[Beso]

My jumbled paragraph would have explained that i know you arent blaming men and its just a reaction to the sad state of the times..i think the only thing i disagree with is the debate question in that it should be men....shouldnt it be both?

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by parmnion

My jumbled paragraph would have explained that i know you arent blaming men and its just a reaction to the sad state of the times..i think the only thing i disagree with is the debate question in that it should be men....shouldnt it be both?

Of course it should be both. And women have been arguing against it for a very long time. And do stand up against it (I would argue, possibly more frequently than men do) but womens voices are just not heard the way mens are (especially on the issue of male violence against females)

Also women sometimes do not actually see the 'true' side of men, as some men will try to suppress it around women..especially women they love. Men out as just men...are much more likely to air their true feelings about this matter. Men are in a much better position in this way too.

The kind of man who would assault a female...is unlikely to listen to females when they complain about this kind of thing. They are much more likely to listen to males around them. If that makes more sense

[Beso]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Of course it should be both. And women have been arguing against it for a very long time. And do stand up against it (I would argue, possibly more frequently than men do) but womens voices are just not heard the way mens are (especially on the issue of male violence against females)

Also women sometimes do not actually see the 'true' side of men, as some men will try to suppress it around women..especially women they love. Men out as just men...are much more likely to air their true feelings about this matter. Men are in a much better position in this way too.

The kind of man who would assault a female...is unlikely to listen to females when they complain about this kind of thing. They are much more likely to listen to males around them. If that makes more sense

Going on from your last paragraph....

That would work in the offices around the world and should be applauded.

But the more money involved and the more power that person has....how do we get round that?

Protest...together. male and female.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Going on from your last paragraph....

That would work in the offices around the world and should be applauded.

But the more money involved and the more power that person has....how do we get round that?

Protest...together. male and female.

I don't disagree with the sentiment. But I don't see how protesting would actally work on issues such as these...this is such a widespread problem ...a problem with society in general.

I guess a shift in attitude away from the current 'lets blame the vicitm in some way' narrative when people report sexual assaults may help in some way. I mean, even friends (both male and female) who would be described as feminists in so many areas of life have come out with rubbish such as 'when women dress like that, what do they expect'...shifting the blame from the men who assaulted, onto the woman in some way. Stuff like this, widesspread as it is, prevents people coming forward. As along as the fear of not being believed, there is fear of being blamed.

But in a total across the board way to improve things, I think the author of the article in the OP has the right idea. Male voices are more heard. So whilst females will obvously do the same, males need to stand up and be counted on this issue, and not let mysoginy go unchallenged any more. (obviously speaking in a wider sense, not on an individual level as some men clearly DO currently stand up to this ****)

[Beso]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I don't disagree with the sentiment. But I don't see how protesting would actally work on issues such as these...this is such a widespread problem ...a problem with society in general.

I guess a shift in attitude away from the current 'lets blame the vicitm in some way' narrative when people report sexual assaults may help in some way. I mean, even friends (both male and female) who would be described as feminists in so many areas of life have come out with rubbish such as 'when women dress like that, what do they expect'...shifting the blame from the men who assaulted, onto the woman in some way. Stuff like this, widesspread as it is, prevents people coming forward. As along as the fear of not being believed, there is fear of being blamed.

But in a total across the board way to improve things, I think the author of the article in the OP has the right idea. Male voices are more heard. So whilst females will obvously do the same, males need to stand up and be counted on this issue, and not let mysoginy go unchallenged any more. (obviously speaking in a wider sense, not on an individual level as some men clearly DO currently stand up to this ****)

Its went on in hollywood for ages, since it was built even...this wienstien thing may just shake it up and to its core...these music producers next....but the lawmakers..the real issue. The real abusers of power.

You have to cut of the head to feed the chickens..or suumfing.

If we cant stop powerfull people abusing children how can we stop this?.....protest...by the common family in numbers...

