[noemon]

Let me know when you have an actual argument.

Feel free to accuse me of whatever ad hominems you feel. Since they do not, in any way, address my actual arguments, there is no need to address your long posts talking about me instead of the topic.

This was the argument you objected to PoD, feel free to address it:

You and PoD could have been more consistent with your support of female victims but this you did not do nor have you ever done and hence why I was so provoking especially after seeing such images, because your hysteria here is not that compelling at all. You are incensed by a woman who finds Hollywood celebrities as irrelevant to the power of women to stand up for themselves and who finds them hypocritical. Do you know why she dislikes those Hollywood "metoo actors"? For the same reason my wife and a lot of other women do: a) Charity is not for publicity, published charity is called advertising and when it is coupled with words such as "we see you" it reeks of self-importance and becomes all the more cringeworthy. Of course there are cases where publicity is required to bring attention to an issue, but we already had that in this case, the issue is right at the forefront of public discourse rendering "Time's Up" a hollow advertising campaign for its stockholders merely cashing up on the wave. Do you know who requires public support in social media? that girl I mentioned and not the twitter accounts of these Hollywood celebs, the unknown X has no need for solidarity, the known victim has need of such support. And b) because lots of these Hollywood celebs are women who have taken money and signed non-disclosure agreements to protect rapists, lots of them are in fact accessories to rape. Yet we should condemn men glancing at women or awkwardly flirting with them, we should also apparently spit on women who are on the case of those Hollywood celebs patronising public debate to further their own movie-profiles, but god forbid we call the spade a spade. No, that is just annoying, innit?

I am really curious why you think an imaginary character called "Juana" deserves your attention more than a real 16 y.o. female victim?

[Pants-of-dog]

As I said, whether or not you wish to believe that sexual assault and harassment are abstract things for me is irrelevant. You are free to believe whatever you want about me. Please note that it does not, in any way, change my arguments.

I have already expressed my opinion on these Hollywood celebrities, and their agendas. Feel free to address that.

I have already shown how women in low wage industries are disproportionately targeted. Feel free to address that.

I have discussed how many socialist policies could benefit many of these workers, but there would still be immigrants and women of colour who would still be disproportionately targeted for sexual assault and harassment. That is another argument I have made that has not been addressed.

I also pointed out that the biased editorial that someone unciritcally copied and pasted was factually incorrect on the prevalence of sexual harassment. This has been ignored, despite the fact that I disproved Whelan’s number with evidence.

Finally, I also showed how most women experiencing sexual assault and sexual harassment are low wage earners who have to deal with retaliation if they speak out about it, and that this disproves the idea that most of these issues are about money making. Regardless of the actions of a few Hollywood celebrities, we cannot assume that all people dealing with sexual harassment have the money and power of a Hollywood star. Again, this has been ignored.

[QatzelOk]

I have already shown how women in low wage industries are disproportionately targeted. Feel free to address that.

Because low-wage usually means young and hot?

I have discussed how many socialist policies could benefit many of these workers, but there would still be immigrants and women of colour who would still be disproportionately targeted for sexual assault and harassment.

Because they're hot? Saggy old white people get harassed less because not as many people want to have sex with them. This has already been said many times in this thread and others. You simply refuse to broaden your understanding of sexuality, and instead rely on victimhood-memes to make some kind of heart-breaking point about how dogs sniffing one another's assholes creates victims.

Finally, I also showed how most women experiencing sexual assault and sexual harassment are low wage earners who have to deal with retaliation if they speak out about it, and that this disproves the idea that most of these issues are about money making.

Low wage earners usually means 'young.' This is no doubt why this group gets so much sexual attention.

Regardless of the actions of a few Hollywood celebrities, we cannot assume that all people dealing with sexual harassment have the money and power of a Hollywood star. Again, this has been ignored.

Likewise, the people accused of sexual harassment don't have the lawyers or money to waste on frivolous lawsuits about staring at bums and talking about penetration.

No other animals sue one another for flirting.

[Godstud]

No other animals sue one another for flirting.

