|
RBA Starblade posted:Pretty rude implication about Al imo Would you please not here?
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2020 19:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 04:26 |
|
|
Dixon Chisholm posted:Would you please not here? Would I not what? I'd consider Al Franken to be a prominent Democrat, as a senator at the time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2020 20:18
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:Would I not what? I'd consider Al Franken to be a prominent Democrat, as a senator at the time. Making the issue about those poor victimizers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2020 20:22
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Making the issue about those poor victimizers. I'm not, obviously - if the narrative you want to push is that #metoo was destroyed because prominent Democrats were targeted, you should probably consider that time a prominent Democrat was targeted and he was encouraged to step down by other Democrats and #metoo wasn't destroyed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2020 20:25
|
|
|
Thing that happens earlier does not disprove thing that happened later
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2020 20:26
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:I'm not, obviously - if the narrative you want to push is that #metoo was destroyed because prominent Democrats were targeted, you should probably consider that time a prominent Democrat was targeted and he was encouraged to step down by other Democrats and #metoo wasn't destroyed. You should re-examine the reactions to the Al story if you think they didn't try.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2020 20:26
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Thing that happens earlier does not disprove thing that happened later It does if the argument is that's what started it
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2020 20:27
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:It does if the argument is that's what started it Your position is incoherent. Could you start over?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2020 20:33
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:It does if the argument is that's what started it What? You're saying that because a thing didn't happen at first, but then later on it did, the thing did not happen? What on earth
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2020 20:38
|
|
|
Crane Fist posted:What? You're saying that because a thing didn't happen at first, but then later on it did, the thing did not happen? What on earth I believe he's arguing that because the reaction didn't work following the first occurrence, it can't be considered a cause. Despite the wildly different circumstances and potential outcomes of the two cases.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2020 20:40
|
|
|
I think the proof is in the pudding there in that Gillebrandt went after Franken but completely shied away from going after Biden despite it in theory would have worked very well and made her more prominent in a crowded primary process. There's a reason she passed on going after Biden, and that's because going after Franken had cost more far more than it helped her.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2020 20:44
|
|
|
Franken is actually a pretty good example in that the thing that brought him down was clear photographic evidence, which sets an unrealistically high standard for proving that a sexual assault took place. I wasn't paying too much attention to the case but would be delightfully surprised if his accuser wasn't treated to a smear campaign before the photo came out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2020 21:28
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:Would I not what? I'd consider Al Franken to be a prominent Democrat, as a senator at the time. I was assuming that comment was your normal bull. If you weren't trolling, then okay, the word prominent wasn't the most accurate. Franken was prominent enough. Important is a better word. Al Franken was just 1 senator while Biden was the presumptive nominee against Trump.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2020 22:23
|
|
|
Call Your Grandma posted:would be delightfully surprised if his accuser wasn't treated to a smear campaign before the photo came out. Oh yeah so he was joking, it was just a fun bit, a cheeky laugh right lads, and also she was a republican trying to sink our precious boy Al
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2020 23:24
|
|
|
To be clear, the Al post that I don't love because it feels glib, came from a line of argument that was in response to this stuff: VitalSigns posted:It's not a coincidence that MeToo was allowed to come to prominence at the precise moment we had a rapist Republican president instead of a rapist Democrat for a change, a Republican that Democrats hated (not for the rape obv, but for being crass and rude and for mocking the political system), and one that Democrats were desperate to differentiate themselves from on some issue since they agree on 90% of stuff (cage immigrants, endless wars, gently caress the poor, kill the earth, etc). Pretending to care about rape for a hot second was useful politically, and this had some good knock-on effects because assault victims were allowed to take down powerful men like Harvey Weinstein and Al Franken, but now that window is closed because the most powerful man in the world is a rapist Democrat so there's no longer any appetite in the Democratic Party or the liberal media to hold powerful rapists to account. There is a lot to dissect about the Democrat Party and their failure in 2020 to learn 2016's lesson