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

[Lea101]

When it is a woman in question, it is something very serious. But if a man writes that article, no one would even give it the time of day.

Did anyone tell you that you’re kind of similar to one of those Sjws? Seriously, stop victimizing yourself on the hypotheticals.

The article would have been picked up because it was somebody famous and journalists would do anything that people would read about. It would have gotten the same amount of attention if the woman was famous enough. Click bait titles would also make sure of that. After people read the article, they would laugh about it and side with the woman like they did with Aziz. Probably the red pill gang would be the ones siding the man, just like how the radical feminists were siding the woman in this case.

 

[Werbenjagermanjensen]

Good article. Thanks for posting it. I thought it summed up the main objections to the metoo movement pretty well.

The elimination of due process

But oh, how time does fly these days. Suddenly Atwood is defending herself from the charge of being a “bad feminist” because she suggested that railroading the accused out of their jobs without any semblance of due process was not, in the end, apt to be a net social improvement.

The tendency to conflate loutish behavior with criminal behavior.

I have now had dozens of conversations about #MeToo with women my age or older, all of which are some variant on “What the hey?” It’s not that we’re opposed to #MeToo; we are overjoyed to see slime like Harvey Weinstein flushed out of the woodwork, and the studio system. But we see sharp distinctions between Weinstein and guys who press aggressively – embarrassingly, adulterously – for sex. To women in their 20s, it seems that distinction is invisible, and the social punishments demanded for the latter are scarcely less than those meted out for forcible rape.

The tendency of the metoo movement to make women seem so powerless and passive.

There’s something else we notice, something that seems deeply connected to these demands for justice: These women express a feeling of overwhelming powerlessness, even though they are not being threatened, either physically or economically. How has the most empowered generation of women in all of human history come to feel less control over their bodies than their grandmothers did?

The futility of education to rein in male sexual desires.

Convincing women as a group to demand better – and leave in an outraged huff if they don’t get it – seems difficult, but at least marginally more likely to work than convincing men that they don’t really want what they quite obviously do. Women are the ones most unhappy with the current state of affairs; they are the ones most likely to be willing to make the initial sacrifice in order to alter it.

 

[Theo520]

There really is a difference between 35 and 22/23 (she was 22 at the time). 13 years ought to mean something in terms of life experience and maturity.

I’m not seeing your point. They met at a party and arranged a hook up date, they certainly weren’t seriously dating. She wasn’t a freshman college girl having her first experience with regular guys.

I also wouldn’t be convinced he had more dating experience than her. He may have his charm now due to career success, but he’s hardly the captain of the football team. I disagree with what he did morally, but I didn’t feel he deserved a #MeToo shaming.

 

[DarkLight]

@ChunkMonk, if women are the way you say, I wonder why any man would want to marry? Not even under the modern system - under your view of women, a traditional Catholic marriage under Catholic rules seems like a very undesirable prospect for a man.

 

[Xantippe]

I disagree with what he did morally, but I didn’t feel he deserved a #MeToo shaming.

I don’t think he did get the full MeToo treatment (and rightly so), but he could have handled the whole thing a lot better.

When you clearly do not want the same things, it’s time to shake hands and say adieu. What’s not cool is trying to arm-wrestle the other person into wanting different things than they actually want–and this is true from either side, and either party can identify the incompatibility and call it quits. This is one of the basic problems of dating: do we actually want the same things? If you don’t want the same things, you should move on as quickly as possible before anybody gets hurt. And that’s true no matter what either party wants if there’s a major incompatibility.

That previous paragraph is what I think a 35-year-old ought to understand, even if a 22-year-old doesn’t.

Bear in mind that kids today are often pretty sheltered in high school, start dating a lot later than previous generations, and that there are a lot of late bloomers among millennials–you’d be surprised how many people are just starting to date in their 20s. They haven’t necessarily been having boyfriends and girlfriends since 12 like 1980s kids.

I have to fess up that I think a guy Aziz Ansari’s age should have a wife and a baby, not be chasing recent college graduates.

Edited to add: ChunkMonk, if you google “Aziz Ansari” you’ll get a good cross-section of what the reactions have been like from major media. I’d say people have been mostly pretty ambivalent. You don’t really get the impression of tar and feathers being prepared. The top story on AA that I’m getting is the first-person story by “Grace.” But then the second one is a NYT story entitled “Aziz Ansari Is Guilty. Of Not Being a Mind Reader.” That’s not exactly a howling mob. The next one I got was Caitlin Flanagan’s “The Humiliation of Aziz Ansari,” which calls the Grace story “revenge porn.”

 

[Xantippe]

I have to say this is not my favorite MM article. I’ll pull out some quotes:

“But we see sharp distinctions between Weinstein and guys who press aggressively – embarrassingly, adulterously – for sex.”

Well, yes. There are obviously distinctions, but I don’t really want to give the second group a cookie for not forcibly raping anybody.

