#MeToo Becomes #LeaveMeAlone

[Discourse Ouro-Bros]

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.

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.

[Vassenor]

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.

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.

[Galloism]

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.

How did only the radicals lobby to reverse the burden of proof regarding consent which was subsequently (40 years later) struck down by the Washington Supreme Court without the assent of the rest?

[Pope Joan]

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?

I love it.'

Actions have consequences?

True.
But that must cut BOTH WAYS

[Des-Bal]

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.

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?

[Galloism]

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.

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?

At the moment? It's fairly probable. Presidents get a lot anyway just because of the job, and Trump is disliked more than most presidents (for, what I feel, are perfectly valid reasons).

If there is a human being alive that gets more death threats than Donald Trump, it would be very few of them.

[Ostroeuropa]

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.

You have no evidence this person is an MRA and no sincere basis to think it. Plenty of people dislike feminists, most people in fact. There is also arguably something to be noted about an MtF person who indulges in such blatant misandry, but I just don't think that kind of psychological stuff is relevant to political debate, especially in the context of Gauth engaging in the same behavior in the same thread. He might be right that you're far more likely to face transphobic abuse from feminists if you step out of line though, It's not unheard of.

He's also not trying to fearmonger you into supporting him. He's noting you are being fearmongered into supporting feminism, so even in this case, it's you misrepresenting someone. Again.

To rebutt his point, there's plenty of MtF MRAs, and even more MtF anti-feminists.

[Ostroeuropa]

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.

An MRA is a mens rights activist, a person who supports gender equality but believes sexism against men is commonplace, including as a result of the feminist movement. They are anti-feminist, pro-egalitarian.

[Mystic Warriors]

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.

Mens Rights Advocate. Which is seen as a huge insult in some circle.

[New haven america]

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.

Got it, you can't actually make an argument.

[Costa Fierro]

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

They are.

[The Unified Carolinas]

Hello guys

[Estanglia]

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.

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

What post(s) gave you that idea then?

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?

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]

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.

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

What post(s) gave you that idea then?

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?

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

[Petrasylvania]

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?

Time travel. *nod*

[Ors Might]

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

Time travel. *nod*

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

[Greater vakolicci haven]

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?

The fact it has not yet been repealed sure is.

[Estanglia]

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?

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

[Vassenor]

Also let's look at the sampling methodology.

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.

So of the 117,558 divorces, how many of them involved actual litigation over the status of the children?

[Vassenor]

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

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

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

[Ors Might]

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

Now who the flying fuck said that? Or in terms you might understand, N iCE WHATabOutISm

Also, can I get a fucking source?

[Estanglia]

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]

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.

So where is it written that the law wasn't changed because our magic feminist conspiracy blocked it? And if they have so much power why is it still legal for a man to rape his wife or for soldiers to rape whoever they see fit?

[Ors Might]

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?

Vass, do you believe feminism as a movement is capable of achieving things, good or bad? Because whenever someone so much as suggests that feminism contributed to something negative, you pull out this magical conspiracy bullshit. Almost as if you’re incapable of recognizing feminism as a movement like any other. That is, flawed.

[Galloism]

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

When in the flying fuck have they ever had the political power to do that?

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?

Let me ask you something. If you had a law from 1860, that say... made it legal to rape your spouse. And this was on the docket to be changed, and Roosh V poured in a bunch of money to stop it from being changed, succeeded in such, wouldn't you blame Roosh V, at least partially, for it remaining unchanged when there was large impetus to change it?

And in India it wouldn't apply anyway. India changed it to be gender neutral, then changed it again in 2012 to be sexist again due to pressure from women's groups in the country.


And, incidentally, Vass, why do you keep running from this? These are simple posts, and you refuse to engage them? Why Vass? What are you afraid of? And my posts so full of awesome you can't possibly even engage them?

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?

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?

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

Better start believing, Vassenor.