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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxirad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Are you referring to students at college or women with Bachelors degrees?
 
SuperLuigi said:
I meant women in 4-year colleges today.
Click to expand...
That’s going to be really tough, given the demographic stats I mentioned about college, motherhood, marriage, and divorce.

Also, come to think of it, the following are 4-year colleges:

–Christendom
–Franciscan University at Steubenville
–Ave Maria
–Wheaton
–Biola
–Baylor
–Calvin College
–Liberty
–Bob Jones University
–Hillsdale
–Regent University

And there a lot of other small, conservative religious colleges I’m probably missing. Now, some of these are not super strict, BUT all of them have a strong conservative or orthodox presence.

It seems pretty weird to advise fellow Catholic men to walk right past their counterparts who are Christendom graduates. It reminds me of the Jewish joke about the ultra-Orthodox rabbi who winds up in heaven with his flock at the Messiah’s banquet, and cautions his followers only to eat the fruit, because he’s afraid the other food is not kosher enough.
 
Last edited:
Also, come to think of it, church attendance is more common among college graduates.

www.theatlantic.com

Christians Who've Gone to College Are More Likely to Attend Church

New data suggests religious Americans with higher education tend to participate in services more often than their peers.
www.theatlantic.com www.theatlantic.com

" In fact, Catholic, Mormon, and Protestant college grads are all more likely to attend church on a weekly basis than their less educated peers."

" Sixty-eight percent of college-educated evangelical Protestants go to church every week, compared to 55 percent of those who only went to high school. In fact, college grads show up in the church pews more often in nearly every kind of Christian tradition: Among mainline Protestants, weekly attendance was 36 to 31 percent, more educated to less; among black Protestants, 59 to 52 percent; and among Catholics, 45 to 39 percent."

Throwing out women with a 4-year degree from your dating pool means eliminating a lot of marriage-minded, family-minded, religion-minded women.

Plus, whatever ideological stuff you dislike about college, people can pick up just as easily online. Non-college women still have Facebook…
 
TheAmazingGrace said:
You said the way a woman dresses can be an invitation to harass. That’s blaming the victim
Click to expand...
I will say that people who flirt with other people they like while at work (or in class, if students) and then act offended by people whom they decide they don’t like when those people try to flirt are being unprofessional and disingenuous. As much as I defend anyone’s right to associate with whomever they like on their free time, it is problematic at work or in an academic setting. That implies that dressing in a way that is flirtatious is unprofessional. I know everybody wants to wear what they want whenever they want, but if you are in a bar and tell someone to buzz off because his overtures are not welcome it isn’t quite the same as telling a co-worker to buzz off. Employers and schools trying to eliminate behavior that will be interpreted as harassing have a good reason to have a dress code that is more conservative than a lot of people are going to like. That isn’t “victim blaming,” IMHO. That is telling students and employees that there are limits to their “free speech” when they are on someone else’s clock.

It is yet one more good reason to tell people to cut out the flirting until they are off the clock. They’ll live.
 
Last edited:
Had a buddy who went to Christendom. He reported that the college had plenty of feministas in attendance. The odds of meeting a nice girl at one of those colleges are probably slightly better though.
 
Last edited:
That’s the first time here that dressing has been connected specifically to work. Prior to that it’s just been, if you wear certain clothes in public you’re inviting harassment.
 
PetraG said:
Why is it more dangerous to believe people who decide after the fact they have regrets than to take the chance of not believing someone who really was sexually violated, who was subjected to sex without their full consent? I mean, provided that what is required is proof that there was in fact a sexual encounter? What is the danger you’re referring to?
Click to expand...
Proving that there was a sexual encounter is not evidence of rape, unless of course we take the feminist position that all sex is rape.

The danger I am referring to is the destruction of due process and the fact that innocent men will be unfairly condemned.
Do you think the harm of being falsely accused of rape by a woman not your wife with whom you “believed” to be having consensual sex is worse than the harm of not being able to accuse someone who felt free to rape you because you (a) knew him and (b) had chosen to take your clothing off but changed your mind?
Click to expand...
You are always free to accuse someone, civilized society requires evidence to corroborate those accusations. Since that false accusation means a painful and humiliating ordeal for the accused, prison time, potential prison rape, a felony conviction, a spot on the sex offender registry along with the reduced career and housing opportunities, I would say a false accusation can be just as serious as rape if not more so.
Really, if I were to want to have someone afraid, I’d want the people with the accelerators to be afraid of a collision, not the people who wanted to be able to use the brake pedals. Certainly, as a legal matter I can see wanting to be able to legally differentiate between forcing yourself on someone who had welcomed physical intimacies of some sort compared to forcing yourself on someone who doesn’t know you, but that doesn’t mean I think there should be any point at which a person should not have any concern that their partner may later say there was a lack of consent.
Click to expand...
What is it with feminists and their desire that sex should be associated with fear? (but only for men) I already know the correct answer, I just curious what your explanation is.
 