[Beso]

Just a side note.....risk assesment...all women and men should ask possible partners how they react when they stub thier toe....
Answer crumple in a heap...hop going ow ow ow...safe.
Answer Shout, swear..hit wall...danger.

[Tom4784]

That article hit the nail on the head, All the actresses in the world could reveal stories about Weinstein and nothing will ever really change in the Hollywood machine until the men in power say enough is enough otherwise things like this will just happen again with someone else abusing their position.

Everyone's (rightfully) damning Weinstein but the industry that enabled him also needs to be put in the firing line because Studios and production companies releasing statements condemning Weinstein is just lip service. It's easy for them and largely inconsequential and no actions to prevent another Weinstein from abusing their positions will take place, after all Weinstein was pretty much protected by the industry due to his clout with the Academy. As long as people like Weinstein don't get caught out, the people running the show don't give a ****.

[Beso]

Side note......imagine how good, or bad certain films could have been...

Thanks for the stories vicky...gotta go.

[Oliver_W]

I guess the Bystander Effect was at play to a certain extent; if a single actor (say) knows that he's one of many who knows a certain thing, he may well wonder why no-one else had spoken out, and fears for his career or even life might make him hope someone else comes forward.

Let's not forget how rich Weinstein was - not counting the fingers he had in many pies across Hollywood, he was a major donor to the Democrat party...

But as for "men having to speak out", I'd say it's more of an industry wide thing, where anyone with any power should speak out - not just about Weinstein, but about any industrial abuse they know of. Meryl Streep has said it was a shame that Roman Polanksi was jailed, and he wasn't "just" a guy who used his power to get his way with women, he was a nonce. Plus, she referred to Weinstein as God, so there's that...

Wasn't Elijah Wood blackballed for speaking out against Hollywood paedos?

And then there's the BBC, and their complicity in the Saville stuff. They've at least bucked their ideas up - I can't go into why as it relates to a job I do over the summer from time to time, but their child protection is above and beyond these days, and rightly so!

[Beso]

Thank you oliver. I applaud you.

[Oliver_W]

There just seems to be a thing among showbiz types to cover each other's backs. In 2004 an investigative journalist called Sharon Waxman had been investigating claims against Weinstein, and the piece she wanted to publish was allegedly "spiked" by Matt Damon and Russell Crowe, and the article she worked so hard on (it involved traveling to two different countries) had to be essentially binned.

When this came to light, Jimmy Kimmel involved Matt Damon in a stunt on his show, so the news of his appearance and the viral video would bury those of Damon's alleged involvement in spiking the article.

[Beso]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

There just seems to be a thing among showbiz types to cover each other's backs. In 2004 an investigative journalist called Sharon Waxman had been investigating claims against Weinstein, and the piece she wanted to publish was allegedly "spiked" by Matt Damon and Russell Crowe, and the article she worked so hard on (it involved traveling to two different countries) had to be essentially binned.

When this came to light, Jimmy Kimmel involved Matt Damon in a stunt on his show, so the news of his appearance and the viral video would bury those of Damon's alleged involvement in spiking the article.

And that is how simple it is.

Tibb needs to unite and protest.

[Brother Leon]

Problem is that whenever a Man does say anything, so often the comments are over analysed or **** from their past will just be dragged up again to make them Look Hypocritical. .

Gosling called him out and this is the response he gets from one of the victims. He probably felt he should have just stayed shut.

[Oliver_W]

Rose McGowan is a mess, let's not use her responses as a barometer.

[user104658]

It's a complicated issue and I'm going to have a proper run at a reply later but the foreword I'm afraid Vicky... Is that I sort of find this is easier more than a little sexist.

Have to get the kids off to school now but like I said, I'll go into it later.

[user104658]

OK

The Hollywood / business in general issues are entirely different to the everyday issues. The former are about power, and while it's true that it is still more often men who are in power, that's a separate issue. The fact is that all these people at or near the top, male or female, see is money - if it will affect their pockets to tackle these issues, they won't do it. If it's bad for business to let it continue, they'll nip it in the bud. That goes for ANY issue.

