Harvey Weinstein

[Arete]

7 minutes ago, Lord Antares said:

Has tar called rape victims as whores? Victims by which definition? If so, I have missed it and change my opinion. As far as I can tell, you're not talking about ''actual'' rape victims; you are talking about those who traded sex for position. Am I correct?

You are correct in that is the sitation, but incorrect in your assesment that quid pro quo demands for sex are not sexual harrassment/assault. 

Quid pro quo sexual demands are, by legal definition, sexual harassment. Sexual acts resulting from those demands are by legal definition, sexual assault/rape. 

[Lord Antares]

18 minutes ago, zapatos said:

/cut

 

17 minutes ago, Arete said:

/cut

I skimmed through the thread. I did not really grasp the context of the situation. If it's ''have sex with me or I'll ruin your career'', then of course, I agree that's sexual harrassment. I thought it was more in the line of your other example. I apologize if I misinterpreted the situation.

For example, take these two quotes without context as an example.

Tar:

''If penetration happened without their consent then it was rape.   If it happened with their consent, then they were selling their body for a chance at stardom.  

It cannot be rape, if they said yes then and are saying no now.  Nor is it sexual harassment if they knew exactly what and why they were doing at the time, and are just now deciding that they are not whores at all, but victims, in retrospect.''

Without context, in general, I agree 100% with this quote. It doesn't imply anyone was forced into doing anything. If I misinterpreted it, then that's another story.

Arete:

'' Demanding sexual favors in return for career advancement is very specifically and very clearly defined, legally, as sexual harassment. It's absolutely unequivocal.  ''

Without context, I 100% disagree with this quote. It doesn't imply the ruining of one's career if one declines. Again, if that's the context I'm missing, then I agree with you.

 

Edited October 19, 2017 by Lord Antares

[CharonY]

13 minutes ago, Lord Antares said:

'' Demanding sexual favors in return for career advancement is very specifically and very clearly defined, legally, as sexual harassment. It's absolutely unequivocal.  ''

Without context, I 100% disagree with this quote. It doesn't imply the ruining of one's career if one declines. Again, if that's the context I'm missing, then I agree with you.

 

You are essentially disagreeing with the legal definition of quid pro quo harassment. What you probably did not factor in is that these requests are given from a position of power.  That alone can result in an implicit threat. 

[iNow]

1 hour ago, waitforufo said:

I believe your position to be untenable.  You seem to be saying that women will not, and perhaps should not, come forward with accusations of sexual harassment or abuse until there is no chance of retaliation.    In my opinion that means women will never come forward and harassment and abuse will continue.

That's not what I'm saying, so let's put that suggestion to bed right now.

I've already acknowledged that there is merit in your stance that more people speaking up sooner MAY have helped. We'll simply never know. What we do know, however, is that many people DID speak out and the outcome you suggest would result from that action of speaking up (reduced future incidents from these aggressors) simply never materialized (much like in the Bill Cosby situation, or the Bill O'Reilly situation, or the Roger Ailes situation, or the Bill Clinton situation, or the countless other situations we know kept occurring even after women spoke up about it).

We also know that there are myriad valid, justifiable, and perfectly understandable reasons why some might choose to remain silent... not the least of which being an entirely justifiable feeling that they'd only make an already bad and difficult personal situation even worse due to the retaliation they were almost certain to face. I'm not saying it's either right or wrong, I'm saying it's understandable and important to acknowledge.

You can't blame others for not being as brave as you are. I think blaming the victims is an understandable urge, but a huge mistake and a misguided suggestion as pertains to what's needed to address these issues in the long-term. It distracts us from the true root cause.

If everyone who came before me spoke out and was either ignored or punished, then that's gonna change my calculus about whether or not I should speak out, too. I think you and I likely agree on this, or that you at least can understand it. That's just not obvious in the way you chose to structure the OP, hence my decision to specifically call it out.

 

FWIW, we also agree 100% on all of the below, too... it's just not representative of the reality that exists today and which is under discussion here:

1 hour ago, waitforufo said:

  When women are sexually harassed or abused they should make clear accusations including naming names.

   Women should be believed and investigations should be made.

   There should be no retaliation.  In fact retaliation is no different than harassment and should be treated identically.

   Those found to have harassed should be punished including termination and when proper criminal prosecution. 

