View Full Version : Time to stick my neck out ........ [Warning: politically adventurous viewpoint lurks within.]
I'm just pondering whether I'm being politically incorrect, chauvinistic or showing my age .. BUT .....
We are currently riding a wave of men being outed for numerous sexual indiscretions - the name Harvey Weinstein comes to mind, but maybe it all started with people like Rolf Harris.
I should perhaps preface my comments by emphasising that I in no way condone either of their actions and I fully support the rights of women to go about their day-to-day lives without being molested. I shouldn't need to say that, but there you go.
However .... I am beginning to think that the pendulum is swinging a tad too far in the other direction, and that natural justice is being replaced with a lynch mob mentality. It seems that trial by media is replacing any presumption of innocence.
I have two issues .....
1) I believe that unless there is obvious and proven evidence of guilt, we should be applying that presumption of innocence a little more often than currently seems to be the case. A case in point lies with Robert Doyle, Lord Mayor of Melbourne, who has been reduced to a mental invalid as a result of as yet unproven allegations. Perhaps he will be found to have committed the sins he is accused of, perhaps not, but should we not allow him at least a semblance of due process before lynching him in the streets?
2) The second issue is related to the first and it concerns the relative weight we apply to various crimes. If Robert Doyle is indeed guilty of touching someone's thigh and making crude and inappropriate comments, should this be prioritised over youths who deliberately bash people senseless, create havoc and mayhem and generally go out of their way to terrorise and harm the weak and defenseless on a regular basis.
Again, none of my views should be interpreted as being accepting of harassment of women, but surely there is a scale of evil which is not being applied with any sense of proportion. Sure men should not be touching women inappropriately, but there are degrees of severity in the crime spectrum and that order seems to have become confused.
A further example lies in that Olympic coach who molested all those young gymnasts. No doubt there of the crimes he committed, but does a sentence of 175 years in jail deem his crimes to be worse than murderers who get half as much, or horrendous bashings and acts of savage violence which earn a symbolic slap on the wrist ? We see it every day in our courts, and the police see offenders released, laughing, and setting off to do it all again.
Feel free to misinterpret my concerns, but I do feel that society is losing its sense of proportion here, and crimes and sentencing should be placed on a scale where crimes are punished with regard to their relative level of evil - not simply by how many papers the story can sell.
ameerat42
08-02-2018, 3:43pm
Preamble: Nope.
Re 1) Agree.
Re 2) Agree.
May I add a 3): The mind-numbing attempts of ALL arms of media at interpreting the stories/events,
particularly by the news broadcasters. It's at the point where "News" has been debased in meaning
from something like "reporting the facts" to an amalgam of innuendo, veiled hypocrisy, feel-goodery,
and other questionable practices that slip my head for now.
How often do you hear "chilling", "heart-warming", "thankfully/tragically/sadly" in front of "nobody was hurt"
and the like? This is accompanied by facial expressions and other visible body language. In the meantime,
of course, there's the relentless stupidity of advertising. That, increasingly promotes stupidity, envy and
one-upmanship as the main drivers for people to make decisions. Actually, the news itself is pretty much
just an advertisement.
So, it's all rather a joke:lol: - Hang on! Who's laughing?:eek:
I was in the hairdresser's the other day (it's the only place I can read all the trashy magazines). The front page was about Bert and Patty Newton (not sure if non-Victorians know those names.) Anyway, the headline said "Trauma in Newton household - Patty packs her bags!" Instead of a looming divorce it was simply that their son was sick and Patty was packing her bag to go and visit him. That was followed by a headline about a romance between two well known celebrities. Upon further examination it transpired that they were friends at school when they were 12, some 40 years ago. Sheesh .....
As far as the other stuff is concerned, I am reluctant to stick my head out because invariably some female will accuse me of not understanding female molestation, but I'm pretty sure that a hand on the thigh doesn't equate with a knife between the ribs! Some of the minor accusations I'm reading about are 20 years old (and I uses the term "minor" without trivialising the experience - just placing it on that spectrum of evil).
merlin1
08-02-2018, 4:04pm
No, Agree, Agree.
Ross.
The whole system as gone to the dogs.
Steve Axford
08-02-2018, 4:22pm
I can see your point, but ......
We have tolerated this for ages (literally) now and I'm sure you'll agree that it should stop. It's a bit like paedophilia. Many of those who are convicted are just guilty of looking at pictures, surely there is no harm in that? And yet we give them hefty prison sentences and then effect what they can do for the rest of their lives. Should this be prioritised over youths who deliberately bash people senseless?
It is hard to convict people of sexual harassment, even rape is difficult to prove as often there are often no witnesses, so what do we do? What would you suggest?
I think society overreacts to many things as we decide that something needs to be stopped. Many people do feel that it is overreacting with the sexual harassment thing, just as the Catholic Church feels that society overreacts to paedophilia. Perhaps that is why people overreact. Because, if they don't, nothing will happen.
John King
08-02-2018, 4:25pm
The media once served a useful purpose ("the fourth estate").
These days its uselessness is only matched by its hubris.
Rather than a watchdog, it has devolved into a major player.
ameerat42
08-02-2018, 4:30pm
Wells' Head - No! Well said.
Not to mention the cliches and the abysmal English used by national TV stations - commercial AND non!
The other night Ch 7 was touting all the science degree qualifications of the weather reporter just before
the weather segment was to air. No doubt it was intended as an inducement to watch it rather than some
other channel. I mean, did he make the weather?:rolleyes:
so what do we do? What would you suggest?
I think society overreacts to many things as we decide that something needs to be stopped. Many people do feel that it is overreacting with the sexual harassment thing, just as the Catholic Church feels that society overreacts to paedophilia. Perhaps that is why people overreact. Because, if they don't, nothing will happen.
That's the key actually, "Overreact" vs "react".
Sexual crimes are hard to discuss because guys tend to be vilified if they appear to be downplaying the impact of any sexual imposition. A lot of sexually induced harm is psychological rather than physical, and that makes it harder to quantify than, say, a physically damaging assault. Sometimes the assault is not recognised at the time and only later is retrospectively deemed to be an assault rather than an inappropriate contact. There are massive shades of criminality ranging from the extremely minor to those things which scar for life. There is also an element of herd mentality involved. Some years ago there was a huge furor over allegedly recovered memories, where hypnosis was "uncovering" legions of abused women through hypnotic recovery of lost memories. No doubt some were genuine, but many were probably not, and we no longer see hordes of women suddenly discovering issues from the past. It was another classic case of overreaction rather than measured reaction.
I don't have a solution, and if I did I would lack the power to implement one. I'm just a bit tired of seeing all manner of incidents treated in a disproportionate manner rather than being calmly and dispassionately examined to discover the truth. I would like, as Gilbert and Sullivan said, the "punishment to suit the crime".
bcys1961
08-02-2018, 5:40pm
I can see your point, but ......
We have tolerated this for ages (literally) now and I'm sure you'll agree that it should stop. It's a bit like paedophilia. Many of those who are convicted are just guilty of looking at pictures, surely there is no harm in that? .
Sorry but I think there is MASSIVE harm in that ! If you look at the pictures you are providing the market for those who took the pictures to do the terrible things they are doing to the children in the pictures . And often that is ruining the rest of those poor children's lives.
However .... I am beginning to think that the pendulum is swinging a tad too far in the other direction, and that natural justice is being replaced with a lynch mob mentality. It seems that trial by media is replacing any presumption of innocence.
