Sexual misconduct

[Flint]

In reference to the original point, "good guys" have exactly the same responsibility as "good cops".

[DanaC]

A couple of other thoughts:


I personally think we have, as a society, and for a very, very long time, magnified the fundamental differences between men and woman to an unhealthy degree. The whole men are from mars, women are from venus / male humans have more in common with male chimpanzees than they do with female humans attitude creates an unhealthy distance between us. Any one individual human is as distinct from or as alike as any other individual human as any differences between or commonalities across each separate gender.

We are bathed in this sense of difference - saturated with it from the womb to the grave - it's one of the cornerstones of our culture. Even as we learn how complex the true picture really is, we still carry that simple, polar understanding of gender with us. It underpins our language, our social structures, our expectations, both conscious and unconscious- it affects how we perceive the world around us and sets us in a feedback loop that continually reinforces it.

This othering of the opposite gender comes with a cost - and it isn't an entirely accidental one. At various times in our history (in some places right now) there have been efforts by concerned citizens and religious and political leaders to encourage proper behaviour in men and women - crises in gender have occurred at various times in various places. In the late 17th and early 18th centuries, gender roles in Britain were a little less narrowly focused and men and women often worked together (usually on different tasks) - amongst the elite there was a new appreciation for playfulness and art, for emotional expression and extravagant dress among men - the response to this was a moral crusade - the society for the reformation of manners (primarily focused on brothels, prostitution and gay sex) was one expression of this - another was a change in literary forms, and a massive public debate (in leaflets, news sheets, sermons, poetry and educational works) in which the 'female problem/problem of the Sex' and its twin, the debate over effeminacy, were discussed and through which a proper kind of masculinity and a proper form of femininity were openly codified and promoted.

We have sold the lie to ourselves for generations - but the cost is high. If generations of boys have been raised to see girls not as fellow human beings, as individual and unique as themselves, but rather as ineffable prizes for them to win, lesser, but desirable creatures who they can conquer, or terrifyingly powerful aliens who can rock their world in any direction - then is it any wonder some men have no ability to feel any kind of empathy for the women they are driven to want.

And yes, I get that there is absolutely a flip side to that.


I have a lot of optimism for the younger generation in this regard. Youngsters today seem to have a much more nuanced sense of gender than my generation.



Second point:

For the kind of accusations Weinstein faces, there's just no excuse. He understood his power and he revelled in applying it. But - I do sometimes feel sorry for the guys that get swept up with this stuff. Sometimes, I think guys are abusing a form of power without really perceiving themselves as powerful. Or not understanding their place within the power dynamic.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Once again Dana nails it, sugar&spice vs snakes&snails, and never the twain shall meet.. on equal terms.

[Undertoad]

I'm with you Dana, all except the part where rape jokes create rapists because they make rape more socially acceptable. I don't think the jokes do that and I don't think that's how rapists are made. It's just a guess on my part though. I could be wrong.

Influence of culture, it's like what Derek and Clive said about the influence of television. Does television make people do things?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I'm with you Dana, all except the part where rape jokes create rapists because they make rape more socially acceptable. I don't think the jokes do that and I don't think that's how rapists are made. It's just a guess on my part though. I could be wrong.

I don't think she said they create rapists, she said the rapist doesn't realize the others aren't laughing for the same reason.

BigV, ever since "go forth and multiply" or "Be fruitful and multiply" that's been the mandate our lives wrap around.

[Griff]

All of which is to say, Facebook is breaking us. It was an interesting experiment sharing our individual truth to a large self-chosen group but group think is reinforced across politics, religion, race, and gender. Nothing subtle is expressed, we get puritanism from each group but people are not pure, we are damn messy and need to think out loud. Fuck it, I'm going to work.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I don't think she said they create rapists, she said the rapist doesn't realize the others aren't laughing for the same reason.

She said "because he probably assumes all his mates think the same way deep down." The suggestion is that the rape will now happen because the rapist believes there is an element of acceptability.

I'm just guessing, because I never took abnormal psych or anything, but I imagine rapists are generally sociopathic.

The calculation of "those guys think it is ok therefore it is ok" is OUR logic because we are normal. But it's not the way a sociopath would reason; with a lack of empathy, what other people think and how they will cast judgement is not important to them. I would imagine that a sociopath is more likely to rape because it's NOT socially acceptable. But like I say, that's just my guess.