“This idea of hyperconsent is now very popular among feminists, and it would be appealing if it weren’t so totally unworkable. For one thing, because affirmative consent can presumably be withdrawn at any time, including by silence, men would be expected to operate under a perpetual state of uncertainty over whether they still have consent now.”

It’s not a bad thing to pay attention to the person one is being intimate with.

It’s also not that hard to keep tabs on consent.

“Convincing women as a group to demand better – and leave in an outraged huff if they don’t get it – seems difficult, but at least marginally more likely to work than convincing men that they don’t really want what they quite obviously do.”

A lot of men do seem very unhappy about the status quo. In fact, they often believe that everybody else but them is out there having all the sex.

 

[DarkLight]

From a Catholic perspective - it should be no surprise that our “natural” desires can often lead us to behave hurtfully towards other people. The idea that what we want to do and what we ought to do don’t always align is pretty basic to anyone who understands the idea of human sinfulness.

 

[TheAmazingGrace]

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.)

So you basically want a Christian Taliban.

 

[Xantippe]

So you basically want a Christian Taliban.

Nah–just Saudi Arabia.

Totally different!

CM, cultures with your approach to trust are often hellholes, but of course it’s a chicken and egg situation–does low trust cause the hellishness, or does the hellishness cause the low trust? I’d argue that the causality probably works in both directions.

Where Trust is High, Crime and Corruption are Low

Since Communism’s Fall, Social Trust Has Fallen in Eastern Europe

www.pewresearch.org

“Over the last two decades, social scientists have repeatedly suggested that good things tend to happen in societies where people tend to trust each other — they have stronger democracies, richer economies, better health, and they suffer less often from any number of social ills.”

“Among the 47 countries included in the 2007 poll, China had the highest level of social trust: Almost eight-in-ten Chinese (79%) agreed with the statement “Most people in this society are trustworthy.” Although no other Asian nation matches China’s score, levels of trust are relatively high in the region, with majorities in Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, and India saying most people in their respective countries can be trusted. Swedes (78%) came in a very close second to the Chinese on the social trust scale.”

Note that the Asian countries that are high-trust are often much more prosperous than they used to be and part of their upward trajectory may be caused by their high-trust. It’s not just rich countries being more trusting.

While on the one hand the trusting are more vulnerable, low trust exacts a heavy toll on the untrusting–you have to spend a lot of unproductive effort just guarding things that in a high-trust culture, you can just leave unguarded. When the stuff to be constantly guarded includes all the women and girls, it represents an enormous toll on national productivity.

Here’s a Megan McArdle piece on Denmark, a prototypical high-trust country:

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-02-23/you-can-t-have-denmark-without-danes

 

[ChunkMonk]

Sex. The myth of the unicorn. Jesus himself said marriage wasn’t for everyone.

 

[PetraG]

Did anyone ever tell you you’re kind of… Well, I’ve already been warned by the mods. Apparently the strong women here need that male authority to come in and save them from ideas they don’t like.

Anyway, you still don’t understand what I am saying. I don’t blame you. You can’t help needing help. You’re a woman.

A woman being pressured into sex is a problem. Because women are not fully capable. Men being pressured onto sex is not a problem, because men are fully capable. That’s what you and all your feminist sisters actually believe. It’s not about victimhood.

Actually, men have stories, too, particularly around powerful homosexual men in Hollywood, but also around women who identify a situation where they can get away with groping an attractive male without backlash.

“It’s a very taboo subject,” said Alex Winter, an actor and director who said he was sexually abused as a pre-teen child actor. “I don’t know of any boys in any pocket of the entertainment industry that do not encounter some form of predatory behavior. … It’s really not a safe environment.”
…and…
“It’s a pervasive problem in Hollywood,” said Los Angeles attorney Toni Jaramilla, who has represented men in the entertainment industry in sexual harassment cases. She said that men can be coerced into sex or assaulted in professional contexts and are often afraid to speak out: “The common challenge is the fear of not being believed and the fear of having the situation turned around against them, to suggest that they are instigating it, or they are finding opportunities to sleep their way into a role.”

Hollywood actors speak of 'rampant' problem of male abusers targeting men | Sexual harassment | The Guardian

Is it possible that it is easier for an abuser to find a female target? Yes. It is also true, however, that more males are in a position of power that gives them a place to abuse from.

 

[Xantippe]

Apparently the strong women here need that male authority to come in and save them from ideas they don’t like.

Aren’t there any female mods?

Men being pressured onto sex is not a problem, because men are fully capable.

There’s also the differing anatomy and physiology.

It’s just much less feasible for a woman to get a guy who doesn’t want to have sex to have sex. The results of trying to do so might well be unsatisfactory and embarrassing all around.

Look. If you want to marry a beta-cuck, go right ahead.

I’m not convinced that alphas actually exist, or that if they do exist, that it’s in any sort of large numbers, or that even if it was a possibility to marry one that it would be a good idea.

