It's time we put a stop to people sticking their noses into people's lives. And it's high time we stopped this dreadful notion that anonymous snitching on others is to be welcome. Anonymity shouldn't be allowed! If the person is so sure they're right, then they don't mind if those they are interfering with know who they are. We all have a right to know who has said or done what without our knowledge and come back at them and tell our side of the story. If you can't know who the person is, then you're undermining other laws, such as our right to defend ourselves from slander, defamation and character assassination. We have the right to hold those who commit this violation of our rights responsible for attacking our reputation with lies and fabrications. Otherwise, the society we're living in is as bad as the Nazi era or Eastern Europe under the Communists.
And, indeed you're doing it again in relation to Christmas office parties. I recently happened upon an article about this new legislation about workplace socials here.
Suppose someone anonymously and, most likely erroneously, claims they saw sexual harassment when they didn't. In their heads they think they did but people are not that reliable. This is especially true when they have, most likely, been drinking alcohol at a party or indeed anywhere else. People get things wrong most of the time especially if they're up to something. Therefore, there should be no third parties involved unless both the people concerned agree to such a system.
On closer inspection in recent years, these 'Me Too' style accusations never seem to be well meaning and can even be based on prejudice that the accuser themselves holds.
An example of this can be seen when a female accused Weinstein of non-consensual sex (rape). But she had plenty of time to leave the hotel room while he was in the bathroom. She then falsely believes Weinstein was, to her disgust, not perfectly endowed suspecting he's intersex/deformed and imagining he has female parts. That should have been enough to throw the case out. She's clearly displaying prejudice and antisemitism. Even to the point of saying his actions were crimes against humanity. What on earth is she on about? She's clearly unreliable showing that eyewitness testimony is seriously flawed.
Furthermore, ironically, she was brought up in an evangelical Christian cult so why, one may reasonably ask, is she having sex outside marriage? Surely she had a get-out clause. She only had to say: I'm a highly Orthodox Christian so I believe sex is only allowed within marriage. Instead she quotes some Harvard Journal of Psychiatry that her fear immobilised her. (I thought she was an actress not a psychiatrist.) At some point she has had a nervous breakdown, according to records, so she's even more unreliable. What happened to the natural response of flight or flight? The brain doesn't assess in a panic situation. It just responds. If she's worried about his strength it's best she doesn't marry a man because, on her theory, she's always going to be weaker than her husband, therefore constantly under threat from him and misinterpreting his actions.
I think the woman is displaying clear antisemitism and the case should never have even been taken to court in the first place. It's time to stop these women's fabrications.
Prior to this occasion, which was just a breakfast meeting in a hotel which she starts off with a row in reception so embarrassing him, she admits to wanting a relationship with him. But she's a good Christian woman, isn't she? So why does she want a relationship with a married man? That doesn't make sense. Having embarrassed Weinstein with the row in reception not surprisingly he wants to go somewhere more private hence, they go to his hotel room. So he wasn't wrong to assume she wants to have sex with him if she admits she wants a relationship. Men are faster off the mark than women who dither around more.
Besides, many of these women signed a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) with Weinstein which must always hold true. You should not be allowed to break this agreement, otherwise it's only a temporary one because someone at some point can twist your arm to break it. That's not on. If you don't agree with it, don't sign it. Surely you should never be allowed to disclose the NDA without express agreement from the person you have the agreement with. And courts should uphold the NDA's unless it's between an individual and a public institution that is there providing a public service and, therefore, should never have asked for one.
NDA's with enormous institutions such as, universities, should not be asking for them and those you should be allowed to break if you deem it necessary for the public good or to defend yourself because they exist for the public good. Weinstein isn't there for the public good he's there to run a film company.
I have never agreed and would never agree to third party involvement because it's daft. Unless, you want the person you love to be there to give you emotional support. That's different. Otherwise, if something is wrong it's up to the individual to pipe up. If they don't, you have no right to do so either. If a woman has a problem with a man at a party join up with a woman nearby or a group of women. Surely you're not the only woman in the room!
I'm not denying sexual harassment takes place but you have to learn to have your own coping mechanisms in place. Because otherwise we can't tell the difference between rape and less serious incidents, which is serious in itself and causes problems. We also can't tell the difference between unsubstantiated fabricated allegations and accurate testimony which happens to be difficult to prove with solid evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
My concern is that the current hysterical approach to minor and major sexual harassment, sexual assault, sexual violence and rape after #MeToo has been so mishandled, socially and legally, that, in the future, women who have genuinely suffered will find they are far worse off than before. Women may find that their reliability as witnesses may end up questioned to the extent that women's legal rights could soon be rolled back centuries.
In the long run, #MeToo will disempower women, not empower them and the movement will lead to greater harms and victim abuse in the future. Indeed, as we can see with the total gross disregard for the female sexual violence victims and survivors of October 7th in Israel, it's already very selective and prejudiced as to which women are believed and supported by #MeToo so-called feminists. Suddenly, they are happy to put the same misogynistic language they argue against onto the female victims, and, shockingly, begin to victim blame them for being violently sexually attacked or killed. These so-called feminists even praise and justify the actions of the male sexual violence perpetrators and terrorists of October 7th. If you truly empathise with female survivors of sexual assault and violence, then such attitudes towards female victims and survivors wouldn't be possible. There is, after all, nothing to question, disbelieve or misconstrue: unlike with #MeToo, there's clear video evidence of the extreme and perverse sexual violence and torture women endured on October 7th at the hands of sick, terrorist men. This extreme antisemitism within #MeToo makes me question their motivation in incessantly going after a Jewish man such as Weinstein, especially when some of the key testimonies include an extreme, hardline evangelical Christian woman who was brought up in a Christian cult. Such Christian sects and churches are notorious for their far-right antisemitism.
