#metoo

Snarky Oracle!

Telly Talk Supreme
LV
4
 
Messages
15,444
Reaction score
2,002
Awards
13
Location
USA
Yes. Either you're silenced like Geoff Norcott and Damian Green (whose respectful and astute observations about the men's wellbeing conversation being shut down, were drowned out by aggressive accusations of sexism) or there are calls to cancel entirely.

Everyone is now raking over Laurence Fox's choice of words in great depth. It's right that he should be held accountable, but it's wrong that the earlier debate in which comments made by Ava herself were, to put it gently, incredibly unhelpful and dismissive is being conveniently buried as a result.

Articles I've read have been all about what Fox said without any real conversation about the reason for his exasperation. The comments beneath the Politics Live video tell exactly where people's real frustrations lie with the context of the bigger picture.

It's a fund-raising, money-making venture. It's huge. So the faux/dishonest outrage can never end.

And the more the culture tries to placate and accommodate the feminist hydra, the more carnivorous it becomes because they realize their endless efforts are working. Like 4-year-old children who act-out worse and worse because you're trying to make them "happy" by rewarding their ugliest behavior. (Which is where the "all men are children" trope comes from -- it's overt projection).

Men won't defend themselves (despite 'old-boy-network' cliches) and women have an innate in-group preference (unless, of course, one of them gets mad at the other).

One must never criticize women, never criticize feminists, and never talk back to big sister. Ever.

I mean, how bad is the dark side of women that we're never allowed to talk about it?? (Sure, there's a well-documented dark side to men, but that's all we're allowed to talk about).

We tend to prefer women who lie and get caught lying to men who are innocent and are proven innocent.

There's a reason for that.

I'm not hugely au fait with the history of feminism, but it does (to me, at least) seem to have become more glaringly misandrist as it's evolved. Though I suppose this could be to do with the misandry being given more of a podium in recent years through social media. And I suppose it's equally possible that any voices of reason are being drowned out by the less reasonable ones.

Unfortunately, the more reasonable feminist voices have nothing to do with the movement. The radical feminist rhetoric has long-since taken over that movement as a whole (and the media, and education, etc...).

The feminist movement has little concern for women nor women who are genuine victims of abuse... Take the Amber Heard /Johnny Depp trial last year. She was her own worst witness; the jury saw she was horrible; the audio recordings (which I'd already heard online) had Amber admitting to Depp that she was the abuser; she concedes her frustrations with him that he refuses to fight with her; and her taunting him that if it went to court, she would win "because I'm a thin blonde woman."

Never mind her own previous arrest for domestic abuse of her lesbian lover. When Depp won the case, the media and feminists came out against the verdict with their usual "misogynist patriarchy" assertions, ignoring the evidence against Amber. (One women's violence shelter came out in support of Johnny Depp during the trial, realizing that Amber's antics actually hurt the truly abused, but that was barely reported).

Samantha Guthrie of NBC did a decent interview with Amber right after the trial, and it was very damning. But soon, significantly-edited versions of the interview emerged which made Amber look a wee bit less-pathological.

6 months later, they roll out Gloria Steinem -- like Hannibal Lecter on a dolly, the woman is a hundred years old -- and she offers her public support for Amber Heard. So once the queen of second/third wave had spoken, dozens of feminist organizations that had not already done so instantly lined-up behind Steinem and Heard.

Why would they do this when it hurts the credibility of women who undergo genuine abuse? Because the feminists care not a whit about women nor abused women (and certainly not children or falsely-accused men). Feminists care about feminists -- and they care most about feminists like Amber Heard who get caught red-handed lying egregiously. And that's who they circle the wagons around.

They care nothing about women. They care about bad women, and bad women who lie.

That's who they relate to, because that's what they are.

Sadly, yes.

But once you see it and accept it, you can relax. You can give up trying to accommodate it.

