#MeToo Becomes #LeaveMeAlone

[Costa Fierro]

As opposed to sticking your head in the ground and ignoring anything that might portray modern feminism or #MeToo in a positive light.

#MeToo could have been a lot more constructive and positive for everyone than it has been. The fact that it's become a witch-hunt and now resulted in women losing more opportunities isn't exactly a positive outcome for either sex, now is it? Getting people to speak about sexual assault and their experiences is good, allowing women to make false accusations and then demanding we believe them or else we're siding with rapists and abusers is not.

Or anything that would paint the Men's Rights movement in a negative one.

All the arguments against the Men's Rights movement have already been debunked time and time again by people who have either been in the movement, or people who have critically examined the movement. Cassie Jaye being the best example of this.

And you know, rather than sniping you could actually try providing examples of that happening.

I'm responding in a manner that essentially mimics your style of posting. Do unto others what you expect others to do unto you.

To give examples of this, Kavanaugh protesters held up signs that said "believe survivors". We can even go all the way back to 2014, where the term "listen and believe" was coined by Anita Sarkeesian as a way of "helping" women who claimed to be victims of online abuse.

[Galloism]

I have never actually seen anyone demand someone be treated as guilty until proven innocent. At least until someone starts claiming they made the accusation maliciously.

If you #BelieveWomen then you are already electing to believe the accusations a woman makes regardless of truthfulness or evidence and treat the man as guilty.

And realistically, this is being trumpeted.

https://www.bustle.com/p/why-believe-wo ... on-5532903

Why "Believe Women" Means Believing Women Without Exception

...

Let's be clear: If you choose to believe women, you choose to believe every woman. Even when it's uncomfortable. (Especially when it's uncomfortable.) You cannot pick and choose which feminist values to align yourself with. If your knee-jerk reaction is "I can't imagine it, so it can't be true," then you are allowing your privilege to get the better of you.

...

That's not to say that it's easy to believe women on principle. It would be difficult for even the most ardent feminist if your brother, your best friend, your boyfriend, were accused of sexual abuse. Even if it's just that "nice guy" you know, it'll shake you up. It's a gut-wrenching reminder that you may never be safe. That may not truly know the people you love the most.

I get it, I do. It's easy to not believe women when to believe women would be to admit those things — not only that they're real, but that you, yourself, do not truly know a person you deeply care for. It's easy to point to that "three percent" statistic and shrug off the accusation. It's easy, but you shouldn't get to do that. No women who has ever been raped gets to do that.

And if you do believe that a woman is lying? If your decision is to make an exception — to believe in the highly unlikely scenario that the accuser is lying — then there's a right and a wrong way to approach that, too. Every time you tell a friend or your Facebook feed or your millions of fans that you believe a woman has made it all up, you propagate the myth that women lie about being assaulted. You make it harder for victims of sexual abuse to come forward. You force people who have already been deeply traumatized to fear your wrath, as well.

I shouldn't have to tell you how critical it is to believe women. If I did, you wouldn't be reading this article in the first place. What also needs to be made clear is that when you believe women on principle, you believe all women. No exceptions. No "what if"s. Your lived experience does not, and cannot, speak to the credibility of others' experiences. Believe that.

[Scomagia]

If you #BelieveWomen then you are already electing to believe the accusations a woman makes regardless of truthfulness or evidence and treat the man as guilty.

And realistically, this is being trumpeted.

https://www.bustle.com/p/why-believe-wo ... on-5532903

Why "Believe Women" Means Believing Women Without Exception

...

Let's be clear: If you choose to believe women, you choose to believe every woman. Even when it's uncomfortable. (Especially when it's uncomfortable.) You cannot pick and choose which feminist values to align yourself with. If your knee-jerk reaction is "I can't imagine it, so it can't be true," then you are allowing your privilege to get the better of you.

...

That's not to say that it's easy to believe women on principle. It would be difficult for even the most ardent feminist if your brother, your best friend, your boyfriend, were accused of sexual abuse. Even if it's just that "nice guy" you know, it'll shake you up. It's a gut-wrenching reminder that you may never be safe. That may not truly know the people you love the most.

