Is #MeToo worsening the divide between men and women?

239 posts / 0 new
Last post
Rev Pesky

From article Pondering posted:

"She tended to make leaps without sufficient evidence to do so and she linked evidence together without factual foundation.

Which is sort of interesting because it is a perfect description of Pondering's posts.

Notalib

robbie-dee writes:

Notalib, with all due respect I don't require your advice on when and how to choose the issues I choose to speak on. For the moment I think I've said all I have to, in this forum at least, with respect to Weir's specific case. With respect to Christine Moore I guess that depends on when and if the next shoe drops. But I don't intend to let this go and I will be using both my voice and my checkbook accordingly in the future. Whether that will make any difference, I don't know, probably not as I don't have any particular illusions about my personal power and influence. But I am still pretty pissed off about the whole thing. 

I have other things I'd like to say, too, but I would like to put some time and thought into it before I speak so I will come back to it when I can.

Notalib responds:

I was not suggesting how or when, or even what issues you should choose to forward. I was merely pointing out that your efforts are not fruitful, and in my opinion are not helping, only hurting. It was out of respect for you I said put down the shovel. It refers to stop digging your own hole. Or clearer yet, when your slinging mud your losing ground.

It's possible your anger is blurring your comprehension of this.

Quite honestly, if you think that going after Madame Moore is going to be any different, I agree you should take considerable time to contemplate that before you post much else on the matter.

Revenge, you may think, is a dish best served cold. In this instance, probably best just to stay out of the kitchen.

Near as I can tell, people may not agree with Madame Moore's approach to things, but that is not a hill to die on. If you have issues with the procecss that confirmed Madame Moore's allegations, then fill your boots. Identify the shortcomings, lobby the party for the changes. I am sure improvements are something they are open to.

There is no win for you here. Weir will not be allowed back in Caucus. The party will not retract its decision or its policy. And Madame Moore is in every liklihood going to carry out an exhaustive, probably successful legal suit. Kirkland has proven himself not credible in my opinion.

The movement is already facing a litany of critics, one more voice in this respect is simply screaming into a chasm.

These may be brutal realities in your opinon, but they are realities all the same.

On a personal note, I would be pissed off too if Weir was targetted with trumped up allegations and turfed because of this. You will note I am not pissed off. Because that is not what happened.

 

MegB

Cody87 wrote:

MegB wrote:

Rev Pesky wrote:

MegB wrote:

Oh my. Are you suggesting that I'm not being factual, or that I'm a right-wing Muslim-baiting Islamophobe?

Nope. I'm merely pointing out that the argument you used was exactly the argument others use in another context.

Although it's true that if an argument is correct in principle, if it's correct in one case, it's correct in another.

Um no. My argument is fact-based. The alt-right argument is based in racist hysteria and pointed Islamophobia. Any other bombs you'd like to toss my way in a feeble attempt to shut me down? Because, frankly, I see no other reason for your irrelevant and fundamentally dishonest point. Here's a thought. Try contributing some analysis and insight into the actual topic.

Your argument is fact based. That doesn't mean it isn't also based on sexism. The only unknown is which came first. Did you come to hold sexist beliefs based on the facts, or did your sexism cause you to seek out facts to justify your beliefs? And if the former, is that justified?

When did you stop beating your wife? 

When I point out facts that women, ALL women, have to live with every single day of their lives I'm called sexist and my argument is compared to that of ultra right-wing Islamophobes. If all you so-called progressive guys think that smearing is the right way to counter factual statements backed up by numerous statistics and real lived experience is the way to go to make a point, you've not only failed, you've proven my position. So thanks for that. 

BTW, calling someone sexist with no basis in fact is an ad hominen and so not cool here in babbleland. Now, I'm not going to invoke my moderator powers and suspend you for a personal attack, but keep in mind that, as in all such situations, continuing to do so will get you into a peck of trouble.

 

robbie_dee

Pogo wrote:

robbie_dee wrote:

I’m just worried, like as has happened in other revolutions, about entering into a “Reign of Terror” phase. Even if only 1% of accusations are false (and many studies suggest a higher figure), it’s pretty awful if you’re in that 1% of accused and you say this is something you’ve experienced directly so you would know. I don’t think you can balance that in some grand accounting against the many people who have benefitted from the movement. 

 

I think we need more evidence of a "reign of terror" before we start pushing back on the pendelum swing.

I'm afraid my "Reign of Terror" comment might have been an unnecessarily inflammatory rhetorical flourish. Although for what its worth it wasn't necessarily a pejorative comment - some people think the actual Reign of Terror was justified for example. There does come a time in a revolution when, beset by perceived enemies inside and out, drastic measures may seem necessary - and maybe even are necessary - despite the human cost.

Still, they are obviously not really comparable since, for the most part, people aren't actually being killed here they are just figuratively losing their heads to the guillotine of social media outrage. I am willing to withdraw the analogy and apologize for any offense.

