Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

did we just wake up in Nazi Germany? KEVIN SPACEY blacklisted!!!!!


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, slaytonf said:

I don't think it is so extreme an analogy.  What has been overlooked in the discussion so far has been an element that links the two, the question of power.  Slavery is the most direct, brutal expression of power over another individual, which often included rape.  You will notice the character of sexual harassment and abuse takes the form of a person in a position of power, or authority using it to exploit someone else.  And as for the culture of keeping it quiet, you have the threat: "Don't report it, no one will believe you."

Slavery was always wrong, a vile offense, even though it was sanctioned by society at large.  The same holds true for sexual harassment, abuse, and rape.  It is always wrong to treat people in a demeaning, exploitative manner, no matter what cultural norms approve.  A vast dark universe of injury I hope is being revealed.  Perhaps, like the sea change that happened with slavery, we will see a similar change with sexual brutality.

The only reason this may seem to be changing is that enough women have some viable power in the society and they choose to defend other women who are powerless.

In the beginning they laughed at Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem-- but they're not laughing anymore.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎9‎/‎2017 at 4:36 PM, Hibi said:

Plummer deserved his Oscar win for Beginners. I think they are going overboard cutting Spacey out of the movie. They dont want to risk losing money on the film with all the bad headlines. It wouldnt keep me from seeing the movie if I wanted to. A certain irony in Plummer (who won an Oscar for playing a gay man) replacing a gay actor who seems to be getting blacklisted........

*Plummer is now officially the oldest performer to take home an *Oscar, he was 82. But Gloria Stuart almost had him beat at 87 in 1997's *"Titanic"   Overall record now though is *Ennio Morricone scoring an *Oscar at 87 for the score of 2015's "Hateful-Eight" ($55m.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny, the other day I was thinking about all these women coming forward so many years after the offense.

These sort of violations have happened to all of us "career women" through the decades. When it happened to me as a young woman in my 20's-30's I was shocked, dismayed and really didn't know what to do about it. Somehow, it always becomes "your fault".

Then I started thinking about those circumstances: A person is on a job interview. The person is doing their best to "sell" themself for the job by smiling, making eye contact, being engaged just like anyone would. The interviewer takes that as "flirting" and makes a propositional move. The person being interviewed is shocked at this behaviour, (s)he only wants a JOB not a DATE.

People in the position of power (the one hiring) need to be above the level of taking interviews personally. And the one being interviewed also needs to keep behind those boundries as well. It's 2017, about time to just learn how to be professional.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, slaytonf said:

I don't think it is so extreme an analogy.  What has been overlooked in the discussion so far has been an element that links the two, the question of power.  Slavery is the most direct, brutal expression of power over another individual, which often included rape.  You will notice the character of sexual harassment and abuse takes the form of a person in a position of power, or authority using it to exploit someone else.  And as for the culture of keeping it quiet, you have the threat: "Don't report it, no one will believe you."

Slavery was always wrong, a vile offense, even though it was sanctioned by society at large.  The same holds true for sexual harassment, abuse, and rape.  It is always wrong to treat people in a demeaning, exploitative manner, no matter what cultural norms approve.  A vast dark universe of injury I hope is being revealed.  Perhaps, like the sea change that happened with slavery, we will see a similar change with sexual brutality.

Where would you place the USA as it relates to where we are at in terms of the need for a 'sea change'?   

E.g. are we one of the worst nations,  middle of the pack,  or, even with what is being exposed,  ahead of the curve compare to most other nations?     I would say the latter based on personal experience.   Why?   Ever since the Clarence Thomas \ Hill 'event',  the three companies I have worked for have had very defined policies with regards to sexual harassment.   E.g. each year all managers (and I'm one),   have to take a class and get 'certified' that I understand how to deal with a sexual harassment \ hostile work environment claim.    

Of course I don't work in the entertainment industry or politics.    So that made me wonder;  is what we are seeing mostly occurring in these 'odd' industries (odd in their management structure,  policies,  openness) or is this happening at a similar level in corporate America?     (There is the very recent Uber troubles which were shocking but they are not a publicly traded company,  so I wonder IF that was a key reason).

