[Closed] #MeToo

Thanks for your openness geetee.

I think it’s understandable that someone who has experienced abuse might be sensitive about their abuse and abuse which is similar. It also shouldn’t be surprising that their perspective may be different from others.

I’m all for challenging other people’s opinions - including geetees, but challenging their experience of abuse or ridiculing it, that isn’t on.

Oh, ok. So the whole Harvey Weistein thing shouldve been ignored? Cos there are men that get abused too?

I never said that. If I said anything it was that telling only one half of the story and diong it in a way that specifically precludes the male experience was wrong. That is happening. That is what I am challenging and why I chose to recount my own experiences.

And why is this only brought out when women raise the issue.

Because every time it is brought up, it’s done in a way that depicts the problem as purely asymmetric. I don’t believe it is. I’m not denying there’s a problem. I’m just challenging the notion that it’s a gendered issue that only women experience and men perpetrate.

I’m just challenging the notion that it’s a gendered issue that only women experience and men perpetrate.

Because every time it is brought up, it’s done in a way that depicts the problem as purely asymmetric. I don’t believe it is. I’m not denying there’s a problem. I’m just challenging the notion that it’s a gendered issue that only women experience and men perpetrate.

In that case why is it never brought up as an issue for men, in its own right?

[quote=geetee1972 ]Because every time it is brought up, it’s done in a way that depicts the problem as purely asymmetric. I don’t believe it is.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "purely" and how it is different from impure asymmetry, but you got called on this before because it quite clearly is an asymmetric situation. This doesn't mean that it's something men don't experience, simply that it's something experienced by a lot more women a lot more often. I just have my own anecdotal experience here, but I don't think it's totally worthless - I don't think I have ever experienced the sort of normalised "low level" harassment which is a regular occurrence for many if not most women, and I certainly haven't experienced sexual assault. I doubt very much that makes me unique as a man.

I actually have personal experiences that would be relevant to this thread, but you know what? Think I'll hang back for a bit... 💡

ITS NOT AN ASYMMETRIC PROBLEM!

It really is. Notwithstanding your own story, a simple qualitative comparison of this thread here on a male dominated forum vis its equivalent on the female dominated forum mumsnet shows a quite clear trend.

Yep, have to agree with Zokes there, the level of normalised behaviour that goes on mostly by men on women shows that. The power in balance that still exists in society demonstrates why it's a massive problem.

Nobody is denying that abuse towards men does not exist, however it's not on the same scale as that inflicted on women.

A phrase that keeps coming up is "get used to it" or "learn to ignore it" these are the major part of the problem, it's just accepted as part of life.

I'd suggest the Guardian list is a good starting point for many people who just don't understand how to behave in public situations. Take it as the first lesson, once you have mastered that one then maybe you can progress to some more advaced behavioural lessons. Such as how to deal with an office romance without it becoming harrassment or leaving the other person in a very difficult position.

The Weinstein story is one of the systematic abuse of women over a long period of time, aided and abetted and covered up by tens or hundreds of people over decades. That's not half the story, it's the story.

There you go - Tom Jones has stepped up to say he was abused early in his career. Don't know full story, but seems like it could serve to dilute the original issue to me.

[edit] take that back - he was also propositioned by a man.

but seems like it could serve to dilute the original issue to me.

He added: "There's always been that element there that people with power sometimes abuse it, but they don't all abuse it, there are good people."
Asked further about his own experience, he said: "It wasn't bad, just somebody tried to pull... it was a question and I said 'No thank you.'"

I don't think you can dilute the original story at all, there are other stories to tell but an industry run mostly by men has engaged along with a lot of other aspects of society to harass and abuse women for decade and more.

Edited Mike.

Just trying to get my head around how geetee thinks this should be reported.

If I said anything it was that telling only one half of the story and diong it in a way that specifically precludes the male experience was wrong.

No worries, just seeing some of the people trying to avoid this or divert attention away from it is, well I don't quite know what words to use. It's a bit like the football racism threads where a little bit of casual racism is OK cause well you should expect that as a footballer....

