Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
To say 'many men' who have their feelings hurt become violent is pretty hyperbolic.

Is it, though? Half of all women that are murdered are slain my their current or former romantic partners. In comparison, the opposite happens 5-7%.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Having them do it in Tony's living room doesn't give you the opportunity for having a load of half-naked women in the background.

Only if your writers have no imagination

 Ouze wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
To say 'many men' who have their feelings hurt become violent is pretty hyperbolic.

Is it, though? Half of all women that are murdered are slain my their current or former romantic partners. In comparison, the opposite happens 5-7%.

Put it this way, how many rejections or break-ups happen every year? From 2016 we are looking at ~17,500 murders in the US, of which over 75% were male victims. That leaves us with ~4400 murders of women, which means 2200 women slain by current or former romantic partners. Taking the suggestion of 'many men' on it's own we could say, yeah, that's many men. But that wasn't the context. He was talking about many in regards to the whole population, suggesting that women are letting themselves be abused out of an active fear of being murdered in a fit of rage. Obviously there are cases where that is true, but to raise that as a major concern in the issue doesn't help since it still is putting the responsibility onto women and portraying men as uncontrollable apes at the same time.

Getting back to the first question, there are ~800,000 divorces per year in the US. Taking that as a proxy for 'rejection' isn't a great representation since divorce represents well less than half of all rejections and a significant break up like that is going to provoke violence more often than someone who breaks up with their girlfriend or gets turned down for a date. So let's go with a conservative estimate saying divorce occupies 25% of rejections, meaning 3.2 million rejections per year compared to 2200 murders. That means there is a 1 in 1450 chance of a woman's rejection leading to her murder. Again, it does happen, not all violent responses are murder, and it should be part of the discussion, but to make this statement:

One reason a woman might be reluctant to plainly say no is that the man might fly into a rage and kill her. Many men who are rejected or otherwise have their feelings hurt become angry and violent because that is the only way they have been conditioned to act in response to their emotions.

Seems to me a hyperbolic way of stating the issue.

NinthMusketeer wrote:To say 'many men' who have their feelings hurt become violent is pretty hyperbolic. Not saying it doesn't happen, or that it's not a concern, but to go so far as to say "the only way men have been conditioned to act" is to respond with anger and violence is simply an example of toxic masculinity. It doesn't do anyone any good to portray men as having a strong majority of violent people with no control over their emotions. Unless there is a mental health condition involved, all men have control over their emotions. They don't try to assault the cop that pulls them over for a speeding ticket, they don't get suddenly angry and punch their boss in the face when he says they have to work overtime; when they do get violent over a woman's rejection it's because they choose to let that happen.

NinthMusketeer wrote:There are many stories of rejection turning in a horrible direction. But for ever one of those there is a hundred where the guy was rejected and moved on without incident, because that's normal and entirely not news worthy. The idea that a guys are violent people who can't take a rejection is just another facet of rape culture, dipping into toxic masculinity.

Yes it is toxic masculinity, that's the point. Men who have grown up or been raised like that react with aggressive behaviour. It's not about "not all men", everybody knows that it doesn't apply for most men (and shifting the topic doesn't address the problem). But many women have had that type of experience (and it's not like abusers stop dating after having been too aggressive with one person and move to other, more fun, things). Some men respond to rejection in a rather excessive manner and sometimes this includes murder but often it's just stuff that doesn't appear in official statistics but is harmful enough. This is not a statistical analysis by me but one can find really dangerous reactions from men to the slightest affronts much easier than from women. It's about the difference in response for the extreme cases.

Stuff like this

A Missouri woman said a man took out a gun and shot at her after she refused to give him her telephone number as she walked to church last Thursday afternoon, according to WDAF.

this

According to witnesses, the man’s advances would not stop. Reportedly, when the group finally decided to leave at 2 a.m., the man grabbed Spears and hit her. Spears’ fiancé got physically involved, and a fight broke out. That was when the stranger pulled a gun and fired into the group. Spears was reportedly hit once, and then tried to run. While she was trying to flee, that was when a bullet hit her in the head. Spears’ fiancé and four other family members were also sent to the hospital with non-life-threatening wounds.

or this

The young woman, whose identity has been protected, told police she was leaving a party in southeast Washington early Sunday when a man asked for her number. “He told my cousin he was going to shoot at us if I didn’t give him my number and then he started shooting,” she told authorities.