I really don't know.   All I'm saying is based on my experience at companies in the past 25 or so years,  sexual harassment was taken very seriously.   OR was I just being fooled by their HR policies?    

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

jamesJazzguitar said: OR was I just being fooled by their HR policies?

My personal opinion is that most corporate America has "rules" in place: some have strict "interoffice dating" policies, while some have sexual "harassment" policies, which is up to personal interpretation.

I do think when you become involved in politics and/or entertainment, the "power" becomes greater and the chain of command becomes weaker. In other words, less protection.

I am personally facing an uncomfortable situation during a part time retail job. If "avoidance" doesn't work, a flippant comment, "please keep out of my personal space" will be next. If this person continues this behaviour, I'm going to have to have a "discussion" with him & one of the managers present.

I'd hate to accuse and have the situation escalate. But in regular corporate America, there is little tolerance for any behaviour that makes an employee uncomfortable.

But we're light years ahead of Southeast Asia and Central Africa for women's rights. Heck, even European women tolerate, even expect to be pinched.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, TikiSoo said:

jamesJazzguitar said: OR was I just being fooled by their HR policies?

My personal opinion is that most corporate America has "rules" in place: some have strict "interoffice dating" policies, while some have sexual "harassment" policies, which is up to personal interpretation.

I do think when you become involved in politics and/or entertainment, the "power" becomes greater and the chain of command becomes weaker. In other words, less protection.

I am personally facing an uncomfortable situation during a part time retail job. If "avoidance" doesn't work, a flippant comment, "please keep out of my personal space" will be next. If this person continues this behaviour, I'm going to have to have a "discussion" with him & one of the managers present.

I'd hate to accuse and have the situation escalate. But in regular corporate America, there is little tolerance for any behaviour that makes an employee uncomfortable.

But we're light years ahead of Southeast Asia and Central Africa for women's rights. Heck, even European women tolerate, even expect to be pinched.

Hey Tiki! A suggestion for ya here.

As a last resort before having to contact your manager, have you perhaps thought of wearing that green Halloween makeup of yours to work? Maybe that would scare the guy away and/or turn the guy off enough to stop makin' him come onto you while you're tryin' to do your job.

UNLESS of course the guy is a big original Star Trek series fan and always thought Susan Oliver and Yvonne Craig were even sexier lookin' that way.

(...and then of course this wouldn't work and you'll have to take that next step you mentioned...but hey, this MIGHT be worth a try, RIGHT?!) ;)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On November 23, 2017 at 3:28 AM, spence said:

At first I believed all these now far too many sexual allegations, but now they seem to be jumping on the $financial;$ banmdwagon

More of the typical rhetoric designed to delegitimize claims of assault or molestation.  What is the basis for your decision that there are too many claims?  Why don't you rather take it as evidence of an even greater, unreported legacy of abuse?  What financial bandwagon?  I don't see a vast flood of lawsuits or settlements, only a handful of cases, mostly involving Fox employees.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On November 23, 2017 at 9:13 AM, jamesjazzguitar said:

Where would you place the USA as it relates to where we are at in terms of the need for a 'sea change'?   

E.g. are we one of the worst nations,  middle of the pack,  or, even with what is being exposed,  ahead of the curve compare to most other nations?     I would say the latter based on personal experience.   Why?   Ever since the Clarence Thomas \ Hill 'event',  the three companies I have worked for have had very defined policies with regards to sexual harassment.   E.g. each year all managers (and I'm one),   have to take a class and get 'certified' that I understand how to deal with a sexual harassment \ hostile work environment claim.    

Of course I don't work in the entertainment industry or politics.    So that made me wonder;  is what we are seeing mostly occurring in these 'odd' industries (odd in their management structure,  policies,  openness) or is this happening at a similar level in corporate America?     (There is the very recent Uber troubles which were shocking but they are not a publicly traded company,  so I wonder IF that was a key reason).

