|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2017 14:42:14 GMT
In light of all the new revelations of rampant sexual harassment in the workplace on all levels and seemingly in a variety of milieus I wanted to toss out this thread and foster a discussion among us about what people are thinking. Why all of a sudden when this has clearly been in evidence for a gazillion years? Why now? Will it really have an impact and change things?
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Nov 1, 2017 15:09:48 GMT
Thank you for bringing up the subject. I am rather amazed by the sudden media attention myself since absolutely everybody knew that it has been a problem forever.
Okay, I cannot put myself in the place of a woman to analyse the situation, but it nevertheless seems to me that a hell of a lot of people have been overplaying the events they have been relating. Hey, I'm a guy and can recall at least 4 incidents in my life -- 2 by women and 2 by men -- which seem to qualify for this new definition of "sexual assault" which I have always categorized simply as "awkward moments." Just as an example, I once had my genitals grabbed in an elevator with the person pressing against me, checking to see if I had an erection or not. (I was all of 20 years old.) I was shocked but not tramautised and I received an appropriate and embarrassed apology after the fact. Big deal.
|
|
|
Post by onlyMark on Nov 1, 2017 15:14:50 GMT
It has been going on for longer than any of us have been alive and rears its head from time to time, but it's been brought out from under the carpet by some courageous women who I hope get the justice they deserve, and the offenders get their just desserts. (Clever use of words that at the end, even if I say so myself). Why now? No idea. The bigger question to me though, is why not before? These "men", and I use that term loosely, should have been put to rights a long time ago, and I put it all down to power. Same with Jimmy Saville in the UK. Everyone knew what he was like, but the stupid people who knew said bugger all. They need a slap as well, never mind the offender.
I'd think that those in the know, plus the victims, had "too much to lose" if they spoke out. I understand that but I'm infected with the cut my nose off to spite my face disease and that is what makes me not really understand why little or nothing was said. It does seem that these things swing from one extreme to the other and all I'm afraid of is if in the future no man dare interact with a woman for fear of being called out for some form of assault. Flirting will be a dying/dead art for example.
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on Nov 1, 2017 19:29:49 GMT
I do agree with huckle; I know many, many young men who find rutting males such as Saville and Weinstein simply gross - and not all of them were brought up by single mums. Obviously not all young men, and there are ultra-masculine movements from the white supremacists to the Jihadists that still attract members of that demographic.
Whenever I encountered such a problem, being in precarious work (or other precarious circumstances) was a big part of that. Such atypical employment is the rule rather than the exception in the arts, whether one is a well-paid filmstar or a subeditor.
I don't think the abuse cited has much to do with flirting. An utter lack of wit for one thing, and overarching entitlement.
|
|
|
Post by cheerypeabrain on Nov 1, 2017 22:09:29 GMT
Talking of Saville, I heard in the eighties (from a police officer) that police forces across the country were aware of his 'reputation'...so much so that whenever he was due to make a public appearance a police presence was sent (not just for crowd control but to keep an eye on him). So if the police knew why was he allowed to carry on? Because he was a National Treasure...hmph. I see a senior cabinet minister has resigned over the latest harassment allegations. Good. I just worry that the media will start shouting about a 'witch hunt' and trivialize what is unacceptable behaviour. The Daily Fail already has.... Those in power... male OR female should not be allowed to exploit their co-workers and or subordinates. Cheerypeabrain...winner of the bleeding obvious award.....
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on Nov 2, 2017 0:36:01 GMT
Indeed, male or female... straight or gay. But the key is the "national treasure" exception, as well as some who have fostered a "wholesome" persona.
I've certainly experienced the crap K2 recalls, and in most cases with not significant trauma unless I felt trapped and tracked down. The problem is either a fear of physical danger or, as in these mediatised cases, of no longer being able to earn a living.
I think it is important to remember that people in media and the arts are not the only ones in precarious employment nowadays.
Also, I hope this isn't off-topic, and this is NOT an attack on "straight men", but there has been horrific violence against women and adolescent girls (femicide) and attacks on LGBTQ people, and it is a societal sickness that must be addressed. I'm thinking of the "ni una di menos" campaign...