So women can't say they were abused my men in power

Why do you keep coming back with this suggestion? I’ve never said this. I don’t agree with this so why do you and others keep suggesting I am?

Really sorry to hear about your childhood GT. Sounds grim. SO if any of my remarks were insensitive, I apologize

But I fear that your experiences have skewed your perspective to the degree that it has little basis in reality.

Saying that men are equally as likely to be the victims of sexual harassment by women as women by men is patently ridiculous. That would be like saying that white people are as likely to be the victims of racism as black people. It's a ludicrous statement. This is due entirely to the balance of power in our society. Which I'm afraid is white and male. Very much so! And when it comes to sexual harassment, I'd say its almost exclusively one way traffic.

Also your suggestion that women are neurotic, and their 'abuse' is imagined, and that its a problem of their perception is both dismissive and insulting. On this subject, its right up there with 'well she was wearing a short skirt, she was asking for it'. Its offensive. As you can tell from the reaction its received

I think you've got issues with women, that which are in some ways understandable, you really really need to address. Because the statements you've made on this thread display a pretty unhealthy attitude to the opposite sex

I think, geetee, that the people are reacting against your assertion, which seems to be (and correct me if I am wrong) that this [i]is[/i] a symmetrical problem across the male/female genders, with an equal number of victims and equal frequency on both sides (especially considering 50% of the female victims are imagined by neurotic women), and both genders facing equal societal and institutional pressures to accept it and keep quiet about it.

FWIW, your own experiences sound horrific and I don't seek to diminish them in any way. I can definitely see how they would colour your opinions on this topic. I hope you got and are still getting help for those.

+1 binners.

Sorry GT, but whilst you may not have actually said that

women can't say they were abused my men in power

Your dismissive attitude as shown by the quote below, be it as a result of some clearly harrowing personal experiences or not, unfortunately leaves you somewhat ironically on the wrong end of the benefit of the doubt.

That's just as likely to be the result of neuroticism (which women score higher on) than actual threat though.

On BikeMagic new female contributors were assumed to be trolls and abused.

And they gave as good as they got.

🙂

Saying that men are equally as likely to be the victims of sexual harassment by women as women by men is patently ridiculous.

Ok so I haven’t said this but I guess by saying the problem is not asymmetric I have implied it or maybe just have said it. So let me be clear.

I have said that I acknowledge that more women than men have experienced it though. So for the record, when I say the problem is not asymmetric, I’m being a little metaphorical. I DO NOT mean that it’s 50/50. But I do mean that the fact that one side of the problem is larger than the other is irrelevant.

I’m also saying that the male experience is vastly under reported and unrecognised. One side (I guess you would call them the third wave feminists) appears to be trying to politicise the issue and both ignore the male perspective in this problem (to the point where people don’t accept there is even a problem) and to some degree demonise men and masculinity by attributing that to the problem to that feature.

One thing the Weinstein case shows is that one man has been responsible for a very large number of transgressions and assaults. This shows that it is entirely possible, likely even, that the entire gamut of genuine harassment or assault experienced by women is committed by a very small number of men.

I strongly reject the idea that otherwise normal masculine/male behaviour, ie the biological urge to find a mate, is either unreasonable or constitutes harassment. The problem is far less about sex and far more about power but there will of course be overlap between these.

The way that the issue is being reported and talked about you’d think that every man walking the streets is a lack IOU’s and dangerous presator and that simply by approaching a woman in the interests of sex (which let’s face it is the reason most men approach women) is ‘predatory behaviour’. Again I reject that and that narrative has nothing to do with equality or injustice and everything to do with power and hegemony.

On the other side Is the issue that when men experience the same thing it just isn’t taken seriously. Why bring it up in the context of women’s experience? To try and bring some balance to the argument and not let it be such a one sided story.

I know aclotnofmyou dont after wth my position and that’s fine. But I’m not a monster who hates women. Far from it; if you talk to my close friends who have known me for a long time they will tell you I’ve always had a reputation for being something of a ‘feminist’, heck I even studied it as part of my under grad.

