#Me Too! - thoughts on the subject

There are a lot of people writing about the “me too” movement that encourages women to speak out about mistreatment in all sorts of environments, but especially sexual mistreatment in places of work.
This is an area in which I have always been careful to behave correctly, having been brought up by a mother who often gave up my bed to house unwed mothers and who installed in me an understanding that all people, men and women, black and white, should be respected. It also helps that I work in a typically women’s vocation and have often been the only man on duty. Later, as I went into management, it was obvious that caution had to be taken and my behaviour had to be exemplary.
During this time there have been numerous female workmates who my wife has deemed as being “interested” and even “flaunting” in my presence. I have never been one to notice this, and so there were occasions when I disappointed the hopes that female workmates were having, and even scenes when I was accused by ladies in tears of “not seeing” what these ladies had done to attract me.
It all makes me wonder whether we all need some instruction about what happens to us when we reach puberty. It is as though our bodies are charged with feelings that move us in ways that we hadn’t known until then and turns men into a gene-producing machine and women into selective mates, intent on contributing, or receiving the material with which the reproductive cycle sets into motion.
All our intelligence and thoughtfulness seems pushed aside when this happens, and we have to learn to cope with this, or face being young fathers or mothers to children we are not prepared for. Fortunately, we do have structures that do contain us to some degree, and we have standards of behaviour that often, even if not always, prevent the worst case happening when two people feel attracted to one another.
So far, so good. However, we are as a society in the process of weakening these structures and protection mechanisms. The constraints are often seen as too restrictive and “liberal” behaviour is accepted - in some cases expected by young people. They want to be free to live as they want, dress as they want, sleep with who they want and do what they want. But here is where “sexuality finds a way” and the biological processes are allowed to become unfettered for a short time, only to be put back in place when it is fitting.
The problem is that this doesn’t always work. It is especially problematic, when young women do not realise how far a young man gone down the process and whether he has the ability to cease immediately at request. It can, of course, be expected from men that they are able to control themselves. The problem arises when the portrayal of women, with which some women make a living, suggests to young men that they will not have to control themselves and stop on request. It is here that the “No!” of a young woman can come too late.
In addition to this, I see a lot of young people who seem absolutely oblivious to the need for any kind of restraints and believe that the world is a garden of Eden and who are completely shocked when their family or neighbourhood disappoints this daydream.
Unfortunately, those who have promoted the structures and protection mechanisms in place, and perhaps even extended the measures to be taken “to be quite sure”, have done a disservice by moralising the whole process. The so called “sexual revolution” was an attempt to break out of confined space, mostly the moral question, but it achieved instead promiscuity, which in turn brought numerous problems with it - among other, health problems. At the same time, there are still a huge number of women who have not won anything out of this “revolution”, but in fact find themselves under more pressure than before. Hence the rise of the “Me too!” protest.
Disregarding who has the most blame for such behaviour, it is important for us to first of all know that this is the biological programming we all have. It is a fact of life that our minds have to come to terms with - and control. It isn’t just the amount of abuse that occurs, but also the amount of dissatisfaction linked to the sex-lives of especially women. Our bodies are geared up to reproduce, but our minds should be in control of our bodies and say when.

Any thoughts?

I don’t follow hashtag movements, so I had to google this one up. It sounds to me like this movement should be mostly addressed to still developing countries outside of U.S., because US already has very strong anti sexual harassment/assault laws in place.

I can see, for example, this being relevant to Latin countries, where women get cat called all the time, although it may actually be, culturally, the norm, and women may actually like that kind of attention. In the US, the men are already walking on eggshells around women, so I don’t see the necessity of this in US. The hashtag me too movement, actually should be including men, as well, because I’ve witnessed numerous condescending verbal comments that could be constituted as sexual harassment from men to other men, especially from men in power. But, culturally, this is supposed to be seen and interpreted as humor by men, and although cracking sex jokes and making fun of each other may be culturally a part of (especially young) male bonding behavior, or a subtle ways of establishing hierarchies, there is also a fine line between humor and actual harassment that may go so far as to pave the way to a hostile work environment. Perhaps it is up to the male to determine what sexual content is wanted or not.

