Has the #MeToo movement become a witch-hunt to a significant degree?

[PetraG]

I think this is also an issue. A man who is concerned for his partners, if there is a misunderstanding, he avoids that situation again. Unfortunately, among certain men, there’s an idea that anything that’s not actually rape is ok, so long as the guy gets laid. It’s often combined with an idea that men always want sex and women don’t, so it’s a guy’s job to get past the woman not wanting to have sex. And unfortunate misunderstandings are just a natural consequence of being a real alpha male who can always get a woman.

Surely as Catholics we can at least agree that a man is expected to control his libido, and that even marriage does not give him a free pass whenever.

Among certain men on this forum, I would rush to add, there is no right to commit mortal sin.

I would hope they all think that way, but there are a few who are splitting straws in ways that leave that question open. I would hope that this comes from their honest desire to come out with an argument against sexual predators that is built on a strong foundation even in a secular political arena, rather than a concern to avoid having certain people accused of wrongdoing when the real wrong they have been doing has been winked at for so long that it has come to be seen as something they are entitled to expect.

 

[Lea101]

For some of them, it’s simply disagreeing with what feminists want. MeToo/sexual assault is being broadcasted by liberals the loudest and it’s not uncommon to find people that view feminism as a big fat evil and hence, they believe in something wrong. So there’s a tendency to just oppose it by splitting hairs. For some, their stance is formed based on who’s saying it rather than what the stance is actually about

 

[Xantippe]

For some of them, it’s simply disagreeing with what feminists want. MeToo/sexual assault is being broadcasted by liberals the loudest and it’s not uncommon to find people that view feminism as a big fat evil and hence, they believe in something wrong. So there’s a tendency to just oppose it by splitting hairs. For some, their stance is formed based on who’s saying it rather than what the stance is actually about

Yes, that’s the most innocent version. Of course, this position assumes that feminists are wrong about everything, and you can be right just by choosing the position 180 degrees away from whatever feminists want–which is a very silly way to operate. That’s like thinking that if environmentalists want to protect nature, then we need to clearcut Yosemite, or if they want clean air, then we want dirty air.

Think about what YOU actually want and what you value, rather than just opposing everything feminists want out of cussedness.

Of course, there’s a much less innocent version. For example, a previous poster was saying that he sees rape as a punishment for women’s immorality.

!!!

 

[ChunkMonk]

Do men have to give up the same kind of control if they want the police to protect them?

Do you see any differences between the roles of men and women that aren’t exclusively biological?

If very few men are rapists, and prisons are full of the falsely accused, why are men afraid that they will be raped in prison?

Prison rape is a homosexual power display.

 

[ChunkMonk]

If she had known any of them for 3+ years, would they stop being strangers at some point?

No. Inaofar as one is going to trust one’s very life to them… They remain strangers regardless of how long one has known them.

Also, I was speaking from the man’s point of view. Insofar as his woman is concerned, anyone not related is a stranger. (Not that he should be allowing her to drink unaccompanied with anyone, but especially not strangers.)

 

[DarkLight]

Also, I was speaking from the man’s point of view. Insofar as his woman is concerned, anyone not related is a stranger. (Not that he should be allowing her to drink unaccompanied with anyone, but especially not strangers.)

I am curious if this rule applies to men as well - is a man permitted to go out drinking with his friends or coworkers? Or is this purely a restriction on women?

 

[DarkLight]

No. Inaofar as one is going to trust one’s very life to them… They remain strangers regardless of how long one has known them.

This brings up @Xantippe’s original question: why would one marry a stranger? Is there any method for a man to become not a stranger prior to marriage?

Surely if one is going to rely on a man for protection and help, one ought to be even more careful than one would be if merely going out drinking!

 

[PetraG]

This brings up @Xantippe’s original question: why would one marry a stranger? Is there any method for a man to become not a stranger prior to marriage?

Well, yes, if you date men who are well-known to someone whose judgment you trust.

Prior to the advent of our very mobile society, it would not have been uncommon to have relatives or friends who have known just about anyone you might consider as a spouse since childhood.