of the primary being necessary tool to vet people. Biden's creepiness was only a non-issue because Trump is a rapist. Someone like Rubio who doesn't seem to have skeletons in his closet and seems fine on an interpersonal level would correctly make hay of it despite his lovely politics. But the retroactive branding of MeToo as a partisan effort when the Hollywood leg of it was sparked by a prominent Democratic donor is both ridiculous and untrue. it's not just Franken who was impacted. In fact, in the 2018 election cycle, the majority of politicians who had their campaigns hurt by the movement were Democrats. Yes, obviously the stakes and reasons and context of Biden are quite different. Prior actions do not excuse current actions, but that's not the core issue. The issue is that the failure to keep Biden accountable is being exaggerated to not only paint the movement as a failure but to retroactively paint the whole movement as as a failure. And that's weird and lovely. Biden is lovely. People's response to Biden was lovely. You don't need to throw a loving movement under the bus to prove it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 00:02
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:You don't need to throw a loving movement under the bus to prove it. ...we aren't the ones throwing the loving movement under the bus! The loving Dems did! As soon as it came for someone they didn't consider expendable, and unlike Weinstein and Franken there was enough wiggle room for them to downplay and deny what he did, they stopped believing women and went on the attack against a survivor! Timeless Appeal posted:The issue is that the failure to keep Biden accountable is being exaggerated to not only paint the movement as a failure but to retroactively paint the whole movement as as a failure. If a credibly accused rapist can be pushed through the primary by a bunch of people who until his candidacy were avowed supporters of the movement then the movement wasn't worth a drat thing, was it. The second it was time to actually do something difficult it evaporated like morning dew
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 00:40
|
|
|
I don't think it is fair to say that it achieved nothing. And I think it is also unfair on the people who stepped forward and took risks to try and make it work to say that. That it was attacked by a lovely political party the minute it was politically convenient is something all emancipatory movements go through. But I think the exercise will have shown a lot of people what can be achieved by self organization, and not all of them will drop that at the whim of the democratic party. What we want, surely, is more of it, for it to continue unmoored from what some lovely political creeps think. Maybe it won't get there, but I think it is at the very least owed recognition for being an attempt at that. And I hope it will be remembered as contributing to women's emancipation in the future.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 00:45
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I don't think it is fair to say that it achieved nothing. And I think it is also unfair on the people who stepped forward and took risks to try and make it work to say that. Yeah. The movement is still there, but the institutional support for the movement was thrown out as soon as Reade's story started to get too much traction. #metoo is still alive, for sure, it's just not going to be supported by mainstream Democrats for at least the next four years (and probably until Joe Biden is dead, at which point his crimes can be unsealed and discussed again) because it will be hurting their moral grounding, and it's never going to be supported by mainstream Republicans because they actively want all women and most men to be suffering more. Democrats and Republicans both threw #metoo under the bus. It is the responsibility of every principled person to not let that be their excuse to do the same.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 01:09
|
|
|
^ This is also a good post^Crane Fist posted:...we aren't the ones throwing the loving movement under the bus! The loving Dems did! The DNC was lovely in how it handled BIden and specifically the Reade case. That does not invalidate the movement, and I don't really understand the urge to claim that it does. OwlFancier posted:I don't think it is fair to say that it achieved nothing. And I think it is also unfair on the people who stepped forward and took risks to try and make it work to say that. Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 03:04 on Nov 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 01:18
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That it was attacked by a lovely political party the minute it was politically convenient is something all emancipatory movements go through. But I think the exercise will have shown a lot of people what can be achieved by self organization, and not all of them will drop that at the whim of the democratic party. I mean let's be clear: what exactly has been achieved by self organization? The two guys to face actual consequences (weinstein and franken) did so because their crimes were basically undeniable and an easy chance for a bunch of political creeps to score some easy points. Without that institutional support the metoo movement is as good as dead, the whole situation being a result of a mass movement for all women getting sidetracked and turned into an exercise in media feminism and picking through the Hollywood barrel for bad apples
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 02:33
|
|
|