My core suggestion is that we should be talking more about how to make the above a reality in the present and less about the failures of those who were victimized in the past.

[swansont]

3 hours ago, tar said:

iNow,

If penetration happened without their consent then it was rape.   If it happened with their consent, then they were selling their body for a chance at stardom.  

It cannot be rape, if they said yes then and are saying no now.  Nor is it sexual harassment if they knew exactly what and why they were doing at the time, and are just now deciding that they are not whores at all, but victims, in retrospect.

IF 

But you have presented no evidence that this is the case, and yet are presenting it as if such evidence existed.

2 hours ago, Arete said:

You are wrong. As I posted earlier, quid pro quo demands for sexual favors are sexual harassment and any resulting sexual interaction is sexual assault/rape, by legal definition.

Demanding sexual favors in return for career advancement is very specifically and very clearly defined, legally, as sexual harassment. It's absolutely unequivocal. 

The earth is round, water is wet, and demanding sex in return for a favor in a professional setting is sexual harassment. 

I think tar was referring to women who willingly "sleep their way to the top", which, of course, is not what is being discussed by everyone else.

But somehow this off-topic nonsense is everyone else's fault (OMG, down-votes!) and allows one pretend this is what's happening, and ignore the real issue. 

1 hour ago, Lord Antares said:

I have done that and have been shunned before. In my experience, it's not bullshit.

We have rafts of examples of people who think they were suspended or banned because of their "unpopular" positions regarding science, and not because they violated the rules, so I'm not convinced by anyone making a similar claim about not toeing the liberal line. In this thread alone the "deviating" positions are rife with non-sequiturs and straw men. So how can one conclude it was the position that garnered a down-vote, and not the shoddy/fallacious support for that position?

[Lord Antares]

18 minutes ago, swansont said:

So how can one conclude it was the position that garnered a down-vote, and not the shoddy/fallacious support for that position?

One can conclude that if one side gains a warning or is otherwise told to stop breaking the rules and the other side gets away with the same exact thing. The downvotes are a secondary thing, not really all that important. But they are sometimes gained unfairly, IMO.

This doesn't necessarily apply to this topic. It particularly applies to liberal/conservative polilitical discussions in which tar takes the opposing view to the majority of the forum, from the few examples I've personally seen.

[MigL]

Well now that Tar has excused himself, I can return to the discussion...

I'm glad you agree, iNow, that some of what waitforufo says has merit.
( its not always about right vs left, sometimes left is right, and sometimes right is also right )

Lets be honest, there will always be scumbags like H Weinstein, that's human nature.
So how do we change it ?
We can't change the scumbags, but we can change the attitude of their victims. And that's what waitforufo is proposing
Look out for your fellow human beings, report any harassment/assaults immediately, without shame, and deprive the scumbags of their power.
I don't go as far as waitforufo in blaming A Judd, R McGowan, and others who contributed to the articles that exposed H Weinstein, even if it was up to 20 yrs late. I think they did show courage.
All the other established 'stars', such as M Streep, N Kidman, B Afflek, and yes, even H Clinton, who were not themselves assaulted, but by all indications, knew of H Weinstein's conduct for the last 30 yrs, SHOULD be ashamed, as they were the enablers that allowed for these assaults to keep happening.
And coming out with their condemnations after H Weinstein was exposed by the victims, showed no intestinal fortitude or character at all.

There will always be power disparity and scumbags in our society.
But Laws are there to address the power inbalance and get rid of scumbags.
If you don't avail yourself of these laws, are you not contributing to your continued victimization ?

( my apologies for overusing the term 'scumbag' )

 

[Ten oz]

8 minutes ago, MigL said:

Well now that Tar has excused himself, I can return to the discussion...

I'm glad you agree, iNow, that some of what waitforufo says has merit.
( its not always about right vs left, sometimes left is right, and sometimes right is also right )

Lets be honest, there will always be scumbags like H Weinstein, that's human nature.
So how do we change it ?
We can't change the scumbags, but we can change the attitude of their victims. And that's what waitforufo is proposing
Look out for your fellow human beings, report any harassment/assaults immediately, without shame, and deprive the scumbags of their power.
I don't go as far as waitforufo in blaming A Judd, R McGowan, and others who contributed to the articles that exposed H Weinstein, even if it was up to 20 yrs late. I think they did show courage.
All the other established 'stars', such as M Streep, N Kidman, B Afflek, and yes, even H Clinton, who were not themselves assaulted, but by all indications, knew of H Weinstein's conduct for the last 30 yrs, SHOULD be ashamed, as they were the enablers that allowed for these assaults to keep happening.
And coming out with their condemnations after H Weinstein was exposed by the victims, showed no intestinal fortitude or character at all.

