The #MeToo Campaign (Updated)

[Hirota]

You're making it a woman issue by constantly tossing the 'feminists are evil' thing in there with nearly every breath, and repeatedly, in every possible related thread, going 'what about men' but in typically unhelpful, insulting, and rather vindictive fashion.

I'm sure you recognise that not all women are feminists. I know Edom does.

I think there is a discomfort on how there is almost a morbid excitement among some feminists, who feel they finally have a hate figure through which they can cast judgements on the rest of society. Looking through #metoo (and I appreciate this is anecdotal - as I know only too well it's difficult to really evaluate a hashtag campaign) there is a lot of allegations being made by the #MeToo brigade have really nothing to do with genuine sexual harassment. Calling someone ‘hot’ , wolf whistling or shouting ‘show us your knickers’ at a passing woman… that isn’t (and here comes the accusations of being an apologist) sexual harassment; it’s immature behaviour.

And sure, nobody should have to put up with that type of immature behaviour from those kind of idiots. But being immature isn't the same as what Weinstein did. By putting immature idiocy at the same level as actual sexual harassment and making them equivalent isn't making things better, it cheapens the experience victims of genuine sexual harassment suffered to the same level as someone who suffered the horrors of a genocidal wolf whistle. It simply peddles the idea that women are wallflowers – always at risk, requiring protection, and too damaged to talk seriously about the reality of their experience and therefore need a caring Twitter safespace. That is firmly in the third wave feminist playbook - the idea that women are always the victims, always at risk from teh ebil patriarchy, in danger every time they leave their houses.

I absolutely agree with you, we need to have a serious and sensible discussion as a society of what sexual harassment actually is. That means less unsupported theories about evil boogeymen, and more taking a long hard look at the facts and keeping an open mind.

[Chessmistress]

I have to admit that I wasn't sure about the effectiveness of the campaign, but now I'm glad that it seems that the first results are encouraging
https://twitter.com/hashtag/HowIWillChange

[Neutraligon]

Who defines feminism, the feminists who are part of it. Not just the politicians, not just the elites, not the press, and not just the professors. The every day feminist is also rather important to what feminism is.

What differs between this, and a confederate saying the same?

Not sure I understand the question.

Aren't you basically saying a feminist is fine until given any measure of actual power?

No.

Because that doesn't sound fine to me.

"Oh yeh, these people are fine, nothing wrong with them. Just they go supremacist if you give them an office higher than postage clerk."

Nice strawman. I never said anything like that. No it is not that given some form of power and they go crazy. It is more like those in power tend to be heard more, and those who are more radical and loudest also tend to be heard more then the day to day lay people and the people who are not rocking the boat. You know, kinda like how Trump is loud and obnoxious and tends to cover up what is happening at the local level of the Republican party.

Sounds like there might be some inherent flaw in the worldview that drives them toward that outcome, maybe.

Sort of like "A gun isn't deadly, provided you don't load bullets, so don't call it deadly."
...
Kay...

Given I do not agree with what you said this comment is irrelevent

If that ISN'T the case, why the suspicious lack of "Every day" feminists you seek to defend in offices of power?

The same reason we have a person like Trump in charge of the US. Being loud attracts attention, which in turn tends to get people into positions of power.

Plenty of racists are very pleasant on a personal level too, sometimes even to minorities, you know, but we wouldn't want them to effect actual policy.

Still not relevant.

I'm not saying that's necessarily an accurate comparison,

God because it isn't, in any way accurate. [quote]

[Ostroeuropa]

What differs between this, and a confederate saying the same?

Not sure I understand the question.

Aren't you basically saying a feminist is fine until given any measure of actual power?

No.

Because that doesn't sound fine to me.

"Oh yeh, these people are fine, nothing wrong with them. Just they go supremacist if you give them an office higher than postage clerk."

Nice strawman. I never said anything like that. No it is not that given some form of power and they go crazy. It is more like those in power tend to be heard more, and those who are more radical and loudest also tend to be heard more then the day to day lay people and the people who are not rocking the boat. You know, kinda like how Trump is loud and obnoxious and tends to cover up what is happening at the local level of the Republican party.

Sounds like there might be some inherent flaw in the worldview that drives them toward that outcome, maybe.

Sort of like "A gun isn't deadly, provided you don't load bullets, so don't call it deadly."
...
Kay...

