Motivational speakers and televangelists are like talking lines of cocaine (from what I've heard). While they may temporarily make you feel good and believe that you can do anything, they often times lead to long-lasting negative effects.
That leads me to motivational speaker Tony Robbins, who has gotten himself into some hot water with his recent comments regarding the #MeToo movement. When speaking to a crowd in San Jose, California, he made the following remarks:
- "If you use the #MeToo movement to try to get significance and certainty by attacking and destroying someone else, you haven't grown an ounce. All you've done is basically use a drug called significance to make yourself feel good."
- "I was with someone the other day. Very famous man, very powerful man. He's saying how stressed he is because he interviewed three people that day. One was a woman, two were men. The woman was better qualified, but she was very attractive, and he knew, 'I can't have her around because it's too big a risk.' And he hired somebody else. I've had a dozen men tell me this."
When it comes to the former comment, what in the world is he talking about? A drug called significance? Making yourself feel good by attacking those whom attacked you? Look, on occasion, if a person inaccurately accuses another of sexual assault or another crime to garner attention, then Robbins may have a point. However, in most cases, such claims are accurate and Mr. Robbins is painfully wrong in saying the victims are merely attacking their attackers to feel good. How insensitive is that? He should be asking how these victims felt during the attacks; how it feels for them to rid themselves of that giant weight that's been on their shoulders for so many years; and how it feels for both they and the perpetrators for the latter to finally take some semblance of responsibility.
For as tone-deaf as Robbins' former comment was, it wasn't nearly as disturbing as the latter, in my opinion. Really? Men all over are hiring lesser qualified men over more qualified (and attractive) women because having good looking women around is too big a risk? Really? So attractive, qualified women are being punished because men can't behave around them? How does this make any sense? How is this the woman's fault? There are so many problems with this rationale, I don't know where to begin. First of all, where do these "men" draw the line between what constitutes as being attractive and unattractive? Are women only "safe" to have around if they sport a hairstyle like Snead O'Connor, dress like Pope Francis, wear less makeup than Dumbo, and have fewer curves than a stick-person? Since we all have different tastes in what we find physically appealing, is it just one man's opinion which matters on the subject or a committee of men or how does that work exactly? What about lesbian women employees' opinions on the subject? Do they count as well? Does this only apply to certain jobs? Due to this deranged mentality, will it result in women being mandated to wear uniforms covering their bodies more so than water will cover the earth during the apex of global warming? Instead of asking these multitudes of questions regarding women's appearance and attire, how about we simply ask one regarding men? How about you learn to behave yourselves around women, regardless of how attractive or unattractive you find them? If you do that, we won't have any of these other problems. There we go - problem solved. Oh, and Mr. Robbins, stop saying stupid sh*t. Thanks...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/stevens/ct-life-stevens-tony-robbins-metoo-0409-story.html
That leads me to motivational speaker Tony Robbins, who has gotten himself into some hot water with his recent comments regarding the #MeToo movement. When speaking to a crowd in San Jose, California, he made the following remarks:
- "If you use the #MeToo movement to try to get significance and certainty by attacking and destroying someone else, you haven't grown an ounce. All you've done is basically use a drug called significance to make yourself feel good."
- "I was with someone the other day. Very famous man, very powerful man. He's saying how stressed he is because he interviewed three people that day. One was a woman, two were men. The woman was better qualified, but she was very attractive, and he knew, 'I can't have her around because it's too big a risk.' And he hired somebody else. I've had a dozen men tell me this."
When it comes to the former comment, what in the world is he talking about? A drug called significance? Making yourself feel good by attacking those whom attacked you? Look, on occasion, if a person inaccurately accuses another of sexual assault or another crime to garner attention, then Robbins may have a point. However, in most cases, such claims are accurate and Mr. Robbins is painfully wrong in saying the victims are merely attacking their attackers to feel good. How insensitive is that? He should be asking how these victims felt during the attacks; how it feels for them to rid themselves of that giant weight that's been on their shoulders for so many years; and how it feels for both they and the perpetrators for the latter to finally take some semblance of responsibility.
For as tone-deaf as Robbins' former comment was, it wasn't nearly as disturbing as the latter, in my opinion. Really? Men all over are hiring lesser qualified men over more qualified (and attractive) women because having good looking women around is too big a risk? Really? So attractive, qualified women are being punished because men can't behave around them? How does this make any sense? How is this the woman's fault? There are so many problems with this rationale, I don't know where to begin. First of all, where do these "men" draw the line between what constitutes as being attractive and unattractive? Are women only "safe" to have around if they sport a hairstyle like Snead O'Connor, dress like Pope Francis, wear less makeup than Dumbo, and have fewer curves than a stick-person? Since we all have different tastes in what we find physically appealing, is it just one man's opinion which matters on the subject or a committee of men or how does that work exactly? What about lesbian women employees' opinions on the subject? Do they count as well? Does this only apply to certain jobs? Due to this deranged mentality, will it result in women being mandated to wear uniforms covering their bodies more so than water will cover the earth during the apex of global warming? Instead of asking these multitudes of questions regarding women's appearance and attire, how about we simply ask one regarding men? How about you learn to behave yourselves around women, regardless of how attractive or unattractive you find them? If you do that, we won't have any of these other problems. There we go - problem solved. Oh, and Mr. Robbins, stop saying stupid sh*t. Thanks...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/stevens/ct-life-stevens-tony-robbins-metoo-0409-story.html
Comments
Post a Comment