The proposition, from The Volatile Mermaid↱:
This actually comes from something, or, rather, someone. More directly, this is what it takes to defend Harvey Weinstein. Donna Rotuno, attorney for the accused sex offender, explained: “I feel that women may rue the day that all of this started when no one asks them out on a date, and no one holds the door open for them, and no one tells them that they look nice.”
The context, from Maureen O'Connor↱, for Vanity Fair:
Life in human society will provide the examples, if we really, truly require them. Anecdotally, there's a guy I know, and it's complicated, but I think of him in the moment because here is a defense attorney essentially making his point, but in a way he never really seemed to comprehend. And it's true, to the one, that it is hard to explain the connection 'twixt holding the door for someone and rape culture. To the other, I never really thought one needed to be a woman in order to understand. Donna Rotuno may be a woman, but we can also argue she's just a defense attorney doing her job.
Even still, that guy I know would resent the implication that his expectation that a woman will smile and acknowledge him nicely for the sake of ritual obligation is on any sort of common spectrum with Rotunno and her client; but his was a creepy objectification in its moment, fulfilling the primary criticism against the ritual. That is, if the reason he is holding a door for her is so that she will smile at him, or some such, he is expecting a return for his actions. And it's true, he just doesn't see how it is problematic to oblige or define other people for them, like that. And the connection to rape culture?
Here we have it from the defense attorney: Consider what Weinstein is accused of, and propose: If men can't [___], they won't hold the door for that pretty li'l lesser thing who looks so much prettier when she smiles.
Every accused deserves an opportunity to defend. But this is how Weinstein's defense goes?
Hence, the question. What would you rather, that no man ever held the door open for you; or men holding the door open for you, sometimes, because they expect a reward, but you have to be raped once in order to get that?
The Mermaid wasn't just pulling her question out of the ocean.
The unfortuantely requisite disclaimer: Yes, in fact, many are aware of the manner by which one holds doors open for other people, regardless of sex, as general courtesy, and without expectation. And it's true, most people will, under such circumstances, pleasantly acknowledge the courtesy. But this aspect is absent from point we're examining.
What is Rotunno's version of how it goes? Who knows? The end result, apparently, is that if men can't behave as Weinstein is accused, women will regret the lack of men holding doors doors or randomly telling them how nice they look.
What is my acquaintance's verson? Pretty run of the mill. Indeed, we might wonder if he just got too worked up in the moment and forgot the point about general courtesy, and thus embarrassed himself with pretenses of sexist obligation and expectation. And we can rabbithole that last, because many are offended at the idea that they can be sexist without intending, which in turn only starts parsing the queston of what it means to intend. But when we tie his chivalry of holding doors into his expectations of a smile, or the courtesy of complementing a woman on her appearance, or giving her random advice on how to be prettier in order to strike up a conversation and hit on her, well, right. The anecdotal punch line: A woman observed, at one point, that he changed the subject; he went trembling cold, told her she didn't own the conversation, accused her of trying to bully him, said if he wanted to change the subject, then he'll do that, and told her that will be entirely enough of that.
Seriously, we could ask for a creepier demonstration of chauvinism, but why?
It's also the weirdest indictment of men, albeit, what, once-removed? My acquaintance's underlying complaint has to do with targeting everybody, which, itself, was just another hint, because the subtext was targeting all men. Even still, the presupposition that we should target abusers instead of simply targeting everybody, presupposes the legitimization of some abusive conduct, because that happens to be the discussion he was having.
Rotunno's version legitimizes inappropriate conduct; the long debate over chivalry and telling women how nice they look starts with the point of such behavior being problematic. But if men can't [___], then they won't hold doors for women, tell them they look nice, or ask them out, and why does that start to sound like an incel bawl?
Still, the connection might seem hard to grasp, but probably ought not be, and in this case the confusion rests in whatever it is Rotunno intends to accomplish. But both, what my acquaintance would justify, and this defense of Harvey Weinstein's alleged predatory behavior—(as well as being a prominent aspect of such predatory behavior in and of itself)—is nearly a gaslight disregard for the people who become the subject of discourse, i.e., women.
That guy I know tends to respond to what a woman says about issues like colloquial misgendering, notions of chivalry, and even street harassment, as something to be corrected, because he knows her existential reality better than she does. And, sure, he's not Harvey Weinstein, but that disregard for the existential reality of woman is a common element, and, per Rotunno, intrinsic to Weinstein's defense.
One way to say is that in order to justify what is inflicted against woman, we are to erase her from consideration.
"Long before you stand before a judge," Rotunno portends, "the claims of a few can upend your life and destroy your reputation". This pitch, on behalf of this client, ignores history, both general and particular. Her public relations pitch is to men, warning, "There is nothing preventing you from being next."