Given I do not agree with what you said this comment is irrelevent

If that ISN'T the case, why the suspicious lack of "Every day" feminists you seek to defend in offices of power?

The same reason we have a person like Trump in charge of the US. Being loud attracts attention, which in turn tends to get people into positions of power.

Plenty of racists are very pleasant on a personal level too, sometimes even to minorities, you know, but we wouldn't want them to effect actual policy.

Still not relevant.

I'm not saying that's necessarily an accurate comparison,

God because it isn't, in any way accurate.

And yet, the loudest MRAs are merely anti-feminist, not anti-woman.
Why the lack of loud, vitriolic, pro-actual-equality feminists in office?

I'll grant you both sides are vitriolic.
But if you replaced all feminists in office with the leaders of the MRM, things would be better, because the latter advocate actual equality. Why is that?

[New Edom]

I have to admit that I wasn't sure about the effectiveness of the campaign, but now I'm glad that it seems that the first results are encouraging
https://twitter.com/hashtag/HowIWillChange

Well, your pleasure doesn't surprise me, but it's another amusing reminder of how much feminism needs men just to exist.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

You're making it a woman issue by constantly tossing the 'feminists are evil' thing in there with nearly every breath, and repeatedly, in every possible related thread, going 'what about men' but in typically unhelpful, insulting, and rather vindictive fashion.

I'm sure you recognise that not all women are feminists. I know Edom does.

I think there is a discomfort on how there is almost a morbid excitement among some feminists, who feel they finally have a hate figure through which they can cast judgements on the rest of society. Looking through #metoo (and I appreciate this is anecdotal - as I know only too well it's difficult to really evaluate a hashtag campaign) there is a lot of allegations being made by the #MeToo brigade have really nothing to do with genuine sexual harassment. Calling someone ‘hot’ , wolf whistling or shouting ‘show us your knickers’ at a passing woman… that isn’t (and here comes the accusations of being an apologist) sexual harassment; it’s immature behaviour.

And sure, nobody should have to put up with that type of immature behaviour from those kind of idiots. But being immature isn't the same as what Weinstein did. By putting immature idiocy at the same level as actual sexual harassment and making them equivalent isn't making things better, it cheapens the experience victims of genuine sexual harassment suffered to the same level as someone who suffered the horrors of a genocidal wolf whistle. It simply peddles the idea that women are wallflowers – always at risk, requiring protection, and too damaged to talk seriously about the reality of their experience and therefore need a caring Twitter safespace. That is firmly in the third wave feminist playbook - the idea that women are always the victims, always at risk from teh ebil patriarchy, in danger every time they leave their houses.

I absolutely agree with you, we need to have a serious and sensible discussion as a society of what sexual harassment actually is. That means less unsupported theories about evil boogeymen, and more taking a long hard look at the facts and keeping an open mind.

Of course - it's just not a label I've particularly identified with myself is all.

Unfortunately, its a known fact that we women are guilty of the same behavior, and somehow, that's ... acceptable? Seriously. Chippendales. Strip clubs are not just for men, with only women doing the dancing. And yet for some reason, a woman telling a guy he's hot tends to be thought of as less harassing than a man saying that to a woman. Frankly, unless it's a welcome comment or approach, shouldn't be acceptable either way. Thus my take on equality not based on gender, as a rule. We're not just talking women who've been taken advantage of in Hollywood. They're just the ones standing up here now, for the most part. We've known about it for decades, and yet the problem persists. There's been all the problems with child actors being abused to boot, but where were all the firings then? One can see how folks can get frustrated in seeing one group get results after so long, when others remain if not unseen, at least not answered to the same degree.

Men are not always the ones in power. And there are all the various other gender issues to take into consideration as well, along with the stigma that can go along with reporting abuse, across the board. Not to mention the potential fallout - which is what many are stating concerning this most recent reveal.

Getting back to the hashtag campaign - still think that regardless of what someone else says on the internet, those who feel that using it and participating in it helps them, should. As stated earlier, to hell with the haters. Were a man to have started it, would you expect him to say 'no, just men' to any woman wanting to participate, and how do you think that might go over out there in the great wide world - and why? There's some truths we probably ought to own a bit before going too far off one way or another is all. Thus, standing together, seems the optimal way forward. Because we are all in this together, and most of these problems are not completely one-sided.

