragility but about labor.


...We also don’t want advancement at work to depend on labor not required of men. Did male comedians have to sit in a room and watch Louis C.K. jerk off in order to network? If they didn’t, why should female comedians have to do that work? Did any man working for or with the radio host John Hockenberry have to deflect multiple obsessive email solicitations, unwanted physical contact, and declarations of love? Did male graduate students of David R. Marchant have to put up with barrages of sexual insults to do field work with him?

Why should women have to do that work to get the same results? Why should we have to pretend that we don’t mind? Why should we have to be the ones to get over it? Couldn’t men just as easily self-monitor? Why not make men responsible for that labor?".

"The court knows no humour". — Akanthinos

That's why jokes should not be subject to rules or laws.

"Not to slut shame, but let's slut shame the fuck out of her anyway". — Akanthinos

Again, the point is that she should know better. We should all know better, in my opinion. I recognize that many in this country don't know better. A good step forward may be to move towards knowing better. That's my takeaway from the Deneuve denouncement.

Leeann Tweeden wasn't a soldier. She was named the top Hooters girl of all time though, not to 'slut shame' but to point out that she's probably experienced far worse than having her chest touched while wearing a flak jacket. She should know the difference between obnoxious joke and sexual assault. — praxis

"Not to slut shame, but let's slut shame the fuck out of her anyway".
An obnoxious joke can be a sexual assault. "The court knows no humour".

Exactly.

Franken was photographed grabbing a sleeping soldier's boobs too. — Akanthinos

Leeann Tweeden wasn't a soldier. She was named the top Hooters girl of all time though, not to 'slut shame' but to point out that she's probably experienced far worse than having her chest touched while wearing a flak jacket. She should know the difference between obnoxious joke and sexual assault.

Hence the accusations against Senator Franken and Garrison Keillor that they touched a woman inappropriately (on one woman's rump, on one woman's back) — Bitter Crank

Franken was photographed grabbing a sleeping soldier's boobs too.
#metoo is about denouncing sexual misconduct. By design that spectrum is very large. What unite the people that are on it is that they are all somewhat dicks and can be shielded from just retribution by their power and position. That's why Franken got burned.

Every woman who criticizes the movement is condemned for "interiorized misogyny". — jamalrob

The tweet takes it a ridiculous distance further by claiming the Deneuve gang have been permanently cowed into mindless submission. Disturbing in that it’s so devoid of critical thought and only serves to promote divisiveness. Maybe that’s why the twitter platform is such a handy tool for the President and his populist crap.

I watched the Opra acceptance speech at the Golden Globe Awards on YouTube and teared up, but in the back of my mind I couldn’t help thinking that the awards show was themed and kinda tribalistic, complete with black identifying color, and that the theme and identity would quickly fade from memory once it ran its course.

The #me2 movement includes many people who acknowledge what the difference is between a wolf whistle and rape, It also includes "lumpers" who don't. Hence the accusations against Senator Franken and Garrison Keillor that they touched a woman inappropriately (on one woman's rump, on one woman's back). Keillor was disowned by his longtime employer, Minnesota Public Radio, and also the Washington Post for something not even remotely resembling an assault. Ditto for Franken.

Harvey Weinstein represents one end of the spectrum, Keillor the other end. They are a very long ways apart, but in many people's minds, since they were deemed to be on the same continuum, they are both guilty.

What's not so appropriate is to confuse the stolen kiss, the proposal in the form of a hand on the knee, or a wolf whistle with rape and sexual assault. — Bitter Crank

If you'd assume that it isn't confused and people can tell the difference then what do you think #metoo is about?

They contend that the #MeToo movement has led to a campaign of public accusations that have placed undeserving people in the same category as sex offenders without giving them a chance to defend themselves. “This expedited justice already has its victims, men prevented from practicing their profession as punishment, forced to resign, etc., while the only thing they did wrong was touching a knee, trying to steal a kiss, or speaking about ‘intimate’ things at a work dinner, or sending messages with sexual connotations to a woman whose feelings were not mutual,” they write. The letter, written in French was translated here by The New York Times.

#me2, and #Balancetonporc aren't the same as the anti-free-speech practitioners of political correctness, but they have something in common:

The all want a society where individuals will not be confronted by unwanted interest or opinions with which they disagree. A desire for a safe world appropriately means not being subjected to rape or being mauled in a locked room from which they can't escape. Opposing rape is right and proper. What's not so appropriate is to confuse the stolen kiss, the proposal in the form of a hand on the knee, or a wolf whistle with rape and sexual assault. It seems akin to demanding protection from the virgin-ear piercing utterance of a disapproved political opinion, or a slur of some sort, for which "safe spaces" need to be erected.

There is a quid pro quo here: we will not have a free and open society if ordinary sexual expressions, as well as disapproved political expressions, are verboten.

And what is it about women that they should never be whistled at or touched on the knee? What is it about the female personality that requires their person to be so inviolate? Women spend a considerable amount of time and money on making themselves sexually attractive in public (so do men), but then object when their carefully constructed attractiveness is not ignored. It's crazy, ladies. Neurotic.

Every woman who criticizes the movement is condemned for "interiorized misogyny". — jamalrob

God forbid people just disagreeing.

