The #MeToo Campaign (Updated)

[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.

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

You're failing to show there's a connection between [boobs] and [pay less].

There is a connection between [penis] and [penetrating vagina, anus or mouth of another person without consent], in that [B] often happens with [A].

[Grand Britannia]

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

You're failing to show there's a connection between [boobs] and [pay less].

There is a connection between [penis] and [penetrating vagina, anus or mouth of another person without consent], in that [B] often happens with [A].

I'll just arbitrarily decide boobs get in the way for work and makes people less productive just as apparently women are incapable of raping because they obviously have no penis.

[Gravlen]

You're failing to show there's a connection between [boobs] and [pay less].

There is a connection between [penis] and [penetrating vagina, anus or mouth of another person without consent], in that often happens with [A].

I'll just [b]arbitrarily decide boobs get in the way for work and makes people less productive

As you say, it's arbitrary.

just as apparently women are incapable of raping because they obviously have no penis.

In the eyes of certain lawmakers, that term is reserved for something involving a penis.

But at least they don't deny that women can sexually assault someone.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'll just arbitrarily decide boobs get in the way for work and makes people less productive

As you say, it's arbitrary.

just as apparently women are incapable of raping because they obviously have no penis.

In the eyes of certain lawmakers, that term is reserved for something involving a penis.

But at least they don't deny that women can sexually assault someone.

They've arbitrarily decided its worse.
Same as arbitrarily deciding boobs get in the way.

[Grand Britannia]

I'll just arbitrarily decide boobs get in the way for work and makes people less productive

As you say, it's arbitrary.

Thank you for admitting the reasoning behind it is bullshit.

[Gravlen]

As you say, it's arbitrary.


In the eyes of certain lawmakers, that term is reserved for something involving a penis.

But at least they don't deny that women can sexually assault someone.

They've arbitrarily decided its worse.
Same as arbitrarily deciding boobs get in the way.

No, it's not arbitrary. An argument can easily be made, considering the potential for damage (transmission of some STD's, impregnation, danger of damage via penetration), that one is more dangerous than the other. I don't agree with the law as it is, but it's not arbitrary.

Arbitrarily deciding to pay someone with boobs less is... well, arbitrary.

[Gravlen]

As you say, it's arbitrary.

Thank you for admitting the reasoning behind it is bullshit.

Sure, the bullshit reasoning you provided is indeed bullshit, there's no dispute about that

[Grand Britannia]

Thank you for admitting the reasoning behind it is bullshit.

Sure, the bullshit reasoning you provided is indeed bullshit, there's no dispute about that

About as good a reason as deciding only men can rape, tbh.

[Gravlen]

Sure, the bullshit reasoning you provided is indeed bullshit, there's no dispute about that

About as good a reason as deciding only men can rape, tbh.

That's what can happen when you insist on using an archaic term in your legal texts, I suppose.

[Ostroeuropa]

They've arbitrarily decided its worse.
Same as arbitrarily deciding boobs get in the way.

No, it's not arbitrary. An argument can easily be made, considering the potential for damage (transmission of some STD's, impregnation, danger of damage via penetration), that one is more dangerous than the other. I don't agree with the law as it is, but it's not arbitrary.

Arbitrarily deciding to pay someone with boobs less is... well, arbitrary.

Rationales can be come up with about boobs too.
They restrict movement, take up space, etc.

Beyond that, there's physical strength of women. Only the strongest women are stronger than the average man. More men are infertile than there are women stronger than average men, so the pregnancy argument falls apart if you demand individual judgement on these cases.

There's also danger of damage via envelopment, transmission of some STD's, AND impregnation which effects males currently. (In fact, it can be argued it is worse for men as it can result in a child without any choice at any stage in the process for them. The financial consequences of pregnancy by rape effect men disproportionately to women.)

So it does seem pretty darn arbitrary, in that it discounts facts that go against it, based on personal whim and no actual reason laid out. Same as could be argued for targeting laws at womens biology.

Why don't you just come out and say what is already obvious to everyone?

That you refuse to call it sexism when it happens to men because you have an ideological framework that makes it impossible to consider that a real thing, and so you must engage in double-standards and sophistry to maintain your worldview.
What's worse about it is you're actively deciding to ignore this behavior of yours means you're sticking with being wrong because the feminist nonsense means more to you than human progress or the truth.

It would be a lot less stress for you if you just said you don't believe the sky is blue and block your ears, rather than trying to always come up with arguments "proving" it's red.

[Grand Britannia]

About as good a reason as deciding only men can rape, tbh.

That's what can happen when you insist on using an archaic term in your legal texts, I suppose.

Can't be that archaic when women rapist get lighter sentences than men, if at all, but alright.

[Gravlen]

There's also danger of damage via envelopment, transmission of some STD's, AND impregnation which effects males currently. (In fact, it can be argued it is worse for men as it can result in a child without any choice at any stage in the process for them. The financial consequences of pregnancy by rape effect men disproportionately to women.

Yeah... This part is what makes me conclude that you're not worth my time. Again.

Next time, let's stay in touch with reality.

