#MeToo Becomes #LeaveMeAlone

[Galloism]

So when were they proven to be false?

Multiple accusations against him were proven to be false. In this case it actually Include one of the things you seem so intent on straw-manning everyone over in order to avoid acknowledging reality, a literal conspiracy against him.

Actually I don't know that any have been "proven" in the traditional sense. As far as I know, the only one referred for charges was Swetnick, and that trial hasn't been held yet.

[Des-Bal]

easy, when they were dismissed. Of course I know they weren't proven false, but it's dumb to sit here and just say, "Brett Kavanaugh is allegedly a possible rapist." Eventually, you gotta look at the facts (Or lack thereof) and take a stance.

Kavanaugh is as guilty of rape as they are of making false allegations. Neither have been proven and neither should suffer for them.

[Vassenor]

Kavanaugh is still regarded as a rapist by about half the country. Notably, Kavanaugh was not subjected to the same system that feminists actively demanded be put in place on college campuses, and as such was able to do things like have cross examinations of his accusers.

wait, you mean they don't want the accusers to be subjected to cross-examination? What the hell?

Ostro is misrepresenting the facts. The system being proposed by the government would allow the accused to personally cross-examine the accuser. No-one is saying that cross examination in general should be denied.

[South Ccanda]

wait, you mean they don't want the accusers to be subjected to cross-examination? What the hell?

The system feminists set up on college campuses prevents accusers from being cross examined, and has no obligation on those representing the accused to turn over exculpatory evidence to the defense. In some cases, the defense is not entitled to counsel and so on, see here for a list of bullshit, probably not comprehensive list:

viewtopic.php?p=35023907#p35023907

It's such a malicious system that it goes beyond mere incompetence as an explanation. There has to be an active contempt for men involved, or complete and total disregard for their wellbeing to such an extent that if a woman says she wants to hurt a man they're okay with facilitating it.

everyday we are becoming more and more like Israel ffs

[Soldati Senza Confini]

[redacted]

[South Ccanda]

wait, you mean they don't want the accusers to be subjected to cross-examination? What the hell?

Ostro is misrepresenting the facts. The system being proposed by the government would allow the accused to personally cross-examine the accuser. No-one is saying that cross examination in general should be denied.

what would even be the point in that? why not let the Lawyers handle it like they handle literally everything else?

[Ostroeuropa]

wait, you mean they don't want the accusers to be subjected to cross-examination? What the hell?

Ostro is misrepresenting the facts. The system being proposed by the government would allow the accused to personally cross-examine the accuser. No-one is saying that cross examination in general should be denied.

You're outright lying and even your own source says so, probably because you're still in utter denial of how fucked up the feminist movement is and didn't bother to read it.

So you've actually provided evidence that says the exact opposite of what you just said.

DeVos’s proposal stipulates that the cross-examination can be done by a third party, such as a lawyer.*

+

Victims’ advocates have long argued that cross-examination could dissuade those who have been assaulted from reporting what happened to them. Meanwhile, due-process advocates have argued that cross-examination in a live hearing is important to suss out any discrepancies in testimonies. And in favoring that method, the new rules would ban colleges from having a single investigator—usually a lawyer or an administrator—gather facts and issue findings.

Care to explain any of this Vass, or will you suddenly go quiet again or start whining about conspiracies?

[Vassenor]

Ostro is misrepresenting the facts. The system being proposed by the government would allow the accused to personally cross-examine the accuser. No-one is saying that cross examination in general should be denied.

what would even be the point in that? why not let the Lawyers handle it like they handle literally everything else?

If I had to guess, I'd say it was because the current administration has some sort of fetish for tearing up rules and systems put in place by the Obama administration, even when such a thing is blatantly illogical and to do so just seems vindictive.

[Ostroeuropa]

Ostro is misrepresenting the facts. The system being proposed by the government would allow the accused to personally cross-examine the accuser. No-one is saying that cross examination in general should be denied.

what would even be the point in that? why not let the Lawyers handle it like they handle literally everything else?

Vass is lying as I pointed out above.

what would even be the point in that? why not let the Lawyers handle it like they handle literally everything else?

If I had to guess, I'd say it was because the current administration has some sort of fetish for tearing up rules and systems put in place by the Obama administration, even when such a thing is blatantly illogical and to do so just seems vindictive.

This is a lie, see above.