A further example lies in that Olympic coach who molested all those young gymnasts. No doubt there of the crimes he committed, but does a sentence of 175 years in jail .
According to the latest reports, he has been sentenced to a further 40 - 125 years jail - a "possible " total of 300 years.( Welcome back, Methuselah ). Compare this to the trial in Belgium, where the prosecutor is seeking a 20 year sentence for S. Abdeslam ( and his rights are respected ).
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42940636
What we have here is a triple disconnect.
On the one hand we have for many years tolerated sleazebags who frequently behave in ways that are, while not generally criminal or truly threatening, nevertheless unacceptable, particularly when repeated, often on a daily basis. We need to see it as what it is: simply another form of bullying.
On the other hand, the "cure" has now been deemed to be conviction without trial, fairness, or due process, and penalties ranging from loss of an entire career and a life sentence of being shamed and shunned by decent people everywhere through to being driven to ill-health and suicide. (I'll come to the third disconnect later.)
First, it is entirely appropriate that sleazebags - and especially habitual ones - be brought into line. They need to be taught a lesson. It's just like training any other human (or indeed a dog): the key is to provide an appropriate punishment as soon as possible after the infringement, such as (for a first offence) a stern word and (for a second offence) a sharp smack over the wrist. This helps the creature learn not to do it again. These life sentences being handed out without trial or judge or jury, however, are pretty much exactly like ignoring your small child's little tantrums for a few years, and then spanking it with an axe.
Second, note here that we are talking about sleazy stuff and inappropriate remarks and so on. None of this applies to a sport coach or a TV star molesting 9-year-old children. That is defined as equal to or worse than rape in any jurisdiction in the civilised world, and rightly punished as such.
Third is another disconnect. It is still fine for an aspiring young actor to sleep his or her way into the starring roles. No penalty at all for that, and it's common as mud. I doubt that any of us in any reasonably senior positions in any industry have not had the experience of being vamped by a job applicant, or a subordinate looking for promotion. It happens all the time and we, as a society, ignore it. The worst that usually happens to the perpetrator is a few snide remarks around the coffee machine. Big deal. Reverse the roles, however, and the penalty is terrible. Most men would rather be raped than put through what these celebrity victims have been lumbered with. At least that is something you can get over (eventually) and your name is not made public, and if it is at least everybody feels sorry for you instead of treating you like scum for the rest of your life. Now in the case of one or two persistent repeat offenders (no need to name names) a pretty stiff penalty is appropriate. But not a life sentence. And certainly not without trial.
ricktas
08-02-2018, 7:02pm
My ten cents worth:
1. In the past it has been quite well know that 'actresses' often offered their services to a man to gain a role in a movie etc. Yet we have not heard one thing about that. It has all been about the 'bad men'. What about the 'bad women'? It does sound like Mr Weinstein has a lot to answer for, but I wonder how many women threw themselves at him to get a role. But we have not heard a word about this aspect of celebrity.
How many women have used their sexuality to gain advantage? Where are the men going #metoo about the actions of women.
It seems to me that only half the story is being told at present.
2. The ability for courts to do their jobs fairly has all but been eliminated. All the publicity around these cases, how is the man at the centre going to get a fair trial, without a lynch mob crying out for his head? There is one reason and one reason only the 'victims' did not come forth at the time... they wanted what Mr Weinstein (and others) could offer.. Celebrity, fame, money. They did not speak up, because at the time, being famous was more important to them, than being abused.
If they were raped by a thug in an alley way they would have made a bee-line to the nearest police station.
3. Did Mr Weinstein do the things he is being accused of, most likely. Should he face repercussions for them, most definitely. Did some of the actresses benefit from this arrangement.. sure did!
I think the media, and the way this has been dealt with has over-simplified a much bigger and more complex issue, and no one is willing to talk about it. That both men and women are guilty parties in this. Simply being a female does not necessarily make you the victim.
John King
08-02-2018, 7:14pm
Without in any way condoning bad behaviour on the part of predatory males (a very dangerous animal indeed), I am constantly horrified by the media being "horrified" while they detail untried and unsubstantiated allegations of all descriptions.
There is a vanishingly small chance of the accused getting a fair jury trial, which means they are all but compelled to throw themselves on mercy of a judge alone. This is a far more risky strategy than trial by jury.
Am also appalled by them showing people how to take drugs, make bombs and the like.
There is a vanishingly small chance of the accused getting a fair jury trial
Just so John. What is worse, however, is that by far the greater part of the punishment (loss of career, respect, family, friends, and life-long humiliation) is inflicted whether or not the case ever goes to trial, and whether or not the accused is guilty.
To find a close equivalent we need to go back to Victorian times, when a woman who had relations with a man for any reason was considered "fallen" and punished by society no matter what. Didn't matter if it was a consensual love affair, an affair gone wrong, a moment's passion, a youthful mistake, outright rape, or even a commercial transaction for money. Once she was "defiled" (in the eyes of society) she could never go back to a normal life. No trial, no justice, no evidence: guilt by slander, punishment for life. Welcome to the new Victorian Age.
John King
08-02-2018, 7:42pm
Quite, Tony.
Trial by gossip, insinuation and innuendo. No actual facts nor evidence required.
We are also going through a period of form being more important than content, which does nothing for concerns about accuracy.
I think the media, and the way this has been dealt with has over-simplified a much bigger and more complex issue, and no one is willing to talk about it.
Talking about it is indeed a huge problem. Men who do speak out are wary of being perceived as "anti-female", and it has got to the point where any male who voices an opinion has to repeatedly reassure his audience that he is fully aware of the female perspective, is fully supportive of women's rights and acknowledges the problems inherent in simply being female. It shouldn't be necessary to make that pledge every time, but it has become necessary due to the global condemnation of men in general rather than certain men only. It would be nice if women acknowledged that being male doesn't mean that all men are complicit, and that sometimes there is a level of culpability on behalf of the women involved. This doesn't mean that women are "asking for it", but it does acknowledge that men are not necessarily at fault by default.
Women have been subjugated, relegated, suppressed and treated badly by male dominated societies for centuries, but treating us all as the "enemy" doesn't help to rectify that.
Mark L
08-02-2018, 10:28pm
...., but I'm pretty sure that a hand on the thigh doesn't equate with a knife between the ribs!
Such an invasion of personal space.:(
If you put your hand on my thigh without consent I'll be convicted for knifing you in the ribs.
In the 90's I used to manage Timezone entertainment centres. The best employee I ever had was an early 20s year old. Wonderful young lady who got a better job. She apologise for going to a better job and thanked me so much as she left because I was the first of 4 "bosses" that hadn't sexually harassed her in some way. I didn't understand and she assured me it was so.:(
This shit still goes on.
Interesting that the only posts here are from blokes.
Tannin
08-02-2018, 10:40pm
The only way to deal with it, Bob, is to stop being intimidated by people determined to misrepresent you. If they want to get the wrong end of the stick, tough luck. It's not our problem.
Bear Dale
08-02-2018, 10:42pm
I was in the hairdresser's the other day .
Bob that beard must take some looking after :)
bcys1961
08-02-2018, 11:37pm
My ten cents worth:
1. In the past it has been quite well know that 'actresses' often offered their services to a man to gain a role in a movie etc. Yet we have not heard one thing about that. It has all been about the 'bad men'. What about the 'bad women'? It does sound like Mr Weinstein has a lot to answer for, but I wonder how many women threw themselves at him to get a role. But we have not heard a word about this aspect of celebrity.
