I think there are a lot of men, like Steve, who are basically good and don’t understand that some men are either just predators or they don’t see women as people. So these good men project their feelings onto bad men and explain it by making it about miscommunication or whatever. Women are trying to tell you that some men just don’t care about what women want. It’s all about them and what they want or they actually get off on the fact that they are forcing a woman to do something she doesn’t want. I’ve had so many experiences where I’ve CLEARLY said no and either straight up been ignored or gotten an extremely aggressive or hostile response. I’ve been physically forced to do things I’ve said no to and when I’ve turned down romantic or sexual offers in a direct (but not mean way), I’ve had to deal with downright crazy overreactions, up to and including stalking. I’m sure miscommunication can be a problem but there is also another deeper issue at play here. I think it mainly has to do with women being seen as inferior to men and men thinking that they are entitled to do what they want with women. Men often can’t imagine it and haven’t experienced it so they talk about what they know and have experienced rather than listening to what women know and have experienced and the real issue gets lost in the discussion.
I must say, I do have that problem myself at times. For example I hear you, and yet when you write f.e. “I’ve had to deal with downright crazy overreactions” my knee-jerk reaction goes to “of course it’s entitled and in no way justified, but it’s just the frustration that moment etc etc”, right. Even though I know the frustration, but can’t remember ever yelling around myself, let alone following someone etc.
I guess what drives a lot of men crazy is that we can’t assess what the percentage is of good guys, good guys that may have done bad things in the past and really, really bad guys. -When Matt Damon f.e. said “most men I worked with don’t do those things. Hannah Cranston’s reaction was “Frankly, I don’t believe that”- So that would mean a majority of men are perpetrators. Cenk is convinced it’s a small minority? What’s the reality? Why are we so blind to it? Is it a small minority that actually do it, but that a majority of women has to deal with (what Cenk believes)? I’m sure other people have a responsibility as well, every one of us could, so are we ourselves actually not guilty, or are we just unaware what constitutes harassment? Do we know the perpetrators, are they our best friends? If on the contrary a majority of men are perpetrators, why don’t we see them, why aren’t they talking f.e. in a disrespectful way of women when we’re in the room, do they hide from us? If we assume we’re the good guys and that’s why we don’t see it, are we aware still that we could be guilty? In other words, are we good guys? Or are we the problem, but we don’t know we’re doing things that are considered wrong? In other words, are we perpetrators ourselves? We just don’t wanna be blind, make sure we’re not etc.? Or is it like you say and we can’t even imagine what the really bad guys do, because we’re good ourselves?
As I said, a lot of guys are searching for answers to those questions and that’s what let’s us search for “alternative explanations” instead of just sitting back for a moment and take women’s reports in as they come. I guess the question is “what’s the right strategy and tactics, how should we personally/individually and how should society and/or men react, what responsibility do we have to do, what?
Personally, I think it’s a minority of men but I do think a majority of women have experienced it. The problem is that everyone makes excuses for that group of “bad men,” thus allowing them to continue to behave in an unacceptable manner. I’m certain most people do know at least one man who does behave in an unacceptable manner. But if you haven’t been the victim of it, how would you know? I mean, someone could be a thief too but if they don’t steal from you and you are unaware of it, then you are absolved of any wrongdoing in that situation. It just when you find out about it and you make excuses for the thief that you are contributing to the problem. For example, if you blame John for having a nice wallet full of cash rather than Jim for taking money out of John’s wallet without Jim’s permission. If John asks Jim if he can have some money and Jim says “Not now, maybe later” do you say well, John did ask so it’s OK that he tried to take the money after that conversation.
Here’s a helpful way to think about harassment and assault: how would you feel if a man, especially a bigger and stronger man than you, did it to you? Somehow things that we think of as acceptable for a man to do to a woman become unacceptable when a man does them to another man. If you wouldn’t find it acceptable, why should a woman?
Reba, I’m so sorry to hear that you have had bad experiences with men. I don’t know if I’m a “good man” or not, but I just don’t understand guys who force themselves on women who have clearly said no. I just can’t wrap my head around the notion that coercing someone into intimacy could possibly be enjoyable.
I’m also aware that I am a massive beneficiary of male privilege so I totally get that my perspective on this issue is largely skewed in favor of men. And b/c I’m aware of that, I welcome the feedback from women so I can escape my own world view and see it from the women’s perspective.
I guess the points I was trying to make during the segment are: (1) Yes, some men are predators and no amount of “clear no” from the woman is going to make them stop; (2) the #MeToo movement is mostly good and raises awareness on a great number of issues; (3) men are often not good at picking up nonverbal cues, even well-intentioned men who would be horrified to learn that they overstepped their bounds; (4) it would be very helpful if women gave men clear verbal cues, both in terms of “yes” and “no”; (5) if the woman ever says “no”, it stops right there, but even without a “clear no”, men really should try to figure out if the woman is into it rather than just pressing forward.
