Elon Musk bought Twitter.

[tabascoboy]

I suspect this was meant to be entirely unironic...

[Tichtheid]

I suspect this was meant to be entirely unironic...

Looks like Eroll's been smacked with the Christopher Walken fish

[inactionman]

Not sure it's helpful to portray all men as potential rapist.

Bravo.

To take that as the main take away is the most spectacular example of missing the writer's point

It's still a point she made: 'Because we know now what men would do'

No, we don't really, not based on this. We know what rapists would do.

To be honest, I'd expect an unconscious woman would be more likely to be robbed than raped, if we're considering crimes.

I'm also not quite sure what is meant by 'I don’t think Mesdames Tout Le Monde would harm him, we don’t carry the same weapons they do.' Weapon?

Anyway, the praise from Gisele Pelicot is completely warranted - globally exposing an utterly atrocious event and getting people to confront behaviours and attitudes, and carrying herself with a dignity I don't think many people could maintain in the circumstance.

[Guy Smiley]

Not sure it's helpful to portray all men as potential rapist.

Bravo.

To take that as the main take away is the most spectacular example of missing the writer's point

It's still a point she made: 'Because we know now what men would do'

No, we don't really, not based on this. We know what rapists would do.

To be honest, I'd expect an unconscious woman would be more likely to be robbed than raped, if we're considering crimes.

I'm also not quite sure what is meant by 'I don’t think Mesdames Tout Le Monde would harm him, we don’t carry the same weapons they do.' Weapon?

Anyway, the praise from Gisele Pelicot is completely warranted - globally exposing an utterly atrocious event and getting people to confront behaviours and attitudes, and carrying herself with a dignity I don't think many people could maintain in the circumstance.

Are we going to get bogged down with the ‘not all men’ thing again?


Try to put yourself in the woman’s place here. We all look the same. We all present the same very real threat. The evidence is right there before us. Everyday men are capable of this atrocity. As men, we have to own that. Sure… not all of us are going to commit rape, but enough of us actually do that it’s a fucking very real problem.

[Tichtheid]

Bravo.

To take that as the main take away is the most spectacular example of missing the writer's point

It's still a point she made: 'Because we know now what men would do'

No, we don't really, not based on this. We know what rapists would do.

To be honest, I'd expect an unconscious woman would be more likely to be robbed than raped, if we're considering crimes.

I'm also not quite sure what is meant by 'I don’t think Mesdames Tout Le Monde would harm him, we don’t carry the same weapons they do.' Weapon?

Anyway, the praise from Gisele Pelicot is completely warranted - globally exposing an utterly atrocious event and getting people to confront behaviours and attitudes, and carrying herself with a dignity I don't think many people could maintain in the circumstance.

Are we going to get bogged down with the ‘not all men’ thing again?


Try to put yourself in the woman’s place here. We all look the same. We all present the same very real threat. The evidence is right there before us. Everyday men are capable of this atrocity. As men, we have to own that. Sure… not all of us are going to commit rape, but enough of us actually do that it’s a fucking very real problem.

Thank You!

At least someone gets it. The fact is we all look the same and as that terrible case in France shows, women have no way of knowing which of us is or isn't a rapist - she talked to some of her abusers in her day to day life without knowing they had attacked her!

I can walk down the same street that my wife and daughters do and I will have a completely different experience of it.

Men have to start realising this, all men.

[Hellraiser]

The reasoning here is both specious and faulty. Any man (or woman) could be a serial killer, should we all be terrified of everyone we meet on the street because they look the same as normal people?

Replace man with black or Muslim and we immediately get into very murky territory. Not to mention the "they all look the same".

[Guy Smiley]

I can walk down the same street that my wife and daughters do and I will have a completely different experience of it.

Men have to start realising this, all men.

There it is. A couple of friends were telling me a few years back about how lucky I was that I could stroll home from the pub after dark and not fear every shadow, noise or footstep. If you're not prepared to speak up about that threat then you're essentially condoning it and you might as well be a participant from that point.

[Hugo]

Agreed.

