Here are a few quick thoughts on the current sexual abuse hysteria.
Of course, if men abuse the power they have in hiring, firing, and promoting subordinates in order to get sex, they should be punished. Of course, if men use their physical strength to overpower women to get sex, they should be punished. Of course, if men go after young girls, they should be punished.
Of course, if men sexually harass women, they should be punished. Well, sometimes. Sexual harassment is kind of vague. It can be mild. It can be severe. Where we draw the line on what gets punished seems to vary with each individual and each instance. Barack Obama once said that persistence was the reason he got Michelle to marry him. It seems persistence today is considered sexual harassment. Hillary Clinton rejected Bill’s first two marriage proposals. Could his third proposal be considered sexual harassment? One of Roy Moore’s accusers, Becky Gray, came forward to complain that he asked her out when she was 22 years old. It seems that what is considered sexual harassment is ever-widening.
Not only this, but it seems that all male sexuality is potentially criminal nowadays. It seems that anything sexual that a woman finds objectionable is considered sexual harassment or abuse.
This is totally hypocritical and unfair. There appear to be few restrictions on women’s sexuality. Women can expose their breasts. They can wear leggings so tight that camel toe shows through. They can wear blatantly sexual makeup. They can expose much skin. And they broadcast these things to every man within sight. But we are not allowed to complain about these things. Women can be sexual but men can’t.
Rose McGowan
Consider actress Rose McGowan, who has been very vocal recently about Harvey Weinstein’s sexual abuse. She collected $100,000 from Weinstein that paid for her silence for 20 years. Also, when she was a struggling actress, this picture (below) shows how she used her sexuality to try to get ahead in acting. This picture is from her appearance at the 1998 MTV Video Music Awards. You cannot get much more naked. Was she shamed for this? Was she charged with sexual harassment? Did she get acting jobs because of her fine acting skills?
Also consider Leeann Tweeden, who accused Al Franken of sexual abuse. She was a model for a Hooter’s calendar. She also modeled for Frederick’s of Hollywood and Fitness Beach. Obviously, she used her sexual appearance to get ahead in her career. How can women be so hypocritical when they use sex to get what they want and then raise holy hell when rich men try to use their money to get sex?
For a longer, more detailed version of these views, please see the article, Women’s Sexual Power, at http://hydrarch15.wix.com/selfindulgence
[…] A November 2017 post offering “a few quick thoughts on the current sexual abuse hysteria” tries to argue that, while “all male sexuality is potentially criminal nowadays,” women have achieved perfect freedom because we are allowed to wear leggings and “blatantly sexual makeup.” The author then goes on to imply, confoundingly, that a woman who wore a revealing dress to an awards show in the 1990s is “hypocritical” for decrying sexual abuse. (Ironically, a few months later, this woman would explain that the dress was actually a silent scream after a rape she had hidden from the public. The fashion choice was “a political statement”—a middle finger before the days of subtweets.) […]
On Point is a discussion program on NPR. It is very feminist. When gender issues are discussed, only feminist guests (only women) appear on the program and non-feminist men’s perspectives are avoided unless men call in, which they apparently rarely do.
On 12/7/17, the program was entitled “Time’s Person of the Year: People Who Broke Silence On Sexual Abuse.” At one point, one of the guests, Sarah Sobieraj, seemingly talked about an article on the NCFM website, A Few Quick Thoughts on the Current Sexual Abuse Hysteria at http://ncfm.org/2017/11/news/discrimination-news/discrimination-against-men-news/ncfm-member-jim-jackson-a-few-quick-thoughts-on-the-current-sexual-abuse-hysteria/ As usual for feminists she totally distorted the article in order to disparage it. She said that the article’s purpose was to discredit women who have come forward with sexual harassment charges. This was a blatant lie. I don’t know how she could have read the article and come up with this interpretation. The purpose of the article was to give the other half of the story, men’s story, which this show and this woman are trying to discredit and censor. The lace curtain strikes again.
If you’d like to hear the program, it is at http://www.podbean.com/podcast-detail/u6p8j-4353/On+Point+with+Tom+Ashbrook+%7C+Podcasts. The relevant quote starts at about 44:15 and goes for about 40 seconds.
Here is a transcription of the quote:
“It’s really a question, not of whether there will be backlash, but of how much they’ll be. You know, this morning I saw that men’s rights’ activist groups have been trying to discredit some of the women. I saw a piece on Rose McGowan’s history of wearing provocative clothing. I saw another woman, her… you know, they’re working to delegitimate her testimony and story, but… because she worked at Hooters. Right. These sorts of things. It’s really a movement and a counter movement. It’s, you know, maybe in the eye of the beholder, which is which. But I think we see both of these forces at play here.”