This one below, though, is an illustrative example of the attitudes that still worry me. Who could possibly be afraid of a workplace investigation if they have nothing to hide?

Pondering wrote:

So men reading this. Do you agree with Weir that if you were investigated there would be complaints of sexual harassment against all of you too if a couple of hundred people were asked?

Sean in Ottawa

The thing that strikes me most about the worry by some men over the MeToo movement is that when the details are shared these are not a surprise to the men involved-- these tend to be situations where the women did object but were silenced. I don't think that there is a significant danger for men that accusations they do not know about will suddenly surface. It is those who have had the benefit of women being silenced who are losing that benefit. and why is that not a good thing?

Also we are not talking about situations where there is some baseless accusation -- that could happen to anyone. But these are situations where the reasonable person test will apply. So if something comes out and the facts do not support it people will say so -- but what we are seeing here are many examples where any reasonable person would say they are violations. Again -- so what is the danger to the so-called innocent man? If they are innocent then the reasonable person test will bear them out when the story is known.

So the MeToo movement does not seem to be so much about new accusations (to the men involved) as much as it is about ending the silencing of women for previous accusations that did not go anywhere but should have.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Mobo2000 wrote:

Pondering and Kropotkin:   Do you see Hollywood as contributing to this capitalist consumer society that uses sex to sell everything, fostering misogyny?   If so, does Hollywood's leadership role in #MeToo raise any concerns for you?  

Our society is based on stealing resources from people all over the globe to sell us useless trinkets. That economy is driven by sex and violence at all levels. War is rape on a grand scale. We live in the belly of the NATO beast that is destroying our planet. Our culture normalizes war and the brutalization of people. Hollywood makes us feel good about ourselves and its actors have always known to mouth the right things. Some of it is sincere but a lot of it sounds like beauty pagent contestants who all want world peace and some of it feels creepy like an unescorted man at a kids playground. Changing our rape culture begins with people not accepting misogny or racism in their presence. It is one of the few things that an individual, especially a man, can do on a regular basis.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

So the MeToo movement does not seem to be so much about new accusations (to the men involved) as much as it is about ending the silencing of women for previous accusations that did not go anywhere but should have.

Interesting point. It reminds me of the Catholic Church.  Everyone knew that some priests abused boys, that was just the way it was and no one wanted to talk about it. Victims who tried were ignored and shunned at best and ruined if they persisted. The statisics on the percentage of women sexually assaulted have been unbelievably bad for all the decades I have been an adult. Everyone knows that some men assault women but not enough people have been willing to even talk about it.  In the 60's and 70's when women first started screaming about this issue few men had the gonads to put their careers on the line to tell the misogynist boss to stop harassing the steno poll and the women in the steno poll had no where to turn except to the door.  Maybe with women leading the way more men will stand up and be counted in real time.

Rev Pesky

MegB wrote:

my argument is compared to that of ultra right-wing Islamophobes...

For the sake of argument, let us say that your statement about men is not comparable. But where does 'not all men are rapists, but most rapists are men' lead us.

What is the point of such a statement?

Pondering

robbie_dee wrote:

This one below, though, is an illustrative example of the attitudes that still worry me. Who could possibly be afraid of a workplace investigation if they have nothing to hide?

Pondering wrote:

So men reading this. Do you agree with Weir that if you were investigated there would be complaints of sexual harassment against all of you too if a couple of hundred people were asked?

So you are suggesting it shouldn't be investigated if there is word out that a man in the workplace is being abusive? This is out of fear that women will step forward with false allegations because that's just such a rewarding experience for women?

Also, I was not suggesting all men should be investigated. I am asking you if you think there would be complaints against you if women were asked? That is what Weir is saying. He is saying there  would be complaints against you too, or against any men investigated. Is that an opinion you share.

Pondering

Rev Pesky wrote:

From article Pondering posted:

"She tended to make leaps without sufficient evidence to do so and she linked evidence together without factual foundation.

Which is sort of interesting because it is a perfect description of Pondering's posts.

He said without offering examples. Not to mention, I'm expressing my opinion, not testifying to an investigator.

Pondering

Rev Pesky wrote:

MegB wrote:

my argument is compared to that of ultra right-wing Islamophobes...

For the sake of argument, let us say that your statement about men is not comparable. But where does 'not all men are rapists, but most rapists are men' lead us.

What is the point of such a statement?

Try reading it in the context in which it was said.

MegB wrote:

progressive17 wrote:

I am not in a position to promote or demote a woman. I am not even working. I do not offer shelter or any kind of other retail services. I do not have a business. I don't want false accusations, which are many. I knew a person who died because of false sexual abuse allegations.

If I do have a false accusation, I do not have the money for a lawyer to defend myself. If there were a false accusation, I could be falsely arrested and falsely imprisoned in an atmosphere where I would not be able to face my accuser, and where I would not enjoy my civil rights. 

I could not affect any woman's well-being or anyone else's. I am not a bigtime minister, politician, or businessperson.