Keeping women safe from predatory men is a communal responsibility in which everyone has to pull their weight. You have to create a climate where raping women is difficult and there are as many safeguards in place as possible. For example, you should always vet your daughters male acquaintances, as much as possible make sure she is never unaccompanied and so on and so forth.

Denying a national inquiry into the problem is wrong because it does not allow important information to come to light and thus creates the very climate (wall of silence) which enables sexual assault in the first place. Politicians are not pulling their weight on this and would rather point score than get to the bottom of it.

[sockwithaticket]

The reasoning here is both specious and faulty. Any man (or woman) could be a serial killer, should we all be terrified of everyone we meet on the street because they look the same as normal people?

Replace man with black or Muslim and we immediately get into very murky territory. Not to mention the "they all look the same".

Precisely what I was going to bring up. There's no doubt that it comes from a good place, but the point made about not being able to tell the good men from the bad men and that allowing the permission to generalise doesn't travel well outside of 'men' as a faceless monolith.

You'dbe hard pushed to tell the perpetrators of Islamist terror attacks apart from any other random Muslim on the street, that doesn't give anyone a justification for proclaiming their wariness of all Muslims.

[sockwithaticket]

I can walk down the same street that my wife and daughters do and I will have a completely different experience of it.

Men have to start realising this, all men.

There it is. A couple of friends were telling me a few years back about how lucky I was that I could stroll home from the pub after dark and not fear every shadow, noise or footstep. If you're not prepared to speak up about that threat then you're essentially condoning it and you might as well be a participant from that point.

Men are highly likely to be the victims of stranger violence (yes, primarily perpetrated by other men), they have every reason to be fearfeul of every shadow, noise or footstep after dark.

Last I checked women are much more likely to be victims of someone they know than strangers.

It's a crap point.

[sockwithaticket]

Agreed.

Keeping women safe from predatory men is a communal responsibility in which everyone has to pull their weight. You have to create a climate where raping women is difficult and there are as many safeguards in place as possible. For example, you should always vet your daughters male acquaintances, as much as possible make sure she is never unaccompanied and so on and so forth.

Denying a national inquiry into the problem is wrong because it does not allow important information to come to light and thus creates the very climate (wall of silence) which enables sexual assault in the first place. Politicians are not pulling their weight on this and would rather point score than get to the bottom of it.

There already was one.It came with 20 recommendations the Tories ignored and Labour have only just now made any noises about acting on.

Unless there are some deep flaws in Jay's methodology and conclusions, what purpose would another report serve, delivered several years hence at the cost of tens of millions of pounds, except to publically display that the antics of Musk and his sycophants will be caved to if they show their arses enough?

[Hugo]

Agreed.

Keeping women safe from predatory men is a communal responsibility in which everyone has to pull their weight. You have to create a climate where raping women is difficult and there are as many safeguards in place as possible. For example, you should always vet your daughters male acquaintances, as much as possible make sure she is never unaccompanied and so on and so forth.

Denying a national inquiry into the problem is wrong because it does not allow important information to come to light and thus creates the very climate (wall of silence) which enables sexual assault in the first place. Politicians are not pulling their weight on this and would rather point score than get to the bottom of it.

There already was one.It came with 20 recommendations the Tories ignored and Labour have only just now made any noises about acting on.

Unless there are some deep flaws in Jay's methodology and conclusions, what purpose would another report serve, delivered several years hence at the cost of tens of millions of pounds, except to publically display that the antics of Musk and his sycophants will be caved to if they show their arses enough?

There needs to be accountability for those people who enabled this. This is worse than Hillsborough and worse than Bloody Sunday. State sanctioned mass rape enabled by cowards who were entrusted with keeping communities safe from sexual predators.

The recommendations from the Jay report should be implemented ASAP but there needs to be a parallel investigation into who did what, where and when so that people in authority can be prosecuted.

Edit - actually I'd put it on par with Hillsborough, less fatalities but more victims overall and national in scope.

[Hugo]

The money is not an issue either. The govt just gave Syria £50 million.