As far as men being sexually harassed by women in the workplace, I have not seen that much of this behavior, perhaps because men usually are less inclined to perceive such behavior from women as “unwelcome”, but at the same time, I can see where certain men, especially those who’re in committed relationships (or position), and who’re unwilling to take any risks, may feel very uncomfortable around such women. Again, this is interpreted by the individual recipient as welcome or unwelcome behavior. In sexual harassment law, a witness may report to supervisor of an incidence of potential sexual harassment, but in reality, this is rarely done because there are many instances where people also date in the workplace (although some places, like military, also officially prohibit fraternization between different ranks).

I do not think that the employer generally cares for what’s going on in the personal lives of its employeees, per se, as long as it does not affect their work performance in the company, although people engaged in any kind of workplace drama may be seen as a potential liability to the employer, so it’s actually in the employer’s best interest to monitor and control employees behavior, not because it’s immoral or anything, but because it may potentially reduce the company’s efficiency. So, I do not believe for a second that a company cares for the personal well-being and happiness of each and every one of its employee, as it may publicly so claim, except that these things may improve productivity, which is the real goal for the company, and it’s emoloyees being the means to that end. If robots could do the job with the same or better efficiency, and if the company’s final balance sheet showed better numbers, I bet the company wouldn’t even give it a second thought before switching to automation.

These sensational social movements by media organizations in the United States are all virtue signaling distractions from much greater problems within the United States.

It is meant to distract from government corruption, global military imperial ambitions, collapsing infrastructure, declining (collapsing) economy, rise of homelessness, wealth/economic inequality, nonstop war, lack of affordable healthcare, declining standards of living, lack of fair political representation, dark secretive malicious underpinnings of the government, shortened lifespans (premature mass death), and so on. All of that is too inconvenient to discuss in a public platform or forum socially in the United States so instead there are these controlled hysterical hit piece forms of virtue signaling like that of sexual abuse or harassment instead as a way of creating in public discussion within the United States an illusory sense of social morality in a nation that is in all reality completely devoid of.

Pretentious fake controlled articulations of social morality created for mass public consumption and disturbingly short memory attention spans for a nation that has none. All in all it is quite sad, depressing, and yet equally amusing at the same time. Of course this kind of hysteria, public demagoguery, and social pandemonium can be found historically in any declining(collapsing) nation existentially.

It is the last semblance of ‘relevant’ social discourse of a decadent nation who’s twilight end is nearing or approaching.

I find the condition of man to be altogether far more complex than that. The cultural traditions of mankind has tried to capture the dilemma in various and differing myths and stories, most common to the west seems to be the Genesis story. I find that Jordan Petersen did an excellent explanation in his book “12 Rules for life” in the chapter “Treat yourself like someone you are responsible for helping”, whilst explaining why people tend to help others, even their pets, better than they help themselves. As a clinical psychologist, he’s found that people have a tendency to see others as more worthy, and explains that it seems that they know themselves too well because their thoughts are often very violent or otherwise malevolent. What is sometimes lacking is the understanding that everybody is carrying some burden or guilt.

On the other hand, there is a tendency to project the “evil” we discover in ourselves on to others, and interpret their behaviour in the terms of our experience with our own malevolence. We demonise the others in order to excuse ourselves for behaving in an otherwise inappropriate or even inexcusable manner. However, we know the true intent behind this projectioning, which increases the guilt but can at the same time advance to obsession or phobia. We can feel compelled to hate people we don’t even know.

There is no comparison today to the violence of the past, even in the most violent modern societies. We have learnt that it hampers our progress, but if we see no other means to progress, we will become violent. It is when people are put into situations in which they see no other way but to become violent that they do. Mostly this is done by manipulative forces, who themselves are outside of the fray, but believe they benefit from the violence of other. It that way, the condition you describe is a conditioning that we allow to rule our lives.

I can understand this coming from a man who lived when he did, living through the english civil war and being occupied with demonstrating the necessity of a strong central authority to avoid the evil of discord and the war that was going on as he wrote. However, there were those whose desire for power was restless and those who just tried to survive. Like I said above, there were always situations in which people were pushed and became instruments of others to achieve their goals.

