NationStates

Vassenor wrote:

Discourse Ouro-Bros wrote:Vassenor knows that the gender identity acceptance of Feminism and Social Justice for someone born in a male body is conditional and can be revoked at any time for dissent.

This would throw her back into the condition of being seen as a "scary," "oppressive" man, whose sexuality is perceived as inherently suspect, and whose very presence apparently saps women of their agency.

So you're trying to fearmonger me into agreeing with you with abject bullshit. I thought the MRAs were meant to be the factual and rational ones.

Discourse Ouro-Bros wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
So you're trying to fearmonger me into agreeing with you with abject bullshit. I thought the MRAs were meant to be the factual and rational ones.

Who says I'm an "MRA", whatever that even is?

I'm not talking to you. I'm explaining to others why you won't address e.g. Galloism's posts. You should have already seen misgendering of dissenters, so you wouldn't need to be told it exists.

Vassenor wrote:

Discourse Ouro-Bros wrote:Who says I'm an "MRA", whatever that even is?

I'm not talking to you. I'm explaining to others why you won't address e.g. Galloism's posts. You should have already seen misgendering of dissenters, so you wouldn't need to be told it exists.

Oh I know it exists. I just don't make a point of judging a movement by its radicals. It's not a case of only being acknowledged as long as I play along. I think y'all are chatting shit of my own free will.

Costa Fierro wrote:

No more dinners with female colleagues. Don’t sit next to them on flights. Book hotel rooms on different floors. Avoid one-on-one meetings.

In fact, as a wealth adviser put it, just hiring a woman these days is “an unknown risk.” What if she took something he said the wrong way?

Across Wall Street, men are adopting controversial strategies for the #MeToo era and, in the process, making life even harder for women.

Call it the Pence Effect, after U.S. Vice President Mike Pence, who has said he avoids dining alone with any woman other than his wife. In finance, the overarching impact can be, in essence, gender segregation.

Interviews with more than 30 senior executives suggest many are spooked by #MeToo and struggling to cope. “It’s creating a sense of walking on eggshells,” said David Bahnsen, a former managing director at Morgan Stanley who’s now an independent adviser overseeing more than $1.5 billion.

This is hardly a single-industry phenomenon, as men across the country check their behavior at work, to protect themselves in the face of what they consider unreasonable political correctness -- or to simply do the right thing. The upshot is forceful on Wall Street, where women are scarce in the upper ranks. The industry has also long nurtured a culture that keeps harassment complaints out of the courts and public eye, and has so far avoided a mega-scandal like the one that has engulfed Harvey Weinstein.

Source.

Because nobody totally didn't see this coming at all. It's interesting how the calls for caution from some influential women and even some feminists (and the fact that I am quoting Vox is even more surprising) were ignored by the zealous misandrists who just wanted to watch the world men burn. Because when you bite the hand that feeds you, you don't get any more food. And this is increasingly happening across most workplaces in the United States, not just in the corporate sphere. Thanks to #MeToo, women are increasingly being seen by upper management as a liability and are increasingly being isolated in the workplace.

So one would think that women would be looking for ways and means to allay men's fears about false accusations and other kinds of issues brought up in #MeToo in response to the increasingly reduced opportunities and containment of women in the workplace? According to the Bloomberg article I used for the source, it appears they've opted to double down on claims of misogyny:

“If men avoid working or traveling with women alone, or stop mentoring women for fear of being accused of sexual harassment,” he said, “those men are going to back out of a sexual harassment complaint and right into a sex discrimination complaint.”

So, who is to blame for all of this? Men, of course. Men are the ones to blame, because men always are. We're responsible for whatever women do. And the apparent solution to this rests, yet again, on the shoulders of men. We have to "step up" and "not be assholes". Because society making women responsible for their actions is clearly sexism.

However, I am heartened that more and more men are using caution when dealing with women in the workplace and not caving in to this renewed social pressure. My only sincere hope is that this spreads, and that the effects of this backlash against women in the workplace grow. This is a lesson that those who support #MeToo need to learn, so that they do not feel compelled to make the same mistakes again.

