How has MeToo changed your willingness to mentor female team members?

m_1's picture
m_1 - Certified Professional
Rank: Neanderthal | banana points 3,380

Just curious if it's changed anything for anyone else?

Not going to lie, it's made me very paranoid, I don't meet anyone (male or female) at all unless it's in a public place and I had cameras installed with audio at our main office.

I talked to a few executives at larger companies about this and some outright refuse to meet 1 on 1 privately with woman, which I think is really bad. Kind of sad the whole thing has created some serious glass ceilings for woman.

What do you guys think a feasible solution is? The only thing I could think of within reason was meeting in public places exclusively + the whole camera/audio thing but it's a band-aid solution.

Consulting Case Interview Course

  • 2,037 questions across 209 consulting firms. Crowdsourced from over 600,000 members.
  • 11 Detailed Exclusive Cases developed by a McKinsey Associate and 10+ hours of video.
  • Trusted by over 1,000 aspiring consultants just like you.

Comments (151)

Dec 4, 2018

The irony of this whole thing is that it has made people crave being monitored all the time. It is amazing.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

    • 4
Dec 12, 2018

Yeah it's really scary...

Dec 4, 2018

Wasn't this a terrible WSJ or Bloomberg article yesterday?

Solution is it's fucking business, don't be a creep, don't try to date anyone in the office, don't try to fuck anyone in the office, do your work, and you're straight.

    • 7
    • 5
Dec 4, 2018
dr_mantistoboggan_MD:

Wasn't this a terrible WSJ or Bloomberg article yesterday?

Solution is it's fucking business, don't be a creep, don't try to date anyone in the office, don't try to fuck anyone in the office, do your work, and you're straight.

Your solution is 100% correct, but I did think it was an interesting article. Batshit, mind you, but interesting.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-03... for anyone wondering

    • 1
    • 3
Dec 10, 2018

His solution is batshit. There are a lot of office romances that lead to marriage, off the top of my head is my best friend and my parents. My uncle and aunt are high-school sweethearts. I think this is a perfectly acceptable way to meet women, and frankly the only way many american men have. It is far more pervy to strike up a conversation at a bar or gym in my own opinion.

Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Dec 9, 2018
dr_mantistoboggan_MD:

Wasn't this a terrible WSJ or Bloomberg article yesterday?

Solution is it's fucking business, don't be a creep, don't try to date anyone in the office, don't try to fuck anyone in the office, do your work, and you're straight.

No no no. You're not. There is always some crazy out there who can ruin your life. CC Deborah Ramirez.

I'm gay and I'm still terrified.

    • 4
Dec 9, 2018

Right?

It's the same logic as "don't leave your beer unattended at the bar" - the risk of your drink being spiked is low, but the consequences could be catastrophic.

    • 3
Dec 4, 2018

...except in this case your version of not leaving your drink at the bar unattended is, not speaking to women in the workplace?

Also correct me if I'm wrong, but Im pretty sure underhanded/conniving/shitty people trying to get a leg up in the business world existed long before the metoo movement.

To be clear I'm also very critical of the lack of due process afforded to anyone accused of any crime in this day and age. I've made several posts about my hatred of the court of public opinion/public shamming.

    • 2
    • 3
Dec 9, 2018

No, the version is no closed door meetings, no situations involving alcohol, no one-on-one dinners, etc. I don't think that's crazy.

In case you haven't noticed, it's not always men acting creepy and trying to fuck people in the office, and "as a man" if something goes wrong, no one will believe you. Like you said, just do your work, but protect yourself.

Yes shitty people existed long before #MeToo... what's your point?

Dec 9, 2018
dr_mantistoboggan_MD:

...except in this case your version of not leaving your drink at the bar unattended is, not speaking to women in the workplace?

Also correct me if I'm wrong, but Im pretty sure underhanded/conniving/shitty people trying to get a leg up in the business world existed long before the metoo movement.

To be clear I'm also very critical of the lack of due process afforded to anyone accused of any crime in this day and age. I've made several posts about my hatred of the court of public opinion/public shamming.

Hang on a sec. It's about having traditional boundaries. When I step over traditional boundaries, I feel uncomfortable. I don't want to have dinner alone with an attractive colleague (unless she's lesbian). I don't want to be in a coworker's hotel room. These things make me feel uncomfortable. Partly that I'll make the other person feel uncomfortable, but partly because they make me uncomfortable too.

Now, if I were straight and it were another guy, it wouldn't be a big deal. Or with two straight women.

If women don't want to feel uncomfortable, don't make men feel uncomfortable.

    • 4
Dec 10, 2018
IlliniProgrammer]
[quote=dr_mantistoboggan:

I don't want to have dinner alone with an attractive colleague (unless she's lesbian).

I'm not attractive....want to grab dinner? Also, not a lesbian. Or gay for that matter. But, you seem like an interesting guy to hang out with for a short while. At least the two most storied trolls on this site could enjoy a drink or burger together.

Ready when you are.....

Dec 9, 2018

Sure. No homo. (I am allowed to tell that joke)

    • 3
Dec 9, 2018

So you don't have anything to add?

Jan 20, 2019

If you're not socially clueless you should be able to read the cues and understand the difference between light flirtation in a working relationship and trying to fuck a coworker that's clearly not comfortable with it or is liable to get you into trouble. I really don't think reading the cues and staying out of trouble is difficult. Just don't make people feel uncomfortable, unless you have Aspergers you shouldn't be playing dumb about not being able to read the situation. Kind of ridiculous that a bunch of adults are having this problem with one another.

Just my $.02

Jan 22, 2019

Generally yes, and also cultivate a good reputation so if someone tries to make something up you get a bunch of folks all "oh no no no, this isn't consistent at all with his behavior". Head off any unwarranted metoo lynchings by proactively courting the same court of public opinion. Put the burden of proof on them in every way, not just legally but also socially.

In a world of open office spaces, glass doors, and public coffee chats....it's not hard

Most Helpful
Dec 4, 2018

It's a slippery slope.

A number of recent articles talk about these measures of avoiding potential conflict, like not traveling on business with female co-workers, not getting hotel rooms on the same floor when traveling overnight. Some firms are scaling back or getting rid of certain staffer outings, which is disappointing.

And yes, there was a piece on Bloomberg News yesterday talking about "channeling Mike Pence" by not even dining alone with a woman in a public setting?! And Ron Biscardi CEO of Context Capital Partners has cancelled the after-party that he hosts after CCP's annual conference to avoid possible issues.

My concern is that by men trying to insulate and protect themselves from possible sexual harassment claims is that they inadvertently paint themselves in a corner that then puts them at risk of sexual discrimination complaints.

The vast majority of businessmen or any men in positions of power and decision-making are decent guys and they don't harass women. Just as the vast majority of businesswomen simply want to earn their positions and promotions via merit and effort. Sadly, it's the opportunists in each camp, while small in comparison, that end up being in the news cycle and making things appear far more skewed than they probably are.

Does harassment and coercement exist? Absolutely. Should it limit and color every single interaction between the sexes, or between boss and subordinate? Good god, I hope not, but it can certainly seem that way and I really hope it doesn't negatively impact the mentor role - as a woman in banking and finance, I have always had to contend with far fewer bosses and directors who were women, because the upper ranks have so few women to begin with, and so I've had very few female mentors and I have more often than not had no choice but to try to cultivate and benefit from mentor relationships with men.

    • 17
Dec 4, 2018

+1

Don't be weird as a man, disingenuous as a woman, and everything should be fine. Just be normal people...

    • 1
Dec 5, 2018
FinancelsWacc:

+1
Don't be weird as a man, disingenuous as a woman, and everything should be fine. Just be normal people...

The problem here is there is virtually no consequence for being disingenuous as a woman.
The bad seeds in the women's camp are protected beyond what's reasonable.

    • 3
Dec 10, 2018
InfoDominatrix:

My concern is that by men trying to insulate and protect themselves from possible sexual harassment claims is that they inadvertently paint themselves in a corner that then puts them at risk of sexual discrimination complaints.

This.

I haven't changed one thing and don't plan to. If you start stonewalling women from drinks or one on one meetings, you will be accused of sexual discrimination because that is exactly what you're doing.

    • 3
    • 1
Dec 9, 2018
InfoDominatrix:

It's a slippery slope.

A number of recent articles talk about these measures of avoiding potential conflict, like not traveling on business with female co-workers, not getting hotel rooms on the same floor when traveling overnight. Some firms are scaling back or getting rid of certain staffer outings, which is disappointing.

And yes, there was a piece on Bloomberg News yesterday talking about "channeling Mike Pence" by not even dining alone with a woman in a public setting?! And Ron Biscardi CEO of Context Capital Partners has cancelled the after-party that he hosts after CCP's annual conference to avoid possible issues.

My concern is that by men trying to insulate and protect themselves from possible sexual harassment claims is that they inadvertently paint themselves in a corner that then puts them at risk of sexual discrimination complaints.

The vast majority of businessmen or any men in positions of power and decision-making are decent guys and they don't harass women. Just as the vast majority of businesswomen simply want to earn their positions and promotions via merit and effort. Sadly, it's the opportunists in each camp, while small in comparison, that end up being in the news cycle and making things appear far more skewed than they probably are.

Does harassment and coercement exist? Absolutely. Should it limit and color every single interaction between the sexes, or between boss and subordinate? Good god, I hope not, but it can certainly seem that way and I really hope it doesn't negatively impact the mentor role - as a woman in banking and finance, I have always had to contend with far fewer bosses and directors who were women, because the upper ranks have so few women to begin with, and so I've had very few female mentors and I have more often than not had no choice but to try to cultivate and benefit from mentor relationships with men.

There's a tug of war between women's rights and feminism. Women have a right to not be or feel coerced for sex. But do they also have a right to be treated the same way as a male coworker in a hotel with a straight guy at 11 PM at night?

I think for the people running around saying "just don't be a creep", that's bullshit. There are business situations that make men feel uncomfortable being around a woman where they wouldn't feel the same about being around a guy. And then the gay guys like me feel uncomfortable around everybody in these situations, and we've learned to work around them. I might do lunch or coffee alone with a coworker-- either male or female, but not dinner (unless it was an LGBT woman). Why can't women be ok with the same?

I have a better idea for all of the feminists out there saying "just don't be a creep". How about you stop being creeps? I don't want to have a business dinner alone with you, or with a guy (lunch might be ok). I don't want to be in your hotel room-- male or female-- alone while I'm on business (perhaps unless you're lesbian and you know I'm gay). These are some very traditional lines that you try not to cross with the opposite sex, and I think it's patently unfair to demand they be broken down and then later claim that breaking them down and getting yourself into a situation made you feel uncomfortable.

Women, as whole, need to decide whether it's ok for them to be uncomfortable and occasionally feel harassed, or whether it's ok for there to be some reasonable, traditional barriers between men and women in the workplace, especially in the manager-employee context-- that gay guys like me also have to work around, not just with the opposite sex but with practically everyone.

    • 9
Dec 9, 2018

Very nuanced points here. +1

I've taken the Mike Pence approach and it got me in trouble. Was accused of discrimination. It's a very fine line.

    • 2
    • 1
Dec 9, 2018
InfoDominatrix:

My concern is that by men trying to insulate and protect themselves from possible sexual harassment claims is that they inadvertently paint themselves in a corner that then puts them at risk of sexual discrimination complaints.

I have more often than not had no choice but to try to cultivate and benefit from mentor relationships with men.

Rock and a hard place, no?

When does coaching become "mansplaining?" Where is the line between mentorship and misconduct?

Dec 4, 2018

No.

Dec 4, 2018

I'm an adjunct instructor and no longer allow female students in my office during office hours; we sit in the corner of the student lounge area. The last thing I need is to get into a riff with made up allegations by a lazy female student trying to save her grade.

The dean of our school has a hard on for ending harassment. A rumor began that a professor told a sexist woman joke during a study hall which eventually hit the ear of someone on the campus senate. Before the facts even arose, the dean tweeted that the professor who told the joke will be fired. The tweet was then redacted when it was discovered that a student told the joke, not the professor.

Can't trust anyone these days and the internet is electric ink. Even false allegations will never wash away when google indexes everything forever.

    • 9
Dec 4, 2018

@InfoDominatrix great post above.

Agree with a lot of what has been posted. Unfortunately, don't be a creep just doesn't work in large or small offices. I've consistently seen in my career that organizations that have a lot of bright, high-achievers also tend to have a lot of quirkiness (deviation from the norm), which normally manifest in harmless, funny mannerisms, but can also generate in less-good ways (not necessarily illegal or immoral, but unhealthy, off-putting, etc.).

In an ironic anecdote in my office recently, in the past year we built out additional floor-space in our building. A completely private room with the wall on the hallway built out of floor to ceiling glass that was 100% glossed out was built with an initial intention of being a place for naps and nursing women (this was 100% part of the intention); this would require a locking door of course. After the lock was installed and one of our managing partners checked it out, he had our office manager have a non-locking door-knob installed specifically to avoid the chance someone could ever be taken advantage. So I guess now it is officially only a nap room or extra conference room. This is a small point to make, but was super interesting to see this become a point of concern... something like this never would have happened in the first few years out of school.

    • 3
Dec 4, 2018

To all the people who are saying (in what I read hearing a SF beta male's voice) 'yeah, like all you have to do is like be cool and you should be fine'... remember the words from Tupac:

"It's a lot of real G's doing time
'Cause a groupy bit the truth and told a lie"

Women lie too... and in today's climate there is no due process or presumption of innocence. One complaint and you're canned. Rather be safe than sorry in this instance.