Notably the ban on having "A single lawyer" is also important, because the lawyer is there to find a conviction, that's how their success is measured. It was a feminist mandate that the prosecution be your defense but have their win rate decided by successful prosecutions.

[Galloism]

wait, you mean they don't want the accusers to be subjected to cross-examination? What the hell?

Ostro is misrepresenting the facts. The system being proposed by the government would allow the accused to personally cross-examine the accuser. No-one is saying that cross examination in general should be denied.

Hold the phone and stop lying.

Here's the link to the federal register with the notice of proposed rulemaking.

Here's what it says:

For institutions of higher education,
the recipient’s grievance procedure
must provide for a live hearing. At the
hearing, the decision-maker must permit
each party to ask the other party and
any witnesses all relevant questions and
follow-up questions, including those
challenging credibility. Such crossexamination at a hearing must be
conducted by the party’s advisor of
choice, notwithstanding the discretion
of the recipient under § 106.45(b)(3)(iv)
to otherwise restrict the extent to which
advisors may participate in the
proceedings. If a party does not have an
advisor present at the hearing, the
recipient must provide that party an
advisor aligned with that party to
conduct cross-examination.

I mean, didn't you even try to look this up to verify it?

Of course not.

[Ostroeuropa]

Ostro is misrepresenting the facts. The system being proposed by the government would allow the accused to personally cross-examine the accuser. No-one is saying that cross examination in general should be denied.

Hold the phone and stop lying.

Here's the link to the federal register with the notice of proposed rulemaking.

Here's what it says:

For institutions of higher education,
the recipient’s grievance procedure
must provide for a live hearing. At the
hearing, the decision-maker must permit
each party to ask the other party and
any witnesses all relevant questions and
follow-up questions, including those
challenging credibility. Such crossexamination at a hearing must be
conducted by the party’s advisor of
choice, notwithstanding the discretion
of the recipient under § 106.45(b)(3)(iv)
to otherwise restrict the extent to which
advisors may participate in the
proceedings. If a party does not have an
advisor present at the hearing, the
recipient must provide that party an
advisor aligned with that party to
conduct cross-examination.

I mean, didn't you even try to look this up to verify it?

Of course not.

Vass has a preconception about the feminist movement which they are not willing to admit is a crock of shit, because they keep listening to the lies feminists tell eachother instead of examining reality. This is an example of where Vass just up and assumed something to be true and said it, even when the facts he presented directly disagree with them.

[Galloism]

Vass has a preconception about the feminist movement which they are not willing to admit is a crock of shit, because they keep listening to the lies feminists tell eachother instead of examining reality. This is an example of where Vass just up and assumed something to be true and said it, even when the facts he presented directly disagree with them.

Par for the course, but my complaint was the complete failure to compare the public notice of proposed rulemaking that is very specifically and purposefully released to the public for comment, and instead rely on blogs and news sites that have repeatedly misrepresented or outright falsified the facts.

[Ostroeuropa]

Vass has a preconception about the feminist movement which they are not willing to admit is a crock of shit, because they keep listening to the lies feminists tell eachother instead of examining reality. This is an example of where Vass just up and assumed something to be true and said it, even when the facts he presented directly disagree with them.

Par for the course, but my complaint was the complete failure to compare the public notice of proposed rulemaking that is very specifically and purposefully released to the public for comment, and instead rely on blogs and news sites that have repeatedly misrepresented or outright falsified the facts.

This one doesn't even misrepresent them. It's just so unhinged and pro-feminist it presents the facts and argues in favor of the feminist case anyway.



Hey look vass, it's that "FEMINIST CONSPIRACY!!!" you've been rambling about us believing in.

Victims’ advocates have long argued that cross-examination could dissuade those who have been assaulted from reporting what happened to them. Meanwhile, due-process advocates have argued that cross-examination in a live hearing is important to suss out any discrepancies in testimonies. And in favoring that method, the new rules would ban colleges from having a single investigator—usually a lawyer or an administrator—gather facts and issue findings.

Like we keep telling you.
It's not a conspiracy.
They are openly demanding these things.

You just refuse to believe it because you cannot accept that feminism is a hate movement, not an equality movement, and so assume that they're demanding equality and we have to be lying about the blatantly oppressive misandry they keep pushing.

Your understanding of reality is askew because you have believed a pack of PR lies.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

what would even be the point in that? why not let the Lawyers handle it like they handle literally everything else?