The problem now is that people get out of college and maybe work a few years and then want to marry because they find they are in their mid-twenties and getting to thirty with a narrow window of time to find a spouse. The problem is that they have located in a place where they do not know anyone very well and where few of the people they get to know well have really known their friends and acquaintances for a long time.

This both gives manipulative people ample opportunities to “start with a clean slate” where no one knows them and a vast selection of non-insulated social groups to jump into and quickly establish themselves as if they were long-lost relatives. It makes it very difficult for either men or women to gauge the integrity of the people they might want to date with the possibility of marriage. Keep this in mind: Sociologists have estimated that the prevalence of people with an antisocial personality may be as high as 4-5% of the population. Considering the consequences of getting into an intimate relationship with someone like that, the stakes are high and the odds are concerning. There is this, too: Many people with antisocial personalities are very capable of making themselves a thrill to be around. They can be very charming in spite of their inability to form real social connections with others.

Top this off with the college expectation of having many partners with “no strings attached” because no one wants to get married any time soon, and you have a lot of strangers who, if they are honest, may have rather spotty romantic resumes themselves. It leaves both men and women very vulnerable and in a very difficult situation with regards to gauging the character of the pool of people from which they will probably select a spouse.

 

[DarkLight]

Well, yes, if you date men who are well-known to someone whose judgment you trust.

Prior to the advent of our very mobile society, it would not have been uncommon to have relatives or friends who have known just about anyone you might consider as a spouse since childhood.

I think that doesn’t go well with the points here though. You’ll notice there are a number of examples of men who had been in the community for years who had been freely abusing women and faced no consequences.

That would also leave those of us with less than ideal families in a bind. I come from a background where it would simply not be possible for a faithful Catholic man to be considered acceptable as anything more than an idolater to be evangelized. I pretty much lit the bridge of being acceptable on fire with most everyone I knew by converting.

 

[Xantippe]

Well, yes, if you date men who are well-known to someone whose judgment you trust.

I’m not sure that you’ve solved the problem for ChunkMonk.

I asked about the woman in the “Jack” story, “If she had known any of them for 3+ years, would they stop being strangers at some point?”

ChunkMonk replied, “No. Inaofar as one is going to trust one’s very life to them… They remain strangers regardless of how long one has known them. Also, I was speaking from the man’s point of view. Insofar as his woman is concerned, anyone not related is a stranger.”

So, again, we have the problem–how is a woman supposed to ever get married, if all unrelated men are automatically untrustworthy strangers, and there’s no mechanism for determining if a man is trustworthy or for moving him from the “scary stranger” to the “trusted protector” role?

I suppose logically speaking, we could just marry our cousins, but look at the Habsburgs…

 

[Werbenjagermanjensen]

I am curious if this rule applies to men as well - is a man permitted to go out drinking with his friends or coworkers?

Yes, men need to be careful as well. I’ve been in clubs where women have approached me with spiked drinks and gotten violent when I’ve refused. Granted, the motive is theft and not rape but you still don’t want to end up OD’d on a dark street corner. Personally, If I go out to a club for drinks I don’t take drinks I haven’t opened myself and I don’t go around prostitutes or drugs. My colleagues who have fallen a victim of a crime have all been ignoring at least one of those simple rules.

 

[Xantippe]

Yes, men need to be careful as well. I’ve been in clubs where women have approached me with spiked drinks and gotten violent when I’ve refused. Granted, the motive is theft and not rape but you still don’t want to end up OD’d on a dark street corner. Personally, If I go out to a club for drinks I don’t take drinks I haven’t opened myself and I don’t go around prostitutes or drugs. My colleagues who have fallen a victim of a crime have all been ignoring at least one of those simple rules.

One of my male colleagues was drugged and robbed by some new “friends” in Moscow back in the 90s. I believe he was drinking 7-UP or something similarly harmless–he wasn’t doing anything obviously risky.

Edited to add: It might have even happened in broad daylight.

 

[ChunkMonk]

I am curious if this rule applies to men as well

I thought you said men face significantly less risk than women?