Regardless, it's a world completely removed from ours and there's nothing that anyone outside of that bubble can do, other than vote with our wallets, and $$$ doesn't care what we have between our legs. As has been said already... the Weinstein issue has far more to do with a toxic industry that needs gutted from the inside out than anything else.

Meanwhile in the real world, everyday casual sexism, the idea that

"men need to sort out men",
"men need to be the ones addressing this"
"men's voices are heard."

... in my opinion ... compounds the problem. It is very similar to the rhetoric of it being "up to the Muslim communities" to tackle terrorism, it's misguided, and it causes more division. If people as a group see anyone being harassed in any way in public, we should be more willing to do something about it. On an individual level - why is it assumed that a 6' tall guy is all that much more equipped to take on a physically aggressive stranger than anyone else? That thinking is, in itself, problematic. The idea that a man is not only needed to, but EXPECTED to, sort out an issue like that more than anyone else. Fact is, a lone male who is NOT an aggressive person himself taking on an aggressor, is quite likely to get himself (and probably other bystanders) hurt. If the aggressor happens to be carrying a knife, mr white knight is probably going to get seriously injured or killed even if he's twice the size. Whereas if 5 people - regardless of sex - take on an aggressor, they will probably slink off with their tail between their legs.

So this is where it becomes a paradox. You're trying to tackle the problem of "macho male culture" and "hypermasculinity" by ... promoting "macho male culture" and suggesting that every male should consider himself a "tough guy" and chivalrous protector of poor scared females. You're promoting the idea of male = more powerful, male = better heard, male = protector, male = dominant when all that does is feed right back around to the "bad end" of the spectrum, where men who are already predisposed to disrespecting or lacking empathy for people in general are being culturally drip-fed the idea that women are inferior and need men's help in "scary situations". Men can be gentle, men experience anxiety, men can be scared by scary strangers on trains.

Again, it's not that I'm saying people should be left to fend for themselves, I'm saying that if there's a perv on a train carriage then every single person there should have a major problem with it. People should not be eyeballing "the big guy in the corner" and wondering why he isn't stepping in to sort it out.

Really the only part I can agree with, is that in groups of male friends the ones who don't think "sexist banter" is acceptable should be more willing to call their friends out on it (or mock them for it - it works better - people hate nothing more than embarrassment) and let them know it's not OK, rather than keeping quiet or even joining in under peer pressure.

Other than that I consider people to be a collective of individuals and no one is more / less responsible for the actions of people who are not them than anyone else is. Again, that's not to say people "should mind their own business" and not step in, it's just to say that expectations should not differ based on physical attributes of any kind.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

OK

The Hollywood / business in general issues are entirely different to the everyday issues. The former are about power, and while it's true that it is still more often men who are in power, that's a separate issue. The fact is that all these people at or near the top, male or female, see is money - if it will affect their pockets to tackle these issues, they won't do it. If it's bad for business to let it continue, they'll nip it in the bud. That goes for ANY issue.

Regardless, it's a world completely removed from ours and there's nothing that anyone outside of that bubble can do, other than vote with our wallets, and $$$ doesn't care what we have between our legs. As has been said already... the Weinstein issue has far more to do with a toxic industry that needs gutted from the inside out than anything else.

Yes, what I am getting from this is that its different with the hollywood thing, its about power in general. So its unfair to say that its a problem males need to sort out...as men are so often powerless too. I would agree that people such as Streep(just as an example) are in a much better position than some guy who is just starting out...for calling out people like Weinstein.

Meanwhile in the real world, everyday casual sexism, the idea that

"men need to sort out men",
"men need to be the ones addressing this"
"men's voices are heard."

... in my opinion ... compounds the problem. It is very similar to the rhetoric of it being "up to the Muslim communities" to tackle terrorism, it's misguided, and it causes more division.

Mens voices are heard, to other men, more often than womens are though. A woman complaining about something is often written off as just a 'moany bitch' and I can't be the only one who would spend ages in office meetings with an idea only to be ignored, then a guy say the EXACT same thing and suddenly its the best idea ever.

