The #MeToo Campaign (Updated)

[New Edom]

Except they weren't? And now we have plenty of men openly sharing their stories and getting media attention and public support?

Can't harp on the talking points about feminazis plotting Complete Global Castration if you acknowledge that men are being welcomed on #MeToo.

Sure I can for these reasons.

1. I have consistently said that the odd male victim of patriarchy through homophobia or homosexual victimization is always welcome. This is part of the common feminist narrative.

2. All the "what's next" articles and activist speeches are about how men should change in general. Not identifying a predatory type, but how all men participate in being part of the problem. A few articles and fewer activists point out that there are more male victims than are popularly talked about, and more female perps than are commonly acknowledged.

3. Define, since the above is true, how plenty of men are getting support.

[The Alexanderians]

Can't harp on the talking points about feminazis plotting Complete Global Castration if you acknowledge that men are being welcomed on #MeToo.

Sure I can for these reasons.

1. I have consistently said that the odd male victim of patriarchy through homophobia or homosexual victimization is always welcome. This is part of the common feminist narrative.

2. All the "what's next" articles and activist speeches are about how men should change in general. Not identifying a predatory type, but how all men participate in being part of the problem. A few articles and fewer activists point out that there are more male victims than are popularly talked about, and more female perps than are commonly acknowledged.

3. Define, since the above is true, how plenty of men are getting support.

They're supported by their privilege obviously (I wouldn't even jokingly mention this if it wasn't seriously suggested to me by another person).

[New Edom]

It's not a good movie. The plot is vague, the background for the main character barely hinted at. How the crazy dictators settlement works s vague, what he's trying to accomplish is vague. The movie is as bad as Prometheus or the Force Awakems for a meandering I'll conceived plot. Perhaps it is entertaining, that's fair, but otherwise it's stupid.

You dislike Fury Road and the Force Awakens? Boooooooooooo! Hissssssssssssss!

Yup. I liked Rogue One better, though it was still silly, but then Star Wars is generally silly. I liked the original Star Wars, most of Empire Strikes back, some of Return of the Jedi, some of Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones. There were several parts of Rogue zone I quite enjoyed. The rest, not my cup of tea.

[New Edom]

Sure I can for these reasons.

1. I have consistently said that the odd male victim of patriarchy through homophobia or homosexual victimization is always welcome. This is part of the common feminist narrative.

2. All the "what's next" articles and activist speeches are about how men should change in general. Not identifying a predatory type, but how all men participate in being part of the problem. A few articles and fewer activists point out that there are more male victims than are popularly talked about, and more female perps than are commonly acknowledged.

3. Define, since the above is true, how plenty of men are getting support.

They're supported by their privilege obviously (I wouldn't even jokingly mention this if it wasn't seriously suggested to me by another person).

I've seen that too.

[Ostroeuropa]

There were. They got shouted down because #MeToo is for women only.

Except they weren't? And now we have plenty of men openly sharing their stories and getting media attention and public support?

https://recalculatingthegenderwar.tumbl ... entionally

Sure.

ABC News and Washington Post intentionally excluded male victims from their already flawed sexual harassment survey
You may have recently heard that half of U.S. women have experienced sexual harassment. Riding on the coattails of #MeToo, both ABC News and The Washingston Post conducted a survey on sexual harassment. However, even though this survey included male participants, the surveys only asked female participants if they had actually experienced sexual harassment. Men were only asked whether they felt sexual harassment was a problem for women.

(Incidentally, another example for you of how feminists with influence act misandrist routinely that you keep demanding evidence of, as well as proof of mine and Edoms criticism of MeToo being valid, especially considered alongside the vacillating duplicity of the original poster of MeToo and her quickly forgotten revelations revealing her to either be an outright lying supremacist, or incredibly forgetful and stupid.)

[Liriena]

Except they weren't? And now we have plenty of men openly sharing their stories and getting media attention and public support?

https://recalculatingthegenderwar.tumbl ... entionally

Sure.

ABC News and Washington Post intentionally excluded male victims from their already flawed sexual harassment survey
You may have recently heard that half of U.S. women have experienced sexual harassment. Riding on the coattails of #MeToo, both ABC News and The Washingston Post conducted a survey on sexual harassment. However, even though this survey included male participants, the surveys only asked female participants if they had actually experienced sexual harassment. Men were only asked whether they felt sexual harassment was a problem for women.