I really don't know.   All I'm saying is based on my experience at companies in the past 25 or so years,  sexual harassment was taken very seriously.   OR was I just being fooled by their HR policies?    

I wouldn't have the knowledge to rank countries or areas of the world in terms of enlightenment.  It's tempting to have a go at it, but without real objective study, I would only be operating on my prejudices.  The only objective observation I could make is to look at parts of the world where revelations about the unspoken conditions are being made.  In that respect, I guess we can start to feel better about ourselves.

As for whether any industry is more prone to abuse than others, all I can operate on is an assumption that human nature is similar anywhere you go.  Maybe the reason we see accusations of misconduct from the places you mention are that tend to have a higher public profile, by nature.  My own experience is in no way comparable, but I'm sure you know there is tremendous pressure to comply with direction from superiors in a work environment.  I have been instructed any number of times to do things in my work that I felt was ethically, and even legally wrong.  Refusing to comply can lead to being written up, or fired.  And if you are fired, you won't expect a good reference.

And as for company's sexual harassment policies, well, perhaps I'm being cynical, but I suspect they are designed more for the protection of the company, rather than the employees.  Maybe things have improved in recent decades.  A lot of the recent accusations that have come out recently were of older offenses.  But it doesn't seem there is any shortage of those stemming from recent ones.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, slaytonf said:

More of the typical rhetoric designed to delegitimize claims of assault or molestation.  What is the basis for your decision that there are too many claims?  Why don't you rather take it as evidence of an even greater, unreported legacy of abuse?  What financial bandwagon?  I don't see a vast flood of lawsuits or settlements, only a handful of cases, mostly involving Fox employees.

 

Some claims are going to be valid, whilst some will be driven by other motives - that's human nature. Changes in societal attitudes have led to greater reporting, whilst the media is much more willing to record those reports & do so long before they're proven or dismissed in any court of law, or settled by negotiation without legal guilt/innocence being established. I don't think it's particularly safe to extrapolate likelihood of the legitimacy of claims, or the proportions of numbers that go unreported, from the viewpoint of media reporting - unless you find yourself personally involved in such a situation, you simply aren't in a position to really know all the facts.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/22/2017 at 6:07 PM, darkblue said:

Except for those with faith.

"for there is nothing concealed that will not be uncovered, or hidden that will not be made known" - Jesus of Nazareth (Matthew 10:26)

That is a good quote for those that believe in omnipresent, omnipotent divine karma in the hereafter.
But those of us in the here and now, unfortunately must relying on receiving the far less perfect "justice" of our fellow man.

On 11/22/2017 at 9:23 PM, jameselliot said:

The United States may undergo a transformation but will Asia, Africa, the mid-east, South America? I doubt it.

I am reminded of what Gandhi had to say regarding using passive-resistance (civil disobedience) tactics against totalitarian governments, to force regime change... 

"No Government— much less the Indian Government can subsist if the people cease to serve it."

"Even the most despotic government cannot stand except for the consent of the governed, which consent is often forcibly procured by the despot. Immediately the subject ceases to fear the despotic force, his power is gone.

I believe, and everybody must grant, that no Government can exist for a single moment without the co-operation of the people, willing or forced, and if people suddenly withdraw their co-operation in every detail the Government will come to a standstill. . . It remains to be seen whether their [the masses' and the classes'] feeling is intense enough to evoke in them the measure of sacrifice adequate for successful non-co-operation."

Meaning that there would be great cost and sacrifice that those masses would have to be willing to endure to effect such a regime change.
Even the comparatively "tolerant" British government's of South Africa and India had to reach a level of receptivity before they made any kind of significant change. And still not without a significant cost in lives of those attempting to initiate change using such passive resistance measures.

