Harvey Weinstein, Gropocalypse, and the #MeToo Campaign | Girls Chase

Harvey Weinstein, Gropocalypse, and the #MeToo Campaign

Chase Amante

Hey! Chase Amante here.

You've read all the free articles I can offer you for this month.

If you'd like to read more, I've got to ask for your help keeping the lights on at Girls Chase.

Click a plan below to sign up now and get right back to reading. It's only 99¢ the first month.

Already a GirlsChase.com subscriber? Log in here.

Gropocalypse and #MeeToo
The roiling Harvey Weinstein Hollywood sex scandal was caused by a unique mix of perversion, sexual power dynamics, and the twilight of feminism.

In late 2017, The New York Times broke a story on Harvey Weinstein paying off sexual harassment accusers. A few choice excerpts:

[A]fter being confronted with allegations including sexual harassment and unwanted physical contact, Mr. Weinstein has reached at least eight settlements with women, according to two company officials speaking on the condition of anonymity. Among the recipients, The Times found, were a young assistant in New York in 1990, an actress in 1997, an assistant in London in 1998, an Italian model in 2015 and Ms. O’Connor shortly after, according to records and those familiar with the agreements.

...

The allegations piled up even as Mr. Weinstein helped define popular culture. He has collected six best-picture Oscars and turned out a number of touchstones, from the films “Sex, Lies, and Videotape,” “Pulp Fiction” and “Good Will Hunting” to the television show “Project Runway.” In public, he presents himself as a liberal lion, a champion of women and a winner of not just artistic but humanitarian awards.

...

Dozens of Mr. Weinstein’s former and current employees, from assistants to top executives, said they knew of inappropriate conduct while they worked for him. Only a handful said they ever confronted him.

...

After she arrived, he offered to help her career while boasting about a series of famous actresses he claimed to have slept with.

...

“She said he was very persistent and focused though she kept saying no for over an hour,” one internal document said. Ms. Nestor, who declined to comment for this article, refused his bargain, the records noted. “She was disappointed that he met with her and did not seem to be interested in her résumé or skill set.”

Not long after, a recording broke of a 2015 NYPD sting investigation, in which Weinstein can be heard trying to cajole a 22-year-old Italian model up to his hotel room:

Gropocalypse and #MeeToo
Weinstein and Ambra Battilana Gutierrez, the model he attempted to get up to his hotel room.

Rose McGowan accused Weinstein of rape. Stories surfaced of him cornering women and making them watch him masturbate (once into a pot in a restaurant kitchen). And then the dam burst. To-date, 91 actors, producers, and other members of Hollywood have been accused of sexual impropriety, courtesy the #MeToo campaign. Women, en masse, have come forward with accusations against men – particularly men who held power over them.

Why this time, though? There have always been sexual accusations against powerful figures. Bill Clinton, Tiger Woods, Michael Jackson, Bill Cosby, Donald Trump... just to name a few of the most prominent ones. Some of the accusations swirling around these figures are worse than anything alleged against Weinstein; Cosby is accused of drugging women to rape them. Many of the varied claims made against Clinton over the years sound like something out of a B-level political thriller, with all the rape, murder, and coverups you can dream of.

Yet despite all the controversies around and accusations leveled at powerful political and media figures, the dam never broke before. But this time it did. Why now? What does this ‘Gropocalypse” and its #MeToo campaign tell us about men, women, and sexual power dynamics in the professional spheres?

Chase AmanteAbout the Author: Chase Amante

Chase woke up one day in 2004 tired of being alone. So, he set to work and read every book he could find, studied every teacher he could meet, and talked to every girl he could talk to to figure out dating. After four years, scads of lays, and many great girlfriends (plus plenty of failures along the way), he launched this website. He will teach you everything he knows about girls in one single program in his One Date System.

GET CHASE’S ONE DATE SYSTEM

Comments

Bias's picture

If you're going to dedicate a whole paragraph to conspiracy theories about Bill Clinton that you found in r/the_donald, you could at least detail the whole list of allegations about Trump:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/11/22/president...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations

To gloss over the accusations as "manufactured outrage" is extremely disingenuous.

I expect better, then again maybe i shouldn't all things considered.

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Bias-

EDIT: as with my comment to RezznT below, on reflection your underlying point is valid. The subject sidetracked the point of the article and I've snipped it. You still did prove my point by attacking me with a label ("conspiracy theorist"), rather than arguing your points, though :D

Oh, and I don't read Reddit. Well, there was this one time I read a thread on there that was pretty interesting. But that was like two years back. Seems like the kind of place you'd get sucked into and never find your way out of.

Chase

Bias's picture

I am attacking the content of the article and the obvious double standard within it regarding Trump/Clinton, not you as a person.

ree's picture

this post is gold,however if you think it is biased why are you here reading it?

Varoon Rajah's picture

Fantastic breakdown of the current media frenzy, Chase! Also, I didn't realize the wash behind Mr. Clinton....holy shit...and it doesn't surprise me in the least.

VR

Author
Chase Amante's picture

VR-

Thanks man, glad you liked it!

I trimmed down the stuff on Clinton and cut out names and dates. The various alleged mistresses and their various unfortunate ends made for an interesting sidetrack but it's still a sensitive topic (my misjudgment), and a Weinstein article (or this site in general) is probably not the place for it.

Anyway, just one of those weird things...

Chase

Varoon Rajah's picture

Right on!

By the way, was thinking about the concept of the article a little more. It does seem like there are two things going on concurrently with the whole Weinstein issue:
1. There are women who were complicit with using the casting couch as a tool to get ahead, either a career boost or to get ahead faster. Even the quote by Jessica Chastain hints at this. For these women, it seems the best "wash of all responsibility" is to go the ASD route and either not say anything at all (because to admit it would admit guilt of use of sex for power), or to deny all responsibility by accusing the man of an unwanted sexual advance.
2. For typical feminist women who are not in Hollywood, on the other hand, this seems to be a wake up call to cognitive dissonance as you mentioned, because they had a view of "two different kinds of men," that is nice non-sexual men they can "trust" and all other men, whereas now they're waking up to a painful reality that there really is only one kind of man (and consequently, one kind of woman, haha).

VR

Motiv's picture

1. The man who pretends to be nice (or genuinely tries really hard because he's had it ingrained in him by parents/schoolteachers).

2. The man who is unapologetically open about his desire to "pork" women he's attracted to.

If guy number two also has a good level of social calibration, women tend to love and defend him at all costs.

She enters your world… not the other way around.
Tweak your way to the top ;)

RezznT's picture

"Progressivism was always an ideology based on censorship of the opposition, rather than victory in debates over it"

Anyone can find some idiots who claim to subscribe to an ideology, point to them and say "that's X movement, ideology, etc..."

For example, regarding Islam, it's like when people take the most extremist members of the religion (terrorists) and then are like "that's Islam". It's a stupid argument that completely lacks nuance. A loud minority =/= an entire ideology.

I could point to half a dozen conservatives who violate their so-called principles all the time in the name of political power. For example, as one of the most recent cases, the Senate Special Election in Alabama right now. If you completely ignore the sexual allegations against Moore, he and all his supporters would still be massive hypocrites in championing so-called conservative values. The dude was removed from the Alabama State Supreme Court TWICE. He said that Democratic Congressman and progressive Keith Ellison should not be allowed to serve in Congress BECAUSE he's a Muslim. And that's just a couple of things he's said/done.

I'm not saying you're wrong in that these male feminists brought this on themselves, just that there are legitimate arguments for progressive policies. Simply because you don't seem to agree with progressive values doesn't mean that the entire movement is composed of morons who can't make real arguments.

