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

[ChunkMonk]

What was the point of your working-with-lions analogy if you didn’t mean to say that the average man is dangerous, predatory and unpredictable?

Did I say the average man was a lion?

As at least one other person (Lea?) has mentioned, teaching girls to fear men is normal old school conservative parenting–

That’s just good parenting.

but if you have a daughter, you have to worry about all the boys. (He had two daughters, poor guy.)

That’s because bad boys don’t wear signs saying they are bad boys.

 

[Fauken]

Why don’t you tell me what tangible benefit comes from universal suffrage?

Edit: tangible benefit to society.

Let me say for starters that I am no fan of democracy nor voting, and I will not defend it. I agree that not everyone should have the right to vote. For example, people who are mentally handicapped should not vote. I do not understand, however, why an entire group of people should be excluded from the democratic process on the basis of their sex, and I would like to hear your reasoning on it.

I wouldn’t let them serve on juries though.

If you’d allow women to be hired as lawyers to argue cases before the court, why not let them be jurors?

 

[Xantippe]

What about jobs? Could women become secretaries? Nurses? Engineers? Lawyers? What kind of jobs could women do?

Here’s a funny thing–Red Pill comment threads often combine the two following views:

a) Women shouldn’t work in male-dominated professions (see ChunkMonk’s statement about working with lions) because men deserve those jobs, male spaces, blah blah blah.

but

b) Female dominated professions aren’t “real” work and women owe men for doing the hard, sweaty man jobs.

The Red Pill is Double Bind Land.

Why don’t you tell me what tangible benefit comes from universal suffrage?

Taxation with representation, and the ability to have an influence on the laws that one is going to be living under and held responsible for obeying.

Also, come to think of it, if women were docile enough to vote away their suffrage, why would you need to vote away their suffrage?

Sure. If they get hired. I would allow discrimination in hiring. I wouldn’t let them serve on juries though.

Great. So, women don’t get to have an influence on the law, don’t get to sit on juries, but are supposed to pay taxes and obey the laws they have no influence over? That’s how felons are treated nowadays, and even felons can get the vote back in a lot of states. So, law-abiding women are worse than felons?

Did I say the average man was a lion?

Yeah. If working with men is like working with lions, then the average guy is like a lion.

But the lions get to vote and the gazelle doesn’t get to vote. That will work out swell.

That’s just good parenting.

Moments ago you were criticizing young me for for thinking men were scary.

That’s because bad boys don’t wear signs saying they are bad boys.

Indeed.

 

[Xantippe]

If you’d allow women to be hired as lawyers to argue cases before the court, why not let them be jurors?

Or be judges, come to think of it.

 

[ChunkMonk]

If you’d allow women to be hired as lawyers to argue cases before the court, why not let them be jurors?

Tocqueville talks about this. The jury is the actual application of the vast majority of the law, and thus presents an even greater social power than voting. It qould be useless to weaken women’s power in voting on laws but then give them the ultimate authority to decide how and when those laws apply.

 

[ChunkMonk]

Here’s a funny thing–Red Pill comment threads often combine the two following views:

Not that I agree they are mutually exclusive ideas, but I never said either.

Taxation with representation, and the ability to have an influence on the laws that one is going to be living under and held responsible for obeying.

Also, come to think of it, if women were docile enough to vote away their suffrage, why would you need to vote away their suffrage?

The first is not a tangible benefit, and the second has no clear benefit to society.

And who said anything about women getting to vote on this?

Yeah. If working with men is like working with lions, then the average guy is like a lion.

So if I work at the zoo, and one of the zoo creatures is a lion, suddenly the rhino and the monkey are lions too?

Moments ago you were criticizing young me for for thinking men were scary.

No, I was criticizing young you for not understanding the difference between:

“You don’t know which guys are the bad ones so be careful around all of them.”

And

“All men are beasts with no self control.”

Nuance…

 

[Fauken]

Tocqueville talks about this. The jury is the actual application of the vast majority of the law, and thus presents an even greater social power than voting. It qould be useless to weaken women’s power in voting on laws but then give them the ultimate authority to decide how and when those laws apply.

