Printable View
fair enough, I just think it was too blatant and too high-profile to let him carry onQuote:
Originally Posted by HCZ_Reborn
and btw I'm in no way blind to how these things can in other circumstances get out of hand - there's a play called 'Oleanna' by Daivd Mamet which looks at exactly that, a college professer who puts his arm around a student when she's crying and ends up losing his job - I'm absolutely not in favour of that kind of thing, there has to be some kind of balance
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac76
See for me whether something is high profile or not is in of itself not a relevant consideration. However it can be helpful in determining whether this was a one off act of idiocy or whether it forms a pattern of behaviour. Now I would expect that if it was a deliberate act, that this would not have been his debut. One simply because of the sheer size of the event and two when considering the pathology of those who prey on women, it’s not something one simply takes up as an activity in their forties…they’d have a history of dodgy behaviour. Something even if it wasn’t known about wouldn’t take a half decent journalist much to uncover, from arse grabbing to unsolicited dick pics to being stalkerish….yet nothing has emerged on Rubiales which is why I feel more inclined to believe that this wasn’t sexually motivated.
In some ways it’s kind of why I think the feminist demand for boys to be better socialised is whilst well meaning essentially pissing into the wind. Not only that but I think it makes the fundamental mistake of believing it’s supported by male peers. I think most offenders know full well that what they are doing is wrong, they just think their own need for gratification outweighs any consideration of right and wrong.
The idea that it’s about power is oversold as well, the idea that women need to be put back in their place. If that was the case you’d find that Middle Aged women more likely to be in high power positions would be targeted for sexual assault, but in the vast majority of cases the victim is young and therefore it is about sexual desire.
Of course there are cultural factors, the attitude towards women in countries like India is derived from it being a society where male children enjoy higher status than their female counterparts. The Ripper case showed how attitudes towards women in this country was pretty poor, yes some of the victims were sex workers but not all of them but it shouldn’t have made their killings any less heinous in any event.
And I do think there’s something to this rise of Neo-Misogyny embodied by scumbags like Andrew Tate, though I think there’s a lot of barking up the wrong tree with Incels and often a lot of violent offenders are wrongly linked with the incel movement (Jake Davidson for instance).
But I think the main problem is that we think we’ve settled the matter of nature vs nurture in favour of the latter and that we can create a society where no man would ever try to rape a woman and I think that’s selling a lie. As long as there are people there will be evil behaviour.
Anyway that’s my miniature thesis on the subject
it's totally relevant because it can set a precedentQuote:
Originally Posted by HCZ_Reborn
if a popular celebrity wears a particularly distinctive hat on TV, the next day the hat sells out online - it's cause and effect
But as I’ve said it’s not a situation that immediately lends itself to replication, it’s not the same as playing grab arse in the stationery cupboard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac76
Though I have been out of touch with the regular office situation, maybe handing out medals is a monthly ceremony in many work places
and i've tried to explain that it would still be relevant to that scenario because it's still someone at work forcing themself on a woman and feeling safer in doing so in the knowledge that someone went unpunished with doing it on international TV - or, as it stands, felling less confident in doing so because they have seen there can be consequencesQuote:
Originally Posted by HCZ_Reborn
And as I’ve explained, I find that to be tenuous at best. I’ll explain why. Assuming that people decided that kissing a woman and claiming it was a momentary lapse…what possible scenario could make it akin to that situation. There would have to be a scenario equivalent to celebrating a major trophy win to make it even remotely plausible. “Our monthly sales figures were up and in the moment I lost my head”Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac76
I also note you’re using the same “forced himself on her” line, now I put to you a scenario in which two people went on a date and guy kisses a girl who pulls away and says she’s not interested. Now I originally asked if you said that was sexual assault and you said no. But surely using your logic any situation where a man kisses a woman or even embraces a woman without explicit consent counts as forcing himself on her?
Also not to labour the point but even supposing your wildly unfeasible scenario is right and that if Rubiales hadn’t been a tit, had apologised and kept his job would have led to an epidemic of men kissing women and saying “oh I just was caught up in the moment”. Realistically it’s really only something you could get away with once, and as I’ve already explained about sexual predators…once is never enough
If you're saying what someone does publicly has no effect on others' behaviour, then you are at odds with the entire adverting industry, which spends millions on celebrities because they have countless studies which show that the public will copy their behaviourQuote:
Originally Posted by HCZ_Reborn
no I'm not saying every man will use it to their advantage but some, perhaps subconsciously, would
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac76
Maybe actually read what I’m saying. I’m saying the idea of anyone profiting from trying to repeat the behaviour and the excuse for it is incredibly slim…because it’s not something that can be plausibly emulated on a smaller scale. The conditions governing it are completely unique
you don't seem to be able to able to grasp it's the principle of the thingQuote:
Originally Posted by HCZ_Reborn
The context can make a difference - e.g. your date example - but not in situations where a man grabs a colleague in the stationary cupboard - whether or not they are in public, the principle is the same - a work colleague acting inappropriately
either we are soft on such behaviour, therefoer perpetuating it, or we make clear it's not acceptable
anyway whatever, you clearly don't get it so i give up :shrug:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac76
But for you context is only important when it suits your narrative
And you ignore that the context of winning a World Cup and the jubilation that brings cannot simply be replicated in the work place. I think context is important because what happened bears no resemblance to a work place groping
And I disagree, if you just make examples out of people, it just leads to men thinking they are going to be treated unfairly and the minority of those men who are dick heads just head up this new misogyny movement I referred to. These things don’t arise in a vacuum, it’s usually a response to puritanical campaigns that pay no heed to context, that demand blood.
There’s no principle at stake with what I’ve said. If Rubiales had publicly apologised it wouldn’t have created the impression that men can get away with it. Because in the ordinary work place there’s simply going to be nothing that by comparison recreates the conditions under which Rubiales kissed Hermoso…so it has no function as a get out of jail card.
In fact the only thing at risk is for people like yourself getting that warm instant gratification from retribution