The excesses of the #MeToo movement have not only led to a culture of generalizing men as sexual predators, but also of generalizing women as helpless victims.
> It is inconsistent to celebrate groupies as emancipated party girls or influencers on one side, but then to emphasize their helplessness, cluelessness and inability to act whenever it is useful for the media’s smear campaigns.
It's been long enough since the Sexual Revolution that we've kind of forgotten that the old rules of sexual morality that they "emancipated" themselves from have always been there first and foremost to protect women from predatory men. Without that protection in place, we're painfully re-learning just why it was necessary.
"Tradition is a set of solutions for which we have forgotten the problems. Throw away the solution and you get the problem back. Sometimes the problem has mutated or disappeared. Often it is still there as strong as it ever was." -- Donald Kingsbury
Interesting viewpoint, Bob! I'm wondering now: How would you put that protection for women in place without sending everyone back to pre-Sexual Revolution times?
I mean: How can we put that protection for women in place without going back the prevailing mindset before the Sexual Revolution (the "women belong in the kitchen" mindset let's say)?
Ah, I see. I'm not sure that's something to worry about too much, because that was kind of a distinct thing from the Sexual Revolution. Yes, all the different bits of societal turmoil going on throughout the 60s were generally interrelated, but the strongest factor that drove women out of the homes and into the workforce was the ruinous inflation of the 70s that made it far less feasible to raise a family and sustain a middle-class lifestyle on a single income. Our society had just barely normalized the concept of "women can have their own jobs" and all of a sudden that changed from liberation to just a new kind of chain: "women *need to* have their own jobs just to get by, so they can't stay in the kitchen, even the ones who'd personally prefer to do so, unless they're rich."
I don't think that taking a hard look at the results that the Sexual Revolution has wrought, and saying "this was a mistake afterall; turns out the 'no sex outside of marriage' standard has a whole lot to recommend it, especially for women and their security" would do much to reverse that. (Especially with 1970s-level inflation ravaging our society once again!)
So maybe it boils down to bringing back some good old fashioned boundaries and common sense, as in: Just because you *can* do it doesn't mean that it's good for you. (e.g.: Just because you can be as promiscuous as you want doesn't mean it's good for you.)
Thanks for putting my feelings about the legal principles surrounding this topic into words better than I could. It’s nice to know there are women out there (besides my wife) who believe in moral agency and self-responsibility. It’s too easy to get the impression that there aren’t any anymore. But hey, you proved me wrong. Good job. I loved it.
I'd be the first man to flail the skin off another guy, who rapes or abuses a woman. But I will also be the first person to call for those who falsely accuse someone of a crime (especially one as heinous as rape or sexual assault) to pay a price, as well - read fines and jail.
The disgraceful Christine Blasey Ford and her co-conspirators (read all the mettoo celebs, who took to the airwaves and openly slandered Kavanaugh), should be behind bars.
Additionally, accuser identities should not be hidden, except for cases involving children. However, if you're adult enough to attend a frat party or concert and are potentially going to ruin someone's life (to include jail time), then you have to be publicly identified.
Harvey Weinstein is another case, where your and Weiss' admonishments, over using personal agency, come into play. I will state again - if we have proof that he drugged, raped, forced sex on, or physically assaulted any woman, man, boy or girl then let me at him, I'll skin him alive then deliver him to the designated jail.
However, if you have women actors (adults) who knew he had a well used casting couch (and by all reports it was well known) and they still CHOOSE to put themselves in that situation and then CHOOSE to stay - in order to keep a job, get a part, or further a career - then they CHOSE to abandon their agency, by not getting up and walking out. Now if they did that and he grabbed them, prevented them from leaving and assaulted them, then refer back to my offer for skin removal and jail delivery services.
Here's another twist...if the actress knew that by submitting/agreeing to (by staying) the sexual acts, she would advance her career/get a part - isn't that a form of prostitution? And isn't the current woke dogma, that sex work is real work - an empowering and proud profession for women??? Is that only for the lower classes and drug addled or does it also apply to those in hollyweird.
As for these tabloids, papers, and media outlets/new shows, there should be laws on the books, that allow for easier liable suits to be brought against them. Share holders would not stand for the sleazy, sophomoric dog piling practices, if they lost hundreds of millions in law suits each year.
