So here is a non-PC but logical question

So, a general claim being made is that all men are sexual harassers, all women have suffered it. Don’t examine that claim too closely, just take it as the set up of a logical point.

If this is the way that humans do behave isn’t it possibly better to simply call it the way that humans do behave?

If that is so then try to find some method of channelling, adapting it or to it, rather than expunge it?

As in, sure, perhaps the world would be a better place if we were all enlightened enough to make socialism work, we’re not, we’re greedy, lazy, tribal, as well as empathic and all the rest. Thus capitalist marketry works better to improve the human condition than socialism and hippiedom.

Say, we have a set of societal rules within which men channel those misogynistic impulses. As, arguably, we used to?

This isn’t to say that I agree with the above, but what is the argument against it?

If all men are outrageous bastards then what’s the management system for that?

59 comments on “So here is a non-PC but logical question

  1. @Ducky

    Not sure I could last a two week sprint?

    Also, how’s Harvey bearing up? He must have been without sex for a week now.

  2. It’s a threshold/spectrum thing isn’t it. I remember a survey from a while back saying 75% of undergraduates had received unwanted sexual advances. Which left me utterly mystified as to what the other 25% did with their three years. They didn’t all sleep with mingers.

    Are (more gentlemanly forms of) “fancy a shag” sexual harrassment? I’d argue the first never is, the second after a no probably is, and deserving of an apology, at the other end some red pill moron insulting and touching a woman all evening is criminal.

    Except some ladies revel in the cat and mouse thing, leaving inexperienced (and experienced) lads having to push a limit they might be rather close to breaching – and this is before we get remotely close to intercourse. Taking cat and mouse play into any private space is where things can start going seriously wrong.

    One answer, and the one society is marching lock-step towards, is that that first (even gentlemanly) “fancy a shag” is sexual harassment, in which case bye-bye Homo sapiens.

    So no, I don’t know the answer. Some of this is inevitable among immature and inexperienced people. Of course, the immature ones are getting older these days.

  3. It’s getting to the point where the only societally safe thing for men to do is wait for women to make the first move. Which requires women to be trained that they have to make the first move. Currently we are at the position where if a man makes the first move he’s a rapist, and if a woman makes the first move she’s a slut.

  4. It’s getting to the point where the only societally safe thing for men to do is wait for women to make the first move

    Which is surely sexual harassment?

  5. BiG

    Don’t disagree, but

    “in which case bye-bye Homo sapiens.”

    Well, only, bye-bye Homo Sapiens Europeansis/Americanus: I think the rest of the world is taking a pass on this one.

  6. Tournament economics. One part. Lots of contenders who can do the job. In the case of Oscar bait, the pay isn’t good, so you can’t decide it by financial competition. But it has further financial perks later.

    Casting couch behaviour rarely occurs elsewhere because you don’t have this. Principle-Agent problem is the only other way. Manager gets little from hiring bad or good employee, so hires cunt instead.

    A rational business owner won’t hire an employee so he can shag her. It’s cheaper and less complicated to pay for escorts.

  7. What I’m waiting for is the stories from the failed wannabe starlets complaining that he didn’t hit on them.

  8. It isn’t the sexual advances they abhor, it is sexual advances from men they don’t fancy.

    I noticed this years ago. A female student I know spent ten minutes complaining about some “creepy” guy who asked her out, and then another five simpering over another man in her class who smiled at her.

  9. Weinstein possibly thought he was simply being delightful, like Hugh Grant in a Richard Curtis romantic comedy.

    Except for the masturbation of course.

  10. This is why feminism (and the LGBTFGHRTEWEETC) is the second branch of cultural Marxist evil. Junior only to the original CM scam of “anti-racism” ie the promotion and propagation of anti-white hatred.

    The femmi-freaks EXIST to try and ruin relations between men and women–fraught enough at best–and thus destroy the family. The root and foundation of bourgeois society.

    Which is why all taxpayer cash needs to be stripped out of womens/gays anything-at-all. No uni courses, no NGOs –no nuttin’.