[sockwithaticket]

Unfortunately, I think that shows altogether too much faith in these inquiries. People have walked away from Grenfell, the Post Office, infected blood, covid etc. without any particular consequence even when a light was shone upon their venal self interest, culpability, incompetence, unwillingness to co-operate etc. by counsel in hearings.

With the precedent of what these things typically don't achieve, I fail to see the point of the expense of another.

[inactionman]

Agreed.

Keeping women safe from predatory men is a communal responsibility in which everyone has to pull their weight. You have to create a climate where raping women is difficult and there are as many safeguards in place as possible. For example, you should always vet your daughters male acquaintances, as much as possible make sure she is never unaccompanied and so on and so forth.

Denying a national inquiry into the problem is wrong because it does not allow important information to come to light and thus creates the very climate (wall of silence) which enables sexual assault in the first place. Politicians are not pulling their weight on this and would rather point score than get to the bottom of it.

I'd think the first port of call remains creating a culture where objectification of women is called out and made socially unacceptable - it's too often the case that this behaviour is tolerated and even lionised (think of Paddy Jackson and Alex Hepburn). So many problems start from there, and that's where most men are culpable (my younger self included, I'm ashamed to say) and the part that all men have a distinct role to play in addressing.

Saying all men are conceptually capable of horrific crimes isn't exactly nuanced or helpful.

I just found the article clumsy in the places I've highlighted, not least the analogy of my genitalia as a weapon - if I interpreted that correctly. My wife would probably suggest, in my case, only in the sense of chemical warfare.

[Guy Smiley]

Agreed.

Keeping women safe from predatory men is a communal responsibility in which everyone has to pull their weight. You have to create a climate where raping women is difficult and there are as many safeguards in place as possible. For example, you should always vet your daughters male acquaintances, as much as possible make sure she is never unaccompanied and so on and so forth.

Denying a national inquiry into the problem is wrong because it does not allow important information to come to light and thus creates the very climate (wall of silence) which enables sexual assault in the first place. Politicians are not pulling their weight on this and would rather point score than get to the bottom of it.

I'd think the first port of call remains creating a culture where objectification of women is called out and made socially unacceptable - it's too often the case that this behaviour is tolerated and even lionised (think of Paddy Jackson and Alex Hepburn). So many problems start from there, and that's where most men are culpable (my younger self included, I'm ashamed to say) and the part that all men have a distinct role to play in addressing.

Saying all men are conceptually capable of horrific crimes isn't exactly nuanced or helpful.

I just found the article clumsy in the places I've highlighted, not least the analogy of my genitalia as a weapon - if I interpreted that correctly. My wife would probably suggest, in my case, only in the sense of chemical warfare.

Yes, there are problems with the way the article is worded as you say, which is distracting but nothing more than that.

Your first paragraph is spot on and like you, I recall some incidents from my youth which leave me feeling some shame. Ignorance isn't an excuse of course but I had no idea of the harm my words and actions carried... and that's kinda the issue here now, isn't it? We have to call it out, to raise awareness, to support positive action and illustrate what is wrong.

[Sandstorm]

I can walk down the same street that my wife and daughters do and I will have a completely different experience of it.

Men have to start realising this, all men.

There it is. A couple of friends were telling me a few years back about how lucky I was that I could stroll home from the pub after dark and not fear every shadow, noise or footstep. If you're not prepared to speak up about that threat then you're essentially condoning it and you might as well be a participant from that point.

Had the same conversation with my wife a few years ago and I was horrified how afraid women are walking alone anywhere. As a man it never even occurred to me.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

I can walk down the same street that my wife and daughters do and I will have a completely different experience of it.

Men have to start realising this, all men.

There it is. A couple of friends were telling me a few years back about how lucky I was that I could stroll home from the pub after dark and not fear every shadow, noise or footstep. If you're not prepared to speak up about that threat then you're essentially condoning it and you might as well be a participant from that point.

Had the same conversation with my wife a few years ago and I was horrified how afraid women are walking alone anywhere. As a man it never even occurred to me.