How many women have used their sexuality to gain advantage? Where are the men going #metoo about the actions of women.
Well , this assumes the woman threw threw themselves at the male because they wanted to , and not because they felt they had to . It could be that they knew the only way they would get the job was if they offered up their "'Services"' and if they did not they would not work in the industry again . This has been the case with Weinstein. He had buried several promising actresses careers and I'm sure he is not the first to do that .It has been going on for a long time .
I also don't agree with the whole trial by social media phenomena, but can also see that in many cases woman feel they have had no other choice , as when they reported harassment through official channels nothing was done.
ricktas
09-02-2018, 5:46am
Well , this assumes the woman threw threw themselves at the male because they wanted to , and not because they felt they had to . It could be that they knew the only way they would get the job was if they offered up their "'Services"' and if they did not they would not work in the industry again . This has been the case with Weinstein. He had buried several promising actresses careers and I'm sure he is not the first to do that .It has been going on for a long time .
I also don't agree with the whole trial by social media phenomena, but can also see that in many cases woman feel they have had no other choice , as when they reported harassment through official channels nothing was done.
Yes it does assume that. But then the media is making assumptions that every person who has said #metoo, is telling the truth. Mr Weinstein himself has admitted to some claims and said others are not true, and did not happen. So my assumption is that it is quite likely that some women offered their services to Mr Weinstein willingly, for mutual benefit. Or the incidents described may not have even happened.
After all, I could come out today and say when I visited New York last time, I was at a restaurant and Mr Weinstein cornered me in a bathroom and wanted me to do something to him. I could show the media my flight and accommodation tickets, show them I was booked at a restaurant the same evening as Mr Weinstein, etc. But it does not make my claim true. Yet he would find himself in the headlines again... simply because the media want to crucify him and it sells advertising space so they can make money... and doing so is the flavour of the month.
I do not disagree that he appears to be the sleaze he is being claimed to be, but just because he is, does not mean every #metoo is factual. Women, simply by being female are not necessarily the innocent party.
The 'casting couch' has a history, based in truth, and it has been used by both sexes to their advantage over the years. At present, it would seem the males are being cast as the perpetrators of everything and every event.
The broader issue here is that interactions between the sexes will have to be redefined, male employers will become less likely to employ females in case one of them accuses them of something untoward. People will be chaperoned to interviews for jobs, the whole dynamic will have to shift. Rather than deal with the recalcitrant few via the court system, trial by media might inadvertently change society. We might see less females being offered opportunities working with men. I know people now who refuse to employ young females, when it would only be themselves and the female in the office, because they do not want to expose themselves (pun) to being accused of something. Because the accusation would ruin their small business. As they have said, they would never do anything untoward with an employee, but a false accusation can easily ruin someone.
The world is changing, and we need to be careful how far we change it, because it could well push women out of roles they could easily do. Where is the equality in that?
Steve Axford
09-02-2018, 7:26am
It seems an odd argument to say that women shouldn't complain because men might not employ them if they do. Sounds like the Harvey Weinstein argument?
“The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers" - Thomas Jefferson
If you put your hand on my thigh without consent I'll be convicted for knifing you in the ribs. :D I think you're safe .....
Interesting that the only posts here are from blokes.
Not unexpected, although I'd really like some of the women here to offer their perspective. This is perhaps an example of that lack of communication we've mentioned. Neither sex feels comfortable discussing it with the other for fear of appearing less than objective. Despite the alleged "equality" between the sexes, we've collectively got a long way to go. :(
- - - Updated - - -
Bob that beard must take some looking after :)
I got out of my pool the other day and my beard had turned blue! Too much copper in the water I think. Trust me, a blue rinse didn't suite me ...... :rolleyes:
- - - Updated - - -
The broader issue here is that interactions between the sexes will have to be redefined ...........
The world is changing, and we need to be careful how far we change it ........
This is a huge danger in my view. The whole consent issue is massive. Obviously consent is vital, but it's getting to the point where pretty soon participants will need the equivalent of a model release before engaging in any sexual activity. I am a big fan of romance, and the whole gamut of romantic engagement is one of the purest delights of being young (or even not so young). This whole sexual debate is killing spontaneity, flirting and all the undeniable pleasures of intimate relationships. We are in danger of denying people those fundamental pleasures in the interests of political correctness and in response to the sins of the few. Collectively we do need to stop the abuse and the power imbalances, but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Steve Axford
09-02-2018, 9:59am
:D
Not unexpected, although I'd really like some of the women here to offer their perspective. This is perhaps an example of that lack of communication we've mentioned. Neither sex feels comfortable discussing it with the other for fear of appearing less than objective. Despite the alleged "equality" between the sexes, we've collectively got a long way to go. :(
Perhaps women would comment if the thread wasn't so blatantly sexist. Maybe if someone were to point out that a woman using her charms is not the same as a man using his power, then we would be moving towards a discussion. Sure there are some cases where a woman is to blame, but there are many more cases where it is the man that is at fault. If you start with the premise that because Robert Doyle appears to have been tried by the media and you feel sympathy for that incredible sentence that Larry Nassar got for his crimes when the terrorist in Brussels only got 20 years (actually he is still to be tried in France, the Belgian charges were for another incident), then you will not invite discussion, particularly not from women. Robert Doyle may or may not be guilty, but he's a politician and like all politicians he has to be able to defend himself. To blame a medical incident on the publicity isn't going to get a lot of sympathy except from his own side of politics (Jeff Kennett). As for Larry Nassar - it sounds like he deserves a life sentence and it doesn't really matter if he gets life or 140years or 1000 years. As for the terrorist trial in Belgium, they have different laws to the USA, but prisoners can be kept beyond their sentence when deemed appropriate AND he is still awaiting his French trial. Both will get life.
bcys1961
09-02-2018, 10:09am
Yes it does assume that. But then the media is making assumptions that every person who has said #metoo, is telling the truth. Mr Weinstein himself has admitted to some claims and said others are not true, and did not happen. So my assumption is that it is quite likely that some women offered their services to Mr Weinstein willingly, for mutual benefit. Or the incidents described may not have even happened.
After all, I could come out today and say when I visited New York last time, I was at a restaurant and Mr Weinstein cornered me in a bathroom and wanted me to do something to him. I could show the media my flight and accommodation tickets, show them I was booked at a restaurant the same evening as Mr Weinstein, etc. But it does not make my claim true. Yet he would find himself in the headlines again... simply because the media want to crucify him and it sells advertising space so they can make money... and doing so is the flavour of the month.
I do not disagree that he appears to be the sleaze he is being claimed to be, but just because he is, does not mean every #metoo is factual. Women, simply by being female are not necessarily the innocent party.
The 'casting couch' has a history, based in truth, and it has been used by both sexes to their advantage over the years. At present, it would seem the males are being cast as the perpetrators of everything and every event.
The broader issue here is that interactions between the sexes will have to be redefined, male employers will become less likely to employ females in case one of them accuses them of something untoward. People will be chaperoned to interviews for jobs, the whole dynamic will have to shift. Rather than deal with the recalcitrant few via the court system, trial by media might inadvertently change society. We might see less females being offered opportunities working with men. I know people now who refuse to employ young females, when it would only be themselves and the female in the office, because they do not want to expose themselves (pun) to being accused of something. Because the accusation would ruin their small business. As they have said, they would never do anything untoward with an employee, but a false accusation can easily ruin someone.