Even here, people are saying that no man is capable of acting in a decent manner and treating women with respect. Therefore all men are suspects according to people with this mentality. So how can I stop a woman from succeeding in this world? I can however stop them from bringing  a nuisance suit against me by having no contact with any of them.

Women can succeed as much as they want as far as I am concerned. I hope they all do very well. I am a zero, and I have no influence on anything. It is not sexist for me to want to protect myself from legal harassment. Even if I were not a zero, I would make sure I always had witnesses. You can't trust anyone these days.

Here are some things you don't seem to - or don't want to - understand. False accusations happen, but they are not many. They are the exception. This is a fact.

As a man you enjoy privilege, regardless of your socioeconomic status, because we live in a heteronormative patriarchal society. If you are also white and heterosexual your privilege expands exponentially. 

No one here is saying that "that no man is capable of acting in a decent manner and treating women with respect. " That is pure bullshit. What is being said, and if not explicitly said is understood, is that while not all men are rapists, most rapists are men. Not all men sexually harass, but most sexual harassers are men. Not all men are murderers, but most murderers are men. Facts.

Men target women because they are women, and women do not enjoy the privilege of men and are therefore vulnerable to the volatile anger and hatred of some. Women are being killed en masse because they dare to defy the patriarchy and seek the same professional opportunities as men (Marc Lepine - Montreal), or they are unwilling to submit to sex with them (Alek Minassian - Toronto, Elliot Rodger - California, school shooter Dimitrios Pagourtzis - Texas). These examples barely scratch the surface of the dangers women face daily because they are women. 

So pardon fucking me if we stand together and fight for our rights and our physical safety. Check your privilege, and do something about it.

Yet men live in terror of false accusations. The chances we will be attacked are much higher than the chances that a man will be falsely accused. Yet we still manage to be alone with men. We still manage to trust most of you even though most of you can overpower us physically.

Plucking Meg's comment out of context misrepresents the thrust of her argument.

 

Pondering

progressive17 wrote:

 If there were a false accusation, I could be falsely arrested and falsely imprisoned in an atmosphere where I would not be able to face my accuser, and where I would not enjoy my civil rights.

That isn't true. You would certainly face your accuser and you would have a lawyer assigned to you. Your civil rights would remain intact.  It would be no different than being accused of any other crime. You could be falsely accused of shop-lifting too so you better stay out of stores.

6079_Smith_W

Capitalism is a very handy vehicle for discrimination, but the root preoblem- patriarchy - exists absolutely everywhere. Beyond the harassment and physical assault, women are simply ignored, disbelieve, and blamed in a way men are not. And this denial, victim playing and not all men crap is just another aspect of the same systemic problem.

MegB

Rev Pesky wrote:

MegB wrote:

my argument is compared to that of ultra right-wing Islamophobes...

For the sake of argument, let us say that your statement about men is not comparable. But where does 'not all men are rapists, but most rapists are men' lead us.

What is the point of such a statement?

The point of such a statement is that it highlights male toxicity and patriarchy. Apparently it is left to women to point this, out ad nauseum, because men seem to be unwilling to take it on and because women are sick to death of being afraid, of being raped, of being murdered, of not being listened to. And if you can't or won't understand that then you are part of the problem.

wage zombie

Pondering wrote:

It would be no different than being accused of any other crime. You could be falsely accused of shop-lifting too so you better stay out of stores.

Great analogy, I'm definitely going to use that.

Pondering

Mobo2000 wrote:

Pondering and Kropotkin:   Do you see Hollywood as contributing to this capitalist consumer society that uses sex to sell everything, fostering misogyny?   If so, does Hollywood's leadership role in #MeToo raise any concerns for you?  

Hollywood doesn't have  a "leadership role".  They didn't lead anything. Famous women in the industry spoke out and were heard because they are famous. This is happening to men in the public eye not all men. I hope the movement will have some impact beyond men in the public eye at least in changing  attitudes. We have come a long way since the notion of marital rape was laughed at but not far enough. The woman whose ass was grabbed by Rob Ford was laughed at and doubted, because hey, a man like Rob Ford would never  do that. No matter how much of an asshole a man is he is always given the benefit of the doubt.

That Hollywood is involved doesn't bother me in the  least. What does  bother me is that men I would assume are in no  possible danger of being accused are still so paranoid about the possibility that they pretty much demand video evidence before they will concede that a man is guilty.

It's like the old attitude towards pedophiles. Coaches, priests, the nice guy next door, couldn't possibly be a child molester.

Now it's "nice guys" couldn't possibly be guilty of harassing women. No, it  must be evil women who come forward and make shit up because there was an investigation. Of course women are going to complain if they are asked, because hey, we are women. Apparently out of  a couple  of hundred you are sure to get false complaints against any man you ask about. Not because men actually do anything wrong  of course. No, a man can't ask a woman for a date or compliment her dress without being  accused of harassment goes the theory. Even to be alone in an office is a grave risk to men. It's true a woman takes a chance she will be raped every time she is alone with a man in an office, but that is not nearly as serious as a man being falsely accused. That risk is so great men are afraid to be alone with women now.