I get it, I do. It's easy to not believe women when to believe women would be to admit those things — not only that they're real, but that you, yourself, do not truly know a person you deeply care for. It's easy to point to that "three percent" statistic and shrug off the accusation. It's easy, but you shouldn't get to do that. No women who has ever been raped gets to do that.

And if you do believe that a woman is lying? If your decision is to make an exception — to believe in the highly unlikely scenario that the accuser is lying — then there's a right and a wrong way to approach that, too. Every time you tell a friend or your Facebook feed or your millions of fans that you believe a woman has made it all up, you propagate the myth that women lie about being assaulted. You make it harder for victims of sexual abuse to come forward. You force people who have already been deeply traumatized to fear your wrath, as well.

I shouldn't have to tell you how critical it is to believe women. If I did, you wouldn't be reading this article in the first place. What also needs to be made clear is that when you believe women on principle, you believe all women. No exceptions. No "what if"s. Your lived experience does not, and cannot, speak to the credibility of others' experiences. Believe that.

What's so interesting there is the self contradiction. They admit to a certain percentage of women lying about rape....and then turn around and call it a myth. Well, which is it? It can't be both a thing that happens and a thing that isn't real.

[New Tryphalia]

And realistically, this is being trumpeted.

https://www.bustle.com/p/why-believe-wo ... on-5532903

What's so interesting there is the self contradiction. They admit to a certain percentage of women lying about rape....and then turn around and call it a myth. Well, which is it? It can't be both a thing that happens and a thing that isn't real.

In other words, they want to disregard fact in favor of a political narrative. Why does that sound familiar?

[Vassenor]

If you #BelieveWomen then you are already electing to believe the accusations a woman makes regardless of truthfulness or evidence and treat the man as guilty.

And realistically, this is being trumpeted.

https://www.bustle.com/p/why-believe-wo ... on-5532903

Why "Believe Women" Means Believing Women Without Exception

...

Let's be clear: If you choose to believe women, you choose to believe every woman. Even when it's uncomfortable. (Especially when it's uncomfortable.) You cannot pick and choose which feminist values to align yourself with. If your knee-jerk reaction is "I can't imagine it, so it can't be true," then you are allowing your privilege to get the better of you.

...

That's not to say that it's easy to believe women on principle. It would be difficult for even the most ardent feminist if your brother, your best friend, your boyfriend, were accused of sexual abuse. Even if it's just that "nice guy" you know, it'll shake you up. It's a gut-wrenching reminder that you may never be safe. That may not truly know the people you love the most.

I get it, I do. It's easy to not believe women when to believe women would be to admit those things — not only that they're real, but that you, yourself, do not truly know a person you deeply care for. It's easy to point to that "three percent" statistic and shrug off the accusation. It's easy, but you shouldn't get to do that. No women who has ever been raped gets to do that.

And if you do believe that a woman is lying? If your decision is to make an exception — to believe in the highly unlikely scenario that the accuser is lying — then there's a right and a wrong way to approach that, too. Every time you tell a friend or your Facebook feed or your millions of fans that you believe a woman has made it all up, you propagate the myth that women lie about being assaulted. You make it harder for victims of sexual abuse to come forward. You force people who have already been deeply traumatized to fear your wrath, as well.

I shouldn't have to tell you how critical it is to believe women. If I did, you wouldn't be reading this article in the first place. What also needs to be made clear is that when you believe women on principle, you believe all women. No exceptions. No "what if"s. Your lived experience does not, and cannot, speak to the credibility of others' experiences. Believe that.

So where does that say that the accused has to be treated as guilty until proven innocent?

[Costa Fierro]

What's so interesting there is the self contradiction. They admit to a certain percentage of women lying about rape....and then turn around and call it a myth. Well, which is it? It can't be both a thing that happens and a thing that isn't real.

Acknowledging that some women lie about being raped, for a feminist, is like acknowledging that men have issues. Most don't really believe that men actually have issues, and for those that do, they're not serious enough to be addressed. It's basically paying lip service to the concerns of a significant portion of the population.

[New Tryphalia]

And realistically, this is being trumpeted.

https://www.bustle.com/p/why-believe-wo ... on-5532903

So where does that say that the accused has to be treated as guilty until proven innocent?