I think I was 22 or 23 chatting with some ladies from work in the pub after work and realising from their chat just how common it was they'd all been followed home, mostly more than once. Often it was an ex, but not unusually it was no one they knew. And you've got to think if it's common for ex's to follow someone we've all likely got one or more than one mate who's in essence stalked a woman, maybe women

[fishfoodie]

Check the responses to Saoirse Ronan's comment on Graham Norton a few weeks ago; where she just tried to explain to a bunch of non-rapey males, how women have to think continually about whether the men about them are perhaps rapey males; & because they naturally default to the worst case scenario; they have to act as if every male in their general vicinity is going to rape them; that is what drives their mindset !

[Calculon]

Not sure it's helpful to portray all men as potential rapist.

Bravo.

To take that as the main take away is the most spectacular example of missing the writer's point

Didn't say it was a the main point (what was?) but it was a point she made. It's an emotional article full of inaccuracies with unhelpful generalisation concerning men, and women for that matter. Reinforces my pov that people shouldn't get their news from Facebook cos everything posted from there has been shite

[Tichtheid]

Not sure it's helpful to portray all men as potential rapist.

Bravo.

To take that as the main take away is the most spectacular example of missing the writer's point

Didn't say it was a the main point (what was?) but it was a point she made. It's an emotional article full of inaccuracies with unhelpful generalisation concerning men, and women for that matter. Reinforces my pov that people shouldn't get their news from Facebook cos everything posted from there has been shite

Facebook is just a platform, the writer is a professional journalist and author and more importantly, a woman. It’s probably wise to not get news from a chat show but as Fishfoodie pointed out, sometimes there are interesting nuggets of truth to be found. Here’s yet another woman explaining that incident https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... rton-women


The page I found the essay on FB is that of a professional classical musician who has run in to severe backlash because she has published everyday misogyny in the classical music world, everything from discrimination in appointments in orchestras to sexual assault and grooming of under age girl students of powerful men.
Do not dismiss that as shite.

I didn’t post the article for several days after I read it, I predicted some of the responses seen here, it always happens with this topic.

[yermum]

If you speak to any women in your life , I would be fairly confident that at some point they have experienced a situation where they have felt vulnerable and worried if they were about to be sexually assaulted.

Most will have experienced unwanted touching at best, or sexual assault or worse .

It is a daily reality for women that they have to navigate through from a young age.

I really felt like the culture had changed for the better. But the rise of the incel/ Andrew Tate bro culture seems to be taking us back to a darker place.

[fishfoodie]

If you speak to any women in your life , I would be fairly confident that at some point they have experienced a situation where they have felt vulnerable and worried if they were about to be sexually assaulted.

Most will have experienced unwanted touching at best, or sexual assault or worse .

It is a daily reality for women that they have to navigate through from a young age.

I really felt like the culture had changed for the better. But the rise of the incel/ Andrew Tate bro culture seems to be taking us back to a darker place.

There was a really bloody depressing survey published in Ireland before Christmas, showing that more young men now hold what the quaintly call "traditionalist" views, than men of older generations.

Research into attitudes, influence and well-being among Irish men shows that two in five hold 'traditionalist' views.

Of these ‘traditionalist' men, 70% believe that women’s issues are exaggerated.

They are more likely to be younger men, accounting for 67%, particularly those in their 20s, who exhibit a higher adherence to traditional masculine roles compared to older age groups.

The findings follow a survey of 1,000 adults who were asked about perceptions of manhood in research conducted by Women’s Aid in partnership with Core research.

Of those who expressed traditionalist views, they agreed or were unsure on statements such as "men who don't dominate in relationships aren’t real men" (52%), "a man’s worth is measured by power and control over others" (54%) and "real men shouldn’t have to care about women’s opinions or feelings" (46%).