Is there any method for a man to become not a stranger prior to marriage?

Yes, but it is still a risk. Anyway, the difference here is with single women and married women. As soon as a woman is married, all unrelated men who are not her husband are strangers. It is perfectly licit for a single man to go to a candlelit dinner with a single woman. If they are married to different people, it becomes illicit.

 

[PetraG]

I think that doesn’t go well with the points here though. You’ll notice there are a number of examples of men who had been in the community for years who had been freely abusing women and faced no consequences.

That would also leave those of us with less than ideal families in a bind. I come from a background where it would simply not be possible for a faithful Catholic man to be considered acceptable as anything more than an idolater to be evangelized. I pretty much lit the bridge of being acceptable on fire with most everyone I knew by converting.

Yes, the “me too” movement is aimed at eliminating people who prey on a social group because people are so intent on the GOOD intention of not ruining someone’s reputation that they neglect the exception to when it is OK to disclose someone’s faults or mistakes: that is, when someone else who may be in danger has a good reason to know.

Let’s face it: most of the time that happened because someone doing the covering didn’t want to face the consequences that the misbehavior was going to bring on them. Mothers and grandmothers, for heaven’s sake, shielded pedophiles within their own family from exposure because what the offender did might reflect badly on the family. Bishops shielded priests who had offended on the promise it would never happen again, even when the priests had re-offended over and over again. Reputations were protected at the expense of future victims.

Yes, when you leave behind the family and connections you came from, even for the best of reasons, it puts you behind in terms of having men to date who are not strangers. My point was not that there is something wrong with that. It is a fact of life. My point is that what used to be far less common is now becoming almost the rule. It does put a lot of people in a difficult position.

 

[Xantippe]

I thought you said men face significantly less risk than women?

It wouldn’t just be just danger of sexual assault, but also temptation.

Presumably, a married man out drinking with friends is subject to just as much temptation as a married woman out drinking with friends.

Yes, but it is still a risk.

Yes it is, isn’t it.

Anyway, the difference here is with single women and married women. As soon as a woman is married, all unrelated men who are not her husband are strangers. It is perfectly licit for a single man to go to a candlelit dinner with a single woman. If they are married to different people, it becomes illicit.

How would you feel about your hypothetical future wife doing a work dinner with multiple male colleagues?

Bonus question: Do you feel that it would be OK for you to do a work dinner with multiple female colleagues?

Extra bonus: How would you feel about your hypothetical future wife going on an overnight business trip?

And how would you feel about yourself as a married man doing overnight business trips?

 

[Xantippe]

Prison rape is a homosexual power display.

Which raises that a possibility that a lot of heterosexual activity is also a power display…

In fact, that’s what the Red Pill is all about–continually struggling for the upper hand, no matter how futile it is and how unhappy and lonely it makes the guy to do so.

And yes, women who try to always get the upper hand in their marriages are also going to be unhappy–but fortunately those are not the only two options.

Do you see any differences between the roles of men and women that aren’t exclusively biological?

I think biology is very important, but it’s also very complex. There’s a lot of overlap between men and women’s personality types, while at the same time, there can be dramatic differences between people of the same sex. For example, my husband and I are both fairly introverted. In that respect, we resemble each other more than we resemble extroverts of our own sex. Males and females on the autism spectrum also have a lot in common. There are a lot of different axes for comparison. I’m a spectrummy woman with two spectrummy daughters (a very unusual category), so this is a major interest of mine. I think the Red Pill tends to exaggerate personality similarities between people of the same sex and differences between the sexes, and to downplay important similarities between minorities within each sex.

(Edited to add: It’s not uncommon for spectrummy women to feel alienated by conventional femininity.)

And then you have to add in upbringing and culture, and they affect sex differences in various ways. For example, I’m from a WASP family that valued the stiff upper lip while my husband is from an ethnic family and much better than me at pouring on the empathy. I sometimes feel like, “I’ve said “there, there” and given you a Tylenol and some water–what more could I possibly do for you?” So, in the American context, we’re somewhat gender-reversed, but neither of us is that unusual within our specific ethnic context.

