Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

(Sep 17, 2018 08:33 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]You're making your usual misogynistic assumptions again. That's all you're capable of, isn't it? That, in and of itself, says a lot about you. I didn't let it happen again. I went to school with his daughter. I told her that her dad was creepy.  It didn't happen again. Another boss of mine said that he wouldn't give me the managers position because I was a woman. I quit and then called his wife. He called me at home the next day and I got the job.

What did your idol say?

There's nothing misogynistic about thinking women can be adults. It is actually misogynistic to presume them children, who need men to protect them from their own inability to express discomfort. And that does say a lot about me. It says that I treat women as equals; not some secondary class of human in need of special considerations, as if they were mentally disabled.

It didn't happen again?:

(Sep 13, 2018 01:51 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]Unfortunately, he wasn’t the only one. It happened a lot.

You told his daughter...AFTER you let it happen. Did you do/say ANYTHING to let him know it was unacceptable when it was happening? O_o
It wouldn't "happen a lot" if you stood up for yourself in the moment, instead of hoping there's some indirect way to handle it later, via someone else...which it seems triangulation/passive aggression is your M.O., in lieu of being an adult.

Charges are not, themselves, convictions, nor have the accusations, at this point, been substantiated.

"You get into some dicey areas of consent when you have particular people who are okay with sleeping with a director." - @3:21
"...who apparently forcibly raped people" - @3:39
"You run into some dicey areas with regard to consent, because if you say to women you shouldn't be doing this, right, there's a problem, you should try to be avoiding this, then those women might say, well you're violating my grounds of consent, you're saying that I can't be a fully autonomous individual capable of making my own decisions, and then what you end up with is weird situations in some cases I assume where you could have the possibility that a woman goes to an office the producer hits on her she sleeps with the producer and then ten years later when it comes out that the producer is actually a rapist in this case Harvey Weinstein then women come forward they say well I was pressured into sex - which is true informally if not formally." - @3:48
"Harvey Weinstein should go to jail for the rest of his life, if any of these allegations are true, he should go to jail for the rest of his life." - @4:31
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2L8jGmttUHA

Remember, Shapiro is a lawyer. When he says "apparently" or "if", he means it in the legal sense. Because he's perfectly happy to assume it's true, but he's intellectually honest.

In describing Morgan Freeman flirting with a girl, Arkan told him to stop and he freaked out...likely because that was the very first clear indication he had that it was wholly unwelcome behavior. For example, pulling away while giggling is a mixed signal, at best. And Shapiro says exactly what I did, that it's largely a sense of entitlement, built on years of women treating sex as transactional. And the same goes for beautiful women, where they feel entitled to take men for as much money, gifts, trips, etc. as they can get without any real commitment. Both sexes have those who treat sex as transactional...reinforcing the sense of entitlement among the opposite sex.

(Sep 17, 2018 10:55 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]It didn't happen again?

No, not with him.

(Sep 13, 2018 01:51 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]Unfortunately, he wasn’t the only one. It happened a lot.

It still happens.

Syne Wrote:You told his daughter...AFTER you let it happen. Did you do/say ANYTHING to let him know it was unacceptable when it was happening? O_o

No. I was only 19 at the time. He was in his 50's. I was naive.

Syne Wrote:And Shapiro says exactly what I did, that it's largely a sense of entitlement, built on years of women treating sex as transactional.

Is that how it happens, Syne? We're to blame? For years women have been treating sex as transactional? Struggled with history, eh? 

Syne Wrote:And the same goes for beautiful women, where they feel entitled to take men for as much money, gifts, trips, etc. as they can get without any real commitment.

Boy, some girl must have really fucked you over good. What’s the matter, Syne, did you knock her up? Did the gatekeeper decide not to let your genes enter into Tomorrowland, is that it? Get into therapy and handle your feelings the healthy way.

(Sep 17, 2018 11:45 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]

(Sep 17, 2018 10:55 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]It didn't happen again?

No, not with him.

Who asked if it happened again with him?

Quote:

(Sep 13, 2018 01:51 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]Unfortunately, he wasn’t the only one. It happened a lot.

It still happens.

Have you learned to tell them to stop yet?