The trend suggests that younger men may be more influenced by contemporary online figures who promote traditional masculinity, according to Women’s Aid.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2024/1121/14821 ... s-aid-men/

[dpedin]

I used to work in a pub in Edinburgh as a student which got very busy on rugby international days. On these days only us guys went out to collect glasses and tidy up tables etc as the women wouldn't go out as they were fed up being groped, arses pinched and breasts fondled as they squeezed through the crowded bar. They were constantly propositioned and subjected to rude and disgusting comments about their bodies and what the guys would do to them. This was rugby 'supporters' from all nations but the worst were the French who apparently thought this was all ok. Drunken, middle aged English and Welsh guys were almost as bad, the Irish weren't a big problem for some reason and were usually just a laugh with the bar staff. It was even worse after the game as alcohol took its effect, bit of a war zone for the girls The whole episode opened my eyes to just how much abuse women received even when at work. I am not sure it has changed much and I am not sure many guys would call out their mates if they witnesses this happening, easier to laugh nervously and turn a blind eye!

Years later I had a long chat with my daughter about what to expect when she started going on a night out with her mates, we discussed and agreed she would stick together with her mates, never leave a mate behind, always get a black cab home or call for a lift, always let folk know where you were by phjone/text etc, never ever take a pill/tablet offered and never ever leave your drink on the table/bar out of sight. She said it was a bit of a war zone at times but luckily she survived without major incident but there were episodes where some of her mates were less lucky!

[Slick]

My wife was attacked in London a few years ago - guy wouldn't leave her alone then tried to drag her down an alley walking down a busy street - thankfully another male stopped the situation and a taxi driver drove her home FOC. The police to be fair took it very seriously and we went out twice with them in an unmarked car to try and spot the cunt.

It was a an awful incident but I presumed a one off. Then the #metoo stuff started and she posted about her own long list of experiences, from a teacher trying to kiss her to all the "usual" stuff posted above. The #metoo gets derided, but it utterly changed my views, make me dwell on my past behaviour, and makes me actively behave to make women feel comfortable in, for them, difficult situations.

[Tichtheid]

My wife was attacked in London a few years ago - guy wouldn't leave her alone then tried to drag her down an alley walking down a busy street - thankfully another male stopped the situation and a taxi driver drove her home FOC. The police to be fair took it very seriously and we went out twice with them in an unmarked car to try and spot the cunt.

It was a an awful incident but I presumed a one off. Then the #metoo stuff started and she posted about her own long list of experiences, from a teacher trying to kiss her to all the "usual" stuff posted above. The #metoo gets derided, but it utterly changed my views, make me dwell on my past behaviour, and makes me actively behave to make women feel comfortable in, for them, difficult situations.

That's horrible Slick, I'm sorry to hear that.

The #metoo stuff has been good in raising awareness, but again you hear the responses of "not ALL men"

Guys should just take a second to think about this - if you are alone or especially walking in a group behind a woman, cross the road if possible, or just slow up a little and drop back a bit, don't speak to her unless she speaks first. Call out your mates for objectification or other bad behaviour etc etc

We can all have as much of a laugh without making others feel belittled or afraid.

[Slick]

My wife was attacked in London a few years ago - guy wouldn't leave her alone then tried to drag her down an alley walking down a busy street - thankfully another male stopped the situation and a taxi driver drove her home FOC. The police to be fair took it very seriously and we went out twice with them in an unmarked car to try and spot the cunt.

It was a an awful incident but I presumed a one off. Then the #metoo stuff started and she posted about her own long list of experiences, from a teacher trying to kiss her to all the "usual" stuff posted above. The #metoo gets derided, but it utterly changed my views, make me dwell on my past behaviour, and makes me actively behave to make women feel comfortable in, for them, difficult situations.

That's horrible Slick, I'm sorry to hear that.

The #metoo stuff has been good in raising awareness, but again you hear the responses of "not ALL men"

Guys should just take a second to think about this - if you are alone or especially walking in a group behind a woman, cross the road if possible, or just slow up a little and drop back a bit, don't speak to her unless she speaks first. Call out your mates for objectification or other bad behaviour etc etc

We can all have as much of a laugh without making others feel belittled or afraid.

Yes, that's almost exactly what I meant by changing my behaviour. Not that I'd ever have done anything on purpose in the past, but just the awareness to take extra care.

[Kiwias]

My wife was attacked in London a few years ago - guy wouldn't leave her alone then tried to drag her down an alley walking down a busy street - thankfully another male stopped the situation and a taxi driver drove her home FOC. The police to be fair took it very seriously and we went out twice with them in an unmarked car to try and spot the cunt.