Of course those laws will never be passed/changed because the masses love the click bait and are happy to watch the carnage, so long as they get their dopamine hits every few seconds.
You make a couple of interesting points I would like to comment on:
> "Accuser identities should not be hidden"
I still haven't made up my mind about this... it's difficult. I can see arguments for both protecting the victim's identity (sexual abuse is a horrible, traumatic thing), but also for trying to limit false accusations by pushing for more transparency.
> "However, if you have women actors (adults) who knew he had a well used casting couch (and by all reports it was well known) and they still CHOOSE to put themselves in that situation and then CHOOSE to stay - in order to keep a job, get a part, or further a career - then they CHOSE to abandon their agency, by not getting up and walking out."
Absolutely. However, I do think it's necessary to call out the perversity and misogyny of this totally warped casting system. So kudos to the women who did that.
> "And isn't the current woke dogma, that sex work is real work - an empowering and proud profession for women??? Is that only for the lower classes and drug addled or does it also apply to those in hollyweird."
Don't get me started on the "prostitution is empowering for women" stuff, I just cannot wrap my head around the fact that *women* are promoting this.
> "Share holders would not stand for the sleazy, sophomoric dog piling practices, if they lost hundreds of millions in law suits each year."
Ditto. The media apparatus, as it is operating now, is destroying people's lives with their sensational journalism that is purely based on suspicion and allegation.
- I too have trouble with re-traumatizing those, who actually have been through an assault. Not sure how both sides (accuser and accused) can be served fairly, without having some sort of standard or age cut-off.
- Casting system - yup, shamefully, it is exactly what you said. I've wondered, since the rise of metoo, why these women and others continually chose to perform in roles that objectify them and turn them into nothing more than a set of augmented boobs, tight skirt or lacey underwear, that teases the nudity coming up in the next scene.
It's puzzling and why we men sit back and shake our heads, as we watch women flock to and rave about "50 shades of perversion" and then in the same breath decry the misogyny and objectification. Some worldwide box office totals: Movie #1 $570.7M - Movie #2 $381.3M - Movie #3 $371.9M.
As with all things, if ALL those female actresses said "up yours pervert writers/directors/producers, none of us are doing these roles" then things would change.
The sell outs always hurt the cause, by damaging the credibility of the position/argument.
- The same problem (sellouts) plagues those women who are fighting to stop teaching little girls, that hookers and porn stars are cool and to be respected/emulated.
Underlying it all is a level of blind activism, that lives by the credo - Push the agenda, cause or ideology, no matter what the cost.
Unfortunately the real cost is our daughters and sons, who grow up thinking the perversion, misogyny and amoral world they live in, is cool and normal.
> "It's puzzling and why we men sit back and shake our heads, as we watch women flock to and rave about "50 shades of perversion" and then in the same breath decry the misogyny and objectification [...] The same problem (sellouts) plagues those women who are fighting to stop teaching little girls, that hookers and porn stars are cool and to be respected/emulated."
It's the hypocrisy and inconsistency of what I will loosely refer to as radical feminism: On the one hand, women (and especially men) are supposed to decry the constanst misogyny against and objectification of all women, but on the other hand we are supposed to call OnlyFans and prostitution some sort of sexual liberation. It doesn't add up at all.
I've always been a fan of "make the punishment fit the crime." A person who is found to have falsely accused another person of something should be punished with whatever punishment the falsely accused person would have received.
Any time consequence is removed from the equation, people have little restraint in how they act or what they do.
My wise mother said numerous times, in my childhood, "you can do whatever you want, write on the walls, break the dishes, talk back, steal or anything else, but just know - you will pay the consequences of your actions and choices - and you can bank on that."
That statement worked for 90% of my formative years. That other 10% (when I lost my mind and did as I pleased) was at time costly and painful - deservedly so.
Unfortunately we live in a world that doesn't teach, that we should be not only held accountable for our misdeeds, but punished for them. I personally think those who are guilty of true sexual assault and rape, should be severely punished, so that they and anyone else will think 3 times, before they even consider committing that crime again.
We also should be teaching our boys, to respect and protect women and and abusive behavior of a girl/woman is unacceptable and will be met with severe consequences.
