Catherine Deneuve and a bunch of other girls drive feminists a little more nutty

"

The essential freedom to offend

Philosopher Ruwen Ogien defended the freedom to offend as essential
to artistic creation. In the same way, we defend a freedom to bother as indispensable to sexual freedom.

Today we are educated enough to understand that sexual impulses are,
by nature, offensive and primitive — but we are also able to tell the
difference between an awkward attempt to pick someone up and what
constitutes a sexual assault.

Above all, we are aware that the human being is not a monolith: A
woman can, in the same day, lead a professional team and enjoy being a
man’s sexual object, without being a "whore" or a vile accomplice of the
patriarchy."

https://www.worldcrunch.com/opinion-analysis/full-translation-of-french-anti-metoo-manifesto-signed-by-catherine-deneuve

For anyone who doesn't know who Catherine Deneuve is, in this picture she was 52:

image


«134

Comments

  • Ha
    Much trigger
    So patriarch
    wow




    & I distinctly remember her & a young Susan Sarandon getting busy in the move The Hunger.


  • "This frenzy for sending the "pigs" to the slaughterhouse, far from helping women empower themselves, actually serves the interests of the enemies of sexual freedom, the religious extremists, the reactionaries and those who believe — in their righteousness and the Victorian moral outlook that goes with it — that women are a species "apart," children with adult faces who demand to be protected..."

    I wonder if many radical feminists see the irony in proving Mike Pence prudent?
  • I don't know about feminists, but there was a sense that Pence had been vindicated last November when each day was bringing allegations against a new man.

    "Someone once criticised Gary Bauer of the Family Research Council for
    his rule never to have a closed door meeting alone with any woman.  It
    was proof that he was antique and stupid and not cognizant of women as
    equals.  Turns out his antique values functioned as a protection for
    women in the workplace and for men who would be falsely accused."
  • I don't think either extreme of backward thinking can be vindicated, whether it's "no solo contact with non-spousal woman" or having all the fun drained out of workplace life by humorless women. Both positions are puritanical in their own way. 
  • Men treating humorless women with caution isn't an example of extremism or backward thinking. It's just the most rationally safe thing to do in the current climate.
  • I suspect Mike Pence's "caution" predates the need for it. 
  • edited January 2018
    vwtool said:

    I suspect Mike Pence's "caution" predates the need for it. 

    Predates the need? What does that mean? From the reports, it sounds like this has been an issue from time immemorial. Powerful men preying on young women is hardly a recent phenomenon, and women making false claims based on others' realities probably isn't that novel an idea either.

  • We were discussing the "current climate" post-Weinstein. 
  • vwtool said:

    We were discussing the "current climate" post-Weinstein. 

    The "current climate post-Weinstein" is an affection of the media akin to, "I am shocked, shocked to find that there is gambling here!". Pence is a powerful man who has enjoyed influence for many years. Maybe he deserves a little credit for recognizing and mitigating the risks before it was fashionable, instead of being mocked as a histrionic prude.
  • edited January 2018
    Since by his own admission he is a "Christian first..," I'm going to go with that as a more likely explanation, rather than him being atypically ahead of a fashion curve. 

    And FWIW, since he's taken an oath to uphold federal law, he's eventually going to run afoul of that, since men and women are considered equals in the workplace. 

    Pence represents the very humorlessness Deneuve is talking about. 
  • edited January 2018
    vwtool said:

    Since by his own admission he is a "Christian first..," I'm going to go with that as a more likely explanation, rather than him being atypically ahead of a fashion curve. 




    Since the two are complimentary, there is no need to choose.
    vwtool said:

    And FWIW, since he's taken an oath to uphold federal law, he's eventually going to run afoul of that, since men and women are considered equals in the workplace.  




    Your planted axiom is incorrect. People who are equal in a very general legal sense can be treated differently based on specific differences. Unless you can find a woman willing to sue to be alone in a room with him, this isn't going to cause him any headaches -- which is the point.
    vwtool said:

    Pence represents the very humorlessness Deneuve is talking about.  




    Since CD is referring to women losing their minds in the face of clumsy overtures, and Pence isn't publicly overwrought about the topic or standing accused of such overtures, designating him a representative of the very humorlessness CD describes isn't apt.