If I had to guess, I'd say it was because the current administration has some sort of fetish for tearing up rules and systems put in place by the Obama administration, even when such a thing is blatantly illogical and to do so just seems vindictive.

Your own source admits cross-examination would make the process harder to get the people they claim to be rape victims to come forward -- legitimate or not. The register's ruling says that the process should be conducted with a live hearing, and that there should be a party that defends the accused in cross examination -- a vested party or a defense attorney/lawyer. The argument of your source is not neutral at all, it's specifically against cross examination and live hearings because "it can be messy".

Also, Gallo has a very good question on one of your prior points:

So how does accepting the possibility that someone might have done a thing equal guilty until proven innocent?

If you believe in God, does that mean you accept the possibility of God or that you have full faith that God exists, and accept His existence as real?

If you believe Donald Trump, does that mean you accept the possibility that Donald Trump is telling the truth, or that you have full faith that he is telling the truth, and accept his word as truth?

If you believe in climate change, does that mean you accept the possibility of climate change, or that you have full faith that climate change is a real thing and accept it as a real event?

If you believe your spouse when he/she says he/she was working late, do you accept the possibility they were working late, or that you positively affirmatively accept they were working late and accept it as a real event?

Let me flip around the question for you: How is accepting the possibility that someone might have done a thing not equal guilty until proven innocent in matters of law?

[Des-Bal]

Ostro is misrepresenting the facts. The system being proposed by the government would allow the accused to personally cross-examine the accuser. No-one is saying that cross examination in general should be denied.

I'm not sure if you were confused about the rules or you literally just made something up to avoid ceding ground but either way it is totally unacceptable for you to take that kind of stance without knowing the facts.

[Ostroeuropa]

If I had to guess, I'd say it was because the current administration has some sort of fetish for tearing up rules and systems put in place by the Obama administration, even when such a thing is blatantly illogical and to do so just seems vindictive.

Your own source admits cross-examination would make the process harder to get the people they claim to be rape victims to come forward -- legitimate or not. The register's ruling says that the process should be conducted with a live hearing, and that there should be a party that defends the accused in cross examination -- a vested party or a defense attorney/lawyer. The argument of your source is not neutral at all, it's specifically against cross examination and live hearings because "it can be messy".

Also, Gallo has a very good question on one of your prior points:

If you believe in God, does that mean you accept the possibility of God or that you have full faith that God exists, and accept His existence as real?

If you believe Donald Trump, does that mean you accept the possibility that Donald Trump is telling the truth, or that you have full faith that he is telling the truth, and accept his word as truth?

If you believe in climate change, does that mean you accept the possibility of climate change, or that you have full faith that climate change is a real thing and accept it as a real event?

If you believe your spouse when he/she says he/she was working late, do you accept the possibility they were working late, or that you positively affirmatively accept they were working late and accept it as a real event?

Let me flip around the question for you: How is accepting the possibility that someone might have done a thing not equal guilty until proven innocent in matters of law?

The point about them demanding the defense actually have a lawyer on top of the due process point is why this:

Feminists organizations have been actively shilling for preponderance of evidence (50.1% sure he did it) and have flipped their fucking shit over Trump making it a "Clear and convincing" standard, still well below "Beyond reasonable doubt.", and on top of that, Feminist organizations have set about actively banning suppressing forms of exculpatory evidence in order make that might shift it below 50.1% such as:

Rape shield laws
Banning cross examination

Etc.

So yes, it's entirely reasonable to conclude that feminism as a movement wants rape to be treated as guilty until proven innocent.

If you say "You only gotta have 50.1% to make it so,and by the way, we're banning lots of forms of evidence that prove you innocent" then what they're ACTUALLY demanding is that trials favor the accuser.

Stage One
<-------!>
->
<----!---->
Stage Two
<----!---->
->
<----!--XX>
Result
<----!-->

Do you get it yet?

Those are the fucking facts Vassenor, how about you deal with them rather than whine about it being a conspiracy merely because you don't want to admit you've been conned and internalized lies told to you by a hate movement about its actions and intentions.

THIS is why male rape victims are getting expelled under this feminist system. It's not some abberation, it's the result of the policy demands they have actively lobbied and campaigned for. Demands that have been ruled as violating mens human rights, but that their organizations are STILL pushing for.