[Ostroeuropa]

There's also danger of damage via envelopment, transmission of some STD's, AND impregnation which effects males currently. (In fact, it can be argued it is worse for men as it can result in a child without any choice at any stage in the process for them. The financial consequences of pregnancy by rape effect men disproportionately to women.

Yeah... This part is what makes me conclude that you're not worth my time. Again.

Next time, let's stay in touch with reality.

Which part do you disagree with? On what basis do you argue this argument is against reality?

Let's pretend child support isn't sexist, like you apparently think.

When a man is raped and a pregnancy occurs, 100% of the time his "role in the process" as you argue justifies child support, is completed.
When a woman is raped and a pregnancy occurs, this number is less than 100%.

Therefore, pregnancy by rape effects men disproportionately in financial terms.

[Gravlen]

That's what can happen when you insist on using an archaic term in your legal texts, I suppose.

Can't be that archaic when women rapist get lighter sentences than men, if at all, but alright.

I don't know, it sounds pretty archaic to me that female perpetrators of sexual assault should get lighter sentences than male perpetrators of sexual assault, all other things being equal. That's something which shouldn't happen in modern times.

[Petrasylvania]

Yeah... This part is what makes me conclude that you're not worth my time. Again.

Next time, let's stay in touch with reality.

Which part do you disagree with? On what basis do you argue this argument is against reality?

Other than where you see everything in terms of how women can use it to supposedly abuse and exploit men?

[Ostroeuropa]

Which part do you disagree with? On what basis do you argue this argument is against reality?

Other than where you see everything in terms of how women can use it to supposedly abuse and exploit men?

Do you have an actual example and argument why it falls under your accusation here, or is this mere snarling?

Oh, I know, how about this:

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.)

From the previous page. Which seems to debunk your "Everything" comment.

[Petrasylvania]

Other than where you see everything in terms of how women can use it to supposedly abuse and exploit men?

Do you have an actual example and argument why it falls under your accusation here, or is this mere snarling?

Quoting most of the thread is ridiculous.

[Ostroeuropa]

Do you have an actual example and argument why it falls under your accusation here, or is this mere snarling?

Quoting most of the thread is ridiculous.

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.)

This is a common problem for people who don't like misandry being pointed out. If you actually read and pay attention, you'll notice a consistent pattern of calling out both sexism against men and women, but because you are shocked and appalled at sexism against men being called out, you don't notice the equal treatment being advocated.

This results in a feedback loop for yourself where you convince yourself anyone calling out sexism against men must hate women, cos they never call it out against women. (No, they do. You just don't notice it.), and use this to justify your shock/appalled reaction.

This is similar to the people who got angry when men #MeToo'd.
There's also those who dismissively say "Ofcourse men too." then carry on focusing on women, a different strain of misandry.

[Petrasylvania]

Quoting most of the thread is ridiculous.

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.)

This is a common problem for people who don't like misandry being pointed out. If you actually read and pay attention, you'll notice a consistent pattern of calling out both sexism against men and women, but because you are shocked and appalled at sexism against men being called out, you don't notice the equal treatment being advocated.

This results in a feedback loop for yourself where you convince yourself anyone calling out sexism against men must hate women, cos they never call it out against women. (No, they do. You just don't notice it.), and use this to justify your shock/appalled reaction.

Appalled? Hardly. Your frequency ranting about how men are the real victims of oppression since the dawn of humanity is repetetive and tiresome, plus it reeks of conspiracy rants, only involving some Femilluminati trying to reduce men to slave breeding stock.

[Proctopeo]

They've arbitrarily decided its worse.
Same as arbitrarily deciding boobs get in the way.

No, it's not arbitrary. An argument can easily be made, considering the potential for damage (transmission of some STD's, impregnation, danger of damage via penetration), that one is more dangerous than the other. I don't agree with the law as it is, but it's not arbitrary.

Arbitrarily deciding to pay someone with boobs less is... well, arbitrary.

Being forced to penetrate can:

• Transmit STDs
• Produce a pregnancy the victim doesn't want
• Damage the victim and the involved organ

so it sounds fairly arbitrary to me

[New Edom]

Can't be that archaic when women rapist get lighter sentences than men, if at all, but alright.

I don't know, it sounds pretty archaic to me that female perpetrators of sexual assault should get lighter sentences than male perpetrators of sexual assault, all other things being equal. That's something which shouldn't happen in modern times.

It should not happen. However it does happen, and indeed it is difficult to even focus public conversations on sexual misconduct on female perpetrators because of the rhetoric that surrounds the issue. So yes, you are right, it is archaic, but if that is the case then the perspective of much of mainstream media and the activists who tend to have the highest profile is also archaic.

[Proctopeo]

This is a common problem for people who don't like misandry being pointed out. If you actually read and pay attention, you'll notice a consistent pattern of calling out both sexism against men and women, but because you are shocked and appalled at sexism against men being called out, you don't notice the equal treatment being advocated.

This results in a feedback loop for yourself where you convince yourself anyone calling out sexism against men must hate women, cos they never call it out against women. (No, they do. You just don't notice it.), and use this to justify your shock/appalled reaction.