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Rezzn-

EDIT: ah, I thought about it... this is a key point. Talking about broader progressive ideology in an article that's really just about American third wave feminism is sticking a lightning rod right in the middle of it that does not improve the piece and instead serves as a major distraction. All right, noted and updated.

Chase

Elliot Temple's picture

I read and liked the original article, and wanted to share it with people. Is there any way I could get a copy of it? Could you put it somewhere with a link or send to curi@curi.us please?

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Elliot-

Apologies, I no longer have it. I edit articles in an HTML file and save them online. When I made these edits, it was directly to the file, saved there, then saved here - so no longer there.

It was only 2.5 paragraphs that got cut - not a big chunk. Most of the article remains as it was when posted.

Chase

Dina Wilson's picture

It's a shame to see you in the culture war mindset. In my experience I've found most of your work here compatible with a feminist perspective (simple example, acknowledging how society will punish a girl/her reputation for overt sexuality while rewarding sexually successful men is surely patriarchy 101). Unlike some of the darker corners of pick-up and seduction, your articles largely kept focused on explanations of what works and builds attraction, and explaining why based on social context, rather than this angle of biological essentialism. I don't think the only choice for men is to either be asexual, or leave enough/so many women feeling violated in their wake they can start a hashtag campaign. There's room to both respect consent and defuse resistance...

I don't want to go on too long here, I still find the work valuable and informative, and certainly intend to learn more. I've enjoyed the positivity and respect for women, sex, and women's sexuality (and acknowledgement of the negative experiences they often face) maintained in most articles here, and I hope not to see that lost down the well of reactionary politics.

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Depends on what branch of feminism you mean!

Sex positive branches, empathetic branches, non-oppression-based empowerment, etc., I'm entirely on board with.

Third wave feminism, as well as the feminism of the movement's founders (i.e., "women are historical victims of oppression"), I am (and always have been) every bit as opposed to as the red pill men's rights movement, and all other political victim movements. I find victim mentality uniquely distasteful; it poisons everything it touches and twists it and makes it ugly. And it hobbles whosoever's mind it infects - victims are forever battling against perceived oppression.

The best thing that could happen in my opinion would be if you could round up all the "women are oppressed by men" feminists, and all the "men are oppressed by women" red pill guys, and toss them in a big gymnasium together with each other and run out and lock the door. Then watch the goings on through a security camera, with a big tub of popcorn. And maybe a couple of bags of M&Ms.

Failing that, the next best thing would be to get these people out of our schools. It's one thing to have victim mentality yourself... but something else to imprint that on legions of young people you should otherwise be training up to be healthy, happy, productive citizens. Very bad to do, from a "let's not make everyone miserable and then have civilization collapse" point of view.

Chase

Jimbo's picture

While the urge to try and be with some girl around you will always be there, I think it can be tamed with big enough disincentives and a large enough stick that it becomes an unappealing option for most. The threat of being outed, denounced, and of sexual harassment lawsuits are some of them.

The debate that followed this seemed to me centered less around "do (all) men have this urge?" and more about "is acting this way on these urges acceptable?" I'm sure mass shootings are a typically male urge as well but they're not accepted nonetheless.

Chase, you seem to think this augurs a post-feminism era for what they are. But the reactions to these haven't been ones of "boy will be will boys" but of outrage, from the majority of men and women on both sides of the spectrum. So if anything, this kind of behavior in a professional context will become less tolerated. And what I think it will do is make men more hesitant to make advances to female co-workers, and women more guarded about seeming advances from the guys and have less qualms about reporting someone to the higher-ups or HR. I think it will reduce the amount of workplace or coworker hookups and romances, because the incentive structure is changing: the stick has become bigger for would-be workplace players, and possible repercussions and threats of retaliation lesser for the women to cry harassment or assault. And when you raise the cost for something you'll see less of it.

How do I know this? Because I'M less inclined to even think of my female coworkers that way ever since that dam broke. I just don't want to go there anymore. The whole things looks too sticky and icky. I even spend less time around the women. I wasn't even fond of 'social circles' women to begin with.

What I think this will effectively do is draw a clearer line for most men and women between work and pick-up. Because if men become less likely to get away with it, they'll just go for escorts and prostitutes. And on that, prostitution should just be made legal, we should stop kidding ourselves about this one too. It's barely enforced anyway. Prostitution is supposed to be an outlet for this particular urge, namely that of men trading money and non-sexual favors for sex, and women vice-versa? Let it be. It'd be a good way for men to engage in this in a way that doesn't include the implied blackmail and threats that often come with it when this when exercised in work-related contexts.

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Jimbo-

Interesting perspective.

Yes, the "not acceptable to act" bit was what I was driving at too ("You're not supposed to do that!!"). The problem of course is men aren't automatons. You don't switch it off at work, then switch it on when you get to the club. It's either on or off all the time.

One of the major reasons so many men have trouble with women in the modern West is because they are trying to keep themselves switched off around women in school and at work and other public places, and then somehow magically switch on when suddenly some girl is showing interest in them somewhere. And they can't do it. Then the girl gets annoyed or figures the guy doesn't like her and leaves.

But the reactions to these haven't been ones of "boy will be will boys" but of outrage, from the majority of men and women on both sides of the spectrum. So if anything, this kind of behavior in a professional context will become less tolerated.

The initial reaction wasn't so much my concern here. Yes, the initial reaction is outrage: ALL men are pigs!! Which will likely be followed with, at first, widespread disillusionment with men. Then acceptance.

Tell me if you've seen this in your relationships: a girlfriend flips out over something you do/have done. Then you explain that sorry babe, that's just the way I am. It isn't going to change. And for a while she cools way off to you and acts disgusted with you, and you think, "Well I guess that's it. The relationship must be over then. Guess I'll have to start looking for a new chick." Then after a little time has gone by, suddenly out of the blue she is crazy about you and tells you she understands and that is just how you are... and you are thinking Is this chick nuts? What's going on?

That's the augur I'm talking about. We are in the "cools way off and acts disgusted with you" phase, except at a civilization-scale. And while we're in it, you'll likely see men cool off too. It's that "Um, okay, well, I guess it's over then?" kind of befuddled feeling you get when you hit her with some dose of reality and she just stews over it.

Prostitution is supposed to be an outlet for this particular urge, namely that of men trading money and non-sexual favors for sex, and women vice-versa? Let it be. It'd be a good way for men to engage in this in a way that doesn't include the implied blackmail and threats that often come with it when this when exercised in work-related contexts.

May happen at some point.

But you'd need the power of feminsm to wane more than it has to-date. There are a variety of reasons feminists are opposed to prostitution (it isn't just about retaining sexual power by keeping sex harder to get for men... though that is a motivation; another large factor is about the rejection of the idea that women can be bought like chattle, which grates hard against the feminist worldview).

I would not expect this any time in the too-near future... :)

Chase

Jimbo's picture

Yes, I guess for the naive or inexperienced there must've been a shock to see all that unfold. Man after man after man, that after a while she must wonder, "Are all men like that?" It's the true that the public conversation hasn't been one of whether this is a man thing or not, but yeah, many people must have wondered about that in more private moments. And as you say, after the shock and anger subside, the subsequent reaction is that of adaptation, of making their peace with it.

Re: prostitution. I watched a Vice piece the other day on that in Canada. A couple of years ago, the Canadian parliament passed a law that criminalized the purchase of sexual services, making it harder to access prostitutes. And when you see the hearings, they were dominated by the religious and puritanical Right on the one hand, staunch feminists on the other, but almost nothing in between. Few prostitutes themselves were heard. And those who were and who said they were fine, never encountered violence or coercion in their work and so on, were derided by some of the female MPs as trying to put a positive spin on prostitution. So that section of their conservative party banded with the feminist section of their labour party, and went ahead and passed it anyway, even though 65% of the Canadian public wants it decriminalized.