Personally in my city and social circles the movement such as it was prompted a fair few reckonings and has shifted the perception and frequency of people coming forward. I think the view that it was 'just Weinstein and Landis' is a little overly focused on the spectacle.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 02:40
|
|
|
#metoo has made a lot of inroads in several industries, which is great. It still has, and will probably continue to have, greatly diminished efficiacy against politicians, which is awful. As loathe as I am of the concept, I think #metoo needs to achieve a level of bipartisanship respect to get any further when it comes to politics, so that it gets harder for either 'side' to close ranks around someone. Also, for all the talk of how Tarana Burke has been unduly sidelined in the eyes of the public in favor of loathsome ex-actor of a buffy ripoff Alyssa Milano, her reaction towards the Tara Reade case, I feel, showed her just as mealy mouthed and noncomittal as Milano when it comes to powerful figures that she knows will be in charge: https://newsone.com/3934435/metoo-founder-tarana-burke-addresses-joe-biden-sexual-assault-allegation/
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 02:51
|
|
|
I would suggest that perhaps if the metric of success is "ability to secure prosecutions or consequences through the media" then yes, that requires institutional support. And equally I think that is why it is so difficult to get that even with institutional support, because the ire of the media is fleeting. The lesson I hope that will be learned is you can not rely on institutions to give you justice, as BLM has learned about the cops, or perhaps rather how BLM has so many mass protests because it understands the institutions will not solve their problems. It isn't weird that the first attempts will attract a lot of people who put their hopes in the official channels, but what happens is that the official channels remain ineffective, and each successive wave of demand, of need for justice finds more and more people who have seen what happens to prior ones and how the institutions will not support them. As I said it's what all such movements go through. The more that happens the more people start trying to take it to unofficial channels. If I had to guess at possible future optimistic things to look out for it would be things like strikes over abusive behaviour in the workplace, efforts to dump information about abusers out on things like twitter, with whatever receipts can be gathered, efforts to support people who come forward directly rather than relying on the tender mercies of the press and the establishment. Building solidarity, essentially. This kind of thing is still very nascent, it is arguably only able to happen like this at all because of the new tools people have online to communicate directly, build their own nationwide and international networks, and to document poo poo. I just don't think it is helpful to say "you fools, you trusted the system, now all you have desired is ash, your ideals are worthless, your hopes are for nothing, go and scatter yourself to the winds" The system exists because people default to trusting it, it takes them ending up on the receiving end of its indifference or outright hostility for them to stop trusting it, and it also really helps if they have something else to put their trust in instead, and each time it shows its claws, more people see it for what it is. Each time people become invested in a movement that it turns on, it alienates them, and it drives them to form their own solutions. People are not born as revolutionaries, they have to learn how and why to do it. This behaviour, this process of networking with others and outing people who abuse others should be normalized, it can be applied on any scale, every tiny success helps, because if this does become normalized, people will start to ask why politicians should be exempt? Why should power insulate people from consequences? It all helps to normalize the idea that abuse should not be tolerated, and to normalize what lack of tolerance for it looks like. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 02:57 on Nov 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 02:52
|
|
|
Weren't there several media personalities across networks that got pushed out? I looked it up and while I think Bill O'Reilly was before the hashtag trended, Matt Lauer, Tom Brokaw, and Garrison Keillor were all around the same time, plus a number of CEOs that I don't recognize by name but who were at important companies. Even if it isn't able to have an impact on political figures, it still matters for every other context, and that's worth something IMO
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 02:56
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:As loathe as I am of the concept, I think #metoo needs to achieve a level of bipartisanship respect to get any further when it comes to politics, so that it gets harder for either 'side' to close ranks around someone. I would perhaps take away that what is more likely is that it attains bipartisan opposition and necessarily becomes a facet of the fundamental inability of the political process to accomodate the material needs of a lot of people. Which I think aligns it far more with political radicals and, given the far right's innate hostility to feminism or any sort of gendered egalitarianism, specifically with the radical left. I also think the way it's carried out has some definite applications for radical leftists too. The idea of people speaking up against entrenched power when it hurts them, with the support of other ordinary people, in a decentralized manner, does not seem like the sort of thing any political party can abide, because partisan politics is all about the desires of an entrenched few. Which is why it's simultaneously not surprising that the democrats turned on it the minute they felt it convenient to, and also why I think the future lies in the rejection of operating within that limited window of the consent of the people in charge. Doing that seems anathema to exactly what the people who come forwards seem to be trying to achieve. They might not personally reject all power but the act itself I think is inerently iconoclastic. You can't really say "don't come forward if you're accusing a democrat" because to the person coming forward the need is no less urgent. If you tell people that they can and should come forward because they themselves have a right to be heard, you can't effectively mandate it only happens to the people you want it to. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 03:07 on Nov 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 03:03
