Uma Thurman re the Weinstein issue & something to come

[rah]

True, but if Moore did admit it would anyone spread the blame like they're doing with Franken?

I'll admit, probably not, since he's denied it for so long.
But on the other hand, Franken used to be a comedian so therefore more well liked. What was Moore, a judge?

 

[inthesomeday]

Hm, i don't have any responsibility apart from those stated by law. Life is already difficult without putting on a cape and crusading, imo. It should suffice that i myself am well-behaved

If you place something as non-existent as the law above the moral duty to other human beings then I have no place discussing anything with you.

Re whether cultural/institutional racism exists: it does, although not in the same variety in all countries, nor in all walks of life. Eg you'd find less of it in the world of literary events/presentations/translation/publishing than (say) in the football stadium. Either way, it isn't an ill i can nor would logically be expected to mend, much like i am not to blame nor expected to make up for the next person being a dick.

But there is a very clear dissonance in all you just said. Institutional racism is very obviously bigger than "the next person being a dick", and this misunderstanding is at the center of the failures of liberalism.

ps: mentioning 'the patriarchy' was... interesting ^^ I could think of an oxymoron which would at the same time be a neologism, and refer to 'the patriarchy' as a neo-parochial statement.

What's that?

That's some record-level goalpost-moving there, from "Every man has original guilt!" to "Our culture sometimes harbors sexist attitudes... right? I mean... right?"

I never said that, neither did Lex! The exhibition of sexism, while possibly common to the majority of cis men, is not in fact a born trait, but a learned one, which is precisely what Lex said. Actually, he went a bit further, (correctly) asserting that it is the responsibility of men (who know about sexism) to make sure that they themselves do not engage in sexist behavior, and indeed make conscious efforts to affect the behavior of other men.

It is obviously the case that sexism exists in our culture, but this does not mean that the majority of men are sexist as Lexicus wants us to believe.

In my experience, the majority of men I've met have at some point engaged in sexist jokes, behavior, or speech; of course, this is far from statistical evidence. How, exactly, might one measure that?

Moreover, it's important that you have accepted that sexism exists! A big step in the right direction. Far from being "original sin", wouldn't you agree then that it's an important enough thing for every man to make sure they don't contribute to it? That's the essence of Lex's point; not that you're born guilty, but that your environment encourages sexist behavior so much that it takes conscious effort against sexism and conscious awareness of one's own sexist behavior to combat.

It is simply an idiotic idea that a man is part of the problem just because he was born a man, and I would be disgusted at myself for thinking that about any of the men around me.

Whoops! That's not what anyone said! Again, you mistake the providence of birth for the reality of society. By acting normally in a sexist society, one is sexist, no? That's to say nothing to somebody's birth; however we'd hope that once they were educated about the reality of their society and how their behavior reflects that society they would consciously change their behavior. Kyriakos claiming to have never known a sexist, or that he has somehow managed to be counter cultural since his earliest socialization, is the equivalent of claiming color-blindness. If it was real, there wouldn't be a problem; it isn't, though, and therefore becomes counterintuitive. I am a man, and I recognize that I was raised sexist, even despite the immense efforts of my radical feminist parents and adult influences to do otherwise. My student peers, my extended family, the media available to me, and in many other ways, the culture of my society, simply taught me sexism.

People are raised by an infinite amount of influences, and whether an individual picks up the sexist content they may see from time to time, depends on a lot of factors, and in most men does not actually manifest into sexist behavior, or even sexist attitudes.

Sexism is institutional. It is so normalized it's part of the way our society operates. Failure to recognize or understand this fact doesn't make it go away; I wish it did, it'd make feminism much easier.

 

[Kyriakos]

Hm, i claimed to never have known a sexist? Ok.
'Counter-cultural'? Some of you people really have no idea of different personality types. I am a deeply introverted person; we function a little differently.

 

[Lexicus]

I am a deeply introverted person; we function a little differently.