There seems to be this "shit-testing" impulse in women (that 4 year old analogy). If you give in to it, the women "like" it but then don't respect the guy as a result and, hence, treat him worse (while increasing her demands). If he refuses to tolerate her behavior, she sees him as "strong" (and, biologically, possibly a better provider, as is always her main concern) so she's aroused and intrigued by the rejection.

I've certainly experienced that myself (and I'm not even trying to get them into bed!).

No, not all women are this way.

But historical, and Biblical, warnings about women long-regarded as "chauvinistic" seem to have a concrete basis.

Many guys don't have a clue. And, to be fair, neither do many well-intentioned women. Because we're not supposed to look at it, the Medusa behind the curtain.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

LMLDallas78

Telly Talk Enthusiast
LV
2
 
Messages
2,067
Reaction score
6,505
Awards
11
Location
UK
Geoff Norcott may have been shut down for trying to raise some serious concerns, but it does look like something constructive will come from that debate:

I really do hope some good comes from this. Those two women who shut down poor Geoff Norcott should be ashamed of themselves. I thought he did so well in continuing to try and put his point across even to no avail because no one was listening to him. And talk about when a presenter should interrupt.
How dare they turn such a conversation round and make it about poor them, poor women.
I've followed this story very carefully and their behaviour beggers belief.

I wish Laurence Fox had spoken out not like Laurence Fox. He would've been making a very valid point with his argument, but as usual he was controversial and disgusting.

I see today he has now apologised.
 

Snarky Oracle!

Telly Talk Supreme
LV
4
 
Messages
15,444
Reaction score
2,002
Awards
13
Location
USA

Mel O'Drama

Admin
LV
12
 
Messages
13,415
Solutions
1
Reaction score
27,254
Awards
29
Member Since
28th September 2008
the more the culture tries to placate and accommodate the feminist hydra, the more carnivorous it becomes because they realize their endless efforts are working. Like 4-year-old children who act-out worse and worse because you're trying to make them "happy" by rewarding their ugliest behavior. (Which is where the "all men are children" trope comes from -- it's overt projection).

Yes, there will be people who gain an overblown sense of entitlement through achieving or gaining something of which they were genuinely deserving. I see it in other movements as well, where once an objective is achieved, it's not enough.



(Which is where the "all men are children" trope comes from -- it's overt projection).

And the projection ranges from "all men are children" to "all men are too powerful". Whatever one is can be magnified and criticised as required.

It's a shame, because the principle of feminism - as in the dictionary definition of gender equality - is a good one, but superiority of one gender at the expense of another is anything but that, but that's what it's become: snuffing out someone else's light to make their own shine brighter. The view that discussion of male suicide is misogynistic sums that up perfectly,



Take the Amber Heard /Johnny Depp trial last year. She was her own worst witness; the jury saw she was horrible; the audio recordings (which I'd already heard online) had Amber admitting to Depp that she was the abuser; she concedes her frustrations with him that he refuses to fight with her; and her taunting him that if it went to court, she would win "because I'm a thin blonde woman."

That was shocking, because it seemed there was no attempt to even conceal what was going on. The performance was so unconvincing I started to think it must be deliberate. Hiding in plain sight, just because it's possible to do so.





Those two women who shut down poor Geoff Norcott should be ashamed of themselves. I thought he did so well in continuing to try and put his point across even to no avail because no one was listening to him. And talk about when a presenter should interrupt.
How dare they turn such a conversation round and make it about poor them, poor women.

I wholeheartedly agree with you. He was the definition of grace under fire.

I wasn't familiar with any of the people on the panel so I had no preconceptions about any of them*, but the way Geoff handled it was pure class, and I appreciated Damian Green backing up his observations about the hijacking of the topic.