Flirting is subtle, and between two people who both like each other. Harassment is not subtle, and between one person who likes another, and the victim who doesn't want the unwanted advances. It often involves an element of power, as well, since people in power seem to thin they can act how they wish and avoid consequences(of which sometimes they can).

Flirting used to be recognized for what it is, but now due to a lack of respect, and etiquette, that children are raised with, seems to have fallen along the wayside.

[QatzelOk]

Flirting is subtle, and between two people who both like each other.

Neither of your conditions are true.

Flirting is often one-way, and in non-WASP cultures can be very unsubtle.

There's nothing wrong with our nature. What has happened along the way is that various technologies have forced us to hate our own natures in order to make technologies work for our leaders and masters.

This is a kind of self-hating sickness, and won't end well if it's allowed to continue. The sooner we realize how sick our social constructs are making us, the more likely it will be that we survive another few generations.

[skinster]

No offence noeman, but that article you posted was kinda dogshit. Why would anyone care for an anti-feminist's point of view on a feminist issue?

or as skinster said: "call me sweetie and you 're fucked".

If you're going to quote me, try to do it properly. I didn't say that line at all. My comment was directed at Suntzu only and it was mocking him, telling him to maybe not talk to strangers, considering how he presents himself on this board my guess is his social skills are also dogshit and his belittling of sexual harassment suggests he would be okay with it.

I don't know why your focus is on Hollywood actors and what they do. Hollywood sucks. My focus on this topic is for everyday women, like me, my friends, my family etc. who deal with this type of thing, unfortunately, very regularly.

[Wellsy]

You made it personal when you closed your argument by spitting which I am sure you did that only to offend as it did not have any other value. I do find your effort(and the spitting) to criticise a woman who called a celebrity campaign as a "patronising exercise in image marketing" as disturbing. You see the feel-good campaigns of Hollywood celebs sound to me at least a lot less important than the struggle of the girls in Palestine who are historically and clearly unworthy of your slightest comment and attention, both for you and for those Hollywood celebs.

I think I'll need to be more explicit about my point of how you're making a relative point.
What I see this as is 'Appeal to Worse Problems'.
To which I can agree, the implied metric of harm or what ever one wants to use to compare even the sexual harassment of the average woman compared to the Palestinian girl will always seem less extreme/significant/terrible.
The issue though is that this can function simply as a dismissal rather than engagement.
It ends up a pissing match of who has it worse where I might as well cite other terrible things that happen around the world and say you're not discussing the 'real' issues.
The problem with this, is in my experience, its a common tactic that shuts down discussions.
I see it most commonly in people saying that women in the west don't experience real sexism, so feminism is obsolete and should focus on the third world. Except that there are significant problems remnant in our industrialized nations that are ignored and displaced so that there is never a self critical eye.
And my focus isn't so much that it's Hollywood women as much as the article is trying to make sexual harassment appear insignificant and uses shoddy points that seem more rhetorical than logical.
My point doesn't downplay the terrible things done to the Palestinian girl or what is being done to her country.
Because the two are independent of one another, I don't see the point of comparing suffering.

The spitting thing was a knee jerk reaction to what to me still seems like a crap article with crap points.

You ask what is the intended function of providing a definition? For starters, you have a guy in here that keeps asking you to define what is sexual harassment, yet pages later, not you and nor anyone else deigns to give him an answer. I can only assume that you refuse to provide an answer because you support the widest definition possible evidently including that of glancing("if the boss has previous history of.....glancing"), yet you take issue that I provided the definition of your own source, which I assume is only because you fear that it will undermine your cause. As I said earlier you prefer the shadow of the abstraction because it's safe. This however underlines the hollowness of it all.

Indeed, I asked so I could clarify my own position some.
And to be honest, I retract the glance thing, what I was trying to do was press that in a context of precedented sexual harassment, glances might be more readily interpreted by third parties in a different light.
Like an employee who experienced more severe harassment from her boss also notes that when they’re talking he keeps looking at her tits and doesn’t seem to be paying attention to what she’s saying.
Not that if he had a repeative behaviour of glancing at her body as your summary of my position implies.