Their demands are de facto guilty until proven innocent, because they have rigged things in such a way that ensures that outcome. By demanding a preponderence of evidence on top of banning forms of exculpatory evidence, they are shifting things heavily in favor of the accuser, beyond the 50% mark which is itself already a fucked up demand to make. That's basically undeniable.

As if this weren't bad enough, the system they set up has absolutely endemic and systemic failures to turn over what exculpatory evidence does exist which the accusers team has, because the system they demanded be put in place has ZERO fucking checks on the accusers side, gave exactly ZERO thought to the rights of the accused, AND measures success purely by number of accusations deemed true by their tribunal. They demanded a system that favors guilty until proven innocent, AND actively works against someone being found innocent. In some cases the accused is not even entitled to legal counsel while the accuser is. In other cases, the tribunal can be sprung on the accused while the accuser has weeks to prepare a case and the accused is told to make a defense within days.

Is not a misrepresentation. It is the system feminists actively sought and imposed. When that same group of people go after anyone else, you have to view it within that context, and understand they aren't interested in anything other than furthering their hate movement, victimizing their out-group, and PR.
If the Klan accused a black man of rape, I wouldn't fuck about with "Well we can't prove he DIDNT do it" I'd say, "No you know what, fuck off. Go scuttle away into the gutter. When someone who isn't a Klansman says it, i'll take it seriously, and only if the full extent of your involvement is your protesting outside the court house. The second you get involved with testimony is the second I disregard it. Do you have DNA evidence? A Confession? Then you're shit out of luck, because nobody should believe anything you have to say on this topic, ever again. We know all you want to do is use rape accusations as an excuse to hurt others and violate their human rights, it is your groups M.O."

Nobody should give a single shit about the Kavanaugh accusations. Not one iota.

By the way feminists.

If all this shite you peddle about rape convictions being so hard and wah wah wah and all that crap, why exactly are you opposed to the KKK?

You do realize 1/3rd of the time, they lynched someone for a crime they actually committed, right?

Surely some justice is better than no justice, and who cares if some innocents get thrown under the bus because you've actively fucked with due process and protections for the accused?

(Daily reminder that minority men are worst impacted by feminist demands.).

Is it just that you've watered down the punishment and that makes it okay? Someone should tell the Klan that then.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Your own source admits cross-examination would make the process harder to get the people they claim to be rape victims to come forward -- legitimate or not. The register's ruling says that the process should be conducted with a live hearing, and that there should be a party that defends the accused in cross examination -- a vested party or a defense attorney/lawyer. The argument of your source is not neutral at all, it's specifically against cross examination and live hearings because "it can be messy".

Also, Gallo has a very good question on one of your prior points:



Let me flip around the question for you: How is accepting the possibility that someone might have done a thing not equal guilty until proven innocent in matters of law?

The point about them demanding the defense actually have a lawyer on top of the due process point is why this:

Feminists organizations have been actively shilling for preponderance of evidence (50.1% sure he did it) and have flipped their fucking shit over Trump making it a "Clear and convincing" standard, still well below "Beyond reasonable doubt.", and on top of that, Feminist organizations have set about actively banning suppressing forms of exculpatory evidence in order make that might shift it below 50.1% such as:

Rape shield laws
Banning cross examination

Etc.

So yes, it's entirely reasonable to conclude that feminism as a movement wants rape to be treated as guilty until proven innocent.

If you say "You only gotta have 50.1% to make it so,and by the way, we're banning lots of forms of evidence that prove you innocent" then what they're ACTUALLY demanding is that trials favor the accuser.

Stage One
<-------!>
->
<----!---->
Stage Two
<----!---->
->
<----!--XX>
Result
<----!-->

Do you get it yet?

Those are the fucking facts Vassenor, how about you deal with them rather than whine about it being a conspiracy merely because you don't want to admit you've been conned and internalized lies told to you by a hate movement about its actions and intentions.

THIS is why male rape victims are getting expelled under this feminist system. It's not some abberation, it's the result of the policy demands they have actively lobbied and campaigned for. Demands that have been ruled as violating mens human rights, but that their organizations are STILL pushing for.

Their demands are de facto guilty until proven innocent, because they have rigged things in such a way that ensures that outcome. By demanding a preponderence of evidence on top of banning forms of exculpatory evidence, they are shifting things heavily in favor of the accuser, beyond the 50% mark which is itself already a fucked up demand to make. That's basically undeniable.

