The #MeToo Campaign (Updated)

[Proctopeo]

Did you see my reference to the lack of women in STEM and to how that's rooted in such misogynistic practices?
Did you read the Newsweek article?

When sexual harassment of a man happen, then it's a bad thing and it shouldn't happen, but it isn't a systemic issue keeping men out of STEM or other important fields.

While thankfully not what I thought you were implying, it's still too terrible to be worth arguing against.

[Threlizdun]

The campaign primarily focused on women because women are more often victimized by sexual assault and sexual harassment than men. No one is actually controlling the campaign though; the posters are. Many people have modified the original text to include anyone who was a victim of either, and I know many men and nonbinary people that have posted "Me too". If women can't talk about sexual assault and sexual harassment without you shouting "BUT SOMEBODY THINK OF THE MEN", then that's your problem.

[Neutraligon]

The campaign primarily focused on women because women are more often victimized by sexual assault and sexual harassment than men.

As far as I know this is not true. Gallo likely has the numbers.

[Ostroeuropa]

The context isn't "Weinstein" it's "A society absolutely steeped in self-perpetuating gynocentric mentalities, which this is one of."

And now you're openly disregarding the context in favor of your narrative. Sad.

"No, if we can't ignore men all the time we'd have to concede too much, and we prefer a situation with more abuse, rape, and sexual assault in the world to one where we can't focus on women constantly and have to consider men in our campaigns. Stop telling us we're wrong to do it! It's fine to campaign like this."

Who said this? Are they a real person, or just the condensed embodiment of your personal resentments and prejudices?

Go ahead if you want. Worlds biggest Lobby for rapists, pedophiles, domestic abusers, etc. Remains the same to this day.

Are you talking to me or to the unnamed source of that quote? Because if you are talking to the unnamed source of that quote... you should probably contact them directly, rather than vomiting your disdain for them all over me.

That is the context. You've done nothing to show how it doesn't apply. When was the last inclusive campaign? When was the last mens one?

It is the crux of your argument and the argument of those who support the continued focus on women in these campaigns. That regardless of negative consequences for men, and the world being more full of rape, sexual assault etc, it is fine for feminists to behave this way and routinely exclude men from their discussions on these topics. It makes a mockery of all your cultural criticisms, and suggests that you only really give a shit because it's happening to women.

You have no basis to criticize the language usage of others so long as it remains the case.

[Aillyria]

Eh, this smells of another ineffectual hashtag campaign that won't do anything positive for anyone. I wouldn't be suprised if a horde of feminists who'd never been sexually abused or raped are gonna post the hashtag so they can be "victims" too and be a fighter against "teh patriarchy". You can't even tell who's an actual victim or not.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Yea, it is ubiquitous. Again, so what?

So how many people are actually aware of that. I mean viscerally aware. Sure they may know statistics, but this type of opening a dialogue puts a face to those numbers. Kinda like how homosexuals coming out of the closet alone was not enough, but them doing so put a face to a movement.

Thank you, now this is getting somewhere.

I admit, you might be onto something when you say "viscerally aware". It's not really an issue until it affects someone close to you, and in that I can understand why it might be good to come out.

However, I'd argue that the only people who are going to be viscerally affected are people close to these people, not the public in general. It might affect the public, but not in the way of a massive wave of people coming out and the public as a collective being shocked at how many people actually have encountered something along the lines of what Weinstein. But it will influence circles where people didn't know before.

The public, as a collective, is just not that moved by it. But, admittedly, in private it is easier to have a conversation about it IF the conversation is opened. Otherwise it is, again, quite a pointless exercise. It does nothing because we'll all forget about it in a week or so.

[Liriena]

Question... how do you know when to assign the "gynocentrist" label?

Also... Oh dear, the meninists of reddit found exactly what they were looking for. I'm sure there is no confirmation bias at play here.

Snark asides though, provided all these anecdotes on reddit are true, it does suck that some male survivors' stories are not being treated fairly.

If a campaign on an issue is slated as a womens issue where it effects both men and women would be one.

Do you assign the same logic to... say... police misconduct and race? Homelessness and LGBT youth?

Also, I'm still wondering... when do you know that something is honest to goodness "gynocentrist"? Because I would hate to see that term be abused and overused as some people claim "nazi" or "bigot" is.

Also, you're using the term meninist, suggesting you're either baiting, or don't know what you're talking about. I'm sure you wouldn't bait, so let me educate you.

Meninism is a parody of feminism and its sexist behavior, taking the structure of their arguments and statements and reversing the genders. Quotes are also used.
The mens rights movement is the actual movement. Meninism is the parody.

I can understand it may be shocking for you to be told the difference, if you think feminism is legitimate, you may well see meninism as a mirror to it, with similar justifications and such, but no, it is a parody.

Oh, I see. I wrongly assumed that it was accurate to treat "meninist" as a single word to refer to men's rights activists. My apologies.