The world is changing, and we need to be careful how far we change it, because it could well push women out of roles they could easily do. Where is the equality in that?
Yes agree with all of that and if it was possible to pass a law to prevent these matters being aired in the social media before they were first prosecuted through the official courts where the presumption of innocence applies I would be all for it . Of course that would require that the law enforcement authorities and courts had the resources to fully investigate every claim , which they don't have now . It seems the only recourse those accused now have is to fight a rear guard action for deformation through the courts . It will be interesting to see how the Geoffery Rush case goes ( I notice the Daily Telegraph is already backtracking a little bit) . And also Craig McLachlan has launched deformation proceedings so will be interesting to see how that goes.
Perhaps women would comment if the thread wasn't so blatantly sexist. Robert Doyle may or may not be guilty, but he's a politician and like all politicians he has to be able to defend himself. As for Larry Nassar - it sounds like he deserves a life sentence and it doesn't really matter if he gets life or 140years or 1000 years.
I think you're missing several vital points here. Firstly, it has been made abundantly clear that most people here support the rights of women and respect their right to live their lives without harassment. That's not sexist. The problem lies in overreaction and trial by media.
Few of us like politicians, but to suggest that they lose their rights simply by becoming a public figure beggars belief. Everyone is entitled to a presumption of innocence - end of story. As for Larry Nassar, no-one would suggest that he deserves leniency, but in the overall scheme of things his sentencing is simply not rational when compared to the much more lenient sentences handed out to rapists, murderers and thugs of all description. It's all about proportionate responses, and that is in no way "blatantly sexist".
Steve Axford
09-02-2018, 10:56am
I think you're missing several vital points here. Firstly, it has been made abundantly clear that most people here support the rights of women and respect their right to live their lives without harassment. That's not sexist. The problem lies in overreaction and trial by media.
Few of us like politicians, but to suggest that they lose their rights simply by becoming a public figure beggars belief. Everyone is entitled to a presumption of innocence - end of story. As for Larry Nassar, no-one would suggest that he deserves leniency, but in the overall scheme of things his sentencing is simply not rational when compared to the much more lenient sentences handed out to rapists, murderers and thugs of all description. It's all about proportionate responses, and that is in no way "blatantly sexist".
So your statement
"I should perhaps preface my comments by emphasising that I in no way condone either of their actions and I fully support the rights of women to go about their day-to-day lives without being molested. I shouldn't need to say that, but there you go.
However .... "
should be all that we read? I was once told that everything before a but was bullsh**. Perhaps we should extend that to everything before a "however" as well.
The simple fact that no women have commented must give you a clue to how women feel about this "in no way blatantly sexist conversation".
As for Robert Doyle - has he been sacked or jailed? No, he has resigned and Jeff Kennett has claimed that the stress has caused him mental health issues. Jeff Kennett is the story.
As for Larry Nassar - what sentence would you give him? You do know that he is in the USA where they have the highest rate of incarceration in the world, about 6 times the rate that we have here. Also he has faced numerous charges and the judge made the sentences consecutive, so the end result sounds like a lot, but it is simply life with no parole. Lots of prisoners get that in the USA.
The simple fact that no women have commented must give you a clue to how women feel about this "in no way blatantly sexist conversation".
As for Robert Doyle - has he been sacked or jailed? No, he has resigned and Jeff Kennett has claimed that the stress has caused him mental health issues. Jeff Kennett is the story.
As for Larry Nassar - what sentence would you give him?
Without any women participating in the discussion one can only surmise what prevents them from doing so. I suspect it is because this conversation has been exclusively male and entering as a lone female would be somewhat intimidating. We cannot force them to engage, but it's certainly not for the want of trying and I would dearly like to hear a female perspective. As far as Robert Doyle is concerned, what person would not feel overwhelmed, stressed and intimidated by an avalanche of very public negativity. I suspect I'd be losing my marbles a bit if it happened to me - perhaps you are different. I do not support lynch mobs, and that is what we're seeing here.
Larry Nassar? Where do you place his actions on the overall scale of harm done to others? Is he better of worse than a murderer? Is he better or worse than someone who physically harms someone? To what extent does psychological harm outweigh physical harm? These are the issues in focus here.
Steve Axford
09-02-2018, 11:54am
Without any women participating in the discussion one can only surmise what prevents them from doing so. I suspect it is because this conversation has been exclusively male and entering as a lone female would be somewhat intimidating. We cannot force them to engage, but it's certainly not for the want of trying and I would dearly like to hear a female perspective. As far as Robert Doyle is concerned, what person would not feel overwhelmed, stressed and intimidated by an avalanche of very public negativity. I suspect I'd be losing my marbles a bit if it happened to me - perhaps you are different. I do not support lynch mobs, and that is what we're seeing here.
Larry Nassar? Where do you place his actions on the overall scale of harm done to others? Is he better of worse than a murderer? Is he better or worse than someone who physically harms someone? To what extent does psychological harm outweigh physical harm? These are the issues in focus here.
Who's lynching him? I see no noose strung over a tree. Trial by media isn't a new thing. It has been happening ever since there was media. I don't excuse them (or should that be us?) but I don't assume that Robert Doyle is as pure as the driven snow either. It was his choice to resign and Jeff Kennett's choice to make an issue of it.
I repeat my question re Larry Nassar - what sentence would you give him?
I think that life is appropriate given what he has done and where he lives.
and p.s.
With regards to your comment "I suspect it is because this conversation has been exclusively male and entering as a lone female would be somewhat intimidating." why would a female regard a conversation that is all male, intimidating? Unless of course the conversation is sexist.
Who's lynching him? I don't assume that Robert Doyle is as pure as the driven snow either.
I suspect you already know that "lynching" is a metaphor, so I smell a red herring there. Again, the whole point is that we simply don't know about what Doyle may or may not have done. Trial by media (is this getting circular?)
I repeat my question re Larry Nassar - what sentence would you give him? I think that life is appropriate given what he has done and where he lives.
Firstly, it's not my place to sentence him, but I do not believe that a sentence of that magnitude is justifiable. Secondly, you raise an interesting philosophical point in that you suggest that justice should not be uniformly applied but subjected to geographical considerations. On that basis you might just as well suggest that he should be executed given that the US still supports capital punishment. If we start accepting injustice simply because it is accepted in some parts of the world, then that is indeed a very slippery slope. Using your logic one would have to support couples being lashed if they happen to be caught alone together. Punishment and culpability are universal considerations and suggesting that a more repressive sentencing regime is acceptable just seems odd to me.
Steve Axford
09-02-2018, 1:06pm
I suspect you already know that "lynching" is a metaphor, so I smell a red herring there. Again, the whole point is that we simply don't know about what Doyle may or may not have done. Trial by media (is this getting circular?)
Firstly, it's not my place to sentence him, but I do not believe that a sentence of that magnitude is justifiable. Secondly, you raise an interesting philosophical point in that you suggest that justice should not be uniformly applied but subjected to geographical considerations. On that basis you might just as well suggest that he should be executed given that the US still supports capital punishment. If we start accepting injustice simply because it is accepted in some parts of the world, then that is indeed a very slippery slope. Using your logic one would have to support couples being lashed if they happen to be caught alone together. Punishment and culpability are universal considerations and suggesting that a more repressive sentencing regime is acceptable just seems odd to me.