I only know one possible alpha in my social circle, and he often makes terrible decisions that he’s extremely overconfident about. I suspect “alpha” may be manospherese for “narcissist” or “untreated ADHD.”

Alphas are a) mythological and/or b) overrated.

Notice that you almost never hear a married dad (even in the manosphere) even claim to be alpha.

Related: Unicorns are mythological. There aren’t any unicorns, although there are a lot of decent, conscientious women.

But they were hell-holes for tjousands of years while presumably still being “high-trust”

This honestly is the dumbest thing I’ve ever read.

Imperial China was kind of a big deal in Marco Polo’s day.

I find it funny too that you’re like. “Oh yeah, look at these feminist countries. China. Malaysia. Indonesia. Pakistan. India.”

I was giving examples of upwardly mobile countries that used to be poor, in order to preemptively deal with the argument that wealth by itself causes high trust. I was arguing that being high trust can make countries richer.

With regard to feminism, Scandinavian countries (like Denmark) tend to be a) very high trust b) rich and c) very feminist. Historically Anglo-Saxon countries are also a) relatively high trust b) rich and c) traditionally give women a lot of freedom compared to low trust countries. Those three features tend to coincide. It’s not an accident that they do–high trust nations are able to be more productive and are often able to make more efficient use of women’s labor because they don’t spend as many resources guarding their womenfolk.

On the other hand, it’s very hard for low trust countries to achieve prosperity because prosperity requires cooperation, and you’re not going to cooperate if there’s no trust. Low trust is a recipe for economic stagnation. On the individual level, it’s a recipe for isolation and poverty.

 

[Theo520]

I think ‘high trust’ is more about homogeneity in the culture than feminism. Until the recent influx of immigrants, scandinavian countries have been very ‘uniform’ in their cultural beliefs and habits, including the roles around women and family.

At the opposite end of the feminist spectrum you could point to Amish communities. They are uniform in their beliefs and culture, but hardly progressive on gender roles. They are also high trust and very prosperous…

 

[Xantippe]

I think ‘high trust’ is more about homogeneity in the culture than feminism. Until the recent influx of immigrants, scandinavian countries have been very ‘uniform’ in their cultural beliefs and habits, including the roles around women and family.

At the opposite end of the feminist spectrum you could point to Amish communities. They are uniform in their beliefs and culture, but hardly progressive on gender roles. They are also high trust and very prosperous…

I expect there’s a lot of synergy between high trust, prosperity and feminism/greater freedom for women. Greater freedom for women makes cultures more prosperous.

I suspect that in practice ChunkMonk would find the Amish much too progressive on gender. Their teenagers often have a lot of freedom and the women are deeply involved in commerce (all those pies and quilts).

 

[DarkLight]

Look. If you want to marry a beta-cuck, go right ahead.

You know, I haven’t actually seen a decent definition of this whole “alpha” and “beta” mess. It seems like under your system, a woman can either marry a nasty man who bosses her around and treats her like she’s stupid, or a spineless man who pays for her every whim no matter what she does. That’s really not particularly complimentary to men either.

It also seems to pretty much assume that a woman isn’t capable of being faithful unless there’s a strong man to control her. I’ve never found this sort of mess can account very well for women who manage that all on their own. (For reference - I’m almost 30, have been living alone or with roommates for years, and I have yet to jump into bed with a man I’m not married to.)

Sex. The myth of the unicorn. Jesus himself said marriage wasn’t for everyone.

That hardly explains how the vast majority of Catholic men have managed happy married lives.

For that matter, if marriage isn’t for everyone, where does a single woman fit into your system anyway?

 

[Xantippe]

You know, I haven’t actually seen a decent definition of this whole “alpha” and “beta” mess. It seems like under your system, a woman can either marry a nasty man who bosses her around and treats her like she’s stupid, or a spineless man who pays for her every whim no matter what she does. That’s really not particularly complimentary to men either.

Right.

The definitions of “alpha” and “beta” tend to be pretty circular.

It also seems to pretty much assume that a woman isn’t capable of being faithful unless there’s a strong man to control her.

Right. This really isn’t workable, as he has to leave the house sometime, and so does she, if she has a job or normal middle class SAHM responsibilities.

It just isn’t very productive or efficient for one adult to be another adult’s jailer–do that, and you’ll get half as much done as you would if they were each free to do what needs to be done.

I’ve never found this sort of mess can account very well for women who manage that all on their own. (For reference - I’m almost 30, have been living alone or with roommates for years, and I have yet to jump into bed with a man I’m not married to.)

Right.

I’ve been married to my husband for nearly 20 years, and have somehow managed to keep my hands off the Fedex guy and the plumber and the yard guy.

That hardly explains how the vast majority of Catholic men have managed happy married lives.

I wouldn’t say “vast majority” but definitely majority.

The average middle class married dad seems to be doing OK from where I sit.