This apparent "sexual repression backlash/gender equality revolution" we are currently experiencing here does not fully compare with what Gandhi's movement did to effect change, but there are some significant similarities.
In the U.S. at this time, our society is presently at a point where such a backlash can perhaps yield significant results. This of course would not be the same in other places, where male hegemony remains restrictively dominant. If a Female Equality "Spring" movement were to successively erupt around the world, there would likely be a violent backlash to it not seen in more accommodating places such as Western Europe and North America.
Likely escalating into a type of gender warfare in the most repressive areas. 
Then, to paraphrase Gandhi, "It remains to be seen whether [the female masses' and classes'] feeling is intense enough to evoke in them the measure of sacrifice adequate for successful [societal change]." 
However, if such change does occur here, and is deemed both socially "successful and desirable" it will eventually influence similar changes in other parts of the world.
Even the most repressive regimes are not currently immune to receiving information from other places, even if such information must be disseminated in a covert "black market" underground fashion. Women will find out about it, and influence whatever change they can where they are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/23/2017 at 5:37 AM, TikiSoo said:

It's funny, the other day I was thinking about all these women coming forward so many years after the offense.

These sort of violations have happened to all of us "career women" through the decades. When it happened to me as a young woman in my 20's-30's I was shocked, dismayed and really didn't know what to do about it. Somehow, it always becomes "your fault".

Then I started thinking about those circumstances: A person is on a job interview. The person is doing their best to "sell" themself for the job by smiling, making eye contact, being engaged just like anyone would. The interviewer takes that as "flirting" and makes a propositional move. The person being interviewed is shocked at this behaviour, (s)he only wants a JOB not a DATE.

People in the position of power (the one hiring) need to be above the level of taking interviews personally. And the one being interviewed also needs to keep behind those boundries as well. It's 2017, about time to just learn how to be professional.

 

On 11/24/2017 at 5:50 AM, TikiSoo said:

jamesJazzguitar said: OR was I just being fooled by their HR policies?

My personal opinion is that most corporate America has "rules" in place: some have strict "interoffice dating" policies, while some have sexual "harassment" policies, which is up to personal interpretation.

I do think when you become involved in politics and/or entertainment, the "power" becomes greater and the chain of command becomes weaker. In other words, less protection.

I am personally facing an uncomfortable situation during a part time retail job. If "avoidance" doesn't work, a flippant comment, "please keep out of my personal space" will be next. If this person continues this behaviour, I'm going to have to have a "discussion" with him & one of the managers present.

I'd hate to accuse and have the situation escalate. But in regular corporate America, there is little tolerance for any behaviour that makes an employee uncomfortable.

But we're light years ahead of Southeast Asia and Central Africa for women's rights. Heck, even European women tolerate, even expect to be pinched.

I am both sorry and ashamed when I hear of incidences of male insensitivity (or worse) toward females (in the workplace and elsewhere).  It makes me wonder if I have been unknowingly "guilty" of such actions myself (or perceived so by others???).

I do recall when I was still in high school and working at a grocery store, that I used to "flirt" a lot with any pretty girl that I thought was available. I'd always be the first to offer carrying their bags out to their car.

Then one day one of the female checkers pulled me aside and personally addressed me about my behavior.
She told me, quite sternly, that it wasn't appropriate and that she was personally offended by it and that I needed to stop behaving that way immediately. I was taken aback, by what she said, and I was embarrassed. I had thought I was being cute, but I was wrong. I did implement a drastic change in my behavior (at least while in my place of work).
I also tried to stay away from her check-stand as much as possible. But then she told me that I still was required to bag for her, so I did my best to move from one checker to the next, so that none would feel "neglected" but tried to do so as impartially and "professionally" as I knew how. 
I owe that checker a debt of gratitude for the scolding and lesson she taught me, especially as I moved into management positions later in life. Because of that, I was able to avoid a world of hurt later. But I do consider myself a fast "learner" and I know that not all of us are so gifted.