The message is, women, this is a risk you have to take in life if you want to be equal to men.

Men, you are already on top, protect your position. All women are a threat so just never be alone with them but if you do come on strong don't worry because no one will believe them. Just don't go above 3 or 4. Then people might believe the women.

Rev Pesky

From MegB:

The point of such a statement is that it highlights male toxicity and patriarchy.

Okay, and where does that lead us? How does that help us work towards a solution?

Rev Pesky

Pondering wrote:

It would be no different than being accused of any other crime. You could be falsely accused of shop-lifting too so you better stay out of stores.

Right. But how about if the accusation is not about a crime? I don't want to muddle this thread with another, but we do have the excellent example of Erin Weir, who was not accused of a crime, but lost his job nevertheless, and was not allowed to face his accusers.

Yes, there are legal protections when accused of a crime, but what protections are there when accused of behaving badly? Yet the consequences are very real, and can destroy reputations and lives.

Rev Pesky

Pondering wrote:

Apparently out of  a couple  of hundred you are sure to get false complaints against any man you ask about.

You wanted examples of how you 'make leaps'. Well, this is one. It was I who suggested that if you cast the net wide enough you would get some who would make a complaint. But I did not say the complaints were false. You added that on yourself, apparently only because it sounds better, not because it was true to the original statement.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Rev Pesky,

Quit being a jerk!

You're  not interested in any solution!

Quit bugging Meg!

 

Pondering

Rev Pesky wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Apparently out of  a couple  of hundred you are sure to get false complaints against any man you ask about.

You wanted examples of how you 'make leaps'. Well, this is one. It was I who suggested that if you cast the net wide enough you would get some who would make a complaint. But I did not say the complaints were false. You added that on yourself, apparently only because it sounds better, not because it was true to the original statement.

I quoted Erin Weir. He said complaints would be made against any man if complaints were "solicited". That implies that either most men are guilty of sexual harassment or out of couple of hundred employees a few women will make false or exagerated claims. One  or the other must be true. I doubt he meant that most men are guilty of sexual harassment. Is that what you meant? That if we cast the net wide enough a valid complaint will surface against just about any man?

Do you or do you not agree with Erin Weir when he stated:

“It’s certainly the case that if you solicit complaints from hundreds of staff people, you will get some complaints. Particularly in a political context where there are disagreements, there are rivalries, there are axes to grind,” Weir countered.

We are not speaking of any kind of complaint here. It was three counts of sexual harassment. He is claiming that an investigation into any man would have the same result particularly for a man in politics. He is  claiming that the complaints, plural, are rooted in people with "axes to grind" against him. 

Pondering

Rev Pesky wrote:

Pondering wrote:

It would be no different than being accused of any other crime. You could be falsely accused of shop-lifting too so you better stay out of stores.

Right. But how about if the accusation is not about a crime? I don't want to muddle this thread with another, but we do have the excellent example of Erin Weir, who was not accused of a crime, but lost his job nevertheless, and was not allowed to face his accusers.

Yes, there are legal protections when accused of a crime, but what protections are there when accused of behaving badly? Yet the consequences are very real, and can destroy reputations and lives.

Legal protections. Sue the NDP for deflamation of character or libel or slander whichever it falls under. Rather than casting aspirations on the motives of the accusers simply state that you are innocent.

In the Paikin case the investigator believed the complainant was sincere, just wrong. Perhaps like Weir she thought standing too close and talking too long was the equivalent of sexual harassment.

The Me Too movement is exposing the divide between men and women not worsening it. I am heartened by all of the men who are being supportive of women and who are as outraged as we are that we have to tolerate sexual harassment and worse in our work lives.

Pence doesn't want to take the chance of being alone with a woman because he could be falsely accused. He can do that because he is the top dog. Would he refuse to meet alone with the President if he were a she? What if he were gay? Or is it just women that make false allegations?

MegB

Rev Pesky wrote:

From MegB:

The point of such a statement is that it highlights male toxicity and patriarchy.

Okay, and where does that lead us? How does that help us work towards a solution?

Thank you for asking. You can become an ally to women. You can call other men on their sexist and predatory behavior even if it means feeling uncomfortable doing so. You can teach young boys and men to understand and respect the fact that women are not merely objects to be fucked, to be sexualized from early childhood, to be brutalized when they are not completely compliant. You can, when encountering women who rationally and explicitly tell you how misogyny and other forms of gendered hate and violence inform their lives, say "I understand, and I support you" and prove it by your actions. That's what it means to be an ally.

 

MegB

Misfit wrote:

Rev Pesky,

Quit being a jerk!

You're  not interested in any solution!

Quit bugging Meg!

