Harvey Weinstein: Why is it about so much more than Harvey Weinstein?

[Kelli Fury]

4 hours ago, mankytoes said:

Yes, and on average men will find you more attractive in a short skirt.

But you see, that is not a factor unless the observer is ALREADY a sexist piece of shit who does not respect the body autonomy of women. Plenty of people find people attractive and don’t harass or assault or rape anyone. Plenty of people find the exact same person getting harassed or groped or raped attractive and don’t themselves do it. So the variable isn’t the victim, it’s the person looking.

[Paladin of Ice]

6 hours ago, mankytoes said:

Yes, and on average men will find you more attractive in a short skirt.

Putting aside for a moment all the various research, profiles, and the few seconds worth of critical thinking it takes to see the holes in your statement, you do realize that there is a huge leap between finding someone attractive and groping them in hallways, threatening to destroy their careers if they don't sleep with you, whipping your dick out in public and masturbating in front of them, drugging them into unconsciousness to have your way with them, etc.?

If you do realize that, and you don't think that all men are potential rape monsters ready to jump any woman, child, or other man they decide is attractive, then it might be worth thinking that there are additional, perhaps more important factors at work than attractiveness and what kind of clothing one is wearing. Like what sort of mental processes would make a rapist/harasser/abuser at best disregard the consent of their targets and the pain and anguish they put their targets through. And at worst, the fact that a person might genuinely enjoy causing that pain to others, to the point that what gets them off is doing that.

As I said before, it may not be something you get because it is probably an alien POV to you, but there are people who either dehumanize others to the point that their mental and physical pain is either immaterial or something that they're glad to cause. And they use any tool at their disposal, including trust, a good reputation, workplace power, etc. to get what they want, no matter who the person they're targeting is.Those are the people who are serial abusers and molesters and rapists, not some random guy who got a little too turned on because a woman was more attractive due to a short skirt.

[Lily Valley]

11 hours ago, Sword of Doom said:

And this thread has turned into the shit show I figured it would. 

Nice to see victim blaming happening and the denial of it happening.

D

Did we learn nothing from the Diversity thread?  No.  No we did not.

In other news.  Two of John Besh's restaurants have had their windows smashed in.  A woman was arrested for one incident.  http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2017/10/john_besh_broken_window_restau.html

[Maithanet]

3 hours ago, Lily Valley said:

In other news.  Two of John Besh's restaurants have had their windows smashed in.  A woman was arrested for one incident.  http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2017/10/john_besh_broken_window_restau.html

If those windows were up on the third floor, it wouldn't be so tempting to throw rocks through them.  They were practically asking for it.

[maarsen]

Workplace abuse and harassment is not about sex. It is about power. I work in a female dominated workplace, a hospital, and there is just as much abuse of privilege there as there is in any other workplace. As a union exec I deal with the aftermath and dressing down or not trying to attract attention doesn't make any difference. There are some people, who once they get a sniff of authority, can't resist the urge to try and dominate others. The good part is that sometimes helping those that have been abused or harassed gives them the courage or willingness to help others dealing with the same issues. 

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

17 hours ago, mankytoes said:

Yes, and on average men will find you more attractive in a short skirt.

Sexual harassment and rape are not about finding a person attractive: they are about power and domination.

[Yukle]

23 hours ago, mankytoes said:

Yes, and on average men will find you more attractive in a short skirt.

 

22 hours ago, Darth Richard II said:

Jesus fucking Christ, do you have any idea how fucking creepy and disgusting you sound? 

Yeah... that's... strange. Perhaps you didn't mean to write this how it has come out... ?

Why is there some stupid assumption that (straight) don't find men attractive? How many times do we see in the news, A woman sexually assaulted a sexy man in a tank top?

Then how many times was there a discussion about, "Well, he was really buff and was wearing a tank top. It was summer, sure, but showing off his huge pants bulge with such tight bathers was kind of predictable. I'm not saying that the woman isn't wrong, but he shouldn't have drawn so much attention to himself."

"Yes," says some poor worried man, "That's why I always wear long pants and cover my arms. I make sure that nobody can see my six-pack and I am careful to shave off my stubble. It's just the world we live in, where men can't walk down the street in whatever they like. I'm not saying I like it, but that's how it is."

[mankytoes]

On 25/10/2017 at 0:02 AM, Darth Richard II said:

OK, wait, is someone actually arguing that places where women have to cover up more have less rape? Cause, India.

Have you actually been? I haven't, but I have been to Sri Lanka, where they have a similar problem. And while, as people say, any woman can get harassed at any time, whatever she is wearing, it's definitely worse if you go to the beach and women are wearing swimwear. I actually think this is a bigger factor in these countries, because people are raised to think that any woman showing a lot of skin has "low morals" or whatever (Sri Lankan women are relatively covered up even when I'm the sea, usually. Looks uncomfortable). 