In the military we have regulations against "fraternization."
This applies to Officer-Enlisted personal relationships, as well as all soldiers of different ranks, enlisted or otherwise.
The regs are quite clear in their intent to prevent inappropriate power-plays by outranking soldiers.
But like all "rules" there can be extenuating circumstances that are not clearly defined which are left to individual interpretation. And, as usual there are those who covertly defy the regulations. I've seen it happen with both sexes when when one outranked the other.
Relationships develop regardless of the rules. Persons do not always stay the same rank and if one is promoted higher than their "partner" the relationship doesn't automatically change or go away.
In my military I career I did my best to avoid any kind of "inappropriate" intimate relationship with anyone under my authority or within my immediate chain-of-command. I admit there were a few such uncomfortable situations. But thankfully they were very few.
I think that it is very important to have specific policies in-place, with clear definitions as to what constitutes what kind of behavior. Much less room for non-deliberate "error" that way.

One day, I was sitting in the passenger seat next to a female coworker when she reached for something in the glove box as I was fastening my seat belt. I remember we touched and she looked at me with what could have been interpreted as mock shock, and said, "You touched my boob!" I quickly said that it was unintentional.
She gave me what I thought was a pouty face, but I remember feeling very uncomfortable sitting next to her for the duration of the trip.
Maybe I was "traumatized" by that event, since I still vividly remember it?

Spontaneity becomes difficult when one has to stop and consider every word, action, or gesture beforehand, but sadly that appears to be where we are.
Is it still acceptable to compliment someone without them taking it the "wrong" way. To give someone a hug?
If one has to stop and think about it, perhaps it is better to remain silent, and never touch.

For some workaholics with no outside social life, the work place may be the only place one regularly interacts with the opposite sex. It wasn't all that long ago when interoffice dating was an acceptable practice. Today, it is almost universally frowned upon.

Not everyone has been raised with or taught the same social graces, and when one is at the higher echelons of their respective professions, there are few above and many below.
We all have social and physical needs, and it can indeed, be quite lonely near the top.
It is a way of life and thinking that most of us never have to deal with, but those of great power, influence, wealth or celebrity understandably do have a different way of thinking.
They are surrounded by persons who may be there for a variety of reasons. Not the least could be personal gain, or advancement.  One can never be quite sure of the motivations of those around them. 
And yet, if one is widowed, or recently divorced, or has some kinky preferences, how does one go about finding a willing partner? If you are a Charlie Rose, do you join an online dating service?

I am not trying to excuse the truly inexcusable behavior that I think most of us imagine with the words "sexual misconduct" but if someone asks you to watch a movie with them one can always politely say no.
If the movie has content that one finds objectionable, one can always say so, and leave.
If someone asks a question that one feels is inappropriate, one can be forthright and say so.
If one is touched "inappropriately" (deliberately or not), one does not have to submit, and can tell why.
If one is asked out by someone of dubious reputation, one can bring it up for clarification before saying yes, or no.

I can't tell you how many times in my life I've kissed a girl for the first time and she opened her mouth and stuck out her tongue.
I was out with this little Asian girl once and she immediately tried to stick her tongue down my throat. Under the right circumstances I wouldn't have been opposed to deep kissing, but she was apparently unaware of her garlic breath. I like garlic, and onions, so if my "date" likes spicy foods I order some of the same. But I hadn't eaten any garlic, and found myself unable to breathe and at the point of gagging. I didn't want to embarrass her but I found her a little too aggressive, and the situation was very uncomfortable as she remained very clingy and kissy throughout the evening and we barely knew each other.
I sort of felt bad for her (and myself) after that evening, because I always found an excuse to never ask her out again, but I didn't have the nerve to explain to her why. 
Perhaps things would have gone differently if I had stopped her and spoke with her about how I felt when it first happened? I still regret that night, and ponder what I should have done. But I guess I just didn't really know what to do at the time so I sort of tolerated the situation until it was over.
Was I a victim of "sexual misconduct"? I didn't even know about the term at that time, and since I was the male, I thought, how could I be the victim?
Was I partly to blame for what happened? I don't know, but I felt a little guilty about it anyway.
In other words we all need to know our own personal boundaries and clearly set them with others when certain situations arise.