 

When men who consider themselves to be truly progressive stop defending their privilege, stop trying to shut us down and acknowledge what is screamingly obvious, there will be change.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

MegB wrote:

Thank you for asking. You can become an ally to women. You can call other men on their sexist and predatory behavior even if it means feeling uncomfortable doing so. You can teach young boys and men to understand and respect the fact that women are not merely objects to be fucked, to be sexualized from early childhood, to be brutalized when they are not completely compliant. You can, when encountering women who rationally and explicitly tell you how misogyny and other forms of gendered hate and violence inform their lives, say "I understand, and I support you" and prove it by your actions. That's what it means to be an ally.

This needs repeating over and over. THX

Cody87

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

The thing that strikes me most about the worry by some men over the MeToo movement is that when the details are shared these are not a surprise to the men involved-- these tend to be situations where the women did object but were silenced. I don't think that there is a significant danger for men that accusations they do not know about will suddenly surface.

I think Patrick Brown might disagree with this.

Unionist

kropotkin1951 wrote:

MegB wrote:

Thank you for asking. You can become an ally to women. You can call other men on their sexist and predatory behavior even if it means feeling uncomfortable doing so. You can teach young boys and men to understand and respect the fact that women are not merely objects to be fucked, to be sexualized from early childhood, to be brutalized when they are not completely compliant. You can, when encountering women who rationally and explicitly tell you how misogyny and other forms of gendered hate and violence inform their lives, say "I understand, and I support you" and prove it by your actions. That's what it means to be an ally.

This needs repeating over and over. THX

Yes, and yes again.

Rev Pesky

MegB wrote:

Thank you for asking. You can become an ally to women. You can call other men on their sexist and predatory behavior even if it means feeling uncomfortable doing so. You can teach young boys and men to understand and respect the fact that women are not merely objects to be fucked, to be sexualized from early childhood, to be brutalized when they are not completely compliant. You can, when encountering women who rationally and explicitly tell you how misogyny and other forms of gendered hate and violence inform their lives, say "I understand, and I support you" and prove it by your actions. That's what it means to be an ally.

I'll just point out that this was not a response to the question I asked. However, it deserves a reply.

As far as being an ally, I have no problem with that. You can't check this in any way, but believe it or not, I am probably the only man you know who is also an honorary lesbian. That was bestowed upon me by a gay bistro (which catered mostly to lesbians rather than gay men) for unpaid work I did for them.  The honour was so I could attend parties that were designated 'gay women only'.

As far as calling out other men, in that I don't run into a lot of other men, and almost never in a situation of mixed company, it's something which isn't likely to come up in my life. 

As far as teaching young boys, that too is something which is not part of my life. I have zero contact with young people of any gender. However, there is something in that point. That is, most teachers of young boys are women.

It's a fact that primary teachers in the USA (presumably Canada is not much different) are mostly women. Only about 18% of primary teachers in the USA are men. Strangely enough, the people who have the best chance to educate young  boys in that respect then, are women. Apparently they are failing badly. Perhaps a higher percentage of male primary teachers would help.

As far as encountering women who tell me their troubles with men, I have to say I have a problem with that. My response to a women who spends a lot of time telling me her tale of woe is to stay away from her. I don't have that many years left, and in that I can have no effect on her situtation, I'm sorry but I have better things to do with my life.

However, it doesn't really come up. My circle of friends is very small, amounting to one man and two women. I have a larger group of acquaintances, but interactions with them are limited, usually to some particular matter at hand. Whatever troubles they may have are outside the limits of our acquaintanceship.

None of this means I don't care. I do care, and when I was working, one of the things I tried to adhere to was a high level of professional behaviour on the job. And, as I've said elsewhere in Babble, if I had one thing to say to some young person starting out, keep it professional. You'll never go wrong.

Pondering

Rev Pesky wrote:
It's a fact that primary teachers in the USA (presumably Canada is not much different) are mostly women. Only about 18% of primary teachers in the USA are men. Strangely enough, the people who have the best chance to educate young  boys in that respect then, are women. Apparently they are failing badly. Perhaps a higher percentage of male primary teachers would help.

How stupidly simplistic. Blaming women for male behavior is male privilege at its worst.

https://www.gq.com/story/metoo-and-men-survey-glamour-gq

GQ: Of course. I was in a frat in college, and it wasn’t a temple of progressive politics. For a lot of guys, #MeToo has been a humbling moment because they didn’t realize how extensive sexual harassment was in our society. There’s an interesting distinction between my peer group—guys 18 to 34 years old—and older men: 51 percent of millennials went back to reevaluate their actions, but in the 35-to-55 group, only 28 percent did. That’s not great, but this still strikes me as a positive trend, since it’s this next generation that will define the future of harassment and consent. Thankfully, millennials seem to know their shit. Or at least are more willing to figure it out.

It seems teachers are having an impact.

Cody87

Pondering wrote:

How stupidly simplistic. Blaming women for male behavior is male privilege at its worst.

Yeah, it's just terrible to use an overly simplistic explanation for social issues, and blame failures in one group on the actions of another group. We wouldn't want that.

