Well no. Get real. This strategy has failed. Without an analysis of the “p” word, patriarchy, we remain powerless to change it. Either a) men are just naturally aggressive because of testosterone, women are passive breeders, and this is biologically determined, or b) there is a power structure in play here that can be challenged.
I am going with b) because I am an optimist. The concept of patriarchy is overarching and universalising, it is trans-historical and nowhere near cross-cultural enough.
A mother who falsely accused a hero police officer of rape after a one night stand has been jailed for 27 months.
Samantha Murray-Evans, 44, told the ‘wicked lie’ in revenge at being rejected by PC Paul Morgan after they met on the dating website Plenty of Fish.
So rare that we should never think of it for it prevents victims from coming forward.
Going down with all these people and things is Hollywood itself. There’s simply no denying that the atmosphere in Hollywood is toxic for women. In an anonymously-written Guardian article, an actress details the mistreatment, objectification and vulnerability she experienced working in Los Angeles. She would meet with directors and producers, but when she rejected their sexual advances, she would never hear from them again.
“Harvey Weinstein’s alleged behaviour was not unique to him,” she wrote. “It is absolutely just the accepted way of things.” She went on to say that even though she told her manager, “no one thought it was a big deal.”
This is the harsh reality for women working in the movie industry. Men can get away with what they want if women’s careers are on the line. They know who has the advantage.
There’s a very small supply of truly gifted actors. There’s a very large supply of talented enough, pretty enough, actors. The supply of the first isn’t large enough to fill all the slots, the supply of the second vastly larger than. Those who control the bottleneck therefore take advantage.
Who wouldn’t? No, not in the sense of who wouldn’t take advantage but who wouldn’t think that some goodly proportion of them would?
And note that this applies to all actors of whatever gender and sexuality. The preponderance of it is going to be hetero men hitting on women simply because that’s how humans work, the vast majority are hetero and it does tend to be the men controlling those bottlenecks. But it’s by no means solely a male on female predation problem at all.
Let me tell you about some of the Harvey Weinsteins I worked with.
There was the creative director who regularly shoved his hand up his secretary’s crotch and down her bra. She was so outraged, she took him to a legal tribunal (which she lost). Most of the rest of us thought she was overreacting. After all, he was gay, so it wasn’t really sexual harassment, was it? For the record, he treated men as badly as he treated women.
There was the account guy who strolled into my office after a presentation and said, of the middle-aged female client who’d just turned down some of our work, “Nothing wrong with her that a good shafting wouldn’t fix.”
It’s even possible that both are wrong but they’re most assuredly not the same, are they?
And even in the middle of an entirely of an entirely righteous condemnation of the one we’ve got to be careful in our distinctions.
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?
Former Vice President Joe Biden, speaking to students at Rutgers University, took shots at disgraced film executive Harvey Weinstein over recent sexual assault revelations.
Biden called Weinstein’s conduct “disgusting” and “immoral” and also urged Hollywood’s powerful men to stand up and speak out against such actions.
Haven’t we all just spent decades making fun of Joe’s propensity to lay hands upon any passing woman?
Different in degree, to be sure, but not in kind in the modern definition.
As she apparently attempted to escape from Harvey Weinstein’s suite at the Peninsula Beverly Hills Hotel in the Nineties, the actress Ashley Judd claims she told the mogul she would not touch him until she had won an Oscar in one of his films.
It was a joke, she said, but one that referred to Weinstein’s track record for propelling actresses to stardom. Fifteen have won the best actress Oscar for their role in one of his films and many more have won nominations that helped to launch their careers.
What’s the right price for sex? Fame and fortune?
I’m sure there are sellers at that price. Actually, we know there are sellers at much lower prices.
Not really sure what there is to be done about it really. Youth and beauty are indeed a currency. People do tend to spend on what they desire.
An industry-wide business model understands that as long as female beauty has greater cultural value than female achievement, it doesn’t matter how gruesome, barbaric, cruel or painful the new treatment to improve “beauty” may be. It doesn’t matter to which part of the body it’s targeted or what it does. You just need to convince a viable market share of women that they’ll be deficient without it, and as a sense of deficiency is admitted and shared among women, it will spread like aesthetic contagion. The size of your empire surely will double in a year.
And so what do we do about it, if anything?