“It is the victors who write history” is another way of saying this. It was also the privileged and wealthy.

This is true, most theologians are oblivious to how their theology sounds in the ears of the average human being. That is also true today, when evangelicals try to maintain a supposed objectivity in the Bible passages, rather than understanding that objective truth is a rather new invention. The people of biblical times were looking at everything from an experiential view and with survival in mind.

This is also true, but after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it became apparent that, unless we only want cockroaches to inhabit the earth, we should curb our “naked force”, or face the consequences. It is also true in another sense. It is violence and naked force used to change our environment which may settle whether human beings have a future here.

What can I say … ?

This is increasingly true of many people who have chosen a Huxleyian “brave new world” over the reality of existence. It is understandable if we push aside the consequences. It is interesting that Huxley foresaw that economic chaos and unemployment will cause a radical reaction in society, even it hasn’t come in the form of an international scientific empire. The reality is just as worrying, however. In many countries there is hardly any ability, let alone a readiness to protect the “brave new world” we have created.

The people who attempt to retain a balanced view are often decried as extremist by both sides, and with the amount of disinformation going about, the rise of hysteria and social media, chaos is becoming more and more a reality.

It seems by these quotes that apart from certain statements you have made, we could have an understanding.

Whilst I agree that there is a lot being done to distract people from the reality that is overtaking us, I don’t think it is the #me too movement. This is more a long overdue uprising against sexism within the working environment, most especially within the entertainment business.

The points you have made here we could take up elsewhere.

Some experience things and events in life, that others do not and will never experience… such qualia cannot be defined or labeled under the ‘Me Too’ banner.

Agreed …

That is may be used as a distraction and involve virtue signaling is not mutually exclusive with it being important and in face connected to other issues. People with power tend to think they can do whatever the fuck they want. They hide it, they lie about it. In this case it is about how they treat women. In other cases it deals with other kinds of abuse of power. It is a good trend that the stuff you do in secret when you have power is getting harder to hide.

One thing that needs to be considered is that we’re a multicultural society (or more accurately, a collection of societies) and the one that will judge you on social media is likely not the same one in which the incident occurred. Don’t get me wrong, there really are legitimately terrible things that have been revealed by MeToo, but then there’s a lot of things like amount do “He propositioned me for sex and was rather crude about it.”

Here’s a question: is it appropriate to approach a woman you don’t know at a bar or nightclub and compliment her figure? How about in a lewd way? Don’t bother answering, because you don’t have an answer: it depends on where and when you are.

#Me Too! is not unlike all the other political contraptions that have come down the pike over the years:

1] it is situated in a particular historical and cultural context
2] our reactions to it are often subsumed in our own unique set of personal experiences
3] there are conflicting narratives regarding what is deemed to be the right way and the wrong way to think about it
4] those with the most power at any given time will shape the narrative one way or the other

“Here and now” I have my own set of political prejudices of course. Construed by most to be a “liberal” or “progressive” frame of mind. And it may well be in sync with the most rational [and for some therefore the most virtuous] way to think about it.

Only how on earth would I go about demonstrating it to others? Or, more to the point, perhaps, how on earth would I go about demonstrating it to myself? Given the manner in which I construe my own identity here as in turn just an existential contraption?

Most folks don’t have that problem though, do they?

Why do you want to? Given what you believe about what you can know about morals, why would you want to demonstrate your political prejudices were correct to others or to yourself`? Why the passion indicated in the phrase ‘how on earth’ for performing an act you believe you have no idea is a good one?

They certainly have the problem of demonstrating their opinions are correct to others. They do not have, often, a philosophy that explains to them the epistemological issue. So unlike you they are more likely to get frustrated when not able to convince others. You on the other hand have absolutely no reason to engage in political debates, because you think you might as well be tossing darts in the dark at a moral dartboard. For all you know trying to demonstrate your prejudices would make the world worse. This takes away a problem that others face. So actually you should have one less problem, though you do have a conundrum that you seem to be very interested in solving. They have the practical day to day struggle going to convince others. You have your struggle to see if there is a way around the conundrum at an abstract level. One problem each.