Pondering

Cody87 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

How stupidly simplistic. Blaming women for male behavior is male privilege at its worst.

Yeah, it's just terrible to use an overly simplistic explanation for social issues, and blame failures in one group on the actions of another group. We wouldn't want that.

Do you have a particular example in mind?

Rev Pesky

Pondering wrote:

How stupidly simplistic. Blaming women for male behavior is male privilege at its worst.

I was responding to this from MegB:

You can teach young boys and men to understand and respect the fact that women are not merely objects to be fucked, to be sexualized from early childhood, to be brutalized when they are not completely compliant.

I don't know what gives you, or anyone else, the idea that I have some access to young boys that others don't. I understood MegB's comment to be general in nature; that is, that if I had the opportunity to educate young boys, I should do so.

At the same time, there are people who have access to young boys. Primary teachers. It is true that women comprise some 80% of primary teachers. 

But I wasn't blaming them for boys behaviour, I was pointing out that they were failing to change boys behaviour. There is a difference between those two positions. Perhaps it was a bit subtle for you. I'll try be more clear in the future.

Cody87

Pondering wrote:

Cody87 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

How stupidly simplistic. Blaming women for male behavior is male privilege at its worst.

Yeah, it's just terrible to use an overly simplistic explanation for social issues, and blame failures in one group on the actions of another group. We wouldn't want that.

Do you have a particular example in mind?

Well, a lot of incels and other losers (like MGTOW) blame either feminism or women in general for every conceivable issue they have.

The alt right, on the other hand, blames a jewish conspiracy for every conceivable issue facing society.

Libertarians blame "big government" for everything.

Historically, a lot of Christians put a ridiculous amount of blame on the LGBTQ+ community.

And of course, a pretty big subset of Americans seem to blame Mexicans for all their problems.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

Saying that teachers should somehow erase racism and sexism and homophobia, etc. is a massive copout.

Education starts at home. By the time little Ricky is in school, his head has been filled up with either good or bad. If he has seen abuse and neglect, that is how he will treat the world. 

Misfit Misfit's picture

 Sorry but what is MGTOW? all I can think of is Maximum Gross Total Operational Weight, and I don't think that's it.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

I think it stands for "Men Going Their Own Way" -- not getting married, doing what they want, and so on.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Thank you Mr. Magoo

quizzical

Mr. Magoo wrote:

I think it stands for "Men Going Their Own Way" -- not getting married, doing what they want, and so on.

long and unneeded acronym all they need is NGM. they the men's screaming unfair always do what they want i found.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

I took only the briefest dip into this "movement" -- Wikipedia, really -- but evidently, they're kind of the OPPOSITE of incels.  They're literally the vcels -- voluntary celibates.  They seem to want nothing to do with women or children, and eventually, society.

So it would seem that even as some "incel" bemoans the fact that Susie put him in the "friend zone", an MGTOW will bemoan the fact that Susie isn't taking the hint that he doesn't want a long-term relationship or a short-term relationship with her.

All that's left is "how can we get the incels and the MGTOWs to fight each other to the death?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Rev Pesky wrote:

MegB wrote:

Thank you for asking. You can become an ally to women. You can call other men on their sexist and predatory behavior even if it means feeling uncomfortable doing so. You can teach young boys and men to understand and respect the fact that women are not merely objects to be fucked, to be sexualized from early childhood, to be brutalized when they are not completely compliant. You can, when encountering women who rationally and explicitly tell you how misogyny and other forms of gendered hate and violence inform their lives, say "I understand, and I support you" and prove it by your actions. That's what it means to be an ally.

I'll just point out that this was not a response to the question I asked. However, it deserves a reply.

As far as being an ally, I have no problem with that. You can't check this in any way, but believe it or not, I am probably the only man you know who is also an honorary lesbian. That was bestowed upon me by a gay bistro (which catered mostly to lesbians rather than gay men) for unpaid work I did for them.  The honour was so I could attend parties that were designated 'gay women only'.

As far as calling out other men, in that I don't run into a lot of other men, and almost never in a situation of mixed company, it's something which isn't likely to come up in my life. 

As far as teaching young boys, that too is something which is not part of my life. I have zero contact with young people of any gender. However, there is something in that point. That is, most teachers of young boys are women.

It's a fact that primary teachers in the USA (presumably Canada is not much different) are mostly women. Only about 18% of primary teachers in the USA are men. Strangely enough, the people who have the best chance to educate young  boys in that respect then, are women. Apparently they are failing badly. Perhaps a higher percentage of male primary teachers would help.

As far as encountering women who tell me their troubles with men, I have to say I have a problem with that. My response to a women who spends a lot of time telling me her tale of woe is to stay away from her. I don't have that many years left, and in that I can have no effect on her situtation, I'm sorry but I have better things to do with my life.

However, it doesn't really come up. My circle of friends is very small, amounting to one man and two women. I have a larger group of acquaintances, but interactions with them are limited, usually to some particular matter at hand. Whatever troubles they may have are outside the limits of our acquaintanceship.