I also am a transplant living in the South, and in my experience, upper middle class Southern men are have somewhat stereotypically feminine instincts with regard to not giving offense and considering other people’s feelings.

American men also present as being emotionally “softer” than Russian men. (When I lived in Russia, I noted that sober American men are as emotionally expressive as Russian men who have been drinking.)

Lea101 might have some thoughts on the relationship between sex and culture.

Beyond that, only women can be mothers and only men can be fathers.

tldr; Yes, there are a lot of differences, but it’s complicated, and I don’t think we should make gender into a Procrustean bed.

Procrustes - Wikipedia

 

[PetraG]

I’m not sure that you’ve solved the problem for ChunkMonk.

I asked about the woman in the “Jack” story, “If she had known any of them for 3+ years, would they stop being strangers at some point?”

ChunkMonk replied, “No. Inaofar as one is going to trust one’s very life to them… They remain strangers regardless of how long one has known them. Also, I was speaking from the man’s point of view. Insofar as his woman is concerned, anyone not related is a stranger.”

So, again, we have the problem–how is a woman supposed to ever get married, if all unrelated men are automatically untrustworthy strangers, and there’s no mechanism for determining if a man is trustworthy or for moving him from the “scary stranger” to the “trusted protector” role?

I suppose logically speaking, we could just marry our cousins, but look at the Habsburgs…

If he’s saying that you shouldn’t go to bed with someone you don’t trust enough to marry, I don’t have a quarrel with that. Divine law is not arbitrary. Should you be aware that people are prone to try to irresponsibly pressure others into doing stupid and dangerous things when one or both parties have had too much liquor? Of course everyone should! Drunkenness is not an excuse for the victim, but you and I both know that the consequences for the victim was the experience of being victimized. The self-flagellation is practically a given if the victim’s situation had anything whatsoever to do with a risk willingly taken on, even when someone is merely robbed by being careless with their belongings! Who doesn’t know that? Who thinks that being in the right undoes the crime? No one.

The “there is no honor among thieves” argument does go both ways. Having said, that, sex outside of marriage is objectively wrong. It is a mortal sin. Our highest priority has to be preventing people from being coerced into having sex with anyone, ever, regardless of the circumstances. Sexual cooperation should never be extracted under duress, but this must be particularly true outside of marriage. If at any point someone decides he or she is going to change their mind and not commit a mortal sin, of course we have to defend that last-minute impulse!! Otherwise, we’re saying that someone has a right to expect you to commit a mortal sin with them because they had come to believe you were willing!! That’s really a messed-up view for a Catholic to have!

No, no contract to break the law is binding. No understanding to be complicit in a mortal sin is binding. The choice to turn away from sin and to virtue must be a given.

 

[Xantippe]

If he’s saying that you shouldn’t go to bed with someone you don’t trust enough to marry,

Have a look at his previous stuff about “strangers.” I believe he means that one shouldn’t trust any unrelated people not to do one harm if the possibility presents, and that it doesn’t matter how long one has known unrelated people–they never stop being strangers.

(This is where I mention my relative the pedophile–just being related doesn’t make a person safe.)

 

[ChunkMonk]

Presumably, a married man out drinking with friends is subject to just as much temptation as a married woman out drinking with friends.

No. The woman is subject to far more temptation, and is far less capable of resisting it. Only the idiocy of the modern world has tried to teach the reverse.

How would you feel about your hypothetical future wife doing a work dinner with multiple male colleagues?

Any man dumb enough to allow it deserves whatever he gets.

Do you feel that it would be OK for you to do a work dinner with multiple female colleagues?

Any man dumb enough to do so deserves whatever he gets.

How would you feel about your hypothetical future wife going on an overnight business trip?

Any man dumb enough to allow it deserves whatever he gets.

And how would you feel about yourself as a married man doing overnight business trips?

It would suck, but sometimes life sucks.

 

[ChunkMonk]

Tl;dr: no you don’t see any.

Well I do. And I’ll act and believe accordingly.