Welcome to the club

 

[innonimatu]

If a man sees an incident of sexual violence and doesn't intervene, he is specifically guilty of complicity in that act of sexual violence (not just as guilty as the perpetrator - there are, after all, degrees of guilt, which you seem to be forgetting or ignoring in order to make this whole argument in the first place - but guilty nonetheless).

And if a woman sees an incident of sexual violence and doesn't intervene, she is what? Are women exempt from your original sin?

If yes, then you are making stuff up to fit your ideological dogmatic faith, and I must find Kiriakos' term extremely appropriate! And If no, then your description amouns to a "everyone is guilty", which means you sould not be singling out men. Again I must fuind your position poisoned by dogmatic faith in some kind of "man guilt" thing you are fixated with.

Can't you understand how intellectually absurd your position becomes as soon as you focus on "guilt of men" instead of actual guilt of people (men, woman, trans-gender, and whatever sexual classification you fancy) who do bad things? Were Weinstein's female assistants less guilty than his male assistants?

 

[Lexicus]

And if a woman sees an incident of sexual violence and doesn't intervene, she is what? Are women exempt from your original sin?

If yes, then you are making stuff up to fit your ideological dogmatic faith, and I must find Kiriakos' term extremely appropriate! And If no, then your description amouns to a "everyone is guilty", which means you sould not be singling out men. Again I must fuind your position poisoned by dogmatic faith in some kind of "man guilt" thing you are fixated with.

Can't you understand how intellectually absurd your position becomes as soon as you focus on "guilt of men" instead of actual guilt of people (men, woman, trans-gender, and whatever sexual classification you fancy) who do bad things? Were Weinstein's female assistants less guilty than his male assistants?

Obviously, women can uphold patriarchy and rape culture too, and they shouldn't do it. But I'm singling out men here because men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of sexual violence, and men are, I would argue, also responsible for more than their fair share of rape culture. The first point is just a fact (as it is a fact that men, specifically men from 18-30ish, are responsible for the overwhelming majority of violent crime in general) and I don't think I take the second point as a statement of dogmatic faith.

There is also the issue that in my view "man" and "women" are culturally constructed categories in the first place. Men singled themselves out long before I, Lexicus, singled them out in post whatever of this thread.

 

[Berzerker]

I'll admit, probably not, since he's denied it for so long.
But on the other hand, Franken used to be a comedian so therefore more well liked. What was Moore, a judge?

Yeah, I like Franken and I'm merely disappointed with him, but I didn't like Moore even before we found out about his predation on teens. Now I'm just glad he's in trouble.

 

[Ryika]

I never said that, neither did Lex! The exhibition of sexism, while possibly common to the majority of cis men, is not in fact a born trait, but a learned one, which is precisely what Lex said.

Whoops! That's not what anyone said! Again, you mistake the providence of birth for the reality of society. By acting normally in a sexist society, one is sexist, no?

I wanted to respond to your whole post, but ultimately decided not to, because this is just too fundamental of a disagreement for the rest of the response to make much sense, so I'll tackle only this part.

The distinction you're trying to draw makes absolutely no sense, both boil down to the same thing. Whether it's Original Sin that you can't overcome because it has been ingrained to you before you were born, or whether it is Original Sin that you can't overcome because it has been ingrained into you culturally long before you had the ability to rationally think about things, it's the exact same idea. Because of who you are, you are a sexist, and because you are a sexist, you must now constantly work on yourself, to achieve purity.

This is religious nonsense. If a person has indeed any inherent responsibility towards other people - a highly questionable concept in itself - then it is to not do things that hurt them. Most men do not do this, they don't sexually assault, they don't rape, they don't treat the women around them like lesser people. That's where it ends.

The purity test that you're building on top of that, in which jokes for example are bad because they accumulate to a culture of sexism, is just utter bs. And inconsistent, too, because why is it only men again? The majority of women in my life have told sexist jokes at one point or another, and I have too - if these things are bad because they fuel a culture in which sexism is normalized, then why are women excused from having to better themselves? Because the people who do the actual bad things are usually men? Surely that can't be it, because that would be sexist, so what's the reason there? Have you even thought that through?