So what do we think, NSG? Is this backlash against women in the workplace justified? Is this yet more sexism from men?

Vassenor wrote:
Well, there's a first time for everything.

Galloism wrote:He did have such a volume the secret service had a 24 hour secret service protection detail on him and his family though. Not sure if they still do.

Des-Bal wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
Well, there's a first time for everything.

You're talking pretty strong considering you've been rhetorically hamstrung and are desperately not acknowledging it.

Galloism wrote:He did have such a volume the secret service had a 24 hour secret service protection detail on him and his family though. Not sure if they still do.

Also he's in one of the highest offices in the country so the fact he can't be secreted away under an assumed name isn't necessarily an indicator of the harassment he faces. Do you think there's a human alive today who gets more death threats than Donald Trump?

Vassenor wrote:

Discourse Ouro-Bros wrote:Vassenor knows that the gender identity acceptance of Feminism and Social Justice for someone born in a male body is conditional and can be revoked at any time for dissent.

This would throw her back into the condition of being seen as a "scary," "oppressive" man, whose sexuality is perceived as inherently suspect, and whose very presence apparently saps women of their agency.

So you're trying to fearmonger me into agreeing with you with abject bullshit. I thought the MRAs were meant to be the factual and rational ones.

Discourse Ouro-Bros wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
So you're trying to fearmonger me into agreeing with you with abject bullshit. I thought the MRAs were meant to be the factual and rational ones.

Who says I'm an "MRA", whatever that even is?

I'm explaining to others why you won't address e.g. Galloism's posts. You should have already seen misgendering of dissenters, so you wouldn't need to be told it exists.

Discourse Ouro-Bros wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
So you're trying to fearmonger me into agreeing with you with abject bullshit. I thought the MRAs were meant to be the factual and rational ones.

Who says I'm an "MRA", whatever that even is?

I'm explaining to others why you won't address e.g. Galloism's posts. You should have already seen misgendering of dissenters, so you wouldn't need to be told it exists.

Mystic Warriors wrote:

New haven america wrote:You are aware people tried getting a false report on Mueller in order to end his investigation, right?

This was a fairly well documented event that happened not too long ago, and is proof that using false reports to take down high ranking officials is, yet again, really fucking difficult.

Now, how about actually making an argument? Or is ranting about how everyone else's arguments don't make sense without providing any points of reference or examples why the only thing you can do?

1&2 - Again, this has nothing to do with this at all. So stop bringing up pointless bullshit to make some point you wont state.

3 - Cute, personal attacks on top of bringing up pointless statements. You want references and examples for thinking Pences decision to not have dinner with women who aren't his wife was wise....... Sad you need that explained to you.

Vassenor wrote:I thought the MRAs were meant to be the factual and rational ones.

Vassenor wrote:So if family courts are biased, why doesn't the data match up with that conclusion?

Dr Maebh Harding, from the School of Law, reviewed almost 200 case files from 2011

Petrasylvania wrote:I try to read this thread, but all I hear is "Vags have too much rights."

Vassenor wrote:

New Mivango wrote:
Or maybe he's pointing out how many rad fems view gender equality as a zero-sum and consistently seek to erode men's rights in order to gain what they call "equality," but amounts to supremacy.

So what rights have men lost to feminists then?

Estanglia wrote:

Vassenor wrote:So if family courts are biased, why doesn't the data match up with that conclusion?

Dr Maebh Harding, from the School of Law, reviewed almost 200 case files from 2011

<200. 117,558 divorces in 2011, less than 200 reviewed. Less than 0.17% of cases were reviewed. That's a very small sample to be drawing conclusions from.

Petrasylvania wrote:I try to read this thread, but all I hear is "Vags have too much rights."

What post(s) gave you that idea then?

Vassenor wrote:
So what rights have men lost to feminists then?

How about the laws in iirc India and Israel which define rape in such a way that it's impossible for women to be convicted of rape?