In our present moment, though, the Mermaid asked, and a particle physicist↱ answered:
Notes:
@nuDocES. "Yup. Things that wouldn't happen to me as a result of no men ever holding the door for me again: depression, anxiety, PTSD, gaining 40 lbs as a result of those, spending thousands of dollars on therapy Things that have happened to me because a man raped me: all of that". Twitter. 7 January 2020. Twitter.com. 8 January 2020. http://bit.ly/2N5eyO4
@OhNoSheTwitnt. "A little experiment. Retweet if you would take never having a man hold the door for you again over being raped once." Twitter. 7 January 2020. Twitter.com. 8 January 2020. A little experiment. Retweet if you would take never having a man hold the door for you again over being raped once.
O'Connor, Maureen. "Who Would Defend Harvey Weinstein?" Vanity Fair. 5 January 2020. VanityFair.com. 8 January 2020. http://bit.ly/39T3kpE
See Also:
Rotunno, Donna. "How the Media Is Keeping Harvey Weinstein from Getting the Fair Trial He Deservers". Newsweek. 21 December 2019. Newsweek.com. 8 January 2020. http://bit.ly/2QC2h6c
• "... if you would take never having a man hold the door for you again over being raped once."
This actually comes from something, or, rather, someone. More directly, this is what it takes to defend Harvey Weinstein. Donna Rotuno, attorney for the accused sex offender, explained: “I feel that women may rue the day that all of this started when no one asks them out on a date, and no one holds the door open for them, and no one tells them that they look nice.”
The context, from Maureen O'Connor↱, for Vanity Fair:
When we first spoke in September, Rotunno told me that Weinstein had jokingly anointed her the “Harvey whisperer,” but when I brought the nickname up again last week, she stuttered: “We, um, we get along. Harvey called me that at the beginning.” She has since become the “bad guy” on occasion. Like, say, when she learned that Weinstein had given a self-pitying interview to the New York Post, in mid-December, without consulting her. Responding to accusations that his new reliance on a walker was a ploy for sympathy, Weinstein invited journalist Rebecca Rosenberg to his hospital room as he recovered from back surgery. He described himself as a “forgotten man” who had “pioneered” gender equity in Hollywood. The subsequent media coverage of Weinstein was unsparing, calling him tone-deaf and desperate. Nearly two dozen of Weinstein’s accusers, including actors Arquette and Ashley Judd, signed a letter calling Weinstein an unrepentant abuser.
One week later, Rotunno published a Newsweek op-ed that argued that the media and activists had destroyed Weinstein’s chance for a fair trial. Sounding alarms familiar to #MeToo skeptics, she painted Weinstein as the victim of a “one-sided media rampage,” then spiraled into an argument about male safety writ large, extrapolating his case—and his dozens of accusers—into a threat to brothers, sons, and fathers the nation over. “There is nothing preventing you from being next,” she wrote. “Long before you stand before a judge, the claims of a few can upend your life and destroy your reputation.”
“The pendulum is swinging so far in the overly sensitive direction that men can’t really be men, and women can’t really be women,” she told me. “I feel that women may rue the day that all of this started when no one asks them out on a date, and no one holds the door open for them, and no one tells them that they look nice.”
One week later, Rotunno published a Newsweek op-ed that argued that the media and activists had destroyed Weinstein’s chance for a fair trial. Sounding alarms familiar to #MeToo skeptics, she painted Weinstein as the victim of a “one-sided media rampage,” then spiraled into an argument about male safety writ large, extrapolating his case—and his dozens of accusers—into a threat to brothers, sons, and fathers the nation over. “There is nothing preventing you from being next,” she wrote. “Long before you stand before a judge, the claims of a few can upend your life and destroy your reputation.”
“The pendulum is swinging so far in the overly sensitive direction that men can’t really be men, and women can’t really be women,” she told me. “I feel that women may rue the day that all of this started when no one asks them out on a date, and no one holds the door open for them, and no one tells them that they look nice.”
†
Life in human society will provide the examples, if we really, truly require them. Anecdotally, there's a guy I know, and it's complicated, but I think of him in the moment because here is a defense attorney essentially making his point, but in a way he never really seemed to comprehend. And it's true, to the one, that it is hard to explain the connection 'twixt holding the door for someone and rape culture. To the other, I never really thought one needed to be a woman in order to understand. Donna Rotuno may be a woman, but we can also argue she's just a defense attorney doing her job.
Even still, that guy I know would resent the implication that his expectation that a woman will smile and acknowledge him nicely for the sake of ritual obligation is on any sort of common spectrum with Rotunno and her client; but his was a creepy objectification in its moment, fulfilling the primary criticism against the ritual. That is, if the reason he is holding a door for her is so that she will smile at him, or some such, he is expecting a return for his actions. And it's true, he just doesn't see how it is problematic to oblige or define other people for them, like that. And the connection to rape culture?
