The NationStates Feminist Thread III

[Torrocca]

Skirts/kilts make much more sense for men, practically, than pants do tbqh. I mean, just think about the anatomical situation.

That’s true but pants are overall the more practical option. Anatomy aside, pants reward you greater protection, both indoors and out. The conqueror’s lower attire.

That's why you simply add more length to said skirts/kilts, duh.

Plus the greater usable exterior surface area means you can have much more pocket-based utility than can be afforded to you by pants.

[Autarkheia]

Your claim is that the FBI created third wave feminism by backing weak feminist leaders to undermine the left. You have no evidence they have EVER done this and you especially have no evidence they've ever done it TO feminists. You just keep talking about the FBI investigating OWS and have at no point provided evidence that they "backed" anybody there. You've brought up the CIA supporting Steinem but they were trying to fuck the Soviets not the feminists.

Shouldn't our tankie friend be all over the CIA trying to undermine the Soviets, and not care about the feminists? That makes no sense to me.

At any rate I admire your effort but you're wasting your time. Tankies cannot be reasoned with. They deny historical facts and reality itself.

[Orostan]

I can't give you a list of every FBI infiltrator that was in OWS

WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT ABOUT OWS. Do not say it again, I just told you I don't want to hear it. I just told you I am only interested in ANY evidence you have that COINTELPRO backed poor leaders to undermine movements. OWS is irrelevant because COINTELPRO wasn't active so even if the FBI created OWS wholecloth it would have nothing to do with "COINTELPRO tactics."

You haven't provided the fucking COINTELPRO playbook show me exactly where you think you did. COINTELPRO's game was to find and expose dirt and sometimes to send rude anonymous letters- it had nothing to do with the kind of shit you're talking about and it had nothing to do with "backing" anybody.

"Infiltration" is not the smoking gun you seem to think it is. The FBI investigates all sorts of shit, they get guys inside right wing militias all the fucking time.

Your claim is that the FBI created third wave feminism by backing weak feminist leaders to undermine the left. You have no evidence they have EVER done this and you especially have no evidence they've ever done it TO feminists. You just keep talking about the FBI investigating OWS and have at no point provided evidence that they "backed" anybody there. You've brought up the CIA supporting Steinem but they were trying to fuck the Soviets not the feminists.

So now let's start at square 1 just show me where the FBI "backed" people to undermine left wing organizations nothing else, no excuse, no references to Occupy Wall Street, just show me that this is a thing they did.

I have given you multiple accounts of organized inflitration into OWS with the intent to destroy the movement. I have referenced how identity politics became common place during and after OWS. I have also provided you with the fact that the CIA and FBI do back political organizations with the intent to damage the left.

I have shown you the page with the list of COINTELPRO tactics. The first point on that list references diverting productive activity into non-productive or damaging areas. This is what identity politics does to the left wing, and I have already provided evidence multiple times of the FBI targeting left wing groups (OWS and others).

Your claim is that the FBI created third wave feminism by backing weak feminist leaders to undermine the left. You have no evidence they have EVER done this and you especially have no evidence they've ever done it TO feminists. You just keep talking about the FBI investigating OWS and have at no point provided evidence that they "backed" anybody there. You've brought up the CIA supporting Steinem but they were trying to fuck the Soviets not the feminists.

Shouldn't our tankie friend be all over the CIA trying to undermine the Soviets, and not care about the feminists? That makes no sense to me.

At any rate I admire your effort but you're wasting your time. Tankies cannot be reasoned with. They deny historical facts and reality itself.

I am arguing over the US Government's effort to undermine the left. I hope you enjoy your historical illiteracy and sense of smugness.

[Des-Bal]

I have given you multiple accounts of organized inflitration into OWS...

Okay so you're actually not reading the posts you're quoting.

[Orostan]

I have given you multiple accounts of organized inflitration into OWS...

Okay so you're actually not reading the posts you're quoting.

>i want evidence
>no not that evidence

[Proctopeo]

Okay so you're actually not reading the posts you're quoting.