But not that that matters, as it's bs either way. We are bombarded by cultural stimuli all the time, and we are individuals who are capable of making decisions. A person who makes a bad decision and assaults another person is a person who has made a bad decision - not a person who is "the victim of a culture of sexism", and the people who make a sexist joke when in company with their friends every now and then have absolutely nothing to feel guilty for.

 

[Senethro]

Because the people who do the actual bad things are usually men? Surely that can't be it, because that would be sexist, so what's the reason there? Have you even thought that through?

Trying to change the behaviour of men is the real sexism? We're heading deeper into the bad faith posting zone.

 

[Ryika]

Trying to change the behaviour of men is the real sexism? We're heading deeper into the bad faith posting zone.

You're the bad faith mastermind.

Here's the full quote:

"The majority of women in my life have told sexist jokes at one point or another, and I have too - if these things are bad because they fuel a culture in which sexism is normalized, then why are women excused from having to better themselves? Because the people who do the actual bad things are usually men? Surely that can't be it, because that would be sexist, so what's the reason there? Have you even thought that through?"

Do I really have to explain this to you? Fine. If a person beliefs that sexist jokes are bad even if told by people who do nothing that hurts people, and it is true that both men and women tell sexist jokes, but then the person focuses only on the men and tells them that they have to be warriors of purity, then surely that is sexist. Really not hard to understand. You either focus on the people who actually do stuff, which will mostly be men, but that also means that you leave alone the men who have not actually done anything, or, if you really want to play the game of purity, you focus on everybody, because in that game, everybody contributes.

Playing the game of purity, but only urging men to play with you, seems very sexist to me.

 

[Arwon]

Re whether cultural/institutional racism exists: it does, although not in the same variety in all countries, nor in all walks of life. Eg you'd find less of it in the world of literary events/presentations/translation/publishing than (say) in the football stadium.

That's funny, I'd think the exact opposite tbh. People being abusively racist in the stands of football grounds isn't really institutional, and athletic achievement tends to be one of the rare fields which is relatively open without impediment to people of oppressed ethnic backgrounds.

There's plenty institutional racism in the recruiting of coaches and management in sport, sure, then on the flip side I can't think of a part of academia or literature which isn't riddled with such things.

 

[Kyriakos]

That's funny, I'd think the exact opposite tbh. People being abusively racist in the stands of football grounds isn't really institutional, and athletic achievement tends to be a field relatively open without impediment to people of oppressed ethnic backgrounds.

There's some institutional racism in the recruiting of coaches and management, but I can't think of a part of academia or literature which isn't riddled with such things.

Well... not counting those who are there as either merchants (many publishers) or pretty much non-artistic show-men and show-women acting as writers (they are the majority). I meant the art world alluded to when it applies to actual art, or at least is (and this is realistic) tied to art to a degree that makes it not be a facade for power-playing or non-art-related self-promotion.

 

[Berzerker]

Trying to change the behaviour of men is the real sexism? We're heading deeper into the bad faith posting zone.

blaming men who dont need to change their behavior is sexist

 

[Senethro]

blaming men who dont need to change their behavior is sexist

That does seem reasonable. Hmmm. Perhaps the Good Men could wear some sort of identifying symbol. Because right now the Good Men and the Bad Men look identical. It is pretty darn unfair that the Bad Men spoil the reputation of Good Men by cryptically hiding amongst them and claiming to be them.

If the Good Men are really tired of being talked at about rape and sexual violence then perhaps they could generously make some effort on behalf of the victims of rape and sexual violence to identify the Bad Men so the talking is more efficiently delivered.

 

[inthesomeday]

I wanted to respond to your whole post, but ultimately decided not to, because this is just too fundamental of a disagreement for the rest of the response to make much sense, so I'll tackle only this part.

The distinction you're trying to draw makes absolutely no sense, both boil down to the same thing. Whether it's Original Sin that you can't overcome because it has been ingrained to you before you were born, or whether it is Original Sin that you can't overcome because it has been ingrained into you culturally long before you had the ability to rationally think about things, it's the exact same idea. Because of who you are, you are a sexist, and because you are a sexist, you must now constantly work on yourself, to achieve purity.

