#metoo

[bmasters9]

Here's another perspective you probably didn't consider: this #metoo movement seems to have an equivalent in match play in golf. Specifically, the late, great Arnold Palmer said it in his book Playing By The Rules that "If you see your opponent break a rule in match play, you call it right then and there. You can't save up your penalties and pull a gotcha later in the match."

Where it fits in with this is, if you feel that someone forced himself on you, say so then so the law can take action-- don't be waiting 20-30 years after the fact and then yell that you were forcibly violated by that same person like many of these #metoo jokers are doing!

 

[Frank Underwood]

Samantha Bee insists #metoo isn't about men as she explains how awful men are. Men, of course, are not allowed to have an opinion on conflating bad dating experiences with rape, nor are we allowed to point out how the lack of due process can destroy a man's life. Bee even asks sarcastically "Whose gonna protect the men?", insinuating men are never the victims.

Bee's also quick to condemn women who recognize the flaws in #metoo. Even so, men are the biggest recipients of her vitriol. It's ironic that she claims men are trying to shut women up because she spends the entire clip explaining why men don't have the right to speak about #metoo. Bee, on the other hand, freely expresses her generalized opinions of men as a whole.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Samantha Bee insists #metoo isn't about men as she explains how awful men are. Men, of course, are not allowed to have an opinion on conflating bad dating experiences with rape, nor are we allowed to point out how the lack of due process can destroy a man's life. Bee even asks sarcastically "Whose gonna protect the men?", insinuating men are never the victims.

Bee's also quick to condemn women who recognize the flaws in #metoo. Even so, men are the biggest recipients of her vitriol. It's ironic that she claims men are trying to shut women up because she spends the entire clip explaining why men don't have the right to speak about #metoo. Bee, on the other hand, freely expresses her generalized opinions of men as a whole.

Ummmmmmmmm.... yeah, that video's pretty vile. Not only does she lie, manipulate and rationalize throughout it, she herself is evidence of why a backlash was inevitable --- not because the patriarchy is pushing back on their right to rape/not-rape, but because of people like her who clearly taste blood in the water, like it, and want to kill whomever they can.

What she's really being so frenetically snide and smug about is the very suggestion that any care or responsibility at all be applied to any accusations directed at any man.

Which is the problem.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Actually, she's making me think of a slightly less-off-the-rails version of this woman:

 

[Frank Underwood]

Bill Maher's become a bit of an establishment tool lately, but he still makes credible points now and then. Here's his take on #metoo:

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

 

[bmasters9]

Instead it becomes a grotesque mockery of itself demanding increasingly insane concessions and insisting their plight is now worse than ever.

The same as all those extreme right-wing "Christians" acting like they're being prevented from being Christian simply because this nation is not a Christian theocracy?

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Heh. I love this:

"I was just saying to someone that it's so commonplace that most of the time women don't even know they've been harassed," said Andra Day, nominated for two R&B Grammys.

http://start.att.net/news/read/arti..._rallying_for_wome-ap/category/entertainment+

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Rose McGowan, attempting to be on her best behavior...

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Rose McGowan back to her usual behavior last night on Stephen Colbert's show:

This is the type of woman guiding the #MeToo sensibilities. She rambles like a Manson family member -- or maybe like Manson.

 

[bmasters9]

I never liked Rose McGowan to begin with, but especially not for this!

 

[Frank Underwood]

Rose McGowan back to her usual behavior last night on Stephen Colbert's show:

This is the type of woman guiding the #MeToo sensibilities. She rambles like a Manson family member -- or maybe like Manson.

I think I finally know what happened to poor Rose:

 

[Willie Oleson]

Rose McGowan back to her usual behavior last night on Stephen Colbert's show:

This is the first R.McG video I've watched regarding the #metoo movement, although this interview seems to be about society in general.
She says that we should be more colourful and running free - and I partially agree with that. I think we should have the choice to be colourful and running free, and I think I already have that choice (where I live anyway, but there could be consequences if I take it too far).
But if you change the norm or standard, it will still be a norm or standard. What happens to the person who doesn't like to be colourful and run free?