I’ve somewhat changed my mind lately because of things like ‘white male priviledge’ and ‘patriarchy’ and post modernism. I talk a position against these because I think it’s important.

As for the neuroticism comment you need to read up on the psychology of this to understand my argument. The sheer volume of self reported incidents of harassment (note I am specifically excluding actual assault here as that cannot be the product of neuroticism because something actually happened) just doesn’t make sense. For that volume of incidents to be true it would mean the vast majority of men would have to score on profiles as demonstrating extreme pathological predatory behaviour and that’s just not what the data tells us.

What is more likely in a lot of these ‘harassment’ casss is one party being quite insensitive but not predatory and the other side being quite sensitive (ie neurotic) and believing that the act was predatory. When you look at personality differences between men and women that is EXACTLY what you see. Men are far less agreeable than women ie they are less tuned in to how their behaviour affects others and less willing to modify their behaviour as a con sequence, and women are far more neurotic ie they tend to think and worry about things more readily they feel stress more readily.

One thing the Weinstein case shows is that one man has been responsible for a very large number of transgressions and assaults. This shows that it is entirely possible, likely even, that the entire gamut of genuine harassment or assault experienced by women is committed by a very small number of men.

I strongly reject the idea that otherwise normal masculine/male behaviour, ie the biological urge to find a mate, is either unreasonable or constitutes harassment. The problem is far less about sex and far more about power but there will of course be overlap between these.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-09/stamping-out-sexual-assault-at-music-festivals/8096544

One of hundreds of similar stories, now either the same few blokes go to a lot of gigs or it's a much wider problem. Again the number of Metro posts suggests that there are a lot of blokes out there who do not even know what they are doing is inappropriate or acceptable. Some may look back in later life and see that.

To be absolutely honest it's not up to you to decide what behaviour is harassment. It is the person receiving the behaviour/attemtion/hands/penis feels that is important here. Putting people in a position to say no and it be respected. I'm sure you can appreciate that part of it.

and that simply by approaching a woman in the interests of sex (which let’s face it is the reason most men approach women)

.......and there's your problem right there! You seriously think that the main reason most men approach women is to try and have sex with them? Seriously? Sweet jesus!!

You need help! Seriously! I'm not just saying that! You need to get professional help for your issues. Because if that's what you truly believe, that's a totally and utterly ****ed up way to view the relationship between sexes. Your attitude to women is absolutely warped!!!

I strongly reject the idea that otherwise normal masculine/male behaviour, ie the biological urge to find a mate, is either unreasonable or constitutes harassment.

The point most of us are at pains to make is [b][u]THAT IT IS NOT YOUR CHOICE TO DECIDE WHAT DOES AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE HARASSMENT[/u][/b]. It is entirely in the gift of the recipient whether it is taken that way or not. The fact we keep having to repeat this to you shows that you are just not getting it. You are part of the problem. Stop and think.

As for the neuroticism comment you need to read up on the psychology of this to understand my argument.

No we don't.

We can already tell you're a very troubled individual with a deep-seated sense of inadequacy and a boundless aptitude for BS.

You somehow imagine you're making subtle and nuanced arguments in favour of your uniquely perceptive ideas, when you're just smearing our screens with your own unhappiness and your resentment that the rest of the world hasn't recognised you for the oh-so-clever-and-special individual that you know you are.

You've had a difficult childhood, I truly empathise with that, but the direction you've let that take you in is reprehensible.

Go away and get help.

[quote=geetee1972 ]The sheer volume of self reported incidents of harassment (note I am specifically excluding actual assault here as that cannot be the product of neuroticism because something actually happened) just doesn’t make sense. For that volume of incidents to be true it would mean the vast majority of men would have to score on profiles as demonstrating extreme pathological predatory behaviour and that’s just not what the data tells us.
What is more likely in a lot of these ‘harassment’ casss is one party being quite insensitive but not predatory and the other side being quite sensitive (ie neurotic) and believing that the act was predatory. When you look at personality differences between men and women that is EXACTLY what you see. Men are far less agreeable than women ie they are less tuned in to how their behaviour affects others and less willing to modify their behaviour as a con sequence, and women are far more neurotic ie they tend to think and worry about things more readily they feel stress more readily.