None of this means I don't care. I do care, and when I was working, one of the things I tried to adhere to was a high level of professional behaviour on the job. And, as I've said elsewhere in Babble, if I had one thing to say to some young person starting out, keep it professional. You'll never go wrong.

When women are tell you their troubles with men, you can be there to listen.  Sometimes, that is as important as anything else.   You can be the MAN they can talk to.  That's a way to be of use.  And it costs you nothing.  

Yes, life is short(I'm less than three years away from being sixty), but we live for a reason.  

Pondering

Rev Pesky wrote:

But I wasn't blaming them for boys behaviour, I was pointing out that they were failing to change boys behaviour. There is a difference between those two positions. Perhaps it was a bit subtle for you. I'll try be more clear in the future.

Your put down is perfectly clear. Your attitude towards women in general is equally clear. You do not give a shit about the sexual harassment or rape of women. This is just some ridiculous intellectual game to you. That's my opinion anyway.

MegB

Pondering wrote:

Rev Pesky wrote:

But I wasn't blaming them for boys behaviour, I was pointing out that they were failing to change boys behaviour. There is a difference between those two positions. Perhaps it was a bit subtle for you. I'll try be more clear in the future.

Your put down is perfectly clear. Your attitude towards women in general is equally clear. You do not give a shit about the sexual harassment or rape of women. This is just some ridiculous intellectual game to you. That's my opinion anyway.

Sadly, I agree with your opinion. Men like Rev Pesky and Cody will never acknowledge the privilege they inhabit, will try to shut us down at every opportunity and when presented with tools for constructive change will make excuse after excuse for not being a part of that change. 

jas

Rev Pesky wrote:

It's a fact that primary teachers in the USA (presumably Canada is not much different) are mostly women. Only about 18% of primary teachers in the USA are men. Strangely enough, the people who have the best chance to educate young  boys in that respect then, are women. Apparently they are failing badly. Perhaps a higher percentage of male primary teachers would help.

Yes, women - again -- are failing badly. Teachers are responsible, after all, for fostering the correct social attitudes in children. And all women teachers are, of course, feminist.  So feminism in the schools is obviously a complete failure. Teachers' unions, too, seem to be failing badly. Why aren't the few male teachers who are allowed into the profession better at getting everyone to understand that little boys in the primary school system are falling through the cracks? And may grow up to be sexual aggressors?

Cody87

MegB wrote:

Sadly, I agree with your opinion. Men like Rev Pesky and Cody will never acknowledge the privilege they inhabit, will try to shut us down at every opportunity and when presented with tools for constructive change will make excuse after excuse for not being a part of that change. 

Well, you know what they say...Privilege is invisible to those who have it.

quizzical

jas wrote:

Rev Pesky wrote:

It's a fact that primary teachers in the USA (presumably Canada is not much different) are mostly women. Only about 18% of primary teachers in the USA are men. Strangely enough, the people who have the best chance to educate young  boys in that respect then, are women. Apparently they are failing badly. Perhaps a higher percentage of male primary teachers would help.

Yes, women - again -- are failing badly. Teachers are responsible, after all, for fostering the correct social attitudes in children. And all women teachers are, of course, feminist.  So feminism in the schools is obviously a complete failure. Teachers' unions, too, seem to be failing badly. Why aren't the few male teachers who are allowed into the profession better at getting everyone to understand that little boys in the primary school system are falling through the cracks? And may grow up to be sexual aggressors?

oh bs.  history and brain development stages put lie to your contentions.

 

Rev Pesky

Pondering wrote:

You do not give a shit about the sexual harassment or rape of women.

​MegB wrote:

Sadly, I agree with your opinion. Men like Rev Pesky and Cody will never acknowledge the privilege they inhabit...

I'll begin by pointing out both the above are rank personal insults that should result in banning.  But worry not, I'm a believer in the old saying, 'Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me.'

It never ceases to amaze me how things can get twisted around. Someone tells me I should be teaching young boys and men (here is the actual quote from Meg)

You can teach young boys and men

and I point out that I have no access to educate young boys, and the people who do have that access, i.e. primary teachers, are apparently unable to change the boys behaviour, that, suddenly is translated into 

'I don't give a shit about the rape of women'.

Well, here's some news for you, I do care, but it's not me who's preventing women from coming forward. That they're doing on their own.

If I were the king of the world, I would eliminate the crime of rape and call it what it is, assault, with penalties concomitant with the level of brutality. I'm not sure what the outcome would be, but perhaps making it not about sex, but about violence would dispel some of the stigma associated with it.

As far as sexual harassment I've made it clear, on  more than one occasion, that I am a firm believer in maintaining professional demeanour on the job. How that translates into me not caring about sexual harassment is beyond me.

Now then, my level of privilege. My solution to that problem is to raise everyone's level of privilege. I try to accomplish that in my own small way by being respectful of others, by being respectful of those I come into contact with on a daily basis, and in so doing, trying to set an example for others (which is slightly educational after all). 