I can see why no one wants to talk about this now, because people just ignore the context and insult you (I can't even reply to the people who say "you're right, but you shouldn't say that", that's too 'post truth' for me). I didn't say "we should think about what these women Weinstein assaulted were wearing", I was just defending what Bialik said about feeling she has to dress more modestly to feel safe. That isn't something to celebrate, it's tragic that anyone has to make that kind of consideration when choosing their clothing. But it's a reality to many women, and we do them a disservice by trying to stop any discussion of this issue.

Anyway, I'm sure Bialik has learnt her lesson. Fall in line, or keep your bitch mouth shut.

[mankytoes]

10 hours ago, Yukle said:

 

Yeah... that's... strange. Perhaps you didn't mean to write this how it has come out... ?

Why is there some stupid assumption that (straight) don't find men attractive? How many times do we see in the news, A woman sexually assaulted a sexy man in a tank top?

Then how many times was there a discussion about, "Well, he was really buff and was wearing a tank top. It was summer, sure, but showing off his huge pants bulge with such tight bathers was kind of predictable. I'm not saying that the woman isn't wrong, but he shouldn't have drawn so much attention to himself."

"Yes," says some poor worried man, "That's why I always wear long pants and cover my arms. I make sure that nobody can see my six-pack and I am careful to shave off my stubble. It's just the world we live in, where men can't walk down the street in whatever they like. I'm not saying I like it, but that's how it is."

I don't see why you've assumed I disagree with any of that? I think sometimes women get treated like shit because they wear short skirts. That doesn't mean in any way I think that is ok. 

I totally agree with your point. I've never had to think "oh, maybe I shouldn't wear this, I will get a bad reaction". My girlfriend has this beautiful white dress that is quite low cut. She wore it once, and got three separate comments from women to "put them away" or things like that. She won't wear it again. That's fucking horrible. The situation is absolutely sexist and I hate it. 

All the replies to what I wrote seem to demonstrate bad faith. I guess this is why people, men especially, tend to spend half their articles qualifying their remarks and going on about how much they respect women. I don't see why people have to leap to the worst possible interpretation of what someone writes. If you want me to clarify, ask. Don't assume I'm in favour of something just because I state a simple fact.

[Yukle]

22 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

...But it's a reality to many women, and we do them a disservice by trying to stop any discussion of this issue.

Anyway, I'm sure Bialik has learnt her lesson. Fall in line, or keep your bitch mouth shut.

 

Bialik's lesson is that she was flat out wrong. It is absolutely, definitely, 100% INCORRECT that women must dress modestly to avoid sexual assault. It is absolutely, definitely, 100% and entirely WRONG to suggest that what women are wearing makes any difference to their chances of being sexually assaulted.

She is an idiot for saying it.

There is no widespread societal reverse of women assaulting men because they're overcome with how they look. So it's nothing to do with the clothing, it's to do with the ingrained societal biases and sexism that exist in workplaces.

Women are especially offended by Bialik because it's a betrayal of our real situations: it's NOTHING to do with our behaviour! There is NOTHING we are doing that invites sexual assault in any way whatsoever!

Consider something as routine as breastfeeding, and tell me: why is it a big deal at all that I take my breasts out to feed my children? Society is used to breasts being sexualised objects of pleasure and so see it as inappropriate for them to be shown in polite society. But in reality, women should be able to walk around topless, without a care in the world because our breasts are there to feed our children. If we don't have any feeding children, then our breasts are there to annoy us by not fitting into bras comfortably.

We're not shutting down her view because it's an uncomfortable truth, we shut her down because it's an extremely uncomfortable LIE that women's behaviour, or how they dress is a factor AT ALL in sexual assault.

[mankytoes]

43 minutes ago, Yukle said:

 

Bialik's lesson is that she was flat out wrong. It is absolutely, definitely, 100% INCORRECT that women must dress modestly to avoid sexual assault. It is absolutely, definitely, 100% and entirely WRONG to suggest that what women are wearing makes any difference to their chances of being sexually assaulted.

She is an idiot for saying it.

There is no widespread societal reverse of women assaulting men because they're overcome with how they look. So it's nothing to do with the clothing, it's to do with the ingrained societal biases and sexism that exist in workplaces.

Women are especially offended by Bialik because it's a betrayal of our real situations: it's NOTHING to do with our behaviour! There is NOTHING we are doing that invites sexual assault in any way whatsoever!

Consider something as routine as breastfeeding, and tell me: why is it a big deal at all that I take my breasts out to feed my children? Society is used to breasts being sexualised objects of pleasure and so see it as inappropriate for them to be shown in polite society. But in reality, women should be able to walk around topless, without a care in the world because our breasts are there to feed our children. If we don't have any feeding children, then our breasts are there to annoy us by not fitting into bras comfortably.

We're not shutting down her view because it's an uncomfortable truth, we shut her down because it's an extremely uncomfortable LIE that women's behaviour, or how they dress is a factor AT ALL in sexual assault.

