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

Add new comment

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