Doesn't make sense to you maybe. It makes perfect sense to most of us here though. Firstly it doesn't have to be the vast majority of men (and I'm fairly sure it isn't) - a minority of men is perfectly sufficient to cause the problem. Far more importantly though - and this is something where I agree with everybody else - it's ridiculous for you to dismiss the normalised "low level" sexual harassment as women being overly sensitive or neurotic. I'm sure it is real, and it is unacceptable. You are right about some men being insensitive and unwilling to modify their behaviour - it's just that your conclusion that those men don't need to modify their behaviour and that instead quote marks are needed around "harassment" is far, far wide of the mark. Because I'm hearing these comments from women I know and trust - women who are so, so far from being neurotic.

Sure in order for relationships to form between men and women there needs to be some encroachment into areas which might be interpreted as harassment, but the important thing here is to know where to draw the line - and it is quite clear where the wrong side of that line is (admittedly I'm pretty high on the avoiding conflict percentiles, so tend to stay well away from that line - hence finding it a lot more difficult than most men to form relationships).

I have said that I acknowledge that more women than men have experienced it though. So for the record, when I say the problem is not asymmetric, I’m being a little metaphorical. I DO NOT mean that it’s 50/50.

Then I'd suggest that it is a very poor choice of word and explains why people are reacting against it.

[i]"Symmetry: The quality of being made up of exactly similar parts facing each other or around an axis. Similarity or exact correspondence between different things."[/i]
- ([url= https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/symmetry ]OED[/url])

But I do mean that the fact that one side of the problem is larger than the other is irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant. I don't think anyone has suggested it is.

But you seem to be saying that we shouldn't discuss or try to tackle the much larger side of the problem because the smaller side also exists.

the other side being quite sensitive (ie neurotic)

Again this may be a definition thing. Perhaps you have a different definition of neurotic from your studies than most laypersons would use.

OED says: [i]neurotic (Medicine) Having, caused by, or relating to neurosis.
1.1 (in non-technical use) abnormally sensitive, obsessive, or anxious.

neurosis: A relatively mild mental illness that is not caused by organic disease, involving symptoms of stress (depression, anxiety, obsessive behaviour, hypochondria) but not a radical loss of touch with reality.[/i]

I don't think you can label half the planet as abnormally sensitive or mildly mentally ill.

But I do mean that the fact that one side of the problem is larger than the other is irrelevant.

You could not be more wrong. You could try to be more wrong, but you would be unsuccessful.

Go away and get help.

You know your right when they start shooting at you....

I think the problem here is twofold. First a lot of you seem incapable of elevating the debate to a more abstract level of human behaviour, which is what we are talking about.

If men approaching women because they find them attractive isn’t ultimately because they’re looking for a mate then what is it for, anthropological speaking I mean?

THAT IT IS NOT YOUR CHOICE TO DECIDE WHAT DOES AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE HARASSMENT. I

Sure I get that but then neither is it the other persons right either. It’s something that has to be negotiated by society, debated and argued over. It’s easy at the extremes; we can all look at what HW did and agree that it is deeply wrong. The problem arises in the grey areas in the middle.

A person can feel ‘harassed’ without another person necessarily being harassing. We have to find a way of accommodating that and not just put all of the power into the hands of the individual to decide if you’re guilty of a gross moral transgression.

You know your right when they start shooting at you....

The problem arises in the grey areas in the middle.

I don't think you can label half the planet as abnormally sensitive or mildly mentally ill.

Yeah I’m definitely not doing that. Everyone scores on being neuroticism to some degree. It’s sinply one of the big five personality traits you can identify in every person on the planet.

The issue isn’t that person a is ‘neurotic’ and person b isn’t. It’s the degree to which they demonstrate that predilection as measured against a normative group.

Neuroticism and agreeableness are the two factors where men and women differ significantly.

First a lot of you seem incapable of elevating the debate to a more abstract level of human behaviour, which is what we are talking about.