I know that it is easier said than done, but we (both sexes) need to learn that it is far preferable to totally avoid or immediately confront a situation than to allow or participate in an activity that we feel uncomfortable with or that "shocks" us at the time. Far better that, than to stew forever with angst and anger over something that likely could have been avoided or stopped with a firm "NO!"

The term "Casting Couch" has been around for a very long time.
Females and males who have acquiesced to the "couch" to gain a role or contract, did so because at that time they were willing to "sell" or "exchange" that part of themselves for personal gain. They either had no clearly defined boundaries, or were willing to drop them for that moment. 
I am not saying that the power politics that allowed the casting couch to exist in the first place were ever right, but what I am saying is that all "games" have had their "rules" in place, and if one chose to play in a particular game they either played by rules that may not have been of their choosing, or did not play at all.
Today (as in the past) women are justifiably trying to change the rules of "the game," but that does not rewrite the history of what once was.

This does not dismiss rape.
If the person is a true predator, they will ignore the boundaries regardless.
However, I would really like to believe that most of my fellow males would honor whatever boundaries are set before us. Granted, it is in our nature to try to test them from time to time, to be sure that they still exist, or haven't changed. But I would like to believe that most of us won't cross them as long as they are firmly established.
We may be quite stupid about such things, but I'd like to think most of us are not that stupid! 
Especially if they are made clear by someone that we otherwise are attracted to.
Some of us may be offended at our perceived rejection, or have our feelings hurt for the moment, but the mature of us will understand that it is better to confront and alter "obnoxious" behavior at the time than be accused of it later.

Generally speaking, males and females are quite different. Both physically and emotionally. It is simply the way we are built. We share many things in common, but respond sometimes in quite different ways.
Males are, for the most part, perhaps more easily visually stimulated than females. We are easily aroused by different things. We carry with us adolescent conditioning.
If our first romantic interlude was when we were a teen, then we remember that for the rest of our life.
Some of us (both male and female) may become fixated and never quite grow beyond our childhood attractions. As we become older, a few of us may actually try to recapture those long past adolescent experiences with socially abhorrent behavior.
This doesn't excuse such predatory practices, but perhaps it may help to explain why they sometimes happen.

Practically every family has a "Chester, molester" uncle...
Not to make light of any of this subject matter, but here is Chris Rock's "Uncle Johnny" story...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxhg3dcHnb0

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Stephan55 said:

But those of us in the here and now, unfortunately must relying on receiving the far less perfect "justice" of our fellow man.

Good luck with that.

Oh, and by the way, perfect justice (what you referred to as "divine karma") is not just applicable to the hereafter - it's administered on earth.

And it's administered to everyone - whether they "believe" in it or not.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, darkblue said:

Good luck with that.

Oh, and by the way, perfect justice (what you referred to as "divine karma") is not just applicable to the hereafter - it's administered on earth.

And it's administered to everyone - whether they "believe" in it or not.

Well, I'd really like to believe that "what goes around comes around..." especially since I've used that phrase so often in my life.
Sometimes I think I've actually seen it happen, or at least rationalized so.
With the rest, well, I'm still waiting, and even hoping to see it.

Perhaps it's really not important whether I see it or not within my life time, so long as it does happen.

I've grown agnostic in my old age. But there was a time when I was a proselytizing "true believer."

Perhaps I'll be one again.

When I was very young I "believed" because I was told by adults that it was true.
Then I began to question what I had been told by adults, and government, and many other institutions, so I confessed that I really didn't know.
Then I went through a phase when I thought I really needed a miracle and tried to make a deal with god.
Then I got mad at him, but had learned too much to deny his existence.

Now I'm back to the point where I'm still mad at him if he does exist, and if he doesn't, then it's a waste of energy to be mad at nothing, when I should just be mad at my own species.

i do believe that we make our own "heaven" or "hell" here on earth. As far as later, maybe I'll be surprised.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Stephan55 said:

Well, I'd really like to believe that "what goes around comes around..." especially since I've used that phrase so often in my life.
Sometimes I think I've actually seen it happen, or at least rationalized so.
With the rest, well, I'm still waiting, and even hoping to see it.