  11. It means the market for prostitutes, sex dolls and other forms of sexual outlet not involving the risk of ‘no’ are going to bloom. Men will be OK with this from the sex point of view but utterly exhausted from the relationships point of view. Women will have cats.
    There will also be a healthy minority, maybe a majority, of both sexes who ignore the bull and behave as of old – and are happier and healthier for it.

  12. Patrick

    “There will also be a healthy minority, maybe a majority, of both sexes who ignore the bull and behave as of old – and are happier and healthier for it.”

    True. Most people are reasonably sensible and manage to get through life without having hysterics at every new dawn.

  13. All women have mad cow disease and all men have swine fever. As you said, that’s the way the world is. If we don’t like it we can remain celibate.

  14. The management system is the same we use in some professions: no man may be in the presence of a woman unchaperoned, unless they are married. There aren’t any predatory film producers in Saudi Arabia, right?

  15. As for Weinstein.

    If he is walking in on these women while (he is) nudie/wanking etc then he is clearly a violator of decency and well out of order. The Hollydud crew should not have covered that up. But they love cash so…

    However the Mini-Me Jimmy Savile-style hysterical talk of “evil” and “predator” seems way over the top.

    As much as can be determined so far no paedo angle is involved. If he was propositioning Shirley Temple then for sure lock him up.

    But it seems he made offers to adult–young adult women, Paltrow was 22 she says–but still ADULT women. 22 is plenty old enough for a man to meet a horrible death in battle –usually on the states behalf–and it is old enough for a woman to decide her values and live up or down to them.

    As far as can be determined yet we do not know if :
    1- He lived up to his promises to women who did agree
    2-He punished women who refused.

    Those who say they refused have among their ranks very successful actresses with tens and indeed in some cases hundreds of millions of dollars of net worth. So turning him down does not seem to have brought an end to their dreams. Harv himself says he did not attack women who said no. It can’t be fully determined yet but the above is at least some evidence that he may be telling the truth.

    The other issue is whose money was involved. I don’t know all the details but if Weinstein was an entrepreneur in the film world then the question would be what if any contracts were being violated. If he was an employee/contractor for other peoples money his trust should have been to get the best actress for the job –not hire those who will shag him. However even there –given the pool of acting talent available to him–which (witch?) actress he hired for what reason might not have made much difference. Sure he would have been–to give a retro example–a fool to hire Marion Davies instead of Bette Davis because the former would share his bed and the latter wouldn’t. But that is not –I think anyway–the issue here. He was propositioning actresses who ALL could have done well in the roles. So even the issue of fiduciary trust seems less important.

    Leaving aside his outré behaviour, had he just asked the women for a shag and said it won’t make any difference to whether she got the part or not , that might be wrong and unethical but hype such as “evil” and “predatory” adds only heat not light.

    Even nudie walking and wanking–clearly offices if done in even a semi-public place are moot in the blokes hotel room. Wrong and upsetting for the woman but not in themselves an actual attack. The women could have said “stop that and put your pants on or I’m leaving” or just turned around and left. That would have done probably all that was needed to extinguish the behaviour. Esp if they hadn’t kept Omerta for the love of green.

    The scum of the American Luvvie left are up to the neck in this and it does not serve those of us who despise and seek the destruction of the left to allow them to use the MSM to recreate a mini-Savile style tsunami of mock sexual outrage while they hide their own leftist cash-loving hypocrisy behind said outrage.

  16. If all men are sexual harrassers then it’s just part of the human condition and should be legalised immediately.

  17. Funny how feminists are making more fuss over this than gangs of certain people raping thousands of English girls isn’t it? It must be because wannabe starlets are actual women rather than just white trash.

  18. No one’s taken up Tim’s challenge so i’ll have a go.

    Old fashioned manners, which ostensibly kept the male id in check, were based on the false notion of male superiority and females being the weaker sex. All the canards that built up around this foundation were challenged in the 20th Century and shown to be false. You can’t relay the foundations of this. You need a new system.

    The overlay of manners and protection in any case was a veneer, beneath which institutional control of males allowed male exploitation of females for their own gratification.

    What new system is needed then? One where the male id is put in a cage by depriving it of institutional power and criminalising any breaches of set boundaries.

  19. A famous song we learned in France when young ended with:
    La morale de cette histoire est que les hommes sont des cochons.
    La morale de cette morale est que les femmes aiment les cochons.

