Or you can just not be an asshole.
Well, that's pretty unreasonable! This is the Internet, after all.Or you can just not be an asshole.
If I had been on that plane asleep in place of Tweeden, with Franken's nose in contact with the crotch of my pants, should I have felt violated? Seeing a photo of such down the line would have likely made me laugh.
That false equivalence in an argument against some holding of men's behavior to account, predates the Kennedy administration (It was explicit, for example, in some of the public reaction around Clinton/Lewinsky).Because I am all well and fine with the idea that heterosexual men now think someone going down on them is some manner of violation, but when did this happen? I mean, I get it, but what and when was the transition?
That false equivalence in an argument against some holding of men's behavior to account, predates the Kennedy administration (It was explicit, for example, in some of the public reaction around Clinton/Lewinsky).
So does the flip take of the faux projection, that not holding men's behavior to account implies consent - more central, in that context.
Not for me. It's long familiar - as a reflex or reactionary take - when encountered, and a manifestation of a solid and well-established habit or pattern of reactionary response in several arenas.Honestly, Iceaura, it's a twenty-first century thing, for me.
I can't force you to read in good faith. Suggestion: when you find yourself typing the word "bawl", recheck your presumptions - odds are you're tripping over them, and face-planting again.Y'know, since you want to bawl about false equivalence.
Start making sense, dude. Find something to say.
Or you could, ooohh I don't know... Stop being an idiot?OK, I'm convinced by our two bu, ooops, sorry members re women's rights, sexual harrassment etc etc. And I'll promise to do my best to achieve all that this momentous movement believes it should achieve.... I will
[1] Make an effort to contact all women who have ever been "wolf whistled" over the last 60 years or so to bring charges to bear against those that so terribly harrassed them.
[2] , Contact all women who have ever had a bloke "perve" in their direction, to bring charges against those evil blokes that perpetrated such a crime.
[3] I will promise to cease standing up in a bus for anyone of female gender.
[4] I will promise never again to let any women before me in any shopping checkout queue.
[5[ I will cease to attempt to help any women who is carrying a load of grocies or whatever.
Why are you so hung up on the myth of false accusations when they are exceedingly rare?[6]I will make every effort to change laws so that to make sure any women who has been shown to have unjustly accused any man of sexual harrassment, to automatically receive whatever sentence that the man they accused would have received.eg: life imprisonment for rape or as applies in some places, the death penalty.
What the hell kind of person are you? Who the hell advocates for not allowing life saving treatment for women for any reason?[7] I will make efforts to see the laws change that will prevent any male person that is part of the Surf life Saving orginisation, to be prevented from rescuing any women in distress and to be able to give any form of ressucitation to that person, that involves mouth to mouth contact and/or the pumping of the chest [breasts] for obvious reasons.
What you seem to be missing is that the context of the image does not put Franken in the role of sexual performer, but as comedic poser. If I or Tweeden would have awoke during the incident, it would’ve been to a scene of Franken striking up a pose of mock sexual intent, being witnessed by his fellow travelers on the plane and a photographer. It’s not as if a hidden camera caught Franken in the act of secretly obtaining sexual gratification at the expense of an unconscious victim. He was obviously playing to a live audience, and an extended one by virtue of the photo.The idea of laughing at a photo of Franken as a sexual subordinate to you has what to do with a photo of Franken groping a woman without consent?
We are talking about a man who groped women's backsides during photo-op's, even when at least one's spouse was taking the photo..What you seem to be missing is that the context of the image does not put Franken in the role of sexual performer, but as comedic poser. If I or Tweeden would have awoke during the incident, it would’ve been to a scene of Franken striking up a pose of mock sexual intent, being witnessed by his fellow travelers on the plane and a photographer. It’s not as if a hidden camera caught Franken in the act of secretly obtaining sexual gratification at the expense of an unconscious victim. He was obviously playing to a live audience, and an extended one by virtue of the photo.
Speaking of that live audience, are they complicit in allowing Franken to commit this heinous act with apparent impunity?
Do you really think that Franken is stupid enough to intentionally commit a sexual assault and at the same time invite others present to visually and photographically document the offense? And provide the “victim” evidence to punish him?
Not for me. It's long familiar - as a reflex or reactionary take - when encountered, and a manifestation of a solid and well-established habit or pattern of reactionary response in several arenas.
Go back to the noise around Clinton's impeachment, the arena that included the context of the feminist critiques of the larger culture that had almost mainstreamed (from the 70s, 80s) by then, and you'll find that thing in it - explicitly. The men who had come up against Mary Daly et al inspiration in their college surroundings, say, reacting in bafflement.
I can't force you to read in good faith. Suggestion: when you find yourself typing the word "bawl", recheck your presumptions - odds are you're tripping over them, and face-planting again.
So does the flip take of the faux projection, that not holding men's behavior to account implies consent - more central, in that context.