Perhaps it's really not important whether I see it or not within my life time, so long as it does happen.

I've grown agnostic in my old age. But there was a time when I was a proselytizing "true believer."

Perhaps I'll be one again.

When I was very young I "believed" because I was told by adults that it was true.
Then I began to question what I had been told by adults, and government, and many other institutions, so I confessed that I really didn't know.
Then I went through a phase when I thought I really needed a miracle and tried to make a deal with god.
Then I got mad at him, but had learned too much to deny his existence.

Now I'm back to the point where I'm still mad at him if he does exist, and if he doesn't, then it's a waste of energy to be mad at nothing, when I should just be mad at my own species.

i do believe that we make our own "heaven" or "hell" here on earth. As far as later, maybe I'll be surprised.

Hey Stephan. Gotta say I'm finding it rather ironic that in a thread that's basically about a social movement geared toward the idea of women being treated with the same respect as men, you've seemed to have totally ignored the thought that IF there IS a "God"(fellow agnostic here, ol' buddy ;) ) how come "God" couldn't be a "SHE"???

(...sorry, couldn't resist)

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dargo said:

Hey Stephen. Gotta say I'm finding it rather ironic that in a thread that's basically about a social movement geared toward the idea of women being treated with the same respect as men, you've seemed to have totally ignored the thought that IF there IS a "God"(fellow agnostic here, ol' buddy ;) ) how come "God" couldn't be a "SHE"???

(...sorry, couldn't resist)

I didn't ignore that Darg, in fact I almost used "he/she" in my post. But I was referencing Judaeo Christianity, which as we know is a paternalistic religion, where the god head is always referenced in the masculine.

Of course I could say that I was just being empathetic with the tone of the thread, and blaming a male god for everything that is wrong in the world ;)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Stephan55 said:

I was referencing Judaeo Christianity, which as we know is a paternalistic religion, where the god head is always referenced in the masculine.

Isn't the theme of this thread "the power of the mob"?

As to God being "male" or "female", God is equally positive and negative force - a being comprised of spirit and mind, completely and perfectly balanced.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, darkblue said:

Isn't the theme of this thread "the power of the mob"?

As to God being "male" or "female", God is equally positive and negative force - a being comprised of spirit and mind, completely and perfectly balanced.

Not sure if that was the OP's original intent, but things do have a way of digressing around here and taking off in different tangents.

Your idea of god sounds a little androgynously yin and yang to me.
Granted even Christ inferred in Matthew 22:30 that there would be no such thing as sex (or sexes) in heaven.
I know that will be a great disappointment for Latter Day Saints, but on the "bright" side, men and women will truly be "equal" (in every way) in such a "hereafter" if everything written about in the Christian New Testament comes to pass.

Update: sorry about that, I meant Matthew 22:30, not Matthew 12:25

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Stephan55 said:

Not sure if that was the OP's original intent, but things do have a way of digressing around here and taking off in different tangents.

Your idea of god sounds a little androgynously yin and yang to me.
Granted even Christ inferred in Matthew 12:25 that there would be no such thing as sexes or sex in heaven.
I know that will be a great disappointment for Latter Day Saints, but on the "bright" side, men and women will truly be "equal" (in every way) in such a "hereafter" if everything written about in the Christian New Testament comes to pass.

There won't be any men and women in the hereafter. Only souls.

Souls, like God, are equally positive and negative, in perfect balance.

Only on earth do they occupy the body of one gender or the other, choosing to express one pole more than the other for either experiential or karmic purposes. As a soul becomes closer and closer to having dispelled of its karmic debt and subsequently becomes closer to being freed from flesh, it automatically begins to become balanced, expressing male and female (positive and negative) properties in equal measure.