Human behaviour isn't abstract. It's the most unabstract thing there is. Its the ultimate in reality. You can't sit and analyse raw human emotion.

It's your belief that its abstract that is clearly behind your totally dysfunctional and frankly pretty bloody disturbing attitude towards women

I'm not contributing any more to this thread. I'd suggest you don't either. You seriously need professional help! I'm not being funny, its no wonder your experiences in life, and your relationship with the opposite sex have been so 'challenging'. Your belief system is just so fundamentally wrong on so many levels. As someone with two daughters, it really worries me that there are people like you out there. I hope to god that the two sons you say you've got are more enlightened, and aren't having your frankly warped attitude to women passed on to them!

You know your right when they start shooting at you....

I think the problem here is twofold. First a lot of you seem incapable of elevating the debate to a more abstract level of human behaviour, which is what we are talking about.

So you respond with more BS.

I would laugh if it wasn't so tragic.

🙁

GT - I've deleted the eloquent and gently worded post I had written as I felt it was unnecessary and rather personal. I can't be bothered to re-write it, go and get yourself checked out, you're neurotic and need tablets.

I think the problem here is twofold. First a lot of you seem incapable of elevating the debate to a more abstract level of human behaviour, which is what we are talking about.

A lot of us know BS when we see it. What we have here is a problem overwhelmingly perpetrated by men and experienced by women. It really is that simple, and your continued desire to divert the subject to something else does you no credit.

*trying to remember how the STW killfile works, think GT needs to join Jamba on my list of those beyond redemption*

I prefer to keep a mental list, reading the posts reminds me that despite the people I know and spend time with others exist and many are the reason we still have these problems, from denial to whataboutery and distraction. There is a reason people don't want to discuss these issues honestly.
The world has a long way to go, we need to keep fighting to take it there.

I wrote this last night, and have debated posting it, but this thread needs moving on and it will give you something else to get your teeth into -
you can have a go at me instead (I promise to be more receptive to criticism than GT!)

Anyway, to go back to the Guardian list:

[quote=GrahamS ]"Learn to read a f**g room." - not sure how my lack of social skills makes me a misogynist?

Well quite - if I had any idea how to achieve that, it wouldn't mainly be wanting to avoid harassing women motivating me.

"Don’t touch women you don’t know, and honestly, ask yourself why you feel the need to touch women in general." - huh? That seems a bit overly general and impractical. Should there be a no-go zone around every woman in a crowd?

which leads straight onto this one, with a direct experience last night, when I had quite a lot of physical contact with a woman I didn't know and had only just met. Given my complete inability to read a *ing room I have thought back over it, and particularly in the context of this thread. It wasn't sexualised physical contact - she was simply sitting next to me, looking at my cards in a game we were playing with some other people and ended up sitting quite close. I have to admit I'm a bloke with normal drives, found her attractive and the experience quite pleasant even though I'm sure she had no intentions - given she moved closer to me (though I certainly didn't back away) I hope that doesn't make me a creep. But would I have felt as comfortable if it had been a bloke? Would it have been as acceptable if as a bloke I'd moved up close to a woman I'd just met (there is clearly also an asymmetry here)? I still don't quite know how to place the experience - in the context it did feel fine to touch a woman I didn't know, though don't get the idea I was putting my hands anywhere unwanted. Maybe it was intentionally flirty, but given my complete inability to read a ****ing room I don't know.

Normally I don't touch women I don't know at all, but I will sometimes touch women I do know, in the same way I will touch men I know.

If a woman says no to a date, don’t ask her again.

Not that I have much experience, and certainly none recently, but I don't think I've ever done that. But then that's because I'm high on the avoiding conflict percentiles - from what I understand it's far from universally unacceptable, and I do wonder whether taking not asking again is always the right thing to do...

and finally:

Don’t read a list like this and think that most of these don’t apply to you.

But what if you're fairly sure that they don't? It appears that claiming to be a normal decent human being is also unacceptable, even if you are a normal decent human being (I'm certainly not claiming that none of those apply to me - apart from anything else I'm not all that good at challenging other people's behaviour).

