dagblog - Comments for "Am I a bad feminist?"

It feels worse, like two kids

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 16 Jan 2018 07:05:46 +0000

In reply to I think this is good on the

It feels worse, like two kids Christmas morning trying to go through & figure out the manual for some tech toy they don't understand. No joy in Mudville these days. Just a lot of switches and knobs to turn.

I think this is good on the

artappraiser — Tue, 16 Jan 2018 05:47:15 +0000

In reply to Am I a bad feminist?

I think this is good on the confused millennial "feminists" getting outta control to the point of being counter productive to cause, and apparently there are more than a few of them; she ties it in with Atwood's op-ed:

Aziz Ansari Is Guilty. Of Not Being a Mind Reader.

By BARI WEISS @ NYTimes.com, JAN. 15, 2018

the summary for an idea of where it goes:

There is a useful term for what Grace experienced on her night with Mr. Ansari. It’s called “bad sex.” It sucks.

The feminist answer is to push for a culture in which boys and young men are taught that sex does not have to be pursued like they’re in a porn film, and one in which girls and young women are empowered to be bolder, braver and louder about what they want. The insidious attempt by some women to criminalize awkward, gross and entitled sex takes women back to the days of smelling salts and fainting couches. That’s somewhere I, for one, don’t want to go.

So maybe here we go on

artappraiser — Mon, 15 Jan 2018 05:18:58 +0000

In reply to Am I a bad feminist?

So maybe here we go on Congress:

A congressional harassment claim led to a secret $220,000 payment. Both sides see a broken system.

The payment to Winsome Packer, a former aide to Rep. Alcee L. Hastings (D-Fla.), was one of the largest known settlements paid out in recent years by a fund for claims made against members of Congress. But with lawmakers working on legislation that would alter the process for handling accusations, both sides say their dispute reveals a flawed law that is unfair and abusive to the accuser and the accused.

By Kimberly Kindy and Michelle Ye Hee Lee
@ WaPo, Jan. 14 6:56 pm

Oh, you mean the kid with

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 15 Jan 2018 00:54:52 +0000

In reply to Unfortunately, shaming on the

Oh, you mean the kid with Frank's genes - yeah, good breeding, will help him go far.

I'm not sure how much or how

ocean-kat — Sun, 14 Jan 2018 23:55:51 +0000

In reply to Unfortunately, shaming on the

I'm not sure how much or how little there will be a fair, balanced examination of the facts internal to an organization. Garrison Keillor is the most common case people use to illustrate a metoo movement going too far. But is it? None of the public radio stations or other organizations that fired him didn't release any of the salacious details. When Keillor claimed all he did was accidentally slide his hand under a woman's shirt a touch her bare back MPR only responded with there were several accusations.

We don't really know how fair and balanced the Keillor investigation was. Should all the salacious details be released so we can decide for ourselves?

Unfortunately, shaming on the

artappraiser — Sun, 14 Jan 2018 23:08:07 +0000

In reply to "In times of extremes,

Unfortunately, shaming on the internet and blowback from various advocacy groups can be swift and severe, so that there won't be a fair, balanced examination of the facts in many cases. But rather than giving up, how do we codify something new to better handle these #MeToo-type revelations before the momentum's lost

I've made this case before on that and I am sticking to it.

That: if the person is in entertainment or infotainment, what they are selling to the public (or their employer has bought and is re-selling) is their celebrity image or persona. It's their job being able to maintain that image. If they can't easily fight blowback, they weren't worth the money in the first place. Even more so because of what's going on in this internet day and age.

It's an alls fair in love and war thing in that situation; it's about talent in maintaining your image (which often means having to hide some of the "real you", good, bad or indifferent, and not getting too cocky about that when you are so successful that you have power), including when it's challenged.

On Woody/Mia I always saw a situation where Farrow showed herself much more skillful at using P.R. wars than Mr. Allen. On the other hand, the kid with the genes of both of them really could be blamed for the whole #metoo movement by attacking the whole Hollywood castle of P.R. So there's quite a Pandora's box there to mine!

The situation with an elected politician is similar insofar as a vote can be equated with willing payment of dollars. Which admittedly isn't always the case. But suffice it to say if one can't easily convince his/her constituents dismiss (any kind of, not just sexual) smears as ridiculous, might be better off resigning rather than go through some process.

Otherwise I agree 100% with Miz Atwood and you.

And I adore this line:

"In times of extremes, extremists win."

Just in case any of her feminist fans got the wrong idea what her books are all about: this is it in a nutshell.

From Seth Abramson: "at the

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 14 Jan 2018 11:32:52 +0000

In reply to Am I a bad feminist?

From Seth Abramson: "at the *same time* Trump was telling American voters in October 2016 that he was being falsely accused, he was secretly paying the women off via his lawyers."

Dozens of women, I think. The voters should have known, even as the original complaints should have received greater attention and proper remedy. As Weinstwin already showed, much of this is covered up with a combo of moolah and vindictive appropriately-titled private dicks.

"In times of extremes,

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 14 Jan 2018 08:39:00 +0000

In reply to Am I a bad feminist?

"In times of extremes, extremists win." I'm reminded of something I read about the time around Saladin and how a particular sect or leader pushed all the boundaries, destroying what was a fairly equitable system for the times - kind of like the new GOP & Tea Party & what-not always playing chicken and destruct and so on. Building up a sustainable "mediocrity", or finely balanced & sustainable but visionary system is quite the feat. And yes, with these memes-du-jour, they either take the world by storm or get quickly shoved back in the bottle or some unappealing combination of both - the lessons learned are often the purity tests of the fully committed, rather than the more finely tuned hedged bet that most people are agreeable to. Instead of for example #MeToo focusing on a carefully crafted definition of 1 set of easily understandable and horrific problems we want to go away, some would like it to become a 23-course smörgåsbord covering all relationships of the sexes.
The Woody Allen-Mia Farrow thing is back in the news, with actresses (okay, "actors") regretting making movies with him. I'm incredulous - here was a case ripe for abuse - 2 vain neurotic often-unfaithful moving pictures types going through a painful splitup (not even divorce, not even move out as the maintained separate homes), and we have a convenient "child molestation" event in the middle of a custody dispute, taking place quickly during a visitation, like "I'm going to go see my 7-year-old adopted kid for an hour before the judge rules and run up to an attic that I'm squeamish about with her and have some weird momentary playing in her panties, and then go back to my girlfriend/ex's 19-year-old adopted daughter that all this blowup's about and have lunch at the 21 Club". Who knows, he's weird enough that it might have happened like this, but he & new girlfriend are still together after nearly 30 years with nothing similar reported (unless Hollywood's hushing it up again?) so maybe it was made up but Dylan thinks it happened anyway - and maybe we just don't know. But instead of ignoring Dylan Farrow for another 20 years, the pendulum swings the other way and it'll be blasting Woody for the rest of his life (as if he really cares - he needs 5 people to make a film, and isn't part of the studio scene).

And that's much of the problem with all this - we frequently don't know, and while a tribunal/investigation might tell us something, it might not - so #MeToo becomes useful when freeing up the barriers to safely report possibly verifiable wrongdoing, possibly unconfirmable wrongdoing, possily still made up wrongdoing. There's no way to be certain women will be truthful - just ask Kellyanne - or not - but making sure they're not just automatically blackballed and get some kind of hearing of their side of the story would be fair.

Unfortunately, shaming on the internet and blowback from various advocacy groups can be swift and severe, so that there won't be a fair, balanced examination of the facts in many cases. But rather than giving up, how do we codify something new to better handle these #MeToo-type revelations before the momentum's lost?