Lastly, I have to believe that most guys are not predators. I have 3 daughters and it would be too depressing and scary to think otherwise. Also, the vast majority of men I know in my life are good guys who I’d be shocked to find out were predators. Anyway, I’m glad that women’s rights have advanced so much the past few decades, but obviously there’s a long way to go.
the only time no means no from a woman is if all her gestures are saying no. ex: if her facial expressions, tone, pitch, voice, words, body language are all saying no or most are saying no and there is no contradiction, then sure, she means no.
BUT if she says “noooo” and she is smiling & tilting her head or playing with her hair then that means “continue” but it also means “I don’t want to look/sound/seem too easy”. so you continue until you get the full package, meaning, a no with all gestures in sync.
So, I disagree with you, Steve. No does not always mean no. It really depends. If she says no without meaning it and you stop escalating (of course without force) then she is going to think you are a pathetic little bitch who has no balls. Believe me, this is how some will think of you if you take an out of sync no and stop doing your job as a man, meaning sexual escalation. of course, if it’s in sync, then you stop without hesitation and leave it for another day.
I hear you and to the extent I can agree. I definitely think that a majority of women if not all have experienced situations like this and I hope it’s a minority of men. I just don’t know if the latter is actually the case and my intent was to bring across what’s going on in a man’s head sometimes.
I think the most important thing is for a man to just listen and don’t try to look at it from his own perspective, and I agree, of course, that any excuse for or protecting “bad behavior” is part of the problem. That’s why I think men should put the question of possible consequences aside and admit first what is happening / acknowledge at the very least that that’s how women actually see it without “convincing them / trying to convince them” it’s not. Otherwise we can’t change the culture…
Steve has summed up my feelings exactly with which women were sexier. Did you notice how they had Baily wear glasses to make Loni Anderson seem more sexy. It failed with me. Also Gilligan’s island put Ginger in curve-hugging you gowns, while Mary Ann wore farm girl clothes. Massive fail!
You guys were in some of my old stomping grounds! Me and a friend used to go regularly to Pt. Reyes (pronounced “rayz” not “ray-ez”). If we had a day when neither of us was too busy at work, we would go buy wine and picnic supplies and make the long drive out to Pt Reyes, go to our favorite beach, get to our secret spot, get naked, and have a great picnic drinking wine and smoking herb until the gorgeous sunset came. We only went on weekdays, when we usually had the beach all to ourselves. It’s not a nude beach. per se, but it just feels so awesome to be on the quintessential California beach on a beautiful day, high and naked. Glad you saw the Tule Elk (pronounced “toolie”), but please don’t chase wildlife. People can generally use a bit of exercise, but wild animals generally live “on the edge” so needless expenditure of energy can be harmful, especially in areas with lots of human disturbance. Besides, it’s likely illegal in the park to be chasing the elk, but even more importantly, elk, even female elk, are perfectly capable of killing humans and occasionally do. Not likely humans in a group, but don’t end up as one of those Darwin Award victims that harasses wildlife and then dies as a result. Elk have antlers, not horns, and males are the only ones with antlers. I’m a fish and wildlife biologist, forgive me. It’s cool you saw the coyote hunting so close–I have seen bobcats out there too. And there are great white sharks too–a surfer was bitten on Dec. 30th or 31st just off Pt Reyes.
I also used to spend months and months on the east side of the Sierras doing fisheries work in the streams there, even through the winter in knee-deep snow when the streams were full of ice. Snorkeling with trout! Mostly we stayed in June Lake, but we would go to Mammoth just to get a change of pace in terms of eating. There are some nice hot springs in the area! and keep an eye out for Sierra Nevada Snowshoe Hare, so beautiful in their white coats in the winter. Not everyone knows that there are snowshoe hares in California!
Hey guys, great PG! Every year those trips sound awesome!
I like that Steve talked about the Ansari situation at the end. The fact that there is this divide within the movement makes it a perfect story to debate over. We shouldn’t fear debate or disagreement, maybe more than anything I’m afraid the left is becoming more authoritarian, not in the right-wing sense of “calling someone racist/sexist etc ends the conversation”, but in people are afraid to say what they actually think, because they fear the backlash. I see that even on TYT now more and more, even from show to show, depending on the co-host one and the same people making different statements now – I don’t like that, I don’t like that at all. TYT was supposed to be a “camp fire” were different opinions get discussed openly, now it seems more like silos – AP, main show, ThinkTank, FridayPG, OS etc. Different arguments, POVs don’t clash at much on air anymore…
The best article I read about the Ansari thing was an article on VOX, not about wether it was assault or not, but about the debate itself and the consequences.