    • 7
    • 1
Dec 4, 2018

Couldn't agree more

Dec 4, 2018

Love the pac reference.

Dayman?

    • 1
    • 1
Dec 4, 2018

The Bloomberg article mentions male higher-ups keep their distance from female junior employees because "a false accusation is what they fear".

This will all disappear as soon as the accused enjoy due process and the presumption of innocence, and the validity of sexual assault accusations ceases to be decided by the court of public opinion.

Too many companies would sooner fire a male employee and avoid potential fallout than ask the hard questions about the validity of the accusation.

    • 3
    • 2
Dec 4, 2018

It's pretty interesting that there's this assumption that it is common that if you get one complaint you get canned. In fact, that is the least common outcome.

Have any of you even talked to women who have been sexually harassed at work? For the most part, those who do report harassment are stonewalled by HR or are made to jump through a thousand hoops. Harassment reporting policies are, for the most part, a facade that are obviously controlled by those in charge. They are designed to legally protect management and shareholders, Someone getting fired is usually the very last resort. Most women don't see it as worth it to report harassment because corporate harassment policies are not implemented to protect those who are harassed. They serve as legal cover and nothing more. Almost exclusively, only men who engage in the worst kind of behavior get punished.

Anecdotally, men who seem to be the most paranoid about #MeToo tend to be those who have few to 0 platonic female friends. All of the men I know who have a plethora of female friends who they hang out with are not worried about this shit. Only men who exclusively hang out with other men or their significant other are freaking out.

    • 15
    • 7
Dec 4, 2018
DeepLearning:

It's pretty interesting that there's this assumption that it is common that if you get one complaint you get canned. In fact, that is the least common outcome.

Have any of you even talked to women who have been sexually harassed at work? For the most part, those who do report harassment are stonewalled by HR or are made to jump through a thousand hoops. Harassment reporting policies are, for the most part, a facade that are obviously controlled by those in charge. They are designed to legally protect management and shareholders, Someone getting fired is usually the very last resort. Most women don't see it as worth it to report harassment because corporate harassment policies are not implemented to protect those who are harassed. They serve as legal cover and nothing more. Almost exclusively, only men who engage in the worst kind of behavior get punished.

Anecdotally, men who seem to be the most paranoid about #MeToo tend to be those who have few to 0 platonic female friends. All of the men I know who have a plethora of female friends who they hang out with are not worried about this shit. Only men who exclusively hang out with other men or their significant other are freaking out.

A million times this. Think about the people who often do get canned. They tend to be creeps.

If you have a reputation for making inappropriate jokes, leering at women in the office, and in general behaving in an unprofessional manner, you're making yourself a target of that one in a million false accusation.

If you treat your colleagues and employees with respect and professionalism, you won't get in trouble, end of story.

These conversations always remind me of episode of the The Office where Michael complains that office censorship is preventing him from sending "hilarious" spam forwards and shit like that. The people who get into trouble and then bitch about how "it was just a joke!" deserve every ounce of punishment they get, and frankly, it's always amazing to me how many people on WSO (generally they seem to be younger folks) don't get that.

    • 5
    • 4
Dec 4, 2018
Ozymandia:
DeepLearning:

It's pretty interesting that there's this assumption that it is common that if you get one complaint you get canned. In fact, that is the least common outcome.

Have any of you even talked to women who have been sexually harassed at work? For the most part, those who do report harassment are stonewalled by HR or are made to jump through a thousand hoops. Harassment reporting policies are, for the most part, a facade that are obviously controlled by those in charge. They are designed to legally protect management and shareholders, Someone getting fired is usually the very last resort. Most women don't see it as worth it to report harassment because corporate harassment policies are not implemented to protect those who are harassed. They serve as legal cover and nothing more. Almost exclusively, only men who engage in the worst kind of behavior get punished.

Anecdotally, men who seem to be the most paranoid about #MeToo tend to be those who have few to 0 platonic female friends. All of the men I know who have a plethora of female friends who they hang out with are not worried about this shit. Only men who exclusively hang out with other men or their significant other are freaking out.

A million times this. Think about the people who often do get canned. They tend to be creeps.

If you have a reputation for making inappropriate jokes, leering at women in the office, and in general behaving in an unprofessional manner, you're making yourself a target of that one in a million false accusation.

If you treat your colleagues and employees with respect and professionalism, you won't get in trouble, end of story.

These conversations always remind me of episode of the The Office where Michael complains that office censorship is preventing him from sending "hilarious" spam forwards and shit like that. The people who get into trouble and then bitch about how "it was just a joke!" deserve every ounce of punishment they get, and frankly, it's always amazing to me how many people on WSO (generally they seem to be younger folks) don't get that.

We're not talking of the proper process of going through the HR channels. One tweet and you could rot. You have next to nothing to gain and everything to lose by toeing this line.

There were a group of kids of a certain ethnicity visiting a Chipotle regularly. When their food was finished, they would grab the to-go bags and run out the door; this happened enough times for their faces to be recognized among the staff. A manager saw the same kids in the store and demanded that they pay first. The kid started filming, saying that because of his ethnicity, they were not being served until they paid first and tagged Chipotle in the tweet.

Chipotle fired that black female manager upon seeing the tweet saying that the restaurant would be closed for a day for proper retraining of employees. They then ate crow when the FACTS came to light that one of the kids had a 'dine and dash' twitter account showing him running off without paying for food as a hobby all over town.

Problem with us financiers and WSO in general is we assume people act rationally with truth and logic. They don't.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/11/21/race...
Comments are just rich, LMAO!
Nope, sorry, too late.

Sue them for $300,000,000.

This woman (WOMAN!) put herself at risk defending her employees and the company's interests from male (MALE!) thieves and the Company publicly humiliated her, advanced the media's libel and defamation against her, and summarily fired her.

This compmay must be punished hard, so hard that other companies will think twice before obliging politically correct antiAmerican fascist criminals, terrorists, and traitors.

Once Chipotle goes down, then she sues the complicit media agencies for hundreds of millions more.

    • 3
    • 2
Dec 4, 2018

Hah. Sorry to tell you, but one anecdotal story about someone being fired for what was thought to be prejudiced behavior doesn't validate any point of view, at all.

Historically speaking, women have faced some fairly discriminatory workplace environments for decades. This is across a long period of times and many industries. You don't invalidate that because one Chipotle manager got fired over a misunderstanding.

The world isn't fair, and sometimes shit happens. If you're on the receiving end of it, it seems like a pretty raw deal, and I get that. And if you're a complete moron, you don't even have the perspective to understand that said lack of fairness is so institutionalized into most American workplaces, or was until recently, that it's what most women go through on a daily basis.

And by the way, your example is not supportive of what I assume your overall point is. A rash corporate decision was made, evidence came to light, and the woman was offered her job back. In other words... they system worked, if not perfectly.

Which brings me to my point. If you treat others with respect and don't treat the workplace like your frat house at 2am, then you have no more to worry about than being struck by lightning. If you saw a guy walking around in a storm with a giant metal pole, you'd feel bad that he got fried but understand he brought it on himself. If you're reasonably careful then it's not even a risk worth evaluating.

    • 2
    • 10
Dec 4, 2018
Ozymandia:

Hah. Sorry to tell you, but one anecdotal story about someone being fired for what was thought to be prejudiced behavior doesn't validate any point of view, at all.

Historically speaking, women have faced some fairly discriminatory workplace environments for decades. This is across a long period of times and many industries. You don't invalidate that because one Chipotle manager got fired over a misunderstanding.

The world isn't fair, and sometimes shit happens. If you're on the receiving end of it, it seems like a pretty raw deal, and I get that. And if you're a complete moron, you don't even have the perspective to understand that said lack of fairness is so institutionalized into most American workplaces, or was until recently, that it's what most women go through on a daily basis.

And by the way, your example is not supportive of what I assume your overall point is. A rash corporate decision was made, evidence came to light, and the woman was offered her job back. In other words... they system worked, if not perfectly.

Which brings me to my point. If you treat others with respect and don't treat the workplace like your frat house at 2am, then you have no more to worry about than being struck by lightning. If you saw a guy walking around in a storm with a giant metal pole, you'd feel bad that he got fried but understand he brought it on himself. If you're reasonably careful then it's not even a risk worth evaluating.

Cool story.

Dec 4, 2018

Also,

A rash corporate decision was made, evidence came to light, and the woman was offered her job back. In other words... they system worked, if not perfectly.

This is interesting. Perhaps Chicago Police can adapt this tactic of handling 911 calls since, as you claim, this system works perfectly.

Dec 9, 2018
Ozymandia:

Historically speaking, women have faced some fairly discriminatory workplace environments for decades.

The world isn't fair, and sometimes shit happens. If you're on the receiving end of it, it seems like a pretty raw deal, and I get that. And if you're a complete moron, you don't even have the perspective to understand that said lack of fairness is so institutionalized into most American workplaces, or was until recently, that it's what most women go through on a daily basis.

So which is it?

The world is unfair, and people have to deal with it, or the world is unfair, and we should work to change it?

Or is it "women have had it worse than men in the past, so now it's time to even the score, sorry men?" As a man, why would I agree to that?

Ozymandia:

If you treat others with respect and don't treat the workplace like your frat house at 2am, then you have no more to worry about than being struck by lightning. If you saw a guy walking around in a storm with a giant metal pole, you'd feel bad that he got fried but understand he brought it on himself. If you're reasonably careful then it's not even a risk worth evaluating.

OK so when something unfair happens to a man it's his fault, but when something unfair happens to a woman it's also the man's fault?

What is "reasonably careful?" It's prudent for women to exercise caution around men, but for men to exercise caution around women it's paranoia?

CC: @WolfofWSO

    • 1
Dec 9, 2018

This is stupid.

Newsflash: Women lie. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/7/fa...

    • 1
Dec 9, 2018
Ozymandia:

If you treat your colleagues and employees with respect and professionalism, you won't get in trouble, end of story.
i
t's always amazing to me how many people on WSO (generally they seem to be younger folks) don't get that.

Yeah because no woman would ever lie SMH.

Ii always amazes me how many "men" have been brainwashed by a neo-Marxist system that wants to destroy them.

    • 1
Dec 4, 2018
surferdude867:

Yeah because no woman would ever lie SMH.

Ii always amazes me how many "men" have been brainwashed by a neo-Marxist system that wants to destroy them.

So do men, all the time... what is your point? You can also be fired and have your career ruined by a co-worker accusing you of theft in order to cover up their own crime, or any manner of shit. You don't seem concerned about that.

Obviously being the target of a false accusation is an awful fate which no one should suffer. However, it seems that the people on here, like surferdude867, who seem unusually fixated on this one type of false accusation, are betraying something fundamental about their world view, and view on women in particular.

You can never prevent being the subject of a false accusation, just the same as you can't prevent cancer. But you can certainly take steps to lessen the likelihood of it. And the idea that all women are sharks, out there waiting for the opportunity to lob an unfounded accusation/lawsuit at an unsuspecting, god fearing man is just crazy. If you are a creepy asshole hitting on every woman in sight at the company holiday party, you don't get to turn around and act like you don't understand why you're being accused of sexually harassing your coworkers.

Anyone who has ever actually held down a job, and not just read a couple of articles shared on their frat's listserv, understands that the incidence of this shit happening is so extraordinarily rare as to not be worth worrying about. Act like a fucking professional and you'll be fine, end of story.

    • 2
    • 7
Dec 9, 2018
Ozymandia:

So do men, all the time... what is your point? You can also be fired and have your career ruined by a co-worker accusing you of theft in order to cover up their own crime, or any manner of shit. You don't seem concerned about that.

Yeah because if I'm accused of theft, there will be an... what do they call it again? Oh yeah! An investigation, where... what's that word? Oh yeah! Evidence will be required.

Ozymandia:

You can never prevent being the subject of a false accusation, just the same as you can't prevent cancer. But you can certainly take steps to lessen the likelihood of it. And the idea that all women are sharks, out there waiting for the opportunity to lob an unfounded accusation/lawsuit at an unsuspecting, god fearing man is just crazy.

Exactly, you can and should take steps to lessen the likelihood of it by, as @IlliniProgrammer said, respecting traditional boundaries.

No one said all women are sharks, but not all women are innocent victims either. Just like women take certain precautions around men, it behooves men to take certain precautions around women. How is what I'm saying crazy?

Ozymandia:

Anyone who has ever actually held down a job, and not just read a couple of articles shared on their frat's listserv, understands that the incidence of this shit happening is so extraordinarily rare as to not be worth worrying about. Act like a fucking professional and you'll be fine, end of story.

Since you referred to college life, I TA'd a course when I was in grad school. As I'm sure my current girlfriend will attest, I'm no Channing Tatum, but the amount of nubile young women offering sexual services for better grades was completely insane.

I took steps to protect myself then, and I take steps to protect myself now.

    • 2
Dec 4, 2018
surferdude867:

Yeah because if I'm accused of theft, there will be an... what do they call it again? Oh yeah! An investigation, where... what's that word? Oh yeah! Evidence will be required.

And the idea that there won't be in the case of someone accusing you of sexual harassment is absurd. Yeah, you see stories once in a blue moon about it happening. You also hear of people being hit by lightning. The truth is, most HR departments take those kinds of complaints really seriously. Which brings me to my original point; if you're a creepy guy who leers at women half his age at the office and is grabbing at anything that moves at after-work events, it's a worse look than if you're, ya know, a professional.

Exactly, you can and should take steps to lessen the likelihood of it by, as @IlliniProgrammer said, respecting traditional boundaries.