And yeah, the debate and those who pushed for criminalization was dominated by women. Even that 65% when you see the breakdown of it, it's 75% for men and 56% for women. Same thing for my state of Nevada, there are regular pollings in the counties on whether to keep it legal or not, and although the majority do want to keep it legal, men are still markedly more to say yes than women.

And even though public opinion on this issue is more or less the same throughout the Western world, I'm still not seeing getting legalized or decriminalized (where it already isn't) in the near future either. Because I'm just not seeing a politician coming forward and making hooker legalization as part of his platform.

But it's all hypocritical. In my city of Reno, prostitution is supposed to be illegal, though only a misdemeanor, yet I've yet to remember a time I saw or even heard of law enforcement arresting pimps, hookers, or johns. It's one of those laws that's just there to look pretty, to have a "we don't stand for this" front to the city and county. Kind of like how no polygamist ever gets prosecuted in Utah.

By the way, this whole chattel thing is ridiculous. It's not the women that get bought, it's their sexual services. And chattel implies they have no say in the matter, which is not the case.

A-jay's picture

" Step 4: “Okay, I’m tired of being angry and alone. Time for me to accept how men are, and figure out how I myself will deal with it” "

I liked this part. It might not be intentional from your end, but I read it as you giving guys the message that "women will learn to accept men the way they are. Guys might as well do the same about women." Splendid!

Author
Chase Amante's picture

A-Jay,

It was. Well, double entendre, anyway.

I wrote it to explain what I thought was likely to happen with women.

I then revised it a bit to make sure it applied in reverse, too.

Good eyes for catching me ;)

Chase

Gil's picture

Rather it's men stuck in the out-dated Christian/Islamic mindset that relationships were supposed between well-heeled middle-aged men and young attractive women. Back in the "good old days" young men were pretty hopeless until they matured into their looks and got more power and status as their hard work during their young years paid off. Hence Weinstein & co. are surprised today's women aren't attracted to them. In the 1950s these men would been the Alpha males but today are creepy old men. They can't understand the new era where young attractive women want young, handsome, charming men. Men are angry an implied social contract has been broken where any man can be attractive to young, good-looking women if they play their cards right. Such men are at a loss because they were told in their formative years "if I made the big bucks and got the fancy job I would be irresistible to young, beautiful women."

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Gil-

Well, remember, numbered among the accused we also have:

  • Nick Carter of the Backstreet Boys
  • Sylvester Stallone
  • Richard Dreyfus
  • Ed Westwick
  • Alec Baldwin
  • Danny Masterson
  • Dustin Hoffman
  • Jeremy Piven
  • Ben Affleck
  • David Blaine

Some of these guys are total dreamboats. David Blaine was Leonardo DiCaprio's wingman for the longest time - the two of them would reportedly hit up various Hollywood parties, Leo brought the fame, David brought the magic, and together they bedded half the women in Hollywood.

This is about far more than just 'dirty old men'! Although Weinstein being a dirty old man certainly helped get the snowball rolling.

Chase

Jimbo's picture

But these men ARE attractive to young women. Have you seen Weinstein's wife? Young and gorgeous, even though he's a fat ugly fuck. Same for the wife before. Social dominance and authority will always be attractive to women regardless of age.

Dale's picture

I am older and remember dating in the '70s and '80s. The information on dating was terrible back then, even the pick up books did not go beyond getting a date. Men and women no longer have a common rule book about relationships.

Motiv's picture

It’s time for us to stop lying to women. It’s time to stop pretending that men and women are asexual beings and that the working, professional world is some kind of sterile robot land where individual urges don’t shape the playing field. It’s time to stop dividing men into the “good asexual nice guy feminist” camp and the “evil sexual patriarchal caveman” camp – it’s time to stop moralizing male sexuality.

I found this article a huge relief after your comment about Weinstein doing well with beautiful women. I'll admit that being an image-focused guy myself, the site of Weinstein (at least in most photos where he attempts to smile) makes me want to vomit… maybe even cleanse the human race :P Masculinity is the last concept I'd associate with the likes of him.

Our media has a habit of parading the worst of the worst so routinely that we get these ugly deeds stuck in our heads as if they were going on everywhere all the time. Then we feel pissed and get distracted from important things.

It's a shame men with fame like Weinstein cannot capitalize very effectively on their power. I suppose with fame comes scrutiny and with scrutiny comes less freedom to maneuver. It is impossible for most of us to know what life is really like in the limelight.

I think you nailed it in the part I quoted from your article: just be honest about your manly desires! If done in a socially calibrated way, the women will start to flow.

-M

P.S. I recently hit it off with a girl whom I had moved to a remote corner of a nighttime lounge. She got around to asking if I was single, to which I openly replied that I am involved in a few unconventional relationships with women who also have other men of their own.

Fast-forward, I asked if her friends would be all right if I kissed her. She said it would be "OK on the cheek." However, as I kissed her cheek, I brought my left hand to her other cheek and turned her lips to mine. After lightly sucking on her upper lip for about three seconds, she looked down at the table, saying, "that's different…" We exchanged numbers, and she even grabbed my ass before leaving!

I'm going with being unapologetically male. It can make interaction with fun women effortless.

She enters your world… not the other way around.
Tweak your way to the top ;)

Hum's picture

Chase,

I think its wishful thinking that this is an inflection point where women begin to throw away the 3rd wave feminist attitude. I suspect the changes in the nature of work and women's ability to find gainful employ is going to continue to put more power into women's hands. I don't think history will repeat itself and result in a continuation of the cycle - purely due to our technological advancement. With one caveat: the inevitable environmental collapse that is to visit us in the 40 years makes it so that physical labour regains its value. (side note: I see that you lean libertarian, I hope you aren't also a climate change doubter...)

This is a fantastic article, and a really refreshing take on the Weinstein Chronicles. Thanks for this.

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Hum-

Glad you liked the article!

Hmm, perhaps slightly libertarian. Although I think it might be more accurate to say "Chase leans libertarian when he does not agree with the policies of the ruling class." If the ruling class's policies were inline with my personal positions, I'd obviously lean less libertarian. And in general I find libertarians a little too close to hippies.

Noted on your thoughts. My read is a general/vocal sentiment against third wave feminist positions, which we never had before. And also a sea change in women vocally abandoning support for the feminist movement, even if they still support some of it in practice ("Well, I'm not a feminist, but..."). When you see people hiding their views, it is either at the dawn of the movement when the movement is still unacceptable (i.e., the "shy Trump supporters" phenomenon of the 2016 presidential campaign), or at the twilight of the movement. Which is not to say third wave feminism might bounce back - it may - but my read is enough distaste for what the movement has become among even previously supporting groups, plus a general lack of real drive for its supporters to continue (few issues remain in which feminists have much ground to make gains in).

As for climate change, once the GHCN returns to distributing raw polling station data instead of dramatically adjusted data to the myriad scientists researching the phenomenon, explanations for why carbon release and sequestration trails warming/cooling in the geological record are made (in context of AGW), and a reliable climate model that makes accurate predictions is created, I'll be on board! Until then, I will refrain from getting too excited... as I equally refrained with Y2K, H1N1, SARS, and killer bees ;)

Chase

Hum's picture

Chase,
Interesting take on the "hiding" of feminist values. I am probably biased, as I work in professional field that is increasingly shifting towards women, who I believe would dominate it entirely if they didn't opt for more balanced lives. I see the increasing value put on managing relationships and social interaction. Robots and tech can't replace those elements, but they can replace almost everything else. Anyways, in these circles 3rd wave feminism is alive and kicking, and these folks occupy dominant positions in society (read: they influence the propaganda mill). Then again, as Trump and Brexit show, the upper classes are just completely out of touch.