Regardless, with some reflection, I actually think that it wouldn’t be defined as glancing and that women don’t experience glances as sexual harassment and glancing shouldn’t be considered seuxal harassment, everyone’s got eyes and is bound to look.
https://aifs.gov.au/publications/conceptual-understandings-and-prevalence-sexual-harassment-and-street-harassm

Definitions of sexual harassment and street harassment typically include a broad range of behaviours, including verbal comments, staring, leering, and unwanted touching and groping. These definitions are generally consistent with a continuum model of sexual violence (MacKinnon, 1979). For example, Macmillan, Nierobisz, and Welsh (2000) considered street harassment and sexual harassment to include:
…
ogling (that is, staring in a lecherous manner);

So I retract the reckless use of the term glancing, and hope I’ve clarified some. Not sure if you take issue with ogling/staring except whether it might encroach in definition arbitrarily into what might consider glancing. And then we may split hairs on what distinguishes one from the other. Where I imagine the staring isn’t a absent minded thing but more consciously done that it’s obvious perhaps.
And I would add that it would be overly sensitive to take glances as being so significant.
Though such an aversion to any contact may be a reality for some, although their subjectivity doesn’t post a reasonable standard for people to act by.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subj ... /zizek.htm

The obvious reproach that imposes itself here is, of course: is the basic characteristic of today’s “postmodern” subject not the exact opposite of the free subject who experienced himself as ultimately responsible for his fate, namely the subject who grounds the authority of his speech on his status of a victim of circumstances beyond his control? Every contact with another human being is experienced as a potential threat — if the other smokes, if he casts a covetous glance at me, he already hurts me; this logic of victimization is today universalized, reaching well beyond the standard cases of sexual or racist harassment — recall the growing financial industry of paying damage claims, from the tobacco industry deal in the USA and the financial claims of the Holocaust victims and forced laborers in Nazi Germany, and the idea that the USA should pay the African-Americans hundreds of billions of dollars for all they were deprived of due to their past slavery ... This notion of the subject as an irresponsible victim involves the extreme Narcissistic perspective from which every encounter with the Other appears as a potential threat to the subject’s precarious imaginary balance; as such, it is not the opposite, but, rather, the inherent supplement of the liberal free subject: in today’s predominant form of individuality, the self-centered assertion of the psychological subject paradoxically overlaps with the perception of oneself as a victim of circumstances.

But in regards to the fella asking for a definiton I didn’t bother because the very way he asks the question doesn’t inspire much confidence in much of an engagement on the matter to explore it. Hell, their posting history doesn't in spite much hope in serious discussion, especially with how verbose I am as I like to journey through things and my thoughts in some detail.
My thought to a question going is ‘X sexual harassment?’ is that it seems to ask for a yes or no question. Where first we probably should explore what underpins the decision to come to one conclusion or another. But in that task, it takes a lot more effort than essentializing an act within itself as sexual harassment. Because there is much to unpack with the concept, like some people knee jerk reaction to the subjectivity involved in the matter.
Because one act may not be experienced as sexual harassment as it would for another, precisely because their reception to a particular act would be varied by their consent (will).
Because one can’t harass objects, only subjects, and whether something is harassment is indeed contingent on the consent of the subject.
From previous link

It is likely that the form the harassing behaviour takes will also influence how the recipient of the behaviour interprets it. As noted above, definitions of sexual harassment and street harassment are broad and inclusive. Some forms of this harassment have the scope to be interpreted in a range of ways by women. For example, Kissling (1991) purported that "many women read street remarks as a form of compliment, carefully distinguishing them from obscene or violent street harassment" (p. 452). However, it is also likely that many other women would not interpret the same remarks in a positive light. This variation in how street harassment is experienced by women adds to the complexity of attempting to conceptualise harassment as a form of sexual harm, and in knowing how to best respond to this behaviour. The intentions of the harasser may also vary, ranging from an intended "compliment" through to a purposeful attempt to harass, harm and/or intimidate their target (Kissling, 1991).