[Threlizdun]

The campaign primarily focused on women because women are more often victimized by sexual assault and sexual harassment than men.

As far as I know this is not true. Gallo likely has the numbers.

As do I. I have seen the study Gallo keeps posting. While it is interesting, it will take more than that to refute the decades of evidence to the contrary. Men are absolutely victimized by sexual assault and sexual harassment, but to say that they are even close to being equal is false.

[Chessmistress]

Men are absolutely victimized by sexual assault and sexual harassment, but to say that they are even close to being equal is false.

About that, we fully agree

[Chestaan]

The point is that nothing is lost by including male victims of sexual violence in the campaign.

Male survivors are already participating, however, so New Edom is just plain wrong... or is pretending not to know this to fit his own narrative.

Targetting sexual violence against women alone is like taking specific steps to stop men from being murdered but refusing to extend the same campaign to women. Sure, men may be the majority of all homicides by a huge amount, but there's zero benefit to excluding female victims from any campaign against murder.

Yeah... but context matters. Hypothetically, if there was a similar twitter campaign after a hate crime towards, say, LGBT people, would you think it fair or reasonable for someone to start a thread to complain that the campaign isn't about straight cis people too?

And if the context was that most homicide victims were male would it be ok to campaign only against men being murdered? Or if we took one of the cases where a police shot a black man unjustifiably, would it be ok to target police attacks on men only?

In the LGBT case the difference is that, as you have said, the attack is a hate crime. Hate crime is a very specific type of crime and its motivations are very different to those which causes someone to commit a more standard murder, hence a separate campaign is perfectly reasonable. The motivations for sex crimes is the same whether the victim is a man or woman.

[Chestaan]

As far as I know this is not true. Gallo likely has the numbers.

As do I. I have seen the study Gallo keeps posting. While it is interesting, it will take more than that to refute the decades of evidence to the contrary. Men are absolutely victimized by sexual assault and sexual harassment, but to say that they are even close to being equal is false.

Regardless of the numbers, excluding male victims from a campaign such as this doesn't help either women or men.

[Aellex]

Did you see my reference to the lack of women in STEM and to how that's rooted in such misogynistic practices?
Did you read the Newsweek article?

When sexual harassment of a man happen, then it's a bad thing and it shouldn't happen, but it isn't a systemic issue keeping men out of STEM or other important fields.

As someone studying in STEM, I call absolute bullshit on that.

[Liriena]

And now you're openly disregarding the context in favor of your narrative. Sad.


Who said this? Are they a real person, or just the condensed embodiment of your personal resentments and prejudices?


Are you talking to me or to the unnamed source of that quote? Because if you are talking to the unnamed source of that quote... you should probably contact them directly, rather than vomiting your disdain for them all over me.

That is the context. You've done nothing to show how it doesn't apply. When was the last inclusive campaign? When was the last mens one?

I have no idea. I don't use Twitter and I think most "hashtag activism" is kind of dumb. I have a slightly better opinion of this one because it encourages survivors to actually tell their stories, but still...

It is the crux of your argument

So it's not an actual quote, but simply something you made up out of your personal interpretation of what my words were supposedly implying. Alright.

Unfortunately, it did not at all reflect my thoughts, so I have nothing to say other than... bad Ostro.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

As far as I know this is not true. Gallo likely has the numbers.

As do I. I have seen the study Gallo keeps posting. While it is interesting, it will take more than that to refute the decades of evidence to the contrary. Men are absolutely victimized by sexual assault and sexual harassment, but to say that they are even close to being equal is false.

If we're talking about "number games" here, then the hashtag is not very important since there's not many people coming out posting it, based on your own opinion of the matter.

If numbers are what matter, and not the experiences themselves, then this hashtag campaign is even more pointless than I said it was on my initial statement.

[Chessmistress]

The motivations for sex crimes is the same whether the victim is a man or woman.

No, just no: there's plenty works explaining the huge difference in the motivations, and it also explain why the number of women who are victims of sex crimes is far higher.

[Chessmistress]

Did you see my reference to the lack of women in STEM and to how that's rooted in such misogynistic practices?
Did you read the Newsweek article?

When sexual harassment of a man happen, then it's a bad thing and it shouldn't happen, but it isn't a systemic issue keeping men out of STEM or other important fields.

As someone studying in STEM, I call absolute bullshit on that.

Since you're a man studying in STEM, I don't think you can have such experience...so, what you're calling bullshit on?

[Ostroeuropa]

That is the context. You've done nothing to show how it doesn't apply. When was the last inclusive campaign? When was the last mens one?

I have no idea. I don't use Twitter and I think most "hashtag activism" is kind of dumb. I have a slightly better opinion of this one because it encourages survivors to actually tell their stories, but still...