>i want evidence
>no not that evidence

Shitty evidence is worse than no evidence at all, and you're operating entirely on shitty evidence.

[Des-Bal]

>i want evidence
>no not that evidence

It isn't evidence. I asked you to prove cointelpro backed organizations to undermine them. I warned specifically that OWS couldn't be an example because you can't show what "cointelpro" tactics are with an example that's not from cointrlpro. Your first goddammit sentence was about OWS you don't have evidence, you have links that you never seem to totally understand.

[Tahar Joblis]

Ah, some things never change.

Okay, so books are a thing... I read quickly, this is not a long book, and it's a fairly lightweight text, so here's a much more detailed overview.

The author, Ernest Belfort Bax, is notable enough to enjoy his own Wikipedia page. He was interested in socialism and philosophy, and perhaps his most notable bit of cachet for the philosophy types in the audience is that he published his own translation of Kant's Prolegomena into English. He published a number of original works and also worked as a lawyer. Clever chap. He was British.

(0-Introduction) The key thesis of the book is that feminists hypocritically demand that women gain access to voting rights and careers while seeking to preserve and even expand unequal treatment of the sexes when it comes to areas of female privilege, particularly in the area of criminal justice. Key quotes:

While on the one hand it will claim, on the ground of the intellectual and moral equality of women with men, the concession of female suffrage, and commonly, in addition thereto, the admission of women to all professions, offices and functions of public life; on the other it will strenuously champion the preservation and intensification of the privileges and immunities before the law, criminal and civil, in favour of women, which have grown up in the course of the nineteenth century.

This is largely accurate today. (It arguably was inaccurate for a brief period, but has been accurate since at least the mid-1980s.)

... it is rapidly becoming next to impossible, even in the most flagrant cases, where man is the victim, to get any woman to acknowledge that another woman has committed a wrong.

Slightly hyperbolic but qualitatively accurate.

There is a trick with which votaries of Feminism seek to prejudice the public mind against its critics, and that is the “fake” that any man who ventures to criticise the pretensions of Feminism, is actuated by motives of personal rancour against the female sex, owing to real or imaginary wrongs suffered by him at the hands of some member or members of the sex.

This is true today. Some in the modern manosphere catalogue this as a "Code Purple" attack, and it's routine.

Chapter 1: HISTORICAL

Bax asserts that prior to the nineteenth century, male and female criminals were punished similarly in England. I do not know whether or not this is correct in entirety, but his citations, while not numerous, seem to check out. when it comes to establishing the rise of lenient policy towards female criminals in the nineteenth century.

He also provides an account of the proto-history of feminism that includes figures that I recognize but that most modern feminists will not unless they happen to also be historians.

Chapter 2: THE MAIN DOGMA OF MODERN FEMINISM

Modern readers may as well skip this chapter. Unless you want to mine for quotes to make Bax look bad by modern standards, in which case just read this chapter and skip the rest of the book.

Bax provides a number of recent examples of women committing crimes and getting off light. This is still the case, but things go downhill from there.

He also asserts that women are intellectually inferior to men (in particular not logical), which is generally not accepted to be the case today, and hedges over providing reasons for for double standards of sexual behavior while still saying he thinks that society is too prudish on the subject.

Not that I am championing the severity of the restrictions of the current sexual code as regards women. On the contrary, I think it ought to be and will be, in a reasonable society of the future, considerably relaxed.

He also provides what amounts to an extremely extensive (and far from unanimous) late 19th century / early 20th century lit review on the mental disorder known at the time as hysteria. (See here to start going down the rabbit hole, he is talking about one or more actual mental disorders but things are complicated.)

This is in support of attacking the equalizing demands of feminism, i.e., voting rights and career access.

Chapter 3: THE ANTI-MAN CRUSADE

Here he starts going into detail about ways in which English law of his time provides special protections for women both in practice and as written. Much of this involves divorce and child custody, but also includes some interesting (and probably unintended) consequences of some of the laws intended to allow women separate property rights from husband (immunizing them from responsibility for fraud), as well as the introduction of flogging for additional offenses (but for men only).