[DanaC]

I don't think rape jokes make people rape. I don't even think they make 'rape' socially acceptable - what they can do, depending on the target of the joke, is feed into a viewpoint and potentially reinforce or confirm it. It can, imo, act to downgrade how certain behaviour is perceived - like date rape, for instance, or domestic violence, or a penchant for very young teenagers (jail bait). Not for most of that group of friends - but for someone who is already leaning in that direction.

I'll have to go looking for them at some at some point, but there have been some really interesting studies into how young men (in particular) respond to peer attitudes to this kind of thing.

I should stress by the way, that I am not referring to all rape jokes. There is a particular strand of humour that has the victim of rape as the butt of the joke. It's the kind of joke that invites the audience to vicariously participate in that power relationship. Similarly there is a strand of humour that has the battered wife or girlfriend as the butt of the joke - and again, the audience is invited to associate in to the one assaulting her.

With that particular strand of humour, there's an undercurrent of 'we'd all like to do this really'.

[Undertoad]

My difficulty is in viewing a "do good things" posted out into the ether as an onerous demand on you in particular.

Oh now I get it. No, it wasn't about me. It was about ALL good guys.

And as is the case with such things, it was about the poster. That's why he posted it. It wasn't to encourage good behavior.

One moment's aside: remember, he's on Facebook. He's not talking to the world. He's talking to his self-selected friends. This are his chosen friends. And the women who will reflect on his moral status after his statement. That is his biggest audience.

My pushback was speaking from the point of view of one of the good guys. I suppose you might not find that obvious but I did assume Terry would see it that way. From the good guys point of view, we don't need any coaching. We're good to go, Ace. We're the ones rocking the house. Our job is to keep being awesome.

And frankly, as xoB points out: in a world where the alpha males get the pussy -- and we are biologically driven to pursue the pussy -- that is No Small Task In Itself. But we stick to it, because we're fucking awesome. And because we thought about it, and are civilized, and are pro-human.

Not because someone posted about it on Facebook.

[Undertoad]

Sorry to triple post. Here's one way to think about this. Sometimes we get the advice, don't say anything to someone that you wouldn't say in person.

That just makes sense. that is a good way to think about things.

What if your friend got up in a room of all his friends and moralized like that. How would that be? It'd be like, hey friend, nice gesture but uh -- kinda wasn't needed -- you just got weird at the very least -- I mean at least based on your own past history --

Like the niece who stood up in the middle of one family Christmas party and said now let's take a minute to think about the homeless! Okay that is all perfectly fine, and a marvelous gesture, and we do care very much, but at the same time everybody knows that little display didn't actually help anyone, and was far more about Alison than about the homeless, and was not necessarily the best thing to to, it being Christmas and the family and all.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

are you just a being a dick. do we have a problem here.

You're pushing back against "if you see something, say something", and then mentioned a thing that one might see. It seemed like a situation where one might say something.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Oh now I get it. No, it wasn't about me. It was about ALL good guys.

And as is the case with such things, it was about the poster. That's why he posted it. It wasn't to encourage good behavior.

One moment's aside: remember, he's on Facebook. He's not talking to the world. He's talking to his self-selected friends. This are his chosen friends. And the women who will reflect on his moral status after his statement. That is his biggest audience.

I don't use Facebook, and I have no idea how many friends he has, but I've had the feeling from ambient cultural exposure that many people treat Facebook as if they're announcing to the general population.

My pushback was speaking from the point of view of one of the good guys. I suppose you might not find that obvious but I did assume Terry would see it that way. From the good guys point of view, we don't need any coaching. We're good to go, Ace. We're the ones rocking the house. Our job is to keep being awesome.

"See something, say something" is a request to the good guys. If he were talking to the bad guys, he'd say "stop harassing women". But good guys can have blind spots.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Like the niece who stood up in the middle of one family Christmas party and said now let's take a minute to think about the homeless! Okay that is all perfectly fine, and a marvelous gesture, and we do care very much, but at the same time everybody knows that little display didn't actually help anyone, and was far more about Alison than about the homeless, and was not necessarily the best thing to to, it being Christmas and the family and all.

If you "yes and"ed her, she'd either be delighted, or shown up, depending on what her actual motivations were. Or, if you smile and nod, the event is over. But if you respond with "I give change to homeless people*, and you don't really care about them, you're just trying to look good to the family", then even people who might have found her speech tedious may very well end up defending her.

"Don't say anything to someone that you wouldn't say in person" seems to apply much more strongly to the response than the request in this case.

* Or whatever the equivalent of not harassing women is in this analogy.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I had to unfriend former Dwellar elSicomoro.

