You still need a man in the equation!
As I pointed out before - you need a man. You don’t need whatever random man feels that he’s entitled to grab and paw over you. And we definitely don’t need to be rescued by a man from the horrors of waiting in line or opening doors ourselves or changing our own tires.
We often hear the following:
- We don’t need to talk about rape or consent! Everybody understands how not to commit rape! How dare you talk as though all boys and men are potential rapists!
and the follow-up (after something awful has happened)
- How was I to know?
We really do need to talk about consent, because there are people (including on this thread) who don’t know the first thing about consent.
If things were as bad as your posts indicate, we’d all see men pawing and grabbing women wherever we go, and I don’t see that. Frankly, I’d be happy to have a man change a tire, and I think it’s gentlemanly to open doors, etc. I don’t NEED it, but it’s a nice perk.
I prefer changing my own. And I was taught that polite people open doors - I open doors for men without a second thought, especially if the man in question is elderly or carrying a large item. I was taught that able-bodied young ladies ought to give up their seat for men in such a circumstance too.
I would refer however to my previous comment that that sort of man typically does not take such actions where he thinks he will be observed. And there’s a definite preference for women he either thinks will not speak up, or who will not be believed when they do.
In our area, there’s a lot of door-holding by both sexes. It’s not really a gendered thing.
And the circumstances of door-holding could be bad. For example, if it’s late at night and I’m alone, I don’t want some guy I don’t know waiting for me and holding a door. That would be concerning.
I don’t have to personally deal with him, though. For me, he might as well not exist.
In all seriousness - my experience and impression is that it’s far more common to have one single individual, who repeatedly harasses women because he’s learned that there aren’t any consequences. So for the workplace example I remember, there was only one man we had an issue with, but he’d harassed almost every non-management female worker, because the managers wouldn’t deal with him. So you have a large number of women there experiencing harassment, not because a majority of men behave that way, but because one man behaved that way and the people who could have stopped it didn’t.
I understand many actual rape statistics are similar - that one man will go around picking women he thinks won’t be believed, and will rape multiple women using the same tactics.
Franken had a stage kiss as part of a comedic skit. It wasn’t until 10 years later when his accuser decided to pursue a career as a Fox News Insider that she remembered the kiss as anything other than just that. No other women came forward with accusations against Franken and dozens of his former female colleagues came forward to show their support. So yea, one accuser with a political ax to grind and we assume that Franken isn’t innocent. I’ve always found his politics obnoxious but I still think he was railroaded as part of the media hysteria around the metoo movement.
One accuser who provided photographic proof that he didn’t necessarily respect boundaries.
Yes, I saw the photo. It was juvenile but it was obviously intended as a joke and Franken’s hands are nowhere near touching a boob. Tweeden herself was on tape during USO tour
groping and making raunchy jokes with soldiers so I could see how he thought that it was just her sense of humor. It was foolish of him to let his guard down. I work with plenty of women with very raunchy humor and I understand that it is a one-way street.
Since you don’t want men opening doors for you, don’t you think you should refrain from opening doors, etc. for them? Like you, they may consider it harassment. We’re different genders, nor different species.
The one short-coming of the MeToo movement, as I see reflected here, is the huge spectrum from violating one’s personal space to violent rape. The law draws one line as to what is never acceptable. There is another legal line between what is acceptable between one in authority (teacher, police, etc.). There is usually a third line many of us live with as to what is acceptable in the workplace.
Much of this conversation has slipped back and for between different definitions, levels and understanding of unwanted sexual advances. I wonder how much disagreement would there actually be between two people if the terms never changed.
So, what is the actual criteria that we should morally use? I would suggest that the proper level of caution, the line which should no be crossed, is wherever the person who is being approached wants it. The one approaching her (or him) should err on the side of caution. The one approaching must be a little understanding of misunderstandings. And finally, if some woman does not like that men are having to become two cautious for their tastes, don’t blame the women who are simply afraid and uncomfortable. Take the initiative yourself, if you must. That’s my opinion, not that I will need this for me ever again.
Not a good way to think of the father of your child, if you were ever to go that route. No wonder children grow up unable to love or craving love so badly they fall into indiscriminate sex.
And, you still NEED a man.
She never said she considered opening a door harassment. You’re not arguing with us anymore - you seem to be carrying on conversations with these imaginary strawmen you’ve concocted in your mind.
The problem is, those boundaries change from woman-to-woman.
Um, it’s true though. If my hypothetical adopted kid’s biological father has no involvement in my kid’s life and/or is unknown, then for all intents and purposes he doesn’t exist. My child needed him in order to be conceived, yes, but I don’t personally need him. Nor do I view a man’s ability to potentially father my children as justification for getting unwanted sexual advances.
Then don’t assume: ask.
Aren’t you Catholic? If so, then you know the Church values the family - mother, FATHER, and children VERY highly. So does most of society.
I am aware of this. I don’t see your point.