|
|
|
To my mind a general push to try and attain some measure of equality and just reduce the amount of poo poo women get for being alive is vital and increasing, but metoo as a movement is dead. It died the moment a bunch of media types and self-proclaimed leaders- the alyssa milanos of the world- were allowed to grab the wheel and wrench it off course from being a generalised mass movement dedicated to highlighting the sheer prevalence of lovely male behaviours and the amount of abuse not being recognized to drive it safely into the cul de sac of "hey, that one guy sucks! Let's get him!" The problem with that kind of "we just need to get rid of the bad apples" thinking is that as soon as the guy in the hot seat is one people don't want to get rid of and think they can justify defending, the entire movement splinters apart because its not longer about "these behaviours are unacceptable and should not be tolerated" its suddenly become "this guys sucks/no I think he's good/he sucks but we need him" etc Which is sad but also makes sense, because choosing one guy who's absolutely a piece of poo poo and getting him fired is cool and fun, but also doesn't really advance society
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 03:18
|
|
|
So, when Indian domestic workers banded together and stood up for their rights under the MeToo movement a year after Milano's involvement, a world away, the movement was already dead?
Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 03:31 on Nov 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 03:25
|
|
|
I don't... really know that you can avoid personalizing it though? Like that's just a thing people do. And I don't understand how you can declare it dead when the capacity to do that and share experiences is still there and people are still doing it? They're not going to stop doing it and I don't see how any future movement could possibly work without incorporating that activity? Like, how can the metric of success be the number of high profile scalps claimed and also simultaneously that behaviour be bad? If the metric of success is highlighting lovely behaviour then people talking more about their experiences achieves that whether or not any heads roll for it? You cannot stop the media reacting to grassroots efforts, saying that the grassroots effort is dead because the media types had a fad over it for a while and then dropped it seems utterly bizzare because it is accepting the media fad as the part that matters. Why the gently caress should I give a poo poo what some media weirdos do? It may be the part that matters to some people but not to the people who use the grassroots tactics out of need? If you're suggesting everything "is dead" the minute it stops being a news story I don't see how literally anything could possibly live past obscurity? OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 03:30 on Nov 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 03:25
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:So, when Indian domestic workers banded together and stood up for their rights under the MeToo movement a year after Milano's involvement, a world away, the movement was already dead? A movement can be dead or gravely wounded in one part of the world and alive and thriving in another.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 04:23
|
|
|
Majorian posted:A movement can be dead or gravely wounded in one part of the world and alive and thriving in another.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 04:55
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:The point I was glibly trying to get at is that the narrative that the MeToo movement lost authenticity and thusly died when rich white women became involved is flawed and speaks to the broader issue of defining MeToo in terms of punishing men rather than empowering women. I already posted about how I have seen a shift in discussions and awareness around consent in my experience as an educator. You can finds tons of stories of more niche waves of MeToo that fly under the radar. You can look at stuff like the Survivor's Agenda that is pushing the MeToo movement towards systematic changes (Housing, healthcare) that can improve life for survivors and build a better society for the vulnerable. In the united states, MeToo basically started having SUCCESS when rich white women got involved, and for those rich white women, Al Franken was when MeToo "started going too far" because he was on "Our Team" and when Biden was in the crosshairs it was fully abandoned. Perhaps there is something that can be called A MeToo movement in more niche waves that fall under the radar, but that's not what 99% of people are talking about when they say MeToo, and that thing that 99% of people are talking about is dead when the rich white women abandoned it for the sake of Joe Biden.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 06:13