Quote:

Syne Wrote:You told his daughter...AFTER you let it happen. Did you do/say ANYTHING to let him know it was unacceptable when it was happening? O_o

No. I was only 19 at the time. He was in his 50's. I was naive.

Yet still the same passive aggressive triangulating as your other boss.
I'm not sure what the age difference has to do with your naivety. Did you think men at 50 didn't have a libido, but somehow still thought it creepy enough to tell his daughter? O_o

Quote:

Syne Wrote:And Shapiro says exactly what I did, that it's largely a sense of entitlement, built on years of women treating sex as transactional.

Is that how it happens, Syne? We're to blame? For years women have been treating sex as transactional? Struggled with history, eh? 

Women who treat sex as transactional are why rich, powerful men learn a sense of entitlement about sex...just like men who treat their money as transactional are why beautiful women learn a sense of entitlement about other people's money. Not all of each gender is to blame for either.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:And the same goes for beautiful women, where they feel entitled to take men for as much money, gifts, trips, etc. as they can get without any real commitment.

Boy, some girl must have really fucked you over good. What’s the matter, Syne, did you knock her up? Did the gatekeeper decide not to let your genes enter into Tomorrowland, is that it? Get into therapy and handle your feelings the healthy way.

Nope, but you just keep right on being as vicious a misandrist as you need to help you feel better about yourself, deary. Make sure you don't look too closely at your maladaptive coping mechanisms and justifications thereof.

What should I have done? Told my boss to not touch me while he was evaluating my work? I had a house payment. And the other one? Quit and file a law suit? I loved his wife. She owned the company. It was her family’s business.

I’d say it’s safe to assume that you struggle with relationships.  You probably have an ax to grind but that’s no excuse for being intellectually dishonest.

Do your homework.

A Short History of Sexual Harassment

(Sep 18, 2018 01:48 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]What should I have done? Told my boss to not touch me while he was evaluating my work? I had a house payment. And the other one? Quit and file a law suit? I loved his wife. She owned the company. It was her family’s business.

I’d say it’s safe to assume that you struggle with relationships.  You probably have an ax to grind but that’s no excuse for being intellectually dishonest.

Do your homework.

A Short History of Sexual Harassment

You have the right to set and enforce personal boundaries in any situation. Your employment does not hinder this right in any way, and there are legal protections against employer retaliation. And there are tactful ways for adults to handle sensitive situations. For example, "I'm kind of claustrophobic, I'd appreciate more space" or "I'm uncomfortable with people touching me". Both express your discomfort without accusing any motive nor giving any leeway for the unwanted behavior to continue. If the behavior continued beyond that, then you would be warranted in being more direct (again, with legal protections) or taking it to their superior.

Justifying putting up with the behavior due to things like a house payment is transactional. It's trading your boundaries for job security...when there are always other jobs, if you have a marketable skill.

You did quit the other one. The first tact there might have been asking why he thought a woman was a liability as manager, like not being able to make the time commitment due to children, etc.. Hell, he could have been uncomfortable working closer with a woman he found attractive. Or he was an actual misogynist. Who knows? It would have been the adult thing to discuss it, and failing that, talk to the superior/owner...before quitting. Or even stay on long enough to get the guy on tape, before quitting and bringing legal action (likely by the state Department of Labor, rather than a personal suit).

You're projecting again. I've usually found my relationships to be very easy...perhaps too easy at times, where challenge equates to value. Even when things have gone south, I don't dwell on the past. You're going to have to be more specific if you want me to take an accusation of intellectual dishonesty seriously from you.

Since women didn't enter the workforce in large numbers until the 1960s, sexual harassment/discrimination, as such, is a relatively recent development. Conflating it with chattel slavery is disingenuous and ignores the brutal necessities of earlier epochs in history, where women did need to trade subservience for support and protection. This is why women are hypergamous to this day. The earliest analog to sexual harassment was more akin to alienation of affection or abduction...because of a woman's reliance on a man.

(Sep 18, 2018 05:33 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Since women didn't enter the workforce in large numbers until the 1960s, sexual harassment/discrimination, as such, is a relatively recent development.

That's not true. Not true at all. Do your homework.

Quote:The Sexual Power of Women

The power to seduce:

From a young age, little girls learn to use the power of seduction to get what they want. It begins with daddy; young daughters manipulate their fathers into buying them that new Barbie with the simple bat of an eyelash and those puppy dog eyes.