It was a an awful incident but I presumed a one off. Then the #metoo stuff started and she posted about her own long list of experiences, from a teacher trying to kiss her to all the "usual" stuff posted above. The #metoo gets derided, but it utterly changed my views, make me dwell on my past behaviour, and makes me actively behave to make women feel comfortable in, for them, difficult situations.

Jeez, mate, that is rough. Good to hear she escaped with nothing worse than a bad scare. As you said, a look back on my behaviour when younger makes me distinctly uncomfortable.

[inactionman]

Guys should just take a second to think about this - if you are alone or especially walking in a group behind a woman, cross the road if possible, or just slow up a little and drop back a bit, don't speak to her unless she speaks first. Call out your mates for objectification or other bad behaviour etc etc

We can all have as much of a laugh without making others feel belittled or afraid.

That's pretty much it - and to extend upon it, I do think the main issue is calling out the inappropriate, as that's how we influence broader society. We can act in a considerate manner, but we need to hold each other to those standards as well. Especially when young lads are bombarded by media from the likes of Andrew Tate. We need a very fecking loud countervoice to all that.

The #metoo stuff has been good in raising awareness, but again you hear the responses of "not ALL men"

I'm afraid in the case of this article the challenge was warranted. There were some statements that went too far, and it helps no-one if they can't be questioned, and it helps no-one to apply false dichotomies - and I take some significant umbrage if you're lumping me into that camp. Men do not, as a rule, do what Pelicot and his entourage did. What many of us are routinely guilty of is allowing the behaviours that objectify women and open the door to those horrific events.

My wife was attacked in London a few years ago - guy wouldn't leave her alone then tried to drag her down an alley walking down a busy street - thankfully another male stopped the situation and a taxi driver drove her home FOC. The police to be fair took it very seriously and we went out twice with them in an unmarked car to try and spot the cunt.

It was a an awful incident but I presumed a one off. Then the #metoo stuff started and she posted about her own long list of experiences, from a teacher trying to kiss her to all the "usual" stuff posted above. The #metoo gets derided, but it utterly changed my views, make me dwell on my past behaviour, and makes me actively behave to make women feel comfortable in, for them, difficult situations.

Christ. Sorry to hear that, that's dreadful.

The thing that always jars me is how utterly pervasive and continual it is. Awful.

[Tichtheid]

The #metoo stuff has been good in raising awareness, but again you hear the responses of "not ALL men"

I'm afraid in the case of this article the challenge was warranted. There were some statements that went too far, and it helps no-one if they can't be questioned, and it helps no-one to apply false dichotomies - and I take some significant umbrage if you're lumping me into that camp. Men do not, as a rule, do what Pelicot and his entourage did. What many of us are routinely guilty of is allowing the behaviours that objectify women and open the door to those horrific events.

The writer's opening paragraph says this;

"..And not just some men. Many men. So many men in fact, they had a nickname for them during the trial, Monsieur Tout Le Monde - Mr Everyman. Because the men who joined Pelicot in the dock were bakers, they were journalists, they were prison officers, they were accountants, they were young, they were old, they were single, they were married, they were fathers to daughters. But they all had one thing in common, a desire to dominate, to defile, to control, to penetrate, to humiliate. A love of rape.
Some of them knew Gisele Pelicot, some of them made small talk with her in the street, in the boulangerie, all the time knowing what she didn’t, that they had raped her as she lay unconscious in her bed and her husband had filmed them."

She specifically does not say All Men.

For me an important point in that paragraph is that some of them were men who walked around and talked to her in the street or in the bakery - she had no way of knowing that these men had defiled her. That is terrifying. How is she to know who else has been involved but who did not appear on camera? Being a father or husband did not preclude these men from assaulting her - how can she or others know for sure?

The fact that most men are not rapists doesn't make any difference to a woman walking alone along a street and being wolf-whistled at or worse.

This isn't about men and us feeling insulted by the article.

It's about what women put up with Every. Single. Day.