“Some critics have assumed that all people coming forward about sexual misconduct, no matter what behavior they’re reporting, want to see the perpetrators behind bars or driven out of their industries. Others have assumed that a public report of misconduct is essentially equivalent to jail time, or at least career destruction. Neither is always the case.” https://www.vox.com/2018/1/18/16901606/aziz-ansari-babe-me-too-sexual-harassment
I think that’s an important debate to have as well. I for example do believe that Ansari is guilty of sexual assault. Mainly because I hear Ana for example saying “I’ve been in that situation, I would never call it assault, I would call it a bad date”, then I’m thinking “how many women have been in that situation” and I hear it’s almost every woman. So then I’m asking myself “how many men have been in that situation?” How many men have been on dates were they didn’t want to have sex, but the woman was rubbing her pussy all over her face until they actually said “no”? I never go over the top and say never/none, but my hunch is not many – you know why? Because women know how to behave! If you can’t mind-read, you can’t just assume a “yes” either.
Am I aware that this standard would make a lot of men, especially above a certain age, guilty of sexual assault? Yes. Should all those people be in jail, lose their job or have “their lives destroyed?” No! Both you Steve and Cenk have a background in law. You know there is something called due process, right? But I go even further. I believe more in a criminal justice system like Norway. Cenk sometimes makes fun of it, says it’s too liberal or says “they are better people than me” (he says the same thing about MLK as well). But I don’t believe neither MLK nor Norway took/take the stances they take for moral reasons and/or because they’re “better people”, but because they’re convinced it’s the only way to move forward, to solve the issues and I happen to agree. Just because something is considered harassment, assault or rape doesn’t mean it’s clear what should happen to the perpetrator. Do I want those people to “get away with it?” No, not necessarily either, but my standard for if a movement like MeToo or TimesUp is successful is not how many people are in jail, how many careers have been destroyed or how many years in prison someone got, my standard is, does the movement lead to
a) a demise of the phenomenon
b) a change in culture
c) a lower overall crime rate and
d) for the perpetrators that exist right now a lower recidivism rate
We should also keep in mind, that while the fear of “losing career / career destroyed / life destroyed” as a result of false accusations is rational to a certain degree, not even Weinstein has been charged yet and he’s the one people always drawing the line on “XYZ is no Harvey Weinstein”. So maybe we should have a little more trust in women and society to handle the different cases the right way. Most people commenting on the story defended fe Cenk and Dave and said they shouldn’t have resigned…
We should listen to each other’s POVs and search for common ground, even if we think the other side is wrong. The babe author fe attacked HLN Ashleigh on her looks and age – unacceptable. At the same time, from her perspective Ashleigh and a lot of other commentators are blaming/shaming the victim, so people on her side should also calm down. If Ana or Hannah or other women in whatever our side is qualifies another woman as guilty of victim blaming/shaming, they’re usually also not too kind to said woman, comments on looks included…
I also wanna address more silly concerns that I sometimes hear, usually from men, but also from 100 women in France including Catherine Deneuve. The concern that all romance and or sex life will die if men are afraid to make a move or have to have a clear “yes” first etc. So, according to science, we are officially the horniest species on this planet. Not only that, the main difference is, our women are horny! :-) In fact women are the only females on this planet that can have an orgasm. But you think we’ll ever stop having sex on a societal level? :-) Are you nuts? No, ofc there are the experiences Steve described, and yes Ana has been angry before that a guy wouldn’t make a move instead of making it herself etc. But if guys would actually stop on a societal level to make moves, ofc women would change as well. I don’t even believe that’s necessary, but ofc the emancipation of women lead/leads to changes in male behavior so the emancipation of men from their patriarchal role will also lead to changes in women? Dah! And it already has! So I go with Ana’s latest statement on the issue, just a couple of weeks ago “believe me, if a woman wants to see your dick, she’ll tell you she wants to see your dick!” :-)
So let’s get rid of the silly, knee-jerk reaction, short-sighted, authoritarian debate and come to a more rational, fact based, nuanced, detailed, open minded debate … just like Norway! :-)
By the way / OT
We all remember the establishment telling Bernie and anyone attached to “socialism” to go to Cuba, the Soviet Union or China. Our defense was “why not Denmark, Sweden, Norway?” No I’m wondering if they’ll argue “so you think we should be more like Norway? So you’re with Trump, you want America to be more white, you’re a racist!” In other words, using Trump’s racist remarks and the reaction to it to advance the notion that progressives are racist. And while I say “I wonder” a part of me is convinced they’ll actually do that in the fall or in 2019/2020. Even if they’re white themselves I fear they’d call Steve, Cenk or even Jayar racist if it fits their narrative, amirite?
I love that Steve keeps it real on the Friday post game. I really appreciated Jesus or Jayar’s opinions when they came up because they’d often play bust nuts on Cenk, and force people to actually think about the other side! It was a good way of popping the Cenk/Ana bubble. However, after the Rubin fiasco, it seems like everyone was far less likely to disagree on show. I think it’s temporarily hurt the show as critical debate hooks in more people than just commentary.