No one said all women are sharks, but not all women are innocent victims either. Just like women take certain precautions around men, it behooves men to take certain precautions around women. How is what I'm saying crazy?

It's not crazy. I just object to the "around women" part. You shouldn't act in a professional manner because you're worried about being the subject of a harassment complaint. You should act like a professional around everyone, because that is what is fucking called for in the work place. I never understand folks (not accusing you of this) who complain that they can't drop the N word in the workplace, or whatever. It's an office and a job, not a bar.

Since you referred to college life, I TA'd a course when I was in grad school. As I'm sure my current girlfriend will attest, I'm no Channing Tatum, but the amount of nubile young women offering sexual services for better grades was completely insane.

I took steps to protect myself then, and I take steps to protect myself now.

Good for you. The thing is, the only difference between what a woman is offering and a man in return for better grades, better pricing, insider info, etc, is that one involves sex and one doesn't. A man might offer you money. Had you accepted one of the offers of those women, you would have been in the wrong anyway. We wouldn't be having any kind of conversation about this if the OP was talking about a man offering him a briefcase full of cash in return for info about a new merger or whatever. People are people; they are often greedy and stupid and shortsighted.

Basically, I agree with most of what you're saying, except the general attitude that being careful around women is somehow an unrelated topic to being careful around men. It's the same issue, point for point - be intelligent and courteous and have integrity and nothing is going to happen. If any of those don't apply, you're as likely to get in trouble in some other way as you are from a "false" harassment claim.

    • 3
Dec 9, 2018
Ozymandia:

It's not crazy. I just object to the "around women" part. You shouldn't act in a professional manner because you're worried about being the subject of a harassment complaint. You should act like a professional around everyone, because that is what is fucking called for in the work place.

OK then - what would you say to a female who refused to have private one-on-one meetings with a male in the workplace?

Maybe you would argue that she's being nonsensical, but it seems like society would she say is being prudent, whereas the same attitude from a man is labeled paranoia "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about!"

Ozymandia:

The thing is, the only difference between what a woman is offering and a man in return for better grades, better pricing, insider info, etc, is that one involves sex and one doesn't. A man might offer you money. Had you accepted one of the offers of those women, you would have been in the wrong anyway. We wouldn't be having any kind of conversation about this if the OP was talking about a man offering him a briefcase full of cash in return for info about a new merger or whatever.

OK, two things:

  1. Yes, one involves sex and one doesn't.
  2. No man ever offered me money (or sex) for better grades. Not saying it couldn't/doesn't happen, or that it would be better/worse than a woman offering sex, but in my experience anyways, the ratio of women offering sex for favors to men offering money for favors is 20:0. Perhaps female TA's have similar anecdotes about men?
Ozymandia:

And the idea that there won't be in the case of someone accusing you of sexual harassment is absurd. Yeah, you see stories once in a blue moon about it happening. You also hear of people being hit by lightning. The truth is, most HR departments take those kinds of complaints really seriously.

Yes, HR departments, school tribunals, police departments, and the public in general take those kinds of complaints extremely seriously - so seriously that they are treated differently than other kinds of complaints/crimes.

Now you might argue that this is necessary and that's fine I guess, but I don't walk around outside during thunderstorms and I won't make myself a target for public wrath.

(and yes, I am comparing being in compromising situations alone with a woman to walking around outside during a thunderstorm - unlikely to end in catastrophe, but if either situation did end badly, the rest of the world would look at me and say "whether he deserved it or not, he was asking for it").

I agree that #MeToo is 100% a net positive. I'll agree with you that there is a specific type of bad behavior that is seen most often in men. I'll even agree that it is a "hardwired" type of behavior, the result of evolution that has no place in modern society.

What we appear to disagree about is the likelihood of women abusing power.

Power corrupts.

Dec 9, 2018

And the idea that there won't be in the case of someone accusing you of sexual harassment is absurd.

If possession is 9/10 of the law it's usually pretty easy to prove you didnt commit theft. It's a lot harder to prove that sex was consensual.

The truth is, most HR departments take those kinds of complaints really seriously. Which brings me to my original point; if you're a creepy guy who leers at women half his age at the office and is grabbing at anything that moves at after-work events, it's a worse look than if you're, ya know, a professional.

These men exist, but so do women who bring false accusations.

It's not crazy. I just object to the "around women" part. You shouldn't act in a professional manner because you're worried about being the subject of a harassment complaint.

Ok. They should also act in a professional manner around gay men, too. Straight men? Men have a right to conduct themselves in a way that they are comfortable with, internally. It isn't the business of women or gay men to tell straight men how they must interact.

You should act like a professional around everyone, because that is what is fucking called for in the work place.

Frankly, if its outside of the office and women are not involved, and women believe it is their right to network among themselves, have dedicated scholarships, and exclude men from marches, it is none of their business what men do on their own time.

This is basic Kantian ethics. You rewrote the rules, now you live by them.

I never understand folks (not accusing you of this) who complain that they can't drop the N word in the workplace, or whatever. It's an office and a job, not a bar.

Except sometimes it is a bar.

Basically, I agree with most of what you're saying, except the general attitude that being careful around women is somehow an unrelated topic to being careful around men. It's the same issue, point for point - be intelligent and courteous and have integrity and nothing is going to happen. If any of those don't apply, you're as likely to get in trouble in some other way as you are from a "false" harassment claim.

??? Getting yourself falsely accused of rape or sexual misconduct is like running around in a lightning storm. Odds are low, but I'm not going to go running in a lightning storm because a woman tells me it supports the social agenda.

Also if straight men want to conduct themselves differently around straight men because women falsely accuse straight men of rape, that is their right.

    • 6
Dec 9, 2018
IlliniProgrammer:

This is basic Kantian ethics. You rewrote the rules, now you live by them.

It's obvjously not about equality, or inclusivity, or even human rights.

It's about power and vengeance... which I understand. I've felt fucked over (whether I actually was or not is another matter) and know this rage all too well.

What I don't understand is why "they" think "we" should play to lose and like it.

    • 2
Dec 9, 2018

Oh and fuck you for putting quotes around false.

    • 1
Dec 9, 2018

Have you ever been on the receiving end of a lying woman's wrath? I have, fucking academy award winning performances with the tears, the moaning, the sobbing.. total bullshit.

Have you ever noticed that the "men" who claim to be feminists and #believewomen only know 2 girls, their wives and their mothers, both of whom are still on a pedestal?

Newsflash: women lie - https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/7/fa...

    • 1
Dec 9, 2018

Are you a woman or a "man?"

    • 1
Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Dec 4, 2018
m_1:

Just curious if it's changed anything for anyone else?

Not going to lie, it's made me very paranoid, I don't meet anyone (male or female) at all unless it's in a public place and I had cameras installed with audio at our main office.

I talked to a few executives at larger companies about this and some outright refuse to meet 1 on 1 privately with woman, which I think is really bad. Kind of sad the whole thing has created some serious glass ceilings for woman.

What do you guys think a feasible solution is? The only thing I could think of within reason was meeting in public places exclusively + the whole camera/audio thing but it's a band-aid solution.

Based on the maturity you show in your posts, I somehow doubt you're in a position to "mentor" anyone. However, to answer your question, I think the solution might be to not sexually harass your female colleagues. I know it's probably hard for you, but the sooner you can work on it the better.

    • 4
    • 3
Dec 4, 2018

Totally agree regarding the solution you have proposed. It seems like a simple concept but apparently it is not so simple.

    • 1
Dec 4, 2018

One of the main partners at my firm is female. I've never had any issues. When you take home 7 figures, you generally don't want to risk anything and it's always better to be completely safe/protected. If you learned to read, you'd see that I do all meetings regardless of gender in public places or in a rec'd environment. I know reading multi-syllable words can be hard for you though. When you're less broke, maybe you'll understand insulating yourself as much as possible and hedging risk. A novel concept, I know.

Dec 10, 2018
m_1:

One of the main partners at my firm is female. I've never had any issues. When you take home 7 figures, you generally don't want to risk anything and it's always better to be completely safe/protected. If you learned to read, you'd see that I do all meetings regardless of gender in public places or in a rec'd environment. I know reading multi-syllable words can be hard for you though.

Is your username in reference to the BMW M1 from the late '70's / early '80's? That was such an amazing car.....

    • 3
Dec 5, 2018
DickFuld:
m_1:

One of the main partners at my firm is female. I've never had any issues. When you take home 7 figures, you generally don't want to risk anything and it's always better to be completely safe/protected. If you learned to read, you'd see that I do all meetings regardless of gender in public places or in a rec'd environment. I know reading multi-syllable words can be hard for you though.

Is your username in reference to the BMW M1 from the late '70's / early '80's? That was such an amazing car.....

nah, he's a nerd. Its the money supply, most likely.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/m1.asp
What is M1
M1 is the money supply that includes physical currency and coin, demand deposits, travelers checks, other checkable deposits and negotiable order of withdrawal (NOW) accounts.

SB though - I love BMW M <333

"If you always put limits on everything you do, physical or anything else, it will spread into your work and into your life. There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them." - Bruce Lee

    • 2
Dec 9, 2018

Yeah because it's always men doing the sexual harassment - we all know women are incapable of acting in a sexually inappropriate manner - and no woman would ever lie, exaggerate, or misrepresent the truth.

Believe women!

Dec 4, 2018

hahaha it's sad but the truth people are scared at my firm ...

Dec 4, 2018

Having had a very close friend and roommate falsely accused of rape, and after seeing how he was treated for months by the police and school, I am most likely overly paranoid about things like this. Always down to help, but I've for-sure missed opportunities with women based solely off the fact that I wasn't 110% sure they wanted to have sex.

Dec 5, 2018

I haven't changed anything personally. Why would I?

The people who are concerned; Are you also afraid of interacting with foreigners in case someone accuse you of being racist?

    • 1
Dec 5, 2018

being racist isn't illegal

    • 2
    • 1
Dec 9, 2018
Dec 4, 2018

Somewhat related, but a close friend of mine had a crazy fiance. They got in a spat one night and he ended up calling the police to get her to leave his home as she was breaking things and would not obey his order to leave. Police show up and she screams, "He hit me!" That statement alone caused my friend to get arrested, spend a night in the cooler, miss work without the ability to give notice, and have a few future court dates to look forward to.

He was a salesman by trade and figured he could handle things through reason and truth at the first court appearance. No chance. Charges held at the arraignment and he was scheduled for trial accused of assault and battery to some degree I can't recall. He spent nearly five figures in attorneys fees with months of stress and grief only to finally be exonerated when his ex-fiance crumbled during cross examination.

A 3 word lie screamed by her caused all this. He considered going after her civilly to recoup all of the legal fees and lost wages he incurred; but she was a deadbeat socialite with a negative net worth. Even if he won a judgement, it would likely never come to fruition.

The financial impact aside; everyone assumed he was guilty and there is still biased history on google should you search his name. He's certain he's lost sales due to this, but not much he can do to erase old newspaper reports indexed online.

    • 7
Dec 5, 2018

and this is why men do that.

    • 4
Dec 9, 2018

Every man (or a good friend of his) has been on the receiving end of crazy female wrath, and we all know just how dangerous it is.

Dec 9, 2018

Did they go after her for perjury?

I think a false accusation up to the point of perjury should carry a jail term. Is that what happened?

In a just and proportionate world, the maximum sentence would be the same as the crime the guy was falsely accused of. In practice, we'd cut it to a short term for 95% of accusers. But the thought of a lying woman being left twisting in the wind, wondering what was going to happen to her for a false rape or abuse accusation? That sounds like justice to me.

    • 2
Dec 4, 2018
IlliniProgrammer:

Did they go after her for perjury?

I think a false accusation up to the point of perjury should carry a jail term. Is that what happened?

In a just and proportionate world, the maximum sentence would be the same as the crime the guy was falsely accused of. In practice, we'd cut it to a short term for 95% of accusers. But the thought of a lying woman being left twisting in the wind, wondering what was going to happen to her for a false rape or abuse accusation? That sounds like justice to me.

Should they go after her, yes. Did they? No.
Lying on the stand is as common as Jaywalking. Find me an example of either being enforced.

Dec 6, 2018

Sadly, all it takes is one accusation, even if it's false. I have a lot of female coworkers. I never go one-on-one in secluded areas. I just meet in public places (cafeteria, open concept workspaces, etc) or have others present. I generally mentor people straight out of college but keep everything over email or phone unless it's absolutely necessary to meet. If that happens, it's a Starbucks or restaurant.

I've had a friend falsely accused. His name was dragged through the media and will never be the same. It's better for me due to the fact that I have a fiance and she shows up to a bunch of these public meetings as well. Just be strategic. Don't discriminate, and always have others around if possible. If not, reschedule and make it a public place. My dad always said, "If you don't put yourself into the situation, then the outcome will never be in doubt." I most certainly did put myself at risk during my younger years before I knew the opportunity costs, but now, I have a career and reputation to uphold.

In short, make meetings in public places, and always try to have others around, if not directly involved. Also, don't be a creep.

    • 5
Dec 9, 2018

Exactly. Don't be a creep, but take steps to protect yourself.

Dec 10, 2018

Won't even make eye contact with females at work. Too great a risk.

    • 2
    • 2
Dec 9, 2018

That's total BS.

Dec 10, 2018

I don't think it's a big deal unless you're a super sleazy guy who doesn't trust yourself around females.