This is slightly different today in that almost all laws are at least hypothetically gender-neutral in theory, though they are not enforced equally and in some cases discriminate against men without specifying sex (e.g., some rape laws).

His socialist leanings are apparent from some of the ways he talks about the role economic class, poverty, et cetera play in these matters.

Of particular interest is a "White Slave Traffic" law, which was designed to come down like a ton of bricks on men who associated with prostitutes, on the theory that prostitutes never chose to engage in prostitution but must have been somehow coerced by a man. (This should sound familiar.) I don't know how accurate his portrayal is, but stories like the below sound a lot like the overreach of some of the modern anti-human-trafficking laws /policies.

The most flagrant case occurred in a London police court in March 1913, in which a youth of eighteen years, against whose general character nothing was alleged and who was known to be in employment as a carman, was sentenced to a month’s hard labour under the following circumstances:—It was reported that he had been living with a woman apparently considerably older than himself, whom admittedly he had supported by his own exertions and, when this was insufficient, even by the pawning of his clothes, and whom as soon as he discovered she was earning money by prostitution he had left.

Prostitution per se is not in the eyes of the law a crime or even a misdemeanour. The woman who makes her living as a prostitute is under the protection of the law, and the money she receives from her customer is recognised as her property. If she, however, in the exercise of her right of free disposition of that property, gives some of it to a male friend, that friend, by the mere acceptance of a free gift, becomes a criminal in the eyes of the law.

The fact that Bax was a practicing lawyer in England at the time does leave me inclined to credit him with relating the law correctly, however.


Chapter 4: ALWAYS THE “INJURED INNOCENT”!

The title of this chapter says it all. Bax trots out a number of cases like the modern ones in which a woman commits a crime against a man and she is positioned in the news (and in particular by feminists) as the true victim. Think of the Jodi Arias case (found guilty) or Lorena Bobbitt case (not convicted but probably guilty). Bax finds this to be both a problem with feminists and also a problem with women (he holds that male criminals do not as often have the effrontery to claim innocence).

We still see this in the modern age.

Chapter 5: THE “CHIVALRY” FAKE

Bax says that historically, chivalric tradition was based on aiding the weak, with women taken automatically to be weak, and that modern use of the term is essentially a romanticized version of saying that one is unfairly biased in favor of women. This is about as apt today as it was in Bax's time.

Chapter 6: SOME FEMINIST LIES AND FALLACIES

Bax discusses the feminist claim that wives are/were chattel. The main difference today is that the word "property" is more typically used by modern feminists. He also addresses a similar argument classing wives as "unpaid servants," which similarly surfaces today in variant form saying that women contribute unpaid labor to the family unit / their husbands / etc.

He brings up the claim that giving women the vote will increase their pay and counters by pointing out, like a proper socialist, that the working class hasn't seen their wages rise since getting the franchise, something that was pretty recent at the time of his writing. What we've seen since then is that women's wages have in fact risen significantly relative to men's, so he was wrong (although his argument is very pointed).

Another pair of related arguments that he mostly already addressed (and refers back to himself on) is that women have to obey the same laws as men and that there are laws oppressing women. On this, see chapter 3-4. There's some very contemporary stuff about political crimes and suffragettes arrested for "political" crimes; apparently, suffragettes and their allies were lobbying for lighter treatment after being arrested for setting things on fire etc.

He goes on to point out that feminist claims that women are the weaker sex and need special protection are belied by mortality statistics, and that women are healthier and more resistant to disease. Today, we know that women have stronger immune systems, and still live considerably longer than men.

Chapter 7: THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE MOVEMENT

Here he opens up by talking about the two divisions of the movement, which he terms Political Feminism and Sentimental Feminism (he spends a lot longer talking about the latter). This division maps fairly well to the Liberal / Radical strains in the Second Wave.