Ava Santina (or is it Evans? Why does she use two completely different surnames?) appeared determinedly inflammatory and provocative. Looking back over it, I swear I could see that intent even as she was introduced. She should have been shut down, but instead Frances O'Grady's offensive suggestion of starting "Blokes Against Sexual Harassment" as a solution to male mental health crises legitimised Santina's derailment of the issue. Someone in her position should have been far more sensitive



* I've found it really fascinating approaching this story knowing little-to-nothing about the people involved. Looking at a little more information, many of the people I find myself supporting hold certain values which don't align with mine. Norcott, for example, is a right wing, pro-Brexiteer. Damian Green is a Eurosceptic who has voted against measures to prevent climate change, and there are also some allegations of sexual harassment and an expenses controversy. Calvin Robinson holds some views I consider quite distasteful . Yet in this matter, each of them has been treated quite unfairly to different degrees.



And talk about when a presenter should interrupt.

Absolutely. What makes me shake my head is that this presenter allowed this travesty to happen with complete impunity, while GB News have suspended Dan Wooton for his nervous laughter during Laurence Fox's rant. Not only this but they've now suspended another presenter, Calvin Robinson, for speaking out for his colleague Wooton.





I wish Laurence Fox had spoken out not like Laurence Fox. He would've been making a very valid point with his argument, but as usual he was controversial and disgusting.

I see today he has now apologised.

Ava TwoNames came across as a Katie Hopkins type who engineers controversy in the name of making herself the news. The most gratifying part of that horrible panel discussion was that Geoff Norcott took the high ground and didn't rise to being baited. Fox speaking as he did has undone that (and I'm not sure his motivations are all that different from those of TwoNames).

If one good thing has come from Fox's actions it's arguably that it might draw attention to the original story. Even that's a stretch, though, since news outlets don't seem to care about that. I would imagine ten times more people have viewed Fox's out-of-context rant than have watched Ava trivialising a much-needed discussion about men's mental health by scoffing at and ultimately derailing it.
 

Snarky Oracle!

Telly Talk Supreme
LV
4
 
Messages
15,444
Reaction score
2,002
Awards
13
Location
USA
That was shocking, because it seemed there was no attempt to even conceal what was going on. The performance was so unconvincing I started to think it must be deliberate. Hiding in plain sight, just because it's possible to do so.

But, again, the more overt she was in her lies, and the more obvious it was that Depp was the victim, the more the feminists felt the impulse to rally around her.

She'd been legitimately caught, so damage control for the guilty (woman) was all they cared about.

Ava Santina (or is it Evans? Why does she use two completely different surnames?) appeared determinedly inflammatory and provocative

I've seen her various places (like on horrible Piers Morgan's horrible show) and she's just the smug, filibustering media feminist stereotype, endlessly spouting the usual hateful misandrist clichés.

She'll die and burn in hell, don't worry.
 

Snarky Oracle!

Telly Talk Supreme
LV
4
 
Messages
15,444
Reaction score
2,002
Awards
13
Location
USA
It's a shame, because the principle of feminism - as in the dictionary definition of gender equality - is a good one, but superiority of one gender at the expense of another is anything but that, but that's what it's become: snuffing out someone else's light to make their own shine brighter. The view that discussion of male suicide is misogynistic sums that up perfectly,

I was listening to the comments from a female counselor who talked with both men and women in prison. She said that the male prisoners tend to be much more honest and matter-of-fact about the crimes they committed (at least, after the initial legal stuff is all over) while the women always maintain this disingenuous, victim-y affect of innocence -- even in their physical demeanor -- throughout their time in the slammer.

It's as much in the DNA as the culture, in all likelihood.

One additional irony being that women are sentenced to only about 60% of the prison time as men for the same crime and with a comparable criminal background. And that's only during the sentencing. Throughout the entire process, women are treated more gently, charged less often, and charged more leniently for the same crime. We think of there being a big schism in prosecuting and sentencing between the races, black vs. white, and there is some. But it's much greater between the genders: white women are treated more leniently, black women somewhat less leniently, white males much less leniently, and black males harshest of all.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mel O'Drama

Admin
LV
12
 
Messages
13,415
Solutions
1
Reaction score
27,254
Awards
29
Member Since
28th September 2008
women are sentenced to only about 60% of the prison time as men for the same crime and with a comparable criminal background. And that's only during the sentencing. Throughout the entire process, women are treated more gently, charged less often, and charged more leniently for the same crime.