The statistics of getting a false accusation made against you are so incredibly slim and even if that were to happen, there would be no consequence. Like when Mueller had accusations come out and he sat back and let them be investigated because he knew he was innocent, etc and nothing came of that bs.

tl;dr if you're a normal human being you have nothing to worry about

    • 1
    • 3
Dec 9, 2018

That's such BS.

Do you actually know the false accusations statistics? The answer is no, you don't, because no one does.

And LOL @ no consequences. If you consider your entire life turned upside down of no consequence, then ok.

Dec 10, 2018

There's a great effortpost that reviews ~25 studies on false rape/rape reporting. The summary is this:

  • For both genders you are way more likely to be raped then falsely accused of rape.
  • The estimated number of false rape accusations are around 2-10% at the highest.
  • For 216 False Rape Accusations only 39 named suspects, and only 2 got charged. That means that only 18% of False Rape Accusations actually accuse someone and that only 0.9% of false rape accusations ended up on court.
  • Vast majority of false rape accusations are made by Teenagers, Parents of Children, and the Homeless.
  • 55% of False Rape Accusations are in hopes of getting free medical treatment. Next major category is from teenagers justifying their absences to parents.

The situation is so unlikely to occur, but if I were to end up in it, I would gladly trade my life being turned upside down for exoneration from the allegation of such a horrendous crime.

    • 1
    • 5
Dec 9, 2018
lilkingdarbo:
  • For both genders you are way more likely to be raped then falsely accused of rape.

OK so you're saying it's not a gender issue, it's a human rights issue?

I can get behind that. What are your thoughts on women's groups in Israel & India protesting against including "made-to-penetrate" under the definition of rape? (Not to mention prominent feminists in the US)

Is female sexuality more valuable than male? I'm not sure what I think, but It has been seen that way for millennia, and caused all sorts of terrible unintended consequences for women.

lilkingdarbo:
  • The estimated number of false rape accusations are around 2-10% at the highest.
  • For 216 False Rape Accusations only 39 named suspects, and only 2 got charged. That means that only 18% of False Rape Accusations actually accuse someone and that only 0.9% of false rape accusations ended up on court.
  • Vast majority of false rape accusations are made by Teenagers, Parents of Children, and the Homeless.
  • 55% of False Rape Accusations are in hopes of getting free medical treatment. Next major category is from teenagers justifying their absences to parents.

Rape statistics are possibly the most politically charged set of records kept - people make entire careers on a single dubious paper, like that "1 in 4" lady who is now a tenured professor.

The definition of False & Rape vary from study to study, and are usually backed by groups that look like this: Sponsoring Agency - End Violence Against Women International

The Wiki pages for Rape & False Rape Accusations look like warzones between special interest groups.

I looked at the EffortPost you're referring to, and the studies the poster points to are analyzed in depth in this Cambridge Law paper. The rates of unfounded/false/whateveryouwanttocallit allegations ranged from 1-90%.

Interestingly, the author called out every single study for lack of rigor, bias, dirty data, and/or outright fabrications. (please read the paper)

This is what I mean when I saw it's impossible to know.

Jan 3, 2019

I try to stay away from any random female; the only women I place around me are people I trust (excludes any sort of liberal/SJW)

    • 1
Dec 4, 2018
michigan10483:

I try to stay away from any random female; the only women I place around me are people I trust (excludes any sort of liberal/SJW)

With comments like that, I don't think you'll have to worry about women being around you

    • 1
Jan 3, 2019

This is very correct; I'm not the best with women outside the workplace (without necessity)

Dec 4, 2018

This is tragic. We have gone beyond the tipping point.

How about we stop with the judgement, categorizing, demonizing and labeling of anything remotely male, masculine, or even dare I say macho as being a negative or "toxic" trait?

Granted, I highly agree that homophobic slurs are something I hear and see way too regularly in a way that's incredibly derisive, flippant and dismissive, and used predominantly by straight males anywhere and everywhere, including on this very board on a very frequent basis.

But the #MeToo movement and the supposedly well-meaning SJW's are tainting things to such a knee-jerk degree that is getting truly ridiculous.

I've had my share of negative interactions with boys and men in real life and on the web for decades. Yet I would NEVER blanket-ly blame/shame/point-the-finger and say that all men are bad or that all male behavior is toxic...if ya paint all men with such a broad brush stroke, ya gonna either run out of men or paint.

And yes, bullying is incredibly pervasive as well as destructive. But guess what, girls and women can be bullies too. I was bullied by girls as well as boys growing up.

Femininity is not weak. Masculinity is not strong. Neither are perfect. They are simply nouns. A well-rounded, well-adjusted man or woman is going to embody both supposed feminine and masculine qualities, which is something I've never fully grasped or understood. My grandmother ran numbers. Is that masculine? My dad was the one to teach me to sew. Is that feminine? My mom was the one to teach me about investments and real estate. Is that masculine? Sadly, there are folks in this day and age that would answer yes to these questions.

Masculinity in and of itself is not the problem. It is the exercising and executing of any behavior or action that is boorish, oppressive, mean-spirited, cruel or negatively limiting/controlling that is inherently wrong.

I don't have children of my own and most of us rarely chooses to actively be a role model, but I say this... for better or worse, the children in our lives are watching us... let our behavior and actions and words be things we would be fine with them emulating and repeating. Masculinity or femininity be damned... strive to be a decent human being, for fuck's sake, period.

    • 9
Jan 10, 2019
InfoDominatrix:

How about we stop with the judgement, categorizing, demonizing and labeling of anything remotely male, masculine, or even dare I say macho as being a negative or "toxic" trait?
....

But the #MeToo movement and the supposedly well-meaning SJW's are tainting things to such a knee-jerk degree that is getting truly ridiculous.

I've had my share of negative interactions with boys and men in real life and on the web for decades. Yet I would NEVER blanket-ly blame/shame/point-the-finger and say that all men are bad or that all male behavior is toxic...if ya paint all men with such a broad brush stroke, ya gonna either run out of men or paint.

...

*Femininity is not weak. Masculinity is not strong. Neither are perfect. *
...

Masculinity in and of itself is not the problem. It is the exercising and executing of any behavior or action that is boorish, oppressive, mean-spirited, cruel or negatively limiting/controlling that is inherently wrong.
**
...
**strive to be a decent human being, for fuck's sake, period.

^^^ THIS. Fellow fem here and I 100% agree!!! Couldn't have said it better.

    • 2
Dec 4, 2018
surferdude867:

Update - masculinity is officially pathologized:

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles...
@m_1 @IlliniProgrammer @dr_mantistoboggan_MD @DickFuld @InfoDominatrix @Zafrynex @financeiswacc_0 @WolfofWSO @itsanumbersgame @DeepLearning @Ozymandia @lilkingdarbo

An article on US News doesn't make anything "official"

There is a lot of dumb shit written on the internet.

    • 1
    • 1
Dec 4, 2018

Agreed, this isn't about US News & World Report making something supposedly official.

Numerous publications and news outlets covered this story.

The issue is that the APA is supposedly an academic/scientific/professional/research entity that is pushing this "masculinity toxicity" agenda bullshit.

    • 1
Dec 4, 2018
InfoDominatrix:

The issue is that the APA is supposedly an academic/scientific/professional/research entity that is pushing this "masculinity toxicity" agenda bullshit.

I'm still not sure where your outrage is coming in? First off, "traditional masculinity" does have some harmful bits to it which would do society and everyone in it some good to be excised. That isn't rocket science, dude. You seem determined to take offense at anything as an assault on you (in other words, playing the victim) without taking things in their entire context.

Moreover, reading the entire summary of the article (I didn't have time to read the actual study, so my apologies if this is way off base), all the say is that narrowly defined notions of masculinity lead to bullying, homophobia, and aggression. I'm not a psychologist or anywhere close to it, but that seems pretty obvious to me.

Long story short, unlike @surferdude867 wants to have us believe, no one is saying "masculinity" is bad (except maybe some feminist nutjobs): people hold the opinion that certain forms of masculinity are bad, and it takes someone with no self-confidence, no intelligence, and a lot of unresolved issues surrounding those two things to conflate those two positions.

    • 7
Dec 9, 2018

You know that @InfoDominatrix is female, right?

The APA paper is not a study, it's the official guide for treatment of men and boys, and it's 36 pages of power & privilege BS, claiming that "traditional masculinity" is the cause of every male achievement AND every male failure.

If you read the guidelines for girls and women (https://www.apa.org/about/policy/girls-and-women-a...), it says females are innocent victims, full stop.

The guide DOES say that "masculinity" is bad, and I'm sorry, but that's total bullshit.

This is serious, these are "Scientific" documents that will shape public policy and social norms.

    • 1
Dec 4, 2018
surferdude867:

You know that @InfoDominatrix is female, right?

Yeah. I'm not sure how that's relevant?

The APA paper is not a study, it's the official guide for treatment of men and boys, and it's 36 pages of power & privilege BS, claiming that "traditional masculinity" is the cause of every male achievement AND every male failure.

What are you disagreeing with in that? You do understand how ridiculous you sound. Traditional masculinity, however you define it, must by it's very definition be responsible for every success and every failure of men in general. That literally encompasses everything any man has ever done. Think before you open your yapper to complain about something you don't get, or you make comments like this.

If you read the guidelines for girls and women (https://www.apa.org/about/policy/girls-and-women-a...), it says females are innocent victims, full stop.

Uh... no, it doesn't. Do you generally just assert random shit without evidence, and just assume people who are too lazy to read whatever you post will take your word for it? Not only does that guideline NOT say any such thing, it's quite clear that many if not most of the guidelines laid out are equally applicable to both genders.

The guide DOES say that "masculinity" is bad, and I'm sorry, but that's total bullshit.

Again, no, it does not say that. At all. As I said previously, you are either (a) not reading these in the first place, and asserting something you believe to be true and hoping no one calls you on it, or (b) reading this so selectively that you literally cannot see the parts of these guidelines which are specifically refuting your baseless assertion.

So again, as the person making a positive assertion, provide evidence, please.

This is serious, these are "Scientific" documents that will shape public policy and social norms.

Good. As someone who actually read both documents, they seem reasonable, and assuming the studies they cite actually exist, validated by research. Just because you don't like what it says about you as a person and the way you treat others, doesn't make it invalid.

    • 6
Dec 9, 2018
Ozymandia:

Yeah. I'm not sure how that's relevant?

You referred to her as "dude" and suggested she "played the victim" from something that was "an assault"... not sure how describing something as "toxic masculinity" can be seen as an assault on a female?

Ozymandia:

What are you disagreeing with in that? You do understand how ridiculous you sound. Traditional masculinity, however you define it, must by it's very definition be responsible for every success and every failure of men in general. That literally encompasses everything any man has ever done. Think before you open your yapper to complain about something you don't get, or you make comments like this.

Pardon me, I should have written "patriarchy" instead of "traditional masculinity" there...

but I'm not sure how "traditional masculinity" encompasses everything every male has ever done? Does "traditional femininity" encompass everything every female has ever done?

I thought human civilizations were complex systems and people in general could not be neatly categorized into male vs. female.

Ozymandia:

Uh... no, it doesn't. Do you generally just assert random shit without evidence, and just assume people who are too lazy to read whatever you post will take your word for it? Not only does that guideline NOT say any such thing, it's quite clear that many if not most of the guidelines laid out are equally applicable to both genders.

From the first paragraph of the first page of APA guide for girls and women:

Stressors in the lives of women and girls include interpersonal victimization and violence, unrealistic images of girls and women, discrimination and oppression, devaluation, limited economic resources, role overload, relationship disruptions, and work inequities.

Ozymandia:

Again, no, it does not say that. At all. As I said previously, you are either (a) not reading these in the first place, and asserting something you believe to be true and hoping no one calls you on it, or (b) reading this so selectively that you literally cannot see the parts of these guidelines which are specifically refuting your baseless assertion.

From the "Masculinity Ideology" section of the APA guide for boys and men:

Masculinity ideology is a set of descriptive, prescriptive, and proscriptive of cognitions about boy and men. although there are differences in masculinity ideologies, there is a particular constellation of standards that have held sway over large segments of the population, including: anti-femininity, achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, and adventure, risk, and violence. These have been collectively referred to as traditional masculinity ideology

Ozymandia:

Good. As someone who actually read both documents, they seem reasonable, and assuming the studies they cite actually exist, validated by research. Just because you don't like what it says about you as a person and the way you treat others, doesn't make it invalid.

Someone who actually read both documents would see that "masculinity" is mentioned over 100 times in the men and boys document, and always in some negative context, as if "masculinity" is something that men inflict on women and the wider population... as if being a man is some sort of disease that needs to be cured before it spreads.

That same person would also see that "femininity" is only mentioned ONCE in the girls and women document, and that sentence goes like this:

Factors associated with health and well-being in adolescent girls include.. the ability to resist messages that support negative or ambivalent attitudes toward femininity, the body, and sexuality."

Who hurt you?

@InfoDominatrix

    • 1
Dec 4, 2018
surferdude867:

You referred to her as "dude" and suggested she "played the victim" from something that was "an assault"... not sure how describing something as "toxic masculinity" can be seen as an assault on a female?

Fine. Then let me amend the previous statement to address all of the folks taking this side of the argument, of whom I would bet many if not most are men. I repeat the point.

but I'm not sure how "traditional masculinity" encompasses everything every male has ever done? Does "traditional femininity" encompass everything every female has ever done?

You are equating attacks on "traditional masculinity" with attacks on men. If you weren't, we wouldn't continuously be hearing your griping about how a set of guidelines about how to deal specifically with (a subset of) "masculine" ideology is someone undermining men in general.

I thought human civilizations were complex systems and people in general could not be neatly categorized into male vs. female.