To men all duties and no rights, to women all rights and no duties, is the basic principle underlying Modern Feminism

While not a just description of every individual feminist, this is still an apt summary of the direction in which today's feminist movement exerts pressure.

He notes that women show in-group bias towards other women, while men show out-group bias towards women (the "women are wonderful" effect is now very well documented and still in place). He goes on to criticize the gynocentric perspective of looking at laws and policies only on the basis of their effect on women.

Interestingly, given the word "psychology" in the title, he doesn't talk about mental disorders, as in Chapter 2. This is a chapter in which he does a lot of synthesis of previous material. I can't really agree with his arguments against what he calls Political Feminism (which I really agree with).

Chapter 8: THE INDICTMENT

Having presented and synthesized his evidence, Bax now comes out swinging to accuse the movement of not only hypocrisy but outright fraud, i.e., deliberate and willfully deceptive misrepresentation of its activities and intentions. I'll just quote a couple of lines from the opening paragraphs:

Modern Feminism has always professed to be a movement for political and social equality between the sexes.

I contend the fraudulent nature of the present movement can readily be seen by showing it to be not merely based on false grounds, but directly and consciously fraudulent in its pretensions.

Now, remember that distinction between political feminism (equality-seeking) and sentimental feminism (privilege-preserving and adding more special protections for women into law)?

A very little inquiry into its concrete demands suffices to show that its aim, so far from being equality, is the very reverse—viz. to bring about, with the aid of men themselves, as embodied in the forces of the State, a female ascendancy and a consolidation and extension of already existing female privileges. That this is so may be seen in general by the constant conjunction of Political and Sentimental Feminism in the same persons. It may be seen more particularly in detail, in the specific demands of Feminists.

An interesting note:

We have seen that Feminists are, in this country, at least, zealous in championing the Puritan view of sexual morality. Many of them, in the vehemence of their Anti-man crusade, look forward with relish to the opportunity they anticipate will be afforded them when women get the vote, of passing laws rigorously enforcing asceticism on men by means of severe penal enactments. All forms of indulgence (by men), sexual or otherwise, uncongenial to the puritanic mind, would be equally placed under the ban of the criminal law! Anyone desirous of testing the truth of the above statement has only to read the suffragette papers and other expositions of the gospel of Feminism as held by its most devoted advocates.

Modern feminists are in a phase of increasing puritanism, especially with respect to male sexuality. I don't think this has been entirely true of the movement in every era, and there's a thread to modern feminism affirming women's sexual liberation, but there you have it.

Mostly, this chapter wraps things up and repeats his thesis and makes it clear he thinks that the feminist movement is deceptive, not just hypocritical.

[Orostan]

>i want evidence
>no not that evidence

It isn't evidence. I asked you to prove cointelpro backed organizations to undermine them. I warned specifically that OWS couldn't be an example because you can't show what "cointelpro" tactics are with an example that's not from cointrlpro. Your first goddammit sentence was about OWS you don't have evidence, you have links that you never seem to totally understand.

>give me clear examples
>no not those clear examples

>i want evidence
>no not that evidence

Shitty evidence is worse than no evidence at all, and you're operating entirely on shitty evidence.

>any evidence i don't like is shitty

[Des-Bal]

>give me clear examples
>no not those clear examples

That would be a mischaracterization since you're using shit that's not COINTELPRO and not even FBI to make your case. You don't have "clear evidence" you don't have anything.

[Orostan]

>give me clear examples
>no not those clear examples

That would be a mischaracterization since you're using shit that's not COINTELPRO and not even FBI to make your case. You don't have "clear evidence" you don't have anything.

>i demand evidence of COINTELPRO
>no that evidence doesn't count for some reason
>no the same organization that did COINTELPRO in the past being well prepared to use COINTELPRO tactics today doesn't mean anything
>also i will only accept currently classified programs as evidence

[Des-Bal]

>i demand evidence of COINTELPRO
>no that evidence doesn't count for some reason
>no the same organization that did COINTELPRO in the past being well prepared to use COINTELPRO tactics today doesn't mean anything
>also i will only accept currently classified programs as evidence

No, you're trying to establish what "COINTELPRO tactics" are with examples that don't involve the actual methods you're talking about and aren't from COINTELPRO the end goal of course is to somehow tie this to an organization that did not run COINTELPRO. That's fucking ridiculous. You don't have evidence you have a series of absurd assertions.