Maybe it's better to factor in our human nature (or flaws, if you like) and accept that there will always be a need for a norm, a standard, structure - and rules.
And that's without considering our bigger flaws: narcissism, superiority and a hunger for power and domination.

So, from the perspective that we're living in a patriarchy, what's the guarantee that, after getting rid of it, we're going to have a non-iarchy - and not (for example) a matriarchy?
Is it even possible for humans to resist the temptation and not take advantage of a new situation?

Yeah, it's me about the smoking ban again, but it's interesting to see the progress: from norm to consideration to rules to zero tolerance. It's just never enough.
I (smoker) can't open a bar for a smoking clientele because it's a workplace environment. So much for choice and freedom, or being "colourful" and "smoking free" (in a designated area).
Sometimes I think the Nazi pattern is in our genes.

But even if what Miss McG promotes works, who should be in charge of un-ruling the rules and norms? It seems impossible to do without a ruler/rulers - and that's what makes it all such a juxtaposition.
Credit points for Rose: she looks very activist-y. Emphasis is everything, I guess.

 

[Gabriel Maxwell]

Credit points for Rose: she looks very activist-y.

I must note I find this Rose McGowan, whoever she is, very unpleasant to listen to and watch. There is something radioactive about her demeanor.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

A few weeks ago, when five women on the same day (suggesting organization) accused weirdo James Franco of sexual misconduct in the past, he denied it or said his memory of those situations was totally different.

But he also added that he didn't intend to make big deal out of it because, in essence, the #MeToo movement wants the momentum and he wouldn't get in its way.

And then actress Ashley Judd, not one of his accusers, chimed in and said Franco's response was "fantastic!"

Say, what??

Okay, I don't have a clue whether Franco is guilty or not of being too enthusiastic in his courting methods on a movie set. And he seems to enjoy controversy anyway, which likely explains his laid-back reaction to the charges.

But if he is indeed innocent, then why is it "fantastic" that he chooses not to really defend himself...?

 

[Frank Underwood]

But if he is indeed innocent, then why is it "fantastic" that he chooses not to really defend himself...?

Because he's a man. When feminists say "time's up," they mean time's up on determining a man's guilt or innocence. If he's accused, he's guilty and must accept his fate.

Somehow, they don't consider that a form of matriarchy...

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

This poor boy -- put on the spot by this cow to say the things she wants him to say.

Never mind that evil Mia Farrow has managed to groom her daughter and the media with lies against Woody for 25 years, while defending Roman Polanski and her own convicted pedo brother.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

I hate it that the conservative men (and, no, I'm not about to do a Jon Voight in my old age) are the ones who are actually saying the right things about this -- albeit snarkily, bemused as the left eats itself via an insane political correctness..... not that silly Milo is a real conservative, because he's of course a shameless poser, but he's 100% correct about the feminist/MeToo junk:

 

[Alexis]

Urrgghhh Rose McGowan is horrible. The way she talks about working with a paedophile. Insinuating that it's only men that are paedophiles. It's men that cover it all up. Big bad horrible men. I'm not doubting what happened to her. I can even understand how that would alter someone's perception of men in general. It's just that she's really relishing this role of the female Jesus. Persecuted and here to save all the women of the world from the evil of men.

I guess at least she's on TV now and not only in Charmed re-runs. In fact those interview clips I just watched have featured some of her best acting.

She's also had this to say about gay men too. So it's just men in general she hates and blames for everything that's wrong in the world.

In November 2014, while discussing misogyny and sexism during Bret Easton Ellis' podcast, McGowan criticized the gay community for not doing more to help the cause of women's rights, saying, "I see now, basically, people who've fought for the right to stand on top of a float wearing an orange speedo and take molly. And, I see no help, and I see no paying it forward, and I have a huge problem with that. There are so many things to help and do, and I see no extending of a hand outside of the gay community to another community. And that's a problem for me." Rose McGowan also stated, "Gays are misogynistic as straight men, if not more so. I have an indictment of the gay community right now. I'm actually really upset with them." The characterization of LGBT rights activism being centered on drug use and wearing revealing clothing in public were criticized as homophobic or transphobic.[59][60][61][62][63] She later apologized for generalizing gay men as misogynistic, but defended the rest of her comments.[64]