As noted above, even the subjective element is important to culpability, and it seems a mens rea may be required in regards to sexual harassment as opposed to strict liability. Meaning that as long as there is no proof of knowing intention, men could be harassing women and not be subject to any consequence.
https://www.npr.org/2017/11/28/56574337 ... -by-courts

"What you have to prove is that somebody is acting with intention, so that's a much higher standard," which leads to more pretrial dismissals, she says.

Just as any sexual encounter is a crime or not based on consent.
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/students/groups/osjcl/files/2016/07/Consent-Culpability-and-the-Law-of-Rape-Ferzan.pdf

Part I begins by describing the relationship between culpability, wrongdoing, permissibility, and consent. It then argues that the best conception of consent—one that reflects what consent really is—is the conception of willed acquiescence. That is, an internal choice to allow contact—a decision that “this is okay with me”—is all that is morally required for one person to contact another. Part I further maintains that an expression of consent is not necessary to capture those culpable actors who proceed when they do not believe that they have consent, as attempt liability remains available.

My worry being in answering, yes X is sexual harassment is that one doesn’t actually gain any understanding. Telling people the answer doesn’t compel them to think and I worry certain behaviours would be essentialized as sexual harassment when I don’t think they should be.
I think this helps illustrate an issue in law should a behaviour be essentialized as harassment, due to it effectively disregarded the most intuitive sense of what consent is.

In choosing to adopt a rule for consent, and one that departs from what consent really is, the code risks imposing strict liability. The shift to “no means no” changes the meaning of “no” from a factual meaning (evidencing acquiescence) to a legal meaning (deeming sex impermissible). When the criminal law says that “no means no,” it is not making an empirical claim. Perhaps the consenter is saying “no” when she means “try again in ten minutes.” But the law is stating that by saying “no,” the consenter has made it legally impermissible to continue. The utterance is a verbal act that makes it impermissible to continue, irrespective of the utterer’s beliefs or desires. Stop lights are stop lights. They don’t signal whether opposing traffic is actually present. “No means no” is a claim that the expression of a “no” renders the act impermissible.70 We should pause to fully understand the effect of shifting the meaning of “no” from a question of fact to one of law.

By giving “no” a legal meaning that can depart from its factual meaning, a code adopts strict liability. This is because the code as stated disallows proof that the defendant honestly, or honestly and reasonably, believed that assent was present. In other words, if the defendant cannot introduce evidence that he honestly and reasonably believed the woman assented, despite saying “no,” then the proposed statute is strict liability as to assent. (The defendant can only introduce evidence as to whether he honestly (and/or reasonably) believed she communicated “yes” or “no”). Taking this evidence off the table is indeed the very point of shifting the definition of consent.

As such, I think the above pretty much points out the issue with strict liability where there would be rules on behaviour necessarily constituting sexual harassment. And I think the author of the above makes a power case for consent as an one’s subjective will, (as opposed to desire, one may desire something but not will it).
This means that someone saying one thing to one woman may be totally fine, in many cases fine, in other cases, not at all. Of course there might be some rules that generally useful in company policy and such. But that’s on different standards than criminal law, as even consensual relationships between people can be a means of ethical violation (teacher and university student).


And in regards to the source, I would note that I used it for it’s summary of a meta-anylsis which I also linked in it’s citation in regards to methodology like the direct survey used in the GSS. Because that’s all I read of it, generally I read everything I end up linking/posting except for minor things like that where it was simply useful to illustrate a point of why the GSS is overly conservative in its estimate.