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Nov 2, 2017 3:21:57 GMT
One might wonder how big a share the advertising industry has in sexualising everything.
When I see an ad like this (which was omnipresent in France all year), I am receiving the message "wearing perfume = I want to have sex." By extension, smelling like fabric softener or soap means on the other hand that you are a good girl.
|
|
|
Post by onlyMark on Nov 2, 2017 5:30:32 GMT
I hope you are not thinking that I am saying their actions were akin to flirting. That is the point, their actions were at the other end of the scale, but, as these things are I know there will now be a reaction that goes too far the other way that will call out things like flirting and compliments, such as "you look good today", as harassment/assault. Which is a shame as these cases will devalue others in the minds of many.
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on Nov 2, 2017 11:29:54 GMT
That ad was just weird.
Oh well, tomcats mark their territory and it seems to attract the lady cats...
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Nov 2, 2017 16:14:00 GMT
I will only address this from a male point of view because I am not qualified for the female point of view, but some of these claims are getting ridiculous in my opinion.
Six months of PTSD? Emasculating? Give me a break! It sounds like a lot of these people have been talking to shyster lawyers to try to make a quick buck. And I wouldn't doubt that quite a few of the women are hoping for financial gain as well, just become somebody famous annoyed them. Have they denounced every single other person who has behaved inappropriately or just the cash cows?
|
|
|
Post by onlyMark on Nov 2, 2017 16:36:46 GMT
Sadly, it's started then. See my comments above. Which you have, I'm sure.
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Nov 2, 2017 16:42:49 GMT
It's mostly a matter of separating the wheat from the chaff. And it looks like there's going to be plenty of chaff.
|
|
|
Post by mossie on Nov 3, 2017 13:52:46 GMT
Oh dear, the whole country seems to have entered "snowflake mode". I had this cartoon sent to me this morning. For those not familiar with the BBC, Sooty and Sweep were glove puppets in a childrens programme
|
|
|
Post by whatagain on Nov 4, 2017 9:43:02 GMT
I think timing comes due to change of mentality. New generation is more respectful of everything (I hope) and less racist and less sexist.
I saw the same evolution at work about alcohol : you were a man if you could drink now you ate a fool. Driving plastered is now criminal no more alcohol at work etc. Safety is the same : we had a lot more accidents before now we get trainings etc. Sexism is being tackled too. I got a training about it recently !
Tape is becoming intolerable pedophilia is being talked about when it was hidden before etc.
So I am a huge fan of everything that goes into the right direction. Casanova was an asshole not somebody to look after as a hero.
|
|
|
Post by questa on Nov 4, 2017 11:58:05 GMT
About 15 years ago I worked in a team of around 20 nurses, all women in the 35 plus age group. Most of us were out of the office all day doing clinical work, just checking into the office morning and 5pm.
Then we were assigned a man to do administration in the office. ...late 20s, married, nice, efficient and good sense of humour. I would greet him each morning with a terrible Irish brogue, "Good mornin' me darlin' boy". Other women would admire a new tie or haircut. One went so far as to help him roll his sleeves up on a hot day, which was accompanied by some laughing suggestions to take his shirt off and be even cooler. He took it all in his stride and gave as good as he got.
To our amazement we got a sharp memo from senior management (female) telling us that this was sexual harassment and it had to stop. None of us had thought of it in that way or meant anything inappropriate. Naturally we apologized but he was as confused as we were. He hadn't reported anything and enjoyed working with "my bunch of mothers". He left after 4 months..."it is like walking on egg shells" with everyone trying to be PC.
Of course we nurses went on (lovingly) harassing each other as we had done for the last 20 years.
So who should decide what constitutes harassment?