Here we have it from the defense attorney: Consider what Weinstein is accused of, and propose: If men can't [___], they won't hold the door for that pretty li'l lesser thing who looks so much prettier when she smiles.
Every accused deserves an opportunity to defend. But this is how Weinstein's defense goes?
†
Hence, the question. What would you rather, that no man ever held the door open for you; or men holding the door open for you, sometimes, because they expect a reward, but you have to be raped once in order to get that?
The Mermaid wasn't just pulling her question out of the ocean.
†
The unfortuantely requisite disclaimer: Yes, in fact, many are aware of the manner by which one holds doors open for other people, regardless of sex, as general courtesy, and without expectation. And it's true, most people will, under such circumstances, pleasantly acknowledge the courtesy. But this aspect is absent from point we're examining.
†
What is Rotunno's version of how it goes? Who knows? The end result, apparently, is that if men can't behave as Weinstein is accused, women will regret the lack of men holding doors doors or randomly telling them how nice they look.
What is my acquaintance's verson? Pretty run of the mill. Indeed, we might wonder if he just got too worked up in the moment and forgot the point about general courtesy, and thus embarrassed himself with pretenses of sexist obligation and expectation. And we can rabbithole that last, because many are offended at the idea that they can be sexist without intending, which in turn only starts parsing the queston of what it means to intend. But when we tie his chivalry of holding doors into his expectations of a smile, or the courtesy of complementing a woman on her appearance, or giving her random advice on how to be prettier in order to strike up a conversation and hit on her, well, right. The anecdotal punch line: A woman observed, at one point, that he changed the subject; he went trembling cold, told her she didn't own the conversation, accused her of trying to bully him, said if he wanted to change the subject, then he'll do that, and told her that will be entirely enough of that.
Seriously, we could ask for a creepier demonstration of chauvinism, but why?
†
It's also the weirdest indictment of men, albeit, what, once-removed? My acquaintance's underlying complaint has to do with targeting everybody, which, itself, was just another hint, because the subtext was targeting all men. Even still, the presupposition that we should target abusers instead of simply targeting everybody, presupposes the legitimization of some abusive conduct, because that happens to be the discussion he was having.
Rotunno's version legitimizes inappropriate conduct; the long debate over chivalry and telling women how nice they look starts with the point of such behavior being problematic. But if men can't [___], then they won't hold doors for women, tell them they look nice, or ask them out, and why does that start to sound like an incel bawl?
Still, the connection might seem hard to grasp, but probably ought not be, and in this case the confusion rests in whatever it is Rotunno intends to accomplish. But both, what my acquaintance would justify, and this defense of Harvey Weinstein's alleged predatory behavior—(as well as being a prominent aspect of such predatory behavior in and of itself)—is nearly a gaslight disregard for the people who become the subject of discourse, i.e., women.
That guy I know tends to respond to what a woman says about issues like colloquial misgendering, notions of chivalry, and even street harassment, as something to be corrected, because he knows her existential reality better than she does. And, sure, he's not Harvey Weinstein, but that disregard for the existential reality of woman is a common element, and, per Rotunno, intrinsic to Weinstein's defense.
One way to say is that in order to justify what is inflicted against woman, we are to erase her from consideration.
"Long before you stand before a judge," Rotunno portends, "the claims of a few can upend your life and destroy your reputation". This pitch, on behalf of this client, ignores history, both general and particular. Her public relations pitch is to men, warning, "There is nothing preventing you from being next."
†
In our present moment, though, the Mermaid asked, and a particle physicist↱ answered:
Things that wouldn't happen to me as a result of no men ever holding the door for me again: depression, anxiety, PTSD, gaining 40 lbs as a result of those, spending thousands of dollars on therapy
Things that have happened to me because a man raped me: all of that.
____________________Things that have happened to me because a man raped me: all of that.
Notes:
@nuDocES. "Yup. Things that wouldn't happen to me as a result of no men ever holding the door for me again: depression, anxiety, PTSD, gaining 40 lbs as a result of those, spending thousands of dollars on therapy Things that have happened to me because a man raped me: all of that". Twitter. 7 January 2020. Twitter.com. 8 January 2020. http://bit.ly/2N5eyO4
@OhNoSheTwitnt. "A little experiment. Retweet if you would take never having a man hold the door for you again over being raped once." Twitter. 7 January 2020. Twitter.com. 8 January 2020. A little experiment. Retweet if you would take never having a man hold the door for you again over being raped once.
O'Connor, Maureen. "Who Would Defend Harvey Weinstein?" Vanity Fair. 5 January 2020. VanityFair.com. 8 January 2020. http://bit.ly/39T3kpE
See Also:
Rotunno, Donna. "How the Media Is Keeping Harvey Weinstein from Getting the Fair Trial He Deservers". Newsweek. 21 December 2019. Newsweek.com. 8 January 2020. http://bit.ly/2QC2h6c