[Orostan]

>i demand evidence of COINTELPRO
>no that evidence doesn't count for some reason
>no the same organization that did COINTELPRO in the past being well prepared to use COINTELPRO tactics today doesn't mean anything
>also i will only accept currently classified programs as evidence

No, you're trying to establish what "COINTELPRO tactics" are with examples that don't involve the actual methods you're talking about and aren't from COINTELPRO the end goal of course is to somehow tie this to an organization that did not run COINTELPRO. That's fucking ridiculous. You don't have evidence you have a series of absurd assertions.

>show me COINTELPRO tactics
>no not those COINTELPRO tactics
>show me the FBI trying to destroy left wing groups
>no not those left wing groups
>show me the CIA/FBI funding liberals
>no not those liberals

[Des-Bal]

>show me COINTELPRO tactics
>no not those COINTELPRO tactics
>show me the FBI trying to destroy left wing groups
>no not those left wing groups
>show me the CIA/FBI funding liberals
>no not those liberals

It would be easier for you to try and mischaracterize this conversation if we didn't have the benefit of a text record.

You're saying that the CIA created 3rd wave feminism because COINTELPRO has a history of backing left wing organizations like OWS in order to undermine them and the CIA pumped up Steniem. This is stupid for the following reasons:


1. The CIA didn't do COINTELPRO you have never disputed this
2. COINTELPRO ended before OWS started, you can't illustrate typical COINTELPRO tactics with examples that aren't from COINTELPRO
3. COINTELPRO didn't back organizations to undermine them, you have never provided evidence to the contrary
4. The FBI didn't support OWS in order to undermine it, you can't illustrate typical COINTELPRO tactics that don't involve the tactics you're talking about
5. The CIA didn't WANT to undermine feminism they wanted to USE feminism as a weapon against the soviets

You don't have a coherent argument and your last three posts have been you frantically building greentext strawmen so that this looked like more than just me being thoroughly unimpressed by your conspiracy theory.

[Ostroeuropa]

Chapter 8: THE INDICTMENT

Having presented and synthesized his evidence, Bax now comes out swinging to accuse the movement of not only hypocrisy but outright fraud, i.e., deliberate and willfully deceptive misrepresentation of its activities and intentions.

This is an issue I am struggling with at the moment. I no longer believe that they can truly lack awareness of what they are doing.

[Iridencia]

New Liana K. video, "5 Things We Can Do To Reduce Victim Culture." I liked this one, she strikes a good balance between traditional feminist ideas (like the need for representation in media) while also attacking the flaws in current applications (making all those representations cynical stories, not including men or making men seem secondary.) Probably my favorite thing about her is that she has actually taken all the same classes and studies for traditional feminism, as opposed to hearing them secondhand from politically-motivated sources, so it feels easier to trust her critiques and suggestions.

[Neutraligon]

I don't know anything about Japanese culture, but this happening to anyone at all is disgusting and something all feminists should be against. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRYh9Zu ... Quartering

As a note this is a story about a man in Japan working in square enix who was sexually harrassed at work(and I would say raped by a coworker).

[Ostroeuropa]

Remember to boycott Gillette from now on guys.

Btw, if you need more evidence of the media having a pronounced feminist bias, take a look at their coverage of one of the most deeply unpopular adverts in the history of the internet, standing at a 95% downvote rating, and their portrayal of it as a "controversy" with "two sides" and so on. Feminism relies on the media uncritically shoving it down everyones throats, and even when you get to the stage where it's nigh unanimous people are against an instance of it, the media has to pull the same shit fox news does for global warming deniers and creationists and act like there is a "controversy".