The obvious answer being that we make the procedures illegal on the grounds that the little dears just can’t control themselves. That clash with feminist strength we’ll just ignore, shall we?
Wiki on transexual tells that much of the debate is about how we can find male brains in female bodies and vice versa. This is because spectrum of brain types, hormones in development etc, you’re a cis and sexist and no doubt even white, patriarchal capitalist to deny this.
Baron Cohen tells us that much of his debate is about how we can find male brains in female bodies and vice versa. This is because spectrum of brain types, hormones in development etc.
You’re a cis and sexist and no doubt even white, patriarchal capitalist to say this.
Fun how that works, isn’t it?
Why don’t women win Nobel science prizes?
In recent years, the average age of recipients has been steadily climbing. Between 1931 and 1940 the average age of physics laureates was 41. It has risen steadily since, and so far this decade, it is 68. This over-cautious approach, where scientists are rewarded for discoveries often decades-old, means younger scientists who are still active, a greater proportion of whom are women, miss out.
That’s actually the basic gender pay/achievement/power gap right there. More men stick with the career.
Or perhaps not so much:
Progressive politics has seriously lost its way. When feminists who have spent decades challenging sexism, racism, and homophobia are viewed as a risk to the wellbeing of students, something has gone very wrong indeed. Linda Bellos became the most recent feminist whose invitation to speak was withdrawn for raising questions about the direction in which modern-day gender politics is heading. Bellos, who is responsible for establishing Black History Month in Britain, was uninvited by the Beard Society, a “gender and feminist group” within Cambridge University.
During her address to Peterhouse College, Bellos told organisers she planned to publicly question “some of the trans politics … which seems to assert the power of those who were previously designated male to tell lesbians, and especially lesbian feminists, what to say and what to think”. In response, a representative of the Beard Society responded: “I’m sorry but we’ve decided not to host you. I too believe in freedom of expression, however Peterhouse is as much a home as it is a college. The welfare of our students in this instance has to come first.”
Regardless of your views on gender, Bellos speaking at Cambridge University in no way compromises the welfare of its students. It is ludicrous to claim that someone who has committed her adult life to liberation politics is a risk to the wellbeing of those who listen to her perspective – and deeply insulting. Black, female, Jewish and lesbian feminist, Bellos is not exactly a preacher of hate.
Strike to the root of this. Society looking for a speaker, once they hear what she would speak about they decide “Nah, thanks anyway.”
Shrug, their room, their society, their speaker’s budget, what the hell has this to do with anyone else?
If the government says Bellos can’t speak that’s a problem, if the university authorities insist that’s a problem, but an inquiry about a private invitation made and then withdrawn?
She wrote that Weinstein required her to have casting discussions with aspiring actresses – after they had private appointments in his hotel room. She suspected that she and other female Weinstein employees were being used to facilitate liaisons with “vulnerable women who hope he will get them work”.
The casting couch is now verboten.
A study of the corporation’s wages showed a 9.3 per cent median pay gap and 10.7 per cent mean between men and women, created largely by fewer senior management roles taken up by females.
For that is pretty much the only reason for the gender pay gap that we do see across society. Fewer women than mean grasp the brass ring at the top of the greasy pole.
And that’s pretty much it. The cause, as we know, is kids and their care. And until 50% of men are primary child carers it’s not really going to go away.
At which point, well, what should be done? My answer is nothing but others?
The Lavinia Woodward case exposes equality before the law as a myth
The leniency shown by the courts to a “promising” Oxford graduate reveals the social and racial inequality at the core of our justice system
White bird doesn’t get jugged for stabbing boyfriend because she’s a white, privileged, bird.
Hmm. Actually, this isn’t unusual:
The type of sentence outcome given at court differs between male and female
offenders and has also changed over time, due largely to the greater use of SSOs
since 2005 when they became more readily available under the Criminal Justice Act
2003. As with the wider trend for all indictable offences (highlighted in the
defendants’ chapter) there was also a decline in the proportion of community
sentences over the time period.
The most common disposal given to male offenders across each of the four specified
violence offences is now an immediate custodial sentence, with the proportion
increasing over the last ten years for ABH and remaining stable for the other
offences. By contrast the type of sentence outcome given to female offenders has
differed for each of these four offences. In 2013, the most common disposal given for
the offences of ABH and cruelty to or neglect of children was a community sentence,
whilst for GBH without intent it was a SSO and for breach of a restraining order it
came under the otherwise dealt with category.