(Incidentally, another example for you of how feminists with influence act misandrist routinely that you keep demanding evidence of, as well as proof of mine and Edoms criticism of MeToo being valid, especially considered alongside the vacillating duplicity of the original poster of MeToo and her quickly forgotten revelations revealing her to either be an outright lying supremacist, or incredibly forgetful and stupid.)

Your source is a Tumblr post?

Mmkay, I guess?

Also... again, the #MeToo campaign started in reaction to a case of a male sexual predator who targeted women. It makes sense that at least the early movement born from that would be focused on that specific sort of phenomena (male sexual predators who target women), for the same reason it would make sense if there was a black-centered survery on racial discrimination in the aftermath of, say, a black person being the target of a hate crime by a white person.

Also, nice try, but I don't think anybody particularly cares about the personal character and story of the original poster of #MeToo at this point. #MeToo has long since trascended her.

[New Edom]

https://recalculatingthegenderwar.tumbl ... entionally

Sure.


(Incidentally, another example for you of how feminists with influence act misandrist routinely that you keep demanding evidence of, as well as proof of mine and Edoms criticism of MeToo being valid, especially considered alongside the vacillating duplicity of the original poster of MeToo and her quickly forgotten revelations revealing her to either be an outright lying supremacist, or incredibly forgetful and stupid.)

Your source is a Tumblr post?

Mmkay, I guess?

Also... again, the #MeToo campaign started in reaction to a case of a male sexual predator who targeted women. It makes sense that at least the early movement born from that would be focused on that specific sort of phenomena (male sexual predators who target women), for the same reason it would make sense if there was a black-centered survery on racial discrimination in the aftermath of, say, a black person being the target of a hate crime by a white person.

Also, nice try, but I don't think anybody particularly cares about the personal character and story of the original poster of #MeToo at this point. #MeToo has long since trascended her.

So I take it you find it acceptable that the movement states that men victimize women in general and that men and men alone are held responsible for social change to prevent sexual misconduct?

[Hirota]

https://recalculatingthegenderwar.tumbl ... entionally

Sure.


(Incidentally, another example for you of how feminists with influence act misandrist routinely that you keep demanding evidence of, as well as proof of mine and Edoms criticism of MeToo being valid, especially considered alongside the vacillating duplicity of the original poster of MeToo and her quickly forgotten revelations revealing her to either be an outright lying supremacist, or incredibly forgetful and stupid.)

Your source is a Tumblr post?

Mmkay, I guess?

You'll find that this particular Tumblr post is actually rather well sourced in itself. Consider it a secondary source citing primary sources, rather than a primary source in itself, otherwise you fall foul of the origin fallacy.

[Liriena]

Your source is a Tumblr post?

Mmkay, I guess?

Also... again, the #MeToo campaign started in reaction to a case of a male sexual predator who targeted women. It makes sense that at least the early movement born from that would be focused on that specific sort of phenomena (male sexual predators who target women), for the same reason it would make sense if there was a black-centered survery on racial discrimination in the aftermath of, say, a black person being the target of a hate crime by a white person.

Also, nice try, but I don't think anybody particularly cares about the personal character and story of the original poster of #MeToo at this point. #MeToo has long since trascended her.

So I take it you find it acceptable that the movement states that men victimize women in general and that men and men alone are held responsible for social change to prevent sexual misconduct?

Mind explaining and sourcing?

[Liriena]

Your source is a Tumblr post?

Mmkay, I guess?

You'll find that this particular Tumblr post is actually rather well sourced in itself. Consider it a secondary source citing primary sources, rather than a primary source in itself, otherwise you fall foul of the origin fallacy.

Fair enough.

[New Edom]

So I take it you find it acceptable that the movement states that men victimize women in general and that men and men alone are held responsible for social change to prevent sexual misconduct?

Mind explaining and sourcing?

I linked you news sources on the previous page, and added some in the OP.

[Gravlen]

Words mean something. "Oppression" doesn't mean "possibly slightly unequal treatment, based on biological differences we may or may not agree with".

Like say, not allowing women to do jobs involving certain types of labour or paying them less for it?

No.

[Ostroeuropa]

Like say, not allowing women to do jobs involving certain types of labour or paying them less for it?

No.

Why not?
Paying female manual laborers less based on biological differences is oppression, but jailing men for longer isn't?

On what basis?