[Imperializt Russia]

But if you replaced all feminists in office with the leaders of the MRM, things would be better, because the latter advocate actual equality. Why is that?

"You have a conflict of interest"

[Ostroeuropa]

But if you replaced all feminists in office with the leaders of the MRM, things would be better, because the latter advocate actual equality. Why is that?

"You have a conflict of interest"

You're welcome to show which policy advocated by the MRM or its leaders is sexist in nature. I won't wait, because I have to be buried at some point.
I've already gone over the toxic swamp of feminist-actual-policy, and the concession has already been given in this chain that those actually in office aren't worth considering when looking for the elusive merits of being a feminist.

[Neutraligon]

Not sure I understand the question.
No.

Nice strawman. I never said anything like that. No it is not that given some form of power and they go crazy. It is more like those in power tend to be heard more, and those who are more radical and loudest also tend to be heard more then the day to day lay people and the people who are not rocking the boat. You know, kinda like how Trump is loud and obnoxious and tends to cover up what is happening at the local level of the Republican party.
Given I do not agree with what you said this comment is irrelevent

The same reason we have a person like Trump in charge of the US. Being loud attracts attention, which in turn tends to get people into positions of power.

Still not relevant.

God because it isn't, in any way accurate.

And yet, the loudest MRAs are merely anti-feminist, not anti-woman.

Not in my experience.

Why the lack of loud, vitriolic, pro-actual-equality feminists in office?

Which office? do you mean the ones in the US congress?

I'll grant you both sides are vitriolic.
But if you replaced all feminists in office with the leaders of the MRM, things would be better, because the latter advocate actual equality. Why is that?

Given that I have seen MRM advocate against equality I would disagree there. Funny though, I do not think that just because the people I have seen advocate against equality mean they represent the entire group.

[Imperializt Russia]

"You have a conflict of interest"

You're welcome to show which policy advocated by the MRM or its leaders is sexist in nature. I won't wait, because I have to be buried at some point.
I've already gone over the toxic swamp of feminist-actual-policy, and the concession has already been given that those actually in office aren't worth considering when looking for the elusive merits of being a feminist.

Do we get to play the game of who is and isn't an "MRM leader" now, then?

[Ostroeuropa]

And yet, the loudest MRAs are merely anti-feminist, not anti-woman.

Not in my experience.

Why the lack of loud, vitriolic, pro-actual-equality feminists in office?

Which office? do you mean the ones in the US congress?

I'll grant you both sides are vitriolic.
But if you replaced all feminists in office with the leaders of the MRM, things would be better, because the latter advocate actual equality. Why is that?

Given that I have seen MRM advocate against equality I would disagree there. Funny though, I do not think that just because the people I have seen advocate against equality mean they represent the entire group.

No, our representatives represent the group. That's their job.
You know, like our community leaders and shit.
Sort of like... congress people...

[Neutraligon]

Not in my experience.
Which office? do you mean the ones in the US congress?

Given that I have seen MRM advocate against equality I would disagree there. Funny though, I do not think that just because the people I have seen advocate against equality mean they represent the entire group.

No, our representatives represent the group. That's their job.

Oh, so who is the feminist representative, I can assure you there isn't one since you know feminism is such a large and diverse group. More then that, the every day feminist need not actually actively participate or vote in the groups. Tell me does a conservative who did not vote at all stop being a conservative because they did not vote in the last election? Tell me who is the conservative representative?

[Galloism]

No, our representatives represent the group. That's their job.

Oh, so who is the feminist representative, I can assure you there isn't one since you know feminism is such a large and diverse group. More then that, the every day feminist need not actually actively participate or vote in the groups. Tell me does a conservative who did not vote at all stop being a conservative because they did not vote in the last election? Tell me who is the conservative representative?

Oh, let me play!

I pick Jess Philips for the former, and Donald Trump for the latter.

[Ostroeuropa]

Do we get to play the game of who is and isn't an "MRM leader" now, then?

Can you tie it to the topic? I know i'm not great at keeping shit on track either.

I have to admit that I wasn't sure about the effectiveness of the campaign, but now I'm glad that it seems that the first results are encouraging
https://twitter.com/hashtag/HowIWillChange

Well, your pleasure doesn't surprise me, but it's another amusing reminder of how much feminism needs men just to exist.