I really hope it has nothing to do with Rubin. Maybe it’s all just a coincidence, the growth of the show, new shows, different people have a lot of different things to do etc. But it is sad and it does hurt the cause a little bit. We need open forums were different opinions clash on air. It’s something that has to be build deliberately, I guess…
But I’d sure like to have more disagreement on air, exchange of different opinions/perspectives on the show.
guys, that was a fascinating PG. you arrest my attention and stimulate my thoughts. the … what? coyote hunt? was intense, and blessedly free of the “ewww, poor (insert dinner victim here)” kind of discussion that might have been had, were there any females present — not that i’m assuming a typical sexist reaction, but, you know, the empathy thing … i’m neither for nor against mixing the sexes on OS episodes, but there are times when some unencumbered “guy” talk — i’m sure you know what i mean — is refreshing as hell.
i’ve recently discovered the term “sapiosexual” — literally, turned-on by intelligent conversation; wish i’d understood that about myself when i was younger. but that’s the feeling i get when i listen to your intellectually-curious discussions. ESPECIALLY on Old School! but you two make a great team — Steve and Dave — and it really brightens up that little bit of my life, so thanks much. i’m usually a pretty happy person, since i’m almost always thinking intensely, curious about everything, yada yada. those MLK weekends sound like pure heaven; i don’t have that many friends in my life, though, except through reading, FB, and internet sites like TYT (you guys and, to a slightly lesser extent, the gals). as an Aspie, everything interests me. however, i must admit that i’ve never seen any episodes of WKRP or Three’s Company, or pretty much any sitcom since All in the Family and Maude, Soap and Mary Hartman 2x. until Northern Exposure, Breaking Bad, and especially True Blood — i think Anna Paquin is an incredibly talented actress, even though i intensely disliked The Piano — her Oscar experience was totally adorbs; then Holly Hunter went up for her award and thanked Harvey Weinstein (heh heh). when i lived with my mom near the end of her life (dementia sucks), i saw every episode of Golden Girls, but i think of that primarily because my time with Lyla Lee (mom) was golden.
question: do you think that the coyote enjoyed the taste of critter (which had to include stuff like fur and dirt), or did it eat more mechanically, like for sustenance? i.e., did you notice any joy or satisfaction expressed in some way by the predator? i’m curious if predators/scavengers in the wild (e.g., vultures digging into a putrefying corpse’s vitals) take a kind of pleasure in the act of eating that we might consider similar to human gustatory enthusiasm — one of my fave Old School discussion topics.
Steve, your extempore musings on verbal v. non-verbal clues in communication between the sexes was spot-on. we sort of expect each other to be able to “read” what is, to us, so obvious, that it comes as a shock that only Televangelists are able to clearly understand their god’s telepathic communiques. i refer you to Cenk’s recent rant (and i mean that in the best possible way) concerning Kenneth Copeland’s back-and-forth with the deity as regards his Prosperity Gospel-driven sheeple-funded private jet. it seems that sometimes, one needs an “alone” space in which to spew freely with one’s lord — even though it really shouldn’t be necessary for the joker to vocalize at all.
also, one of the comments on the 1/17 PG, from RiseBernieRise, concerned Daryl Davis, a remarkable individual who is many things — a pianist, friend of Chuck Berry (pbuh), and more, in addition to acting as an intermediary between the KKK and sanity, leading many men (i heard naught of women) out of blind hatred into the light of Reason (he is himself a black man). i highly recommend a 57-min. interview with him conducted by Brian Lamb on C-SPAN — just type “Daryl Davis” in the Search engine and you’ll find it. i put it on my FB page, it’s so enthralling. i was inspired to send Mr. Davis a “Femail” — my term for a Fan email — and IMO he’s someone who i think Cenk would probably love to interview. the comment itself, on the 1/17 PG page, is excellent as well. i love deep, analytical, thought-provoking remarks, and this one, concerning hate and the importance of empathy, is well worth reading.
I would say indeed, animals do experience emotions and they do feel joy when their hunting or foraging efforts are successful. Such emotions act as a sort of reward system to motivate animals to do the things that lead to the best potential for survival. For example, we really like sugar because, evolutionarily speaking, eating sugar would have given us the most calories possible and aid in survival. Now, of course there are way too many species to say that ALL animals feel emotion, but it’s not controversial in the world of science. I’ll add that not all females are put off by watching predation in the wild, but it CAN be very difficult if you are an empathetic person when the prey is eaten alive or really suffers during the encounter. Killer whales up here in the NW–the ones that specialize in eating seals and dolphins rather than salmon (they are two distinct types that overlap in distribution) tend to “play” with their food for an hour or more before eating it. It’s not easy to watch a seal or dolphin being rammed and tossed in the air over and over before being killed. Many think this is some type of “training” for younger whales, but it could very well be just play behavior. It’s all fascinating though. It’s one thing to sympathize with prey; it’s another to think animals are evil, vicious, or bloodthirsty due to their natural behavior.
Comments
I like Steve better than Dave.