Re: climate. There will not be a good model that yields predictions that are accurate - the systems are just too complex - no matter the quality of the data. For me, the notion of worrying about CO2 levels and raw temp increases are just not even worth looking at anymore. I prefer to look at the tangibles and to listen to the communities feeling the brunt. The arctic is in shambles, coastal communities are getting worked over by once in a generation storms every few years.

Its funny, I was at a talk the other night given by a UN dignitary who was previously an influential CEO in the private sector. Countries have begun to realize the inevitable destruction of significant chunks of their territory due to sea level rise. These issues were originally expected to take place at the end of the century, but their hands are being forced to face them in the next 20 years. The dignitary stated he wouldn't have believed it if he hadn't seen the movement on these issues. I take things much more seriously when I see big money getting involved in politically worthless (in terms of votes/ROI) issues.

As far as the geological record is concerned, I have a background in evolutionary biology, and it always seemed pretty clear to me. Rapid change inevitably leads to mass extinction. Mass extinction leads to loss of diversity. And we know now that lower diversity allows disease to rip through populations more quickly. We're playin with fire here! These things may give back some clout to the only thing men have an enormous edge in, physical labor.

Jimbo's picture

Interesting comment, Hum. May I know the professional field you're referring to that's being taken over by women?

Mike B's picture

Hey Chase appreciate the article!
Lots of good info here. Its obvious youre a conservative though. You berate people on the left exclusively and sympathize with the Donald. I have no problem with conservatives because they're often masculine men and immersing yourself in that mindset is obviously helpful in dealing with women. I dislike cultural Marxism as much as the next person who actually uses their brain (or takes economics), but you need not polarize and politicize this so much obviously. Acting like feminists are the downfall of human society is typical apocolyptic overdramatized snowflakery. Theyre unpleasant, but not a real threat to anyone. How often do you see this kind of stuff manifest outside of Buzzfeed and the media ? Also, you appear to accept abuse of power as a part of life and not decry it. Is this really what you believe ?

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Eh. I am not "conservative"... if you must label me, I guess "Plutarchian Confucian" might be as good a label as any. I was the biggest Obama fan in the world from when I read Audacity of Hope in 2006 until about a year into his presidency. The reason I was a huge Obama fan was the same reason I became a Trump fan later: both men were going to take on the system and clean it up. Unfortunately, the system flipped Obama (although he still resisted being completely controlled by it in some ways later in his presidency - but if only he'd shown more than a glimmer of campaign Obama once in office!).

If Obama had done what he ran on (transparent government, an end to special interests, an end to wars in the Middle East, no more favoring Wall Street, close Guantanemo, fix healthcare, and be a centrist on social issues), he would've been my favorite modern president. Instead he abandoned all those issues within his first three months (except perhaps healthcare, which he did try on, but then made a bunch of pointless compromises to try to reach out to Republicans, none of whom voted for it anyway, and created a Frankenstein system that was broken from the get-go).

As for feminism, in general I'm not too worried about it. I'm certainly not going to waste time campaigning against it. Not a worthwhile use of the short time I have on this planet.

Nevertheless, the problem with any sort of victim mentality - be it American feminism (which I largely dislike), the online red pill movement (which I also largely dislike), and large elements of every political movement (all of which I largely dislike) - is that normal human behavior gets twisted into "abuse of power." When the truth is the opponent of the "victim" is seeking power for himself - and so is the "victim."

I consider all strains of victim mentality the "downfall of society", yes. Simply because we have ample historical examples of the rise of rampant victim mentality in societies immediatley preceding their downfalls. The reason is because victim mentalities divide societies - and a house divided won't stand.

I'd like to see the various strains of American victim mentality dry up and the country get back to being unified again. America has been the greatest force for technological advancement since Alexandria. But I am somewhat pessimistic that will happen. However, so long as there is still a chance, it's probably worth fighting against the dying of America's light.

Moving on... Onto your "accept the problem" bit.

Let's look at powerful men using their positions to get sex. Why do men pursue power? To get sex. What do men do with power once they have it? They use it to get sex.

Is this a problem? Well, perhaps. Depends on your perspective. What we can say with certainty is it is a FEATURE of humans, power, and civilization. There is no way around it. The biggest feminist-supporting men in history have all done this - from Harvey Weinstein to Mao Zedong (who was a huge liberator of women; it was one of his biggest issues. He was horrified at how unfair Chinese marriage law was toward women, and put in a number of pro-woman reforms. It didn't stop him from using his power to shag numerous women a day bareback, never cleaning himself [Mao quote when his doctor told him he needed to start washing his privates: "I wash my penis in the water of women's vaginas"], and having all kinds of venereal diseases... which he likely spread to women far and wide. As a rule, powerful female liberation-supporting men are the most personally destructive toward women).

There are two ways we can deal with this reality.

One is we can fight against reality with all our might. We can brainwash young men and women into believing this isn't true. Then when men give into biology, we can go apoplectic and tell them "that is NOT okay!" Then pretend like it was just those men, and now that we've cleaned up the bad men, this problem is finally solved. Then when it happens again, we can be shocked anew, and claim that it must be due to education. We just need to better educate men to suppress their sexuality, and women to fight against male sexuality. Then when it happens again we can be yet more shocked, because we can't believe anyone could still be so backwards as to think this was still okay.

The other way is to accept reality, and learn to work within it. We know that men acquire power to better acquire sex. Okay, let's make peace with it, it's not going anywhere until we learn to reproduce by budding and take sex and sex organs out of the picture. So what do we know? Well, we know if a woman enters a powerful man's sphere, that man will look for ways to have sex with her.

Let's say we decide that's bad. Powerful men should not try to have sex with women they hold power over. I don't necessarily disagree with the statement - it is inline with Confucian ethics; a superior should not do to an inferior what he would not want done to himself. The problem is this is a basic function of male behavior, and no amount of wishing it away (or educating it away - eduation has, unfortunately, a very limited ability to shape behavior... I wish that wasn't the case... or legislating it away for that matter - laws have even less impact than education; just look at America's prison population) will make it go. Confucius himself was often a bit more idealistic than realistic.

What are the options to tackle this "humanity feature"? Well, we can segregate men and women. I don't want this option, but it solves the problem, now that we've decided it's a problem.

There are more ridiculous solutions, like "kill all the men", "castrate them all", "ban men from positions of power", or "end civilization and go back to living in the woods" which I don't think we need to discuss for obvious reasons.

We can do as we've done throughout most of history, and not permit women actors. Usually, men play women's roles as well as men's. In Casanova's time, there were more actresses, but of course these women were generally at the bottom of society and considered to be loose women (and there is little doubt the casting couch was alive and well). Of course, we like our movies to be as real as possible, and no one wants to see a bunch of men dressed in drag.

The best solution I can see is to stop wishing away reality and start actually educating our young men and women again (educating them to be aware of reality, rather than to try to shape reality). "This is male nature" "This is female nature." "Ladies, when you are around a powerful male, he will look for ways to court you. This is just how men are. Know that going into whatever situation you go into."

As it were, the attempts to "educate men" about their "abuse of power" and "oppression" have led to an insane split in American men. Many ordinary men have become ashamed of their sexualities, while many powerful men have learned to cheerlead feminist issues as a shield against their indulgence in poweful male excesses.