The hashtag is probably an astroturf attempt, and the media will pick it up soon enough and is already in some cases.
Barely 3 tweets in the original tweeter of metoo responded, and soon after other journos started raving about it.

It's an example of feminists in institutions abusing their authority to generate news.

Notably, alyssa, who previously conceded "Yet men too" (Far after her original tweet) is back to being an ignorant blight on humanity, now cheerleading for a "How men will change" campaign rather than pointing out her recently learned and apparently forgotten revelation that women also need to change.

Almost like the concession was duplicitous, and shouldn't be counted in comparison to her actual activities. Or like there's some fundamental flaw in the way she thinks that keeps her repeating the same tragic errors over and over. Hm.

[Imperializt Russia]

Oh, so who is the feminist representative, I can assure you there isn't one since you know feminism is such a large and diverse group. More then that, the every day feminist need not actually actively participate or vote in the groups. Tell me does a conservative who did not vote at all stop being a conservative because they did not vote in the last election? Tell me who is the conservative representative?

Oh, let me play!

I pick Jess Philips for the former, and Donald Trump for the latter.

Holy shit, are you seriously calling Jess Philips queen of feminism?

I'd have taken you more seriously if you'd said Anita Sarkeesian.

[Alvecia]

Oh, so who is the feminist representative, I can assure you there isn't one since you know feminism is such a large and diverse group. More then that, the every day feminist need not actually actively participate or vote in the groups. Tell me does a conservative who did not vote at all stop being a conservative because they did not vote in the last election? Tell me who is the conservative representative?

Oh, let me play!

I pick Jess Philips for the former, and Donald Trump for the latter.

I must be a pretty shit feminist. I have no idea who my representative is

[Galloism]

Oh, let me play!

I pick Jess Philips for the former, and Donald Trump for the latter.

Holy shit, are you seriously calling Jess Philips queen of feminism?

I'd have taken you more seriously if you'd said Anita Sarkeesian.

Mostly I was being funny and mean, if Donald Trump as king of conservatism didn't tip you off.

Man, unintentionally triggered.

[Neutraligon]

Oh, let me play!

I pick Jess Philips for the former, and Donald Trump for the latter.

Holy shit, are you seriously calling Jess Philips queen of feminism?

I'd have taken you more seriously if you'd said Anita Sarkeesian.

Anita Sarkeesian is a know nothing ass who I believe is a con artist just trying to make money.

[Ostroeuropa]

No, our representatives represent the group. That's their job.

Oh, so who is the feminist representative, I can assure you there isn't one since you know feminism is such a large and diverse group. More then that, the every day feminist need not actually actively participate or vote in the groups. Tell me does a conservative who did not vote at all stop being a conservative because they did not vote in the last election? Tell me who is the conservative representative?

What feminist accomplishments do you think are representative of the movement? Is this campaign one?
And be careful, because most of the good ones are tied to negative ones.

I'll concede that if you're a feminist who thinks the movement has no worthwhile legal accomplishments, and that "True feminism" or "Good feminism" has never been given a fair shake, and has its own leaders who have not been given power, that is consistent and understandable.

But what it ignores is the issue of how those victimized by feminists won't feel comfortable with you taking that label in many cases, and how the label inherently drives men away because of the high profile of man haters.

Sort of like organizing an event for black empowerment in the south by nailing a confederate flag to the side of a barn and shaving your head, then expecting them to turn up.

[Imperializt Russia]

Holy shit, are you seriously calling Jess Philips queen of feminism?

I'd have taken you more seriously if you'd said Anita Sarkeesian.

Mostly I was being funny and mean, if Donald Trump as king of conservatism didn't tip you off.

Man, unintentionally triggered.

Because from the way Ostro talks about her sometimes, I would be completely unsurprised if you were serious.

Holy shit, are you seriously calling Jess Philips queen of feminism?

I'd have taken you more seriously if you'd said Anita Sarkeesian.

Anita Sarkeesian is a know nothing ass who I believe is a con artist just trying to make money.

I don't think you know how crowdfunding works.

Anita was pretty open about what the money was used for in her foundation - a lot moreso than the right-wingers using crowdfunding to make videos about how duplicitous her crowdfunding campaign was by the by - and, well, what did she allegedly do? Make more money than her target? Yeah, so do many crowdfunding projects.