The thing that always jars me is how utterly pervasive and continual it is. Awful.

Yes!

[inactionman]

[

The writer's opening paragraph says this;

"..And not just some men. Many men. So many men in fact, they had a nickname for them during the trial, Monsieur Tout Le Monde - Mr Everyman. Because the men who joined Pelicot in the dock were bakers, they were journalists, they were prison officers, they were accountants, they were young, they were old, they were single, they were married, they were fathers to daughters. But they all had one thing in common, a desire to dominate, to defile, to control, to penetrate, to humiliate. A love of rape.
Some of them knew Gisele Pelicot, some of them made small talk with her in the street, in the boulangerie, all the time knowing what she didn’t, that they had raped her as she lay unconscious in her bed and her husband had filmed them."

She specifically does not say All Men.

Oh come on. Aside from the fact that's utterly irrelevant, it's false. She states, baldly (including the phrase you handily omitted):

I’ve been thinking about this a lot over the course of the trial of Dominique Pelicot and his fellow accused: what would a woman do to an unconscious man if she thought no-one would find out?
Because we know now what men would do. And not just some men. Many men. So many men in fact, they had a nickname for them during the trial, Monsieur Tout Le Monde - Mr Everyman.. Because the men who joined Pelicot in the dock were bakers, they were journalists, they were prison officers, they were accountants, they were young, they were old, they were single, they were married, they were fathers to daughters. But they all had one thing in common, a desire to dominate, to defile, to control, to penetrate, to humiliate. A love of rape.

I'm not insulted. It's just incorrect. They're called everyman because there is nothing at all distinguishing about them. Their acts are exceptional. So we don't know what men - many or otherwise - would do based upon this event.

Yes, it's just her rhetorical device, but it's clumsy and that's all I'm calling the article out on. I'm amazed that's enough to be associated with the buzz phrase 'not all men', with all the negative connotations that brings.

[Tichtheid]

[

The writer's opening paragraph says this;

"..And not just some men. Many men. So many men in fact, they had a nickname for them during the trial, Monsieur Tout Le Monde - Mr Everyman. Because the men who joined Pelicot in the dock were bakers, they were journalists, they were prison officers, they were accountants, they were young, they were old, they were single, they were married, they were fathers to daughters. But they all had one thing in common, a desire to dominate, to defile, to control, to penetrate, to humiliate. A love of rape.
Some of them knew Gisele Pelicot, some of them made small talk with her in the street, in the boulangerie, all the time knowing what she didn’t, that they had raped her as she lay unconscious in her bed and her husband had filmed them."

She specifically does not say All Men.

Oh come on. Aside from the fact that's utterly irrelevant, it's false. She states, baldly (including the phrase you handily omitted):

I’ve been thinking about this a lot over the course of the trial of Dominique Pelicot and his fellow accused: what would a woman do to an unconscious man if she thought no-one would find out?
Because we know now what men would do. And not just some men. Many men. So many men in fact, they had a nickname for them during the trial, Monsieur Tout Le Monde - Mr Everyman.. Because the men who joined Pelicot in the dock were bakers, they were journalists, they were prison officers, they were accountants, they were young, they were old, they were single, they were married, they were fathers to daughters. But they all had one thing in common, a desire to dominate, to defile, to control, to penetrate, to humiliate. A love of rape.

I'm not insulted. It's just incorrect. They're called everyman because there is nothing at all distinguishing about them. Their acts are exceptional. So we don't know what men - many or otherwise - would do based upon this event.

Yes, it's just her rhetorical device, but it's clumsy and that's all I'm calling the article out on. I'm amazed that's enough to be associated with the buzz phrase 'not all men', with all the negative connotations that brings.

I have not tried to single you out or target you in any way, but I feel that you're still letting the point slip by you because of this.

It's about what women put up with and the fact that they have no way of knowing if that guy five steps behind and getting closer is one of the minority of guys who will harm her.

As Saoirse Ronan said, "That's what girls have to think about all the time"

As for Monsieur Tout Le Monde, a native French speaker may help me out here, but I think that means the person is indistinguishable from anyone else, it doesn't literally mean "every man" or All Men

[inactionman]

[

The writer's opening paragraph says this;



She specifically does not say All Men.