As if this weren't bad enough, the system they set up has absolutely endemic and systemic failures to turn over what exculpatory evidence does exist which the accusers team has, because the system they demanded be put in place has ZERO fucking checks on the accusers side, gave exactly ZERO thought to the rights of the accused, AND measures success purely by number of accusations deemed true by their tribunal. They demanded a system that favors guilty until proven innocent, AND actively works against someone being found innocent. In some cases the accused is not even entitled to legal counsel while the accuser is. In other cases, the tribunal can be sprung on the accused while the accuser has weeks to prepare a case and the accused is told to make a defense within days.

Is not a misrepresentation. It is the system feminists actively sought and imposed. When that same group of people go after anyone else, you have to view it within that context, and understand they aren't interested in anything other than furthering their hate movement, victimizing their out-group, and PR.

If the Klan accused a black man of rape, I wouldn't fuck about with "Well we can't prove he DIDNT do it" I'd say, "No you know what, fuck off. Go scuttle away into the gutter. When someone who isn't a Klansman says it, i'll take it seriously, and only if the full extent of your involvement is your protesting outside the court house. The second you get involved with testimony is the second I disregard it. Do you have DNA evidence? A Confession? Then you're shit out of luck, because nobody should believe anything you have to say on this topic, ever again. We know all you want to do is use rape accusations as an excuse to hurt others and violate their human rights, it is your groups M.O."

Nobody should give a single shit about the Kavanaugh accusations. Not one iota.

I mean, I don't know much about the history of feminism in the legal realm, so that's way above my paygrade.

Now, in regards of the Kavanaugh accusations, I will be the first one to say you should care, just not for the reasons you think. The only difference between Al Franken and Brett Kavanaugh is that Kavanaugh's party was willing to stand behind him. Al Franken didn't have that. This should terrify people, and within the context of the Pence rule, it should bring the entire issue into light as to why men are choosing to be seen as sexist rather than being seen as rapists. We all have seen both sides of the coin, there's no way to delude ourselves that those of us who have no support networks of competent people to vouch for us will end up meeting the same fate as Franken.

[Ostroeuropa]

The point about them demanding the defense actually have a lawyer on top of the due process point is why this:



Is not a misrepresentation. It is the system feminists actively sought and imposed. When that same group of people go after anyone else, you have to view it within that context, and understand they aren't interested in anything other than furthering their hate movement, victimizing their out-group, and PR.

If the Klan accused a black man of rape, I wouldn't fuck about with "Well we can't prove he DIDNT do it" I'd say, "No you know what, fuck off. Go scuttle away into the gutter. When someone who isn't a Klansman says it, i'll take it seriously, and only if the full extent of your involvement is your protesting outside the court house. The second you get involved with testimony is the second I disregard it. Do you have DNA evidence? A Confession? Then you're shit out of luck, because nobody should believe anything you have to say on this topic, ever again. We know all you want to do is use rape accusations as an excuse to hurt others and violate their human rights, it is your groups M.O."

Nobody should give a single shit about the Kavanaugh accusations. Not one iota.

I mean, I don't know much about the history of feminism in the legal realm, so that's way above my paygrade.

Now, in regards of the Kavanaugh accusations, I will be the first one to say you should care, just not for the reasons you think. The only difference between Al Franken and Brett Kavanaugh is that Kavanaugh's party was willing to stand behind him. Al Franken didn't have that. This should terrify people, and within the context of the Pence rule, it should bring the entire issue into light as to why men are choosing to be seen as sexist rather than being seen as rapists. We all have seen both sides of the coin, there's no way to delude ourselves that those of us who have no support networks of competent people to vouch for us will end up meeting the same fate as Franken.

It doesn't terrify me. It's a sign that the feminist movements misandry is sowing the seeds of its own destruction and more and more men are simply going to not care anymore and would rather be seen as sexist, as well as the fact a critical mass is approaching where those men can simply act in solidarity with eachother to back eachother up. The real battle for the future is what mens movement takes over in response to the collapse in feminisms legitimacy, and that is partially reliant on how women respond to it. The best shot for equality is the MRM and those influenced by our discourse, rather than the return to Theocratic chauvinism, or modern Red Pill ideology, or worse, Incel. The latter two gain their legitimacy in large part from the mistreatment of the MRM, and the majority of womens continued refusal to accept it and their refusal being dishonest or in terms that are no better than Gauth and Vass in this thread.
(Leading TRP and Incel to conclude; Biological solipsism, Biological Malice, or Biological Lack of Empathy as the explanations for womens lack of honest engagement on memetic grounds.)