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:You can look at stuff like the Survivor's Agenda that is pushing the MeToo movement towards systematic changes (Housing, healthcare) that can improve life for survivors and build a better society for the vulnerable. What are these guys actually doing? I went through the website and I found a lot of words about centering voices and calling out and creating spaces but the only concrete thing I could find was a bunch of links to other organizations and series of calls to vote, which strikes me as the usual worthless empowerment rhetoric that ends up boiling down to "we see you, we hear you, now work within the system that hates you" OwlFancier posted:Like, how can the metric of success be the number of high profile scalps claimed and also simultaneously that behaviour be bad? If the metric of success is highlighting lovely behaviour then people talking more about their experiences achieves that whether or not any heads roll for it? I don't know if this is a miscommunication or what but I don't believe this is true- I think that the claiming of high profile scalps is a diversionary tactic, the power structure throwing us scraps. It's cathartic to see these guys get dragged down, but it doesn't actually change anything. The metric of success is not just highlighting this behaviour, it's then actually coming up with ways to force societal change to stop them. Picking off high profile targets one at a time hasn't worked, we need to come up with something more effective, and in the US at least metoo was very successfully turned into a catch-and-kill operation that loudly and performatively singled out some lovely guys, most of whom have slithered back right to where they started by now by a bunch of deeply cynical operators I hate to keep hammering the Biden nail, but organizations like Time's Up immediately jettisoned any legitimacy they might have had as soon as Tara Reade came forward, and then there's the problem you run into with campaigns like the one mentioned above, Survivor's Agenda- it's one thing to claim you're "pushing the MeToo movement towards systematic changes" that would help survivors like free healthcare or social housing but if you're trying to do that with Democratic vote drives you're part of the problem because you're sheepdogging support to a party that fundamentally opposes those things
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 06:20
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Believing that you're succeeding when you're not succeeding is not without a cost. Crane Fist posted:I mean let's be clear: what exactly has been achieved by self organization? The two guys to face actual consequences (weinstein and franken) did so because their crimes were basically undeniable and an easy chance for a bunch of political creeps to score some easy points. Without that institutional support the metoo movement is as good as dead, the whole situation being a result of a mass movement for all women getting sidetracked and turned into an exercise in media feminism and picking through the Hollywood barrel for bad apples These are incredibly myopic ways of framing progress and achievement, and I think a lot of the discussion in recent posts rightly points out that accountability for powerful public figures is an excellent, but not EXCLUSIVE, marker of progress/achievement. It’s ironic that the first post I quoted is ostensibly a warning about unintended consequences of how a movement is framed, and yet the post itself doesn’t seem to consider the consequences of framing the progress of a social movement as being dependent on how it plays out among the elite, whether politicians or celebrities. I honestly don’t understand how you can reconcile this type of thinking with a belief that electoralism is ineffective and grassroots activism/organization is a superior method for social change. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not at all saying “just vote” and Me Too will be revived, but if you don’t believe that the election of mainstream politicians is sufficient to achieve wide scale progressive goals then why would you say that a movement like Me Too is dead because of the failures of mainstream politicians? (Also I’m taking a very US centric view). If I’m putting words in anyone’s mouth then please call me out
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 07:49
|
|
|
Sharks Eat Bear posted:I think a lot of the discussion in recent posts rightly points out that accountability for powerful public figures is an excellent, but not EXCLUSIVE, marker of progress/achievement. What makes you think this, and do you believe that "accountability for powerful public figures" is something that has happened Sharks Eat Bear posted:if you don’t believe that the election of mainstream politicians is sufficient to achieve wide scale progressive goals It would be if the mainstream politicians being elected actually had progressive goals but they don't so you're working off a pretty shaky premise some plague rats fucked around with this message at 08:55 on Nov 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 08:53
|
|
|
Crane Fist posted:What makes you think this, and do you believe that "accountability for powerful public figures" is something that has happened No, to be clear I think that the accountability for public figures is still sorely lacking, with Trump and Biden being the big sore thumbs on the right and left hands of the US, so to speak. But inconsistent accountability for public figures does not mean that Me Too is a failure. The earlier poster sharing their experiences as a teacher and seeing how values are shifting among children is one example of clear progress among everyday people despite the failures among the elite. quote:It would be if the mainstream politicians being elected actually had progressive goals but they don't so you're working off a pretty shaky premise I think maybe we are more in alignment than not? Agreed that most mainstream US pols don’t generally have legitimate progressive goals so much as a progressive veneer (if that), which I’m arguing is all the more reason to not let them define the success or failure of a grassroots movement.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 09:04