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Nov 4, 2017 13:44:10 GMT
It's like an explosion in a fireworks factory. Things are going in every direction. Innocent people are going to get hurt, just like the guilty ones.
|
|
|
Post by cheerypeabrain on Nov 4, 2017 14:23:50 GMT
At school lusty 16 and 17 year old innocents like myself would flirt like blazes with the younger male teachers...we are talking the time of the mini skirt here. We knew what we were doing but we always knew that it was the teachers' responsibility NOT to respond. Inevitably some caved...but if a male teacher (many of them in their early twenties) began a relationship with one of us female 'sirens' then he would lose his job (or worse) Did we care? not a bit. However....one of my first jobs was working at a Solicitors' Office. One of the Partners would call me into his office to take notes or collect briefs to be taken to The Courts in London etc...he would say 'You look very nubile today Elizabeth' or similar and it made my skin crawl. He never laid a finger on me but with a word or a look he could make me feel awful. Yet you could say that he was just being 'nice'..I had nightmares about him for years!
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Nov 4, 2017 15:07:40 GMT
Of course let's not forget that the president of France seduced his high school drama teacher, a married mother of three. He was so determined and persistent that I bet that some of the lynch mob now would find grounds to accuse him of harrassment.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Nov 4, 2017 16:22:36 GMT
I think timing comes due to change of mentality. New generation is more respectful of everything (I hope) and less racist and less sexist. I saw the same evolution at work about alcohol : you were a man if you could drink now you ate a fool. Driving plastered is now criminal no more alcohol at work etc. Safety is the same : we had a lot more accidents before now we get trainings etc. Sexism is being tackled too. I got a training about it recently ! Tape is becoming intolerable pedophilia is being talked about when it was hidden before etc. So I am a huge fan of everything that goes into the right direction. Casanova was an asshole not somebody to look after as a hero. Very well said, Whatagain! As others have pointed out, accusations of sexual harassment can be overstated or misused, but the fact remains that it does exist and no one should have to be subjected to it.
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Jan 10, 2018 20:48:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on Jan 11, 2018 1:19:17 GMT
There have always been collabos.
Now, of course I'm afraid of overgeneralising or accusing people who are simply clumsy, uncouth or clueless about how to approach whichever sex they are interested in. It is always a danger.
But I think a lot of men just don't get what it is like to be subjected to constant harassment and worse. Strangely, a guy harassed me in a very creepy way a few weeks ago, and I'm far from a spring chicken.
Younger, there were times that the only reason I managed to avoid getting raped was because (despite my short stature) was that I managed to kick the shit out of the bastards.
|
|
|
Post by bjd on Jan 11, 2018 6:28:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on Jan 11, 2018 11:34:45 GMT
I read it in French, of course. "Hit on" is a very poor translation of "importuner". However, I do think "un importun" is stronger than someone who is "bothersome". The cartoons I posted were from France too, but obviously by a much younger women - considerably younger than me, and could be the granddaughter of Deneuve. I don't question anyone's freedom of speech, not even Houllebecq's. But the friends I've contacted in France (and one in Genève) think that Deneuve et cie are full of shit and simply from another era... They are raising a valid point about "balance ton porc", "Me too" etc - it can become a movement in which innocent people are considered guilty (by the way, I've translated something about a case along those lines - obviously I can say no more about a legal translation). But it comes across as women of great privilege who are out of touch with the daily harassment women who have to walk to work (and return after dark this time of year), take the métro etc experience often. The US Me too had the same problem, but it broadened to include the lives of women who aren't film stars. The starkest movement is Ni una menos throughout Latin America (from Argentina to Mexico) but it was addressing violent rape, torture and femicide, in some cases related to drug gangs. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ni_una_menosI don't actually think that Andrea Dworkin type radical feminism has a great deal of influence anywhere, but groupthink can become a problem in any movement.
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Jan 11, 2018 17:58:01 GMT
This has become an interesting worldwide debate and the "Catherine Deneuve factor" has caused more people to enter the discussion. The French media have noted that there seems to be a definite schism between the latin and the "anglo-saxon" world on the subject, although there are people on both sides everywhere. The "latin" side has pointed out, not really erroneously, that many women have given into the creeps in every profession, essentially becoming prostitutes to get ahead. It seems to this side to be a bit too easy now to say that they were victims, unless women are exempt from having principles.
On the other side, it has been correctly pointed out that the "Deneuve" manifesto totally blurs the playing field by not making it clear what the difference is between a clumsy flirt and a sexual agression. (Then again, humanity has not really managed to determine to draw the line in thousands of years.)
This debate is sure to go on for quite some time even after it has faded from media coverage.