In short: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCzMmaXkmjM

Mario wrote:

NinthMusketeer wrote:To say 'many men' who have their feelings hurt become violent is pretty hyperbolic. Not saying it doesn't happen, or that it's not a concern, but to go so far as to say "the only way men have been conditioned to act" is to respond with anger and violence is simply an example of toxic masculinity. It doesn't do anyone any good to portray men as having a strong majority of violent people with no control over their emotions. Unless there is a mental health condition involved, all men have control over their emotions. They don't try to assault the cop that pulls them over for a speeding ticket, they don't get suddenly angry and punch their boss in the face when he says they have to work overtime; when they do get violent over a woman's rejection it's because they choose to let that happen.

NinthMusketeer wrote:There are many stories of rejection turning in a horrible direction. But for ever one of those there is a hundred where the guy was rejected and moved on without incident, because that's normal and entirely not news worthy. The idea that a guys are violent people who can't take a rejection is just another facet of rape culture, dipping into toxic masculinity.

Yes it is toxic masculinity, that's the point. Men who have grown up or been raised like that react with aggressive behaviour. It's not about "not all men", everybody knows that it doesn't apply for most men (and shifting the topic doesn't address the problem). But many women have had that type of experience (and it's not like abusers stop dating after having been too aggressive with one person and move to other, more fun, things). Some men respond to rejection in a rather excessive manner and sometimes this includes murder but often it's just stuff that doesn't appear in official statistics but is harmful enough. This is not a statistical analysis by me but one can find really dangerous reactions from men to the slightest affronts much easier than from women. It's about the difference in response for the extreme cases.

Stuff like this

A Missouri woman said a man took out a gun and shot at her after she refused to give him her telephone number as she walked to church last Thursday afternoon, according to WDAF.

this

According to witnesses, the man’s advances would not stop. Reportedly, when the group finally decided to leave at 2 a.m., the man grabbed Spears and hit her. Spears’ fiancé got physically involved, and a fight broke out. That was when the stranger pulled a gun and fired into the group. Spears was reportedly hit once, and then tried to run. While she was trying to flee, that was when a bullet hit her in the head. Spears’ fiancé and four other family members were also sent to the hospital with non-life-threatening wounds.

or this

The young woman, whose identity has been protected, told police she was leaving a party in southeast Washington early Sunday when a man asked for her number. “He told my cousin he was going to shoot at us if I didn’t give him my number and then he started shooting,” she told authorities.

In short: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCzMmaXkmjM

You originally stated that many men react to rejection with violence implying that it was reasonable for a woman to submit to unwanted sexual advances by men to avoid being violently assaulted and harmed. NinthMusketeer explained that men violently attacking women who reject them is not a common occurrence at all and cited multiple facts that support his claim. Now you've responded by admitting that not all men react violently to rejection and that most men don't react violently to rejection which is the exact point NinthMusketeer was making but you're still insisting that you're right and he's wrong even though you're both arguing the same point now.

Do some men react violently to women who reject their sexual advances? Yes. Do some women submit to unwanted sexual advances out of fear of violence? Yes. Is a man physically brutalizing a woman because she rejected his sexual advances a common occurrence in the USA? No, there is no evidence that shows that it is.

Depends on your definition of "common".

I think most people would say that less than 0.1% isn't common.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Depends on your definition of "common".

Well if you believe that common=rare then sure but considering that’s actually the opposite of common I don’t think it’s likely to be an issue.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Depends on your definition of "common".

Well if you believe that common=rare then sure but considering that’s actually the opposite of common I don’t think it’s likely to be an issue.

If you are arguing that murder is rare, then yes you are correct. But if we are arguing that intimate violence is rare, that is not true:

"Women experience more intimate partner violence than do men: 22.1 percent of surveyed women, compared with 7.4 percent of surveyed men, reported they were physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, boyfriend or girlfriend, or date in their lifetime; Approximately 1.3 million women and 835,000 men are physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually in the United States.