America is going to continue to be sick with these ails until it returns to a more reality-based understanding of male nature (and hopefully also female nature... most of these women did not go alone with Weinstein and others because they wanted to play a game of checkers. They were there because they wanted something from him - then did not like the deal he offered).

Anyway. This is what I call a "hard problem" - it is one without a ready solution. There are many problems like this in life, and much of what people spend their time arguing about consists of hard problems. In general, hard problems are problems where whatever solution you adopt, someone loses.

Often you can find solutions where people lose as little as possible though - and this whole "let's pretend educating men to be supporters of women's rights will remove men's sexual inclinations, and let's tell ourselves we're past powerful men wanting sex and that these men are truly fighters for the cause of women's rights" solution is not an effective one (as we see from the Gropocalypse).

How do you solve this sort of problem? I don't know. I'd love to hear solutions, but anything close to "men just have to change their behavior" or "we just have to better educate men" or "we just need better laws" just plunk into the "idealism" box -- works great in a utopia, but we ain't in one.

Chase

Mike B's picture

Yeah I dont care about PC of it, but Trump still strikes me as too much of a personality cult egomaniac to really know what he's doing. Lot of posturing and not much depthful insight as far as I see it. Yeah I would totally agree its human nature. There's no denying the biological essentialism in that. One proposal: Why don't they just have other people in the room with producers? Maybe there would be bystander effect to some degree, but the big problem I see with this is that they're alone and it's their word against super powerful mega producer guy. If this were in public it would be much better at least. (another thing I wondered is why women go visit these men alone instead of suggesting another PUBLIC location, but that gets into the whole victim blaming thing too)
I dont know how much Ben Shapiro youve looked at, but he surprisingly (to me) he argues that transactional sex where theres an power differential isnt really full unadulterated consent. The predatory kind that is. Harvey kind. You can be a sleaze, sure fine, whatever, but goading someone into doing something where theyre coming from a place of less power and fewer options isnt ethical. Its taking advantage of someone. I agree that it can definitely be a gray area, especially with women being attracted to power etc... and its a shame being sexual is conflated with predation, because there is a huge difference. Louis CK for example strikes me as more he struck out than coerced a woman. But I would say most women arent out to character assassinate men. Mostly this does come from a good place.
Im amazed how many women are so naive and unperceptive when it comes to guys making moves on them (inviting them to more intimate locations etc). How do they not assume guys for the most part talk to them to get in their pants ? Aside from moving abroad like you said, it just motivates me to be that much more sexual up front to prevent these kinds of potentially legally dangerous miscommunications ahead of time.
As for feminist outcries, what I proposed is that women need to include men instead of shame them. If you wanna win people over, you need to have a cause. And on the earlier topic I think that lost Hillary MAJOR points too, as vapid and wistful (and statistically questionable) as "Make America Great Again" is, its FAR more emotionally intelligent and effective. So what I say is women tell men to help protect other women and be on the lookout for it. The mindset of do whatever you can, every woman is someones sister, daughter brother etc. That way you help foster more masculine men of character without alienating them in a sexist fashion.

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Mike-

Ah, don't get sucked in by "cult of personality" mumbo jumbo. Pundits use that to dismiss politicians they don't like. Bill Clinton was a cult of personality, Barack Obama was a cult of personality, Donald Trump is a cult of personality. (I don't recall anyone calling George W. Bush a cult of personality though... not quite charming enough for it, I suppose)

The charge both dismisses as irrelevant the politician's issues, and dismisses as gullible rubes his voters. As emotionally gratifying as it can be to dismiss those who do not share your politics as suckers, it does not get you a clear picture of the world.

Re: people/chaperones in the room with the producers, well, the reason they don't have that is because sex is one of the motivations. Take a man off the street, hand him a huge movie budget, and tell him, "Okay buddy. We need you to hire a couple of actresses to star in this thing," and what's the first thing he'll think? I bet I can use this to get laid!

You don't need the producer involved in big production casting at all. That's why they have casting directors. The producer gets involved because he wants to sample the goods.

You could try to legislate chaperones, or outlaw producer-actress interactions. But there are always loopholes, and people don't generally like nanny-like legislation.

goading someone into doing something where theyre coming from a place of less power and fewer options isnt ethical. Its taking advantage of someone.

Well, perhaps. But something to think about...

Humans are a hierarchical species. And in hierarchical species, no one is ever of the same exact rank as someone else. Someone is always higher in power, and someone is lower in power. Men, horny creatures they are, use power to gain sex. Women on the other hand typically use power to avoid sex.

All sexual relationships are power transactions. This is one of the key principles deep feminism attacks, and one of the reasons devoted feminists recommend women only date women and never men. Of course, introspective such feminists eventually realize even in female-female relationships, power dynamics enter in too.

Imagine for a minute we outlawed using power to get sex. Any use of power to get sex was illegal, punishable by up to 10 years in jail.

But there are many forms of power. Economic power is just one of them.

Now imagine you went on a date with a girl. How would you get her in bed? Would you offer her a long-term relationship? Of course not. Because that is something she wants from you, and something you have the power to give her or not give her. And if you offer that in exchange for sex, if she so chooses, she can have you jailed.

Would you show her an excellent time? Certainly not. Because what if she wants to have an excellent time with you, but does NOT want to have sex? Is having sex with you the only way to get an excellent time with you? You are exerting power over her, and subject to arrest and incarceration.

It might be the case that society wants to draw up rules that govern specific sorts of power men are allowed to wield to get sex, and other sorts they are not. So perhaps job offers become illegal to offer in exchange for sex. Or immoral.

Each society will have to figure out its own rules and morals on that, however. And we can expect these will differ from one society to the next.

Im amazed how many women are so naive and unperceptive when it comes to guys making moves on them (inviting them to more intimate locations etc). How do they not assume guys for the most part talk to them to get in their pants ? Aside from moving abroad like you said, it just motivates me to be that much more sexual up front to prevent these kinds of potentially legally dangerous miscommunications ahead of time.

American culture is weird.

I'm not totally sure what the source of it is, but there is a much larger percentage of the population in America whose first cry after anything bad happens is "I'm a victim!" You do not see this to anywhere near that extent throughout most of the rest of the world. Americans are sort of big babies in this regard.

Americans in general do less to protect themselves and are less guarded than most people. They get themselves into situations they don't want to be in and feel either guilty or victimized about it later. Maybe it's overprotective parenting to blame? Certainly is plenty of that in the U.S.

Yes, the general good advice with Americans is to just be very overt and clear about everything if you want to be safe. Make sure she knows what she's getting into. And stay away from drunk girls.

So what I say is women tell men to help protect other women and be on the lookout for it. The mindset of do whatever you can, every woman is someones sister, daughter brother etc. That way you help foster more masculine men of character without alienating them in a sexist fashion.

Agreed. If your goal is to win more men over to a feminist worldview, appealing to masculine protective instincts is a much more persuasive way to do it.