[Proctopeo]

No.

Why not?
Paying female manual laborers less based on biological differences is oppression, but jailing men for longer isn't?

On what basis?

Yeah, without any explanation, it sounds serious like doublethink. Excuse my cliche.

[Ostroeuropa]

Why not?
Paying female manual laborers less based on biological differences is oppression, but jailing men for longer isn't?

On what basis?

Yeah, without any explanation, it sounds serious like doublethink. Excuse my cliche.

It's not even a double standard, it's worse than a double standard.

Prison impacts someone financially as well as restricts their liberty and curtails many rights.
Paying someone less only impacts them financially.

So apparently, using biology to excuse financially depriving women is worse than using biology to excuse financially, civilly, socially, and physically depriving men.

[Gravlen]

No.

Why not?

Paying female manual laborers less based on biological differences is oppression, but jailing men for longer isn't?

On what basis?

*sigh*

Because the law doesn't target men, it targets the penis. A woman with a penis raping someone would be equally punishable as a man with a penis raping someone.

In your case, you want to pay someone less because you generalize. Because you think women, as a group, are weaker than men, as a group, you want to pay women less. This means you may pay individual women, whom are equal to or better than individual men, less than you pay the individual men. This means you're oppressing them as a group, based on inate characteristics and stereoptypical assumptions.

[Ostroeuropa]

Why not?

Paying female manual laborers less based on biological differences is oppression, but jailing men for longer isn't?

On what basis?

*sigh*

Because the law doesn't target men, it targets the penis. A woman with a penis raping someone would be equally punishable as a man with a penis raping someone.

In your case, you want to pay someone less because you generalize. Because you think women, as a group, are weaker than men, as a group, you want to pay women less. This means you may pay individual women, whom are equal to or better than individual men, less than you pay the individual men. This means you're oppressing them as a group, based on inate characteristics and stereoptypical assumptions.

To clarify your post I don't want to pay women less. (I accept you may have just been using the general "You" to refer to a hypothetical.)

I'd say that's because of transphobia intersecting with misandry in this case.

But let's pretend otherwise.
How about targeting chromosomes then?
It's more accurate, or how about paying people based on level of testosterone?

The argument they use is based on the idea that the penis is a worse type of thing to use in sexual assault, despite this not being true and having no statistical backing, so it's not even a generalization. You apparently think this isn't sexist.

So how about chromasonal based pay?
Only the strongest biological women are equivalent to the average biological man in terms of strength after all.

Then it wouldn't target women, just their biology. Is that sexist to you?

Apparently, something entirely made up to justify unequal treatment isn't of the same order as something based in being true in the overwhelming majority of cases. How do you justify that?

[Gravlen]

*sigh*

Because the law doesn't target men, it targets the penis. A woman with a penis raping someone would be equally punishable as a man with a penis raping someone.

In your case, you want to pay someone less because you generalize. Because you think women, as a group, are weaker than men, as a group, you want to pay women less. This means you may pay individual women, whom are equal to or better than individual men, less than you pay the individual men. This means you're oppressing them as a group, based on inate characteristics and stereoptypical assumptions.

To clarify your post I don't want to pay women less. (I accept you may have just been using the general "You" to refer to a hypothetical.)

I'd say that's because of transphobia intersecting with misandry in this case.

But let's pretend otherwise.
How about targeting chromosomes then?
It's more accurate, or how about paying people based on level of testosterone?

The argument they use is based on the idea that the penis is a worse type of thing to use in sexual assault, despite this not being true and having no statistical backing, so it's not even a generalization. You apparently think this isn't sexist.

Was it my post on the previous page where I said "British law makers think that being penetrated by a penis is the worst type of sexual crime. I disagree, but there you are." which made you conclude that?

So how about chromasonal based pay?

[Ostroeuropa]

To clarify your post I don't want to pay women less. (I accept you may have just been using the general "You" to refer to a hypothetical.)

I'd say that's because of transphobia intersecting with misandry in this case.

But let's pretend otherwise.
How about targeting chromosomes then?
It's more accurate, or how about paying people based on level of testosterone?

The argument they use is based on the idea that the penis is a worse type of thing to use in sexual assault, despite this not being true and having no statistical backing, so it's not even a generalization. You apparently think this isn't sexist.

Was it my post on the previous page where I said "British law makers think that being penetrated by a penis is the worst type of sexual crime. I disagree, but there you are." which made you conclude that?