Which then leads me to my next question, and I think @Xantippe touched on this: Why exclude women from law? Also, wouldn’t lawyers (and particularly judges) also have a say on the interpretation and application of laws?

 

[ChunkMonk]

No women judges either, I thought that was obvious.

As to why… Too long to explain. Maybe later.

 

[Xantippe]

And who said anything about women getting to vote on this?

Since women have the vote, we’d need to vote for candidates who were pushing for de-franchising us in order for women to lose the vote. And the Supreme Court would still probably throw it out. I don’t know how reliable this source is,

Who's More Likely to Vote: Women or Men?

Who is more likely to vote, women or men? Are there gender differences in voter turnout between women and men?

www.thoughtco.com

but they say that US women typically cast 4-7 million more votes than men, so it would be an uphill battle.

I don’t see how women get de-franchised in the US through democratic processes, unless we’re doing a violent overthrow of the government, which I do not recommend.

How do you envision US women losing the vote?

No women judges either, I thought that was obvious.

As to why… Too long to explain. Maybe later.

Looking forward to it!

You might want to take a look at Judges 4 in the Bible.

Female judges are biblical!

 

[ChunkMonk]

How do you envision US women losing the vote?

I don’t. But then again, I also think we’re ‘in the days before Noah’.

 

[Xantippe]

I don’t. But then again, I also think we’re ‘in the days before Noah’.

Come to think of it, how is male suffrage any more biblical or traditional than female suffrage?

Female European monarchs were not the usual thing, but also not uncommon (see Elizabeth I and Mary I of England and Elizabeth and Catherine the Great of Russia).

I was not very familiar with Elizabeth (daughter of Peter the Great), but this is pretty exciting stuff:

Elizabeth of Russia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

“The guards repaid her kindness when, on the night of 25 November 1741, Elizabeth seized power with the help of the Preobrazhensky Regiment. Arriving at the regimental headquarters wearing a warrior’s metal breastplate over her dress and grasping a silver cross she challenged them: “Whom do you want to serve: me, your natural sovereign, or those who have stolen my inheritance?” Won over, the regiment marched to the Winter Palace and arrested the infant Emperor, his parents, and their own lieutenant-colonel, Count von Munnich. It was a daring coup and, amazingly, succeeded without bloodshed. Elizabeth had vowed that if she became Empress she would not sign a single death sentence, an extraordinary promise for the time but one which she kept throughout her life.”

 

[HarryStotle]

Yes, I am starting to get the picture that it’s very hard to educate people who don’t wish to be educated.

If you are really interested in “educating” someone, …anyone, you might try toning down the master-pupil relationship, as if only one side of the issue needs to be “educated.” Presuming that there is only one adult in the “classroom” is just slightly condescending and betrays something of your hidden assumptions.

Why not just move to using words such as “indoctrinate,” “train,” “re-educate,” and the like, to be completely candid about the direction in which you presume the information must necessarily flow concerning the issue?

 

[ChunkMonk]

Come to think of it, how is male suffrage any more biblical or traditional than female suffrage?

Actually I’m not sure that suffrage of any kind is “biblical”… Are there any instance of democracy in the Bible at all? I mean democracy is obviously not outlawed, but I don’t think it’a exactly supported either.

Anyway, the argument isn’t necessarily: this thing is not traditional therefore it is not good. More like, every major problem in our society seems to all tie back to this thing in some way, so maybe we should take a look at this thing.

 

[DarkLight]

Anyway, the argument isn’t necessarily: this thing is not traditional therefore it is not good. More like, every major problem in our society seems to all tie back to this thing in some way, so maybe we should take a look at this thing.

Except a lot of these major problems only tie back by some extremely strained logic that seems to whitewash the past and assume any change that happens anywhere near the same time as feminism must therefore be directly attributable to feminism. I don’t see any evidence that this whole trend of sexual harassment is a new thing, just that it’s something that now has more consequences. (It’s somewhat similar to the attention being drawn to child abuse nowadays - a lot of older people report there was an “all in the family” attitude in previous generations where people looked the other way at things that would now draw intervention.)