"Violence against women is primarily intimate partner violence: 64.0 percent of the women who reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked since age 18 were victimized by a current or former husband, cohabiting partner, boyfriend, or date. In comparison, only 16.2 percent of the men who reported being raped and/or physically assaulted since age 18 were victimized by such a perpetrator."

Source: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/intimatepartnerviolence/datasources.html

If you wish for us to back off the statement "many men' who have their feelings hurt become violent", then yes that is hyperbole. But I still think it is a reasonable concern for women to worry that their intimate partner or date may become violent based on the statistics.

Back to #metoo, I recommend that everyone read the NYT article about the culture at the Chicago Ford Facility. It is pretty messed up and tells why women don't report: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/19/us/ford-chicago-sexual-harassment.html

Also Dan Harmon's Apology for sexual harassment is how you apologize: http://www.vulture.com/2018/01/dan-harmon-apologizes-to-community-writer-megan-ganz.html

 AdeptSister wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Depends on your definition of "common".

Well if you believe that common=rare then sure but considering that’s actually the opposite of common I don’t think it’s likely to be an issue.

If you are arguing that murder is rare, then yes you are correct. But if we are arguing that intimate violence is rare, that is not true:

"Women experience more intimate partner violence than do men: 22.1 percent of surveyed women, compared with 7.4 percent of surveyed men, reported they were physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, boyfriend or girlfriend, or date in their lifetime; Approximately 1.3 million women and 835,000 men are physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually in the United States.

"Violence against women is primarily intimate partner violence: 64.0 percent of the women who reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked since age 18 were victimized by a current or former husband, cohabiting partner, boyfriend, or date. In comparison, only 16.2 percent of the men who reported being raped and/or physically assaulted since age 18 were victimized by such a perpetrator."

Source: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/intimatepartnerviolence/datasources.html

If you wish for us to back off the statement "many men' who have their feelings hurt become violent", then yes that is hyperbole. But I still think it is a reasonable concern for women to worry that their intimate partner or date may become violent based on the statistics.

Back to #metoo, I recommend that everyone read the NYT article about the culture at the Chicago Ford Facility. It is pretty messed up and tells why women don't report: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/19/us/ford-chicago-sexual-harassment.html

Also Dan Harmon's Apology for sexual harassment is how you apologize: http://www.vulture.com/2018/01/dan-harmon-apologizes-to-community-writer-megan-ganz.html

There’s approximately 160 million women in the US so 1.3 million of them being assaulted by a spouse/partner annually still makes it a rare and uncommon occurrence. Nobody is denying that it happens and nobody is claiming that it isn’t bad and needs to be addressed and reduced further. The point still stands that it isn’t common and while it is a reasonable fear for a small fraction of the women in the US in specific situations it is not something that every woman that rejects a man should worry about. Creating a false narrative that men assault if women who refuse their sexual advances is a widespread common occurrence is fear mongering that helps no one.

The context he gave was specifically murder, not generic violence. And again, it's not that there's disagreement with the point being made it's that 'many men' will 'fly into a rage and kill her' is a bit exaggerated.

Clear overt communication that avoids misunderstandings is the goal. I don’t want my sons to always treat a “no” as a “maybe” and I don’t want my daughter to be afraid to say no because her rejection will turn a guy into a violent rage monster. Everyone should understand that no means no and nobody should be afraid to say no. Communication is key so we shouldn’t exaggerate the frequency of worst case scenarios because fear is going to damage the ability to communicate clearly. People don’t talk to each other enough, don’t listen very well and are too quick to take things as personal affronts.

 AdeptSister wrote:
[

"Women experience more intimate partner violence than do men: 22.1 percent of surveyed women, compared with 7.4 percent of surveyed men, reported they were physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, boyfriend or girlfriend, or date in their lifetime; Approximately 1.3 million women and 835,000 men are physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually in the United States.

"Violence against women is primarily intimate partner violence: 64.0 percent of the women who reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked since age 18 were victimized by a current or former husband, cohabiting partner, boyfriend, or date. In comparison, only 16.2 percent of the men who reported being raped and/or physically assaulted since age 18 were victimized by such a perpetrator."