> It is inconsistent to celebrate groupies as emancipated party girls or influencers on one side, but then to emphasize their helplessness, cluelessness and inability to act whenever it is useful for the media’s smear campaigns.
It's been long enough since the Sexual Revolution that we've kind of forgotten that the old rules of sexual morality that they "emancipated" themselves from have always been there first and foremost to protect women from predatory men. Without that protection in place, we're painfully re-learning just why it was necessary.
"Tradition is a set of solutions for which we have forgotten the problems. Throw away the solution and you get the problem back. Sometimes the problem has mutated or disappeared. Often it is still there as strong as it ever was." -- Donald Kingsbury
Interesting viewpoint, Bob! I'm wondering now: How would you put that protection for women in place without sending everyone back to pre-Sexual Revolution times?
Honestly, I don't know if you can. What exactly do you mean by "sending everyone back"?
I mean: How can we put that protection for women in place without going back the prevailing mindset before the Sexual Revolution (the "women belong in the kitchen" mindset let's say)?
Ah, I see. I'm not sure that's something to worry about too much, because that was kind of a distinct thing from the Sexual Revolution. Yes, all the different bits of societal turmoil going on throughout the 60s were generally interrelated, but the strongest factor that drove women out of the homes and into the workforce was the ruinous inflation of the 70s that made it far less feasible to raise a family and sustain a middle-class lifestyle on a single income. Our society had just barely normalized the concept of "women can have their own jobs" and all of a sudden that changed from liberation to just a new kind of chain: "women *need to* have their own jobs just to get by, so they can't stay in the kitchen, even the ones who'd personally prefer to do so, unless they're rich."
I don't think that taking a hard look at the results that the Sexual Revolution has wrought, and saying "this was a mistake afterall; turns out the 'no sex outside of marriage' standard has a whole lot to recommend it, especially for women and their security" would do much to reverse that. (Especially with 1970s-level inflation ravaging our society once again!)
So maybe it boils down to bringing back some good old fashioned boundaries and common sense, as in: Just because you *can* do it doesn't mean that it's good for you. (e.g.: Just because you can be as promiscuous as you want doesn't mean it's good for you.)
Thanks for putting my feelings about the legal principles surrounding this topic into words better than I could. It’s nice to know there are women out there (besides my wife) who believe in moral agency and self-responsibility. It’s too easy to get the impression that there aren’t any anymore. But hey, you proved me wrong. Good job. I loved it.
Thank you!
Excellent post!
I'd be the first man to flail the skin off another guy, who rapes or abuses a woman. But I will also be the first person to call for those who falsely accuse someone of a crime (especially one as heinous as rape or sexual assault) to pay a price, as well - read fines and jail.
The disgraceful Christine Blasey Ford and her co-conspirators (read all the mettoo celebs, who took to the airwaves and openly slandered Kavanaugh), should be behind bars.
Additionally, accuser identities should not be hidden, except for cases involving children. However, if you're adult enough to attend a frat party or concert and are potentially going to ruin someone's life (to include jail time), then you have to be publicly identified.
Harvey Weinstein is another case, where your and Weiss' admonishments, over using personal agency, come into play. I will state again - if we have proof that he drugged, raped, forced sex on, or physically assaulted any woman, man, boy or girl then let me at him, I'll skin him alive then deliver him to the designated jail.
However, if you have women actors (adults) who knew he had a well used casting couch (and by all reports it was well known) and they still CHOOSE to put themselves in that situation and then CHOOSE to stay - in order to keep a job, get a part, or further a career - then they CHOSE to abandon their agency, by not getting up and walking out. Now if they did that and he grabbed them, prevented them from leaving and assaulted them, then refer back to my offer for skin removal and jail delivery services.
Here's another twist...if the actress knew that by submitting/agreeing to (by staying) the sexual acts, she would advance her career/get a part - isn't that a form of prostitution? And isn't the current woke dogma, that sex work is real work - an empowering and proud profession for women??? Is that only for the lower classes and drug addled or does it also apply to those in hollyweird.
As for these tabloids, papers, and media outlets/new shows, there should be laws on the books, that allow for easier liable suits to be brought against them. Share holders would not stand for the sleazy, sophomoric dog piling practices, if they lost hundreds of millions in law suits each year.