Franken was a feminist. Male feminists don't get any tears shed for them, and they won't get anti-feminists defending them either. Tear eachother down, see if we care.

You don't understand that there is a very quick and simple way to get yourself a support network, and that's to denounce feminism in the strongest possible terms and with reasoned criticism of their nonsense the moment it becomes an issue for you. You'll have your defenders shortly.

Meekly accepting their shite or trying to play by their rules won't help.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I mean, I don't know much about the history of feminism in the legal realm, so that's way above my paygrade.

Now, in regards of the Kavanaugh accusations, I will be the first one to say you should care, just not for the reasons you think. The only difference between Al Franken and Brett Kavanaugh is that Kavanaugh's party was willing to stand behind him. Al Franken didn't have that. This should terrify people, and within the context of the Pence rule, it should bring the entire issue into light as to why men are choosing to be seen as sexist rather than being seen as rapists. We all have seen both sides of the coin, there's no way to delude ourselves that those of us who have no support networks of competent people to vouch for us will end up meeting the same fate as Franken.

It doesn't terrify me. It's a sign that the feminist movements misandry is sowing the seeds of its own destruction and more and more men are simply going to not care anymore and would rather be seen as sexist, as well as the fact a critical mass is approaching where those men can simply act in solidarity with eachother to back eachother up. The real battle for the future is what mens movement takes over in response to the collapse in feminisms legitimacy, and that is partially reliant on how women respond to it. The best shot for equality is the MRM and those influenced by our discourse, rather than the return to Theocratic chauvinism, or modern Red Pill ideology, or worse, Incel. The latter two gain their legitimacy in large part from the mistreatment of the MRM, and the majority of womens continued refusal to accept it and their doing so in terms that are no better than Gauth and Vass in this thread.

(Leading TRP and Incel to conclude; Biological solipsism, Biological Malice, or Biological Lack of Empathy as the explanations for womens lack of honest engagement on memetic grounds.)

Franken was a feminist. Male feminists don't get any tears shed for them, and they won't get anti-feminists defending them either.

You don't understand that there is a very quick and simple way to get yourself a support network, and that's to denounce feminism in the strongest possible terms and with reasoned criticism of their nonsense the moment it becomes an issue for you. You'll have your defenders shortly.

Meekly accepting their shite or trying to play by their rules won't help.

I think theocratic chauvinism doesn't help, but it proves said theocratic chauvinist wise in some ways indeed.

I mean, who woulda thunk Pence had the right approach to deal with false accusations for high-profile executives? This also is not a new thing, it happens often here in the South too. Plenty of meetings between managers have at least one witness present which is usually your direct supervisor or colleague. Graham (Reverend Graham, not the other Graham) being the highest-profile person who did this to avoid any sort of misconduct claims against him.

I do agree with you that red pill and incel ideologies are toxic, and that, fairly enough, they are empowered by feminists' mistreatment of MRM's. Now, in so far as Franken, I am not saying you should have any sympathy, but that he is an example of the other side of the coin in which Kavanaugh and he stood on. Essentially, Kavanaugh can at least be thought of as a misogynist or elected by a misogynist system, but he'll never be found guilty of rape. Franken on the other hand was sacked and his career destroyed over the same claims because nobody stood by him, and his colleagues were far too quick to use him as a scapegoat of the moment.

Also, for you or I that's not an issue, to be honest I am so far removed from politics nowadays that whatever people want to find about my politics in particular won't. And I will never be in a position where my image is my source of income. But for people who are in that position, they are choosing to be sexist, and with a good reason. A lot of people are finding being thought of as sexist is not as bad as being thought of as a lecher or a rapist.

[Ostroeuropa]

It doesn't terrify me. It's a sign that the feminist movements misandry is sowing the seeds of its own destruction and more and more men are simply going to not care anymore and would rather be seen as sexist, as well as the fact a critical mass is approaching where those men can simply act in solidarity with eachother to back eachother up. The real battle for the future is what mens movement takes over in response to the collapse in feminisms legitimacy, and that is partially reliant on how women respond to it. The best shot for equality is the MRM and those influenced by our discourse, rather than the return to Theocratic chauvinism, or modern Red Pill ideology, or worse, Incel. The latter two gain their legitimacy in large part from the mistreatment of the MRM, and the majority of womens continued refusal to accept it and their doing so in terms that are no better than Gauth and Vass in this thread.