Lets agree to differ on Robert Doyle.
So, you think Larry Nassar deserves less than a life sentence.
My comment about geographic location wasn't philosophical, it was a comment on the US sentencing practices, where he is being sentenced. I don't agree with sentencing practices in the USA, but the sentence of life seems reasonable when compared to an average 16 month non-parole sentence for burglary. Your diversion into "couples being lashed if they happen to be caught alone together", isn't relevant, nor is the use of the term "slippery slope".
ricktas
09-02-2018, 6:16pm
It seems an odd argument to say that women shouldn't complain because men might not employ them if they do. Sounds like the Harvey Weinstein argument?
I did not say that. You need to read what is written and stop twisting words to suit your agenda. You appear to only join in these conversation to enflame the discussion. Manipulating others words to get the debate more heated.
I said some men are avoiding employing women to protect themselves from false accusations. The accusations stick, and the media rarely reports on the court outcome if it is proven the man was innocent. People remember the headlines! When was the last time you saw 'Catholic Priest proven innocent of charges'... if at all, it is small print on page 10. Yet the accusation is front page... and that is what people remember.
Steve Axford
09-02-2018, 8:27pm
I did not say that. You need to read what is written and stop twisting words to suit your agenda. You appear to only join in these conversation to enflame the discussion. Manipulating others words to get the debate more heated.
I said some men are avoiding employing women to protect themselves from false accusations. The accusations stick, and the media rarely reports on the court outcome if it is proven the man was innocent. People remember the headlines! When was the last time you saw 'Catholic Priest proven innocent of charges'... if at all, it is small print on page 10. Yet the accusation is front page... and that is what people remember.
I don't think I have twisted your words. I just said it in a simpler way.
Maybe the Weinstein comment was slightly provokotive, but the parallel was too tempting.
There may have been the rare Catholic priest who was falsely accused, but then there are many more who were guilty and protected by their church.
Perhaps women would comment if the thread wasn't so blatantly sexist. Maybe if someone were to point out that a woman using her charms is not the same as a man using his power, then we would be moving towards a discussion.
Not sure about the sexist bit but I like this and it gets lost in blokes quibbling. We can all flirt and still draw a line. Some have less power o draw that line.
.... People remember the headlines! When was the last time you saw 'Catholic Priest proven innocent of charges'... if at all, it is small print on page 10. Yet the accusation is front page... and that is what people remember.
Police tread lightly here and not to many Priests charged that haven't been convicted I'd think?
John King
09-02-2018, 9:11pm
Not sure about the sexist bit but I like this and it gets lost in blokes quibbling. We can all flirt and still draw a line. Some have less power o draw that line.
Police tread lightly here and not to many Priests charged that haven't been convicted I'd think?
Mark, read the case reports on the Broken Rites web site. It took me some days to read them all. Anger and tears in equal measure ... It is the gross breach of such a position of trust that I find so very sickening, and the acts themselves of course.
ricktas
09-02-2018, 9:40pm
I don't think I have twisted your words. I just said it in a simpler way.
if that is what you think you have completely misread what I stated. :angry0:
Steve Axford
09-02-2018, 10:15pm
if that is what you think you have completely misread what I stated. :angry0:
Ok Rick, you said "
I said some men are avoiding employing women to protect themselves from false accusations"
There implication here that women often make false accusations. Do you mean to say this? There is also an implied threat. Women had best not make accusations or men won't employ them. It also assumes that men will be doing the hiring - though this is usually true currently.
Tannin
09-02-2018, 11:18pm
Steve and Mark, it is no use pretending that this is a male/female question. Let me illustrate with a little story.
When I was about 16, I was working as a cleaner for a large, multi-national company (at the usual pitiful wages, of course). It was a decent job so far as jobs for unskilled teenagers go, but it was often boring, and pretty hard work. By the time I paid the rent on my one-bedroom flat in Melbourne there was never much left over. Getting through from one pay-day to the next was always a bit of a battle.
One day I fell into conversation with a passer-by. He was impressed by my energy and attention to detail, or so he said, and after we had talked for a while he asked if I was interested in a better job. Sure I was. He turned out to be a bookmaker and he needed an assistant. Something like adult wages to start with, interesting work (most things seem quite interesting when you spend your working day washing windows, mopping floors, and cleaning toilets), lots to see and learn, good prospects for advancement if I wanted to learn the trade. So I accepted and, a few days later, turned up to start.
Before too long I discovered that, yes, I'd be writing out the odd betting slip at country racecourses, but the important part of my duties would would take place in bed. I wasn't keen on waving goodbye to an otherwise promising career move, but that wasn't to my taste and I went back to my old job. (Luckily, I hadn't handed in my notice there yet. Can't remember why not, maybe I was on annual leave or something. But it wouldn't have been hard to get another cleaning job elsewhere at the same lousy wage.)
This is exactly the sort of thing the #me_too people are making a fuss about. Would it make sense for me to suddenly go public with names and dates and calls for punishment after all these years? Of course not. (All else aside, I don't remember his name or even what year it was; sometime around about 1978 I guess.) And if I did, he would have absolutely no opportunity to defend himself. It would be my word against his. And, in the current climate, he would suffer a very severe penalty whether I was telling the truth or not.
Anyway, where was the actual harm in it? He made an offer (not in so many words, but we both knew what the score was) and once the scheme of things became plain, I declined it, as I had every right to. (Note that I also had the right to accept it, if that had happened to be my thing. Some people would do more than that for a good job with prospects, and although we will never know, my best guess is that the offer was genuine and the job would have been both interesting and well-paid.)
Now, cast your mind back to a previous post where, in passing, I mentioned getting vamped by a young woman looking for a job. This was years later, when I was running my own business and employing six or eight people at any one time. In the first instance above, he was offering a job in exchange for sex. In this second instance, she was offering sex in exchange for a job. Where is the difference?
More to the point, where is the similarity? What do the two examples have in common? Simply this: a willingness to exchange sex for money. In neither case was anybody harmed; in neither case did anybody do anything they were not willing to do. In both cases we had an older, wealthier person and a proposal that a younger, poorer person pay his or her way into a job with the oldest coin of all. In neither case was the proposal accepted.
Point is, it's not a male/female thing. It's a willingness to trade money or career for sex thing.
(As a matter of detail, in the second example my 2IC thought the young applicant was very keen and well-presented and might be just what we needed. She wanted to put the applicant on for two week's paid work experience; I dubiously assented, saying nothing about the offer I'd ignored, and there was no further trouble - apart from the fact that the young woman turned out to be quite unable to do most of the things she'd claimed to be an expert in, and didn't show any particular aptitude for learning them. Two weeks were soon over and that was the last we saw of her. A few months later, we heard on the grapevine that this young, ambitious woman who was all front and no performance, and who was considered by all who worked with her at our place to be not worth employing as the fifth-best technician out of five - and bear in mind here that we happily used to put on people with no computer skills at all provided they had a good attitude and an ability to learn - had been taken on by a competitor and let go two weeks later because she wasn't any good at the job, then taken on permanently by another, larger competitor ... wait for it ... as Chief Technician! (Sound of jaws dropping onto the carpet, followed by incredulous laughter.) I prefer not to speculate as to how she landed that job, nor how she had managed to get her technical qualification certificates the year before, but you have to wonder how much of her success came about through what we might call "unorthodox methods". Whenever I happen to remember these long-ago events, I always wonder how much her remarkably underwhelming set of hands-on competencies had to do with the firm going spectacularly broke six or twelve months later. So who was hurt by it? Certainly not me. I'd had the sense to play a straight defensive bat to that curly ball. Certainly not her: she got a great job, something impressive to put on her CV, and presumably some pretty good money. The real victim here - if any - was the company and its shareholders.)
bcys1961
10-02-2018, 12:34am
I think you completely miss the point of the #metoo movement with the above little story . Agreed , if people want to exchange sex for money ( in the form of a job) and both do it consensually then no problem (maybe?) . But what if your bookmaker friend had said , once you declined the offer - If you don't give me sex I will make sure you never work in this town again ! And you knew he/she had the ability to carry through on this threat.
