Home   |         NEW: (hypothetically starring) VIC REEVES as LUKE SKYWALKER .. in "Waiting for Godot, the hollywood version".

When 'metoo' means "I also refuse to do anything about this nasty man who is manhandling, possibly assaulting a woman at this dinnner engagement in front of us all".   Share:  

This is NOT the most recent version of this grid point.
It has been updated: View it here.

Thrust of argument: The Indy writes: <<As we saw last night, in the video of Mark Field manhandling a protester, it happens at black tie dinners, perpetrated by an MP, with more than 100 people watching.

How many of the people in that room have put themselves in such a situation before, have thought about what they would do if they saw such an act of unprovoked violence happening in front of them? I bet not one of them would have reasoned that it would have been OK to just watch, and yet that is what so many of them did.

When the MeToo movement took place and allegations of violence towards women were revealed about powerful men, from comedians to directors to politicians, so many people around these men must have asked themselves: how could I not see? How could I not see when it was right in front of me? >>
Direction of resistance / implied resistance: << What he did was so unspeakable because he did it so casually, in front of a room full of people, a room full of eyes and cameras. It was as though he thought it was completely normal and justified behaviour towards a woman peacefully protesting, walking past him and barely looking him in the eye. >>

 

 

Enter your DOMAIN NAME to
collect this point:

 

Removal of resistance: I have asked myself why the women and men watching this happen did nothing. Unification: Abby Tomlinson almost gets that but misses a key point, perhaps blinded by sexism (where one gender is, to you, more important and more universally innocent than the other). How come no women in the room did anything, said anything there on that video, when this happened? When will the 'metoo' movement realise that the abuse of women in our society is not conducted by one gender but by both. If Tomlinson wants to admit that the people at the table are shameful, she must also admit (for it is visible) that some of them are not men. Why did the women say and do nothing when it happened? I did see a rather disconcerted look on the face of the man next to the Tory MP. So maybe there was some reaction. But who intervened? Did any women intervene? No. They were saying 'me too' to the cause of being a paid up member of 'polite'* society.

*What a use of a word, eh?!

Anyway, Abby, have you an answer? I agree with the thrust of your point but wonder why you aren't annoyed at the women in that room for their apparent lack of 'feminism'. And this time it really is feminism they lacked. You lack it too, but not 'feminism' in single quotes, where it is a word which does NOT mean a balanced and honest view of gender problems in society but what M.G. Piety calls << kneejerk 'feminism' >>.

If, Abby, you are honest and want to help fix the problems, I suggest you read the numberwang doc in the references below, particularly my attacks on racists who call themselves feminists. Let's hope you're not one of them, or you'll never read it!
Rebut this point   Support this point   Edit this point

(TVhobo's estimated size of readership since 2013, mainly in the UK and USA, with Germany in third place:
over 200,000 readers across approximately 200 cities/towns

 

Copy/paste point into your work:

Type: Open statement

3 versions:

1. Server time: 15:43:54 on 22/6/2019
2. Server time: 16:2:40 on 24/6/2019
3. Server time: 15:19:26 on 29/6/2019

Related points:

References:

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/mark-field-[..]-metoo-[..].html
http://opinion.tvhobo.com/owenjones_israel_numberwang.html
https://twitter.com/SocialistVoice/status/1133770741147754497

 

 

previous point on the grid   |   next point on the grid

 

Click here to read about Shams Pirani, the editor and chief author on this grid - note, if you can actually prove anything written above wrong, I would gladly, if the proof is sufficient, correct what I've written and what I think - if I could, however, prove your attempted proof wrong, then I would accordingly say so and maintain whatever point of view is completely based on fact and proof.

Simple text version.

When 'metoo' means "I also refuse to do anything about this nasty man who is manhandling, possibly assaulting a woman at this dinnner engagement in front of us all".

The Indy writes: <<As we saw last night, in the video of Mark Field manhandling a protester, it happens at black tie dinners, perpetrated by an MP, with more than 100 people watching.

How many of the people in that room have put themselves in such a situation before, have thought about what they would do if they saw such an act of unprovoked violence happening in front of them? I bet not one of them would have reasoned that it would have been OK to just watch, and yet that is what so many of them did.

When the MeToo movement took place and allegations of violence towards women were revealed about powerful men, from comedians to directors to politicians, so many people around these men must have asked themselves: how could I not see? How could I not see when it was right in front of me? >>

<< What he did was so unspeakable because he did it so casually, in front of a room full of people, a room full of eyes and cameras. It was as though he thought it was completely normal and justified behaviour towards a woman peacefully protesting, walking past him and barely looking him in the eye. >>

I have asked myself why the women and men watching this happen did nothing.

Abby Tomlinson almost gets that but misses a key point, perhaps blinded by sexism (where one gender is, to you, more important and more universally innocent than the other). How come no women in the room did anything, said anything there on that video, when this happened? When will the 'metoo' movement realise that the abuse of women in our society is not conducted by one gender but by both. If Tomlinson wants to admit that the people at the table are shameful, she must also admit (for it is visible) that some of them are not men. Why did the women say and do nothing when it happened? I did see a rather disconcerted look on the face of the man next to the Tory MP. So maybe there was some reaction. But who intervened? Did any women intervene? No. They were saying 'me too' to the cause of being a paid up member of 'polite'* society.

*What a use of a word, eh?!

Anyway, Abby, have you an answer? I agree with the thrust of your point but wonder why you aren't annoyed at the women in that room for their apparent lack of 'feminism'. And this time it really is feminism they lacked. You lack it too, but not 'feminism' in single quotes, where it is a word which does NOT mean a balanced and honest view of gender problems in society but what M.G. Piety calls << kneejerk 'feminism' >>.

If, Abby, you are honest and want to help fix the problems, I suggest you read the numberwang doc in the references below, particularly my attacks on racists who call themselves feminists. Let's hope you're not one of them, or you'll never read it!



https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/mark-field-[..]-metoo-[..].html
http://opinion.tvhobo.com/owenjones_israel_numberwang.html
https://twitter.com/SocialistVoice/status/1133770741147754497