(Leading TRP and Incel to conclude; Biological solipsism, Biological Malice, or Biological Lack of Empathy as the explanations for womens lack of honest engagement on memetic grounds.)

Franken was a feminist. Male feminists don't get any tears shed for them, and they won't get anti-feminists defending them either.

You don't understand that there is a very quick and simple way to get yourself a support network, and that's to denounce feminism in the strongest possible terms and with reasoned criticism of their nonsense the moment it becomes an issue for you. You'll have your defenders shortly.

Meekly accepting their shite or trying to play by their rules won't help.

I think theocratic chauvinism doesn't help, but it proves said theocratic chauvinist wise in some ways indeed.

I mean, who woulda thunk Pence had the right approach to deal with false accusations for high-profile executives? This also is not a new thing, it happens often here in the South too. Plenty of meetings between managers have at least one witness present which is usually your direct supervisor or colleague. Graham (Reverend Graham, not the other Graham) being the highest-profile person who did this to avoid any sort of misconduct claims against him.

I do agree with you that red pill and incel ideologies are toxic, and that, fairly enough, they are empowered by feminists' mistreatment of MRM's. Now, in so far as Franken, I am not saying you should have any sympathy, but that he is an example of the other side of the coin in which Kavanaugh and he stood on. Essentially, Kavanaugh can at least be thought of as a misogynist or elected by a misogynist system, but he'll never be found guilty of rape. Franken on the other hand was sacked and his career destroyed over the same claims because nobody stood by him, and his colleagues were far too quick to use him as a scapegoat of the moment.

Also, for you or I that's not an issue, to be honest I am so far removed from politics nowadays that whatever people want to find about my politics in particular won't. And I will never be in a position where my image is my source of income. But for people who are in that position, they are choosing to be sexist, and with a good reason. A lot of people are finding being thought of as sexist is not as bad as being thought of as a lecher or a rapist.

As I said, it's the result of the feminist movements overreach. It's like any hate movement or oppressive system that refuses to change or take on board criticism. Eventually you earn the hostility of your victims and they stop caring about a single thing you say.

The MRM and its lobbying of the republicans has paid off on the issue of campus rape courts, and i'm hoping it'll pay off on others. We'd like to lobby democrats too, but as you say, they are under the grip of feminists and as a result a lost cause until more of them start admitting it.

[Galloism]

I think theocratic chauvinism doesn't help, but it proves said theocratic chauvinist wise in some ways indeed.

I mean, who woulda thunk Pence had the right approach to deal with false accusations for high-profile executives? This also is not a new thing, it happens often here in the South too. Plenty of meetings between managers have at least one witness present which is usually your direct supervisor or colleague. Graham (Reverend Graham, not the other Graham) being the highest-profile person who did this to avoid any sort of misconduct claims against him.

I do agree with you that red pill and incel ideologies are toxic, and that, fairly enough, they are empowered by feminists' mistreatment of MRM's. Now, in so far as Franken, I am not saying you should have any sympathy, but that he is an example of the other side of the coin in which Kavanaugh and he stood on. Essentially, Kavanaugh can at least be thought of as a misogynist or elected by a misogynist system, but he'll never be found guilty of rape. Franken on the other hand was sacked and his career destroyed over the same claims because nobody stood by him, and his colleagues were far too quick to use him as a scapegoat of the moment.

Also, for you or I that's not an issue, to be honest I am so far removed from politics nowadays that whatever people want to find about my politics in particular won't. And I will never be in a position where my image is my source of income. But for people who are in that position, they are choosing to be sexist, and with a good reason. A lot of people are finding being thought of as sexist is not as bad as being thought of as a lecher or a rapist.

As I said, it's the result of the feminist movements overreach. It's like any hate movement or oppressive system that refuses to change or take on board criticism. Eventually you earn the hostility of your victims and they stop caring about a single thing you say.

The MRM and its lobbying of the republicans has paid off on the issue of campus rape courts, and i'm hoping it'll pay off on others. We'd like to lobby democrats too, but as you say, they are under the grip of feminists and as a result a lost cause until more of them start admitting it.