The whole point of the #metoo movement is that employers with a huge amount of power ( mostly men) have put employees ( mostly woman) into positions where they feel they have little choice but to comply with their requests and it is definitely not consensual.
ricktas
10-02-2018, 6:53am
Ok Rick, you said "
I said some men are avoiding employing women to protect themselves from false accusations"
There implication here that women often make false accusations. Do you mean to say this? There is also an implied threat. Women had best not make accusations or men won't employ them. It also assumes that men will be doing the hiring - though this is usually true currently.
You are completely misrepresenting what I said. and you know it. Your entire reason for being in this thread is to stir it up. This will be the last time I reply to anything you post in this thread. I am not going to bother being baited for your small minded enjoyment.
One. I did not say often, again you add words to manipulate the conversation. The implication you refer to is in your head.. not my words! I said some men. I have seen it happen. I have watched a great small business disintegrate due to a female staff member making claims of inappropriate behaviour from the male owner. It was splashed in the papers, on the news. Yet once the police got involved, the staff member admitted she made it up, to get back at the male owner, because she wanted a pay rise of more than he was willing to give her. Was this admission ever in the news... nup? Meanwhile his clients abandoned him and his business folded. His other female staff member lost her job.
I have heard, but do not know the facts, around similar also. I have watched the above gentleman have his life destroyed and worked hard to rebuild it. He will not employ females in his new small business.
Yes, women have been inappropriately dealt with by Mr Weinstein, et al, but we are focusing on one side of this (inappropriate action by men towards women) when those men who are victims of women, are being ignored. There is this unwritten concept that inappropriate attention of men by women is just flirting, and that men are supposed to be flattered that a woman is showing some sexual interest in them. That if they told their mates, they response would be 'you lucky bugger'. etc. Yes we had a few men raise their voices about Kevin Spacey.. but again it is about men being inappropriate.
It has gotten to the point in most places that men will not comment on the appearance of a random woman, but if a 'hot' man walks into a cafe, the women will often comment, and this is still seen as OK. I have seen this, repeatedly... and it is still happens. Hot woman walks into a cafe and a male says 'nice boobs', what would be the reaction? Hot Man walks into a cafe and a female says 'nice arse'. The way this is dealt with is not equality.
Where is the equality in all this? Where is the #metoo campaign from the men? Women are portraying themselves as the victims, and I am not willing to believe every word posted in newspapers, on presented on the news. There is always a back-story that involves the information needed to form a good opinion, and the media denies the public that further detail all to often.
So Steve, stop with the manipulation of others posts, to bait people into responding to your manipulations. Write what you want about this reply, as I will be ignoring it. I am not playing your games.
Glenda
10-02-2018, 11:05am
Well this definitely has been a mostly male driven thread. Well I'll join in and the main reason I'm late to the party is not because I was intimidated or read too many sexist comments, but because until this morning I didn't realise it even existed.
Firstly Bob's initial post.
I agree that this trial by media we see constantly is disturbing. Gone are the days where the media properly researched each story before publication. Now it is mostly sensationalism and the drive to get the story out (often without checking facts) before any competitor beats them to it. Yes, it can and does ruin reputations and if they get it wrong there is usually only a very small apology buried deep in the centre of the paper or down below the next lot of sensational stories on line. I also feel sorry for any male unjustly accused and will be interested to see what happens with both Geoffrey Rush and Craig Mclaughlin and their defamation suits. Alternatively, if the complaints are valid they deserve to have their reputations in shreds.
1. In relation to Robert Doyle - I heard he claims to have put his hand on the lady's thigh to attract her attention. Would he have done the same to a male sitting next to him? I doubt it. Yes, the media seems to have tried and convicted him and if enough mud is thrown, some will invariably stick. Also, like all of these type of cases, one complains and that leads to others coming out and reporting similar instances. Ideally they would have all complained at the time it occurred but I can also understand why some didn't feel comfortable doing so.
2. Definitely not. This is obviously a problem with our judicial system and it often seems that some judges/magistrates have a real disconnect to what the general public perceive as more serious crimes. I know they are restricted by law as to the sentences they can give for various offences, but I know I've often been horrified at very mild sentences given to serious assault charges and equally amazed at a severe sentence for a fraud case. There was a huge public outcry locally when a District Court judge gave a male, charged and convicted of molesting his eight year old stepdaughter, community service and an order to undergo counseling as, in the judge's words, the child was young enough to be able to forget and get over the incident. Unbelievable and to my knowledge that sentence remained as it was.
With regard to the doctor who received that 175 year sentence I'm assuming that was because of the number of victims, ie x number of victims multiplied by the maximum sentence = 175 years. I guess a serial murderer would be similar.
I joined the workforce in the late 60s and in those days there weren't the avenues for complaints against colleagues there are today. I've probably been lucky in that I never felt harassed - maybe the occasional inappropriate comment but I've never been shy about sticking up for myself and would have told them where to go. It's probably all about perception as well. I've heard women claim to be harassed walking past a construction site and hearing wolf whistles. That never bothered me - if it was accompanied by lewd comments it would have been totally different. I remember when my son was at uni doing his engineering degree, probably around 2012. They often had three campuses connected by video link for lectures. Apparently one day, while waiting for a lecturer somebody commented about a fellow student's large feet, saying "You know what they say about big feet" to which he replied "Yep, big shoes". A female student at another campus complained. Personally I wouldn't find that offensive or felt harassed but obviously she did.
Also as a female I've often found that what one male work colleague said or did, wouldn't offend me whilst another doing or saying the exact same thing would. Maybe that's difficult for males to understand. I remember discussing this with a guy I worked with once and saying about another guy in the office "it's not what he says, but the way he says it". He just didn't get it but he came back the next day and said he mentioned it to his wife who totally got it. If one guy came up and put his hand on my shoulder it wouldn't worry me but another, doing the same thing, could send shivers of revulsion down my spine.
I think sexual harassment in the workplace is a power thing and obviously, at present, it is mostly women who are the complainants. I wonder if, in the future, this could change as more women get into executive roles.
As a senior citizen, I'm way past the age where I think I'll suffer sexual harassment. My pet peeve is being addressed as love, dear or sweetheart by shop assistants. I'll have to look at complaining about that :D.
It has gotten to the point in most places that men will not comment on the appearance of a random woman, but if a 'hot' man walks into a cafe, the women will often comment, and this is still seen as OK. I have seen this, repeatedly... and it is still happens. Hot woman walks into a cafe and a male says 'nice boobs', what would be the reaction? Hot Man walks into a cafe and a female says 'nice arse'. The way this is dealt with is not equality.