Then there are the people who unlike you have no problem trying to make the world the way they like and do not think of it in moral terms- iow are not waiting for God NOR feeling frozen until such time they have objective proof their prejudices are in fact insights. They are a minority, but certainly an option.

There would also be agnostics who allow themselves to act in the world, rather than sniping at it as an epistemologist like you, albeit and amateur one.

There is no doubt about it that there are some who have jumped onto the #me too bandwagon although they were following a pattern of behaviour that was then considered acceptable and which is now not. I was very young when I asked my cousin the question, why she wanted to look “sexy”. Then she said “You don’t understand!”

That was right, but I also had an encounter with a girl who was a few years older than I was, and had already left school. She had her breasts bulging out and her underwear could be seen when she moved in a certain way. Naively I stared and got the response, “What are you staring at?” A good question that I was already asking myself.
Because I said “I’m not sure”, I got chased down the street, which didn’t do her wardrobe any good.

But life has changed since then and women have been emancipated from childbearing to the degree that they can plan their lives. Both men’s and women’s genes may still be geared up to reproduce, but the mind wants a say – especially the women’s mind, if they enjoy that release from their biological heritage. There is no doubt that women are differently intelligent to men, but the difference has been seen to be beneficial, although companies are still following their genes.

I think it is difficult for men to ignore their instincts, especially because relationship between the sexes has become ambivalent. Some women still like to dress in a provocative way but they forget that they are attracting (nearly) all men by doing so. Men are sometimes so driven by their urge, that they have difficulty controlling themselves. When the two meet, it can be very ugly.

I work with a lot of women, but I am of an age that renders any “misbehaviour” on my part (in my mind) to the ridiculous, which makes it easier to bring things into perspective. Added to that, I am someone who has responsibilities to my workforce and of course my family. I sometimes think that if more men could get this perspective, women might have a better chance of being respected first, and only then being desired.

Having chosen [for personal reasons] to cease and desist in my interactions with others offline, I don’t have to.

But if, like most, you do choose to interact with others socially, politically and economically, there is always the possibility that a context may arise in which others will want to know your own frame of mind regarding this issue. Or they will expect you to have one. Or even to share their own. What do you tell them? You either subscribe to a moral and political narrative which you deem to reflect the “real me” in sync with the most rational/virtuous way in which to think and feel about the #Me Too! movement, or like me, you have come to recognize that your frame of mind seems to be more in sync with an existential/political contraption.

Either that or you have no opinion about it at all.

Here folks often do become frustrated [even furious] when they are unable to persuade the “other side” to see things their own way. And why wouldn’t they? How they think and feel about gender roles and sexual interaction is rooted in one or another God or political dogma or alleged moral obligation or understanding of nature.

Sure, they may fail in their endeavors, but at least they are comforted in knowing that their own frame of mind is in fact the right way in which to think and feel about it.

I no longer have access to that. Though, sure, given a new experience, relationship or contact with new ideas, there is always the possibility that I will again. And I am certainly not arguing that because I have no access to it here and now it does not exist.

No, there are facts that can be rooted out with respect to the #Me Too! movement. Behaviors it can be demonstrated that Weinstein and Lauer and Spacey and Cosby and Rose and many others engaged in.

But there are still conflicting narratives with respect to the reactions to those behaviors. And these are rooted in various conflicting assumptions all along the political spectrum.

Clearly the consensus here and now [in the world today] is more in sync with one frame of mind rather than the other. But is that the same as demonstrating philosophically that – necessarily – all rational men and women are morally obligated to think like this?

Perhaps. But how is that demonstrated? Demonstrated in the same way in which the behaviors themselves can be.

Or what of the behaviors of folks like Al Franken and Tom Brokaw? Where exactly is the line to be drawn regarding appropriate or inappropriate sexual behavior? Who gets to calculate this?

And then there are countless other moral conflagrations – abortion, animal rights, gun control, the role of government, affirmative action etc. – in which the narratives are far, far, far more conflicted still.

Then we are back to the means employed by them to further their ends.

And then we are back to options:

  • might makes right
  • right makes might
  • moderation, negotiation and compromise

In a God or a No God world.