Across each of these four offences, male offenders were around twice as likely to be
given an immediate custodial sentence than female offenders. By contrast, a greater
proportion of female offenders received less severe sentence outcomes.
Quite possibly privilege then but perhaps not the one being complained about?
Who should have the right to define rape: survivors who have experienced sexual violence or those who are accused of perpetrating it?
This is also good:
Of course, being accused of sexual assault hurts. And there are things that we can and should do to help accused students — namely, providing them with psychological counsel. But accused men’s pain does not excuse rape, and men shouldn’t be the ones defining it. Most rapists, even those who have been criminally convicted, will never label themselves as such. More broadly, there is a tendency on the part of college-age men to define sexual assault according to their own standards, not according to campus guidelines.
You’ve borrowed $150k to go to atop college, you’re 3 months away from the brass ring of an Ivy League degree, you’re falsely accused of sexual assault and thrown out.
What’s on offer is counselling, not an actual defence.
A hunch five years ago that the front pages of British newspapers were dominated by men prompted research that proved the hunch right: daily newspapers were full of male writers and voices.
Since then much has changed, not least the appointment of the UK’s second female prime minister, the first woman to run for the highest office in the US and, closer to home, the appointment of the first female editor-in-chief of the Guardian.
So has this seismic change led to a revolution in national newspaper front pages? No, according to a similar study to be released on Tuesday by the industry body Women in Journalism.
The WiJ research in 2012 found that 78% of all front page bylines were male. This year, a similar exercise over two six-week periods revealed that men were still writing 75% of all front page stories.
And the wibble in the middle of the paper chewing over what it all means for society is largely written by?
It’s almost as if there were a gender disparity, on average of course, over what people like to talk about, are interested in.
Don’t forget, if there must be gender parity in everything then 50% of the pieces about abortion should be written by men too.
Sixty-year-old woman is shoved to the ground as fists fly in a punch-up between transgender activists and their extreme feminist rivals in Hyde Park
Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists clashed with their enemies Trans Activists
Maria MacLachlan was attacked at Speakers’ Corner in London’s Hyde Park
The 60-year-old mother-of-two was left shaken and the police are investigating
Leave them to get on with it say I. I assume that those just starting their hormone treatment will have the heavier punches.
A long-running justification for this loathing of Clinton, one that has been trotted out often since her election loss, and now again as an excuse to bash her book, is that she is uniquely unlikable. “She was a terrible candidate!” go the cries, ignoring the fact she was the most qualified candidate in a generation, who got more votes than any candidate ever, with the exception of Barack Obama in 2008.
Misogyny is hating all women, not just hating one of them.
One is home to an array of luvvies and fine restaurants. The other is semi-suburban and most definitely not star-studded.
Yet while the trendy London borough of Islington has been voted the UK’s worst place to be a woman, the Scottish commuter belt of East Dunbartonshire has been named the best.
Decade upon decade of fighting, marching and screeching for women creates a worse environment than the standard Catholic tinged bourgeoisie.
Well, that’s a surprise, isn’t it?
It was self-reported by 1,200 US staff – 2 per cent of the global workforce – meaning it is not a comprehensive analysis.
But the disparities are startling and at five of the six job levels women are paid less than men.
At level one, the lowest, women earned $40,300 (£30,500) compared to $55,900 (£42,300) for men, a difference of $15,600 (£11,800), the biggest out of all employees.
At level two women earned more than men, $76,600 (£58,000) compared to $71,200 (£53,900) for men.
At level three, the entry level for technical positions, women earned $106,700 (£80,800) compared to $112,400 (£85,100) for men.
At level four women earned $125,000 (£94,600) versus $136,600 (£103,400) and at level five the numbers were $153,500 (£116,200) for women compared to $162,200 (£122,800) for men.
At level six, executive level, women were paid $193,200 (£146,300) versus $197,600 (£149,600) for their male counterparts.
For bonuses women were awarded less than men at three of the six levels.
The biggest disparity was at level six where women earned $40,700 (£30,800) in bonuses compared to $47,800 (£36,200) for men, a difference of $7,100 (£5,400).
Note my emphasis on “significant“.