It is the crux of your argument

So it's not an actual quote, but simply something you made up out of your personal interpretation of what my words were supposedly implying. Alright.

Unfortunately, it did not at all reflect my thoughts, so I have nothing to say other than... bad Ostro.

Let's look at this logically.

1. The campaign either positively effects the issue, or it doesn't and is a waste of time. (Let's rule out that it makes it worse.)
2. There is nothing preventing choice of language changes.
3. Yet the language remains focused on women.
4. This means that, either the poster is ignorant, and protesting and raising awareness to the people posting is itself it's own perfectly valid activism.
OR
5. That a deliberate decision not to include men was made, whereas including them would cost nothing. That these people see the problem, and do nothing about it, when it would cost them nothing. But DO see why they should do something when it comes to women. That an active decision is made to choose a world where there is more rape, sexual assault, etc, provided we also get to continue excluding men from these campaigns and continue to pretend feminism is a positive movement. When they choose this, their focus is always on the latter part of it, because they still think it's positive and okay to focus on women. But their anger at critics of feminism is for pointing out the consequences of their decision, and the ugly consequences of their ideals, their anger comes at them being shown no, it isn't positive, it is bad for society. The thing you think is good? It's bad. NOW look again at the issue. Look at how feminism has warped so much campaigning and skewed it toward a bad purpose. How it has tainted everything it touched. You view the feminism as the activism. I have no doubt the activism would be there regardless, anything worth fighting for has backing in humanism and liberalism and such. What wouldn't be there, is the skew.


How is this not either ignorance, or hateful?
Which specific point do you disagree with and how?
That is the nature of gynocentric campaigning, routinely.

[Angreia]

Because men can’t get sexually assaulted

[Liriena]

Male survivors are already participating, however, so New Edom is just plain wrong... or is pretending not to know this to fit his own narrative.


Yeah... but context matters. Hypothetically, if there was a similar twitter campaign after a hate crime towards, say, LGBT people, would you think it fair or reasonable for someone to start a thread to complain that the campaign isn't about straight cis people too?

And if the context was that most homicide victims were male would it be ok to campaign only against men being murdered?

It would be okay if a campaign began in reponse that prominently featured men but was open to female participation.

Or if we took one of the cases where a police shot a black man unjustifiably, would it be ok to target police attacks on men only?/quote]
It would be okay if most people began to speak about police attacks on men in particular but keeping the conversation open to cases of women being attacked.

Because sometimes, even if a problem affects a variety of people, it is worth focusing on how and why it affects a particular people. Problems can and should be talked about in general terms, but their specificities also deserve attention and their own time in the spotlight.

In the LGBT case the difference is that, as you have said, the attack is a hate crime. Hate crime is a very specific type of crime and its motivations are very different to those which causes someone to commit a more standard murder, hence a separate campaign is perfectly reasonable. The motivations for sex crimes is the same whether the victim is a man or woman.

Yes, but one could argue that, generally speaking, while sex crimes affect all genders, they don't do so in the exact same way and in the exact same circumstances.

[Liriena]

Because men can’t get sexually assaulted

They can, and they do, and a lot of them are using this hashtag to tell it.

[Luminesa]

Did you see my reference to the lack of women in STEM and to how that's rooted in such misogynistic practices?
Did you read the Newsweek article?

When sexual harassment of a man happen, then it's a bad thing and it shouldn't happen, but it isn't a systemic issue keeping men out of STEM or other important fields.

As someone studying in STEM, I call absolute bullshit on that.

As someone who goes to a school that specializes in STEM fields, I call it as well.

[Chessmistress]

Yes, but one could argue that, generally speaking, while sex crimes affect all genders, they don't do so in the exact same way and in the exact same circumstances.

Indeed, that's what I said, but in a much clearer form:

The motivations for sex crimes is the same whether the victim is a man or woman.

No, just no: there's plenty works explaining the huge difference in the motivations, and it also explain why the number of women who are victims of sex crimes is far higher.

[Aellex]

Since you're a man studying in STEM, I don't think you can have such experience...so, what you're calling bullshit on?

I've no such experience because there is no such thing as what you describe. The very idea of it is actually quite laughable and only shows how little the people who're parroting it actually know about STEM.
Tis only a convenient lie people who preferred out of their own laziness to pick up easier careers chose to believe in to excuse to themselves their lack of diligence and efforts.

[Neutraligon]

As someone studying in STEM, I call absolute bullshit on that.

As someone who goes to a school that specializes in STEM fields, I call it as well.

Hmm as a female who graduated from STEM I can say that I have faced discrimination due to my sex. I would say we need to look into why the difference in numbers and where that difference occurs.

[Aellex]

As someone who goes to a school that specializes in STEM fields, I call it as well.

It actually quite make me laugh how out of touch with reality that argument is. With almost fifty hours of classes a week in prépa ingé, it's not like we would have the time to keep that oppression system running anyway.