When it encourages you to believe that your SO, brother, father, or even friend raped someone? Just maybe that part? Logically, if one believes that, it would tend to result in active steps that treat someone as guilty until proven innocent, including breakups, disowning, ostracism, that kind of deal. These kinds of absurd beliefs have consequences. The writer of this column is playing with fire, and I have to assume that she knows it.

[New Tryphalia]

What's so interesting there is the self contradiction. They admit to a certain percentage of women lying about rape....and then turn around and call it a myth. Well, which is it? It can't be both a thing that happens and a thing that isn't real.

Acknowledging that some women lie about being raped, for a feminist, is like acknowledging that men have issues. Most don't really believe that men actually have issues, and for those that do, they're not serious enough to be addressed. It's basically paying lip service to the concerns of a significant portion of the population.

Remember, to feminists, men aren't really people. Just money objects.

[Vassenor]

So where does that say that the accused has to be treated as guilty until proven innocent?

When it encourages you to believe that your SO, brother, father, or even friend raped someone? Just maybe that part? Logically, if one believes that, it would tend to result in active steps that treat someone as guilty until proven innocent, including breakups, disowning, ostracism, that kind of deal. These kinds of absurd beliefs have consequences. The writer of this column is playing with fire, and I have to assume that she knows it.

Accepting it's possible they did a thing is not the same as assuming they did it until they can prove they didn't.

[Costa Fierro]

So where does that say that the accused has to be treated as guilty until proven innocent?

In this context, when you believe women, you believe them entirely, and therefore are compelled to treat the accused as guilty.

[Kaggeceria]

And realistically, this is being trumpeted.

https://www.bustle.com/p/why-believe-wo ... on-5532903

What's so interesting there is the self contradiction. They admit to a certain percentage of women lying about rape....and then turn around and call it a myth. Well, which is it? It can't be both a thing that happens and a thing that isn't real.

And if you do believe that a woman is lying? If your decision is to make an exception — to believe in the highly unlikely scenario that the accuser is lying — then there's a right and a wrong way to approach that, too. Every time you tell a friend or your Facebook feed or your millions of fans that you believe a woman has made it all up, you propagate the myth that women lie about being assaulted.

Witness how quickly one feminist can contradict herself.

[New Tryphalia]

When it encourages you to believe that your SO, brother, father, or even friend raped someone? Just maybe that part? Logically, if one believes that, it would tend to result in active steps that treat someone as guilty until proven innocent, including breakups, disowning, ostracism, that kind of deal. These kinds of absurd beliefs have consequences. The writer of this column is playing with fire, and I have to assume that she knows it.

Accepting it's possible they did a thing is not the same as assuming they did it until they can prove they didn't.

She didn't say "accept that it's possible." She said to believe that it happened, period.

[Kaggeceria]

And realistically, this is being trumpeted.

https://www.bustle.com/p/why-believe-wo ... on-5532903

So where does that say that the accused has to be treated as guilty until proven innocent?

Why "Believe Women" Means Believing Women Without Exception

If this is the case then the only logical conclusion is the man she is accusing must be guilty.

[New Tryphalia]

What's so interesting there is the self contradiction. They admit to a certain percentage of women lying about rape....and then turn around and call it a myth. Well, which is it? It can't be both a thing that happens and a thing that isn't real.

And if you do believe that a woman is lying? If your decision is to make an exception — to believe in the highly unlikely scenario that the accuser is lying — then there's a right and a wrong way to approach that, too. Every time you tell a friend or your Facebook feed or your millions of fans that you believe a woman has made it all up, you propagate the myth that women lie about being assaulted.

Witness how quickly one feminist can contradict herself.

I don't think that logic is taught very much in Women's Studies courses.

[Galloism]

And realistically, this is being trumpeted.

https://www.bustle.com/p/why-believe-wo ... on-5532903

So where does that say that the accused has to be treated as guilty until proven innocent?

You can't believe two contradictory things at the same time.

Well, you can, but you have to be some sort of schizophrenia or split personality disorder. Or be a giant hypocrite.

[Costa Fierro]

What's so interesting there is the self contradiction. They admit to a certain percentage of women lying about rape....and then turn around and call it a myth. Well, which is it? It can't be both a thing that happens and a thing that isn't real.