[Des-Bal]

I don't know anything about Japanese culture, but this happening to anyone at all is disgusting and something all feminists should be against. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRYh9Zu ... Quartering

As a note this is a story about a man in Japan working in square enix who was sexually harrassed at work(and I would say raped by a coworker).

Can't watch the video but if the description that he was victimized and fired for that victimization is accurate then it's absolutely horrible.

[Neutraligon]

I don't know anything about Japanese culture, but this happening to anyone at all is disgusting and something all feminists should be against. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRYh9Zu ... Quartering

As a note this is a story about a man in Japan working in square enix who was sexually harrassed at work(and I would say raped by a coworker).

Can't watch the video but if the description that he was victimized and fired for that victimization is accurate then it's absolutely horrible.

Video goes like this
Guy basically gets dream job at Square Enix after not really having a job and almost not being able to pay for rent. Tries to get along with fellow workers since you know you want to do well in your workplace and because he is afraid to lose job. Starts getting along well with one woman in the job. Woman suggests that they meet up at his place to watch an episode of something. There she talks about how she is great friends with the lead HR person (another woman), who can fire anyone they want in the company...and then she starts pushing for sex. Fearing for his job the guy gives in and since the only place to turn to when dealing with workplace ... harassment (yeah I I call that rape) is HR, and the had of HR is this woman's friend...he does not talk to HR. The woman starts harassing him at work, often grabbing his but, even in front of other employees despite him saying not to do that. He tries to "move on" while continuing to work hard while still acting friendly to this person.He eventually lies to tell the harasser that they are interested in someone (just to get the harasser to leave them alone), at which point the harasser asks if it is them, and gets angry when the guy tells them no. Still afraid the guy sends an email saying he hopes they can still be friends, at which point the harasser tells him that someone in the company is looking into firing him, at which point he responded by saying if someone is trying to get rid of me I will get rid of them first (a fear response). During all this the person became suicidal, and he told the harasser this, hoping to get a reprieve. The harasser instead told the company this, and the company insisted he get psychological help. Then they bringing a company executive to deal with the situation, but the executive tells the guy that he enjoyed being harassed because he did not report it. There is more but that is the basic of the story. The guy was eventually fired from Square Enix, with further issues coming from the company during that process.

[Des-Bal]

Video goes like this
Guy basically gets dream job at Square Enix after not really having a job and almost not being able to pay for rent. Tries to get along with fellow workers since you know you want to do well in your workplace and because he is afraid to lose job. Starts getting along well with one woman in the job. Woman suggests that they meet up at his place to watch an episode of something. There she talks about how she is great friends with the lead HR person (another woman), who can fire anyone they want in the company...and then she starts pushing for sex. Fearing for his job the guy gives in and since the only place to turn to when dealing with workplace ... harassment (yeah I I call that rape) is HR, and the had of HR is this woman's friend...he does not talk to HR. The woman starts harassing him at work, often grabbing his but, even in front of other employees despite him saying not to do that. He tries to "move on" while continuing to work hard while still acting friendly to this person.He eventually lies to tell the harasser that they are interested in someone (just to get the harasser to leave them alone), at which point the harasser asks if it is them, and gets angry when the guy tells them no. Still afraid the guy sends an email saying he hopes they can still be friends, at which point the harasser tells him that someone in the company is looking into firing him, at which point he responded by saying if someone is trying to get rid of me I will get rid of them first (a fear response). During all this the person became suicidal, and he told the harasser this, hoping to get a reprieve. The harasser instead told the company this, and the company insisted he get psychological help. Then they bringing a company executive to deal with the situation, but the executive tells the guy that he enjoyed being harassed because he did not report it. There is more but that is the basic of the story. The guy was eventually fired from Square Enix, with further issues coming from the company during that process.

In the light most favorable to the company and the accuser this is a misunderstanding and poor handling of a situation by corporate and inappropriate conduct by the female employee. This does however sound like something that could have deeper roots and if that's the case the Square Enix needs to be dealt with severely.

---

On the subject of video games:

Has Anita Sarkeesian ever done a good review?