In any case, the French Academy Awards (César) ceremony will be presided this year by a woman -- Vanessa Paradis.
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Jan 31, 2018 13:34:50 GMT
I'm surprised to see such low quality writing in the New Yorker. What's weird is that some of it is understated rather than exaggerated:
You don't need to be a man in power for many French women to submit (?).
If one were to take the article seriously (and I know that it is meant as humour), one might question why American women feel so much more harrassed than French women, unless they are.... weaker? (*runs aways and hides from any women reading this*)
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Jan 31, 2018 16:21:43 GMT
I'm surprised to see such low quality writing in the New Yorker. Don't be. For quite a while now I have been dismayed by the puerile crap the New Yorker is willing to publish. It's hard for me to say such a thing, as I've venerated the New Yorker for years and am aware that it still features worthy writers. But more and more I cannot take the jejune twaddle they allow into their once completely admirable magazine. If you are unsure about whether or not Riane Konc, who wrote the "humor" piece in #27 is a self-impressed jerk or not, here are the names of her cats: 103wjod.com/author/rkonc/ Also, look at her picture -- I mean, just look at it! And if anyone doubts my take on how low the New Yorker has fallen, here is a list of their latest "humor" articles: www.newyorker.com/latest/humor
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2018 22:56:43 GMT
I'm surprised to see such low quality writing in the New Yorker. Don't be. For quite a while now I have been dismayed by the puerile crap the New Yorker is willing to publish. It's hard for me to say such a thing, as I've venerated the New Yorker for years and am aware that it still features worthy writers. But more and more I cannot take the jejune twaddle they allow into their once completely admirable magazine. If you are unsure about whether or not Riane Konc, who wrote the "humor" piece in #27 is a self-impressed jerk or not, here are the names of her cats: 103wjod.com/author/rkonc/ Also, look at her picture -- I mean, just look at it! And if anyone doubts my take on how low the New Yorker has fallen, here is a list of their latest "humor" articles: www.newyorker.com/latest/humorI am so glad that someone has addressed this topic because I have shared this same sentiment for quite sometime now.Subsequently I allowed my subscription lapse(after 30 or more years of 'loyalty'). A friend of mine faithfully passes her back issues on to me bless her heart. I literally shuddered when I clicked on to the Riane Konc link. Scary, scary... I do believe that Huckle nailed it.
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Jan 31, 2018 23:30:51 GMT
Not at all in the same league, but I subscribed to Time magazine for at least 20 years because it was a good source of news for me about what was happening in the far off United States. Keep in mind that the internet was not really available in those early times. However, when they changed their format and in my opinion dumbed down everything and turned it into an almost comic book format (big pictures! people don't want to read!), I cancelled my subscription within about 3 weeks and I have never regretted it. Every now and then I come across a copy on an airplane or something, and it is totally dreadful.
|
|
|
Post by questa on Feb 1, 2018 0:45:53 GMT
Even the photographs on the cover have lost out. Once, to get your best frame selected as the cover shot was every photo-journalists dream. Now it is 'meh'.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Feb 1, 2018 1:43:13 GMT
... one is no longer a part of the "target audience." Content changes. Unfortunately, you are all too right, Huckle. Right after reading your comment earlier today I had to leave to go to lunch. I brought up the subject with the two women with whom I was eating. We're different ages, with me being the kid & the oldest in her late eighties. I'd say the single main thing we have in common (besides liking each other) is that we've all been lifelong readers. We shared various anecdotes about how this dumbing down manifests, including discussing methods of making material more accessible to genuinely challenged students. The consensus was that the present tendency towards superficiality and "sound byte" presentation robs those coming into adulthood of the knowledge that there might be more -- more to learn, more to ponder, more reasons to stretch themselves and not just coast. I allowed my subscription lapse(after 30 or more years of 'loyalty'). That speaks volumes, Casimira. Really, it feels like such a loss for that world of information and stimulating entertainment that was the New Yorker to be so crassly eviscerated. Its beauty was in always giving everyone reasons to want to know more. [Time magazine] dumbed down everything Yes, it's downright shocking to see before & after versions of Time. The present one shouldn't be allowed to use the name.
|
|