Senate Let's Talk: Feminism

Let's just say if she's alright with getting him in the newspaper over indiscriminately cat-calling after random passerbys, then I'm not surprised he thinks it "silly". The whole situation is. He's just some shlub doing silly things, she might possibly be less silly but feels compelled to stoop to his level. Just don't give the dude more attention than he deserves. If I was the kind of guy that was comfortable with talking up a girl on the street, I'd find it rather laughable too if someone was (literally) gonna take me to court over that. What he's doing is about as news-worthy as a kid stealing a chocolate bar. It's kind of undermining bigger feminism issues when something as petty as that is the main point of debate, no? Well, maybe not. I just think it's a molehill-mountain situation. Sorry.

 

Think about it for a moment:

A group of people, who are bigger and stronger than you, decide to subject you to comments and attention you do not want. You ignore it hoping it will stop. It doesn't. What do you do?

Is it really so minor? This isn't talking to a girl in the street, who is interested in talking to you, this is a group pestering her in a manner she finds threatening and that's a key difference.

Her solution was to video them, so having proof of their actions and then report them, on the basis that the wouldn't listen to her, but they would to the police. Why is that so bad?

 

I will say that I would be nervous to run alone. I always go running with another woman. Safety in numbers.

 

Oh, nothing bad about it. Good for her if she can have an effect on the situation. I wasn't necessarily criticizing either of them, but rather the site. It's such an everyday occurence that slapping the "feminism" label on it is trivializing feminism in my eyes. I'm trying to see what it has to do with the story. I've had people say things to me that were below the belt, yet at no time would I think of connecting it with, uh... masculism (?) or misandry. You can put that spin on it if you only want, but in itself it has only so much to do with it. I rather keep the "feminism" sticker for issues that are worth it, or it's liable to become a standard excuse for pretty much anything and everything. These days, everyone is either sexist or racist or homophobic. Or bigoted. People just love throwing these terms around and in the process they gradually lose their weight. That's also when people stop taking it serious.

 

Well, that kind of begs the question: Which issues are 'worth it'?

 

wtf... "I didn't see her face, so it's not sexual harassment." Apparently, it's part pf his job to "compliment" women on their asses. lol... 'I'm a construction worker, so I get a pass, because we're all pigs.'

 

So, there's been a lot of discussion on this elsewhere and two points, then I'll let you get to it:

1) There's a lot of speculation that a) this reporter was misrepresenting what, basically, one of the women were telling her and/or b) they were deliberately taking the piss on her.

2) There's absolutely, positively nothing wrong with this as long as everyone is consensual in the relationship (and, as noted, many of these claimed relationships are also ones with pre-nups, post-nups, etc., so there's already a decent amount of contractual behavior).

Now, having said that -- it's 100% true that this happens, so even if the case was 1b above, that doesn't make it less true overall. And I'm not quite sure what to make of the Chinese billionaire and the porn star, for example, as that's somewhat more nebulous.

But, again, if everything is above-board and consensual there's absolutely, positively, 100% nothing wrong with this even if it's not your cup of tea.

 

I stopped reading at "services rendered."

 

Treating a relationship as a contractual matter, yeah, that'll work out well.

(Then again, the giveaway is in the 'worked successfully as a broker in the City' bit. There are, comparatively speaking, few people, men and women, suited to the hyper-macho environment of the City. So yeah, chances are she is going to see everything in transactional terms.)

 

Not everyone marries for love, or even if they do, some don't have "traditional" definitions or marriage. What's the problem if it works for other people?

Again, it's a matter of consent. If two consenting adults are doing it, and it's legal, what's the issue?

 

To me, it just comes across as pretty much the epitome of 'know the price of everything and the value of nothing'.

The other oddity is: Who's paying the bills in this relationship? Shouldn't they get a bonus too for doing that consistently? Can't help but see it as opening up a can of worms.

Still, as you say, that's their business. Don't see it as a viable model for most people though, but then, the idea of there ever being such for relationships is up there with the concept of 'relationship rules' - there are none, only what works for individual cases.

 

Interestingly, I think it was the wife in those cases -- though it's been several days since I've read about it.

Although, I'm assuming the husband is footing the bills for homes, vacations, etc. and the wife is running the day-to-day bills was my understanding.

 

Long ago Hitchens commented in an interview that his wife never has to work, he would never require it and she could work if she wanted to, it was not for him to say. But if she did not wish to work then he was happy with it. The interviewer had a slightly bad reaction to that, though the exchange was overall very friendly. She seemed to think he was being sexist, but he sounded like he worshipped his wife and it was up to her to have his money or not.

 

I can tell you that she was given a bonus to run the household. In other words, keep after the household staff and make sure the bills are paid. Seriously even though she may be rich, they still need signatures and a proper accounting of the books.

There are a lot of relationships where guys make the money and the girls rule the roost and the checkbook. Nothing wrong with it whatsoever. Whatever makes a relationship work. Now maybe all of those contracts are really for love just for future divorce proceedings to cover one's ass.

If a guy makes enough for both parties then she doesn't have to work then why not have her run the house. Otherwise its controlling.

Most married men start to fall apart after their women leave them for a few days. They are fine a few months but first couple of days is rough. That's why its a great reason to treat your woman with respect. Cause without it the alternative is a lot worse.

 

I'm instantly regretting my position on being pro-choice in this scenario if beezel is agreement with me...

 

Dave, we are discussing how even rich guys can't survive without women. It doesn't take a genius to see that women are good for us men. Its why we have marriage and why we have vows. So that way we can understand that the privilege women give us by saying yes to marriage, comes with those vows so we remember every day why we are lucky and grateful for having them in our lives.

 

Call me crazy, but I think people in a committed relationship should just, you know, share finances instead of this nonsense.

 

While I'm fine with "whatever works" for the couple, I raised my eyebrow at "kept them satisfied socially and sexually." Somehow, that translates as how well the wife does in keeping her hubby happy (disclaimer, first I've heard of this and haven't yet read the article).