There is a double standard in place here, and it does tend to be the "elephant in the room". Women have always been free to touch, flatter, comment and behave towards men in any way they like - and this is probably because mostly men like it, so that has to be factored in. The average male will feel flattered if a woman touches him or flirts with him and is likely to encourage it. Unfortunately, this does give rise to a different set of "rules" for the same sort of conduct. This double standard is (in my view) a predictable result of differing libidos given that men are generally more open to sexually oriented behavior than women are. The more radical feminists will say that men and women are equally sexually driven, but in my experience that's simply untrue. The net result is that there are different "rules of engagement", and men need to realise that and act accordingly. Women's blood flow tends to move more towards the brain, whereas men's blood flow tends to flow somewhat lower.
- - - Updated - - -
Well this definitely has been a mostly male driven thread. Well I'll join in and the main reason I'm late to the party is not because I was intimidated or read too many sexist comments, but because until this morning I didn't realise it even existed.
Also as a female I've often found that what one male work colleague said or did, wouldn't offend me whilst another doing or saying the exact same thing would. Maybe that's difficult for males to understand. I remember discussing this with a guy I worked with once and saying about another guy in the office "it's not what he says, but the way he says it". He just didn't get it but he came back the next day and said he mentioned it to his wife who totally got it. If one guy came up and put his hand on my shoulder it wouldn't worry me but another, doing the same thing, could send shivers of revulsion down my spine.
Firstly, it's great to finally have a female perspective - so thanks for that. You also raise another interesting aspect of the discussion, and that involves the way an action is perceived. I can fully understand why you would be receptive to certain actions from one person but not from another - that's perfectly normal. The extension of this is something that I think is both confusing and irritating to men.
Let's say a young woman goes out in public wearing an appealing outfit, low neckline and short skirt. That's entirely her prerogative, and her choice ... BUT ...... in doing so she cannot be selective as to who looks at her. If she passes two guys sitting on a bench, and one is an old fart like me, and the other a young handsome man of her own age, she cannot expect that we will both behave differently simply because only one of us is of any interest to her. You put up a public billboard and everyone is entitled to look at it. Yet so often in that situation the old guy will be labelled a "dirty old man" while the other might receive an appreciative smile. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and if those eyes are old and wrinkled it doesn't make him a pervert.
Bear Dale
10-02-2018, 2:15pm
if a 'hot' man walks into a cafe, the women will often comment
Yep, I get that all the time :)
I feel that at times there is more than a double standard operating, and often from people claiming to promote " equality " .
Examples : our National broadcaster . http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-08/all-women-panels-international-womens-day/8331758
: The cancellation of the showing of the film " Red Pill " , when a group of feminists protested the screening, and a petition supporting the screening ( with considerably more support ) was ignored.
.http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/how-a-feminist-petition-to-cancel-a-mra-film-became-own-goal/7988850
: The small level of reporting of an open letter against the " Me Too " movement published in Le Monde.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42643504
An incident at a Canadian university, where " a small group of self-proclaimed feminists " stopped a lecture proceeding.
https://www.inquisitr.com/1219579/feminism-protest-shows-why-the-movement-is-dying/
Bias in some media - http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/persistent-pro-feminist-and-anti-male-bias-in-the-mainstream-media/
Sometimes it appears to me as more to do with power than equality.
John King
10-02-2018, 4:16pm
Thanks for those links. I have read them all.
One needs to ask oneself why the ABC is so horrified by the requirement for them to report in a "fair and balanced" manner, and have used "our" ABC to fight so hard against what seems to me to be a sine qua non (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sine_qua_non)of all reporting.
EDIT:
BTW, I would describe myself as basically a feminist.
Women are the fundamental design of humanity. A male is basically a Rolls Royce cut down to a work utility with an angle grinder and no rust proofing!
While we have evolved to fulfill differing roles in social groups, both are equally important, and both should have equality of opportunity, as far as this is possible.
There is no room in my world view for division, prejudice or outright hatred. We should all treat each other with courtesy, dignity and respect.
ricktas
10-02-2018, 6:44pm
Rose Mcgowan (No idea who she is personally) is back in the news regarding Mr Weinstein: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/jill-messicks-family-issues-blistering-statement-harvey-weinstein-rose-mcgowan-1083173
I've read through the rest of the thread with interest, but then as a fifty-something white heterosexual male I have come to realise recently that I am responsible for everything that has gone wrong in the world since world war II (but possibly earlier).
In my job I deal with facts, not feelings. I and many, if not most, of my colleagues work on a meritocracy standard, if you do the job right you get respect and deserve promotion. We don't care if you are male, female, or transgender, but if you do the job right then that's great.
When we were at school, how many of us got punished as a class due to a transgression by one or two individuals? You know the sort of thing, the teacher finds something broken or missing and the culprits don't get found out so there is a class punishment which makes those who were innocent feeling aggrieved.
That's how I feel sometimes when yet another personality blames every male under the sun for everything. Personally I would never make unwanted advances to a woman. I admit to flirting with the girls in the office (who in general are older than me) but it's banter, intended to make the work environment a happier and more relaxed place, and believe you me the girls in the office give as good as they get!
I do however despair at the way society is going in some cases. The media seems to be in an ever ending spiral to get the most sensational story first, but when you start looking into the facts you find that they just don't match the headlines. And of course to try and point out the facts which go against the feelings then you get shouted down as a nay-sayer or accused of being a fascist or nazi (don't try that in Germany, as some tourist did in Frankfurt airport security and got arrested).
I recommend both sides of the argument look at some of the you tube clips of a gentleman called Professor Jordan Peterson. In particular an interview he gave for Channel 4 in the UK. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54)
Professor Peterson is a very intelligent and articulate man. He came to fame as it where when he protested against Canadian legislation which wanted to enforce the use of gender pronouns. Professor Peterson objected on the basis that no government should dictate the way people spoke, but this was taken as a protest against the topic itself. He argues that there is a difference between facts and feelings, and about the difference between equality of opportunities and equality of outcomes, and the first is good but the latter in unsustainable.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54)
ameerat42
16-03-2018, 9:12pm
Gosh, Liney. I'm 1/10th of the way through that clip. It's clear that it's not only "young males" that could take note of his message,
but just about everyone!! Just a point about what you said in your post above: "...In my job I deal with facts, not feelings..."
If that were to be applied to life in general I reckon things would go awry*. A point that comes out of that interview so far is that it
is concerned with dealing with feelings. Ta for the interesting clip.
*Insofar as "feelings" are facts to be dealt with.
MissionMan
16-03-2018, 9:38pm
I think there are two sides to everything. As a father of 5 and 7 yr old girls and the husband to a working mum, I see first hand the extraordinary things they do and I am passionate about ensuring they have the exact same opportunities that their male counterparts do, but sadly this is not always the case.
We see many examples in the photographic industry of women being sidelined. I know of female photographers who have lost work because of their sex. I know of female photographers who are treated like novices when they are out taking photos because they are female, when they are very good photographers. We've seen Nikon dragged through the mud for picking only male representatives for the D850, and lets be realistic here, none of the other manufacturers are any better. Most of them have an ambassador ration of male to female at about 80/20 or less.
So, yes, women are STILL getting the raw end of the still...BUT...