Sure I get that but then neither is it the other persons right either.

Within the context of unwanted attention, which as you yourself admit would be a prelude to some hopeful future sexual conquest, it is absolutely theirs right, and [b][u]ABSOLUTELY NOT[/u][/b] yours.

At this stage I can't tell whether you're deliberately trolling or genuinely are in need of psychiatric help. Whichever of the two it is, please, stop and think.

Aracer: re your experience last night, I think again the difference between the girl moving closer to you vs the hypothetical opposite comes back to the ingrained perception of male power in these situations.

Neuroticism and agreeableness are [s]the two[/s] some of the factors where men and women differ significantly.

Is what you meant I'm sure. To whittle it down to these two as if they are the defining factors that are different in men and women skews the argument somewhat.

And they gave as good as they got.

I don't recall the lady (and her boyfriend) from Birmingham who were on the receiving end of the worst of the off-forum abuse giving as good as they got.

you're neurotic and need tablets.

I doubt drugs will help.

As for the touching Aracer alludes to, Britain is one of the few places I've lived where all physical contact is avoided. In France there's ritual contact on meeting (les bises) and I'm used to, and not bothered by, being pawed by ladies who have no sexual interest in me, usually in response to me not being 100% concentrated on what they are saying and not making the right agreeing noises. In Germany I get my arm stroked. I don't reciprocate, it's an acceptable part of female behaviour, just a part of the way conversations are held.

I don't recall the lady (and her boyfriend) from Birmingham who were on the receiving end of the worst of the off-forum abuse giving as good as they got.

No, you're right. I wasn't thinking of that but nasty stuff all the same.

So now we're talking about the same people, teasel, the lady (and as they're a couple the boyfriend) were effectively excluded from BM group rides and stopped contributing to the forum. Because sensibly they didn't want to share space with a sex pest. Quite apart from the laddish nature of a lot of the posting was offensively sexual, reaching a peak when Ollning (that was his forum pseudo, mods) spent his days spreading his bodily fluids and solids around the fourm, while otheres contributed to unsensored Kylie type threads.

And I reckon that's where STW would be without the moderation, because the sex pest, bullying bores (often the same people) end up dominating as the normal people get fed up with it and leave (sometimes after a last gratuitous flurry of retaliation).

So this is a forum dedicated to a male dominated sport but it doesn't have to be female hostile. I think the moderation here, however unjust we may feel it is sometimes, is the only thing that means STW has not followed BM into oblivion. The undercurrents are there, but those who were the most offensive on BM don't get there heads above the parapet for long.

And I reckon that's where STW would be without the moderation, because the sex pest, bullying bores (often the same people) end up dominating as the normal people get fed up with it and leave (sometimes after a last gratuitous flurry of retaliation).

[quote=Edukator ]So this is a forum dedicated to a male dominated sport but it doesn't have to be female hostile. I think the moderation here, however unjust we may feel it is sometimes, is the only thing that means STW has not followed BM into oblivion. The undercurrents are there, but those who were the most offensive on BM don't get there heads above the parapet for long.

Is a good point. We have our low points on here, and it's still far more male dominated (and in places misogynistic and sexist) than it could be, but actually it's also a lot better than it could be. For which we should thank scotroutes and his fellow mods.

Don’t read a list like this and think that most of these don’t apply to you.

That one annoyed me too aracer as there seems to be a passive-aggressive sub-text there: [i]"Don't think you are innocent. If you have a penis you're a pig like the rest of them"[/i]

Of course if you express that then your point is dismissed for using the [i]"Not all men"[/i] defence 🙄

However, I freely admit that I am "guilty" of some of the things on that list.

I have certainly touched women that I don't know. I'm sure I've called a woman crazy on more than one occasion. I'm not entirely sure what "reading a room" means never mind learnt how to do it. And I've definitely made "assumptions about a woman’s intelligence, capabilities or desires based on how she dresses"

Oh and I guess I've now got defensive when I got called out too.

But I didn't commit any of these supposed sins in an effort to subjugate women or prop up the patriarchy.