There will always be power disparity and scumbags in our society.
But Laws are there to address the power inbalance and get rid of scumbags.
If you don't avail yourself of these laws, are you not contributing to your continued victimization ?

( my apologies for overusing the term 'scumbag' )

 

Do we know to what degree they knew? Everyone is aware of criminals whether it is a family member who habitually burns trash illegally or a friend that uses drugs. Shall we all be ashamed for not stopping everything we are aware of or does degree matter? Their isn't crime against being a chauvinist, misogynist, bully, and etc. If Streep, Kidman, or whomever saw an assualt on another or without question knew of an assualt on another; yes they should be ashamed. I do not know that to be the case. Ultimately Weinstein is responsible for his behavior. Blaming victims, possible victims, those who might have known but have fears, and etc only muddies the water. 

[waitforufo]

Some of the abused are coming around.

Quote

"I have my own experiences that have come back to me very vividly and I have found it hard to sleep, hard to think, hard to communicate," she said. "A lot of the feelings I've been having about anxiety, about being honest, the guilt for not speaking up earlier or taking action." - Reese Witherspoon

 http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/17/entertainment/reese-witherspoon-america-ferrera-assaults/index.html

Having shame for your action or inaction is something we all experience from time to time.  It's how we grow and improve.  

[waitforufo]

This one is really outrageous.  

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/10/19/new-calls-for-nbc-exec-to-resign-after-revelation-dined-with-sex-creep-harvey-weinstein-before-spiking-expose.html

Quote

NBC News is coming under increasing criticism for its failure to investigate why its embattled president, Noah Oppenheim, spiked a bombshell story that would have been the first to expose Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein as a sexual predator. 

An NBC spokesperson says the network is not investigating the matter, despite new revelations that Oppenheim sat at small table with Weinstein at an exclusive New York gala in April, when Oppenheim reportedly already knew that his reporter, celebrity scion Ronan Farrow, had obtained damning audio recordings in which Weinstein admitted groping the breasts of an Italian model.

I wonder what Rachel Maddow will have to say about this?  So much for the moral authority of NBC News.

[rangerx]

37 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

 So much for the moral authority of NBC News.

Given their history of accosting women, quoting FOX News doesn't bolster any moral authority.

 

Edited October 19, 2017 by rangerx

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, waitforufo said:

Some of the abused are coming around.

 http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/17/entertainment/reese-witherspoon-america-ferrera-assaults/index.html

Having shame for your action or inaction is something we all experience from time to time.  It's how we grow and improve.  

So Witherspoon was victimized as a teen and now continues to be victimized by guilt? I don't read grow and improvement in her statement. I just see long enduring emotional pain. Many people feel regret and guilt over things they had and or have zero control over. I personally do not think shaming victims for how they dealt with their victimization or demanding a specific reaction from them is useful on a macro level. 

[iNow]

Yeah yeah. MSNBC bad. Stupid libtards. Haha. I’m acting like a 12 year old... Two steps forward, one step back, I suppose. 

Here’s another approach to consider, though:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2017/10/18/men-of-the-world-you-are-not-the-weather/

Quote

You thought you were being nice, maybe. That any attention from you was flattering, maybe. That I would see it as a compliment, maybe. I have forgiven you, maybe. Or I am embarrassed for you, or I never knew what your name was. But make no mistake: Nothing about this was inevitable.

(...)

Instead of saying, “Do not go around lighting people on fire,” we are telling women, “Don’t be flammable.”

 

[MigL]

Very true iNow, that's the way the world SHOULD be.

But it isn't.
If that idiot on the street-corner is throwing mud at passersby, someone SHOULD say "Get that idiot somewhere where he can't throw mud at people". ( right out of the article )
If no-one says anything, he goes on to throw mud at people for 30 yrs, and only when someone who had mud thrown on them, grows a set, and starts yelling about the mud-tosser ( is this a bad pun ? ),  do the rest of the people who witnessed him doing this for 30 yrs, voice their disapproval.