Yes, it may be a sexist view, but a view that (in my life anyway) has been my experience. Men listen to other men, more than they listen to women. Take other men much more seriously too.

Infact I am fairly sure that most men would agree with this assessment of (sadly) how things are.

Some people may not even realise that this is often how things are. I cannot, for example, be the only person who spent ages pitching an idea at work, just to be ignored. Then a few mins (or days) later a guy says the exact same idea and all of a sudden its a brilliant idea. Infact it used to be a bit of a running joke in our office that if any of the women had an idea, to let their male friends know it and the males would then take the idea to the (dickhead) boss.

If people as a group see anyone being harassed in any way in public, we should be more willing to do something about it.

Well yes, and most people would. Its not just an issue of when seeing someone assaulted though, its challenging the entire culture that leads to entitled arseholes thinking its fine to behave this way in the first place.

On an individual level - why is it assumed that a 6' tall guy is all that much more equipped to take on a physically aggressive stranger than anyone else? That thinking is, in itself, problematic. The idea that a man is not only needed to, but EXPECTED to, sort out an issue like that more than anyone else. Fact is, a lone male who is NOT an aggressive person himself taking on an aggressor, is quite likely to get himself (and probably other bystanders) hurt. If the aggressor happens to be carrying a knife, mr white knight is probably going to get seriously injured or killed even if he's twice the size. Whereas if 5 people - regardless of sex - take on an aggressor, they will probably slink off with their tail between their legs.

Yes agreed.

So this is where it becomes a paradox. You're trying to tackle the problem of "macho male culture" and "hypermasculinity" by ... promoting "macho male culture" and suggesting that every male should consider himself a "tough guy" and chivalrous protector of poor scared females. You're promoting the idea of male = more powerful, male = better heard, male = protector, male = dominant when all that does is feed right back around to the "bad end" of the spectrum, where men who are already predisposed to disrespecting or lacking empathy for people in general are being culturally drip-fed the idea that women are inferior and need men's help in "scary situations". Men can be gentle, men experience anxiety, men can be scared by scary strangers on trains.

Yes again, good point but the writer of the article (nor myself) are expecting men to put themselves in dangerous situations to play 'white knight' or anything. Its tackling common sexist views and language. That will often occur more often in situations where male people are the majority(or all the viewers). Its more a...men call out your sexist friends on their sexist language and behaviour...than men go out and save a woman from being raped.

Again, it's not that I'm saying people should be left to fend for themselves, I'm saying that if there's a perv on a train carriage then every single person there should have a major problem with it. People should not be eyeballing "the big guy in the corner" and wondering why he isn't stepping in to sort it out.

Yes, I don't think anyone would think that. The only person who has said anything similar on the thread, was parmnion who suggested that I turn to the nearest bloke for defense!

Really the only part I can agree with, is that in groups of male friends the ones who don't think "sexist banter" is acceptable should be more willing to call their friends out on it (or mock them for it - it works better - people hate nothing more than embarrassment) and let them know it's not OK, rather than keeping quiet or even joining in under peer pressure.

Well...that was the whole point of the thread so very glad we agree on that. I would never say men should put themselves in danger on purpose, but tackling the culture from the inside out will make all of the difference. Yes there will still be pervs around, there always will be even if EVERY single nice guy turned round tomorrow and said enough is enough. But the general attitude towards women would change a lot.

Other than that I consider people to be a collective of individuals and no one is more / less responsible for the actions of people who are not them than anyone else is. Again, that's not to say people "should mind their own business" and not step in, it's just to say that expectations should not differ based on physical attributes of any kind.

Agreed.

[user104658]

Again DR I'm afraid I just don't think that's true... That women are necessarily more attuned to danger or more likely to feel afraid. Males are socially conditioned to believe that being afraid "isn't masculine", that anxiety is "feminine", that the correct thing to do is to "man up" and never SHOW fear, and certainly never admit it after the fact, because if you're a man fear is weakness.