It's not at all impossible to overcome if you've been taught it, which is the key difference. You can go against the sexist teachings of a culture, and you should. By failing to do so you are as implicit in sexism as bystanders are in a murder. Inaction in situations of oppression is ultimately oppression in itself.

This is religious nonsense. If a person has indeed any inherent responsibility towards other people - a highly questionable concept in itself - then it is to not do things that hurt them.

Actually, sure, I'm being spooky. My ego tells me that and that's my subjective morality, and it's equally ridiculous of you to fight for yours as it is for me to fight mine. If we disagree with the fundamental value that people have an obligation to treat one another as equals, then of course you'll be fine with sexism and you are simply my ideological enemy.

Most men do not do this, they don't sexually assault, they don't rape, they don't treat the women around them like lesser people. That's where it ends.

This is highly contentious. Treating women as lesser goes a lot deeper and a lot more nuanced than "hey b*tch you're scum". Of course I'm just a crazy Fourth Wave SJW ********, so you'll surely dismiss the idea of things like micro-aggressions and sexist jokes or male supremacist behavior as nonsense, but it happens and your ignoring it doesn't change this. Statistics for this don't exist yet, but in my experience and likely most people's too, most men participate in sexist jokes, "locker room talk", victim blaming, and a gambit of other types of dehumanizing behavior and speech towards women-- which would indeed be less problematic without systemic inequality and institutional oppression. Unfortunately these things exist so these microaggressions contribute.

The purity test that you're building on top of that, in which jokes for example are bad because they accumulate to a culture of sexism, is just utter bs. And inconsistent, too, because why is it only men again? The majority of women in my life have told sexist jokes at one point or another, and I have too - if these things are bad because they fuel a culture in which sexism is normalized, then why are women excused from having to better themselves? Because the people who do the actual bad things are usually men? Surely that can't be it, because that would be sexist, so what's the reason there? Have you even thought that through?

Oh most definitely a lot of women contribute to rape culture and general sexism too. They also ought to fight this; the responsibility falls to men, however, because it is men who benefit from sexism, and they are more powerful and capable in sexist society to fight the patriarchy. Men are empowered by sexism, and therefore have more responsibility to disempower sexism.

But not that that matters, as it's bs either way. We are bombarded by cultural stimuli all the time, and we are individuals who are capable of making decisions. A person who makes a bad decision and assaults another person is a person who has made a bad decision - not a person who is "the victim of a culture of sexism",

In many ways institutional oppression makes victims of us all, including this one. It's true that decisions can be made to participate or not to participate in sexism once one has been educated to its nature, and indeed this has been the point all along. I agree completely that the man who knows of sexism and continues to behave in a sexist manner is more responsible for it than the man who chooses to regulate himself; this is the whole point of what Lex and I have been saying. Just claiming it doesn't exist, or that you're above it or the ability to participate in it, is the same as participating in it explicitly, because of the failure to combat it in yourself and in your peers.

and the people who make a sexist joke when in company with their friends every now and then have absolutely nothing to feel guilty for.

They shouldn't be making sexist jokes, basically, because they are sexist and contribute to sexism. That seems simple to me.

 

[Kyriakos]

Well, it was a novel idea to try to fight sexism by posting on CFC at any rate.

 

[Ryika]

It's not at all impossible to overcome if you've been taught it, which is the key difference. You can go against the sexist teachings of a culture, and you should. By failing to do so you are as implicit in sexism as bystanders are in a murder. Inaction in situations of oppression is ultimately oppression in itself.

Christianity also promises relief from Original Sin by obedience. The difference is judgement day. In Christianity, you will stand before God after your death, and he will see whether you've been a good pawn. Your judgement day is a carrot on a stick. No person will ever reach the status of a "non-sexist".