You and PoD could have been more consistent with your support of female victims but this you did not do nor have you ever done and hence why I was so provoking especially after seeing such images, because your hysteria here is not that compelling at all. You are incensed by a woman who finds Hollywood celebrities as irrelevant to the power of women to stand up for themselves and who finds them hypocritical. Do you know why she dislikes those Hollywood "metoo actors"? For the same reason my wife and a lot of other women do: a) Charity is not for publicity, published charity is called advertising and when it is coupled with words such as "we see you" it reeks of self-importance and becomes all the more cringeworthy. Of course there are cases where publicity is required to bring attention to an issue, but we already had that in this case, the issue is right at the forefront of public discourse rendering "Time's Up" a hollow advertising campaign for its stockholders merely cashing up on the wave. Do you know who requires public support in social media? that girl I mentioned and not the twitter accounts of these Hollywood celebs, the unknown X has no need for solidarity, the known victim has need of such support. And b) because lots of these Hollywood celebs are women who have taken money and signed non-disclosure agreements to protect rapists, lots of them are in fact accessories to rape. Yet we should condemn men glancing at women or awkwardly flirting with them, we should also apparently spit on women who are on the case of those Hollywood celebs patronising public debate to further their own movie-profiles, but god forbid we call the spade a spade. No, that is just annoying, innit?

I guess the incensed part was helped with being tipsy when I posted the initial post XD
But yeah, the lady in the article pisses me off because her points are shit and I didn’t like them and I made a point of what I took issue with and why I thought it was subpar.
The offense I took wasn’t in regards to who the people are as much as what seemed to be positioning themselves as talking from the perspective of workers when it seems substantively she was only out to attack sexual harassment as an issue facing women.
Presuming sexual harassment is of some significant in the lives of many women, where it seems pretty crazy how many women I know grow up finding degrees of sexual violence normative, I found the lady pretty terribly dismissive of sexual harassment. It’s veneer of fuck them hollywood big wigs didn’t work for me, it seemed an empty appearance where the real content is an anti-feminist opposition to sexual harassment as an issue.
I associate her with the likes of many supposed feminists that seem to be quite clearly anti-feminists.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.454.3637&rep=rep1&type=pdf

It has been commonly noted that the views of a particular group of self-described feminists are closely aligned with these anti-feminist attacks. This group usually includes any or all of Camille Paglia, Christina Hoff Sommers, Katie Roiphe and Naomi Wolf (Atmore 1999, 183; Gavey 1999, 61; McDermott 1995, 669; Mardorossian 2002, 748; Haag 1996, 24; Kozol 1995, 648), but sometimes includes the likes of Elizabeth FoxGenovese, Rene Denfeld and Daphne Patai (Cole 2000, 135; Minnich 1998, 159). This groups sets itself apart from more recognizably feminist sentiments by overt attacks on contemporary feminists (or ‘gender feminists’ as Sommers calls them, 1994, 16) and by questioning the validity of data on issues like date rape and sexual harassment. Aside from Wolf (whom Atmore ranks as the least conservative (1999, 186)) they are cited admiringly in a number of journals associated with opposition to ‘political correctness’ (see, amongst numerous examples, Iannone 2000-2001, 32 and 1993, 51; Kaiser 2000, 72; Kimball 1993; Young 1994, 56). These journals include Academic Questions, the journal of the National Association of Scholars (the self-appointed guardians of conservative academia – see Ravitch 2005, 7, 18; D’Souza 1992, 18) and New Criterion under the leadership of Kimball.

And I think you’re stretching yourself in speculating the reason the author doesn’t like the actors is because of the reason your wife and other women don’t like them.
This is prescribing something that I don’t see supported by the article at all.
But it is a much stronger point than anything in the article, if even a bit cynical, in that it could’ve been done quietly rather than a publiciality stunt. I would try and press back with speculation that one could just as easily prescribe the motive that the public stunt emphasizes it not as an issue restricted to themselves in hollywood but actually acknowledging it beyond themselves.
But regardless of speculated motivations, its easier to conclude the implications from what is done. And its here that the article seems to do a terrible job, inferring things out of thin air. Assertions without evidence make for crappy points. Not that she needed evidence, but even to just make rational assertions that were coherent would’ve been worthy of respect.
Indeed, I’m sure the media is quite happy to make a buck out of stoking up emotional content.