As they get older, women quickly learn that a little female attention can be used to garner themselves whatever their hearts desire. They laugh at men's jokes, brush their arm with their hand and flatter their egos a little, and voila, the unknowing gentleman is at said woman's mercy.

It's not as though women plan to be this way; in fact, the power of seduction is part of woman's instinct just as it is man's instinct to protect what's his. And so, this power to seduce leads to the power of sex.

This wasn’t covered in sex-ed. We don’t come fully equipped with this knowledge. We don’t seduce our fathers. My mother bought me more stuff than my father did. Did I seduce my mother, too? The disparity isn’t just about power but also age and experience. We can’t blame or expect young women to solve this problem on their own.

Quote:In 1956, a Fan Magazine Published a Four-Part Casting Couch Exposé. It Didn’t Go Well.

1. when you have to talk business, stick to offices—and office hours. 
   
2. refer invitations and offers to your agent. 
   
3. don’t give your home phone number, give your agent’s.
   

These rules were passed down from one actress to another, but the pervasiveness of sexual harassment and abuse was such that, as Anne Heywood explained, a zero-tolerance policy was the only way to survive: “Use your intuition. If you have any doubt in your mind about a man, keep away.

The unstated assumptions of the time: that it was the responsibility of actresses to avoid what the reporters repeatedly described as “temptation,” and that women who yielded to producers’ pressure were to blame for any career fallout that followed. (“No showgirl can afford such a reputation,” they sniffed.) And the follow-ups in the series would have done little to inspire other victims to step forward: Part Three was literally headlined “Don’t Always Blame the Men” and told stories of would-be actresses throwing themselves at producers.

No one would report a story about producers demanding sexual favors as a condition of employment today the way Walker and Hutchinson did in the 1950s, much less accompany it with cheesecake photos of the women who were speaking out. But when it came to Harvey Weinstein, for years, no one was able to report the story at all. Weinstein and his enablers allegedly saw to that personally.

And here we are again, years later, with the shaming and blaming. What? She took candy from a stranger?

"Oh, he was such a nice guy. He never tried anything with me." 

Can you imagine saying this about a serial killer? 

"Oh, he was such a nice guy. He never tried to kill me."

I knew that I was uncomfortable with my boss rubbing my shoulders but that's all I knew. I didn't know his intentions. I still don't. How could I? I'm not a mind reader. I didn't even know that we couldn't be friends until recently. Like I said, we can't expect young women to walk though and clear this minefield by themselves.

(Sep 18, 2018 01:49 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]

(Sep 18, 2018 05:33 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Since women didn't enter the workforce in large numbers until the 1960s, sexual harassment/discrimination, as such, is a relatively recent development.

That's not true. Not true at all. Do your homework.

Yes, it is. Do your own homework. Up until the 1960s the US was largely single-income families. And make sure you actually read what's written, including "as such".

Quote:

Quote:The Sexual Power of Women

This wasn’t covered in sex-ed. We don’t come fully equipped with this knowledge. We don’t seduce our fathers. My mother bought me more stuff than my father did. Did I seduce my mother, too? The disparity isn’t just about power but also age and experience. We can’t blame or expect young women to solve this problem on their own.

And? Who said they agreed with some random article you found?
Non sequitur much?

Quote:

Quote:In 1956, a Fan Magazine Published a Four-Part Casting Couch Exposé. It Didn’t Go Well.

And here we are again, years later, with the shaming and blaming. What? She took candy from a stranger?

If you want to pretend that no women traded on sex, that's between you and your own self-deception.

Quote:I knew that I was uncomfortable with my boss rubbing my shoulders but that's all I knew. I didn't know his intentions. I still don't. How could I? I'm not a mind reader. I didn't even know that we couldn't be friends until recently. Like I said, we can't expect young women to walk though and clear this minefield by themselves.

Then why didn't you say anything? You didn't have to know his intent, and couldn't be expected.
Your own boundaries and integrity is not a minefield; it's your own personal responsibility. And your failings are your own to live with.

(Sep 18, 2018 05:34 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, it is. Do your own homework. Up until the 1960s the US was largely single-income families. And make sure you actually read what's written, including "as such".