Actually, sure, I'm being spooky. My ego tells me that and that's my subjective morality, and it's equally ridiculous of you to fight for yours as it is for me to fight mine. If we disagree with the fundamental value that people have an obligation to treat one another as equals, then of course you'll be fine with sexism and you are simply my ideological enemy.

See, in Christianity, "God" is the key to a moral obligation to do X, you're lacking that key and have replaced it with... well, nothing, really. You just hope that you can shame people into thinking they have a moral obligation to act the way you want them to act. I do not belief you have a right to shame people based on your ideological framework, which indeed makes us ideological enemies. But not because I have an ideology that goes counter to yours, no, because I say that you have no claim to the souls of other people. I am the Atheism to your Christianity.

And rightfully so, because no, we are not talking about people who are "fine with sexism", we are talking about people who did not do sexist things to other people, we're talking about sexist "attitudes" that they, in your opinion, transfer to their friends by making sexist jokes for example, and having sexist "thoughts".

This is highly contentious. Treating women as lesser goes a lot deeper and a lot more nuanced than "hey ***** you're scum". Of course I'm just a crazy Fourth Wave SJW ********, so you'll surely dismiss the idea of things like micro-aggressions and sexist jokes or male supremacist behavior as nonsense, but it happens and your ignoring it doesn't change this. Statistics for this don't exist yet, but in my experience and likely most people's too, most men participate in sexist jokes, "locker room talk", victim blaming, and a gambit of other types of dehumanizing behavior and speech towards women-- which would indeed be less problematic without systemic inequality and institutional oppression. Unfortunately these things exist so these microaggressions contribute.

You're right, I dismiss this as nonsense. "Micro-Aggressions" are just another purity test, it basically means: "You have said or done something that wasn't actually an act of aggression, but I want to shame you anyway!"

Oh most definitely a lot of women contribute to rape culture and general sexism too. They also ought to fight this; the responsibility falls to men, however, because it is men who benefit from sexism, and they are more powerful and capable in sexist society to fight the patriarchy. Men are empowered by sexism, and therefore have more responsibility to disempower sexism.

Yes, your religion does indeed have a lot of doctrine. This was a very flavorful attempt to justify your own sexism, but I don't buy any of it.

In many ways institutional oppression makes victims of us all, including this one. It's true that decisions can be made to participate or not to participate in sexism once one has been educated to its nature, and indeed this has been the point all along. I agree completely that the man who knows of sexism and continues to behave in a sexist manner is more responsible for it than the man who chooses to regulate himself; this is the whole point of what Lex and I have been saying. Just claiming it doesn't exist, or that you're above it or the ability to participate in it, is the same as participating in it explicitly, because of the failure to combat it in yourself and in your peers.

Nobody has claimed that sexism doesn't exist, and nobody has claimed that they're above the ability to participate in it. People deny that not joining your religion and the pursuit of purity that comes with it, equates to participating in sexism.

They shouldn't be making sexist jokes, basically, because they are sexist and contribute to sexism. That seems simple to me.

Yeah, and farting contributes to climate change. Don't fart!

 

[Berzerker]

That does seem reasonable. Hmmm. Perhaps the Good Men could wear some sort of identifying symbol. Because right now the Good Men and the Bad Men look identical. It is pretty darn unfair that the Bad Men spoil the reputation of Good Men by cryptically hiding amongst them and claiming to be them.

If the Good Men are really tired of being talked at about rape and sexual violence then perhaps they could generously make some effort on behalf of the victims of rape and sexual violence to identify the Bad Men so the talking is more efficiently delivered.

when I offered that advice you justified taking hush money instead

 

[Senethro]

when I offered that advice you justified taking hush money instead

That is quite the spectacular misreading. Let me just say "nuh uh i didn't" and offer you the chance to clarify it via PM rather than spam the thread up over a miscommunication.

Edit:

VVVVVVVVVVVVVV

Even more misreading and I'm not going to spam up this thread about it.

 

[Berzerker]

I said Weinstein's victims should have identified him instead of taking hush money and your reaction was to condemn me and then you left the thread. Now you're in this one telling people to speak up and identify sexual harassers.