And as I’ve pointed out - things like this aren’t just about educating the kind of men who would commit assault - although I actually do think some of that can be educated. There really are a men who will convince themselves that certain coercive situations don’t really count. An example I saw not too long ago was a guy saying he didn’t force the woman to have sex, he just made it so she couldn’t get up until they had sex, and now she was falsely accusing him of rape. But a lot of the education isn’t aimed at the guys who target women - it’s aimed at telling decent men what women actually experience. To get away from things like “well, I would never personally do that, but she did agree to be alone with him, and you can’t really expect a guy to stop in that situation.”

 

[Lea101]

so maybe we should take a look at this thing.

Except you mean ‘reverse’ it without actually using critical thinking to see why and how these problems were created.

The fact that you think the women here are liberal feminists says a lot about you, and unfortunately, the other MRA guys here. Unless your definition of a feminist is exactly like what feminists would say: a woman should have equal rights. Then most of us here, men included, are ‘feminists’.

That being said though, I’m genuinely sorry for whoever that rejected you/hurt/abused you to the point where you had to adopt such views

 

[Xantippe]

Actually I’m not sure that suffrage of any kind is “biblical”… Are there any instance of democracy in the Bible at all? I mean democracy is obviously not outlawed, but I don’t think it’a exactly supported either.

So, why take suffrage away from just women?

Anyway, the argument isn’t necessarily: this thing is not traditional therefore it is not good. More like, every major problem in our society seems to all tie back to this thing in some way, so maybe we should take a look at this thing.

I agree with DarkLight that that’s a bit of a stretch. Do you seriously think that the US had no problems before 1919? Also, a lot of cultural changes since then have been driven more by technological developments (cars, mechanization, birth control, modern medicine, TV, computers, internet, smart phones, social media, etc.) more than by ideology.

 

[ChunkMonk]

That being said though, I’m genuinely sorry for whoever that rejected you/hurt/abused you to the point where you had to adopt such views

You’re sorry for the person who hurt me? Does that mean you’re sorry they had to tolerate me, or are you apologizing for them? Where do you get off being sorry for someone else?

Also this is literally the most condescending and backhanded comment I’ve ever recieved on here. That kind of dismissiveness dressed up as compassion… I hate that more than anything. It’s so fake and snarky. I like people who are honest. If you want to insult me, just insult me.

 

[Lea101]

Apologizing for them. Settle down now.

 

[Xantippe]

If you are really interested in “educating” someone, …anyone, you might try toning down the master-pupil relationship, as if only one side of the issue needs to be “educated.” Presuming that there is only one adult in the “classroom” is just slightly condescending and betrays something of your hidden assumptions.

When I used the word “educate,” I was using ChunkMonk’s phrasing.

Your silly little “we need to educate men” line is dumb for precisely that reason: the men who are receptive to ‘education’ in this area are already educated. The men who engage in rape/molest/harass behavior are men who heard your education and rejected it.

Come to think of it, where and when are people supposed to learn about consent and not raping people? I feel like we eternally toggle between these two poles:

a) Don’t tell me anything about consent! I know everything I need to know without ever talking about it! Don’t talk down to me!

and

b) How was I supposed to know? Nobody ever told me!

 

[ChunkMonk]

Except a lot of these major problems only tie back by some extremely strained logic that seems to whitewash the past and assume any change that happens anywhere near the same time as feminism must therefore be directly attributable to feminism.

I can’t think of a single problem that can be solved through the political process… Why? Because women will vote against it en masse. Of course you probable don’t see most of them as problems or are even capable of seeing how they connect. Hence the futility of discussing this. We live in two completely different worlds and ne’er shall the two meet.

An example I saw not too long ago was a guy saying he didn’t force the woman to have sex, he just made it so she couldn’t get up until they had sex

Forgetting to mention: she laid down with him of her own free will.

That’s where the “playing with fire and whining when you get burned” lesson should have kicked in. Unfortunately she probably had blue-pilled parents.

To get away from things like “well, I would never personally do that, but she did agree to be alone with him, and you can’t really expect a guy to stop in that situation.”

She really can’t expect every guy to stop in that situation. That’s what I mean. Y’all want men to create a ‘safe’ hookup for girls. There is no safe evil. Sow evil and you’ll reap it. And this will really make you mad, but that is a good thing.