Christ hinted at this when he told the apostles "for in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven" (Matthew 22:30)

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, darkblue said:

There won't be any men and women in the hereafter. Only souls.

Souls, like God, are equally positive and negative, in perfect balance.

Only on earth do they occupy the body of one gender or the other, choosing to express one pole more than the other for either experiential or karmic purposes. As a soul becomes closer and closer to having dispelled of its karmic debt and subsequently becomes closer to being freed from flesh, it automatically begins to become balanced, expressing male and female (positive and negative) properties in equal measure.

Christ hinted at this when he told the apostles "for in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven" (Matthew 22:30)

I corrected the reference error in my previous post. Apparently you knew which quote I was referring to anyway.

It sounds like you have a pretty close relationship with god, and it appears you have a much better grasp on what heaven will be like than many persons. As for myself, I can only say what I've read about in various religious texts, I can neither confirm nor deny the veracity of such spiritual concepts.
Believers everywhere, believe what they believe on faith, not substance.
Those of faith "know what they know" those of little faith have their doubts.
One day, perhaps we will all find out what was/is truth and what was/is not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Stephan55 said:

I can only say what I've read about in various religious texts, I can neither confirm nor deny the veracity of such spiritual concepts.

None of us can.

Proof, whether affirmative or the opposite, will come to each of us after we have drawn our last breath in this earth life.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, limey said:

 

Some claims are going to be valid, whilst some will be driven by other motives - that's human nature. Changes in societal attitudes have led to greater reporting, whilst the media is much more willing to record those reports & do so long before they're proven or dismissed in any court of law, or settled by negotiation without legal guilt/innocence being established. I don't think it's particularly safe to extrapolate likelihood of the legitimacy of claims, or the proportions of numbers that go unreported, from the viewpoint of media reporting - unless you find yourself personally involved in such a situation, you simply aren't in a position to really know all the facts.

Even the most cursory search about sexual abuse reveals overwhelming evidence that the extent of it is far greater than is ever brought to light, or reported, let alone redressed.  Yet the prevailing prejudice in our culture, and cultures around the world--and this thread--is against the victim that speaks out.  They are made the offender, accused of mercenary objectives, and cast as vindictive liars.  In essence, victimized again.  With such an ordeal to endure, is it any wonder so few speak out?  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, slaytonf said:

Even the most cursory search about sexual abuse reveals overwhelming evidence that the extent of it is far greater than is ever brought to light, or reported, let alone redressed.  Yet the prevailing prejudice in our culture, and cultures around the world--and this thread--is against the victim that speaks out.  They are made the offender, accused of mercenary objectives, and cast as vindictive liars.  In essence, victimized again.  With such an ordeal to endure, is it any wonder so few speak out?  

Nothing I have written disagrees with what you have just written - even what Spence wrote didn't. He expressed an opinion, which you promptly assumed was rhetoric designed to hold down all accusers. An expressed opinion (even one that dissents from those you hold) does not automatically equate to the kind of rhetoric you describe.

My caution is in creating an environment where those accused are punished without/before due investigation of the facts. Punishment should be the domain of the legal system and an individual's beliefs in divine retribution.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, slaytonf said:

With such an ordeal to endure, is it any wonder so few speak out?  

When they wait 2 or 3 decades to "speak out" and only do it when they can join in a group attack, they don't get to be respected the way an honest victim who reports immediately so as to make the most of the evidence and get the perp dealt with expeditiously is respected.

It's hard to respect cowardice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, darkblue said:

When they wait 2 or 3 decades to "speak out" and only do it when they can join in a group attack, they don't get to be respected the way an honest victim who reports immediately so as to make the most of the evidence and get the perp dealt with expeditiously is respected.

It's hard to respect cowardice.

Delaying the reporting of something until one feels comfortable enough to do so, doesn't automatically invalidate that report, nor the honesty of the person making it - though it can make it harder to establish the truth of the matter. There can be extremely persuasive reasons (like fear of reprisals) for an individual to hold back from immediately trying to get justice.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...