Vassenor wrote:

Estanglia wrote:

Dr Maebh Harding, from the School of Law, reviewed almost 200 case files from 2011

<200. 117,558 divorces in 2011, less than 200 reviewed. Less than 0.17% of cases were reviewed. That's a very small sample to be drawing conclusions from.


What post(s) gave you that idea then?



How about the laws in iirc India and Israel which define rape in such a way that it's impossible for women to be convicted of rape?

How is a law from 1860 the fault of modern feminism?

Petrasylvania wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
How is a law from 1860 the fault of modern feminism?

Time travel. *nod*

Vassenor wrote:

Estanglia wrote:

Dr Maebh Harding, from the School of Law, reviewed almost 200 case files from 2011

<200. 117,558 divorces in 2011, less than 200 reviewed. Less than 0.17% of cases were reviewed. That's a very small sample to be drawing conclusions from.


What post(s) gave you that idea then?



How about the laws in iirc India and Israel which define rape in such a way that it's impossible for women to be convicted of rape?

How is a law from 1860 the fault of modern feminism?

Vassenor wrote:

Estanglia wrote:

Dr Maebh Harding, from the School of Law, reviewed almost 200 case files from 2011

<200. 117,558 divorces in 2011, less than 200 reviewed. Less than 0.17% of cases were reviewed. That's a very small sample to be drawing conclusions from.


What post(s) gave you that idea then?



How about the laws in iirc India and Israel which define rape in such a way that it's impossible for women to be convicted of rape?

How is a law from 1860 the fault of modern feminism?

Ors Might wrote:They didn’t create it, sure. They just opposed the new law which would have made the law non-sexist. So much better.

The research is based on document analysis of a retrospective sample of 197 case files from the County Courts. We examined case files from five different County Courts in England and Wales which we code-named Ambledune, Borgate, Cladford, Dunam and Essebourne.

The sample was limited to Section 8 application cases which were disposed of by final order in a six month period between February and August in 2011.

Estanglia wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
How is a law from 1860 the fault of modern feminism?

Ors Might wrote:They didn’t create it, sure. They just opposed the new law which would have made the law non-sexist. So much better.

Vassenor wrote:

Estanglia wrote:

But when MRAs squish gender neutral laws intended to help rape and domestic abuse survivors that's perfectly OK?

Vassenor wrote:

Estanglia wrote:

But when MRAs squish gender neutral laws intended to help rape and domestic abuse survivors that's perfectly OK?

Estanglia wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
But when MRAs squish gender neutral laws intended to help rape and domestic abuse survivors that's perfectly OK?

Could you not put words in my mouth please? I've never suggested that.

And no, it's not.

Vassenor wrote:

Estanglia wrote:Could you not put words in my mouth please? I've never suggested that.

And no, it's not.

So where is it written that the law wasn't changed because our magic feminist conspiracy blocked it?

Vassenor wrote:

Estanglia wrote:

But when MRAs squish gender neutral laws intended to help rape and domestic abuse survivors that's perfectly OK?

Vassenor wrote:

Estanglia wrote:

Dr Maebh Harding, from the School of Law, reviewed almost 200 case files from 2011

<200. 117,558 divorces in 2011, less than 200 reviewed. Less than 0.17% of cases were reviewed. That's a very small sample to be drawing conclusions from.


What post(s) gave you that idea then?



How about the laws in iirc India and Israel which define rape in such a way that it's impossible for women to be convicted of rape?

How is a law from 1860 the fault of modern feminism?

Galloism wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
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?

Galloism wrote:

Scomagia wrote:Yes. It's absolutely wrong that anyone ever thought that this is the way law ought to work.

You can think the anti-rape portion of the feminist movement for pushing hard to reverse the burden of proof. (or, more accurately, the anti-rape of women portion. no one cares about men who are raped.)

What was that Vassenor? No one says they want guilty until proven innocent? How did it get in the law they pushed then, and as far back as 1975 at that?

Vassenor wrote:
You mean like the belief that feminists want rape accused to be treated as guilty until proven innocent?

Better start believing, Vassenor.