But you accept that you would get unwanted attention if you walked around with your breasts out, right? So doesn't that confirm that what you wear does actually make a difference? It shouldn't, but it does. I guess we can only base things on our own experiences, and I have noticed a difference. And so has Bialik. Your experience might be different, but it doesn't make hers invalid.

I'm with you, I've sunbathed in nudist parks, it's always seemed odd to me anyone has a problem with breastfeeding publicly. the whole problem with nudity is childish and silly. As GRRM has said, we have a society where you can depict brutal murder and people won't bat an eyelid, but show consensual sex and they are up in arms.

[Xray the Enforcer]

1 hour ago, Yukle said:

 

Bialik's lesson is that she was flat out wrong. It is absolutely, definitely, 100% INCORRECT that women must dress modestly to avoid sexual assault. It is absolutely, definitely, 100% and entirely WRONG to suggest that what women are wearing makes any difference to their chances of being sexually assaulted.

She is an idiot for saying it.

[...]

We're not shutting down her view because it's an uncomfortable truth, we shut her down because it's an extremely uncomfortable LIE that women's behaviour, or how they dress is a factor AT ALL in sexual assault.

Quoting this because this is literally all that needs be said about the matter. Bialik's opinion is garbage.

[Regular John Umber]

57 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

But you accept that you would get unwanted attention if you walked around with your breasts out, right? So doesn't that confirm that what you wear does actually make a difference? It shouldn't, but it does. I guess we can only base things on our own experiences, and I have noticed a difference. And so has Bialik. Your experience might be different, but it doesn't make hers invalid.

 

 

 The problem with this argument is that it assumes there are men out there who will only give unwanted attention if the clothing/lack thereof the woman is wearing falls under some threshold. As in "I won't grab a butt in jeans but I will if it's in a mini skirt." That argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It's also, still, very subtly, turning the blame on the victim.

[mankytoes]

45 minutes ago, Regular John Umber said:

 

 The problem with this argument is that it assumes there are men out there who will only give unwanted attention if the clothing/lack thereof the woman is wearing falls under some threshold. As in "I won't grab a butt in jeans but I will if it's in a mini skirt." That argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It's also, still, very subtly, turning the blame on the victim.

I think some people are like that. There's a difference people make between "good girls" who dress "respectfully" and "bad girls" who are "asking for it". I come from a conservative area, I've heard this opinion quite a bit. You must have heard of the "she was asking for it" excuse- what do you think happens if you raise people with that idea?

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

It’s good to know that a woman in her 30’s, slightly overweight, wearing baggy sweats, hair in a ponytail and no make-up standing on a corner waiting for a bus is safe from being propositioned over a loud speaker by the creep across the street at the used car lot. To be fair, he only used the loud speaker because the lacky he had sent over with his initial offer was told to “No thanks”.

[Dr. Pepper]

3 hours ago, mankytoes said:

But you accept that you would get unwanted attention if you walked around with your breasts out, right?

Attention, wanted or otherwise, is not the same as sexual harassment or assault.  I don't want people to look my way when one of my toddlers decides to throw an epic tantrum in the middle of Costco, but if people look I'm not going to call it assault.  The assault would be the person who, you know, assaults.  My tantruming toddler didn't make them do it, they did it on their own. 

[Lily Valley]

23 hours ago, Maithanet said:

If those windows were up on the third floor, it wouldn't be so tempting to throw rocks through them.  They were practically asking for it.

Right???  Without any window dressing, too!

[Kelli Fury]

2 hours ago, mankytoes said:

I think some people are like that. There's a difference people make between "good girls" who dress "respectfully" and "bad girls" who are "asking for it". I come from a conservative area, I've heard this opinion quite a bit. You must have heard of the "she was asking for it" excuse- what do you think happens if you raise people with that idea?

They *might* choose the woman in the short skirt over the one in jeans if they are both in the office or whatever, but a guy who is prone to grab an ass is gonna grab an ass. They don’t walk around thinking, all of these women are modest and worthy of my respect so I guess I can’t assault anyone today. It’s an excuse they use and proclaim for sure- but it’s not true. And encouraging more modesty is just saying- here, grope her instead of me because you are just trying to make yourself less noticeable, which isn’t the root of the problem. The root of the problem is a person who doesn’t respect another persons body autonomy. If you didn’t have that, you might have comments that asked or demanded you covered up if you walked around naked, but you wouldn’t have touching or threats or lewd remarks. Because those only come from someone who has that to begin with. 

[Dr. Pepper]

Each time I read another post or response I want to come and reply that it's almost unbelievable that this is still a debate or that people don't get it.

Then I remember that a previously anti-vaxxer with a PhD in neuroscience wrote an OpEd about how women with short skirts and tans are to blame for their assaults and harassments. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

It looks like there are bigger ramifications in the fallout of the Weinstein accusations than a lot of people expected. Sexual predators are getting fired right and left, and even a former seemingly mild mannered president has had to apologize for his past behaviors.