Chase

Michael Boggs's picture

Few things here.
Im not getting sucked into anything. Im objectively looking at Trumps public behavior and its obvious to see. I honestly dont have a problem with his politics as much as the guy himself. Hes incredibly classless in his public behavior. Tell me Chase, do you really consider Bush, Clinton, Obama, and Trump equivalent in terms of public behavior? Look at their speeches to their followers. Tell me did Clinton and Obama make fun of disabled people ever, let alone in public? Come on. Now I dont really give a shit what kind of person any of these guys are in their personal lives, they could all be dickholes, but Trump is by far a classless act (publicly) in comparison to the other three, even with the Lewinsky scandal and Bush's slim grasp of grammar.
"Sex is one of the motivations" thats kinda the point and the problem… it shouldnt be wrapped up in this. Casting actors should be casting actors, not soliciting sexual partners for powerful producers. So having producers meeting them one on one privately is the obvious problem.
On power exchange yes, youre correct, but youre making false equivalency. Harvey Weinstein meeting women on the street, being transparent about wanting sex from them is far different from sexually harassing and exploiting vulnerable potential clients hoping for a big break in their careers. trading sex for money & fame =/= trading sex for sex. Now I understand women will definitely initiate and/or willingly comply with quid pro quo, but its not fair to call it equivalent unless they would engage sexually career implications aside. Harvey even threatened and tracked them in multiple cases. Thats abuse. Imagine if I put a gun to your childs head and said "have sex with me or else," or threatened to evict you, would you really call that equivalent to me chatting you up on the street as a stranger? … obviously thats extreme, and theres a spectrum of severity, but if theres implications, its not fair to, in principle, call it a clean, voluntary choice.
Yes women desire powerful men, and chase them. But was that really the case here? Using power to get sex transparently is different than additionally putting someone's career aspirations in a vice grip and giving them a "choice." As you mention, I also didnt hear women constantly singing the praises of Harvey as an attractive, eligible bachelor, dreamboat with a silver tongue…

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Mike-

I'll address all points in your comment.

Curious though if you noticed this contrast in your remarks: "Private morals are beside the point in politicians; what matters is public appearance." Followed by "Public appearance is beside the point in Hollywood; what matters is private morals." Not to say this is wrong - you may have a good reason for not caring about politicians' morals, but very much caring about their class, and not caring about producers' class, but very much caring about their morals. But it did stand out to me.

Let me address specific points though:

Im objectively looking at Trumps public behavior and its obvious to see. I honestly dont have a problem with his politics as much as the guy himself. Hes incredibly classless in his public behavior.

Unsure how we got to "class" from "cult of personality" - the two seem distinctly unrelated to me. Opposite, even. In general, cult of personality heads are portrayed by the media they control / who support them as classy, refined, model citizens. i.e., they are (or are flouted to be) the opposite of classless. It sounds like what you are actually saying is really just "I don't like Donald Trump / people who support Trump" rather than "I have a specific charge against Donald Trump that is actually the reason I don't like him."

"Class" is used to maintain the status quo. Agis IV, Cleomenes, the Gracchi, Andrew Jackson, all great reformers, and all likely would've offended your sensibilities as much as or more than Donald Trump. Aside from perhaps Numa Pompilius, there has hardly been an effective reformer who was also classy (which is not to say Trump will be effective; reformers do not have too good a track record of righting the ship on their civilizations, unfortunately, especially civilizations in the later stages of decadence). In Numa's case, the elites desperately wanted his reforms; in Agis IV, Cleomenes, the Gracchi, and Jackson's case, the elites wanted these men and their reforms dead (and very often succeeded). Reform politicians are rude brawlers - there's just no way to take on entrenched media, intellectual, and political elites in a classy way that is also effective. Usually, whoever tries "classy reform" gets ignored or steamrolled... Ralph Nader, Ron Paul, Barack Obama, and Bernie Sanders are examples of what we might call "classy reformers", none of whom succeeded in effecting much/any reform.

Tell me did Clinton and Obama make fun of disabled people ever, let alone in public? Come on.

I'm unaware of any modern American politician who has. If you mean the MSM spin over 2016 Donald Trump's "retarded" gesture, yes, that's how the MSM does it, and one of the reasons I suggest folks stop letting these people brainwash them. Trump's made that gesture dozens of times on camera about all sorts of people - it means "this guy's an idiot", not "this guy's a cripple." When you watch the MSM, you're consuming manufactured outrage designed to manipulate your emotions. The MSM is lying to you (about all sorts of things, not just politics).

I dont really give a shit what kind of person any of these guys are in their personal lives, they could all be dickholes, but Trump is by far a classless act (publicly) in comparison to the other three

Appearance is important to an extent, but you must see past it. There are many great men who have charm. But there are terrific villains who use it too. If your primary concern is the superficial, you will not tell one from the other until too late.

"Sex is one of the motivations" thats kinda the point and the problem… it shouldnt be wrapped up in this.

You're talking ideology/idealism. Which is fine to talk about - societies are driven by various ideologues with various idealistic dreams they try to move their societies toward. However, we're not talking "shoulds" or "shouldn'ts" here - or if you are, it'll be a one-sided conversation. I myself leave the shoulds for priests, pundits, and political leaders. I'm concerned with "If a society decides you 'shouldn't have this', is there a realistic way to enforce that? And does society care strongly enough about the issue to enforce it, or will society balk at the level of control required to separate, for instance, male power from male sexuality?" Those, in my opinion, are the far more interesting questions.

Harvey Weinstein meeting women on the street, being transparent about wanting sex from them is far different from sexually harassing and exploiting vulnerable potential clients hoping for a big break in their careers. trading sex for money & fame =/= trading sex for sex.

I never mentioned trading sex for sex.

I mentioned trading promises of a long-term relationship for sex. Or trading incredible romantic experiences for sex. Or what nice guys do, trading availability and emotional connection and favors for sex.

Left unchecked, men will trade anything and everything within their power for sex they can. It is up to society to decide what they will be "allowed" to trade and not trade, and how to enforce such rules.

but its not fair to call it equivalent unless they would engage sexually career implications aside

Only if one views sex as victimization. If sex = victimization, then yes, it is unfair for men to use power to influence women to get sex. If sex ≠ victimization, and in particular if you live in a level-headed society where women understand "the primary value women have to offer to men is reproductive, and powerful men are extreme versions of maleness, in which male traits are amplified, including the desire for more sex and the urge to use power to get sex" you no longer have the morally shocking world American feminists find themselves in. And you no longer find yourself battling with all your might against nature, trying to convince men to become powerful but not use their power to get sex, or trying to convince men to step aside and not seek power. Society must constrain man's worser natures to function, of course; you cannot murder someone for his property, you cannot rape someone because she looks hot to you, etc. Yet the drive for powerful men to use power for sex is much stronger and more pervasive than the drive to murder or rape, and it is tied to a specific thing our society greatly values: enabling men to create, build, and command. There may be a way to constrain it, but I do not see one that is practical or realistic. And it would seem more likely a society would have to be willing to give up some level of creativity, inventiveness, wealth, and ambition to get there (a Mosou vs. an America, for instance).

putting someone's career aspirations in a vice grip and giving them a "choice."

The sympathy I have for someone who trades sex for career favors, or for someone who faces that decision, is not that people face this decision. This is what happens if you have aspirations and want things from other people. When other people hold the keys to something you want, you will either provide something they want, on their terms, or they will give it to someone else who will give them what they want for it. To say "I do not like the terms that person offered for this thing he could give me; therefore, I want to use the state (i.e., other people) to force him to give it to me without me needing to consent to his terms" is one way to go about things. And maybe your society agrees with you. Such a society would have to accept deeply unfair rules, but sometimes societies decide to sacrifice fairness for other ideals. I wouldn't want to inhabit such a society myself, but different societies value different things differently.

The sympathy I have for these women, rather, is how poorly prepared they were to face the world, by parents, teachers, and the media they consumed. They did not learn the cardinal rule of life: if you want something somebody else has, he's going to want something HE values in return for it - and is not simply going to accept whatever you think he should accept for it.