He posted that men who are not involved should "say something if they see something". I was moved to say that we gents who are blameless don't really have a job to do here, our job is to just keep being awesome.

His group of yenta friends lept on me in attack. It's always the bad ones who will say something like that, they said, and it was off to the races, no real discussion to be had.

It was their big opportunity to attack in retaliation for god knows what. All I could think is, wow I have woken and angered this pack of apes and now I see them advancing, color in their eyes. Now I'm one of the bad ones. But I can see they love it; and once in ape mode there's no talking to be done. I stuck around and played for a little while, tried to explain how attacking me was absolutely wrong. But once I had "transgressed", forget it.

Sycamore's been an associate since 2001, and came to my 40th birthday party. Unfriended. Because who on this earth needs THAT particular kind of shit in their lives?

(Nobody, and that's why this place is barren now. But I digress.)

~

People have started to call it "virtue signaling" when somebody makes a public proclamation of how they support blah blah blah. I think that's an appropriate tag. Go out and publicly declare yourself good. Shame the Others to demonstrate how Good you are.

But it's the sort of thing Weinstein does -- they all do -- I posted a picture of Weinstein at the pink pussy march, on Syc's thread, to make a point of it. I'm not a predator, I am part of your pack, Weinstein and others are saying. Hunters trick the prey into allowing them to get as close as possible before the killing shot.

Because these public proclamations are NOT for the ears of the predators.

And the behavior of the apes showed it for what it was, as they circled to create and protect the perceived pack from danger. And the danger was....

...me!

Maaaaaan, that's a lot of whining right there. I will say I'm sorry a bunch of Syc's friends were mean to you. I'll speak up here and now and say that's *not cool*. Your remark doesn't justify an ape pack attack.

I have some questions though. What kinds of behavior that you can imagine seeing that would prompt you to say something? Give us a sense of your threshold for speaking up. A couple examples would do nicely. But, maybe you're a keep it to yourself at all times kinda guy.

I'm also curious as to what virtue you're signalling with this thread, your statement of lane-staying, blameless awesomeness. What are you propounding?

[Undertoad]

Facebook is breaking us

It really is, and that's the bottom line of this thread if anything.

As people react to my poorly-communicated reaction, it requires long text to really discuss well; it requires a little knowing about each other; it requires a little angry back and forth to be permitted; and a little faith. None of this can happen on Facebook.

Which is why the unfriending. People are going to be political on Facebook, but we can't discuss it. We can't talk, it's a horrible venue for discussion of any kind, and in this case leads immediately to tribal ape behavior where the outsider must be purged. Fuck that; as the outsider I will just purge myself and make it easier on everyone.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

as the outsider I will just purge myself and make it easier on everyone.

Don't

Facebook is best when people just post about their lives. The ball game they went to or the trip they took. The gig they played.

A lot of it ends up being boring and of no interest, but it's nice to see what's going on with people and you can scroll past the stuff that doesn't interest you.

The shit that Facebook feeds me is when a friend comments on a stranger's post. I don't want to see that. I don't know that person and I don't care about their conversation. I also don't want to see anything that is shared, because it's almost always political bullshit. They are trying to persuade me. I'm guilty of this myself because I have shared stuff, but the stuff I share is cool and non-political. Finally, I don't want to see anything that a friend has liked on a stranger's post. Likes should be visible only to the person being liked and to anyone who is already going to that post.

What do I want to see? Original content posted by friends. Tell me about your life.

I think the problem is that very few people tell you about their life, and so Facebook has to fill your feed with something. And if they fill it with controversial shit that makes you mad, you will stick around longer looking at their ads.


Oh, and for the record, I oppose sexual misconduct.

[Undertoad]

You're pushing back against "if you see something, say something", and then mentioned a thing that one might see. It seemed like a situation where one might say something.

Just being argumentative has led you to casting me as bad. Yeah don't do that. Assume I'm good. You've had 15 years and 25,000 posts to figure me out, you should know by now.

You can assume I would actually say something if I were ever in the position of being able to do so and assuming this situation was understood and there was benefit. I don't know why I have to say this.

And again, that is partly why the moralizing is empty, and meaningless, and ineffective at trying to change things.

Trying to paint me as someone who is bad in order to win a point is infuriating, and I won't stand for it. If this happened in person it would be immediately obvious where the transgression lies. I don't get violent, but I wouldn't let someone finish their sentence. If I'm BAD, the discussion is over.