I think there are a lot of men, like Steve, who are basically good and don’t understand that some men are either just predators or they don’t see women as people. So these good men project their feelings onto bad men and explain it by making it about miscommunication or whatever. Women are trying to tell you that some men just don’t care about what women want. It’s all about them and what they want or they actually get off on the fact that they are forcing a woman to do something she doesn’t want. I’ve had so many experiences where I’ve CLEARLY said no and either straight up been ignored or gotten an extremely aggressive or hostile response. I’ve been physically forced to do things I’ve said no to and when I’ve turned down romantic or sexual offers in a direct (but not mean way), I’ve had to deal with downright crazy overreactions, up to and including stalking. I’m sure miscommunication can be a problem but there is also another deeper issue at play here. I think it mainly has to do with women being seen as inferior to men and men thinking that they are entitled to do what they want with women. Men often can’t imagine it and haven’t experienced it so they talk about what they know and have experienced rather than listening to what women know and have experienced and the real issue gets lost in the discussion.
I must say, I do have that problem myself at times. For example I hear you, and yet when you write f.e. “I’ve had to deal with downright crazy overreactions” my knee-jerk reaction goes to “of course it’s entitled and in no way justified, but it’s just the frustration that moment etc etc”, right. Even though I know the frustration, but can’t remember ever yelling around myself, let alone following someone etc.
I guess what drives a lot of men crazy is that we can’t assess what the percentage is of good guys, good guys that may have done bad things in the past and really, really bad guys. -When Matt Damon f.e. said “most men I worked with don’t do those things. Hannah Cranston’s reaction was “Frankly, I don’t believe that”- So that would mean a majority of men are perpetrators. Cenk is convinced it’s a small minority? What’s the reality? Why are we so blind to it? Is it a small minority that actually do it, but that a majority of women has to deal with (what Cenk believes)? I’m sure other people have a responsibility as well, every one of us could, so are we ourselves actually not guilty, or are we just unaware what constitutes harassment? Do we know the perpetrators, are they our best friends? If on the contrary a majority of men are perpetrators, why don’t we see them, why aren’t they talking f.e. in a disrespectful way of women when we’re in the room, do they hide from us? If we assume we’re the good guys and that’s why we don’t see it, are we aware still that we could be guilty? In other words, are we good guys? Or are we the problem, but we don’t know we’re doing things that are considered wrong? In other words, are we perpetrators ourselves? We just don’t wanna be blind, make sure we’re not etc.? Or is it like you say and we can’t even imagine what the really bad guys do, because we’re good ourselves?
As I said, a lot of guys are searching for answers to those questions and that’s what let’s us search for “alternative explanations” instead of just sitting back for a moment and take women’s reports in as they come. I guess the question is “what’s the right strategy and tactics, how should we personally/individually and how should society and/or men react, what responsibility do we have to do, what?
Personally, I think it’s a minority of men but I do think a majority of women have experienced it. The problem is that everyone makes excuses for that group of “bad men,” thus allowing them to continue to behave in an unacceptable manner. I’m certain most people do know at least one man who does behave in an unacceptable manner. But if you haven’t been the victim of it, how would you know? I mean, someone could be a thief too but if they don’t steal from you and you are unaware of it, then you are absolved of any wrongdoing in that situation. It just when you find out about it and you make excuses for the thief that you are contributing to the problem. For example, if you blame John for having a nice wallet full of cash rather than Jim for taking money out of John’s wallet without Jim’s permission. If John asks Jim if he can have some money and Jim says “Not now, maybe later” do you say well, John did ask so it’s OK that he tried to take the money after that conversation.
Here’s a helpful way to think about harassment and assault: how would you feel if a man, especially a bigger and stronger man than you, did it to you? Somehow things that we think of as acceptable for a man to do to a woman become unacceptable when a man does them to another man. If you wouldn’t find it acceptable, why should a woman?
Reba, I’m so sorry to hear that you have had bad experiences with men. I don’t know if I’m a “good man” or not, but I just don’t understand guys who force themselves on women who have clearly said no. I just can’t wrap my head around the notion that coercing someone into intimacy could possibly be enjoyable.
I’m also aware that I am a massive beneficiary of male privilege so I totally get that my perspective on this issue is largely skewed in favor of men. And b/c I’m aware of that, I welcome the feedback from women so I can escape my own world view and see it from the women’s perspective.
I guess the points I was trying to make during the segment are: (1) Yes, some men are predators and no amount of “clear no” from the woman is going to make them stop; (2) the #MeToo movement is mostly good and raises awareness on a great number of issues; (3) men are often not good at picking up nonverbal cues, even well-intentioned men who would be horrified to learn that they overstepped their bounds; (4) it would be very helpful if women gave men clear verbal cues, both in terms of “yes” and “no”; (5) if the woman ever says “no”, it stops right there, but even without a “clear no”, men really should try to figure out if the woman is into it rather than just pressing forward.