And if you do believe that a woman is lying? If your decision is to make an exception — to believe in the highly unlikely scenario that the accuser is lying — then there's a right and a wrong way to approach that, too. Every time you tell a friend or your Facebook feed or your millions of fans that you believe a woman has made it all up, you propagate the myth that women lie about being assaulted.

Witness how quickly one feminist can contradict herself.

I don't think she's really contradicting herself. Rather she's claiming that women don't lie about rape, but she has to play to the idea that women do. "Believe in the highly unlikely scenario that the accuser is lying" is basically saying almost outright that the author doesn't believe women lie about being raped.

[New Tryphalia]

So where does that say that the accused has to be treated as guilty until proven innocent?

Why "Believe Women" Means Believing Women Without Exception

If this is the case then the only logical conclusion is the man she is accusing must be guilty.

Exactly. Just remember that most feminists believe that logic is a patriarchal conspiracy against women's intuition.

[Vassenor]

Accepting it's possible they did a thing is not the same as assuming they did it until they can prove they didn't.

She didn't say "accept that it's possible." She said to believe that it happened, period.

The bulk of the article is about "just because we don't think things are possible doesn't mean they aren't" and not throwing out the accusation purely because you don't think it's possible for the person they accused to have done it. It doesn't say that the accused in a sexual assault case should be treated as guilty until proven innocent.

[New Tryphalia]

So where does that say that the accused has to be treated as guilty until proven innocent?

You can't believe two contradictory things at the same time.

Well, you can, but you have to be some sort of schizophrenia or split personality disorder. Or be a giant hypocrite.

Or take cognitive dissonance to frightening new depths.

[Vassenor]

So where does that say that the accused has to be treated as guilty until proven innocent?

You can't believe two contradictory things at the same time.

Well, you can, but you have to be some sort of schizophrenia or split personality disorder. Or be a giant hypocrite.

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

[New Tryphalia]

She didn't say "accept that it's possible." She said to believe that it happened, period.

The bulk of the article is about "just because we don't think things are possible doesn't mean they aren't" and not throwing out the accusation purely because you don't think it's possible for the person they accused to have done it. It doesn't say that the accused in a sexual assault case should be treated as guilty until proven innocent.

She said "believe." Belief isn't a skeptical, rational consideration or openness to something. It's a blind acceptance on faith, without any evidentiary support for such a conclusion whatsoever.

[Galloism]

So where does that say that the accused has to be treated as guilty until proven innocent?

Why "Believe Women" Means Believing Women Without Exception

If this is the case then the only logical conclusion is the man she is accusing must be guilty.

It's also worth note that this was literally the law in Washington state - guilty until proven innocent based on the accuser's word alone - until 2014.

You think I'm being hyperbolic, but I'm not.

The court had previously ruled that when a defendant claimed the contact was consensual, it was up to the defendant to prove there was consent by a preponderance of the evidence. The rulings essentially made consent an affirmative defense to a rape charge, the way a killer can claim self-defense in a murder case.

But in a 6-3 opinion Thursday, the justices said those decisions wrongly interpreted U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Prosecutors must prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and making a defendant prove that there was consent got that requirement backward, they said.

“Requiring a defendant to do more than raise a reasonable doubt is inconsistent with due-process principles,” Justice Debra Stephens wrote for the majority, saying it raises “a very real possibility of wrongful convictions.”

...

The Legislature changed the definition in 1975, removing the reference to consent and requiring prosecutors to prove “forcible compulsion” — force that overcomes resistance, or threats that put a person in fear of death or injury. The intent was to put the focus back on the actions of the defendant, Owens said.

“Placing the burden on the State to disprove consent wrongfully puts the victim’s actions and reputation on trial,” she wrote. “Not only does the majority’s decision invalidate years of work undertaken to properly refocus our rape law, but it also has serious implications for victims of an already underreported type of crime.”

Emily Cordo, former legal director of the Sexual Violence Law Center in Seattle, agreed.

“You are going to have decisions from jurors based on misperceptions about how victims should behave rather than based on what the defendant did,” she said. “Washington, like every other state, has a real problem getting actual rapists convicted. This makes it that much more difficult.”