Women in the Workforce

For most of American history, women silently endured mistreatment in the workplace, with little protection or recourse. During the 18th and 19th centuries, sexual coercion was a fact of life for female slaves in the South, as well as a common experience among free domestic workers in the North. In the early 20th century, women employed in new manufacturing and clerical positions confronted physical and verbal assaults from male supervisors. Union leadership was successful in enacting protective legislation that shielded women from performing physically demanding labor, but not from the propositions of lecherous bosses. By the 1920s, working women were advised to simply quit their jobs if they could not handle the inevitable sexual advances.[1]

Syne Wrote:And? Who said they agreed with some random article you found?
Non sequitur much?

It's not a non sequitur. You even said yourself that hypergamy was inherited. And yet, you want us to change?

Hypergamy (colloquially referred to as "marrying up" or "gold-digging")

"Evolutionary psychologists contend this is an inherent sex difference."

An inheritable trait is an instinct—something supposedly that only little girls are born with—passed from mother to daughter. Isn’t that what you said? If women are born with this gold-digger trait that means little girls have it. Is that what those little girls are doing when they’re crying for toys, expressing their inheritable hooker gene? We can change a behavior but can we control or change inherited traits? You expect young women (with a gold-digging gene, mind you) to change their inherited behavior and correct their older male superiors, is that it?

Syne Wrote:If you want to pretend that no women traded on sex, that's between you and your own self-deception.

Now, that's a strawman, if I ever saw one.

Syne Wrote:Then why didn't you say anything? You didn't have to know his intent, and couldn't be expected.
Your own boundaries and integrity is not a minefield; it's your own personal responsibility. And your failings are your own to live with.

I didn't say anything because I'm shy and I would have been more uncomfortable had I said anything. It was easier to just tell his daughter that I was working for her dad and that I thought he was a touchy feely kind of man. But this is about the casting couch where they knew that they would never work again. That's what your idol said, isn't it? And who do you think enforced this..hmm? Other men, that's who.

(Sep 18, 2018 07:56 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]

(Sep 18, 2018 05:34 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, it is. Do your own homework. Up until the 1960s the US was largely single-income families. And make sure you actually read what's written, including "as such".

Women in the Workforce

For most of American history, women silently endured mistreatment in the workplace, with little protection or recourse. During the 18th and 19th centuries, sexual coercion was a fact of life for female slaves in the South, as well as a common experience among free domestic workers in the North. In the early 20th century, women employed in new manufacturing and clerical positions confronted physical and verbal assaults from male supervisors. Union leadership was successful in enacting protective legislation that shielded women from performing physically demanding labor, but not from the propositions of lecherous bosses. By the 1920s, working women were advised to simply quit their jobs if they could not handle the inevitable sexual advances.[1]

"With the feminist movement of the 1960s, women began to enter the workforce in great numbers....This dynamic shift from the one-earner household to the two-earner household dramatically changed the socioeconomic class system of industrialised nations in the post-war period. " - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_t...cial_class
Exactly what I said.  

And you're a victim to presentism if you think social norms of the past are analogous to modern day sexual harassment. Without equal rights there is no such thing as discrimination in any formal/legal sense.

And an unsourced Time article means very little.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:And? Who said they agreed with some random article you found?
Non sequitur much?

It's not a non sequitur. You even said yourself that hypergamy was inherited. And yet, you want us to change?

Hypergamy (colloquially referred to as "marrying up" or "gold-digging")

"Evolutionary psychologists contend this is an inherent sex difference."

An inheritable trait is an instinct—something supposedly that only little girls are born with—passed from mother to daughter. Isn’t that what you said? If women are born with this gold-digger trait that means little girls have it. Is that what those little girls are doing when they’re crying for toys, expressing their inheritable hooker gene? We can change a behavior but can we control or change inherited traits? You expect young women (with a gold-digging gene, mind you) to change their inherited behavior and correct their older male superiors, is that it?

Hypergamy does not necessarily mean that any girls "seduce our [their] fathers". Female sexual development is actually moderated by the father.