Those numbers don't match up unles they surveyed a great many more men than women. The number of men and women assaulted by a partner are similar, ~1,5 times more women than men took steps to be included in the numbers after being assaulted. A relevant distinction, since there is still significant social stigma attached to a man admitting to being assaulted by their (former) partner, but the percentages are twice that apart from each other at ~3 times. Gender equality certainly still has a looooooong way to go there.
Without further evidence to the contrary, I strongly suspect both those numbers are highly influenced by said stigma, and the actual numbers are even closer together than the known cases included in those numbers.

Also, the 64% of assaulted women having been assaulted lumping dates gone bad, former partners/roommates/boyfriends is a completely irrelevant number without the breakdown of these subcategories, unless you're trying to claim all 64% as the relevant number, in which case a woman's chance of being assaulted after saying no while clubbing/a stranger asking for her number/some other scenario not involving an intimate acquaintance goes down even further by a factor of 3 from the 0,1% already guesstimated earlier.

Just like everyone before me, I'm *not* claiming that assaulting someone for rejecting you (regardless of what does or doesn't dangle between the legs) is acceptable behaviour in any way, shape or form, and should be punished harshly.
So, good job on proving the opposite point to the one you were trying to make, I guess.

Edit: Fully agree with Prestor. As the new (born yesterday) father of a baby girl , I certainly don't want her to grow up scared of saying "no" to anyone or going on a date. On the other hand, I don't want my boy to grow up afraid to talk to women or be considered a hairy ape with no control over his base instincts just because he has a penis.

Funny that the chance of 'needing' a gun is even smaller than the chance of a woman having to deal with a hostile reaction to her saying no. But people still feel the need to carry concealed but women have no real reason to worry...

Prestor Jon wrote:You originally stated that many men react to rejection with violence implying that it was reasonable for a woman to submit to unwanted sexual advances by men to avoid being violently assaulted and harmed. NinthMusketeer explained that men violently attacking women who reject them is not a common occurrence at all and cited multiple facts that support his claim. Now you've responded by admitting that not all men react violently to rejection and that most men don't react violently to rejection which is the exact point NinthMusketeer was making but you're still insisting that you're right and he's wrong even though you're both arguing the same point now.

Do some men react violently to women who reject their sexual advances? Yes. Do some women submit to unwanted sexual advances out of fear of violence? Yes. Is a man physically brutalizing a woman because she rejected his sexual advances a common occurrence in the USA? No, there is no evidence that shows that it is.

NinthMusketeer wrote:The context he gave was specifically murder, not generic violence. And again, it's not that there's disagreement with the point being made it's that 'many men' will 'fly into a rage and kill her' is a bit exaggerated.

I initially wrote "Just google man kills girlfriend (or fiancée/wife) and that feeling of hyperbole might subside" to show what types of responses women can get just for, for example, not wanting to give some dude their number (and I was too lazy to google it and post links at that time) because the post I replied to called fears of violence hyperbolic and from that one bit it became its own little subthread about violence in general.

Extreme violence might be comparatively rare but there seems to be a general level of aggression/violence that's just accepted in a way and that women have to endure and deal with. From what I've been told It's not that women grow up afraid of saying no but that they grow up and experience enough situations with random creeps that lead them re-thinking how they interact in most cases. What some people see as rare events apparently are much more widespread that generally known or perceived (especially by men). It's no wonder women keep lists of company/industry specific people that they share with each other to avoid the creeps (or, at least, be prepared) when nothing else seems to work.

Some people were shocked and surprised when all these accusations of abuse were made public and how widespread it apparently is in all industries (not just the movie or tech business). The same accusations that appeared about Louis CK last year were also known years ago but nobody really looked into it or took it serious until it became a movement years later. Or just read about the Larry Nassar case and be horrified. I think that says more about people's ability to ignore those issues—or just not care about it because it doesn't affect them—than the actual rate of bad things happening.

A 1 in a thousand interaction could be once every 3 years, after all. - I mean, not directly, because statistical theory, but anyhow, rule of thumb...

As a 6' tall, not-small-build Scottish male, I've had maybe 2 or 3 really gakky and, to be honest, scary situations and random encounters with random lunatics on the street / in pubs etc in my life (one was about 3 weeks ago). For the sake of argument, lets call that once every 10 years.