Lastly, I have to believe that most guys are not predators. I have 3 daughters and it would be too depressing and scary to think otherwise. Also, the vast majority of men I know in my life are good guys who I’d be shocked to find out were predators. Anyway, I’m glad that women’s rights have advanced so much the past few decades, but obviously there’s a long way to go.
the only time no means no from a woman is if all her gestures are saying no. ex: if her facial expressions, tone, pitch, voice, words, body language are all saying no or most are saying no and there is no contradiction, then sure, she means no.
BUT if she says “noooo” and she is smiling & tilting her head or playing with her hair then that means “continue” but it also means “I don’t want to look/sound/seem too easy”. so you continue until you get the full package, meaning, a no with all gestures in sync.
So, I disagree with you, Steve. No does not always mean no. It really depends. If she says no without meaning it and you stop escalating (of course without force) then she is going to think you are a pathetic little bitch who has no balls. Believe me, this is how some will think of you if you take an out of sync no and stop doing your job as a man, meaning sexual escalation. of course, if it’s in sync, then you stop without hesitation and leave it for another day.
I hear you and to the extent I can agree. I definitely think that a majority of women if not all have experienced situations like this and I hope it’s a minority of men. I just don’t know if the latter is actually the case and my intent was to bring across what’s going on in a man’s head sometimes.
I think the most important thing is for a man to just listen and don’t try to look at it from his own perspective, and I agree, of course, that any excuse for or protecting “bad behavior” is part of the problem. That’s why I think men should put the question of possible consequences aside and admit first what is happening / acknowledge at the very least that that’s how women actually see it without “convincing them / trying to convince them” it’s not. Otherwise we can’t change the culture…
Reba, I’m also interested in your opinion re my reply and argument for: no doesn’t always mean no.
Steve has summed up my feelings exactly with which women were sexier. Did you notice how they had Baily wear glasses to make Loni Anderson seem more sexy. It failed with me. Also Gilligan’s island put Ginger in curve-hugging you gowns, while Mary Ann wore farm girl clothes. Massive fail!
You guys were in some of my old stomping grounds! Me and a friend used to go regularly to Pt. Reyes (pronounced “rayz” not “ray-ez”). If we had a day when neither of us was too busy at work, we would go buy wine and picnic supplies and make the long drive out to Pt Reyes, go to our favorite beach, get to our secret spot, get naked, and have a great picnic drinking wine and smoking herb until the gorgeous sunset came. We only went on weekdays, when we usually had the beach all to ourselves. It’s not a nude beach. per se, but it just feels so awesome to be on the quintessential California beach on a beautiful day, high and naked. Glad you saw the Tule Elk (pronounced “toolie”), but please don’t chase wildlife. People can generally use a bit of exercise, but wild animals generally live “on the edge” so needless expenditure of energy can be harmful, especially in areas with lots of human disturbance. Besides, it’s likely illegal in the park to be chasing the elk, but even more importantly, elk, even female elk, are perfectly capable of killing humans and occasionally do. Not likely humans in a group, but don’t end up as one of those Darwin Award victims that harasses wildlife and then dies as a result. Elk have antlers, not horns, and males are the only ones with antlers. I’m a fish and wildlife biologist, forgive me. It’s cool you saw the coyote hunting so close–I have seen bobcats out there too. And there are great white sharks too–a surfer was bitten on Dec. 30th or 31st just off Pt Reyes.
I also used to spend months and months on the east side of the Sierras doing fisheries work in the streams there, even through the winter in knee-deep snow when the streams were full of ice. Snorkeling with trout! Mostly we stayed in June Lake, but we would go to Mammoth just to get a change of pace in terms of eating. There are some nice hot springs in the area! and keep an eye out for Sierra Nevada Snowshoe Hare, so beautiful in their white coats in the winter. Not everyone knows that there are snowshoe hares in California!
Love the show!!
Hey guys, great PG! Every year those trips sound awesome!
I like that Steve talked about the Ansari situation at the end. The fact that there is this divide within the movement makes it a perfect story to debate over. We shouldn’t fear debate or disagreement, maybe more than anything I’m afraid the left is becoming more authoritarian, not in the right-wing sense of “calling someone racist/sexist etc ends the conversation”, but in people are afraid to say what they actually think, because they fear the backlash. I see that even on TYT now more and more, even from show to show, depending on the co-host one and the same people making different statements now – I don’t like that, I don’t like that at all. TYT was supposed to be a “camp fire” were different opinions get discussed openly, now it seems more like silos – AP, main show, ThinkTank, FridayPG, OS etc. Different arguments, POVs don’t clash at much on air anymore…
The best article I read about the Ansari thing was an article on VOX, not about wether it was assault or not, but about the debate itself and the consequences.