But the majority said the use of force is an element of the crime: It can’t be true that a rape case involved both forcible compulsion and consent. For defendants to prove consent, they are also disproving forcible compulsion — which means the state has been requiring the defendant to prove they didn’t commit the crime, rather than requiring prosecutors to prove the defendant did.

The ruling came in the case of a boy identified only as W.R. Jr., who was convicted of second-degree rape in King County. He was awarded a new trial.

W.R. Jr.’s attorney, Gregory Link of the Washington Appellate Project, characterized criticism of the ruling as “fear-mongering.”

“I don’t think there’s any concern we’re going back to the dark days of rape prosecution,” he said. “This doesn’t change much. It just clarifies for jurors who has the burden of proof and who doesn’t. Outside this one area of law, that’s the way things are always done.”

Link said because of procedural rules, he did not expect the ruling to lead to many new trials for defendants convicted under the old court holdings.

[Galloism]

You can't believe two contradictory things at the same time.

Well, you can, but you have to be some sort of schizophrenia or split personality disorder. Or be a giant hypocrite.

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?

[Vassenor]

The bulk of the article is about "just because we don't think things are possible doesn't mean they aren't" and not throwing out the accusation purely because you don't think it's possible for the person they accused to have done it. It doesn't say that the accused in a sexual assault case should be treated as guilty until proven innocent.

She said "believe." Belief isn't a skeptical, rational consideration or openness to something. It's a blind acceptance on faith, without any evidentiary support for such a conclusion whatsoever.

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

[New Tryphalia]

If this is the case then the only logical conclusion is the man she is accusing must be guilty.

It's also worth note that this was literally the law in Washington state - guilty until proven innocent based on the accuser's word alone - until 2014.

You think I'm being hyperbolic, but I'm not.

The court had previously ruled that when a defendant claimed the contact was consensual, it was up to the defendant to prove there was consent by a preponderance of the evidence. The rulings essentially made consent an affirmative defense to a rape charge, the way a killer can claim self-defense in a murder case.

But in a 6-3 opinion Thursday, the justices said those decisions wrongly interpreted U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Prosecutors must prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and making a defendant prove that there was consent got that requirement backward, they said.

“Requiring a defendant to do more than raise a reasonable doubt is inconsistent with due-process principles,” Justice Debra Stephens wrote for the majority, saying it raises “a very real possibility of wrongful convictions.”

...

The Legislature changed the definition in 1975, removing the reference to consent and requiring prosecutors to prove “forcible compulsion” — force that overcomes resistance, or threats that put a person in fear of death or injury. The intent was to put the focus back on the actions of the defendant, Owens said.

“Placing the burden on the State to disprove consent wrongfully puts the victim’s actions and reputation on trial,” she wrote. “Not only does the majority’s decision invalidate years of work undertaken to properly refocus our rape law, but it also has serious implications for victims of an already underreported type of crime.”

Emily Cordo, former legal director of the Sexual Violence Law Center in Seattle, agreed.

“You are going to have decisions from jurors based on misperceptions about how victims should behave rather than based on what the defendant did,” she said. “Washington, like every other state, has a real problem getting actual rapists convicted. This makes it that much more difficult.”


But the majority said the use of force is an element of the crime: It can’t be true that a rape case involved both forcible compulsion and consent. For defendants to prove consent, they are also disproving forcible compulsion — which means the state has been requiring the defendant to prove they didn’t commit the crime, rather than requiring prosecutors to prove the defendant did.

The ruling came in the case of a boy identified only as W.R. Jr., who was convicted of second-degree rape in King County. He was awarded a new trial.

W.R. Jr.’s attorney, Gregory Link of the Washington Appellate Project, characterized criticism of the ruling as “fear-mongering.”

“I don’t think there’s any concern we’re going back to the dark days of rape prosecution,” he said. “This doesn’t change much. It just clarifies for jurors who has the burden of proof and who doesn’t. Outside this one area of law, that’s the way things are always done.”

Link said because of procedural rules, he did not expect the ruling to lead to many new trials for defendants convicted under the old court holdings.

Chilling to think that an American state actually enshrined a presumption of guilt, contrary to bedrock principles of procedural due process, until forced to change it by a higher court, and even then, feminists typically opposed overturning such a tyrannical, and flatly unconstitutional, statute. More proof that feminists only care about power, not facts or truth.