Chase

Mike B's picture

Well not quite, for politicians more-so though because being a politician carries much more direct responsibility to the public than just being an entertainment celebrity. I care about evaluating people in terms of their ability to do the job. As I would for actresses or actors. Do I think sexual harassment should disqualify both of them? yes. I never said your statement about Hollywood. Public appearance is for SURE everything in show biz. And morals and beliefs aren't nearly as important as behavior. Being racist in belief alone isn't as bad as genocide in terms of morality.
No inconsistency imo. Perhaps I made myself unclear

On Trump, I was approaching it more from the lens of his egocentric/-tistical babble, and his immature behavior. cult of personality wasnt the right term to use because that has implications of government support. But citing people who were equally or more inappropriate doesn't justify his behavior. Comments aimed at Rosie O'Donnell, Mexicans, Jews doing taxes, … now Im no priss, but these are all irrelevant comments to politics, in addition to being insensitive and offensive. I would never advocate being so inoffensive as to obscure the truth, but this is far from that. if this is some sort of campaign tactic, what is the appeal ?
And what do you define as reform ?

As for the mocking reporter, the reporter was disabled according to CNN. Its not a lie. as far as theyre concerned.

Again on appearance, youre deviating from the topic. making a good public appearance is making a good public appearance regardless of your personal beliefs/actions etc.
Judging villainy is a separate issue, and would come down to their actions behind the scenes and the consequences of their political schemes, depending on whether youre looking at their personal life or political career.
In a similar metaphor, girls don't necessarily seek guys who are evil, cruel people, it's just selfish, sociopathic guys flip women's switches when it comes to signaling stronger genes.

On shoulds and shouldnts, fair enough haha, but male sexuality and power can absolutely be separated. A good test is if the woman complies willingly, whether by game or fame, no other considerations. As long as there isnt deception, its all fair game in terms or fairness. Your site shows men how to use power properly!
Men will try to trade anything, but that doesn't mean theyre all of equal moral equivalency. trading a career for sex is different than trading a romantic relationship for sex. the latter is at least much more similar in terms of what theyre looking for. Which is why society would say "things just didnt work out between them" instead of "It was exploitation/harassment" (feminazis aside).

Sex isn't victimization. As long as its mutually consensual. But this is hardly a scenario where it's consent without other implications and factors and/or incentives. It is victimization in a work environment, because she wants to be an actress for narrative films, not a personal sex slave. (not counting cases where women offer it upfront). She's not being evaluated for the job she seeks. I proposed we just don't allow producers alone with actresses for a work interaction. That would still allow for progress in film. Harvey still had an attractive wife. He would still be doing fine in life without harassing women.

And no, women serve more than reproductive value to men. Many women have distinguished themselves in terms of achievement. That may have been true 3000 years ago, and in more traditional societies, but in a modern day society with technology, that kind of thinking is reductive on a large (non-dating, personal) scale, unless we devolve in terms of societal structure, and are plunged into some post-apocalyptic sort of dark age. Im no feminist, but by your logic, most women would be unemployable, and men would never have female friends.
And if we can constrain guys to not murder other people, whats stopping us from sexual harassment? Behavior is a spectrum.
"wanting something he has.." thats fine for personal transactional interactions, but not for a public work environment.

Now we can both agree that in life bad shit happens, things dont work the way youd wish, and life isnt fair, Im just spit balling and talking in principle here.

Mike

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Hey Mike-

But citing people who were equally or more inappropriate doesn't justify his behavior.

It sounds like you want me to either justify another man's behavior, or condemn him for it. I am not in that business though, nor do I care to do it.

It interests me to make observations about behavior. For instance, "effective reformers are usually brash" or "new lovers are usually passionate" or "psycho killers are usually manipulative."

All the moralizing, however, I leave to the priests, preachers, pundits, and crusaders.

And what do you define as reform ?

Any attempts to clean up a system, such as Barack Obama's proposed increase in governmental transparency, reduction of the power of special interests, restriction of government secret wiretaps, securing of the borders, stopping of tax breaks for companies shipping jobs overseas, reform of mandatory minimum sentences, reduction or elimination of bailouts, closure of Guantanemo Bay, and removal of the U.S. from Middle Eastern conflicts, or Donald Trump's constant spotlight on public officials saying one thing and doing another / their beholdenness to various special interests; his proposed reduction of central governmental control, term limits for members of Congress, lobbying bans for former government officers, correction of massive trade deficits and bad trade deals, exportation of illegal aliens and more merit based immigration policies, return of jobs and employment to the U.S., and removal of the U.S. from Middle Eastern conflicts. (and of course, both Obama and Trump promised tax cuts)

Whether you agree with the direction of the reforms is irrelevant (you may, for instance, be quite gung-ho about special interest lobbying power, or war in the Middle East). But it is generally rather easy to tell a reform leader from a caretaker/status quo leader (or from the third type, the expansionist/conqueror leader, which we haven't had in the U.S. since perhaps Teddy Roosevelt. The majority of Westerners seem to find the idea of expansionism or conquest disfavorable at present).

As for the mocking reporter, the reporter was disabled according to CNN. Its not a lie. as far as theyre concerned.

They knew what they were doing. Throw out two facts, that are true, and trust that the public will draw a conclusion from it that is untrue:

  • Donald Trump mocked a reporter. TRUE

  • The reporter Donald Trump mocked was disabled. TRUE

  • Therefore, Donald Trump mocked the reporter because he was disabled and/or Donald Trump mocked his disability. UNTRUE

Yes, for the most part, CNN and the Washington Post and others who picked up this story did not lie, per se. Instead, they engaged in Bernays-style mass control of positioning facts in such a way that the audience would draw an untrue conclusion that fit the reporters' and their higher ups' political objectives.

In a way, this is worse than directly lying - at least with direct lies, you can catch the lie and point out that it was a lie, whereas with this sort of thing (being duplicitous/disingenuous) it's complicated to explain and people's brains just shut down. Even worse when you wear the mantle of 'honest reporters just over here covering the news in an unbiased way'.

I don't know if it's worthwhile to always say "Well, they didn't technically lie, they just intentionally misled you in the hopes you would draw an incorrect conclusion that inflamed your passions" - in my opinion, just faster/easier to say "Yeah, they lied."

trading a career for sex is different than trading a romantic relationship for sex. the latter is at least much more similar in terms of what theyre looking for. Which is why society would say "things just didnt work out between them" instead of "It was exploitation/harassment" (feminazis aside).

You are viewing this through a 21st Century American feminist-influenced worldview. This is not a universal perspective; this is how individuals who have been educated by feminist cultural theory think about these issues. (I don't know if you consider yourself a feminst or not, but these views are uncommon outside locations and times in which feminist thought holds sway)

For instance, women trying to work in and enter men's worlds in much of the Middle East risk being labeled the exploiters, trying to tempt these men and lure them away from their wives and families. Even in American society, many people view the women who sleep with their bosses as far more exploitive than said bosses are, regardless who claims who was the initiator.

I'm telling you "here's a bunch of stuff, and societies have to decide how they feel about all that stuff and craft their rules about what's okay and what's not okay."

And you're responding with "well, this is okay and this is not okay."

Can you see how these are different levels of thinking? You are still trying to argue your moral perspectives with me. I'm trying to get you to step outside your perspectives for a moment and see the bigger picture, that different societies view these things in different lights.

Which I think you'd find far more interesting than lower level "this is right, that is wrong" arguments.

And no, women serve more than reproductive value to men.

Please, do not mangle my words. Particularly when we are trying to discuss what men in general value in women, and you are reinterpreting this to make it sound as if Chase has some belittling view himself of women.

I said:

the primary value women have to offer to men is reproductive

That means dates, flirtation, sex, reproduction, and child-rearing are the primary (i.e., #1... not 'the only', but rather 'the topmost') form of value men want from women.