But in that vein of known victims, it is true that the actors aren’t identifying a specific woman. But their letter emphasizes the problem as being beyond themselves, and experienced by many women. It asserting that sexual harassment and violence is a problem for women generally.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... etter.html

To me that is a good thing and one that isn’t even tainted by speculated cynical motivations, what they wrote is isn’t a terrible thing to assert on such a scale. At a time where I think feminist rhetoric is too often co-opted and dominated by more powerful actors and interests (‘postfeminism’). Where for many it’s stating the obvious, but it for others, it challenges there sense of how society is. The one where sexual violence is an important means of intimidation/terror to have women restrict their autonomy or the one where sexual violence is an inevitability often framed in individual terms where criminality is somehow independent of society rather than of it and within it.

EDIT: But I'll add, that raising millions of dollars for legal support is kind of a band aid rather than something radical in terms of essentially changing society and the relations which underpin sexual harassment. And in this I imagine we can agree of the limitation of what they're doing.
Because in the words of Hellen Keller

Many young women full of devotion and goodwill have been engaged in superficial charities. They have tried to feed the hungry without knowing the causes of poverty. They have tried to minister to the sick without understanding the cause of disease. They have tried to raise up fallen sisters without knowing the brutal arm of necessity that struck them down. We give relief to a mother here and there, and still women are worn out at their daily tasks. We attempt social reforms where we need social transformations. We mend small things and leave the great things untouched. We strive after order and comfort in a few households, regardless of the world where distress prevails and loveliness is trodden in the dust.

We all know this ain't no 'cure'/solution, the money will run out and then what? The justice system is but a reaction to problems in society and can not effectively solve social problems. But it's about as much as one could expect out of Hollywood. And despite the limitation, it's not a terrible thing they've done. Just as many reforms in society can be progressive while effectively being only temporary band aids.

[Victoribus Spolia]

#Metoo is a powergrab, irrespective of any legitimate victims.

The problem is that in our feminized society, traditionally masculine acts of initiating sexuality, any sexuality, whether reciprocated or not, is now being demonized.

The definitions of sexual assault and rape are now expanding to the point that they become almost meaningless and lead to real crimes against humanity being minimalized and the real heionous acts committed by the religion of peace being comfortable ignored. Indeed, if everything is sexual assault, then who do westerners think they are to criticize other cultures? After all...those damn bed room eyes! RAPE!!!

of course, I don't mind that the left is doing this and talking about the "dynamics of power" and such shit

This is only helping the right, I hope it all gets more exposure.

[Pants-of-dog]

#Metoo is a powergrab, irrespective of any legitimate victims.

Please provide evidence for this claim.

The problem is that in our feminized society, traditionally masculine acts of initiating sexuality, any sexuality, whether reciprocated or not, is now being demonized.

Please provide evidence for this claim.

The definitions of sexual assault and rape are now expanding to the point that they become almost meaningless and lead to real crimes against humanity being minimalized and the real heinous acts committed by the religion of peace being comfortably ignored. Indeed, if everything is sexual assault, then who do westerners think they are to criticize other cultures? After all...those damn bed room eyes! RAPE!!!

So people have magically changed the definition of sexual assault so that it only applies to all men all the time as long as they are non-Muslims?

If this is the best argument that conservatives can come up with, there is no debate.

[Suntzu]

Please provide evidence for this claim.

[skinster]

Where is this "feminized society" that VS speaks of?

[Zagadka]

"The #MeToo Sexual Harassment Hysteria Is A Pretext For Women To Take Power And Money From Men"

I don't think it is a pretext. It is pretty clear; men have the power and money and women have few opportunities. Of course they want the power and money. Why do men need more power and money?

[Igor Antunov]

Women have quotas working in their favor, the legal system and more opportunities, actually. They just choose to 'squander' it. Instead of engineering, they do social science or business. Their choice. Their natural inclination.

'There are too many black men in the NBA, we must make sure at least 50% are White men'.

That is the level of absurdity on display here.

This is not a 'problem' that men must pay for. Nothing is being squandered even, In fact it is not a problem that needs to be solved. It is the way things naturally are and those who complain the loudest are those who have the most time to do so-i.e those least invested in a tangible high paying career-and most invested in pushing their personal fringe politics down other people's throats.

Ideologues make me sick.

[skinster]

You're convincing nobody, 4chan/Pepe-the-frog dude.