Appalled? Hardly. Your frequency ranting about how men are the real victims of oppression since the dawn of humanity is repetetive and tiresome, plus it reeks of conspiracy rants, only involving some Femilluminati trying to reduce men to slave breeding stock.

while I think Ostro goes too far sometimes, I don't think that's the case, at least for this thread

[New Edom]

This is a common problem for people who don't like misandry being pointed out. If you actually read and pay attention, you'll notice a consistent pattern of calling out both sexism against men and women, but because you are shocked and appalled at sexism against men being called out, you don't notice the equal treatment being advocated.

This results in a feedback loop for yourself where you convince yourself anyone calling out sexism against men must hate women, cos they never call it out against women. (No, they do. You just don't notice it.), and use this to justify your shock/appalled reaction.

Appalled? Hardly. Your frequency ranting about how men are the real victims of oppression since the dawn of humanity is repetetive and tiresome, plus it reeks of conspiracy rants, only involving some Femilluminati trying to reduce men to slave breeding stock.

Why exaggerate? That's not what he's saying at all. What he has consistently said is that while the ways women have struggled have been argued from many angles and have generally been accepted in our society, that the ways men suffer have not been so accepted. What he, and I , complain about is that when these issues are raised they are often ignored or mischaracterized as an attack on women. Since, on average, feminists are among the most likely to do this, we see them as our political opponents.

[Ostroeuropa]

Appalled? Hardly. Your frequency ranting about how men are the real victims of oppression since the dawn of humanity is repetetive and tiresome, plus it reeks of conspiracy rants, only involving some Femilluminati trying to reduce men to slave breeding stock.

Why exaggerate? That's not what he's saying at all. What he has consistently said is that while the ways women have struggled have been argued from many angles and have generally been accepted in our society, that the ways men suffer have not been so accepted. What he, and I , complain about is that when these issues are raised they are often ignored or mischaracterized as an attack on women. Since, on average, feminists are among the most likely to do this, we see them as our political opponents.

Admittedly for me it's also a strategic decision along the lines of the ways capitalists have dominated discussion.

By framing the conversation as Egalitarianism V Feminism, traditionalism can be sidelined, and traditionalists become less discussed or in vogue. The debate becomes centered on "Which of these two do you agree with?", for feminism V traditionalism this has unnecessarily bolstered the latter movement, and this bolstering and raising of their profile can be reversed.
this is beneficial for all concerned, both men and women, and additionally, neuters the arguments of feminists by making traditionalism less prominent in public discussion and factionalism.

Sort of like capitalists up and deciding "Slightly less shit capitalism" was their hardcore major ideological opponent, and spam airwaves with debates between the two, rather than engaging with the radical left.

Although I think feminism is outright wrong rather than both feminism and egalitarianism being wrong and one of them less wrong, I think this works.

Polarization and partitioning the vote between these two camps seems an improvement over the status quo, especially if the egalitarian side ends up the larger and more influential.

That's a side-benefit, not the main one, and might be a post-hoc rationalization, but it's there.

For the same reason the democrats see republicans as their opponents, and not the constitution party or some other far-right fringe, and would frown on making them out to be "The alternative."

[Gravlen]

No, it's not arbitrary. An argument can easily be made, considering the potential for damage (transmission of some STD's, impregnation, danger of damage via penetration), that one is more dangerous than the other. I don't agree with the law as it is, but it's not arbitrary.

Arbitrarily deciding to pay someone with boobs less is... well, arbitrary.

Being forced to penetrate can:

• Transmit STDs

Yes, but the risk is lower. For example, male to female transmission of HIV is more effective than female to male transmission during vaginal intercourse. Same with the risk for herpes:

Let’s say you have an infected male and an uninfected female:

If they avoid sex during outbreaks, don’t use condoms regularly, and he doesn’t take an antiviral therapy every day, the risk of transmission is about 10% per year, though there is a large range — from 7 percent to 31 percent — in different studies.

Let’s say you have an infected female and an uninfected male:

If they avoid sex during outbreaks, don’t use condoms regularly, and she doesn’t take an antiviral therapy every day, the risk of transmission is about 4% per year.

Produce a pregnancy the victim doesn't want

Yes, but the victim does not become pregnant, and thus avoids the extra risk of physical or psychological damage, or even death, which may follow from a pregnancy (including risks following from abortion)

Damage the victim and the involved organ

The risks of damage to the insides - vaginal, anal and oral areas - are larger than the risk of damage due to a forced envelopment. Forced penetration also covers a wider situation and more areas with more damage potential, especially forced anal and oral penetration.

so it sounds fairly arbitrary to me

All injury isn't equal. Especially when it comes to pregnancy and the risks which follows.

Basically, what you're subjecting the victim to in one case is

Risk of death for victim, female, sexual assault by penetration which leads to pregnancy:
R > 0

Risk of death for victim, male, sexual assault by being made to penetrate which leads to pregnancy:
R = 0

Claiming that the risks are equal is silly. Claiming that the risk for men is worse is downright uneducated.