    It is probably banned now.

  20. Well there is a civilisation that totally accepts this as right and proper. One that we are forbidden to offend. Perhaps we just adopt that.

  21. wat dabney – “Weinstein possibly thought he was simply being delightful, like Hugh Grant in a Richard Curtis romantic comedy.”

    Then again, maybe not. A Jewish author in a Jewish magazine has put forward the interesting idea that Weinstein was such a pig because he was getting back at the slights of Goy society by humiliating non-Jewish women:

    http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/246724/the-specifically-jewy-perviness-of-harvey-weinstein

    I suspect the PC police are on their way even as we speak

    Mr Ecks – “Which is why all taxpayer cash needs to be stripped out of womens/gays anything-at-all. No uni courses, no NGOs –no nuttin’.”

    Indeed.

    However I for one think that a girl ought to be able to go to a meeting without being raped.

  22. Patrick,

    There’s a whole thing that feminism has missed as they’ve run through various sorts of institutions and organisations which is the reaction to feminists running through organisations.

    Big Swinging Dicks don’t work in large corporations any longer. And much of this is how you have zero power at almost any level and the bullshit you have to deal with.

    Look at the state of Google now. And if you notice, the BSDs that built it, Larry, Sergei and Eric, have all gone. Sundar Pichai is just an internal bureaucrat with few real successes. It’s not the sort of place where someone with the next big idea will go and work. They’ll be in the cheap office in a Regus centre that the company moved to after they outgrew the garage.

  23. I’m puzzled. Why is making an unwanted sexual advance necessarily misogynistic?

    I’d have thought that people with a cold, distant, dismissive attitude to women were among those who are misogynistic.

  24. “the false notion of … females being the weaker sex.” But they are, for Christ’s sake. By a huge margin women are weaker than men; the whole issue turns on the fact that we could mostly pick them up and throw them down as we please. The question is how to stop us exploiting that huge advantage in strength to force ourselves on unwilling women.

    If you think “weaker sex” was used only in a figurative sense I think you’re wrong.

  25. SMFS

    “However I for one think that a girl ought to be able to go to a meeting without being raped.”

    Certainly.

    Depending on what you define as rape.

    Rape post Savile/Yewtree being some supposed hideous, horrible event that she does not bother reporting for decades–cos Harv / SaVILEwas a BIG man in Hollydud/ BBC and absolutly no one would believe her. Including bluebottles who are paid to investigate such stuff. But of course we all saw “Hollywood Confidential”/read the Dame Bullshit BBC “reort” ( and all the others-all tripe) so we know there was just no chance of anyone believing these poor girls.

    Just as Jimmy Savile was King of the BBC and used the Television Centre dressing rooms as his Rape Rec playground. If you are stupid enough to believe that of course.

    Bullshit. As a matter of fact Savile was treated with contempt and upper class disdain by the BBC in the 60’s and early 70s–supposedly his prime abusing years.

    Did any of these “rape” victims go on to work in films with and for their rapist?

    They will be the ones who agreed–voluntarily– but now think they can put it all on him and likely get some (much-needed?) publicity to help flagging careers.

  26. Dear Mr Ecks @ October 13, 2017 at 10:04 am

    “If he was propositioning Shirley Temple then for sure lock him up.”

    Shirley Temple: born 23 April 1928

    Harvey Weinstein, CBE (honorary): born 19 March 1952.

    Hmmm.

    DP

  27. By a huge margin women are weaker than men

    But some women are stronger than some men. Which proves that the whole concept of strength is simply patriarchal hegemony (see also, intelligence, racial differences).

  28. BOM4
    Yes. Large corporations are cesspits of PC groupthink. The views of the HR director of Google are dramatically at odds with the views of the engineers or, god forbid, the man driving a truck in flyover country or probably more than half their customers. It simply doesn’t occur to the SJW types that there are infidels in the hoi polloi who do not worship at their altar of lefty utopianism.

  29. Dear Mr Worstall

    The obvious solution is to create a Department of Approved Sexual Advances, whereby if Person A fancies Person B, Person A files a request with the department, explaining in detail what A proposes to do with B. After due consideration, if the department approves of the proposed advance and activities, will forward the advance to Person B. If not the department will inform the police who will immediately arrest Person A.