Of course those laws will never be passed/changed because the masses love the click bait and are happy to watch the carnage, so long as they get their dopamine hits every few seconds.
Thanks again for the great post.
Thank you!
You make a couple of interesting points I would like to comment on:
> "Accuser identities should not be hidden"
I still haven't made up my mind about this... it's difficult. I can see arguments for both protecting the victim's identity (sexual abuse is a horrible, traumatic thing), but also for trying to limit false accusations by pushing for more transparency.
> "However, if you have women actors (adults) who knew he had a well used casting couch (and by all reports it was well known) and they still CHOOSE to put themselves in that situation and then CHOOSE to stay - in order to keep a job, get a part, or further a career - then they CHOSE to abandon their agency, by not getting up and walking out."
Absolutely. However, I do think it's necessary to call out the perversity and misogyny of this totally warped casting system. So kudos to the women who did that.
> "And isn't the current woke dogma, that sex work is real work - an empowering and proud profession for women??? Is that only for the lower classes and drug addled or does it also apply to those in hollyweird."
Don't get me started on the "prostitution is empowering for women" stuff, I just cannot wrap my head around the fact that *women* are promoting this.
> "Share holders would not stand for the sleazy, sophomoric dog piling practices, if they lost hundreds of millions in law suits each year."
Ditto. The media apparatus, as it is operating now, is destroying people's lives with their sensational journalism that is purely based on suspicion and allegation.
Agree on all points.
- I too have trouble with re-traumatizing those, who actually have been through an assault. Not sure how both sides (accuser and accused) can be served fairly, without having some sort of standard or age cut-off.
- Casting system - yup, shamefully, it is exactly what you said. I've wondered, since the rise of metoo, why these women and others continually chose to perform in roles that objectify them and turn them into nothing more than a set of augmented boobs, tight skirt or lacey underwear, that teases the nudity coming up in the next scene.
It's puzzling and why we men sit back and shake our heads, as we watch women flock to and rave about "50 shades of perversion" and then in the same breath decry the misogyny and objectification. Some worldwide box office totals: Movie #1 $570.7M - Movie #2 $381.3M - Movie #3 $371.9M.
As with all things, if ALL those female actresses said "up yours pervert writers/directors/producers, none of us are doing these roles" then things would change.
The sell outs always hurt the cause, by damaging the credibility of the position/argument.
- The same problem (sellouts) plagues those women who are fighting to stop teaching little girls, that hookers and porn stars are cool and to be respected/emulated.
Underlying it all is a level of blind activism, that lives by the credo - Push the agenda, cause or ideology, no matter what the cost.
Unfortunately the real cost is our daughters and sons, who grow up thinking the perversion, misogyny and amoral world they live in, is cool and normal.
Thanks for the convo and being in this fight!!
> "It's puzzling and why we men sit back and shake our heads, as we watch women flock to and rave about "50 shades of perversion" and then in the same breath decry the misogyny and objectification [...] The same problem (sellouts) plagues those women who are fighting to stop teaching little girls, that hookers and porn stars are cool and to be respected/emulated."
It's the hypocrisy and inconsistency of what I will loosely refer to as radical feminism: On the one hand, women (and especially men) are supposed to decry the constanst misogyny against and objectification of all women, but on the other hand we are supposed to call OnlyFans and prostitution some sort of sexual liberation. It doesn't add up at all.
💯
I've always been a fan of "make the punishment fit the crime." A person who is found to have falsely accused another person of something should be punished with whatever punishment the falsely accused person would have received.
Agreed Bob.
Any time consequence is removed from the equation, people have little restraint in how they act or what they do.
My wise mother said numerous times, in my childhood, "you can do whatever you want, write on the walls, break the dishes, talk back, steal or anything else, but just know - you will pay the consequences of your actions and choices - and you can bank on that."
That statement worked for 90% of my formative years. That other 10% (when I lost my mind and did as I pleased) was at time costly and painful - deservedly so.
Unfortunately we live in a world that doesn't teach, that we should be not only held accountable for our misdeeds, but punished for them. I personally think those who are guilty of true sexual assault and rape, should be severely punished, so that they and anyone else will think 3 times, before they even consider committing that crime again.
We also should be teaching our boys, to respect and protect women and and abusive behavior of a girl/woman is unacceptable and will be met with severe consequences.