    Pence and CD don't stand directly opposed on this issue.  CD isn't an advocate for groping girls on the train, but she doesn't see the necessity of responding to mere awkwardness with disproportionate drama; she recognises elements of sexual interaction.  Pence does too and takes defensive measures against threats to his career and marriage.
  • edited January 2018
    Since they also called it "puritanism" in the article, I think it fits. I have to admit finding some humor in radical feminists and religious puritans finding themselves in agreement on virtual burkhas in the workplace.
  • vwtool said:

    Since they also called it "puritanism" in the article, I think it fits.

    That's a very thorough analysis.
  • nbody said:

    ...That's a very thorough analysis.




    It's just an observation. And we're just having a conversation. Both are about making connections.

  • vwtool said:

    Since by his own admission he is a "Christian first..," I'm going to go with that as a more likely explanation, rather than him being atypically ahead of a fashion curve. 


    And FWIW, since he's taken an oath to uphold federal law, he's eventually going to run afoul of that, since men and women are considered equals in the workplace. 

    Pence represents the very humorlessness Deneuve is talking about. 



    Being a Christian and establishing personal boundaries w/re to interaction with the opposite sex aren’t mutually exclusive. Indeed, it could be argued that not all biblical tenets are woefully outmoded, and regardless of one’s own spiritual posture, could still be considered good, or even timeless, advice.

    The notion that he’s in violation of federal workplace rules because he won’t have lunch alone with a woman or take a private meeting with her without someone else present is a stretch. It’s actually a little nutty and I don’t believe that you’re serious. I think you’re trying to troll me with that one.
  • edited January 2018
    There is, indeed, a lot of good advice in the Bible. It’s also true that there’s a lot of claptrap about nomadic shepherds that doesn’t necessarily apply to anyone not in that line of work. It’s been translated multiple times and moved through countless centuries before we get to read it, too.

    Absolutely not joking WRT federal law. Is Pence automatically allowed to dismiss any woman who would like to be his campaign manager, or not meet with a female agency head on short notice without waiting for a chaperone? That’s nonsensical.
  • There is no denial of opportunity to those women. He never, to my knowledge, said that he wouldn’t hire or work with a woman. There is no law that prevents him from asking for a third party to be present in those circumstances.
  • Religious beliefs don’t (yet) trump federal law. He’s discriminating against any woman who might need to work for or with him based on gender alone. That’s illegal.
  • What discrimination?

    No, just stop. I refuse to believe that you’re being serious. It’s absurd beyond belief.
  • edited January 2018
    Under federal law, no employer can discriminate on the basis of gender. Does Pence get a waiver because of his faith?

    If he actually refuses to meet with a female colleague, subordinate, agency head alone, that’s gender discrimination based solely on... what?

    I understand the man not wanting to compromise his marriage, but c’mon.
  • Nice try. I like a good trolling as much as the next guy but this one goes too far. You do get the GMF Award, though. Not bad - you almost had me convinced.
  • Tool, you're trying too hard to dislike him, give it a rest.
  • This isn’t Facebook, so my “likes” don’t count, but I actually don’t dislike the guy. I just think his ‘solution’ to this issue is not helpful or viable.
  • Taking precautions to ensure the dignity and safety of co-workers in light of all the abuses recently coming to light seems to prove the actions are indeed helpful and viable.  You have no evidence to support your claim that any discrimination has taken place.
  • Or he (and other men) could just behave themselves, and treat women in the workplace as equals to the best of their abilities.
  • vwtool said:

    Or he (and other men) could just behave themselves, and treat women in the workplace as equals to the best of their abilities.

    How does that protect a fellow from false accusations about what happens when his office door is closed in a one on one meeting with a woman?
  • That’s a good question. Maybe tell the person you’re meeting that the meeting is being recorded. Surely reasonable people could reach a better solution than sexual apartheid.
  • vwtool said:

    That’s a good question. Maybe tell the person you’re meeting that the meeting is being recorded. Surely reasonable people could reach a better solution than sexual apartheid.

    Taking video of every meeting with a closed door is hardly less peculiar than just leaving the door open.
  • How specifically do you see his actions are harmful?
Sign In or Register to comment.