Again, what's the relevance? The guidelines don't have anything to do with this. Only your hypocritical-on-its-face argument that complained about traditional masculinity is responsible for failure and success made this an issue. You can ascribe that phrase and your argument to as broad or as narrow of a subset of people as you want and it will always be a pointless and obvious thing to say.

From the first paragraph of the first page of APA guide for girls and women:

Stressors in the lives of women and girls include interpersonal victimization and violence, unrealistic images of girls and women, discrimination and oppression, devaluation, limited economic resources, role overload, relationship disruptions, and work inequities.

Yeah, I read that part. I didn't see where that says, and I quote, "women are victims, full stop". All it does is list a number of issues a woman today might face in their personal or professional lives. Frankly, all of those seem plausible to me.

You could just as easily apply all of that to men (assuming you change the gender pronouns) and have it be equally applicable - just like the guidelines say. You are reading into what is written to support your own biases.

Perhaps you aren't comprehending what a "Guideline" is? It's laying out a potential set of circumstances (like those which you quoted) and ways a psychologist can help a victim of those circumstances overcome their trauma/pain/whatever.

From the "Masculinity Ideology" section of the APA guide for boys and men:

Masculinity ideology is a set of descriptive, prescriptive, and proscriptive of cognitions about boy and men. although there are differences in masculinity ideologies, there is a particular constellation of standards that have held sway over large segments of the population, including: anti-femininity, achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, and adventure, risk, and violence. These have been collectively referred to as traditional masculinity ideology

OK. Great. Do you disagree with this? I'm a man. I can speak to my own experience, that more pressure was put on me to achieve, to not cry/be weak, to take risks in my professional life, that women I know weren't given the same pressure to do. I'm not a trend, but all you have to do is look at the world to see that these aren't assumptions coming out of the blue. And if that isn't enough, read the study cited (Levant & Richmond, 2007, if you don't want to go back and look for it).

Someone who actually read both documents would see that "masculinity" is mentioned over 100 times in the men and boys document, and always in some negative context, as if "masculinity" is something that men inflict on women and the wider population... as if being a man is some sort of disease that needs to be cured before it spreads.

HOLY SHIT! A guideline which is issued on the idea that certain types of "masculinity" can have negative effects on men (and women, incidentally) mentions masculinity in a negative context? Stop the fucking presses.

Of COURSE masculinity is something that men inflict on the wider world, the same as "femininity" is the same for women. These are ideas about how each gender should conduct itself socially.

You are reading this (barely, I might add) as being about men, when it very clearly is not. It's about, as you quoted, a constellation of ideas about what it means to be a man, which any intelligent reader should immediately realize is not the same thing.

That same person would also see that "femininity" is only mentioned ONCE in the girls and women document, and that sentence goes like this:

Factors associated with health and well-being in adolescent girls include.. the ability to resist messages that support negative or ambivalent attitudes toward femininity, the body, and sexuality."

A person who doesn't engage in knee jerk reactions about how the world is out to get them might also think critically about the situation. The ongoing development, examination, and critiquing of feminism as a concept and a movement has 50+ years behind it, at this point. The idea that femininity is a "thing", and said concept needs to be unpacked because it includes both positive and negative stereotypes, and that it's subject to individual interpretation is not new. By contrast, you cannot say the same thing about men and masculinity. I agree with you that there is a lot of focus on being "masculine" as being negative, but the history thereof in mainstream debate is extraordinarily recent in comparison to feminism.

Recall, this is not a political op-ed piece about how @surferdude867 is an evil man, or how men cause all the world's ills. Its a set of guidelines to deal with the problems psychologists are seeing in patients, and how to address them. You seem unable to parse that difference of intent when it comes to publishing. What are the psychological issues women face? How do those compare to those men face? The obvious answer is that engaging and unpacking the concept of "traditional" or even "toxic" masculinity is important in helping boys or men work through psychological issues. Most men may not even be aware of the idea that masculinity is a social construct just as much as femininity is; as one of those guidelines says very succinctly, male psychology has always been treated as a normative state or a benchmark and not as a field of its own. Whereas, as I said, feminism has been alive and a hot topic of discussion and debate for so long as it's hard to imagine a significant portion of the population isn't aware that it exists

Who hurt you?

Every person I find who's reading comprehension doesn't pass an 8th grade level hurts me to the quick. I'm sorry the education system failed you in this way, but since you are likely employed in a finance focused career (given your presence on these boards), it probably isn't an omission in your skillset that will have major repercussions.

    • 2
    • 3
Dec 9, 2018
Ozymandia:

You are equating attacks on "traditional masculinity" with attacks on men. If you weren't, we wouldn't continuously be hearing your griping about how a set of guidelines about how to deal specifically with (a subset of) "masculine" ideology is someone undermining men in general.

You said that "traditional masculinity" definitionally encompasses every thing every male has ever done.

Ozymandia:

Again, what's the relevance? The guidelines don't have anything to do with this. Only your hypocritical-on-its-face argument that complained about traditional masculinity is responsible for failure and success made this an issue. You can ascribe that phrase and your argument to as broad or as narrow of a subset of people as you want and it will always be a pointless and obvious thing to say.

It was a response to your comment about "traditional masculinity" encompassing every thing every an has ever done.

Ozymandia:

Yeah, I read that part. I didn't see where that says, and I quote, "women are victims, full stop". All it does is list a number of issues a woman today might face in their personal or professional lives. Frankly, all of those seem plausible to me.

You could just as easily apply all of that to men (assuming you change the gender pronouns) and have it be equally applicable - just like the guidelines say. You are reading into what is written to support your own biases.

Yes, it COULD be applied to men as well, but it isn't.

Ozymandia:

Perhaps you aren't comprehending what a "Guideline" is? It's laying out a potential set of circumstances (like those which you quoted) and ways a psychologist can help a victim of those circumstances overcome their trauma/pain/whatever.

Those "guidelines" set the first line treatment standards for psychologists across the nation. It tells practitioners to approach women as victims and men as oppressors, rather than looking at the person as an individual.

That is dehumanizing on the face of it.

Ozymandia:

OK. Great. Do you disagree with this? I'm a man. I can speak to my own experience, that more pressure was put on me to achieve, to not cry/be weak, to take risks in my professional life, that women I know weren't given the same pressure to do. I'm not a trend, but all you have to do is look at the world to see that these aren't assumptions coming out of the blue. And if that isn't enough, read the study cited (Levant & Richmond, 2007, if you don't want to go back and look for it).

Yes, I do disagree with this. I don't think these are "ideologies."

That study used the "Male Role Norms Inventory" which defined questions like men should watch football games instead of soap operas as "anti-femininity."

To call that farcical is an insult to every farce that came before.

Ozymandia:

HOLY SHIT! A guideline which is issued on the idea that certain types of "masculinity" can have negative effects on men (and women, incidentally) mentions masculinity in a negative context? Stop the fucking presses.

I think I made it pretty clear that I take issue with the fact that the APA guidelines for men present masculinity as a problem to be suppressed, while the APA guidelines for women present femininity as a solution to be embraced.

Ozymandia:

Of COURSE masculinity is something that men inflict on the wider world, the same as "femininity" is the same for women. These are ideas about how each gender should conduct itself socially.

Not according to this paper.

According to this paper - and you as well, apparently - masculinity is something SOCIETY inflicts on men

Ozymandia:

You are reading this (barely, I might add) as being about men, when it very clearly is not. It's about, as you quoted, a constellation of ideas about what it means to be a man, which any intelligent reader should immediately realize is not the same thing.

From the introduction:

Although boys and men, as a group, tend to hold privilege and power based on gender...

If that's not about men I don't know what is.

Ozymandia:

A person who doesn't engage in knee jerk reactions about how the world is out to get them might also think critically about the situation. The ongoing development, examination, and critiquing of feminism as a concept and a movement has 50+ years behind it, at this point. The idea that femininity is a "thing", and said concept needs to be unpacked because it includes both positive and negative stereotypes, and that it's subject to individual interpretation is not new. By contrast, you cannot say the same thing about men and masculinity. I agree with you that there is a lot of focus on being "masculine" as being negative, but the history thereof in mainstream debate is extraordinarily recent in comparison to feminism.

Feminism != femininity

What the hell are you talking about "critiquing" of feminism? No one is allowed to critique feminism or females.

Are you sure you're male?

Ozymandia:

Recall, this is not a political op-ed piece about how @surferdude867 is an evil man, or how men cause all the world's ills. Its a set of guidelines to deal with the problems psychologists are seeing in patients, and how to address them. You seem unable to parse that difference of intent when it comes to publishing. What are the psychological issues women face? How do those compare to those men face? The obvious answer is that engaging and unpacking the concept of "traditional" or even "toxic" masculinity is important in helping boys or men work through psychological issues. Most men may not even be aware of the idea that masculinity is a social construct just as much as femininity is; as one of those guidelines says very succinctly, male psychology has always been treated as a normative state or a benchmark and not as a field of its own. Whereas, as I said, feminism has been alive and a hot topic of discussion and debate for so long as it's hard to imagine a significant portion of the population isn't aware that it exists

It very clearly is a political op-ed piece, just look at all of the politically correct jargon.

it ignores the role of biology - you know, science - in gender. These things are not "social constructs."

Ozymandia:

Every person I find who's reading comprehension doesn't pass an 8th grade level hurts me to the quick. I'm sorry the education system failed you in this way, but since you are likely employed in a finance focused career (given your presence on these boards), it probably isn't an omission in your skillset that will have major repercussions.

Yes the central planners were unable to indoctrinate me, unfortunately.

Dec 9, 2018
Ozymandia:

Think before you open your yapper to complain about something you don't get, or you make comments like this.

Ah yes, insults, the pinnacle of debate.

Dec 4, 2018
surferdude867:
Ozymandia:

Think before you open your yapper to complain about something you don't get, or you make comments like this.

Ah yes, insults, the pinnacle of debate.

What insult? You spoke on a topic you didn't know and didn't bother to read about critically. As a result, you made the statement that its "bullshit" that an article or set of guidelines claim that "traditional masculinity", which you are explicitly using as a proxy term for men in general, is responsible for everything men have ever done. This is a stupid thing to say on it's face, so I'm not sure why you're upset. If I said "it is BS that @surferdude867 is considered the cause of every achievement and every failure @surferdude867 has ever had," you'd blink twice, dismiss me as an idiot, and move on.

    • 1
    • 2
Dec 9, 2018

Annnnnnnnd the APA walks back the guidelines due to social pressure.

So much for "Science" and "not a political document."

Dec 4, 2018

I'm not outraged, simply sharing and stating my personal take.

I previously agreed that there are indeed some issues such as homophobia and bullying, but that bullying is not something to be relegated as behavior committed only by males. And cruel, bigoted, myopic behavior that is Archie Bunker-like should be passe by now - saying things like "you're so gay" "you're such a fag" "real men don't cry" "don't be such a pussy" "suck it up and be a man and "man up/sack up, punkass" are indeed actually cruel, harmful things to say, even in passing, and are by and large things that are said by boys and men.

But I'm not saying that masculinity across the board is toxic. My 'outrage' if any, has to do with the current ambiance since #MeToo took hold and the frequent sweeping arguments that masculinity is toxic, no gray areas and now with the APA jumping on the bandwagon.

And how am I offended? I feel unsettled that a body of supposedly intelligent people from a potentially influential mental health organization are trying to spin something that could greatly influence future generations in a negative way, although I certainly agree with some of what they say in regards to changing the environment so that boys and men can feel more comfortable in asking for help scholastically [boys tend to be over-represented in special-ed classes, school drop-out rates are higher amongst boys, especially boys of color], to be less willing to marginalize others around them and learning to be empathetic is not a bad or weak notion.

    • 5
Dec 10, 2018
InfoDominatrix:

I'm not outraged, simply sharing and stating my personal take.

I previously agreed that there are indeed some issues such as homophobia and bullying, but that bullying is not something to be relegated as behavior committed only by males. And cruel, bigoted, myopic behavior that is Archie Bunker-like should be passe by now - saying things like "you're so gay" "you're such a fag" "real men don't cry" "don't be such a pussy" "suck it up and be a man and "man up/sack up, punkass" are indeed actually cruel, harmful things to say, even in passing, and are by and large things that are said by boys and men.

But I'm not saying that masculinity across the board is toxic. My 'outrage' if any, has to do with the current ambiance since #MeToo took hold and the frequent sweeping arguments that masculinity is toxic, no gray areas and now with the APA jumping on the bandwagon.

And how am I offended? I feel unsettled that a body of supposedly intelligent people from a potentially influential mental health organization are trying to spin something that could greatly influence future generations in a negative way, although I certainly agree with some of what they say in regards to changing the environment so that boys and men can feel more comfortable in asking for help scholastically [boys tend to be over-represented in special-ed classes, school drop-out rates are higher amongst boys, especially boys of color], to be less willing to marginalize others around them and learning to be empathetic is not a bad or weak notion.

Did you read the whole report? It's not as bad as it sounds on the surface. They say that men commit violence at much higher rates than women, are less likely to share their feelings, more often make fun of guys doing things that 'seem gay' (even including doing well in school), and other things that are painfully obvious about how guys act. There is a slew of references to 'non-gender conforming' and the like. To the point you would think it's 50% of the male population, which is obviously ridiculous. However, when you keep in mind that this sort of population is going to likely have tons more psychological problems, it makes more sense that they address it so often.