So how about chromasonal based pay?

You disagree, but don't think it's sexist.

An eyeroll isn't an argument.
You said it's different because it targets the penis, not men.
Okay, fine, so what if the law targeted chromasones? Is it sexist then?
What's the functional difference?

[Gravlen]

Was it my post on the previous page where I said "British law makers think that being penetrated by a penis is the worst type of sexual crime. I disagree, but there you are." which made you conclude that?

You disagree, but don't think it's sexist.

An eyeroll isn't an argument.

It's exactly what your line of off-topic "reasoning" was worth. You're welcome.

You said it's different because it targets the penis, not men.
Okay, fine, so what if the law targeted chromasones? Is it sexist then?
What's the functional difference?

Do you need me to explain to you what the difference is between a penis and a chromosome?

[Ostroeuropa]

You disagree, but don't think it's sexist.

An eyeroll isn't an argument.

It's exactly what your line of off-topic "reasoning" was worth. You're welcome.

You said it's different because it targets the penis, not men.
Okay, fine, so what if the law targeted chromasones? Is it sexist then?
What's the functional difference?

Do you need me to explain to you what the difference is between a penis and a chromosome?

I don't really need you to do anything. I don't think you're convincing anyone except yourself of your argument given it's blatant desperation and sophistry, as far as i'm concerned this argument has been won already. But, in the interest of allowing you the response, and because questioning conclusions is important, if you want to try and rationalize how womens biological differences can't be used to enact legislation that disadvantages them by "Targeting the biology" then go ahead.

Perhaps we can target white and black skin to ban people from eating meat.
They do not need it as much as those of other races, different vitamins and such.
(Though in northern climates, black people do need it.)

[Gravlen]

It's exactly what your line of off-topic "reasoning" was worth. You're welcome.


Do you need me to explain to you what the difference is between a penis and a chromosome?

I don't really need you to do anything. I don't think you're convincing anyone except yourself of your argument given it's blatant desperation and sophistry, as far as i'm concerned this argument has been won already.

I expected you declared victory before you had read a single word, so that means nothing.

But, in the interest of allowing you the response, and because questioning conclusions is important, if you want to try and rationalize how womens biological differences can't be used to enact legislation that disadvantages them by "Targeting the biology" then go ahead.

They already are. Luckily, we've been moving away from that in recent years with progress being made in the realms of healthcare, with maternity leave, child care and abortion legislation as examples.

Perhaps we can target white and black skin to ban people from eating meat.
They do not need it as much as those of other races, different vitamins and such.

I'm sure you'd like that, what with your new interest in racial issues and all. But that would be the problem again: You like to generalize, without concern for individual differences.

You're complaining that a strong person is oppressed because he is punished more than a weak person for the same type of punch, failing to see that it's not targeting "strong people" but the strength used in this particular punch (and ignoring the fact that a weak person could have done the same amount of damage if they use tools to aid them). "Stop oppressing strong people! They both punched, they should get the same punishment" you cry, when one punch broke teeth and the other didn't even draw blood.

We don't punished people less because genetics suggest they had a lower potential for strength than someone else. We punish them for what they did do, and for the damage they caused, with what they had at their disposal.

[Ostroeuropa]

I don't really need you to do anything. I don't think you're convincing anyone except yourself of your argument given it's blatant desperation and sophistry, as far as i'm concerned this argument has been won already.

I expected you declared victory before you had read a single word, so that means nothing.

But, in the interest of allowing you the response, and because questioning conclusions is important, if you want to try and rationalize how womens biological differences can't be used to enact legislation that disadvantages them by "Targeting the biology" then go ahead.

They already are. Luckily, we've been moving away from that in recent years with progress being made in the realms of healthcare, with maternity leave, child care and abortion legislation as examples.

Perhaps we can target white and black skin to ban people from eating meat.
They do not need it as much as those of other races, different vitamins and such.

I'm sure you'd like that, what with your new interest in racial issues and all. But that would be the problem again: You like to generalize, without concern for individual differences.

You're complaining that a strong person is oppressed because he is punished more than a weak person for the same type of punch, failing to see that it's not targeting "strong people" but the strength used in this particular punch (and ignoring the fact that a weak person could have done the same amount of damage if they use tools to aid them). "Stop oppressing strong people! They both punched, they should get the same punishment" you cry, when one punch broke teeth and the other didn't even draw blood.