Oh come on. Aside from the fact that's utterly irrelevant, it's false. She states, baldly (including the phrase you handily omitted):

I’ve been thinking about this a lot over the course of the trial of Dominique Pelicot and his fellow accused: what would a woman do to an unconscious man if she thought no-one would find out?
Because we know now what men would do. And not just some men. Many men. So many men in fact, they had a nickname for them during the trial, Monsieur Tout Le Monde - Mr Everyman.. Because the men who joined Pelicot in the dock were bakers, they were journalists, they were prison officers, they were accountants, they were young, they were old, they were single, they were married, they were fathers to daughters. But they all had one thing in common, a desire to dominate, to defile, to control, to penetrate, to humiliate. A love of rape.

I'm not insulted. It's just incorrect. They're called everyman because there is nothing at all distinguishing about them. Their acts are exceptional. So we don't know what men - many or otherwise - would do based upon this event.

Yes, it's just her rhetorical device, but it's clumsy and that's all I'm calling the article out on. I'm amazed that's enough to be associated with the buzz phrase 'not all men', with all the negative connotations that brings.

I have not tried to single you out or target you in any way, but I feel that you're still letting the point slip by you because of this.

It's about what women put up with and the fact that they have no way of knowing if that guy five steps behind and getting closer is one of the minority of guys who will harm her.

As Saoirse Ronan said, "That's what girls have to think about all the time"

The point has not slipped me by - you've just agreed with me on it!

To be clear, there are two totally separate arguments:

Argument 1 - The article was clumsy in certain places, and it's right and proper to point this out.
Argument 2 - men continue to enable a culture where women are objectified, with all the attendant issues that brings. We all need to up our game to sort this, as it's hugely damaging and women have daily challenges because of it.

You might think argument 2 blends into argument 1. I don't.

As for Monsieur Tout Le Monde, a native French speaker may help me out here, but I think that means the person is indistinguishable from anyone else, it doesn't literally mean "every man" or All Men

I know - I even bolded that part for you .

They are not called mr everyman because they are every/all men, they're called everyman because there's outwardly nothing remarkable about them. So the argument 'So many men in fact, they had a nickname for them during the trial, Monsieur Tout Le Monde - Mr Everyman.' is wrong.

[Tichtheid]

Yes, that's all much more important than the violence against women.

Explain to the woman writer how she is wrong.

[inactionman]

Yes, that's all much more important than the violence against women.

Explain to the woman writer how she is wrong.

Again, aspersions cast simply because I disagree with something someone wrote.

Do you realise how idiotic you sound saying that, because the writer is female, she should be treated differently to a male?

She made an argument I disagreed with. It was called. Get over it, and stop insinuating shitty, shitty things. It's cowardly.

[Uncle fester]

Yes, that's all much more important than the violence against women.

Explain to the woman writer how she is wrong.

Could we even call it mansplaining?

[inactionman]

Yes, that's all much more important than the violence against women.

Explain to the woman writer how she is wrong.

Could we even call it mansplaining?

I was half-expecting that to be thrown.

[Tichtheid]

Yes, that's all much more important than the violence against women.

Explain to the woman writer how she is wrong.

Again, aspersions cast simply because I disagree with something someone wrote.

Do you realise how idiotic you sound saying that, because the writer is female, she should be treated differently to a male?

She made an argument I disagreed with. It was called. Get over it, and stop insinuating shitty, shitty things. It's cowardly.

I think that perhaps you should stop being so defensive and listen to what she has to say instead of pointing out where you think she is wrong.

Your first comment was that most men would cover up an unconscious woman and let her sleep. Your second was

'Because we know now what men would do'

No, we don't really, not based on this. We know what rapists would do.

Both comments are saying "Not All Men".

Everyone knows it's not all men, but the point is that women don't know which men it is.

I can't keep saying the same thing.

[Calculon]

none of the, very valid, criticism of that article has to do with it being written by a woman.

[tabascoboy]