Pondering

Rev Pesky wrote:
  I'll begin by pointing out both the above are rank personal insults that should result in banning.  But worry not, I'm a believer in the old saying, 'Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me.'

I'm not worried and I don't think Meg is either.

Rev Pesky wrote:
 Well, here's some news for you, I do care, but it's not me who's preventing women from coming forward. That they're doing on their own. 

Yes, because of the way men like you treat them as the suspects.

Rev Pesky wrote:
 If I were the king of the world, I would eliminate the crime of rape and call it what it is, assault, with penalties concomitant with the level of brutality. I'm not sure what the outcome would be, but perhaps making it not about sex, but about violence would dispel some of the stigma associated with it. 

It isn't the same. It is far worse. There should be a stigma attached to the men. If  you were King of the world perhaps you should ask women how they feel about it rather than dictating your beliefs.

Rev Pesky wrote:
 As far as sexual harassment I've made it clear, on  more than one occasion, that I am a firm believer in maintaining professional demeanour on the job. How that translates into me not caring about sexual harassment is beyond me. 

Because you put no more significance on it than someone picking their nose and you say "people" not "men" who are the primary perpetrators of sexual harassment.

Rev Pesky wrote:
 Now then, my level of privilege. My solution to that problem is to raise everyone's level of privilege. I try to accomplish that in my own small way by being respectful of others, by being respectful of those I come into contact with on a daily basis, and in so doing, trying to set an example for others (which is slightly educational after all).  

You are repeatedly condescending towards me. That isn't respectful particularly in a thread with "Me Too" in the title. You do not acknowledge that this is an injustice to women perpetrated by men in power positions.

Your focus is on turning the issue back on women to solve rather than firing men who habitually harass women.

You know, the type of men who do this sort of thing are often bad bosses in general and find other ways to assert themselves against male employees. Women get an extra dollop of abuse but Ghomeshi wasn't nice to anyone under him. That was not due to lack of education. Weir is 36 not 16. Socially awkward men do not come on strong because they learn quickly that it upsets women and gets them in trouble. Confident self-defined alpha-males come on strong.

In any case Pesky, your position is transparent. Many men are on our side but you aren't one of them.

Paladin1

Quote:
Is #MeToo worsening the divide between men and women?

 

Caveat I'm posting this without reading the thread first.

But to answer the OP question I don't think so.

Even amid the false accusations (which I've been recipient of) I'm glad for the #metoo movement. I think as our society grew and developed we pushed women into a position where, for reasons I still don't understand, they wouldn't say anything when it happened to them.  When a good friend of mine was sexually assaulted I was actually angry with her when she told me she didn't want to call the police and didn't want me getting involved.  I'm embarassed about my reaction of course and I still don't understand it.

But is #metoo making things worse? No. It's about time men (and women who are enablers) are held accountable for their henious behavior IMO.  Does it create a vacume where false accusations are more prone to happen? Maybe, probably yes. But over all I still think the ends justify the means.  Better police work, behavior and attitudes will go a long way to addressing assaults, reporting assaults and false reporting.

 

 

Pondering

Paladin1 wrote:

Quote:
Is #MeToo worsening the divide between men and women?

 

Caveat I'm posting this without reading the thread first.

But to answer the OP question I don't think so.

Even amid the false accusations (which I've been recipient of) I'm glad for the #metoo movement. I think as our society grew and developed we pushed women into a position where, for reasons I still don't understand, they wouldn't say anything when it happened to them.  When a good friend of mine was sexually assaulted I was actually angry with her when she told me she didn't want to call the police and didn't want me getting involved.  I'm embarassed about my reaction of course and I still don't understand it.

But is #metoo making things worse? No. It's about time men (and women who are enablers) are held accountable for their henious behavior IMO.  Does it create a vacume where false accusations are more prone to happen? Maybe, probably yes. But over all I still think the ends justify the means.  Better police work, behavior and attitudes will go a long way to addressing assaults, reporting assaults and false reporting.

Thank-you.

Pondering

The very question is tone-deaf.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/rob-magazine/article-us-too-eig...

Consider this: One in two Canadian women have experienced sexual harassment at work, according to a 2018 Angus Reid survey, and 89% say they use strategies to avoid unwanted sexual advances in the workplace. Yet, in a survey late last year of 153 Canadian executives—95% of whom were male—the Gandalf Group reported that 94% said sexual harassment was not a problem at their companies....

The upper ranks of most companies are a largely male domain. Among Canada’s top 100 companies by revenue, just four are run by women, and only three of the 100 largest firms have achieved gender parity on their boards, according to Catalyst. Yet the business case for gender diversity is clear: Catalyst has found that companies with more female directors outperform their peers on major metrics, including return on equity and return on sales. And as a recent Harvard Business Review article noted, harassment “flourishes in workplaces where men dominate in management and women have little power.”

Me Too is a bridge not a barrier. Silence is the barrier.

Pages