Surely you are not saying "if I consent to it, all women should consent to it?" That fails immediately.If I had been on that plane asleep in place of Tweeden, with Franken's nose in contact with the crotch of my pants, should I have felt violated? Seeing a photo of such down the line would have likely made me laugh.
How do you know?It’s not as if a hidden camera caught Franken in the act of secretly obtaining sexual gratification at the expense of an unconscious victim.
Or alternatively you could start acting responsibly and not like some cheap fanatical feminazi?Or you could, ooohh I don't know... Stop being an idiot?
And as others have insinuated, a liar as well.Because of your avid support of rape culture. I guess it shows exactly how you view women, eh Paddoboy?
Certainly not when all you are spouting is emotional fucking garbage.I could go on and on, but I doubt you'd bother to read or pay attention.
And I'm claiming that the context of symptoms and baseline was more or less identical in its (pre-internet etc) arena, the context of that "argument" being the reaction to the feminist establishment of a reality of coerced silence hiding the mechanisms of oppression in plain sight (with un-requested blow jobs the specific example fairly frequently), and the "well then men are raped too if that's what you're trying to say" schtick in all its unreality was a reflex anyone surrounded by this discussion would have encountered.But the difference in implications about the behavior in contexts of symptom or baseline is tremendous.
The only real difference in the context is the political arena - the big, shallow, noise. That aspect you treat with contempt and pejoratives in others? - it's what you're leaning on.And now it's an identity movement. I don't disagree that it exists in history; virtually all of it does. But this also seems a different context.
Trump. Is. Not. New.The attitudes our conservative neighbors wanted us to believe weren't representative of anything significant, for instance, except then they went and elected it, so, yeah, we know it's not merely a few bad seeds and crazy uncles or whatever
Read, comprehend, grow up. Or at least get up. The mud on your face was not thrown.—#startmakingsense
Because, as we all know, responsible people are far more expensive.Or alternatively you could start acting responsibly and not like some cheap fanatical feminazi?![]()
Authoritarians will always be able to find - or invent - some bullshit excuse for their impositions. Whoever ostensibly provided the one they latch unto is not in the least to blame.What effect did this irresponsible abuse of power have? Well when finally Labour was ousted from Power, and the conservative Liberals were elected, they used the excuse of the abuse of power by a small section of the Union movement, to implement draconian, rules and regulations to reign in the renegade Unions involved, but also the vast majority of moderate Unions and members.
So my citing rape statistics makes me a feminazi?Or alternatively you could start acting responsibly and not like some cheap fanatical feminazi
Well we have all caught you out in some doozies of lies, paddoboy, such as when you threw your hissy fit, accused staff of random things that were provably false and then returned with some weird excuses that no one believed.And as others have insinuated, a liar as well.
What emotional garbage, paddoboy?Certainly not when all you are spouting is emotional fucking garbage.
Bye Bells, you take it easy OK?
What?So I raised the question that is being tossed around in this thread. She wisely compared the extremism of some feminazis within the good, necessary, and rightious cause that is the present day feminist movement, with the rise of Unionism in Australia during the fities and sixties, and how sections of the union movement became drunk with power, particularly with a rightly simpathetic Whitlam Labor government in power. While much was rightfully and deservedly achieved with such things as the 35hr week and wage increases, particularly with my own Union the AMWU, others started to use the strike weapon beyond all reasonable application...Unions such as the BLF for example...and even my own Union in certain aspects. What effect did this irresponsible abuse of power have?
No, as you well know, what you site as sexual harrassment, makes you a feminazi! If the cap fits wear it.So my citing rape statistics makes me a feminazi?
The emotional garbage that generally is filling all your posts and the suggestion that a wolf whistle is sexual harrassment.What emotional garbage, paddoboy?
Wrong again. The Petro-Chemical industry was the first to achieve it and then the Chemical Industry next, both in the seventies. I was working in the Chemical Industry with ICI and was a delegate. Then the AMWU as a whole, and Australia wide, made it a general condition in working place agreements in 1980.Wait, are you attempting to suggest that the "35 hour work week" was implemented during the Whitlam Goverment? Because that did not start to happen here until the early 2000's on average.
Again your reading comprehension skills seem faulty. I mentioned the BLF, remember? and said sections of the union movement, Even the most radical unions today recognise that fact.So when you opine that unions "started to use strike weapon beyond all reasonable application", you completely ignore history and set a completely incorrect and misleading narrative.
Wrong again...Are you having trouble reading? It was the elderly lady the former magestrate who equated it. Another women among the others I raised that differ from you and your feminazi views.Not to mention your attempts to badly equate this with the fight for women's rights is frankly obscene.
It's certainly a form of harassment that is undoubtedly sexual in nature. Not all forms of unethical behavior are or should be illegal. You have a right to express yourself. But, what do you expect to happen? That she should acknowledge your complete lack of effort to know her and be happy that you chose to, in effect, grunt with arousal in her presence?the suggestion that a wolf whistle is sexual harrassment