We don't punished people less because genetics suggest they had a lower potential for strength than someone else. We punish them for what they did do, and for the damage they caused, with what they had at their disposal.

The second part of your post is ignoring the point i'm questioning about your assertions, why are you dodging the point?

Do you think a lack of maternity leave and such were sexist? (I fully agree, the lack of it and such would constitute sexism against women, and the delivery of it is progress.)
Because apparently, you don't think it's sexist for legislation to target mens biology. But you call it progress for this to be reversed for women. I accept you'd consider it progress for it to be reversed for men too, but you balk at calling it sexism. Why is that, and how do you justify it?

The third part isn't my argument, and is only presented as such because you're trying to avoid the point.

You failed to actually reply and are having an imaginary conversation with someone else. Here, let me help you and repeat it once again because apparently once wasn't sufficient.

You said it's different because it targets the penis, not men.
Okay, fine, so what if the law targeted chromasones? Is it sexist then?
What's the functional difference?

In fact, the third section of your post can be read as you agreeing with legislators that rape by a man with a penis causes more damage than a woman without one raping a man, or in conceding that women being paid less for manual labor isn't sexism, provided it's based on """individual cases""". (Even if this occurs amidst a backdrop of rampant prejudice that presumes every case to be one of those individual cases.)

[Gravlen]

I expected you declared victory before you had read a single word, so that means nothing.


They already are. Luckily, we've been moving away from that in recent years with progress being made in the realms of healthcare, with maternity leave, child care and abortion legislation as examples.


I'm sure you'd like that, what with your new interest in racial issues and all. But that would be the problem again: You like to generalize, without concern for individual differences.

You're complaining that a strong person is oppressed because he is punished more than a weak person for the same type of punch, failing to see that it's not targeting "strong people" but the strength used in this particular punch (and ignoring the fact that a weak person could have done the same amount of damage if they use tools to aid them). "Stop oppressing strong people! They both punched, they should get the same punishment" you cry, when one punch broke teeth and the other didn't even draw blood.

We don't punished people less because genetics suggest they had a lower potential for strength than someone else. We punish them for what they did do, and for the damage they caused, with what they had at their disposal.

The second part of your post is ignoring the point i'm questioning about your assertions, why are you dodging the point?

Probably because you've done a poor job of making a point?

Do you think a lack of maternity leave and such were sexist? (I fully agree, the lack of it and such would constitute sexism against women, and the delivery of it is progress.)

I think it was unfair and short-sighted, and it led to a net negative result both for the businesses and for society.

Because apparently, you don't think it's sexist for legislation to target mens biology. But you call it progress for this to be reversed for women. I accept you'd consider it progress for it to be reversed for men too, but you balk at calling it sexism. Why is that, and how do you justify it?

I've said I disagree with the law as it is and think it should be changed. Why do I need to label this - or the lack of maternity leave above - sexism?

The third part isn't my argument, and is only presented as such because you're trying to avoid the point.

You failed to actually reply and are having an imaginary conversation with someone else. Here, let me help you and repeat it once again because apparently once wasn't sufficient.

You said it's different because it targets the penis, not men.
Okay, fine, so what if the law targeted chromasones? Is it sexist then?
What's the functional difference?

In fact, the third section of your post can be read as you agreeing with legislators that rape by a man with a penis causes more damage than a woman without one raping a man, or in conceding that women being paid less for manual labor isn't sexism, provided it's based on """individual cases""". (Even if this occurs amidst a backdrop of rampant prejudice that presumes every case to be one of those individual cases.)

It can also be read as a recepie for stromboli, but that wouldn't be grounded in an intellectually honest reading either.

Let me be clear:
Rape by a man with a penis may cause more damage than a woman without one raping a man. It also may not. That's why we should judge it on an individual basis, and take into consideration the damage caused.

A woman may be less effective at manual labor than a man. She may also not be. That's why we should judge it on an individual basis, and take into consideration the work being done.

[Grand Britannia]

Why not?

Paying female manual laborers less based on biological differences is oppression, but jailing men for longer isn't?

On what basis?

*sigh*

Because the law doesn't target men, it targets the penis. A woman with a penis raping someone would be equally punishable as a man with a penis raping someone.

It's ok, companies will now pay less because some people have boobs.

See now it's fine because it's not targeting women, just that section of the body /s