As to the article, I agree with this:

which women and men have used social media as a forum to describe sexual misconduct, have gone too far by publicly prosecuting private experiences and have created a totalitarian climate. — NYT

At the same time I'm not sure most #metoo'ers are doing this and I refer to earlier comments on how I perceive what #metoo seems to stand for. Focusing on the above and dismissing the movement in its entirety is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I do think they're missing a point when they are downplaying this:

while the only thing they did wrong was touching a knee, trying to steal a kiss, or speaking about ‘intimate’ things at a work dinner, or sending messages with sexual connotations to a woman whose feelings were not mutual — NYT

These things aren't very serious and they aren't criminal... BUT... as a man I never have to deal with these sort of things. And a lot of this isn't "clumsiness" it's accepted or even expected behaviour by men and it isn't necessary without that leading to a sexual repression. And in reverse, if these things happen and a woman does not want them to happen and they'd make a fuss about it, she's being "difficult" or "bitchy" or worse "don't wear a short skirt" because after all, it was just a hand on a knee.

So I think there's a social construct where men are allowed to misbehave regularly (even if it's just a little) but women are not allowed to complain about it. There's no equality or fairness there. So that's why I spoke earlier about women claiming a safe space to talk and complain about these things. If an incredible number of women complain then either men are doing something wrong or an alternative... In my view that alternative is that they are all just being difficult or bitchy because it isn't a big deal. That's too many women spontaneously errupting into irrationality for me to think the alternative is likely.

In the end, with a view on my daughter growing up, I'm hoping the accomplishment of the #metoo movement will be that a woman can say "don't touch my knee" and her being respected by everyone in earshot.

interiorized misogyny — praxis

Every woman who criticizes the movement is condemned for "interiorized misogyny".

From todays New York Times:

Just one day after Hollywood offered a show of support for the #MeToo movement on the Golden Globes red carpet and stage, a famous actress [Catherine Deneuve] on the other side of the Atlantic lent her name to a public letter denouncing the movement, as well as its French counterpart, #Balancetonporc, or “Expose Your Pig.” ...

... “The philosopher Ruwen Ogien defended the freedom to offend as essential to artistic creation. In the same way, we defend a freedom to bother, indispensable to sexual freedom.” Though the writers do not draw clear lines between what constitutes sexual misconduct and what does not, they say that they are “sufficiently farseeing not to confuse a clumsy come-on and sexual assault.”

The freedom to bother is essential to sexual freedom, they claim.

I can agree that the USA is somewhat repressed sexually. Given that's the case, this would suggest that Americans are genrally not sufficiently mature sexually to not confuse clumsy come-ons and sexual assault. I tend to think this is the case. That's not a reason to denounce the movement however. To me it suggests a path to reform by pointing out what's lacking (sexual maturity).

A less favorable reception of the denouncment by Asia Argento, a woman who accused Weinstein of raping her, via tweet:

Catherine Deneuve and other French women tell the world how their interiorized misogyny has lobotomized them to the point of no return.

In the late 1980's and early 90's — anonymous66

This does need contextualising. The 1980's in Britain and the USA saw an upsurge in retrospective accusations of child sexual abuse, together with some contemporaneous use of purported physical evidence that children were being abused.

Part of the upsurge represented a feminist-led liberation. After some decades of children who claimed abuse largely being disbelieved, a new generation of abuse survivors, social workers, lawyers and researchers emerged who were less deferential than their predecessors and more prepared to confront the often authoritative fathers, uncles, elder brothers and male authority figures who were mostly accused of being responsible. It seems to me this lifting of deference and the preparedness to confront entrenched power has happened very slowly and gradually: the #metoo stuff that has followed the Weinstein allegations demonstrates that 30-35 years later, curtains are still being lifted on the unpleasant truth. Many memories of past abuse are withheld or personally suppressed by the sufferers because they think they won't be believed, or lack a sense of their own power or worth, or because it's too painful to fight a battle about what happened to them.

But in the 80's this liberation was also accompanied by serious failings. In the UK there was a scandal in Middlesborough where two arrogant doctors suddenly decided that a new physical test they were using showed according to them a dramatic rise in evidence of child sexual abuse. The local police, social services, press and public figures went to war over this. And wild tales emerged in various places of 'Satanic' abuse, fuelled by a widespread therapeutic belief that children wouldn't tell untruths about such things, when subsequent studies show that with particular interview techniques they are highly suggestible. Then some 'therapists' began to make an industry out of purportedly recovering repressed memories, and many innocent parents were wrongly accused.

This paper by Howe and Knott from a couple of years ago seems to me a good summary of the stuff that emerged about memory. It's interesting in how it summarises current academic views of memory as narrative reconstruction, which can be influenced especially in childhood by the way that figures in authority talk to you about your supposed memories. A lot of 'common-sense' views held by police or therapists with only modest training are erroneous, e.g. that more detail implies more credibility.

I was tempted to ask the same of you but I suspected it would be pointless.

Your use of quotation marks surrounding my "Point" suggest it's not a point, or rather that it's an invalid point, and that we are somehow to infer this from the fact that I didn't use my own experiences in making the point.

Now do you see the point?

Council advises that I not discuss the cases publicly until after litigation — praxis

Please explain this cryptic comment

Council advises that I not discuss the cases publicly until after litigation. — praxis

Oh wow >:O >:O >:O

Council advises that I not discuss the cases publicly until after litigation.