    In the event of approval, the notice of advance will be forwarded to Person B not more than 3 months after the date of filing. Person B then has 3 months to respond. If Person B is offended/frightened/disgusted by the advance, he or she should file a complaint within 6 years against the official who approved the advance, who will then be suspended on full pay until retirement or death, whichever is the sooner.

    DP

  30. “If you think “weaker sex” was used only in a figurative sense I think you’re wrong.”

    But it was applied in all aspects, mental and physical, and one by one stripped down to the physical difference which yes is not in dispute. Tarzan may be stronger than Jane but was he stronger than Margaret Thatcher? The physical difference added to the urges create the problem Tim’s asked us to hypothesise a management system.

  31. Patrick,

    It’s not even the views. It’s the culture and bureaucracy that it creates.

    You can *breathe* in SMEs. Everyone prioritises getting the job done over everything else.

    I once made a woman cry in a large company. I’d been working late on something the day before. I went to see her the next morning and politely asked if she could urgently do something. Half an hour later, I come back. She hadn’t done it. She was talking to her mate. “I’ll do it now”. Another half hour, I come back. Still talking to her mate. “Is it done?” “OK ok”. “Know what, instead of talking to your mate, why don’t you do your fucking job?”. Now, I get a bollocking. Goes to her boss. Goes to HR. “Not appropriate behaviour” I get told. “We’re here to do a job. She wasn’t. I was”. Blank stare. “but we have to do it with respect”. So, I eat some shit and apologise. I don’t even mind getting told off for the “fucking”. It wasn’t appropriate. It’s just that that becomes a big deal rather than getting the job done.

    And I know in an SME that she’d go to the boss and his first reaction would be “so, were you doing your job?”.

  32. Ecks? Is that you?

    A long and sensible post with only half a paragraph of spittle-flecked invective?

    What is the world coming to?

  33. I was waiting for some additions to the Lord High Ecksecutioner’s (not so) little list, if I’m honest.

  34. BIG
    Can we take a moment to reflect that Mr Eks wrote this

    “that might be wrong and unethical but hype such as “evil” and “predatory” adds only heat not light.”

    The worm has turned.

  35. Weinstein has put some sleazy proposals to various adult women. He MAY have done more than that but that is hardly definitively established at this moment.

    Socialism has murdered 150 million human beings and ruined the lives of millions more.

    When denouncing such evil there is no such thing as “spittle-flecked”. If you have no rage against the creatures responsible for such horrors it can only be because you are already dead.

    And my lists–as I never tire of pointing out –are of those to be cut off the taxpayers tit not murdered. Because I am NOT a socialist.

    On occasion I struggle to control my wrath and wish to the enemies of freedom worked over –even more rarely neck-stretched. But in light of contemporary circumstances.I have little difficulty pleading provocation almost beyond endurance.

  36. Mr Eks…. we’re a mixed economy and society, you act and write as if we’re on the verge of revolution, which we’re not, even if corbyn wins, we’re not. We can swallow many a bitter pill before we get to that point. I’ve known out and out fully paid up GB communists, and i’d share a drink with them and chortle at their misguided ways. I’d have a crack at putting them straight never resorting to calling them scum or evil. I did this knowing full well they’d trample on every single human right i though i had read somewhere in a book, if they thought it would further their cause.
    The moment comes when time to take gloves off is when they go for commisars in the armed forces/ or alter the constitution by unconstitutional means. Then i’m with you.

  37. Ludovico technique for all men.

    To males, all encounters with females are at first sexual.

    That’s right, Honey, you are a sex object. Get over it.

    Does a man’s sexual interest constitute ‘harassment?’ Harassment is in the woman’s mind. If the male doesn’t immediately dismiss the contact as not a sexual opportunity, as usually happens, he takes some action to prolong the encounter. Women decide if this is harassment. Society sets some boundaries, but, in the end, it’s up to the individual woman. Hint to gents: be careful to whom you say, “Good morning.”