“Some critics have assumed that all people coming forward about sexual misconduct, no matter what behavior they’re reporting, want to see the perpetrators behind bars or driven out of their industries. Others have assumed that a public report of misconduct is essentially equivalent to jail time, or at least career destruction. Neither is always the case.”
https://www.vox.com/2018/1/18/16901606/aziz-ansari-babe-me-too-sexual-harassment
I think that’s an important debate to have as well. I for example do believe that Ansari is guilty of sexual assault. Mainly because I hear Ana for example saying “I’ve been in that situation, I would never call it assault, I would call it a bad date”, then I’m thinking “how many women have been in that situation” and I hear it’s almost every woman. So then I’m asking myself “how many men have been in that situation?” How many men have been on dates were they didn’t want to have sex, but the woman was rubbing her pussy all over her face until they actually said “no”? I never go over the top and say never/none, but my hunch is not many – you know why? Because women know how to behave! If you can’t mind-read, you can’t just assume a “yes” either.
Am I aware that this standard would make a lot of men, especially above a certain age, guilty of sexual assault? Yes. Should all those people be in jail, lose their job or have “their lives destroyed?” No! Both you Steve and Cenk have a background in law. You know there is something called due process, right? But I go even further. I believe more in a criminal justice system like Norway. Cenk sometimes makes fun of it, says it’s too liberal or says “they are better people than me” (he says the same thing about MLK as well). But I don’t believe neither MLK nor Norway took/take the stances they take for moral reasons and/or because they’re “better people”, but because they’re convinced it’s the only way to move forward, to solve the issues and I happen to agree. Just because something is considered harassment, assault or rape doesn’t mean it’s clear what should happen to the perpetrator. Do I want those people to “get away with it?” No, not necessarily either, but my standard for if a movement like MeToo or TimesUp is successful is not how many people are in jail, how many careers have been destroyed or how many years in prison someone got, my standard is, does the movement lead to
a) a demise of the phenomenon
b) a change in culture
c) a lower overall crime rate and
d) for the perpetrators that exist right now a lower recidivism rate
We should also keep in mind, that while the fear of “losing career / career destroyed / life destroyed” as a result of false accusations is rational to a certain degree, not even Weinstein has been charged yet and he’s the one people always drawing the line on “XYZ is no Harvey Weinstein”. So maybe we should have a little more trust in women and society to handle the different cases the right way. Most people commenting on the story defended fe Cenk and Dave and said they shouldn’t have resigned…
We should listen to each other’s POVs and search for common ground, even if we think the other side is wrong. The babe author fe attacked HLN Ashleigh on her looks and age – unacceptable. At the same time, from her perspective Ashleigh and a lot of other commentators are blaming/shaming the victim, so people on her side should also calm down. If Ana or Hannah or other women in whatever our side is qualifies another woman as guilty of victim blaming/shaming, they’re usually also not too kind to said woman, comments on looks included…
I also wanna address more silly concerns that I sometimes hear, usually from men, but also from 100 women in France including Catherine Deneuve. The concern that all romance and or sex life will die if men are afraid to make a move or have to have a clear “yes” first etc. So, according to science, we are officially the horniest species on this planet. Not only that, the main difference is, our women are horny! :-) In fact women are the only females on this planet that can have an orgasm. But you think we’ll ever stop having sex on a societal level? :-) Are you nuts? No, ofc there are the experiences Steve described, and yes Ana has been angry before that a guy wouldn’t make a move instead of making it herself etc. But if guys would actually stop on a societal level to make moves, ofc women would change as well. I don’t even believe that’s necessary, but ofc the emancipation of women lead/leads to changes in male behavior so the emancipation of men from their patriarchal role will also lead to changes in women? Dah! And it already has! So I go with Ana’s latest statement on the issue, just a couple of weeks ago “believe me, if a woman wants to see your dick, she’ll tell you she wants to see your dick!” :-)
So let’s get rid of the silly, knee-jerk reaction, short-sighted, authoritarian debate and come to a more rational, fact based, nuanced, detailed, open minded debate … just like Norway! :-)
By the way / OT
We all remember the establishment telling Bernie and anyone attached to “socialism” to go to Cuba, the Soviet Union or China. Our defense was “why not Denmark, Sweden, Norway?” No I’m wondering if they’ll argue “so you think we should be more like Norway? So you’re with Trump, you want America to be more white, you’re a racist!” In other words, using Trump’s racist remarks and the reaction to it to advance the notion that progressives are racist. And while I say “I wonder” a part of me is convinced they’ll actually do that in the fall or in 2019/2020. Even if they’re white themselves I fear they’d call Steve, Cenk or even Jayar racist if it fits their narrative, amirite?
I love that Steve keeps it real on the Friday post game. I really appreciated Jesus or Jayar’s opinions when they came up because they’d often play bust nuts on Cenk, and force people to actually think about the other side! It was a good way of popping the Cenk/Ana bubble. However, after the Rubin fiasco, it seems like everyone was far less likely to disagree on show. I think it’s temporarily hurt the show as critical debate hooks in more people than just commentary.
I really hope it has nothing to do with Rubin. Maybe it’s all just a coincidence, the growth of the show, new shows, different people have a lot of different things to do etc. But it is sad and it does hurt the cause a little bit. We need open forums were different opinions clash on air. It’s something that has to be build deliberately, I guess…
But I’d sure like to have more disagreement on air, exchange of different opinions/perspectives on the show.
