Katie Roiphe's Harper's article about the #MeToo movement dropped on Sunday, and boy was it ever a big pile of nothing we haven't heard before . The essay, titled The Other Whisper Network: How Twitter feminism is bad for women, started out with the traditional noting of the "many other women" who agree with Roiphe that #MeToo has just gone too far, but who are terrified to speak out because of, uh, feminists who use Twitter.
Victorian England was *not* some really cool, erotic steampunk fantasy. It's been throughly fetishized by Americans who have a steady diet of "historical" shows that make the times look sexier than they ever could be. Sexual restraint, particularly for women, is one of the era's core values. Today, you would all call it "Talibanesque."
And I don't need to read up on imperialist, racist* "royalty" to grasp things about that era. (*Sorry, but "Victoria and Abdul" is for people wanting to whitewash the British Raj.)
When I lived in France a long time ago, it was just like living in Hell. And the men gave the excuse that US women behaved in a way that confused them so much!!! Actually I knew very well that those men never believed what they were saying, they were just having a good time, because I never smiled at any of them, or even looked at any one of them, ever-- all of us americans had soon become so angry. So I agree, Mikey A-- these guys know very well when there's no consent and no willingness at all. It's all part of the fun, really. Otherwise you'd have to believe they'd suddenly gone blind. They're power-mad and sadistic on top of it, with their lie that blames the victims.
That song "Hello It's Me." He says "and spend the night if you think I should"In my young days, I clung to that line, I thought about that line, I dreamed of a man who'd think that way. And to be asked before getting kissed-- that's SO good. I think young men saw too much of John Wayne grabbing reluctant women on tv, and the women eventually giving in and getting excited. And that's a lie.
I never said that Victorian England was some really cool, erotic steampunk fantasy. Only you said that. I'm pretty sure it wasn't a fantasy of any kind--it existed.
Sexual restraint for women was a strong middle-class value, though not universally. Neither sex nor people have changed too much since Victorian times. What is valued in public is not necessarily practiced in private.
And the non-middle-class was a whole different situation. The rich could afford to choose their own morals, much as they can nowadays. Artists reveled in amoral behavior, much as many do nowadays. And the lower classes couldn't really afford to be prudish since often several families shared a few rooms and they had few private places to resort to.
Victorian England on the surface very much resembled the more prudish parts of our own country now. To look at that group and say our whole country is like that makes no sense.
You seem to be one of those people who thinks in labels. You have attached the label "Victorian" to a time and culture and then assume it is homogeneous. It wasn't.
I remember the guy that gave me my first kiss did so without asking. I was 18 and I was soooo confused. I vaguely liked him, would not have kissed him at that time, and I remember his lips being soft, and it feeling pleasant, but I was totally annoyed he took the liberty. It was not like the movies at all.
It is the same kind of both-siderism that allows men to point to the high-profile cases of female teachers sexually assaulting teenage boys and claim that both genders are equally guilty. The cases are high profile because they are true man-bites-dog stories, so rare that they are noticeable. The male teachers sexually assaulting female students are dog-bites-man stories, so common that they go unnoticed and are rarely publicized.
Victorian England was *not* some really cool, erotic steampunk fantasy. It's been throughly fetishized by Americans who have a steady diet of "historical" shows that make the times look sexier than they ever could be. Sexual restraint, particularly for women, is one of the era's core values. Today, you would all call it "Talibanesque."
And I don't need to read up on imperialist, racist* "royalty" to grasp things about that era. (*Sorry, but "Victoria and Abdul" is for people wanting to whitewash the British Raj.)
Yes but you don't seem to realize, Katie Roiphe's important!
When I lived in France a long time ago, it was just like living in Hell. And the men gave the excuse that US women behaved in a way that confused them so much!!! Actually I knew very well that those men never believed what they were saying, they were just having a good time, because I never smiled at any of them, or even looked at any one of them, ever-- all of us americans had soon become so angry. So I agree, Mikey A-- these guys know very well when there's no consent and no willingness at all. It's all part of the fun, really. Otherwise you'd have to believe they'd suddenly gone blind. They're power-mad and sadistic on top of it, with their lie that blames the victims.
You don't have to read it! Why would you?
Maybe her sensitivity to criticism is similar to the president's. Should this be explored?
That song "Hello It's Me." He says "and spend the night if you think I should"In my young days, I clung to that line, I thought about that line, I dreamed of a man who'd think that way. And to be asked before getting kissed-- that's SO good. I think young men saw too much of John Wayne grabbing reluctant women on tv, and the women eventually giving in and getting excited. And that's a lie.
I was over this bullshit back when Camille Paglia was still playing Martin Luther to Gloria Steinem's Pope.
Perfect
But have you at least considered calling her "pro-rape"? She deserves that much at least after everything she's done for us all.
I never said that Victorian England was some really cool, erotic steampunk fantasy. Only you said that. I'm pretty sure it wasn't a fantasy of any kind--it existed.
Sexual restraint for women was a strong middle-class value, though not universally. Neither sex nor people have changed too much since Victorian times. What is valued in public is not necessarily practiced in private.
And the non-middle-class was a whole different situation. The rich could afford to choose their own morals, much as they can nowadays. Artists reveled in amoral behavior, much as many do nowadays. And the lower classes couldn't really afford to be prudish since often several families shared a few rooms and they had few private places to resort to.
Victorian England on the surface very much resembled the more prudish parts of our own country now. To look at that group and say our whole country is like that makes no sense.
You seem to be one of those people who thinks in labels. You have attached the label "Victorian" to a time and culture and then assume it is homogeneous. It wasn't.
Robyn, this one of your best pieces ever
She's killing it lately!
Thank you, thank you!
I KNEW that English Lit degree would come in handy one day!!
I remember the guy that gave me my first kiss did so without asking. I was 18 and I was soooo confused. I vaguely liked him, would not have kissed him at that time, and I remember his lips being soft, and it feeling pleasant, but I was totally annoyed he took the liberty. It was not like the movies at all.
Well I can’t help you if you’re unable to partake in physical intimacy without taking it regardless of your partner’s wishes, dude.
It is the same kind of both-siderism that allows men to point to the high-profile cases of female teachers sexually assaulting teenage boys and claim that both genders are equally guilty. The cases are high profile because they are true man-bites-dog stories, so rare that they are noticeable. The male teachers sexually assaulting female students are dog-bites-man stories, so common that they go unnoticed and are rarely publicized.