so disappointed in Germaine Greer

[patrickharviesorganicmuesli]

www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/germaine-greer-me-too-harvey-weinstein-women-spread-legs-movie-roles-actress-a8173161.html

Who has said that women 'spread their legs' for Weinstein movie roles and 'it's too late now to start whingeing' re MeToo.

What a complete let down.

which is why earlier on there were two sets of situations - one where the man is never going to accept a no, assault/rape situations where there is no element of choice or tactics, and the other more common situation where the woman can choose but shouldn't be subjected to that behaviour in the workplace.

One's about workplace culture, and the other is straight out criminality.

i do see good men changing btw - it's not all hopeless. Spacey has been dropped, some men have been held to account by women and men.

In fact it's progress that we've had the #metoo campaign isn't it? If this has been going on since the dawn of time but now people have reached a point they feel they can speak.

"'However what about women who are willing to throw themselves at these men and would do so without coercion?'

This makes no sense. Think about it for just one small second. If an actress had the option of competing fairly for great roles that she could get or lose on her own merit or ending up in a situation where she could get a mediocre role that pays less than all the men but in order to get it she'll have to allow a repulsive man to wank into her body, which do you think she'd choose? Do you think there is any free choice in a situation where someone more powerful than you has what you want and is willing to exploit your desire to get it?"

I think trully free choices are vanishingly rare for men or women. In fact that's part of the whole point. People pursue power, wealth and fame precisely because they afford you more choices.

Furthermore I'm not seeing Greer's as an either/or proposition. It's fine and indeed desirable to have your Me Too movements that promote solidarity amongst women. A safe space to come together and recognise that what happened was corrupt and very wrong.

The issue is if that is all that happens it will fizzle out and precious little will meaningfully change. What needs to happen is something like a class action lawsuit against SAG (Screen Actors Guild) I would say it is a racing certainty that some women somewhere took their concerns and grievances to the the organisation they have to be members of and pay dues to that is supposed to represent their interests in the industry.

What you would see happen if the SAG took a drubbing both reputationally and financially they would be shit hot and incentivised to ensure there was NEVER any repeat Weinstiens, and if there were they wouldn't last long. Also if male actors sexually exploited women and could be expected to be kicked out of SAG (thus limited the work they could get) it might make them think twice.

This won't happen as too many powerful men (and some women) are too invested in the current corrupt system so this whole thing will be a flash in pan that will probably dominate a few news cycles in 2018 but not a whole bunch more than that.

I'm not so sure about that Crit.

It's worth remembering that as well as physical intimidation men also used financial control as a way of keeping women powerless, denying access to education and employment, paying them less, etc and women have slowly chipped away at that over the years. We are in a genuinely novel situation now where women have actual financial power and where women-run and women-focused production companies like Reese Witherspoon's Pacific Standard can now finally overcome the spurious barriers that men put in their way. Once they gain a genuine foothold through money it'll be hard to dislodge them - money doesn't care who's holding it.

While I can see a value in women becoming less polite, as this will help them at least to get out of situations where men are depending on women's politeness to get what they want, it absolutely won't help in situations where a man is going to get what he wants no matter what - a lack of 'politeness' may just result in the woman being more badly injured/killed.

I agree with you but there are many situations where women can exercise power but it often needs to be co-ordinated and have a tactic behind it (using our dark sides!).

Take this dinner where all the men were groping the waitresses openly - if all the women there had collectively walked out and told the fat sweaty pigs to fuck off, then the outcomes would be different. Yes, the risk they didn't get paid would be there but there are laws against what is expected in the workplace and so an action of 140 women against the organisers to get paid would have been much more productive than an article in the FT.

And maybe next time....

What I am saying is that women are not currently equipped to deal with these situations in a tactical and 'fighty' way. Of course we are encouraged not to tackle the power structures (with this constant theme of the lack of agency of women etc), but that's what I mean about our dark sides - men won't just give up this power. Being nice doesn't work.

While I can see a value in women becoming less polite, as this will help them at least to get out of situations where men are depending on women's politeness to get what they want, it absolutely won't help in situations where a man is going to get what he wants no matter what - a lack of 'politeness' may just result in the woman being more badly injured/killed.

Can I just add, and it is only personal experience. I am not so sure not being polite does put us at more risk. As I have got older and more 'don't give a shit', I make a point of tackling men on their bad behaviour and they have backed down every time - this ranges from catcallers, flashers, someone coercing me into having sex for a job.

Literally every time, they have backed down.

I do hope this is just my experience and not just a myth peddled around to keep women quiet

I think we're essentially agreeing mooncup except for one important caveat. Most men are just chancing their arm and are hoping they get what they want by using women's politeness against them - in that situation not being polite is definitely the way to go - the cheeky fucker will just back down. However, in some situations, that man isn't going to back down no matter what, and not being polite could result in a worse situation. So many rape victims report 'going along' with what was happening, because they knew, instinctively, that if they didn't it would be so much worse.

The key question I think we should ask here is why women have to think and act essentially like prey in the face of male predators? Why they constantly have to use tactics to guard themselves and judge the best way to get out of a situation with the least injury possible? It's a fucking crazy situation and 'good' men should be fucking ashamed of it.