I get that in some situations women are perhaps more likely to feel intimidated than some men, but again, that's only in general. A skinny 5'5 guy is no more able to take on an attacker than most women. Are they less likely to be attacked? Sexually, yes. In general? No. There are a lot of muggers out there who fully believe that you "don't hit women" but will happily knock the **** out of a guy half their size.

Even from my own perspective. I'm 6'2 and well built. I honestly do get that I probably feel a lot safer, say, sitting waiting for the bus home at 11pm on a Friday (LOT of weird people about) than a lot of people but even then. One dodgy guy going past and I don't bat an eyelid. Two, I'm relatively comfortable. Three or more? Let's face it, if they decide to go for me I'm just as ****ed as a small woman.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Again DR I'm afraid I just don't think that's true... That women are necessarily more attuned to danger or more likely to feel afraid. Males are socially conditioned to believe that being afraid "isn't masculine", that anxiety is "feminine", that the correct thing to do is to "man up" and never SHOW fear, and certainly never admit it after the fact, because if you're a man fear is weakness.

I get that in some situations women are perhaps more likely to feel intimidated than some men, but again, that's only in general. A skinny 5'5 guy is no more able to take on an attacker than most women. Are they less likely to be attacked? Sexually, yes. In general? No. There are a lot of muggers out there who fully believe that you "don't hit women" but will happily knock the **** out of a guy half their size.

Even from my own perspective. I'm 6'2 and well built. I honestly do get that I probably feel a lot safer, say, sitting waiting for the bus home at 11pm on a Friday (LOT of weird people about) than a lot of people but even then. One dodgy guy going past and I don't bat an eyelid. Two, I'm relatively comfortable. Three or more? Let's face it, if they decide to go for me I'm just as ****ed as a small woman.

I think you are wrong here I would say that women are much better at assessing situations even if there is no immediate threat ( like vicky stated) I would go as far as to say that it's the 'atmoshere' they are reading.
Here's an academic article on feminine intuition.

'Research on nonverbal communication skill has clearly shown that women are, as a group, better at reading facial expressions of emotions than are men. As a result, women are more likely to pick up on the subtle emotional messages being sent by others.

There is a much more logical, and research-based answer. Research on nonverbal communication skill has clearly shown that women are, as a group, better at reading facial expressions of emotions than are men. As a result, women are more likely to pick up on the subtle emotional messages being sent by others.

Women are also better at expressing emotions through their facial expressions, tone of voice, and body, particularly positive emotions. Men are better at controlling felt emotions and at hiding emotions behind a "poker face." There is also evidence that women are seen as more empathic than men, and that they are more likely to see themselves as empathic.'

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...yth-or-reality

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I think you are wrong here I would say that women are much better at assessing situations even if there is no immediate threat ( like vicky stated) I would go as far as to say that it's the 'atmoshere' they are reading.
Here's an academic article on feminine intuition.

'Research on nonverbal communication skill has clearly shown that women are, as a group, better at reading facial expressions of emotions than are men. As a result, women are more likely to pick up on the subtle emotional messages being sent by others.

There is a much more logical, and research-based answer. Research on nonverbal communication skill has clearly shown that women are, as a group, better at reading facial expressions of emotions than are men. As a result, women are more likely to pick up on the subtle emotional messages being sent by others.

Women are also better at expressing emotions through their facial expressions, tone of voice, and body, particularly positive emotions. Men are better at controlling felt emotions and at hiding emotions behind a "poker face." There is also evidence that women are seen as more empathic than men, and that they are more likely to see themselves as empathic.'

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...yth-or-reality

But the latter part of that only confirms what I'm saying; men are conditioned to suppress instincts like fear because they are "not manly". They are conditioned to be less expressive, perhaps never even learn to be as expressive, because "men are stoic". It's not a super-power or inherent biological difference between men and women, it is 100% social convention. The study shows what it shows, but it's a study of people who have lived in a world that has shaped them.