Did I get the gist of the article right ?

And, on a related note.

We had a police officer giving a talk in  the Toronto area schools about rape/assault prevention, and he mentioned that young girls should not wear revealing clothing. Well all hell broke loose, the cop had to apologize profusely, and we had the first of our annual 'Slut' March ( who picks these names ? ).
Now, we know that it isn't the clothing that sets these people off, nor can it be anything the victim says or does, but is advice meant to minimize the chance of being assaulted, ever a bad thing ? It shouldn't be that way, it is totally on the assailant and no fault of the victim, but...
Would you tell me to go ahead and walk through Central park at night, because I SHOULD not be mugged ?
Would you tell me I don't need to look both ways before crossing the street, because cars SHOULD obey the rules of the road ?
Would you tell Americans we don't need Armed Forces, because other nations SHOULD act civil towards all others ?
And many other examples, where the world would be a better place if it was that way, but it isn't, so you had better be careful.

Edited October 20, 2017 by MigL

[Ten oz]

6 hours ago, MigL said:

Very true iNow, that's the way the world SHOULD be.

But it isn't.
If that idiot on the street-corner is throwing mud at passersby, someone SHOULD say "Get that idiot somewhere where he can't throw mud at people". ( right out of the article )
If no-one says anything, he goes on to throw mud at people for 30 yrs, and only when someone who had mud thrown on them, grows a set, and starts yelling about the mud-tosser ( is this a bad pun ? ),  do the rest of the people who witnessed him doing this for 30 yrs, voice their disapproval.

Did I get the gist of the article right ?

And, on a related note.

We had a police officer giving a talk in  the Toronto area schools about rape/assault prevention, and he mentioned that young girls should not wear revealing clothing. Well all hell broke loose, the cop had to apologize profusely, and we had the first of our annual 'Slut' March ( who picks these names ? ).
Now, we know that it isn't the clothing that sets these people off, nor can it be anything the victim says or does, but is advice meant to minimize the chance of being assaulted, ever a bad thing ? It shouldn't be that way, it is totally on the assailant and no fault of the victim, but...
Would you tell me to go ahead and walk through Central park at night, because I SHOULD not be mugged ?
Would you tell me I don't need to look both ways before crossing the street, because cars SHOULD obey the rules of the road ?
Would you tell Americans we don't need Armed Forces, because other nations SHOULD act civil towards all others ?
And many other examples, where the world would be a better place if it was that way, but it isn't, so you had better be careful.

Weinstein to advantage of his position. If Weinstein was a police officer who had been given women he stopped for traffic violations the choice between a citation which would cost money and go on their driving records or a verbal warning in trade for sexual favors how would this discussion play out?I doubt anyone would be in here arguing that the drivers are partly responsible because they violated the traffic laws in the first place or that the police officer wasn't backing the law provided all the females agreed to the quid pro qou.

 

I don't think citiesshould just warn pedestrians to stay away from every neighbor or park which some view dangerous (Cetral Park is a bad example as if has be relatively safe for a decade) but rather cities should add cameras, lighting, emergency call boxes, and etc to improve saftey. People should look both ways before crossing the street but that is a terrible example because a car driving in the street is performing a normal legal action. Weinstein was not a car driving in the street he was an out of control car driving through peoples homes. Parents don't tell kids to watch out for cars when they are playing legos in the living room.

[swansont]

16 hours ago, Lord Antares said:

One can conclude that if one side gains a warning or is otherwise told to stop breaking the rules and the other side gets away with the same exact thing. The downvotes are a secondary thing, not really all that important. But they are sometimes gained unfairly, IMO.

This doesn't necessarily apply to this topic. It particularly applies to liberal/conservative polilitical discussions in which tar takes the opposing view to the majority of the forum, from the few examples I've personally seen.

Alleged rule breaking isn't going to garner warnings unless they are reported and checked out. We can discuss such things further if you open a thread in the Support topic.

7 hours ago, MigL said:

Very true iNow, that's the way the world SHOULD be.

But it isn't.
If that idiot on the street-corner is throwing mud at passersby, someone SHOULD say "Get that idiot somewhere where he can't throw mud at people". ( right out of the article )
If no-one says anything, he goes on to throw mud at people for 30 yrs, and only when someone who had mud thrown on them, grows a set, and starts yelling about the mud-tosser ( is this a bad pun ? ),  do the rest of the people who witnessed him doing this for 30 yrs, voice their disapproval.

