I mean no chauvinist disrespect for the women who are coming forward, sometimes years after it could make any personal difference to them. The entire power play of sexual harassment is an ugly example of insult and subjugation. When I was still in the workplace, part of my responsibility had to do with exposing the illness and trying to convince snickering male audiences as to the egregiousness of the entire notion of male dominance. They could have gotten the message, but quite obviously did not choose to do so. The thing about all of this me-too-ness is the increasing alienation it fosters and, the notion that there is no statute of limitations pertinent to past indiscretions. If I say this madness is disruptive, I'm called insensitive or worse. If I point out the futility of it, I'm called a pessimist (or worse). No, the battle is enjoined and the warriors thirst for blood---probably mine, as well. I am sorry that my efforts from the late 1970s through the 1990s and beyond came to no measurable fruition. But, sorry folks: I'm just me-tooed out. And I cannot see where all of it will lead to a better world. If I could, I'd happily look forward to that. Good luck to the me-toos. They will need it.

The point of the me too movement is bring awareness to sexual harassment and assault. Through building awareness the hope is that this harassment will end. Saying, "But, sorry folks: I'm just me-tooed out. And I cannot see where all of it will lead to a better world. If I could, I'd happily look forward to that. Good luck to the me-toos. They will need it." is irrational to someone who claimed it was there job to help.

when i was young i fancied a girl. i got lucky and became paralyzed in an auto crash. she left before i was out of intensive care. she married well, divorced, got half his wealth, and left him a wreck of humanity. she repeated this strategy half a dozen times, the last being a titled englishman. she bore no child and is now in her 60s, alone and lonely. sad? perhaps. i find it amusing. am i a misogynist? perhaps. do i care? not in the least. karma has it's way. halaluja!>

Had tried to say something more here. Will try again later...maybe.

Here is what I wanted to say on 2/26/21. Misogyny and gender inequality were status quo. For centuries. Homo sapiens was slow to recognize that women were more than vessels of reproduction.
Change is inexorably slow. Almost as slow as evolution itself....i.e., pretty damned slow. Julian Jaynes' notion of bicameral mind is not so far-fetched, if and when we consider the constraints of primitive minds....more later...

And so, with Jaynes' insights on the bicameral mind--- which he claims (ed) broke down--- we may see some pattern. There is an old saw, i have always been intrigued with: if you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got. Primitive humans could not decide what to do.
They consulted oracles and other delphic entities,as to correct courses of action.

I think Jaynes was partially right in his assessment. History appears to bear out the indecision he noted. Where I believe he went wrong was in concluding bicameral mind' broke down. There are too many indications, contrariwise. We still cannot make up our minds on important issues...still do not see the intrinsic value of women.. beyond bare-foot and pregnant. Of course, it is more complicated than this. It depends upon what I have called a totality of circumstances....abstraction vs reality and so on.

Bicameral mind is very much with us. But so are belief, opinion and, perhaps worst of all, suprstition are as well: things Davidson called propositional attitudes. This is hard work. I'll keep you posted.