Apparently quoting that post exceeded the character limit so I had to split it.
Some people think that having to get a signed piece of paper in advance is just the worst thing in the world…why should it be? Why should there be sex outside of marriage that carries no concern of unforeseen consequences? Isn’t there already the concern of out-of-wedlock parenthood? If the interest of a child is not protected, sorry, why would I care that the parents have worries that they could be accused of something? It is a realm where people ought to proceed with great caution and realize they don’t have the guarantees that marriage affords. What is so terrible about that, from society’s standpoint? The couple having sex outside of marriage with someone they barely know are a couple of people living dangerously. If they want to do that, they can bear the likely consequences. A false accusation is bad and worth avoiding. It is not remotely as bad as being raped. Not. Even. Close.
Click to expand...
That last sentence is wrong as I already explained. As for the rest of that paragraph, mind telling me what consequences there are for women who have sex outside of wedlock? Contraception is legal, abortion is legal, slut-shamers are shamed, child support is state enforced and you can be forced to pay even if it was not your biological child. You have security guards, police officers, and plenty of men who will happily white knight for free to ensure your safety.
Heaven forbid that we be more worried that a sinner be accused of a sin worse than the one that he or she committed than we be concerned about someone being violated when they were in the midst of committing a serious sin and decided to come to their senses and stop. The preponderance of concern needs to be with the sinner who wants to stop.
Click to expand...
No, the preponderance of concern needs to be focused on following the rules, innocent until proven guilty, and requiring actual proof of guilt.
 
starshiptrooper said:
What is it with feminists and their desire that sex should be associated with fear? (but only for men) I already know the correct answer, I just curious what your explanation is.
Click to expand...
Because it’s been associated with fear for women for a long time, and still is.

(Before you start going on about how feminism cause that - that’s also been the teaching in pretty much every traditional, feminist-shunning community. It’s just framed as “women have to be cautious and treat men with kid gloves” instead.)
 
TheAmazingGrace said:
You said the way a woman dresses can be an invitation to harass. That’s blaming the victim.
Click to expand...
No, it’s not, and I didn’t even say that. I say that women who fear men so should exercise prudence. It’s a nuance. Life is not all black and white.
 
PetraG said:
Um, no, I’m saying that if you’re having sex with a woman who is not your wife (or, if you are female, with a man not your husband) it’s on you to make sure she is totally on board with the encounter from A to Z.
Click to expand...
If anyone is doing that, they are guilty of mortal sin. Do feminists take that into account? I don’t know. I’m not a feminist, and tend to steer clear of them in real life.
 
starshiptrooper said:
Had a buddy who went to Christendom. He reported that the college had plenty of feministas in attendance. The odds of meeting a nice girl at one of those colleges are probably slightly better though.
Click to expand...
Your implication that there’s no overlap between nice girls and feminism made me chuckle. Thanks for the laugh :roll_eyes:
 
ConstantLearner said:
No, it’s not, and I didn’t even say that. I say that women who fear men so should exercise prudence. It’s a nuance. Life is not all black and white.
Click to expand...
Yes it is, and yes you did say that. Your words:

…but I do think women should be cautious about how they dress and not expose too much because doing so is kind of like an invitation to harass and more whether the woman feels that way or not.
 
PetraG said:
will say that people who flirt with other people they like while at work (or in class, if students) and then act offended by people whom they decide they don’t like when those people try to flirt are being unprofessional and disingenuous.
Click to expand...
Flirting isn’t the same as just wearing clothes. Individual people have different ideas of what constitutes sexy wear, and what I regard as simply “comfortable” could be a turn-on to a person with different standards, and vice versa.
 
I’ve had men insist to me that there is no possible reason for a woman to be wearing makeup, unless she wants to get attention from men. :roll_eyes:
 
DarkLight said:
That’s the first time here that dressing has been connected specifically to work. Prior to that it’s just been, if you wear certain clothes in public you’re inviting harassment.
Click to expand...
I meant to restrict the dress code to certain places. Otherwise, I think strangers can be expected not to make personal comments about strangers, except at their own risk.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top