You forgot to include that part where people did complain about the mud-slinger, and those in a position to actually do something did nothing, and others rushed to his defense, saying "That's just Harvey being Harvey", or "Why are you making trouble for him" and then being run out of town.

These scenarios and summaries seem to omit the part about people who did speak up but were ignored. And once allegations are ignored, the message being sent is that speaking does no good.

14 hours ago, MigL said:

 All the other established 'stars', such as M Streep, N Kidman, B Afflek, and yes, even H Clinton, who were not themselves assaulted, but by all indications, knew of H Weinstein's conduct for the last 30 yrs, SHOULD be ashamed, as they were the enablers that allowed for these assaults to keep happening.

I'll bet there were a lot more men you could add to this list. The idea that needs to be coupled with "women need to speak up" is "men must not dismiss/attack them when they do" because until the latter changes, the former will have no effect, and will not change.

[Ten oz]

17 hours ago, Lord Antares said:

One can conclude that if one side gains a warning or is otherwise told to stop breaking the rules and the other side gets away with the same exact thing. The downvotes are a secondary thing, not really all that important. But they are sometimes gained unfairly, IMO.

This doesn't necessarily apply to this topic. It particularly applies to liberal/conservative polilitical discussions in which tar takes the opposing view to the majority of the forum, from the few examples I've personally seen.

The down votes I have seen tar, waitforufo, and others receive in Political threads have been attached to posts which promote partisan conspiracies and inaccurate information which is provably false are meant purely to be divisive and insulting. I don't subscribe to the platitude in political discussions bothsides or all opposing views automatically have equal philosophical merit. Those who use false information and lies to support a position have no merit and get down voted. I understand that on an emotional level or a personal cultural value scale posters posters believe they being honest but being honest and being accurate aren't the same. 

[Silvestru]

18 hours ago, Lord Antares said:

One can conclude that if one side gains a warning or is otherwise told to stop breaking the rules and the other side gets away with the same exact thing. The downvotes are a secondary thing, not really all that important. But they are sometimes gained unfairly, IMO.

This doesn't necessarily apply to this topic. It particularly applies to liberal/conservative polilitical discussions in which tar takes the opposing view to the majority of the forum, from the few examples I've personally seen.

You broke your own rule Lord Antares. Don't get involved in such threads haha. I totally understand getting down-voted when you argue with a scientific fact or try to deny it but during political, philosophical and other general discussions - the majority wins no matter if they are right.

Stating your opinion that slightly differs  the majority one is rarely welcome. Another thing is that people are afraid to be honest. If I asked all of you if you ever stole something in your life 99% would say no yet you all did it in one way or another. Same as the discussion with women. 

Most of you are talking like you are fighting for women's rights every day. I really hope you reflect that in your day to day behavior.

The double standards on this thread really hurts. What if you read an article saying that Hellen Mirren was doing the same Weinstein things to her male interns. Would you fight for human rights the same way like you guys are now? would you get so defensive? And don't give me that "rape" men are stronger that women crap as I really don't think Weinstein was overpowering these women physically. He was doing it mentally. 

Would we see the same fiery participation if it was Hellen we are talking about?

[DrP]

4 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

 I totally understand getting down-voted when you argue with a scientific fact or try to deny it but during political, philosophical and other general discussions - the majority wins no matter if they are right.

Did you read this post of Ten Oz's?

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

The down votes I have seen tar, waitforufo, and others receive in Political threads have been attached to posts which promote partisan conspiracies and inaccurate information which is provably false are meant purely to be divisive and insulting. I don't subscribe to the platitude in political discussions bothsides or all opposing views automatically have equal philosophical merit. Those who use false information and lies to support a position have no merit and get down voted. I understand that on an emotional level or a personal cultural value scale posters posters believe they being honest but being honest and being accurate aren't the same. 

Of course you didn't or you wouldn't have said what you said, sorry. So far in this thread I have issued 1 red mark (maybe 2)...  so the red marks are coming from many different readers and probably for different reasons  -  read Ten Oz's post above that you missed.

[Silvestru]

Oh I read it. I am not referring to comments or views shared by the 2 people mentioned there. I replied to Lord Antares who as far as I have seen is a rational smart individual.