I don't have the problem of the world, politicians, laws and mass media telling other people that I'm a legitimate target.

So yes, I can most certainly believe that there's a marked and gigantic difference between men and women being targets.

Of course this is just talking about just physical abuse, and not revenge porn which is arguably worse.

Mario wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:You originally stated that many men react to rejection with violence implying that it was reasonable for a woman to submit to unwanted sexual advances by men to avoid being violently assaulted and harmed. NinthMusketeer explained that men violently attacking women who reject them is not a common occurrence at all and cited multiple facts that support his claim. Now you've responded by admitting that not all men react violently to rejection and that most men don't react violently to rejection which is the exact point NinthMusketeer was making but you're still insisting that you're right and he's wrong even though you're both arguing the same point now.

Do some men react violently to women who reject their sexual advances? Yes. Do some women submit to unwanted sexual advances out of fear of violence? Yes. Is a man physically brutalizing a woman because she rejected his sexual advances a common occurrence in the USA? No, there is no evidence that shows that it is.

NinthMusketeer wrote:The context he gave was specifically murder, not generic violence. And again, it's not that there's disagreement with the point being made it's that 'many men' will 'fly into a rage and kill her' is a bit exaggerated.

I initially wrote "Just google man kills girlfriend (or fiancée/wife) and that feeling of hyperbole might subside" to show what types of responses women can get just for, for example, not wanting to give some dude their number (and I was too lazy to google it and post links at that time) because the post I replied to called fears of violence hyperbolic and from that one bit it became its own little subthread about violence in general.

Extreme violence might be comparatively rare but there seems to be a general level of aggression/violence that's just accepted in a way and that women have to endure and deal with. From what I've been told It's not that women grow up afraid of saying no but that they grow up and experience enough situations with random creeps that lead them re-thinking how they interact in most cases. What some people see as rare events apparently are much more widespread that generally known or perceived (especially by men). It's no wonder women keep lists of company/industry specific people that they share with each other to avoid the creeps (or, at least, be prepared) when nothing else seems to work.

Some people were shocked and surprised when all these accusations of abuse were made public and how widespread it apparently is in all industries (not just the movie or tech business). The same accusations that appeared about Louis CK last year were also known years ago but nobody really looked into it or took it serious until it became a movement years later. Or just read about the Larry Nassar case and be horrified. I think that says more about people's ability to ignore those issues—or just not care about it because it doesn't affect them—than the actual rate of bad things happening.

The only claim I have made is that to say women are afraid of rejecting advances because many men would fly into a rage and kill her is hyperbolic. I've brought up the facts that clearly show that, then suddenly there's all of this goal-post moving talking about any violent reaction. At least just accept that my statement has validity so we can move on.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
The context he gave was specifically murder, not generic violence. And again, it's not that there's disagreement with the point being made it's that 'many men' will 'fly into a rage and kill her' is a bit exaggerated.

If you're going to quote me, the proper way to do it would be "many men [...] become angry and violent". Referring to murder only happens in the first sentence and then it's a fear that the man "might". If someone starts screaming at you and try to hit you, it's perfectly reasonable to be afraid that they might kill you.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
The only claim I have made is that to say women are afraid of rejecting advances because many men would fly into a rage and kill her is hyperbolic. I've brought up the facts that clearly show that, then suddenly there's all of this goal-post moving talking about any violent reaction. At least just accept that my statement has validity so we can move on.

Not "would", but "might".

I figured you would do that. See, if I was wrong in my interpretation you would have corrected me BEFORE I brought up the evidence to prove my point. Now that I did, your post suddenly means something different.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I figured you would do that. See, if I was wrong in my interpretation you would have corrected me BEFORE I brought up the evidence to prove my point. Now that I did, your post suddenly means something different.

I haven't really read the thread in the time period between my last two posts.

Steve Wynn is the latest man to have credible allegations made against him by dozens of women. Wynn is one of the big money men in Vegas, and the allegations are every bit as awful as just about anyone who's been outed. Wynn seemed to prey mostly on masseurs, he would threaten to fire the women from places he owned, and use his industry clout to prevent them being hired anywhere else if they didn't comply with his wishes. He also used physical intimidation, having his german shepherds by his side when he threatened the women, because we are all living in a Bond movie now. His abuses went on long enough, and were well known enough that a lot of women formed mechanisms to avoid his predations - entering false appointments to avoid being called to his office, or being warned ahead of time that Wynn was coming to their salon so they could hide from him in the toilets.