I never really watched feminist frequency but the episodes I've seen were missing about half of the "feminist review" idea.

[Ostroeuropa]

Can't watch the video but if the description that he was victimized and fired for that victimization is accurate then it's absolutely horrible.

Video goes like this
Guy basically gets dream job at Square Enix after not really having a job and almost not being able to pay for rent. Tries to get along with fellow workers since you know you want to do well in your workplace and because he is afraid to lose job. Starts getting along well with one woman in the job. Woman suggests that they meet up at his place to watch an episode of something. There she talks about how she is great friends with the lead HR person (another woman), who can fire anyone they want in the company...and then she starts pushing for sex. Fearing for his job the guy gives in and since the only place to turn to when dealing with workplace ... harassment (yeah I I call that rape) is HR, and the had of HR is this woman's friend...he does not talk to HR. The woman starts harassing him at work, often grabbing his but, even in front of other employees despite him saying not to do that. He tries to "move on" while continuing to work hard while still acting friendly to this person.He eventually lies to tell the harasser that they are interested in someone (just to get the harasser to leave them alone), at which point the harasser asks if it is them, and gets angry when the guy tells them no. Still afraid the guy sends an email saying he hopes they can still be friends, at which point the harasser tells him that someone in the company is looking into firing him, at which point he responded by saying if someone is trying to get rid of me I will get rid of them first (a fear response). During all this the person became suicidal, and he told the harasser this, hoping to get a reprieve. The harasser instead told the company this, and the company insisted he get psychological help. Then they bringing a company executive to deal with the situation, but the executive tells the guy that he enjoyed being harassed because he did not report it. There is more but that is the basic of the story. The guy was eventually fired from Square Enix, with further issues coming from the company during that process.

This is an explicit example of a dynamic men put up with in general tbh, in large part thanks to feminism.
Complaints of being mistreated as a man, especially by a woman, invite scorn and attacks because feminism changed womens identity and then marginalized any attempt to criticize it. Men often put up with women doing things because they know the women hold social power over them in this way.

Feminism is also responsible for crushing attempts by men to form lobbies and institutions to look out for their interests, so companies mistreating them can get away with it easier.

[Neutraligon]

Video goes like this
Guy basically gets dream job at Square Enix after not really having a job and almost not being able to pay for rent. Tries to get along with fellow workers since you know you want to do well in your workplace and because he is afraid to lose job. Starts getting along well with one woman in the job. Woman suggests that they meet up at his place to watch an episode of something. There she talks about how she is great friends with the lead HR person (another woman), who can fire anyone they want in the company...and then she starts pushing for sex. Fearing for his job the guy gives in and since the only place to turn to when dealing with workplace ... harassment (yeah I I call that rape) is HR, and the had of HR is this woman's friend...he does not talk to HR. The woman starts harassing him at work, often grabbing his but, even in front of other employees despite him saying not to do that. He tries to "move on" while continuing to work hard while still acting friendly to this person.He eventually lies to tell the harasser that they are interested in someone (just to get the harasser to leave them alone), at which point the harasser asks if it is them, and gets angry when the guy tells them no. Still afraid the guy sends an email saying he hopes they can still be friends, at which point the harasser tells him that someone in the company is looking into firing him, at which point he responded by saying if someone is trying to get rid of me I will get rid of them first (a fear response). During all this the person became suicidal, and he told the harasser this, hoping to get a reprieve. The harasser instead told the company this, and the company insisted he get psychological help. Then they bringing a company executive to deal with the situation, but the executive tells the guy that he enjoyed being harassed because he did not report it. There is more but that is the basic of the story. The guy was eventually fired from Square Enix, with further issues coming from the company during that process.

This is an explicit example of a dynamic men put up with in general tbh, in large part thanks to feminism.
Complaints of being mistreated as a man, especially by a woman, invite scorn and attacks because feminism changed womens identity and then marginalized any attempt to criticize it. Men often put up with women doing things because they know the women hold social power over them in this way.