How about a road trip in Europe for your next getaway? Like vacation… not work.
Or if you want to go fully European you could try out the Eurail ticket but I guess that wouldn’t suit your comfort-seeking sub-group… ;-P
It doesn’t get more real than Friday Post Game.
guys, that was a fascinating PG. you arrest my attention and stimulate my thoughts. the … what? coyote hunt? was intense, and blessedly free of the “ewww, poor (insert dinner victim here)” kind of discussion that might have been had, were there any females present — not that i’m assuming a typical sexist reaction, but, you know, the empathy thing … i’m neither for nor against mixing the sexes on OS episodes, but there are times when some unencumbered “guy” talk — i’m sure you know what i mean — is refreshing as hell.
i’ve recently discovered the term “sapiosexual” — literally, turned-on by intelligent conversation; wish i’d understood that about myself when i was younger. but that’s the feeling i get when i listen to your intellectually-curious discussions. ESPECIALLY on Old School! but you two make a great team — Steve and Dave — and it really brightens up that little bit of my life, so thanks much. i’m usually a pretty happy person, since i’m almost always thinking intensely, curious about everything, yada yada. those MLK weekends sound like pure heaven; i don’t have that many friends in my life, though, except through reading, FB, and internet sites like TYT (you guys and, to a slightly lesser extent, the gals). as an Aspie, everything interests me. however, i must admit that i’ve never seen any episodes of WKRP or Three’s Company, or pretty much any sitcom since All in the Family and Maude, Soap and Mary Hartman 2x. until Northern Exposure, Breaking Bad, and especially True Blood — i think Anna Paquin is an incredibly talented actress, even though i intensely disliked The Piano — her Oscar experience was totally adorbs; then Holly Hunter went up for her award and thanked Harvey Weinstein (heh heh). when i lived with my mom near the end of her life (dementia sucks), i saw every episode of Golden Girls, but i think of that primarily because my time with Lyla Lee (mom) was golden.
question: do you think that the coyote enjoyed the taste of critter (which had to include stuff like fur and dirt), or did it eat more mechanically, like for sustenance? i.e., did you notice any joy or satisfaction expressed in some way by the predator? i’m curious if predators/scavengers in the wild (e.g., vultures digging into a putrefying corpse’s vitals) take a kind of pleasure in the act of eating that we might consider similar to human gustatory enthusiasm — one of my fave Old School discussion topics.
Steve, your extempore musings on verbal v. non-verbal clues in communication between the sexes was spot-on. we sort of expect each other to be able to “read” what is, to us, so obvious, that it comes as a shock that only Televangelists are able to clearly understand their god’s telepathic communiques. i refer you to Cenk’s recent rant (and i mean that in the best possible way) concerning Kenneth Copeland’s back-and-forth with the deity as regards his Prosperity Gospel-driven sheeple-funded private jet. it seems that sometimes, one needs an “alone” space in which to spew freely with one’s lord — even though it really shouldn’t be necessary for the joker to vocalize at all.
also, one of the comments on the 1/17 PG, from RiseBernieRise, concerned Daryl Davis, a remarkable individual who is many things — a pianist, friend of Chuck Berry (pbuh), and more, in addition to acting as an intermediary between the KKK and sanity, leading many men (i heard naught of women) out of blind hatred into the light of Reason (he is himself a black man). i highly recommend a 57-min. interview with him conducted by Brian Lamb on C-SPAN — just type “Daryl Davis” in the Search engine and you’ll find it. i put it on my FB page, it’s so enthralling. i was inspired to send Mr. Davis a “Femail” — my term for a Fan email — and IMO he’s someone who i think Cenk would probably love to interview. the comment itself, on the 1/17 PG page, is excellent as well. i love deep, analytical, thought-provoking remarks, and this one, concerning hate and the importance of empathy, is well worth reading.
lots more to say, but oh how i do run on …
I would say indeed, animals do experience emotions and they do feel joy when their hunting or foraging efforts are successful. Such emotions act as a sort of reward system to motivate animals to do the things that lead to the best potential for survival. For example, we really like sugar because, evolutionarily speaking, eating sugar would have given us the most calories possible and aid in survival. Now, of course there are way too many species to say that ALL animals feel emotion, but it’s not controversial in the world of science. I’ll add that not all females are put off by watching predation in the wild, but it CAN be very difficult if you are an empathetic person when the prey is eaten alive or really suffers during the encounter. Killer whales up here in the NW–the ones that specialize in eating seals and dolphins rather than salmon (they are two distinct types that overlap in distribution) tend to “play” with their food for an hour or more before eating it. It’s not easy to watch a seal or dolphin being rammed and tossed in the air over and over before being killed. Many think this is some type of “training” for younger whales, but it could very well be just play behavior. It’s all fascinating though. It’s one thing to sympathize with prey; it’s another to think animals are evil, vicious, or bloodthirsty due to their natural behavior.
Edwin getting plenty of laughs in.