What I was trying to express is that I have doubt that some people really believe/live by the things that they are saying.

Edited October 20, 2017 by Silvestru

[Ten oz]

24 minutes ago, DrP said:

Did you read this post of Ten Oz's?

Of course you didn't or you wouldn't have said what you said, sorry. So far in this thread I have issued 1 red mark (maybe 2)...  so the red marks are coming from many different readers and probably for different reasons  -  read Ten Oz's post above that you missed.

I read the post and provided my thoughts which in no way attacked. There is a difference between challenging the validity of what is said in a post and adding ones own thoughts on to a post. 

 

*I meant to qoute Silvestru; sorry

Edited October 20, 2017 by Ten oz
Mistake in person I meant to qoute.

[DrP]

24 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

Oh I read it. I am not referring to comments or views shared by the 2 people mentioned there. I replied to Lord Antares..

er, ok - as far as I can see he has not had a single red mark this thread (unless much earlier on that I missed)...  he was defending the others and suggesting their red marks were unjust...  to which I refer you to the post by Ten Oz again, which clearly explain why they have been receiving them from many different readers. 

 

[iNow]

2 hours ago, Silvestru said:

Would we see the same fiery participation if it was Hellen we are talking about?

If the experience of men everywhere is what the experience of women is everywhere... If this were not limited to the aggressiveness of one individual woman (Hellen, in your example above), and if it were instead representative of a much more systemic, broadly encompassing, profoundly pervasive issue being faced by essentially ALL men in society EVERYWHERE, then yes. It's probably safe for you to assume that participation would demonstrate equivalent combustion and heat.

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

If the experience of men everywhere is what the experience of women is everywhere... If this were not limited to the aggressiveness of one individual woman (Hellen, in your example above), and if it were instead representative of a much more systemic, broadly encompassing, profoundly pervasive issue being faced by essentially ALL men in society EVERYWHERE, then yes. It's probably safe for you to assume that participation would demonstrate equivalent combustion and heat.

I think one of the things that people (men) miss is the different experience in many situations. I certainly did not appreciate it until my now wife brought them up. And it did change my perspective on e.g. student/supervisor interactions that I had observed (especially on conferences) when I was still a grad. To those that were never in such dimorphic situations it seems like a trivial "flippable" situation. Yet out in the real world it certainly isn't. What is also not appreciated is that the experience does influence your perception even of innocuous situations. Most males would be somewhere between awkward to appreciative when commented on their looks by a stranger. However, females who experienced more or less regular catcalling for example may instead think differently about the same comments. E.g. "is my blouse too revealing, or my skirt too tight"? It can turn into a very self-conscious event , not because of the situation itself, but due to the specific experiences throughout life. In younger years when I was told about I thought it was an exaggeration until I realized how almost constant the feeling of exposure is in the public. Sure people looking is not harassment in itself. Yet one cannot help to feel vulnerable to some degree. And it is weird to see how almost automatically defensive actions are taken (change in gait for example, turning the body so the chest is less exposed, the need to repeatedly tell everyone that one has a bf/is engaged) just to escape attention. 

The world is a different place not only because where you are, but also who you are. As such it can be difficult to hold everyone to perfect standards in a very complex and non-standardized world. 

 

[Lord Antares]

6 hours ago, swansont said:

Alleged rule breaking isn't going to garner warnings unless they are reported and checked out. We can discuss such things further if you open a thread in the Support topic.

I sent several specific examples via PM to a mod (as I was asked) where a group of people was slurred (called stupid, both directly and indirectly, depending on the example) without consequence and with approval, most of the time. I was ignored.

This group of people were, of course, conservatives. I made the same slur (albeit worded ''more harshly'') about ultra-liberals and got warned. I don't care about the warning, I care about the principle. Which is it - can you not make slurs against any groups or can you not make them about the groups you care about?

42 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I think one of the things that people (men) miss is the different experience in many situations...

I also think that one of the things people miss that equality goes for both sides. I support righting the wrongs for women and I condemn sexual harrassment and demeaning women or considering them less worthy. However, I also condemn inequalities for men.

I gave an example where I remember looking for jobs as a student and about 50% of them explicitly asked for females (the other 50% were available to both sexes) and they were the better paying jobs too. But no one cares about that. If the situation was reversed, I guarantee you people would lose their shit.