And thing is - Wynn is a major player in Republican circles. He's given millions to Republicans, and in 2017 Trump personally picked Wynn to be chair of finance committee of the Republican National Committee (Trump and Wynn had has some hilarious public feuds in the past, but they made up a few years ago, then Wynn played a major role in bringing big money donors in to Trump's 2016 campaign, as well as stumping up millions himself). Wynn has given up his position on the finance committee.

Where this gets a bit political is in noting the the massively different reaction by Republicans to Weinstein's sacking. With Weinstein Republicans moved immediately on the where they immediately attacked, claimed Weinstein as not just a donor and fundraiser but a major played in policy and
organisational matters. They called on Democrats to return all money Weinstein had ever raised for the party. Now Wynn is accused of crimes just bad, and suddenly Republican comments on the issue are scarce, and their words very carefully chosen.

This comes just days after it was uncovered that Trump's personal lawyer organised a hidden payment through a shell company to Stormy Daniels, a pornstar. That secret payment just happened to be made at the same time Daniels stopped trying to sell her story to the media of an affair with Trump, which is quite the coincidence. That story, and the details of the affair Daniels had given to a magazine a decade earlier, prompted a series of conservative religious leaders to come forward, offering a range of rationalisations - its okay if Trump isn't still doing it, its between Trump and his wife etc.

Republican selective morality is obviously a big issue here, but they're not alone. Democrats were so clear in saying Trump should withdraw from the campaign because of his sex crimes, then suddenly so many decided due process was very important once Al Franken was charged. It's nothing like the Republican issue, but it's still there.

Nor is it just about political parties. We all feel very righteous attacking these predators once they've been exposed and made powerless, but they got away with this for years, even decades before then. The simple reason is that as long as a predator has some power, some value to us, almost all of us do nothing. We ignore what they are doing to people around us. The culture of silence isn't something that sometimes happens, it is the default human setting. You can see this because even when what the predator's connection is as trivial as belonging to the political party you vote for, we jump over hoops to deny, ignore or justify their behaviour. Imagine what people will do when their job is at risk if they speak out.

Until we start building a real of culture of expecting people to speak out and supporting those who do, to think of the victim before they think of what they might risk of themselves, then this will never stop happening.

The US has a culture where disregarding facts and standing your ground on an issue to the end is not only accepted, but even seen as something to be respected for. From what I know the US culture takes this further than other first world nations, thus the resulting politics being more ridiculously bad than other first world nations is pretty inevitable. I've said it before; politicians have always been, well, politicians even going back to ancient rome. But they are still a mirror of the society that elected them. This ties into what you are saying, in that sexual abuse is tolerated in politics because we tolerate it as a society. Groping or cat-calling is just the common man's way of showing they would be just as bad as the powerful abusers we love to criticize.

Also, TBF, there are at least some calls from within the GOP to return money: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/republicans-call-on-party-to-return-wynn-funds-after-allegations/ar-BBIlzCG It doesn't undermine your point though.

So, has the #MeToo moment passed?

 Easy E wrote:
So, has the #MeToo moment passed?

Oscars are a few weeks away. We'll see.

 Easy E wrote:
So, has the #MeToo moment passed?

And Aziz Ansari is not in a Feminazi gulag? I'm a bit dissapointed that all the handwringing and hyperbole about the possible ramifications of #MeToo ended up being rather unexceptional and boring. There's always next year.

Well, some people consider changing social norms boring I guess.

 d-usa wrote:
Well, some people consider changing social norms boring I guess.

Hopefully it will have the staying power and not just slowly revert back to the previous misogynistic status quo.

I miss sexism. Like the word and/or concept being distinct from misogyny, not sexism itself.

 Bromsy wrote:
I miss sexism. Like the word and/or concept being distinct from misogyny, not sexism itself.

The only thing that matters now is the relationship of power. People only view things in deterministic views of who is oppressed and who is the oppressor. So sexism which is not misogyny is impossible, because men have a greater social standing than women.