I certainly feel like I'm in a bizarro world when the Republican party protects oppressed minorities, while the Democratic party tries to enact systems of oppression against said minorities.

This was not supposed to happen. We need to go back to the 80s, when things were simple and clear.

[Ostroeuropa]

As I said, it's the result of the feminist movements overreach. It's like any hate movement or oppressive system that refuses to change or take on board criticism. Eventually you earn the hostility of your victims and they stop caring about a single thing you say.

The MRM and its lobbying of the republicans has paid off on the issue of campus rape courts, and i'm hoping it'll pay off on others. We'd like to lobby democrats too, but as you say, they are under the grip of feminists and as a result a lost cause until more of them start admitting it.

I certainly feel like I'm in a bizarro world when the Republican party protects oppressed minorities, while the Democratic party tries to enact systems of oppression against said minorities.

This was not supposed to happen. We need to go back to the 90s, when things were simple and clear.

If it makes you feel any better the MRM is mostly Libertarian-Republicans and this was one of the concessions they managed to wrangle, having decided to focus their lobbying on mens issues from a libertarian perspective (largely going for ones that aren't likely to provoke in-fighting in the movement, defending due process is a good one that we all agree on from left to right). Given that Lib-Reps aren't exactly a huge influence, but do exist, they got this one issue out of them. Hopefully more in future, but yeah.

We've also got some far-right guys now, but that's to be expected given the rising problem of that across the world and Trumpism and so on. We're still around 50/50 left-right.

(To be clear, Trump action on this means Libertarians involved in the lobbying are now singing his praises on this issue non-stop. Pretty slimy, but That's politics.)

[Des-Bal]

I certainly feel like I'm in a bizarro world when the Republican party protects oppressed minorities, while the Democratic party tries to enact systems of oppression against said minorities.

This was not supposed to happen. We need to go back to the 80s, when things were simple and clear.

It's like a bizarro world. Or the 60s when democrats represented the national face of conservativism. It's realignment, the party is following certain ideas down a path that leads away from other ideas.

[Ostroeuropa]

I certainly feel like I'm in a bizarro world when the Republican party protects oppressed minorities, while the Democratic party tries to enact systems of oppression against said minorities.

This was not supposed to happen. We need to go back to the 80s, when things were simple and clear.

It's like a bizarro world. Or the 60s when democrats represented the national face of conservativism. It's realignment, the party is following certain ideas down a path that leads away from other ideas.

I think it's to do with the Democrats completely flubbing on economics and lacking any appeal, so they simply resorted to demographic tribalism, outgrouping, and stirring up hatred against the group that doesn't vote for them (Whites and Men.) by gambling on the idea demographic change meant this would ensure victory and that stirring their base into a hateful frenzy would ensure turnout. To do this, they reached for a faction (Progressive feminism) already existing in their party and shoved it into the driving seat, not fully understanding them or the extent of their fanaticism and how it would alienate people.

They wanted a "Silent Majority" Nixonite who could play on peoples prejudices and so on, and they got;
"SEGREGATION NAOW, SEGREGATION TOMMORA, SEGREGATION FOREVER!!!" -George Wallace, the Tombstone of Segregation. (Completely alienating moderates who saw it as a transitional period.).

Likewise, Progressive feminisms core ideals and dogmatism means they'll continue to worsen over time. Since their movements grip on power is reliant on monopoly over what information is presented otherwise they look awful, this also means they are heavily associated with the media, who are more hated than ever. people are also learning (As we've seen in this thread) to point out how empty and vapid their ideas are, and how they are nothing more than a bundle of nonsense gotcha statements, misinformation, etc.

[The Blaatschapen]

Honest question, have I done this in recent times (last two years)?

I am trying to better myself in that front and would like to know when I expect gender roles from people (as opposed to be adults )

Sorry Blaat, I was looking for another post and realized I missed your post.

Nothing recent comes to mind. Of note, if you slip, I wouldn't necessarily tackle you for it though - it can be very difficult when gender shaming is so common and normalized as it is against men in our society to be aware of it - it's kind of like a bad smell. When you walk into a house with a bad smell it'll knock you over, but if you hang out for 20 minutes you can't even smell it anymore. Not because it's gone, but because you've become accustomed to it and stopped processing it.

It's a lot easier to notice discriminations and shamings done that are periodic instead of constant, just because they're easier to spot in comparison to their absence.

Ah, thank you