How long are #MeToo style women going to get away with prosecuting men such as Weinstein on purely their inconsistent testimonies, with little or no physical or video evidence to support it, and through unfair trials which even included improper testimony procedures, such as bulking up a case with additional irrelevant women's stories that were not part of the case, simply to make the accused look worse?
I don't know why the UK government suddenly decided to amend the Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023 in ways that detrimentally interferes with work socials. Formal Complaint systems already exist and cover a range of issues, including sexual harassment, so additional government interference is not necessary. And frankly, in my one experience with attempting to merely improve a working relationship with a male lecturer through this internal, Human Resources based system, even this low level university interference is completely institutionally corrupt and severely unjust to all parties (including producing documents littered with prolific, major testimonial errors). So even lower complaints systems need abolishing, as do these new amendments to legislation which run the risk of unjustly legally impacting companies if they don't create a mad, vigilante culture that's obsessed with sex and social interactions, as though no other forms of harassment take place eg racism, ageism, nationality, homophobia, transphobia, ableism etc.
The government needs to get its sticky beak out of people's socialising. These are adults so treat them as such! There is such a thing as 'adulting' which means treating adults as adults not as children to be constantly closely supervised. Adulting creates cooperation. This is already well-known within global organisations that help companies tackle toxic behaviour at work and advise them about bringing about positive change in their workplaces. Here's an article that demonstrates their approach to improving workplace culture through 'organisational adulting'.
Treating people as children creates divisiveness. It seems to me that British governments are only interested in creating divisiveness so they can control the population more easily.
Women can't expect to be protected every minute of the day from every possible danger as though they are children. Otherwise, we're back to 19th century chaperones.
And it's not just all this sexual harassment stuff, if it's not that then it's dramatising periods, pregnancy, childbirth, post-natal depression, peri-menopause, menopause and then heart attacks, all because women lack oestrogen when they are post-menopause. What's after that? Death. The whole thing about women and their 'female condition' lasts from the age of ten to death with no respite in between. This makes it look as though women just lurch from one condition to another all their lives. Are they ever normal? Because, so we're told, all these conditions affect their mental health. Isn't that what they thought in the 19th century?
What exactly are women trying to achieve by all this?
None of this is helping women. Feminism is a good stance but now all sorts of nonsense is being championed under its umbrella. One example being the nonsensical 'all women spaces', by which we only mean women's toilets should be transwomen free. Why? When I go to a public toilet more often than not there are male cleaners in them and they hang about the toilets as well. I'd rather a trans woman than a man outside my cubicle.
All this makes women look weak and in need of protection which is how they were viewed in the 19th century. It also makes male employers think women are too much trouble to employ. So they'll just:
1) stop employing women in the first place (bar maybe the odd exception as long as she is very conformist and stays quiet about any problems so rolling back all feminist improvements to women's situation at work) and
2) men will just displace their harassment from sexual to non-sexual harassment of women in the workplace and work socials, since there's now less focus on that. Frankly I've come across far more non-sexual harassment from men than sexual, so such legislation will achieve very little or nothing by over-focusing on sexual harassment
or
3) men will cancel all official work parties and socials (thus avoiding all risk assessments and responsibilities) and go back to replacing it with unofficial, all-male networking socials well away from work where they can do what they like. If a woman were to attempt to join in, the men can harass her as much as they like because it's away from any workplace responsibilities.
Well that's advanced the cause of equality and inclusion.🙄 If a government were to feel that passionate about women's equality, they could have just added misogyny to illegal forms of discrimination in the Equality Act as they were asked to do years ago. But, of course, they don't do that because that might actually solve a range of women's problems efficiently and without having to be protectionist and interfering with sexual or social interactions.
By creating unnecessary fear and injustice against men, it's much easier and quicker to radicalize men into anti-feminist, discriminatory, illiberal, far-right ideologies, under the illusion that men need to protect themselves eg from women falsely accusing them and ruining their life overnight.
So we need one half of the population to be protected against the other half who need protecting from the ones who are being protected against them.
Alexander Rogers from Oxford University, Corpus Christi, is a good example of this. He needed protecting from the physical assaults against him and social isolation which were provoked by a young female who was giving the impression he did something sexually wrong after a student group pub social (citing feeling uncomfortable, which is nebulous) which he strongly denied (explaining it as unintentional). But no one bothered with the facts and just went with the hysteria.
We need to analyse the word 'uncomfortable' because it's beginning to be misconstrued as something its definition and standard usage doesn't mean. It's being used and understood incorrectly because it's too broad. You only have to look up a dictionary to see how it can mean anything from merely nervous and embarrassed to discombobulated. I use the word 'uncomfortable' in the very mild sense of merely being a bit out of my comfort zone, and until very recently, I assumed that's how everyone uses that word.
It's also a matter of debate why the girl's ex-boyfriend was coming into it and being violent towards Alexander? I don't think what Alexander experienced should be classified and termed 'cancel culture' because it is a group aggressively going after an individual, using techniques typical of community/gang harassment and bullying. It's also too similar to totalitarian state 'blacklisting' and the way it is carried out is too stylised for maximum sadistic effect in order to attack the mental health of the victim on the receiving end of it. I fail to see how this resembles cancel culture or other related social phenomena that has a genuine concern for truth, ethics, justice and making the world a more tolerant place.
Comments
Post a Comment