[colliric]

"The #MeToo Sexual Harassment Hysteria Is A Pretext For Women To Take Power And Money From Men"

I don't think it is a pretext. It is pretty clear; men have the power and money and women have few opportunities. Of course they want the power and money. Why do men need more power and money?

Oh bullshit, that stupidly denies the fact that for the last several decades Women have completed University and high school at a higher rate than men and are presumably more intelligent and given that statistic have likely overtaken men already in most professions as Baby Boomers start retiring in greater numbers.

Reason Women don't get paid as much:
They take less overtime, take more holidays and do less dangerous jobs. Plus Women, you know... Have babies and that changes their life completely.

https://www.payscale.com/gender-lifetime-earnings-gap

Great article.

[Libertarian353]

Rape ain't O.K.

. . . or your daughter!

[Libertarian353]

Please provide evidence for this claim.

Not an argument, why do we support sexual harassment when it's there own?

[Tainari88]

No offence noeman, but that article you posted was kinda dogshit. Why would anyone care for an anti-feminist's point of view on a feminist issue?



If you're going to quote me, try to do it properly. I didn't say that line at all. My comment was directed at Suntzu only and it was mocking him, telling him to maybe not talk to strangers, considering how he presents himself on this board my guess is his social skills are also dogshit and his belittling of sexual harassment suggests he would be okay with it.

I don't know why your focus is on Hollywood actors and what they do. Hollywood sucks. My focus on this topic is for everyday women, like me, my friends, my family etc. who deal with this type of thing, unfortunately, very regularly.

I say Skinster we take all these men arguing against women's rights to be free of unwanted sexual harassment from men--is to become the character from the movie "Switch"---a B rated movie true--that my Aunt insisted on seeing with me in the cinema and it starred Ellen Barkin or someone, and some other actor I forgot his name also from Hollywood. In this movie a chauvinistic pig wakes up and realizes he has become a woman overnight. All the bullshit he believes is true about women he realizes he was a total ignorant. He had to be born with a vagina and breasts and become a woman to deal with women issues. He then became a different dude inside a woman. Realizing his opinions on women were total crap.

That is the solution to the arguments in this campaign......you can't put yourself in a woman's shoes because women somehow are not the same in rights as males in the workplace, society and etc and not only are they not the same, but unworthy of dignity and respect and equal pay and equal treatment for things that are logical. No one of either sex likes to be harassed either verbally, physically or mentally or sexually. It is very simple. Treat everyone, both men and women with dignity and respect at all times. Avoid these 'problems'. In today's workplace it could get you fired, sued, or even thrown in jail if you are a serial rapist on the job. It is not worth it. Period.

[Decky]

In Communist Albania there were massive state gun drives to try and get more women to buy firearms (they kept relaxing the gun laws but women didn't seem to be interested in buying them, hence the gun drives). Could this be a solution?

[Tainari88]

In Communist Albania there were massive state gun drives to try and get more women to buy firearms (they kept relaxing the gun laws but women didn't seem to be interested in buying them, hence the gun drives). Could this be a solution?

Decky, I think part of the problem I am finding is that men have a very hard time getting women who will have sex with them willingly and without payment of some sort. Especially if they are just working class dudes making working class wages and are not handsome or charming or lack social skills. I am starting to think how resentful some of the men in this thread are--that they are pissed at something.

What is so hard about approaching women you find attractive outside of a work setting and just starting a normal, get to know you conversation? Damn....it is not that difficult. Too many men who just would love sex from a woman they like or are attracted to and yet it seems they are not being successful because all this anger is just out of control.

There are a lot of women in the USA. And the reality is I know many who would love to be in a relationship. But women too, have pressures. A lot of women are not pretty in the least. They are not pretty. But they want boyfriends. Men who are not handsome but they want girlfriends. People who are broke and unemployed but they want partners too. Stop the discrimination against people who are not perfect, become a human being and start a relationship already and you won't need to harass someone who is not interested in you.

She doesn't want to deal with you. Leave her alone.
He doesn't want to deal with you. Leave him alone.

It is not rocket science.