    • 3
Dec 4, 2018

No, I've not yet read fully either the girls' or boys' reports, as they're each over 20 pages [not counting the references/citations]. I've only read through the boys' guidelines and am about halfway through, as I'm coming across some terms like "iatrogenic" that I've never heard/read before that keep me hopping over to merriamwebster.com, LOL, but hope to read them both completely over the weekend and coming days.

I'm not suggesting that the guidelines don't address a range of topics that are sorely in need of addressing, but from what I've read thus far, it does the feel of what @surferdude867 wrote in that a great many of the mentions of masculinity thus far are negatively stated.

    • 3
Dec 9, 2018

CRE, it links to an official APA guideline for "Psychological Practice for Men and Boys"

https://www.apa.org/about/policy/boys-men-practice...
Just read the first page, and you'll see all sorts of stuff about "power" "privilege" and "traditional masculinity" being a problem.

Jan 12, 2019
surferdude867:

Update - masculinity is officially pathologized:

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles...
@m_1 @IlliniProgrammer @dr_mantistoboggan_MD @DickFuld @InfoDominatrix @Zafrynex @financeiswacc_0 @WolfofWSO @itsanumbersgame @DeepLearning @Ozymandia @lilkingdarbo

https://www.apa.org/monitor/2019/01/ce-corner.aspx I'm just going to point out what exactly they think the problem with masculinity is:
-competitiveness
-desire for achievement, adventure, risk
-dominance
-aggression

Who has an ideological problem with human competitiveness? Marxists, because it drives inequality of outcome. So if we socially engineer the elimination of competitive spirits, maybe we can get the glorious utopian society, this time right. It's hardly surprising that they pathologize risk taking, which is the driver of human innovation since the beginning of times.
The whole framework of this so called guideliness reprises the Grievance Studies one, which was exposed last year as fraudolent, anti-scientific and ideologically biased to the extreme. It isn't even a surprise that one of the sources of the guidelines is the ''Journal of Black Psychology''.

But of course, we were guaranteed this was all ''fringe lunatics'' and that we were cherrypicking examples and making a big deal out of nothing. There you go. Univerities, mental health bodies, human resource departments are all taken over by this crap. Good luck undoing the damage now.

    • 1
Dec 4, 2018

I think the implicit point in all this is that while many of the bullets you list are okay in isolation, when taken together they represent an unhealthy ideal of what "masculinity" should look like. No one thinks that a desire for achievement is unhealthy, but when you pair it with an desire of dominance and assumption of aggression as a means to achieve your goals, that becomes more problematic.

Perhaps it would behoove you to think critically about these things instead of just railing off on whatever you think it says, which in this case is obviously what you want it to say, so you can complain about "Marxists".

It's hardly surprising that they pathologize risk taking, which is the driver of human innovation since the beginning of times.

This is so obviously untrue, or rather, smells so badly of being a truism, that I can't help but call it out. Risk taking has driven a great deal of innovation, yes. The desire to mitigate risk has also done so. Just because something sounds nice and intelligent doesn't make it so.

You clearly have no background in history nor psychology, so it's amusing to me that you present yourself as an expert on both. You've taken great pains to do absolutely nothing to analyze or think critically about the guidelines you've posted; either the context in which they've been formulated or the reasons for their existence in the first place. You have a clear bone to pick with "Marxists," and not even with the intellectual concept of Marxism but the popular conception thereof. Very few people accept Marx as a viable economic philosopher anymore, if any, so it's always fascinating to me when he is held up as some sort of bogeyman.

    • 2
    • 2
Jan 12, 2019
Ozymandia:

I think the implicit point in all this is that while many of the bullets you list are okay in isolation, when taken together they represent an unhealthy ideal of what "masculinity" should look like. No one thinks that a desire for achievement is unhealthy, but when you pair it with an desire of dominance and assumption of aggression as a means to achieve your goals, that becomes more problematic.

Male aggressiveness is driven primarily by testosterone, the rest is driven by desire to achive status because status in a hierarchy is the underlying factor by which women choose who to mate with, not just in humans, but in most of the animal world too.

Psychologists definitely know this, so if APA is all of a sudden change the evolutionary behaviour of males, there must be a reason behind it. When you look at their preferred sources, their choices of Grievance Studies disciplines basically settles it as they are Marxist oriented.

Ozymandia:

Perhaps it would behoove you to think critically about these things instead of just railing off on whatever you think it says, which in this case is obviously what you want it to say, so you can complain about "Marxists".

Or maybe they shouldn't pick sources that adopt Marxist analysis of oppression/oppressed nature in the realm of race and gender to derive their conclusions. They picked those, not me.

Ozymandia:

You clearly have no background in history nor psychology, so it's amusing to me that you present yourself as an expert on both. You've taken great pains to do absolutely nothing to analyze or think critically about the guidelines you've posted; either the context in which they've been formulated or the reasons for their existence in the first place. You have a clear bone to pick with "Marxists," and not even with the intellectual concept of Marxism but the popular conception thereof. Very few people accept Marx as a viable economic philosopher anymore, if any, so it's always fascinating to me when he is held up as some sort of bogeyman.

I never claimed to be a historian or psychologist, so this is a strawman and an attempt to to derail the discussion.

Dec 9, 2018

Apparently they have posters in bathrooms at NYU now encouraging students to report profs if they are made to feel "uncomfortable."

This reeks of totalitarianism.

@Ozymandia who the fuck are you kidding very few people accept Marx anymore? Go to any social "science" department in North America and fully 30% of the profs and TA's preach Marxism.

It's obvious now that you're not a man, you just play one on the internet.

Jan 12, 2019

Gillette has joined the liberal war against men (aka their core consumer base).

I'll never buy their products again until they apologize.

Dec 9, 2018

Eh at this point I think the war is over, and I'm checking out from the West.

@DickFuld the fact that you say "it's not that bad" means it really is that bad.

"Boys and men have difficulty showing emotion" - well, there are plenty of men showing emotion in that Gillette twitter feed, and they are being told to "man up."

Total horseshit.

Jan 12, 2019
surferdude867:

Eh at this point I think the war is over, and I'm checking out from the West.

It's over only if you give up like this. Stand and fight. Otherwise they indeed deserve to win.

Dec 9, 2018

They've won, look at all of the "men" who switched teams...

It's fucking disgraceful.

Dec 10, 2018
surferdude867:

Eh at this point I think the war is over, and I'm checking out from the West.

@DickFuld the fact that you say "it's not that bad" means it really is that bad.

"Boys and men have difficulty showing emotion" - well, there are plenty of men showing emotion in that Gillette twitter feed, and they are being told to "man up."

Total horseshit.

Are you referencing the report or the Gillette ad?

Dec 9, 2018

Both

Dec 10, 2018
surferdude867:

Both

I just watched the Gillette video. What was the major problem with it?

    • 1
Dec 10, 2018

If you think the message of "stand up against bullys and don't take advantage of women" is a war against men then that says a lot about how you view manhood

    • 2
    • 2
Jan 12, 2019
lilkingdarbo:

If you think the message of "stand up against bullys and don't take advantage of women" is a war against men then that says a lot about how you view manhood

''Don't take advantage of women'' implies I (and everyone else) have ever done it to begin with, meaning all men are guilty before the action. Apparently, that is ok for you. You don't get to speak about manhood when the last time you used Gillette was to cut your balls off.

Collective criminalization is typical of the collectivist thought behind this campaigns. I have no qualms denouncing for the evil that it is.

Dec 10, 2018

Nope. It implies that good men (most/us?) need to step up and prevent bad men (few) from taking advantage of women. I see no implication of collective criminalization.

    • 2
    • 2
Jan 12, 2019
lilkingdarbo:

Nope. It implies that good men (most/us?) need to step up and prevent bad men (few) from taking advantage of women. I see no implication of collective criminalization.

We have a justice system and law enforcement for that.

I don't have to do anything else. The idea that I am somehow responsible for the actions of people I have no direct or indirect relation to, besides having the same genitalia, is absolutely insane.

Dec 4, 2018
neink:
lilkingdarbo:

Nope. It implies that good men (most/us?) need to step up and prevent bad men (few) from taking advantage of women. I see no implication of collective criminalization.

We have a justice system and law enforcement for that.

I don't have to do anything else. The idea that I am somehow responsible for the actions of people I have no direct or indirect relation to, besides having the same genitalia, is absolutely insane.

No, we don't. We have a justice system to punish, and through that hopefully deter, wrongdoers. We have a police force that apprehends criminals. Neither of those institutions are meant to actively stop crime from occurring; one of the great things about the US is the presumption of innocence until you actually do something wrong (and have it proven).

@lilkingdarbo is spot on. If you think the idea that men should stand up to and try and stop abusers is an attack on men in general, it says far more about how you view gender relations than anything else. Men abuse women. Women abuse men. It happens, it'll never stop, there will always be fucked up people. There is no question that for most of human history the former was more common, or at least more overtly harmful, than the latter. And because it was more likely to be physical violence, it's been more analyzed. You see a lot more concern about the kind of emotional abuse women can heap on men than you used to 10 or 15 years ago, too.

neink, you dislike "collectivization" and probably view it as an easy target, so it seems like anything you dislike suddenly becomes and example of that.

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 12, 2019
Ozymandia:
neink:
lilkingdarbo:

Nope. It implies that good men (most/us?) need to step up and prevent bad men (few) from taking advantage of women. I see no implication of collective criminalization.

We have a justice system and law enforcement for that.

I don't have to do anything else. The idea that I am somehow responsible for the actions of people I have no direct or indirect relation to, besides having the same genitalia, is absolutely insane.

No, we don't. We have a justice system to punish, and through that hopefully deter, wrongdoers. We have a police force that apprehends criminals. Neither of those institutions are meant to actively stop crime from occurring; one of the great things about the US is the presumption of innocence until you actually do something wrong (and have it proven).

@lilkingdarbo is spot on. If you think the idea that men should stand up to and try and stop abusers is an attack on men in general, it says far more about how you view gender relations than anything else. Men abuse women. Women abuse men. It happens, it'll never stop, there will always be fucked up people. There is no question that for most of human history the former was more common, or at least more overtly harmful, than the latter. And because it was more likely to be physical violence, it's been more analyzed. You see a lot more concern about the kind of emotional abuse women can heap on men than you used to 10 or 15 years ago, too.

neink, you dislike "collectivization" and probably view it as an easy target, so it seems like anything you dislike suddenly becomes and example of that.

I dislike the current pop up at the bottom left of the screen but that hardly has anything to do with collectivism.

Unless there's some hidden scheme behind it.

    • 1
Dec 9, 2018
lilkingdarbo:

Nope. It implies that good men (most/us?) need to step up and prevent bad men (few) from taking advantage of women.

Let's take a look at the female version from P&G:

It's almost like they are saying that female stereotypes are hurtful and predicated on lies, but if they ARE true, they are actually great.

Do you notice a difference between this and the recent Gillette ad?

Ever notice how the "men" who subscribe to all of that "toxic masculinity" bullshit are either a) useless or b) total shitbags?

cc @neink This ad from a company that sells product for "men" was the lasts straw. It's clear that men are no longer wanted here, and I'm checking out @DickFuld

@Ozymandia @InfoDominatrix

This never gets old - https://www.craigslist.org/about/best/sfo/27912674...

Jan 12, 2019
surferdude867:
lilkingdarbo:

Nope. It implies that good men (most/us?) need to step up and prevent bad men (few) from taking advantage of women.

Let's take a look at the female version from P&G:

It's almost like they are saying that female stereotypes are hurtful and predicated on lies, but if they ARE true, they are actually great.

Do you notice a difference between this and the recent Gillette ad?

Ever notice how the "men" who subscribe to all of that "toxic masculinity" bullshit are either a) useless or b) total shitbags?

cc @neink This ad from a company that sells product for "men" was the lasts straw. It's clear that men are no longer wanted here, and I'm checking out @DickFuld

@Ozymandia @InfoDominatrix

This never gets old - https://www.craigslist.org/about/best/sfo/27912674...

Boycott them. Seriously that's the one thing conservatives aren't good at. Liberals want to shove their social engineering programmes down people's throats? Ok, boycott the fuck out of them. Make their business fail. Besides, where do you want to go? There isn't a ''safe space'' from this kind of crap.

    • 2
Dec 9, 2018

I have multiple citizenships.

The war is over, we lost. I'm voting with my feet now.

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 12, 2019
surferdude867:

I have multiple citizenships.

The war is over, we lost. I'm voting with my feet now.

The people will come for you wherever you are. Stand your ground or build your civilization on the moon.

    • 1
Dec 4, 2018

There are so-called feminists that would have me not marry, not watch porn, not do any number of things that THEY somehow some way deem are inherently misogynistic and/or benefit men only or at least benefit them moreso than women...all because these feminists want a single easy target to blame, in this case, "the patriarchy."

Hell, PETA would have me not eat eggs if I am to consider myself a feminist, because why would I... and I have to quote this in its completeness because it is so fucking bonkers... because why would I "take another female's eggs from her without a thought and readily pay money for her eggs, knowing that she was imprisoned, her reproductive cycle was controlled and manipulated, and she was forced to bear young on someone else's timetable."

So now women and chickens are the same? Chicks, literally and figuratively?!

All this virtual moralizing/sloganeering/etc., if this sort of stuff really impacts and alters people's buying habits and/or their behavior... I honestly don't know if that's a good or bad thing, being so easily effected by mere marketing and advertising. The only times I have boycotted or ceased to purchase a company's product is when they've allowed animal testing, when unsavory labor practices have been publicized.