Feminism is also responsible for crushing attempts by men to form lobbies and institutions to look out for their interests, so companies mistreating them can get away with it easier.

This happened in Japan, so I have no idea what effect feminism has had there.

[Tahar Joblis]

Chapter 8: THE INDICTMENT

Having presented and synthesized his evidence, Bax now comes out swinging to accuse the movement of not only hypocrisy but outright fraud, i.e., deliberate and willfully deceptive misrepresentation of its activities and intentions.

This is an issue I am struggling with at the moment. I no longer believe that they can truly lack awareness of what they are doing.

Not many people are very introspective - not when it comes to reflecting on themselves and if anything even less when it comes to reflecting on their ideologies and communities.

There are people who consider themselves very thoroughly Christian, whose lives largely revolve around church (to the point of it being most of their social life), who know almost nothing about theology and have really not thought much (if at all!) about any of the major classical theological conundrums, such as the problem of evil. I'm not saying that they're just "social Christians." They have beliefs, strong ones, that inform their behavior and values, but they don't reflect critically about those beliefs.

A lot of people are hypocritical without really realizing it.

It's very hard for me to believe that a feminist academic like Mary Koss doesn't know full well how terribly sexist and hypocritical their ideology is, but it's very easy to believe that most of the supporters of feminism really just aren't aware of the consequences of what they're doing. This is a big reason why we've seen the push towards trying to redefine sexism with the "power + privilege" formulation. Why it's so important to feminists to make sure that the other side of the conversation is shouted down, and misleading figures are pushed with as much authority as possible.

But outside of the experts and the thinkers, do the leaders really even know?

Take Kirsten Gillibrand as an example of a political leader who has embraced the ideology of feminism in full swing and loudly embraced the assertion that any accusation from a woman is proof of a man's guilt. (She's said that Bill Clinton should have stepped down after the Lewinski affair, and led the push to force Al Franken into resignation without waiting for an ethics committee investigation.)

She probably believes that accusations of misconduct are rarely false, whether she's a true believer or a political opportunist. She's a busy woman with a lot to do and a lot of different things to learn about all the time, and that's what her experts have probably told her, with lots of convincing-sounding statistics and citations.

[Ostroeuropa]

This is an issue I am struggling with at the moment. I no longer believe that they can truly lack awareness of what they are doing.

Not many people are very introspective - not when it comes to reflecting on themselves and if anything even less when it comes to reflecting on their ideologies and communities.

There are people who consider themselves very thoroughly Christian, whose lives largely revolve around church (to the point of it being most of their social life), who know almost nothing about theology and have really not thought much (if at all!) about any of the major classical theological conundrums, such as the problem of evil. I'm not saying that they're just "social Christians." They have beliefs, strong ones, that inform their behavior and values, but they don't reflect critically about those beliefs.

A lot of people are hypocritical without really realizing it.

It's very hard for me to believe that a feminist academic like Mary Koss doesn't know full well how terribly sexist and hypocritical their ideology is, but it's very easy to believe that most of the supporters of feminism really just aren't aware of the consequences of what they're doing. This is a big reason why we've seen the push towards trying to redefine sexism with the "power + privilege" formulation. Why it's so important to feminists to make sure that the other side of the conversation is shouted down, and misleading figures are pushed with as much authority as possible.

But outside of the experts and the thinkers, do the leaders really even know?

Take Kirsten Gillibrand as an example of a political leader who has embraced the ideology of feminism in full swing and loudly embraced the assertion that any accusation from a woman is proof of a man's guilt. (She's said that Bill Clinton should have stepped down after the Lewinski affair, and led the push to force Al Franken into resignation without waiting for an ethics committee investigation.)

She probably believes that accusations of misconduct are rarely false, whether she's a true believer or a political opportunist. She's a busy woman with a lot to do and a lot of different things to learn about all the time, and that's what her experts have probably told her, with lots of convincing-sounding statistics and citations.

This was an excuse 20 years ago. It isn't now. They're aware of the criticism and are choosing to reject it. Times up, as far as i'm concerned.