But society is changing and people do now expect and encourage the full range of emotion and expression in all people. Which is great, and how it should be. But then men are still expected, alongside feeling the full range of raw human emotion, to "step up" and deal with threatening situations "like a man"? It doesn't make sense, and it is a double standard.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

But the latter part of that only confirms what I'm saying; men are conditioned to suppress instincts like fear because they are "not manly". They are conditioned to be less expressive, perhaps never even learn to be as expressive, because "men are stoic". It's not a super-power or inherent biological difference between men and women, it is 100% social convention. The study shows what it shows, but it's a study of people who have lived in a world that has shaped them.

But society is changing and people do now expect and encourage the full range of emotion and expression in all people. Which is great, and how it should be. But then men are still expected, alongside feeling the full range of raw human emotion, to "step up" and deal with threatening situations "like a man"? It doesn't make sense, and it is a double standard.

Who said it was? The fact remains that for now there is this nuance for some, nobody is expecting anything, nobody wants anyone to be a hero and put themselves in danger that's your projection perhaps?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Who said it was? The fact remains that for now there is this nuance for some, nobody is expecting anything, nobody wants anyone to be a hero and put themselves in danger that's your projection perhaps?

I would still counter that it is impossible to judge whether or not women are more perceptive to external threats than men when men (including in any study) are likely to mask fear, anxiety or identification of a threat with bravado / humour / anger as that is the socially expected and accepted response. It's equally likely that all people are on average just as likely to assess situations and intentions in the same way, with men being statistically less likely to vocalise their perception of that situation as threatening.

For the rest... this entire thread is based on the concept that men should challenge other men? Partly on a societal scale (which I agreed with, groups of male friends shouldn't encourage or copy their mates sexism in peer settings and should call it out) but also on two other levels.

First being that "men are responsible overall for the actions of other men" and responsible for being the ones to stop it. I can't imagine you agree with that, because I know your stance on the suggestion that "Muslim communities are responsible for terrorists and should be the ones tackling it" and this is literally no different. Non-sexist / non-aggressive men are not responsible for the actions of other men, and no individual or community should be made to feel responsible for the actions of another individual unless they have actively encouraged it.

The second was quite explicitly that men should be expected to step in in specific, acute situations such as sexual harassment on public transport, moreso than individuals in general, because aggressors are more likely to listen to men, with the underlying message being that "men are tougher and more able to stand up to these things". That is a massive problem. It's trying to tackle macho culture by ENCOURAGING macho culture. It's impossible.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

But the latter part of that only confirms what I'm saying; men are conditioned to suppress instincts like fear because they are "not manly". They are conditioned to be less expressive, perhaps never even learn to be as expressive, because "men are stoic". It's not a super-power or inherent biological difference between men and women, it is 100% social convention. The study shows what it shows, but it's a study of people who have lived in a world that has shaped them.

But society is changing and people do now expect and encourage the full range of emotion and expression in all people. Which is great, and how it should be. But then men are still expected, alongside feeling the full range of raw human emotion, to "step up" and deal with threatening situations "like a man"? It doesn't make sense, and it is a double standard.

Science has proved on average that men's brains are wired differently to women. I agree there are expectations within society regarding 'manning up' and as boys grow into men, there's a huge amount of conditioning.

When it comes to wiring, we can only work on the law of averages (the most common connectivity patterns tested this far)

Perhaps I should have said, "on average, cognitive science shows that most women are more intuitive than men (around danger)" and not made it sound like a sweeping generalization.

[Kizzy]

I don't think it's much to do with culture anymore, not here anyway we are very attuned to what is and is not socially acceptable behaviour.
The issue is powerful/rich/influential people being allowed to continue once an accusation has been made, money talks and power corrupts.

These are not your ordinary joe public here,he may have been involved with a lodge where they all swear to protect one another? Look at savile and all his parliamentary lodge connections, like attracts like.

[Beso]

A woman was today ordered to pay 750 pound costs gor drunkenly licking a mans face, grabbing his buttocks and lunging for his genitals...and a A list actor may be about to be outed.