It's true there are men out there who say "I don't really care about sleeping with her... I just really want a girl to be friends with so I can talk about fashion and gossip and boys!" And there are men out there who say "I much more value deep discussions with women about philosophy and history than I do say, kissing them or having sex with them. If I had to choose, I'd pick discussions about Platonic ideals and the history of Iron Age civilizations with women over sex with them any day!"

For the majority though, any value women might have as fun to talk gossip with or as incisive students of philosophy, history, and life generally come a distant second at best to women's value in the reproductive arena.

Maybe that makes men bad evil cave people, but, well... boys will be boys.

"wanting something he has.." thats fine for personal transactional interactions, but not for a public work environment.

Well, this is a moral judgment ("this is okay, that is not okay").

Which brings us back to the original question of "If enough people in society A decide behavior X is 'not okay', what will they do to prevent behavior X?" And "How far are the people in society A willing to go to prevent behavior X (since there are always costs associated with additional constraints of any kind)?"

Much more interesting than the endless moral debates over whether, say, it is okay to eat animals or not okay to eat animals, or okay to get abortions or not okay to get abortions, or okay to have homosexual marriages or not okay to have homosexual marriages or... so on and so forth. Those conversations are much more boring. Then you just have a bunch of people trying to rationalize emotional positions by dressing them up with logic. How trite that becomes :)

Chase

Mike's picture

I would say most reformers have a cause but arent necessarily rude. Many communist and progressive reformers werent necessarily rude. Teddy Roosevelt reformed economic collusion by busting trusts, Lenin was a revolutionary and wasnt known for being rude as far as Im concerned. Even Hitler wasnt rude. Whether he was left or right is kinda difficult to determine and depends on what political angle youre coming from, but he did fit the role of reformer when he came into power. All of them made what you would define as reform. I think making reform really has more to do with having a populist appeal.

Yeah on Trump I guess thats true, its still something that sticks out and bothers me, but im just baffled as to how his policies could be as galvanizing as to overshadow his behavior. To me his policy really isn't anything new.

Additionally, what news sources would you recommend? what do you look at ? Ive been into looking at Reuters lately.

Again Im not backing you into any corner, its just that by going bigger frame like this, it seems to me youre dismissing them as irrelevant and therefore of equal equivalency. Thats something I cant really see.
Aziz Ansari serves as a pertinent example. To put him in the same category as Weinstein is nonsense. Aziz didnt assault the woman. Another great example of women thinking feminism is "curing" men of their nature, when in reality its another case of boys will be boys. Might be a cool addendum for discussion or an article. But to me he and Weinstein are of two completely different planes of morality, but are still both powerful men in Hollywood advocating trendy feminist ideals distracting from their base, male desires.

Didnt mean to mangle your words. I was looking at it from the lens of a work environment and value to the company. Youre thinking about it from a personal male egocentric quid pro quo.

Well I wouldnt say from a 21st century feminist point of view. Thats a bit conservative to say. Im looking at it from an equality point of view. Most modern countries and countries where women make up the work force view it this way. Women evaluated based on their ability and not relegated to just sex. Im not judging the people who play "the game" either. As long as its consensual I dont have a problem with it.
Im saying in American culture thats why its not viewed as fair because the "trade" isnt as similar in terms of what is being traded. (women sleeping their way to the top included)

But absolutely love to talk about cause and effect behavior. I was just bringing up a point about fairness in terms of assuming two unlike things under the same umbrella.

T's picture

the other day I was in a pub where I was talking in a casual and relaxed way to three women I knew. There werent many other women there but more men. I could literally feel and see their envy. Later in the evening a saw one man holding one of "my" women at her arm talking to her in a needy way (as seen in his body language and facial expressions) when she passed by him. An other men did the same with another woman. I really really cringed. Later the women complained how horrible these men behaved. Interesting enough is that I was touched by the women all the time and I touched them , not necessarily in a sexual way (ok with one woman) but more in comfortable and relaxed way (Yeah I know reaction versus results).
But the moral of this story...... at least for me:
It isn't the thing what one is doing but who does it an how. Teach men getting better with women...... and when we have reached this (at least to a certain point) a lot of problems between men and women are gone with the wind :-)

T

Author
Chase Amante's picture

T-

Indeed! I agree.

Wouldn't totally solve the problem. But it would help a lot.

My general position is that mating in a dense/urban environment is much more complicated than it is in more agrarian settings when dealing with a much smaller population and few eligible mates. And that the need for date training becomes greater the greater the complexity of a society and its sexual/romantic interactions.

I guess the one snag is if you instantly made every guy good with girls, you'd be right back at square one. And would have to devise new, alternate methods to get them, since "good game" is basically just a competitive advantage over men who don't have it. As soon as every guy has it, you get a bunch of needy men again, who will do needy things. Guys with good game can become quite needy if every other guy in the vicinity has good game too.

Chase

Cognac's picture

Chase, Hector, and all the writers at Girlschase; I've been reading you all religiously since freshmen year of high school (seriously, used to read GC articles during my pastor's sermon every Sunday).

I can't thank you enough for the the amount of insight you've poured into me. I understand that this is primarily a seduction and attraction site catered towards helping men seduce women. However, I was wondering if you or anyone else had more ventures/articles into social commentaries about society?

If not, no worries, I will still keep my eyes out for gems like these as well as click every possible hyperlink there is (thank you for that, by the way, scientific journal articles and philosophical commentaries are fantastic). Keep up the fantastic work.

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Cognac-

reading you all religiously since freshmen year of high school (seriously, used to read GC articles during my pastor's sermon every Sunday).

They're going to put you in literary jail for that pun... :)

Sure. Here are a few of my social commentary articles off the top of my head:

Alek also writes social commentaries too:

Chase

Cognac's picture

Beautiful.

Thanks Chase!

graine's picture

hello,

I've read this post, it was a long read where I needed to focus because you were writing on some complex topics there. Anyway, Im someone who used to approach your material with a grain of salt, I was always more skeptical; however, I realized and felt that I really do identified with some of the concepts you are writing here. They are things that show us the true nature of the world we are living in; not theory-work, not idealisms sketched and planned on paper. I understand as I age and mature that there are hard facts in our reality, and there are some idealistic, wishful-thinking that can be manufactured on paper.
More often than not in the age that we live in, some people would rather buy into these more...soft, politically correct, and seemingly harmless, neutered, overly sensitive kind of thinking and ideas. But time, history and actual, re-demonstrable hard research has shown over and over again that men, women, and people in general have a some base characteristics that will never change. Its just the way we came to be and always will be. I think coming to terms with these realities of life are very hard for some people; I know it because I was like those people, maybe I am still on some issues regarding these social matters. But reality and our world and our species are what they are. I understand and expect that you get attacked for putting these truths on the table, because sometimes truth is ugly. But at least its plain. All in all, I feel like I am more closer to the natural, masculine way that nature intended men to be, after reading a very big portion of your writings.
Thanks for all these. Peace !
P.S. : I want to point something out, even though you are probably aware of it. The analysis, analogies and concepts you are discussing and employing are highly complex matters that need a certain intelligence and wit to grasp. As the average person occupies a very modest amount of awareness, you might come across as oppressive, sexist, anti-woman, conservative (with negative connotations), or plain bigoted to some of the people that read your writing. If you care, maybe you could simplify your language and concept- explanations here to help them. Thank you again for eye opening writing.

lux's picture

I was hoping this article took a stronger stand against Weinstein and his methods.

Sure you CAN be famous and NOT trade favors for sex

It might be a normal part of Hollywood -although we don't know that- but that doesn't make it right.

I know Chase is a man with strong values, he could have said that he respects a man who doesn't behave like Weinstein, for example.

Add new comment

The Latest from GirlsChase.com