    Note that many women won’t even know what’s going on. The funny thing is it’s the same with men: women throw themselves at a man and he DOESN’T EVEN KNOW IT’S HAPPENING. Women conclude, “He isn’t interested in me,” while the men never knew anything happened.

    ‘So, a general claim being made is that all men are sexual harassers, all women have suffered it.’ With feminist pricks getting to define harassers, then, yeah, sure, all men are. Women suffering from it is a strange concept, though. Since, up to sexual assault, it is in their mind, it is their creation, hence self-inflicted.

  38. “I’d have a crack at putting them straight never resorting to calling them scum or evil. I did this knowing full well they’d trample on every single human right i though i had read somewhere in a book, if they thought it would further their cause.”

    Would you associate with nasty people on the (so called) Right on that basis? White supremacists for example? Fascists of an actual Nazi type? Would socialising with them, laughing at their delightful little political foibles and refusing to call them evil be something you’d be happy with?

  39. @ Gamecock
    Maybe in the modern USA three-year-olds treat three-year-old girls as sex objects but when I was that age the only difference we could see was the haircut. See Sir Ranulph Twistleton-Wickham-Fiennes autobiography where he was assumed to be a girl because he had blonde curls.

  40. Thanks for the pendantry, John. I could have sprinkled “adult” here and there, but it would seem useful only to the anal.

  41. It’s a puzzlement, not a defense of Weinstein et al, but some years ago a young woman quit her job because her boss smoked smelly cigars stinking up the office, yet for the most part, so many, though certainly not all it seems, women apparently accept “the deal,” basically trading sex for $’s and fame, not unlike many marriages. Is the difference between unpleasant cigar smoke & unpleasant sex (is it always?) strictly a money/fame issue so make the offer big enough & the unpleasantry is tolerable? Tolerable until given the chance to punish the other party to the deal YOU made? WhazzUp fems?

  42. On the BBC at the moment there’s about 4 stories about Weinstein. Underneath them there’s a video entitled ‘How to clean up a fatberg’

    Just an observation.

  43. It’s a ridiculous claim from the start.

    Just look at the environment in which this is occurring. Did Walt Disney force young women to watch him masturbate into a potted plant? Would Howard Hughes have done it (odd bird that he was)? No. It’s a certain sort of person who does these perverse things.

  44. Jim
    “Would socialising with them, laughing at their delightful little political foibles and refusing to call them evil be something you’d be happy with?”
    The type that you can tell their views by looking at their forehead markings probably not. The urbane holocaust denier absolutely i would laugh at them, but haven’t met one in the wild, and yes, if i’m not under immediate threat and they’re keeping it pleasant i tend to be curious rather than condemnatory.

  45. @ Gamecock
    If you had added “adult” the reasponse would have had to be much more long-winded and nuanced but I flatly deny that my first encounters with women are sexual in 90-odd% of the cases and I do not believe that most of the guys I know would look at most of the women they meet as a sex object on firsat meeting. We note that they are sexually different and are embarassed (a few actively resent it) if they beat us at whatever [interestingly a lady told me today she had been worried about my health because she beat me in the previous race] but that does not maske them sex objects.

  46. “I flatly deny that my first encounters with women are sexual in 90-odd% of the cases”

    Ask your doctor to check your testosterone level.

  47. @ Gamecock
    Probably not very high now (I was ordered to cut down on cholesterol which allegedly is required to produce testosterone) and I only shave alternate days unless I have an important meeting – but it’s not covered by standard NHS checks and there’s no way I can get historic data for the last 70 years. I do have two grown-up sons so it has been significantly non-zero in the past.
    You want to exclude guys with “low” (whatever *that* means) testosterone levels from your category of men? Go over to The Guardian where they like to redefine words to suit their latest rant.

  48. Pendantry, John.

    ADULT men with adequate TESTOSTERONE notice women, then notice whether they are attractive. They don’t notice “attractive women,” they notice women, then determine if they are “attractive.” Attractive can come from many things, like their style or physical appearance or body language. The process occurs in milliseconds.

    “I flatly deny that my first encounters with women are sexual in 90-odd% of the cases”

    You can deny whatever you like. NORMAL men see women because they are women. Sexually a woman. Sexual objects.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.