There are also some extreme overreactions highlighted in this thread and in society as a whole. We've recently seen cases of guys taken up for sexual assault for trying to kiss a female they thought liked them. We're not talking bosses here and sexual harrassment, we're talking someone they know. Now, if someone grabs a woman's breast or worse, then take them up for assault, but when a guy gets mixed signals (and there are many women that flirt for the sake of flirting), we can't have the extreme situation where someone gets classed a sex offender for trying to kiss a lady. My question to these people is would they still class something as sexual assault if the guy who tried it under the exact same circumstances looked like brad pitt? probably not, so I don't believe that's sexual assault. Sometimes you will get unwanted advances from people who like you, that is society. If they force themselves on you, or grab parts of your anatomy they shouldn't, thats a different question, but part of the courting process for the last 100 years has been going in for the kiss and if the woman isn't keen, she turns away, the guy feels like an idiot and walks away with his tail between his legs. Yes, it may offend you if an ugly person hits on you, just as much as it may offend you to have a straight person hit on you if you are gay, or a gay person hit on you if you are straight, but its not illegal to be offended. If we continue this way, are we going to get to a point where you have to sign a contract with someone before you ask them on a date, or carry a contract with you just in case you find someone you like.
When we were at school, how many of us got punished as a class due to a transgression by one or two individuals? You know the sort of thing, the teacher finds something broken or missing and the culprits don't get found out so there is a class punishment which makes those who were innocent feeling aggrieved.
That's how I feel sometimes when yet another personality blames every male under the sun for everything. Personally I would never make unwanted advances to a woman. I admit to flirting with the girls in the office (who in general are older than me) but it's banter, intended to make the work environment a happier and more relaxed place, and believe you me the girls in the office give as good as they get!
I like the school analogy, which is of course quite true. However, a significant issue which is often ignored is that although society is gaining a lot in terms of respect for women, equality etc etc, it is also losing the essence of male/female relationships. Those relationships were never meant to be formulaic, over regulated or harder than they already are. Male/female relationship should be fun, awkward, embarrassing, exploratory, adventurous and enjoyable. We are heading down a path which makes them fraught with rules and regulations, open to gross misinterpretation and overly structured and without spontaneity. That's not a great outcome in my view. Sure we need to emphasise respect for one another, but do we really want to make the whole process of interaction such a minefield that our already nervous and inexperienced youngsters view the whole idea with trepidation? I would hate to be making my first venture into that world in this day and age. There are so many obstacles now that I would feel more like I was sitting an exam than trying to pursue a romance.
We also have differing role models, and live in a world where a man can be condemned for being a little over enthusiastic, but the President of the US can get away with serial offences against women. The responsibility for these changing attitudes is a complex issue, and there is fault on both sides of the gender divide. However, it is a two way street, and we do collectively need to negotiate a path which is neither too restrictive nor too one sided. If we don't, then we all lose.
ameerat42
16-03-2018, 10:00pm
It's a case of runaway semantics: "equality", even "equality of opportunity". It reduces to a populist meaning
of "equal" without any disrcrimination such as Bob mentions - of relationships. Deny any such and more and
unfamiliar problems come to the fore... - And then the polemic, the confusion, distrust... and inevitable lament
and misguided legislation - muchly* reactionary, which we pay lip-service to as "progress".
Act 2 (same as Act 1:p)
* Not "mostly", but (perhaps) much more than is good to have.
Tannin
16-03-2018, 10:27pm
Men are voting with their feet. Primary schools cannot get male teachers for love nor money. Today, just 10% of primary school teachers are male, and most of those are older ones who have been in the profession for years. Schools and education experts are united in saying that it is very important for young children to have both male and female teachers and role models, but almost all primary teachers are women. Young male graduates today are simply too frightened. They know it just takes one false accusation - one - to ruin their career and wreck their whole life. Even when the accusation is completely baseless, the man has no hope of leading a normal life afterwards, never mind career success.
Young men today believe that it is simply not worth the risk, not even if you offer them danger money. And they are right.
Result: there are no males willing to teach children anymore.
Primary schools cannot get male teachers for love nor money. Today, just 10% of primary school teachers are male, and most of those are older ones who have been in the profession for years. Schools and education experts are united in saying that it is very important for young children to have both male and female teachers and role models, but almost all primary teachers are women. Young male graduates today are simply too frightened. They know it just takes one false accusation - one - to ruin their career and wreck their whole life. Even when the accusation is completely baseless, the man has no hope of leading a normal life afterwards, never mind career success.
My eldest is a recently graduated teacher, still looking for that permanent position after having been interviewed for several. I know of at least one organisation where the recruiting guidelines state that if a female applicant is 80% of what they are looking for they should be hired before a male applicant who is 100% of what they are looking for. Being young, male and unemployed today is an unenviable position.
I mentioned Jordan Peterson in an earlier post. One of the items he mentions on a number of occasions is that genders will naturally graduate towards certain careers, regardless of "equality of opportunity". He often cites Norway as an example, there is a ratio of 8 women to 2 men in nursing, and 8 men to 2 women in engineering. Teaching should be one of those careers that attracts men and women equally, but society has skewed the expectations of men to such an extent that it is having a negative impact. Can you imagine the uproar if a man applied to be a kindergarten teacher? He would be assumed to be a pedophile as soon as he put in his application. Yet more women seem to be found guilty in the media of underage sex with pupils than men, so can women be pedophiles too?
My eldest is a recently graduated teacher, still looking for that permanent position after having been interviewed for several. I know of at least one organisation where the recruiting guidelines state that if a female applicant is 80% of what they are looking for they should be hired before a male applicant who is 100% of what they are looking for. Being young, male and unemployed today is an unenviable position.
I mentioned Jordan Peterson in an earlier post. One of the items he mentions on a number of occasions is that genders will naturally graduate towards certain careers, regardless of "equality of opportunity". He often cites Norway as an example, there is a ratio of 8 women to 2 men in nursing, and 8 men to 2 women in engineering. Teaching should be one of those careers that attracts men and women equally, but society has skewed the expectations of men to such an extent that it is having a negative impact. Can you imagine the uproar if a man applied to be a kindergarten teacher? He would be assumed to be a pedophile as soon as he put in his application. Yet more women seem to be found guilty in the media of underage sex with pupils than men, so can women be pedophiles too?
Seems like institutionalised gender bias and discrimination, and no interest in equality.
Seems like institutionalised gender bias and discrimination, and no interest in equality.
Thanks for the response Ionica, but I'm a little confused. Can I ask you to expand on that please?
Thanks for the response Ionica, but I'm a little confused. Can I ask you to expand on that please?
Employing a person based on gender, over someone who is more qualified/suitable.
" I know of at least one organisation where the recruiting guidelines state that if a female applicant is 80% of what they are looking for they should be hired before a male applicant who is 100% of what they are looking for. Being young, male and unemployed today is an unenviable position."
Ionica
Thanks for clarifying that. Yes it does sound a little that way, being someone who respects and appreciates someone who can do the job well regardless of gender it annoys me when this sort of topic is brought up. Many years ago in a land far away I had a similar situation where it almost seems we had quotas to meet in terms of the gender / race / background of people we employed. Some of them were very good and I was glad to work with them, some of them were just useless but the impression was they could not be moved on without causing a fuss.
Mark L
20-03-2018, 10:01pm
So, yes, women are STILL getting the raw end of the still...BUT...
BUT the rest of your post is generally not what happens.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.