"At least 16 studies in the last 25 years have found that father absence prior to puberty is associated with earlier menarche in daughters" - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5497959/

"Much evidence suggests that father absence shifts daughters toward accelerated development, sexuality and reproduction. For instance, researchers have repeatedly demonstrated that early paternal investment is an important determinant of pubertal timing, with daughters of less involved fathers experiencing earlier menarche relative to girls growing up with more involved fathers (Ellis et al., 2003; Ellis et al., 1999; Quinlan, 2003). Moreover, father-absent girls display a host of outcomes often experienced by early developing girls – including increased sexual promiscuity, higher rates of teen pregnancy, earlier first sexual intercourse and reproduction, and difficulty forming stable long-term relationships – with the most pronounced effects being observed for girls whose fathers were absent from an early age." - https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/volum...strategies

So yes, you bringing up your Electra complex is non sequitur.

Sexual behaviors, like hypergamy (a mating strategy), are typically not expressed until puberty.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:If you want to pretend that no women traded on sex, that's between you and your own self-deception.

Now, that's a strawman, if I ever saw one.

Again, many powerful men get a sense of entitlement because of just that. Otherwise, women could avoid those situations...by leaving the industry, if nothing else.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:Then why didn't you say anything? You didn't have to know his intent, and couldn't be expected.
Your own boundaries and integrity is not a minefield; it's your own personal responsibility. And your failings are your own to live with.

I didn't say anything because I'm shy and I would have been more uncomfortable had I said anything. It was easier to just tell his daughter that I was working for her dad and that I thought he was a touchy feely kind of man. But this is about the casting couch where they knew that they would never work again. That's what your idol said, isn't it? And who do you think enforced this..hmm? Other men, that's who.

Then you traded your boundaries for less discomfort, and you were passive aggressive due to your own lack of integrity in the moment. Look, everyone has discomfort they are willing to experience, even without an ulterior motive or real reason to. But going to his daughter shows that it was not within your tolerable threshold and you should have reacted in the moment.

And if a person willingly trades their personal boundaries to keep a job, that's on them. And they are enabling that behavior. If there is actual evidence of rape, yes, it's all the man's fault. But we don't actually know that yet. We do know that at least one of the accusers may have done the same to someone else.

(Sep 18, 2018 08:51 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Again, many powerful men get a sense of entitlement because of just that. Otherwise, women could avoid those situations...by leaving the industry, if nothing else.

Should they have to? Leave the industry? I think it's better if the men with a sense of entitlement have to avoid the lawsuits.

Syne Wrote:If there is actual evidence of rape, yes, it's all the man's fault. But we don't actually know that yet. We do know that at least one of the accusers may have done the same to someone else.

Exposing yourself and masturbating in front of people is also all the man's fault.

I enjoyed Martha Nussbaum’s work. Her book 'Hiding from Humanity" was really good. She’s a philosopher and a Professor of Law and Ethics at the University of Chicago.

She wrote this article.

Why Some Men Are Above the Law

It’s just speculation but some people have wondered if it was Ralph Waite. They said that he fits the description and timeline.

"Unlike the Cosby women, I certainly intended to consent to intercourse. What I did not consent to was the gruesome, violent, and painful assault that he substituted for intercourse. I remember screaming for help, to no avail, and I remember him saying, "It’s all part of sex."

They thought that what she was describing forced anal sex.

You don’t know what’s like, Syne. She said something that I can relate to.

"The awareness of all that I have not suffered but might possibly suffer also takes its toll. One night in Finland, while working at World Institute for Development Economics Research (WIDER), I decided to go out walking in the woods at one a.m., because I had never been able to enjoy that freedom before, and, I reasoned, where but in Finland might it be possible to enjoy it? I had walked for only about 10 minutes in a lovely forest, when I concluded that the fear would not go away, and I would never be able to enjoy such a midnight stroll, not ever in my life."

Last week, I wanted to go to the woods. I looked for my gun, and put one in the chamber, but I wanted to relax, and not worry. So, I decided to go to a trail on the coast that’s more populated. The city extended the trail recently. I was excited to see how far it went, but when I got to the halfway point, I noticed that no one was around. I was by myself. I had to decide if the joy that I’d receive was worth the risk. I turned around. That doesn’t happen to you, does it? You don’t have to worry, do you? Would you be afraid to go for a walk in a national forest by yourself?