I think what a lot of women definitely need to learn is that they don't owe men anything, that they can, for example, back out of sex at any point, even after it's started. That they don't have to have sex with a partner just because it's been a while or the partner is getting antsy/sulky/shouty. That if a guy is getting in their face they can say 'fuck off' - they don't have to play along (with the safety caveat in mind) and that if other people call them rude or tell them they're overreacting they can tell those people to fuck off too - ridiculous men don't deserve politeness.

One thing to add is that women are definitely penalised in subtle ways for not playing along with men and being polite - this is another function of their power. I've been in plenty of situations and heard of many others where a woman was considered too 'aggressive,' 'abrasive' etc etc because she didn't politely nod to everything her male colleagues said and on the basis of that she was denied jobs, bonuses and promotions. If you're the weaker party and you're expected to behave a certain way, there can be a very extensive cost to not behaving as expected.

I agree we are essentially agreeing

Although I am not convinced that non-polite women are penalised, especially in the workplace - capitalism is our current structure and if a woman is aggressive that suits the competition that is necessary within capitalism.

The more I think about it, the more I cannot find examples where 'aggressive' women are penalised, in fact I think my anecdotal evidence tells me the contrary.

The more I think about it, the more I cannot find examples where 'aggressive' women are penalised, in fact I think my anecdotal evidence tells me the contrary

That is not to say that they are not labelled something different to a man of the same aggression (e.g. bitch) but that too is something linked to the fact that women are always vilified women for not being nice and agreeable.

Men wouldn't care about the label "bastard to work for" though

There is a lot of solid evidence to show that women are penalised for not being polite in the workplace - they get far more personal criticism than men and they are far less likely to be promoted. If companies really did promote women simply for the good of the company (without any bias) then far more women would be in senior positions than there actually are - companies regularly disadvantage themselves by overlooking female talent.

I am not sure they overlook the women, and although I nearly hate myself for saying it, women don't tend to fight for the promotions - again they have a tendency to look at the world through their (socialised?) reasonable and agreeable lens and then think everyone else (men) think like them and fairness will prevail.

It doesn't and people don't think like that. And John over the way, will be lobbying and playing the game to get that promotion over Judith (and over George, to be blunt). People rarely get promoted by this emotionally intelligent boss who is able to rationally look at who is the best candidate for the job - they are subject to politics and influencing and again this is where women do not tend to play out their dark side tactics.

Massive generalisations I know, but I know you will know what I mean

Of course uppity women are penalised, look what the State did to Helen Steel.

I think uppity men are punished too occasionally

I'm not sure it is definitely a sex difference. It might be, but the very successful women I know and have come across almost always have a 'no shit' attitude to them so it cannot be always the case?

I worry that we are teaching women to be too kind all the time. We don't afford that same judgement on men.

I would go so far as to say that not one of the successful women I know or have come across puts 'being kind' at the top of their list of positive characteristics

When if you ask a population level number of women, the answer would be different. Just on my social media account, the sheer volume of women posting memes about 'love and kindness' is overwhelming.

It's nice in theory, but I am not sure kindness will get you anywhere when dealing with power crazed men

I think you're conflating a couple of different things, I think because there's a chicken and egg situation going on. Yes we do encourage women to be polite but that's with good reason - as that's the game we've had to play to survive. We're not polite for fun - we're polite because men have set the rules for us and we've had to play by them, whether we want to or not, or face the consequences. Things are changing, definitely, and women do need to learn to be less polite, without question. But women who aren't polite are actively choosing not to play the game - they're going against the powers that be (men).

In the study reported in this article for example, it was found that women were given much more negative personal feedback and were far more often called 'abrasive' than men were. Women were essentially told to 'pipe down' - ie be more polite, quieter, less 'bossy.'

Also I'm wary of any argument that implies that women should be more like men in order to succeed because I think that again sidesteps the real issue and says that men can behave whatever way they want but women are wrong and have to change.

I think she is wrong, but I am saying she is trying to differentiate between those who expect to have to exchange sex on the casting couch for a role and do so "prostitute themselves" and those who do not go into the industry with that expectation.
There is altogether too much of a "what did you expect" coming at women when they try to talk about sexual harassment.

I think one difference is that women take no for an answer when they ask for a raise and men are taught that no is the beginning of a negotiation.

I think one difference is that women take no for an answer when they ask for a raise and men are taught that no is the beginning of a negotiation

no doubt true, but a woman who negotiates in the same manner as a man risks being seen as aggressive and being penalized for stepping outside of behavioral norms

not saying women ought not to negotiate for themselves, just that there are multiple constraints to navigate

I agree fortuna. And I find it frustrating to hear that women should just change in order for things to be better, as though it's just a matter of choosing to be different and then everything will be fine. Yes women should be encouraged not to kowtow to men, to strive to get what they want etc but with the awareness of just how difficult that can be. Women aren't in the position they're in because they can't fight for themselves, they're in that position because men have deliberately put them and kept them there.

I apologise about butting without rtft - but Germaine Greer, for some reason has always had disdain for feminist activism and marches. She said it was because it showed how "small and few of you there are" - like it is an embarrassment to feminism.

Now that social media, hashtags and big marches are happening, she can't complain about it being too small.

So I just think she has a weird aversion to it that she hasn't analysed. Maybe it is her own misogyny or something. Or maybe she feels territorial about the issues - like - where were you back in the day eh?

I dunno - but I don't think those comments were coming from the most intelligent or enlightened part of Germaine Greer, but so what, no one is perfect and I love most of what she does.