The only people I've heard of being angry about it are people who didn't back it and already had axes to grind.

[Gauthier]

And the thread has drifted into Women Should STFU About Any Observed Inquality Or Wrongs territory.

[Neutraligon]

Mostly I was being funny and mean, if Donald Trump as king of conservatism didn't tip you off.

Man, unintentionally triggered.

Because from the way Ostro talks about her sometimes, I would be completely unsurprised if you were serious.

Anita Sarkeesian is a know nothing ass who I believe is a con artist just trying to make money.

I don't think you know how crowdfunding works.

Anita was pretty open about what the money was used for in her foundation - a lot moreso than the right-wingers using crowdfunding to make videos about how duplicitous her crowdfunding campaign was by the by - and, well, what did she allegedly do? Make more money than her target? Yeah, so do many crowdfunding projects.

The only people I've heard of being angry about it are people who didn't back it and already had axes to grind.

Tell me, how many videos did she make of the one's she promised to make with her initial crowd funding? I know when it comes to crowdfunding it is entirely voluntary, but that does not mean I think it cannot be a con.

[Galloism]

Mostly I was being funny and mean, if Donald Trump as king of conservatism didn't tip you off.

Man, unintentionally triggered.

Because from the way Ostro talks about her sometimes, I would be completely unsurprised if you were serious.

Jess Philips may be emblematic of many of the things wrong with feminism, as a movement, much like Mary Koss is and Anita Sarkeesian is and Jimmy Kimmel is, but none of them are the "queen of feminism".

There is, as you pointed out, no "queen of feminism", nor is there a "king of conservatism" or "queen of liberalism" (We Are The Borg).

There's lot of problematic things about the feminist movement, just as there are a lot of problematic things about conservatism (and being fair, liberalism, although I'm not exactly unbiased on that dichotomy), and while these people are often emblematic of those problems, they are not the leader of the movement. None of them have one.

[Proctopeo]

Because from the way Ostro talks about her sometimes, I would be completely unsurprised if you were serious.

Jess Philips may be emblematic of many of the things wrong with feminism, as a movement, much like Mary Koss is and Anita Sarkeesian is and Jimmy Kimmel is, but none of them are the "queen of feminism".

There is, as you pointed out, no "queen of feminism", nor is there a "king of conservatism" or "queen of liberalism" (We Are The Borg).

There's lot of problematic things about the feminist movement, just as there are a lot of problematic things about conservatism (and being fair, liberalism, although I'm not exactly unbiased on that dichotomy), and while these people are often emblematic of those problems, they are not the leader of the movement. None of them have one.

The furthest you could go is them being the "queen" of their following, which can be quite massive (although still not representative of the whole).

[Neutraligon]

Oh, so who is the feminist representative, I can assure you there isn't one since you know feminism is such a large and diverse group. More then that, the every day feminist need not actually actively participate or vote in the groups. Tell me does a conservative who did not vote at all stop being a conservative because they did not vote in the last election? Tell me who is the conservative representative?

What feminist accomplishments do you think are representative of the movement? Is this campaign one?

Since I do not see this as particularly feminist, no. As to representative of the movement, are you talking large scale or small, because I am at the point where I think it is the small scale stuff that matters for the most part, not the large.

And be careful, because most of the good ones are tied to negative ones.

That tends to be true of most things. So this statement is pretty worthless.

I'll concede that if you're a feminist who thinks the movement has no worthwhile accomplishments, and that "True feminism" or "Good feminism" has never been given a fair shake, and has its own leaders who have not been given power, that is consistent and understandable.

Not that either. You seem to be trying very hard to place me in boxes where I just don't fit.

But what it ignores is the issue of how those victimized by feminists won't feel comfortable with you taking that label in many cases, and how the label inherently drives men away because of the high profile of man haters.

Funny since I could say something similar about the MRM. The rhetoric of those who take your name tends to make a lot of people feel uncomfortable with people taking the label, and it inherently drives women away. Does that mean that discomfort is justified when it comes to such a large and diverse group?

Sort of like organizing an event for black empowerment in the south by nailing a confederate flag to the side of a barn and shaving your head, then expecting them to turn up.

Yay, more comparisons that don't work. Are you done trying to put me in a box that won't fit?