There are countless consumer product companies that would have me convinced I have to buy products to improve everything from the "ugliness" of my armpits (really, this is a thing now? Yes, it is, thanks to Dove!) and to mask my "offensive and embarrassing" female odors by spraying FDS (Feminine Deodorant Spray) at my privates) and using fragrance-infused pads and tampons... talk about toxic?!

And don't get me started on what I would say is a truer form of toxic femininity..."Let's make a product for women that's exactly like our product for men, but let's make it smaller and produce it in pink and then charge more for it!!!!"

There was a recent online kerfuffle over a t-shirt design. Titled "The Supremes" - it's got a cartoon representation of the 4 female Supreme Court Justices: Sandra Day O'Connor [now retired], Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, with their first names under each of their respective cartoon. I was rather taken aback by the negativity it received from a lot of women, commenting that famous, powerful men are always spoken of by their surnames so why not women. And that powerful women shouldn't be drawn in cartoon form. Seriously?! Lighten up and aim your disappointment and unhappiness somewhere relevant, please.

If I were to be so easily triggered by all the marketing that points out all these supposed defects and issues I should have about my appearance along with my abilities at being a "successful" mom/wife/female [the vast number of ads for cooking items/actual food stuffs/cleaning products/childrens' products are aimed primarily at women consumers and more often than not show women prominently in the ads, although that is changing a bit]... I'd never leave the house due to my appearance and would never invite anyone over due to my lacking skills as a chef and housekeeper.

I keep going back to the argument that this isn't as simple as so many want to make it out to be that "men are bad, period." Women and girls are just as capable of being shitty, manipulative humans.

It's about the behavior, not the gender.

    • 3
Dec 9, 2018

Since when is "stand up against bullys and don't take advantage of others" a gender issue?

Women are every bit as guilty of the same shitty behavior.

    • 2
Dec 4, 2018

I have said as much more than once on this thread.

On other threads on WSO, I've also commented in regards to my being bullied by other girls when I was younger and also having quit my last job due to my direct manager, a woman, ogling me to the point where other staffers took notice and her making odd/uncomfortable comments directed at me whilst at a firm function.

Shitty, harassing and abusive behavior is not the sole realm of men.

Dec 4, 2018
surferdude867:

Since when is "stand up against bullys and don't take advantage of others" a gender issue?

Women are every bit as guilty of the same shitty behavior.

Who says it isn't? I'd argue male bullying more often takes a physically abusive aspect, but I don't think there are serious people saying women can't be bullies.

    • 1
Funniest
Dec 4, 2018
neink:

Gillette has joined the liberal war against men. I'll never buy their products again until they apologize.

Talk about snowflakes...

    • 9
    • 3
Jan 12, 2019
CRE:
neink:

Gillette has joined the liberal war against men. I'll never buy their products again until they apologize.

Talk about snowflakes...

Here's the difference between me and actual liberal snowflakes: they want a safe space that protects them from everything they find offensive, which is an always expanding list of things. I don't. I want to give a platform to this ideas, I want to discuss them, I want people to either embrace or dismiss such ideas. No need for censorship or deplatforming.

If SJWs want to play group politics and target me for my race, gender and sexual orientation, fine, let's do that. That is their side, those are their ideas. Let's make people pick sides. They want to hate me and consider me a lesser human being? That leaves no room for negotiations. It's them against us. They picked me as their enemy, I'm willing to fight until one or the either is annihilated. Whatever they throw at me, I will throw back 10 times as much. Come at me snowflakes.

    • 1
Dec 4, 2018
neink:

Here's the difference between me and actual liberal snowflakes: they want a safe space that protects them from everything they find offensive, which is an always expanding list of things. I don't. I want to give a platform to this ideas, I want to discuss them, I want people to either embrace or dismiss such ideas. No need for censorship or deplatforming.

If SJWs want to play group politics and target me for my race, gender and sexual orientation, fine, let's do that. That is their side, those are their ideas. Let's make people pick sides. They want to hate me and consider me a lesser human being? That leaves no room for negotiations. It's them against us. They picked me as their enemy, I'm willing to fight until one or the either is annihilated. Whatever they throw at me, I will throw back 10 times as much. Come at me snowflakes.

This is comically lame.

"It's them against us. They picked me as their enemy, I'm willing to fight until one or the either is annihilated."

Lay off the adderall, man. You're not a "culture warrior" - you're posting overdramatic nonsense on a wall street message board for college kids.

Edit:

I finally watched the ad. The entire theme is "be a gentleman." What is the problem with this? It's exactly what your father should have taught you.

    • 3
    • 4
Jan 12, 2019
CRE:
neink:

Here's the difference between me and actual liberal snowflakes: they want a safe space that protects them from everything they find offensive, which is an always expanding list of things. I don't. I want to give a platform to this ideas, I want to discuss them, I want people to either embrace or dismiss such ideas. No need for censorship or deplatforming.

If SJWs want to play group politics and target me for my race, gender and sexual orientation, fine, let's do that. That is their side, those are their ideas. Let's make people pick sides. They want to hate me and consider me a lesser human being? That leaves no room for negotiations. It's them against us. They picked me as their enemy, I'm willing to fight until one or the either is annihilated. Whatever they throw at me, I will throw back 10 times as much. Come at me snowflakes.

This is comically lame.

"It's them against us. They picked me as their enemy, I'm willing to fight until one or the either is annihilated."

Lay off the adderall, man. You're not a "culture warrior" - you're posting overdramatic nonsense on a wall street message board for college kids.

Edit:

I finally watched the ad. The entire theme is "be a gentleman." What is the problem with this? It's exactly what your father should have taught you.

Who's being a snowflake now? There are only two sides in this and the one pushing this agenda is clearly evil.

    • 1
Dec 4, 2018
neink:

Who's being a snowflake now? There are only two sides in this and the one pushing this agenda is clearly evil.

It's still you.

There are two "agendas" in this ad.

The first, most overwhelmingly important agenda is selling razors. This isn't a public service announcement, it is a Gillette ad. If you think capitalism is evil, you're probably on the wrong message board.

The second, which so irritates you, is telling men to inspire their sons to act like gentlemen, not douchebags or perverts. If you think being a gentleman is "evil" then you weren't raised correctly. Sorry about your luck.

    • 3
    • 3
Jan 12, 2019
CRE:
neink:

Who's being a snowflake now? There are only two sides in this and the one pushing this agenda is clearly evil.

It's still you.

There are two "agendas" in this ad.

The first, most overwhelmingly important agenda is selling razors. This isn't a public service announcement, it is a Gillette ad. If you think capitalism is evil, you're probably on the wrong message board.

The second, which so irritates you, is telling men to inspire their sons to act like gentlemen, not douchebags or perverts. If you think being a gentleman is "evil" then you weren't raised correctly. Sorry about your luck.

And I am free to boycott them and call for a boycott until they go bankrupt or the marketing strategists are fired. That's the free market for you. Companies that make retarded decisions lose money.

It seems that you are misunderstanding the basic logic of it. They made an ad, the ad tells me they don't want my money, I'll give it to someone else.

If you are ok with your son being criminalized because of his penis, go for it. So progressive. Such a gentleman. Self-flagellating for having the wrong genitalia. Make sure to gift him a Gillette razor so that he can remove his testies and correct his toxic masculinity.

    • 1
Dec 4, 2018
neink:

And I am free to boycott them and call for a boycott until they go bankrupt or the marketing strategists are fired. That's the free market for you. Companies that make retarded decisions lose money.

It seems that you are misunderstanding the basic logic of it. They made an ad, the ad tells me they don't want my money, I'll give it to someone else.

If you are ok with your son being criminalized because of his penis, go for it. So progressive. Such a gentleman. Self-flagellating for having the wrong genitalia. Make sure to gift him a Gillette razor so that he can remove his testies and correct his toxic masculinity.

You'd be a solid troll if you weren't actually being serious here.

Of course you're free to boycott them, but their decision is hardly "retarded." It's an easy cash grab for them and it'll undoubtedly work out. If anything, it's cynical in how boring it is. What they're advocating is so basic, so common sense, so without any edge whatsoever that it's even funnier that you're so bent out of shape about it.

  • "Criminalized because of his penis."
  • "So progressive."
  • "Self-flagellating for having the wrong genitalia."

Lol what the fuck is this shit? "Don't harass women and don't start fights" is hardly anti-male or "progressive." Did we watch completely different ads?

    • 4
    • 3
Dec 9, 2018

Hey one of the big complaints about "masculinity" is that men prefer violence over words, and refuse to show emotions.

So which is it?

If the "femininity" version of this commercial were produced the world would explode.

    • 1
    • 2
Dec 4, 2018
surferdude867:

Hey one of the big complaints about "masculinity" is that men prefer violence over words, and refuse to show emotions.

So which is it?

If the "femininity" version of this commercial were produced the world would explode.

What?

I just watched the commercial now. It is saying "be a gentleman." How is this objectionable?

    • 1
    • 2
Dec 9, 2018

That's not what it's doing.

"Boys will be boys" is a reference to young men's tendency to rough house, seek adventure, and cause a bit of disruption (we see this at a large scale in technology, i.e. "disruptive innovation").

I don't know ANYONE who has ever looked at a man assaulting someone, or sexually harassing a woman and used "Boys will be boys!" as an excuse to justify their appalling behavior, and the suggestion that this is something that men in general condone is beyond preposterous.

Commandeering group phrases/slogans and then recasting them in a negative light (like radical feminists have done with "boys will be boys") is textbook authoritarian behavior and we can't stand for it.

So I say again: where is the equivalent commercial calling out "toxic femininity?" Or are you saying it's just straight men that can be toxic?

@neink @Ozymandia @InfoDominatrix @lilkingdarbo @DickFuld @IlliniProgrammer

    • 1
Dec 9, 2018
surferdude867:

That's not what it's doing.

"Boys will be boys" is a reference to young men's tendency to rough house, seek adventure, and cause a bit of disruption (we see this at a large scale in technology, i.e. "disruptive innovation").

I don't know ANYONE who has ever looked at a man assaulting someone, or sexually harassing a woman and used "Boys will be boys!" as an excuse to justify their appalling behavior, and the suggestion that this is something that men in general condone is beyond preposterous.

Commandeering group phrases/slogans and then recasting them in a negative light (like radical feminists have done with "boys will be boys") is textbook authoritarian behavior and we can't stand for it.

So I say again: where is the equivalent commercial calling out "toxic femininity?" Or are you saying it's just straight men that can be toxic?

@neink @Ozymandia @InfoDominatrix @lilkingdarbo @DickFuld @IlliniProgrammer

If Gillette thought this was going to get me to buy their razors, they're wrong.

But let's not make a bigger deal of this than it is.

Schick needs to come out with an ad that says "A lot has changed, but it's still great to be a guy. And there's nothing wrong with being one, either."

    • 2
Dec 9, 2018

Looks like Schick is ahead of the curve

https://twitter.com/SchickHydro

Dec 4, 2018
surferdude867:

That's not what it's doing.

"Boys will be boys" is a reference to young men's tendency to rough house, seek adventure, and cause a bit of disruption (we see this at a large scale in technology, i.e. "disruptive innovation").

I don't know ANYONE who has ever looked at a man assaulting someone, or sexually harassing a woman and used "Boys will be boys!" as an excuse to justify their appalling behavior, and the suggestion that this is something that men in general condone is beyond preposterous.

"Boys will be boys" means that "mischievous or childish behavior is typical of boys or young men and should not cause surprise when it occurs." It has absolutely nothing to do with "disruptive innovation in technology," which is laughable, but yes, boys get into trouble by doing crazy things and rough housing and it's all fun and games. No issues there.

The mentality behind "boys will be boys," which is "boys are wild so this stuff just happens and you have to deal with it" has also unfortunately been used as a hand wave to excuse sexual harassment of the white collar, inappropriate comment and/or groping, kind. "Oh don't get bent out of shape, I'm just having a bit of fun," "Woah, I'm just joking around here. No reason to get so upset," etc. If you haven't seen ANYONE do THAT, then good, but it doesn't matter how much you capitalize or bold words, the situations and the mentality exist. It's hardly " bEy oNd preposterous."

surferdude867:

Commandeering group phrases/slogans and then recasting them in a negative light (like radical feminists have done with "boys will be boys") is textbook authoritarian behavior and we can't stand for it.

This is where you and every other "culture warrior" loses me completely.

  • Commandeering group phrases/slogans
  • Authoritarian behavior
  • radical feminists
  • We can't stand for it

Comments like these are so hilariously overdramatic that it's near impossible to take you seriously. "Boys will be boys" isn't some universal slogan of masculinity and a sense of pride for all male-kind - it's something your mom says while rolling her eyes at you getting your church clothes dirty because you, a 4 year old, found some dirt to play in. It is absolutely not a group slogan that has been "commandeered" or a sign of "authoritarianism."

Again, the commercial served to point out that the mentality behind "boys will be boys" - aka "these things are just what boys do so there's nothing to be done about them" - is also the mentality behind "well, men are attracted to pretty women and they're going to say and do inappropriate things. Nothing can be done about it."

The argument is that people have agency and don't have to act out and that behaviors which some people think there is no cure for, such as sexual harassment in the office, actually have one, and it's pretty simple. That's not "radical feminism." That's refuting a weird deterministic view of masculinity that claims "well, I'm male so there's no hope for me."

You "can't stand for it?" Ok? Don't buy Gillette razors. And uh...keep fighting for your right to make women uncomfortable like a real man or something?

surferdude867:

So I say again: where is the equivalent commercial calling out "toxic femininity?" Or are you saying it's just straight men that can be toxic?

A couple things to unpack here.