Absolutely. And it appears to be almost universally accepted as an immutable fact. Calls for "equality" can be so selective and uneven.

This story from a few years ago has remained stuck in my mind when it comes to glaring examples of this kind of bias. Mainly because it's one of the few times such inequity has rated a mention in the news.
 
Last edited:

Snarky Oracle!

Telly Talk Supreme
LV
4
 
Messages
15,444
Reaction score
2,002
Awards
13
Location
USA
Absolutely. And it appears to be almost universally accepted as an immutable fact. Call for "equality" can be so selective and uneven.

This story from a few years ago has remained stuck in my mind when it comes to glaring examples of this kind of bias. Mainly because it's one of the few times such inequity has rated a mention in the news.

Those damned Fiats!

 

Snarky Oracle!

Telly Talk Supreme
LV
4
 
Messages
15,444
Reaction score
2,002
Awards
13
Location
USA
Speaking of Fiats, something that's just plain fun is watching YT videos of women getting arrested for traffic violations -- often for being over the legal limit (but not always).

As one of the female arresting officers said: the men arrested for the same thing may be more likely to shoot you (yet probably won't) as he attempts to escape, but she'd much rather face that than deal with a woman behind-the-wheel and who's been pulled over -- because their behavior is almost always the same:

She starts out denying she's done anything, saying "Noooooooo --- I am not!!!" with regal authority to anything she's told to do, begins crying if she thinks that will work, screams "I can't believe this....!" in reaction to the arrest, flirts, threatens that she's going to sue you, claims she got a mental health diagnosis, demands you call someone she knows in a position of authority, and shrieks that you're hurting her when nothing's really even happened yet.

'Round and 'round.

And those tantrums continue all the way back to the police station.

Must be a response to all that oppression.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

LMLDallas78

Telly Talk Enthusiast
LV
2
 
Messages
2,067
Reaction score
6,505
Awards
11
Location
UK
I see that vile woman Ava Whatever-name-is has had a change in appearance and still being given air time on current affairs programmes.

I wonder if her nasty, insensitive self centred views on men have changed with it?


20231011_105008.jpg
 

Snarky Oracle!

Telly Talk Supreme
LV
4
 
Messages
15,444
Reaction score
2,002
Awards
13
Location
USA
This story is doing the rounds at the moment. She's a real nasty piece of work and should be in prison.

She Used “Believe All Women” to Setup MeToo Fraud But Got Caught.​



Thank goodness this female judge was more objective. To a degree.

But women who get caught in elaborate schemes like this against men are rarely held accountable, given a "better luck next time" slap on the wrists or even the back. The rationalization being that if such women are charged with her mercenary crimes, it might disincline legitimate victims from coming forward.

Of course, they're not usually concerned with genuine victims. The mindset that defends an Amber Heard is about defending a woman's right to lie and to do so with impunity (especially when she gets caught).

Obviously, it's not about protecting women from actual abuse, when it hurts their credibility.
 

Mel O'Drama

Admin
LV
12
 
Messages
13,415
Solutions
1
Reaction score
27,254
Awards
29
Member Since
28th September 2008
This is terrifying:


She was imprisoned last year, but there's a new documentary which explores it in-depth. I haven't watched it yet, and I'm not sure my blood pressure will take it anytime soon.


But women who get caught in elaborate schemes like this against men are rarely held accountable, given a "better luck next time" slap on the wrists or even the back.

The BBC article repeatedly stresses that such allegations are "extremely rare" and this is "a totally unique case", and perhaps - for the reasons you've said - the stats back this up.
 
Top