|
|
|
Crane Fist posted:What are these guys actually doing? I went through the website and I found a lot of words about centering voices and calling out and creating spaces but the only concrete thing I could find was a bunch of links to other organizations and series of calls to vote, which strikes me as the usual worthless empowerment rhetoric that ends up boiling down to "we see you, we hear you, now work within the system that hates you"
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 13:21
|
|
|
Crane Fist posted:
Sharks Eat Bear posted:I think maybe we are more in alignment than not? Agreed that most mainstream US pols don’t generally have legitimate progressive goals so much as a progressive veneer (if that), which I’m arguing is all the more reason to not let them define the success or failure of a grassroots movement. I've been making this point over in the American Progressivism thread to deaf ears,https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3947316 quote:That said though, I'm really curious how you would even know what who is and isn't a charlatan? That's the point of what I posted above, that an ungrounded movement or political affiliation without any ideological basis is just going to float with the breeze and be appropriated by anyone who thinks they can profit by it to support any program that suits them. The progressive label can be applied to a giant insurance industry handjob as easily as M4A. Similarly with prosecuting killer cops for murder and defunding police vs paying killer cops extra to wear bodycams and go to bias training that does nothing. You can market anything as progressive. What is progressive? Is just saying "I see you, I hear you" to victims good enough for someone to get to brand themselves as progressive because at least that's better than regressive crypto-misogynism? Is recognizing victims not regressive crypto-misogynism with a new coat of paint if the abuser is allowed to go on with their life and the victim is not? There's really no way to know what is "Progressive" since it's an ideologically incoherent label, and it leaves well-intentioned people utterly adrift and completely fogged on whether a particular proposal (much less the sum of a platform's or person's positions and actions) should count as "progressive" or not. I'd argue recognizing victims is a failure because recognition is subject to immediate memory-holing when the victim and victimizer are politically inconvenient, and that will always be the case. If a community is capable of recognizing abuse but incapable of ostracizing and marginalizing abusers (vs, say, electing them to high office and ostracizing and marginalizing their victims instead), it's endorsing the behavior. But there's no way to know whether even that position is progressive because again, there's no yardstick or ideological litmus test. The Oldest Man fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Nov 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 17:22
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:I've been making this point over in the American Progressivism thread to deaf ears,https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3947316 Hadn't seen that thread, I'll check it out. I think I generally agree with what you're saying, but maybe we're talking past each other a bit? I'm not sure I'd go as far as saying that recognizing victims is an outright failure despite all the problems you describe, but for argument's sake I'll grant that. Quoting the relevant piece of my previous post: Sharks Eat Bear posted:But inconsistent accountability for public figures does not mean that Me Too is a failure. The earlier poster sharing their experiences as a teacher and seeing how values are shifting among children is one example of clear progress among everyday people despite the failures among the elite. Admittedly, this is a harder type of success to measure (longitudinal opinion polls on attitudes toward things like consent, and ideally lower self reported rates of sexual abuse?) and, absent those measures, relies heavily on anecdotes and personal experiences. And even if those measures are available and do show encouraging trends, I recognize that it can't all be credited to Me Too as the sole or even primary cause. But even with all these limitations, I still think it's important to recognize that a grassroots movement can be successful in shaping attitudes among regular people, and relying on my own anecdotes and personal experiences, I do think Me Too has been successful on that front.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 21:14
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:I would read the actual 30 page agenda which gives both guiding principles and more specific social and policy changes. I was just looking for an overview, if I have to do loving homework to understand what your movement wants then you're doing it very wrong
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 21:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 04:26 |
|
|
Crane Fist posted:I was just looking for an overview, if I have to do loving homework to understand what your movement wants then you're doing it very wrong
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 14:16
|
|