  1. Not every idea needs an equal equivalent or counter argument.
  2. There isn't a "toxic femininity" commercial for a few reasons. First of all, I'm not even sure what that would be, and on that note, don't know what exactly "toxic masculinity" is either beyond "things a very small percentage of women don't like about men." I don't frequent far-left blogs much, but my preference for not being overdramatic crosses ideological lines. Their culture war is no less laughable than your's is. Second, the commercial was about men's razors. The target demographic for men's razors is men. They're going to address men. That's common sense. Finally, as @IlliniProgrammer alluded to in response to you, the whole reason for doing this is because "woke" brands get rewarded in 2018/2019. It's a noticeable trend and it's already getting mocked on late night and elsewhere. There is a subset of young people, the youngest millennials and the generation after, along with people than spend their entire lives on twitter, that LOVE virtue signaling from brands because they spend their entire lives virtue signaling online and it matches up. Companies such as Gillette, looking for a new angle, just jump on the bandwagon. If a company is preaching to you, they're doing so to sell you something, not to make the world a better place.
  3. "Or are you just saying it's straight men that can be toxic" is a strawman, but again, I don't think groups of people in general can be "toxic" I think that behaviors can be. Hand waving sexual harassment is one of those behaviors, and it's very much in the news right now, and Gillette is trying to sell you razors by capitalizing on that. The fact that it's in the news right now or it's cynically being used to sell something doesn't make their stance against it - that it's wrong - any less correct though. There are plenty of other toxic behaviors that may or may not apply to straight men and whenever they enter the zeitgeist I'm sure some company will try to capitalize on them too.
surferdude867:

@neink @Ozymandia @InfoDominatrix @lilkingdarbo @DickFuld @IlliniProgrammer

Cool roll call? Should I tag my crew too and we can meet up behind the school?

    • 4
    • 3
Jan 12, 2019
CRE:

Cool roll call? Should I tag my crew too and we can meet up behind the school?

No because that'd be toxic masculinity.

    • 1
Dec 4, 2018
neink:

No because that'd be toxic masculinity.

Hah, ok, I laughed

    • 1
    • 2
Dec 9, 2018
CRE:

"Boys will be boys" means that "mischievous or childish behavior is typical of boys or young men and should not cause surprise when it occurs." It has absolutely nothing to do with "disruptive innovation in technology," which is laughable.

I think it's a pretty easy to draw a straight line between the two. Literally every single disruptive company of the past century (millenia?) has been started by a man, and most often a young man.

CRE:

The mentality behind "boys will be boys," which is "boys are wild so this stuff just happens and you have to deal with it" has also unfortunately been used as a hand wave to excuse sexual harassment of the white collar, inappropriate comment and/or groping, kind.

Once again, no it hasn't.

No one excuses sexual harassment or assault with a hand wavey "boys will be boys."

CRE:

This is where you and every other "culture warrior" loses me completely.

  • Commandeering group phrases/slogans
  • Authoritarian behavior
  • radical feminists
  • We can't stand for it

Comments like these are so hilariously overdramatic that it's near impossible to take you seriously. "Boys will be boys" isn't some universal slogan of masculinity and a sense of pride for all male-kind - it's something your mom says while rolling her eyes at you getting your church clothes dirty because you, a 4 year old, found some dirt to play in. It is absolutely not a group slogan that has been "commandeered" or a sign of "authoritarianism."

Exactly.

"Boys will be boys" was an innocent, loving expression used to describe mischievous young men.

But it's not anymore.

It has been commandeered by people with an agenda, and used as a tool of indictment.

I think it's pretty obvious.

CRE:

Again, the commercial served to point out that the mentality behind "boys will be boys" - aka "these things are just what boys do so there's nothing to be done about them" - is also the mentality behind "well, men are attracted to pretty women and they're going to say and do inappropriate things. Nothing can be done about it."

One more time: the mentality behind "boys will be boys" is not

I repeat

is not

the same mentality behind men harassing/assaulting others.

The idea that the two ARE synonymous is exactly what I'm talking about - taking a phrase used in an empathetic fashion and repurposing it to shame, degrade, and dehumanize an out group.

There are countless examples of this throughout history.

CRE:

You "can't stand for it?" Ok? Don't buy Gillette razors. And uh...keep fighting for your right to make women uncomfortable like a real man or something?

Thank you for proving my point.

I made my argument, asked for a display of empathy, and then you immediately conflated what I said with something negative/nefarious.

CRE:

1. Not every idea needs an equal equivalent or counter argument.

  1. There isn't a "toxic femininity" commercial for a few reasons. First of all, I'm not even sure what that would be, and on that note, don't know what exactly "toxic masculinity" is either beyond "things a very small percentage of women don't like about men."

1 - No it doesn't, but when what you're discussing amounts to moral relativism there sure as hell should be.

2 - I'm pretty sure anyone who gave it 5 minutes of thought could describe what a "toxic femininity" commercial would look like.

You sure you're male?

@real_Skankhunt42

    • 1
Jan 20, 2019

Definitely agree with you that I've never associated the term "boys will be boys" with actual nefarious behaviors like assault and harassment. I've always associated it with mischievous (usually) young males (I think of moms sitting at the playground bench rolling their eyes at their rambunctious boys). To your point, I think the term like last year was commandeered by the SJWs in their obsessive pursuit of dividing and destroying our society. It's so hard to build and so easy to destroy.

Dec 9, 2018
real_Skankhunt42:

Definitely agree with you that I've never associated the term "boys will be boys" with actual nefarious behaviors like assault and harassment. I've always associated it with mischievous (usually) young males (I think of moms sitting at the playground bench rolling their eyes at their rambunctious boys). To your point, I think the term like last year was commandeered by the SJWs in their obsessive pursuit of dividing and destroying our society.

Right?

Who has ever looked at a man assaulting or harassing someone and said "Oh well, boys will be boys!" and shrugged it off with a smirk?

The idea is ridiculous to the point of being offensive (hence the backlash!).

    • 1
    • 1
Dec 4, 2018
real_Skankhunt42:

Definitely agree with you that I've never associated the term "boys will be boys" with actual nefarious behaviors like assault and harassment. I've always associated it with mischievous (usually) young males (I think of moms sitting at the playground bench rolling their eyes at their rambunctious boys). To your point, I think the term like last year was commandeered by the SJWs in their obsessive pursuit of dividing and destroying our society. It's so hard to build and so easy to destroy.

Yeah, don't fall for his strawman. I never said "boys will be boys" refers to harassment. I said the same "oh well nothing we can do about it" hand waiving that society gives little boys causing trouble (which is innocent) is the same hand waiving that society gives guys being creeps. (which is not innocent.) Obviously this is less so these day for famous people with #MeToo, but it still exists - especially in corporate America.

    • 1
    • 2
Jan 20, 2019
CRE:
real_Skankhunt42:

Definitely agree with you that I've never associated the term "boys will be boys" with actual nefarious behaviors like assault and harassment. I've always associated it with mischievous (usually) young males (I think of moms sitting at the playground bench rolling their eyes at their rambunctious boys). To your point, I think the term like last year was commandeered by the SJWs in their obsessive pursuit of dividing and destroying our society. It's so hard to build and so easy to destroy.

Yeah, don't fall for his strawman. I never said "boys will be boys" refers to harassment. I said the same "oh well nothing we can do about it" hand waiving that society gives little boys causing trouble (which is innocent) is the same hand waiving that society gives guys being creeps. (which is not innocent.) Obviously this is less so these day for famous people with #MeToo, but it still exists - especially in corporate America.

I'm not really sure where the straw man is in there. The commercial literally says "boys will be boys" is a reference to actual bad behavior by adults.

Dec 9, 2018

Yeah she is an idiot.

    • 1
Dec 4, 2018
surferdude867:

Yeah she is an idiot.

The maturity level continues to disappoint

    • 1
Dec 9, 2018

As does the level of critical thinking.

    • 1
Dec 4, 2018
surferdude867:

I think it's a pretty easy to draw a straight line between the two. Literally every single disruptive company of the past century (millenia?) has been started by a man, and most often a young man.

Yes, I'm sure gender roles in the past century/millenia have nothing to do with that. Give me a break.

surferdude867:

Once again, no it hasn't.

No one excuses sexual harassment or assault with a hand wavey "boys will be boys."

And I didn't say they did. Another strawman. I specifically said that the "oh well, nothing we can do" mentality behind both "boys will be boys" and hand waving low-harassment is the same. Focus, here.

surferdude867:

"Boys will be boys" was an innocent, loving expression used to describe mischievous young men.

But it's not anymore.

It has been commandeered by people with an agenda, and used as a tool of indictment.

I think it's pretty obvious.

What you think is rather irrelevant. You don't get to just make claims as if they are facts and then assume those who disagree with you have to accept those claims. You say it's not anymore? I say it is and I think it's pretty obvious.

See how that works?

surferdude867:

One more time: the mentality behind "boys will be boys" is not

I repeat

is not

the same mentality behind men harassing/assaulting others.

I can keep this up too.

The mentality behind "boys will be boys" is

I repeat

is

the same mentality behind men harassing others.

That doesn't mean the quote "boys will be boys" refers to harassment whatsoever, a nuance you seem to be missing.

surferdude867:

The idea that the two ARE synonymous is exactly what I'm talking about - taking a phrase used in an empathetic fashion and repurposing it to shame, degrade, and dehumanize an out group.

There are countless examples of this throughout history.

Never said they were synonymous. You burn that strawman down though.

surferdude867:

Thank you for proving my point.

I made my argument, asked for a display of empathy, and then you immediately conflated what I said with something negative/nefarious.

Yeah, it was a cheap shot, but what exactly are you arguing for here? Why does this commercial bother you so much?

surferdude867:

1 - No it doesn't, but when what you're discussing amounts to moral relativism there sure as hell should be.

2 - I'm pretty sure anyone who gave it 5 minutes of thought could describe what a "toxic femininity" commercial would look like.

You sure you're male?

  1. I'm not arguing for moral relativism at all. Look up what that means.
  2. Ok, but does that sell razors to men? Probably not.

And yes, I'm pretty secure in my masculinity. You can tell because I don't think a commercial is a slight to it.

surferdude867:

@real_Skankhunt42

It's sad you can't have this conversation on your own.

    • 3
    • 2
Dec 9, 2018
CRE:

Yes, I'm sure gender roles in the past century/millenia have nothing to do with that. Give me a break.

Ah yes, gender as a social construct, I'm surprised it took this long to come up.

Even in "feminine" fields - fashion, nursing, education - the very best (and worst!) performers are overwhemingly male.

surferdude867:

Once again, no it hasn't.

No one excuses sexual harassment or assault with a hand wavey "boys will be boys."

CRE:

And I didn't say they did. I specifically said that the "oh well, nothing we can do" mentality behind both "boys will be boys" and hand waving low-harassment is the same.

O RLY?

CRE:

The mentality behind "boys will be boys," which is "boys are wild so this stuff just happens and you have to deal with it" has also unfortunately been used as a hand wave to excuse sexual harassment of the white collar, inappropriate comment and/or groping, kind.

That's (barely) a distinction without a difference.

CRE:

What you think is rather irrelevant. You don't get to just make claims as if they are facts and then assume those who disagree with you have to accept those claims. You say it's not anymore? I say it is and I think it's pretty obvious.

See how that works?

I mean, this entire argument amounts to doxastic discussion, so what people think is the only thing that matters...

But sure, OK. Then play by your own rules and don't represent claims as facts.

CRE:

Yeah, it was a cheap shot, but what exactly are you arguing for here? Why does this commercial bother you so much?

I'm human.

I'm also a straight white male who was misdiagnosed with ADHD as a youth - and suffered for years as a result - so this commercial speaks to me on a very personal level.

This ad struck an emotional chord with many men: I feel like I'm under attack.

The APA paper referenced earlier in this thread claims, among other things, that "men and boys have trouble showing emotions," but that's not true - emotional expression simply looks different for a man.

Now you might think I'm overreacting, and that's fair, but the female/LGBTIQ2+/minority community doesn't like being stereotyped either, and "they" claim to have the moral high ground because history - "they" want all the empathy.

If I call out one of "them" for stereotypically shitty behaviour - i.e. a woman lying/being manipulative - it's either a) they aren't really being shitty I'm just evil/oppressive/whatever or b) It's OUR turn to fuck you over #BelieveWomen.

Play by your own rules.

surferdude867:

2 - I'm pretty sure anyone who gave it 5 minutes of thought could describe what a "toxic femininity" commercial would look like.

CRE:

2. Ok, but does that sell razors to men? Probably not.

Actually, I bet a razor commercial that showed a man dealing with females all day and ended with him shaving at night with a tagline like: "Life can be rough, your face shouldn't be. Trust Schick razors" would sell an insane amount of razors. (Shick where is my job offer?)

CRE:

And yes, I'm pretty secure in my masculinity. You can tell because I don't think a commercial is a slight to it.

If you say so.

Edit: I'm curious what the women here think of this particular comment cc: @Chimp scampi @InfoDominatrix

    • 1
    • 1
Dec 4, 2018

Never said it was a "social construct." It is historically accurate that women were discouraged from working for centuries.

This conversation is becoming boring. If things like "history" and "nuance" and "reality" are secondary to your feelings of persecution, there's little more I can do.

It must be very sad to live that way.

    • 2
Dec 9, 2018
    • 1
    • 1
Dec 4, 2018

Dayman?

    • 2
Dec 4, 2018
    • 1
Jan 12, 2019
    • 4
Jan 12, 2019
Dec 9, 2018