You choose none of those options, so clearly there are more. You
may advocate for number three, but you do not do this in the world, nor do you do it here. Further you list three does not cover me and I do act in the world.

And again, here you are talking about IS stuff, and not correctly, but with certainty.

When will you cease and desist here`? A rhetorical question. But it makes sense. You think you are causing objectivists to suffer, scaring them. You have, according to you, no way of knowing if this is good or a lesser evil. So you are, by your own evaluation causing people to suffer and you have no way of knowing if this is good. Are you a sadist?

Why do I want to? For the same reason the overwhelming preponderance of other men and women want to: to be comforted and consoled psychologically in believing that there is in fact a “real me” in sync with the right way to think about the #Me Too! movement. And all other conflicting goods.

I have come to believe that, in regard to gender interactions and human sexuality, my “I” here is an existential contraption confronting conflicting goods out in a particular world that revolves around those able to actually enforce their own political agenda.

How then is that not applicable to you?

The slope is slippery precisely because I construe “I” to be an existential contraption here. To explain to you why I think what I do here and now would require me to convey to you all of the experiences that I have had over six decades that predisposed me to. To enable you to see the world from my own unique vantage point. And I can’t even do that to myself. I can only take any number of leaps of faith in trying to grasp my motivations and intentions with respect to conflicting goods.

In other words, I no longer have access to that objectivist frame of mind rooted largely in this contraption: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

Instead, according to you, I am being “pathological” here. Others like Phyllo have been patiently “cogent” in offering me an alternative frame of mind. But out of hand I reject all comers.

And you couldn’t possibly be more certain of this, right?

And, ironically enough, I am the first to admit that my take on all of this may well be among the least rational assessments of human interactions in the is/ought world. But the objectivists [with all of their own hopelessly conflicting and contradictory narratives] seem of one opinion here that the problem is my own unwillingness to embrace their God, Reason, Ideology, and/or assessment of Nature.

This is just another “intellectual contraption” qua “general description” of…of what exactly? Let’s probe existentially that which can either be demonstrated to all rational men and women as what IS or what IS NOT.

Choose a context. Choose a set of conflicting goods. Let’s explore behavioral options here given our different moral narratives.

I don’t agree. But, again, with respect to the #Me Too! movement, how are the points I make here not relevant? Are or are not there philosophers able to encompass a frame of mind that obviates the components of my own moral narrative? A frame of mind such that their moral assessment can be construed as no less a fact than the behaviors themselves.

For reasons of health, I am no longer able to interact with others out in the world as I once did. For nearly 25 years though I was politically active in one or another radical, progressive or liberal organization. Thus the slant of my own “political prejudices”. And what allowed me to do this then was in part my passionatie belief that there was indeed a “real me” in sync with the “right way” in which to think about conflicting goods. “I” then was rooted in a Marxist description of political economy.

Again, I don’t pretend to fully understand my own motivations and intentions here. Part of it seems rooted in “waiting for godot”, part of it in this: “He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest”, and part of it [perhaps] in trying to inflict a grim frame of mind on those luxuriating in one or another comforting and consoling objectivist frame of mind.

On the other hand, I clearly recognize that if I am ever likely to yank myself up out of this hole, it can only come about by provoking objectivists in the hope that it spurs them to come up with a more hopeful, more helpful, more constructive frame of mind.

When I see #metoo…it reads, “pound me too”.


…with a fist to the face?

No. The # sign used to be called a pound sign. Now it’s called a hashtag. But I’m old so when I see it it still looks like it says, “pound me too”.

Ahhh! but a measure, not an act… but we all read things how we want to read them.

“Called the pound sign, number sign and more recently the hashtag, it actually developed as a scribble for the abbreviation of pound in latin: lb, where lb is an abbreviation of libra, itself a shortened form of the full expression, libra pondo - literally “pound by weight” in Latin …5 Apr 2014”

english.stackexchange.com › what…
word choice - What Is the Real Name of the #? - English …

Call it what you want, but from the point of view of someone my age, who has no idea how a hashtag works, it’s always been the pound sign. So the humor is there for me.