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

[Lea101]

Naah. They believe rape is real…just too incredibly rare.

Although if the accused fits a certain demographic…whole innocent till proven guilty thing is thrown out…or at least they’re more likely to care about rape.

 

[TheAmazingGrace]

I’m not familiar with Jason Evert, but that seems not uncommon among chastity writers for the younger audience.

His tendency to over-romanticize stuff gets under my skin, too.

“Marrying as a virgin is the best thing ever, and your wedding night is gonna be so special and wonderful and beautiful!”
Nah dude. It’s probably gonna be super awkward and (if you’re a woman) at least a little painful.

“Women are the pinnacle of creation, and their beauty is unrivaled by anything else on earth!”
A lot of us are bitter, tired, plain-looking, depressed, stressed, frustrated, confused, lost, and otherwise not radiating beauty. Putting us on this pedestal feels disingenuous.

“You need to be modest to keep your beauty from overwhelming men!”
I need to be modest because it’s what God wants. I doubt anybody’s gonna be impressed if I take my clothes off.

“Marriage is a reflection of the glory of Heaven!”
Guess I’ll be setting up shop in Purgatory then.

 

[TheAmazingGrace]

I guess rape is real…just so long as the guy is Muslim.

Even then, that argument feels less like concern for trauma sustained by the victim, and more “those brown people are tainting our women!”

 

[Xantippe]

“Marrying as a virgin is the best thing ever, and your wedding night is gonna be so special and wonderful and beautiful!”

Nah dude. It’s probably gonna be super awkward and (if you’re a woman) at least a little painful.

facepalm

So, he’s one of the guys that does that.

And the thing is, his audience mostly won’t know enough to realize how bogus that promise is.

“You need to be modest to keep your beauty from overwhelming men!”

I need to be modest because it’s what God wants. I doubt anybody’s gonna be impressed if I take my clothes off.

Funny!

“Marriage is a reflection of the glory of Heaven!”

Guess I’ll be setting up shop in Purgatory then.

Ooooh!

Maybe correct to, “A happy marriage is a reflection of the glory of heaven”?

Why do parents and pastors go for this stuff? Or do they not realize what the content is?

 

[Lea101]

So, he’s one of the guys that does that.

And the thing is, his audience mostly won’t know enough to realize how bogus that promise is.

In his defense, whatever he says seems to be working with young teens. He actually led me to other speakers. He’s not for me (could be the psych nerd in me but I don’t like how he and other catholic speakers tend to use studies wrongly) but something good came out of it.

His wife did a good talk about women seeking healing from sexual assault though. At least good for the intended audience. I think it’s called Women Made New.

 

[TheAmazingGrace]

Why do parents and pastors go for this stuff? Or do they not realize what the content is?

Maybe they just see it as generally promoting good behavior, and don’t have time to think through the implications. It took me years to see the problems with his method of preaching.

 

[TheAmazingGrace]

Maybe correct to, “A happy marriage is a reflection of the glory of heaven”?

Even then…I dunno. God was always a parental figure to me. I never thought of Him or Heaven in sexual terms.

 

[HarryStotle]

ChunkMonk:

I wonder how much dating experience man needs before he loses the “I didn’t know!” Excuse?

That depends, if you happen to be a Muslim “refugee” in Germany, you never do according to one judge.

That is why some German women’s answer to #MeToo is #120dB.

If #MeToo promoters and followers were serious about actually doing something to address the problem in toto and at its roots, they would at least give #120dB a hearing, but they won’t – not even at that volume.

They will find some excuse related to culture or ethnicity and deflect away from the issue for many European women at its most basic – human moral autonomy.

Refer back to the Jordan Peterson video I posted up thread, and also to this interview with Vice.

The more time I spend listening to people and reading forums the more I am convinced that people are not very interested in assessing their own thinking, motivation and responsibility from the perspective of basic, sincere and honest truth. There will always be something to point to, to deflect away from personal moral responsibility and autonomy.

Many just can’t and won’t face their own existence and state of being honestly and head on.

Peterson’s question about why women wear makeup (Cf. the Vice interview) is a perfect example. Of course, there will be denial all around, but mere denial isn’t sufficient to answer the question of why. And to anticipate a possible response: What, then, is the “confidence-raising” mechanism at play in the wearing of makeup or high heels?

I don’t mean to imply, Starship, that you wear makeup and high heels, although in this day and age anything is possible.

Or a corollary question could be, "How does someone gain confidence in themselves by making themselves out to be something they are not – I.e, by “putting on” an artificial face or scaffolding their bodily structural integrity by artificial means?

 

[Xantippe]

Even then…I dunno. God was always a parental figure to me. I never thought of Him or Heaven in sexual terms.

The marriage imagery is biblical and traditional, but I see the issue.

 

[Xantippe]

That is why some German women’s answer to #MeToo is #120dB.

Germans have a stable, economically advanced democracy. They can figure out their own path without any (name removed by moderator)ut from me. (Although if any Germans want to talk, I’m here.)

You know how we feel about it when Europeans lecture us about our issues.

Peterson’s question about why women wear makeup (Cf. the Vice interview) is a perfect example.

I didn’t watch the video, and I don’t typically wear makeup, but here are some reasons:

–cover up acne
–cover up scars
–cover up dark circles under eyes
–keep skin from looking blotchy
–look good for photographs
–look good if going on TV
–some makeup is expected for women in many professional settings

I believe men’s and women’s skin is physiologically rather different.

Is a Manʼs Skin Really Different From a Womanʼs? | Dermalogica®

Let’s explore the real answer and learn how biological differences contribute to different skin conditions plus how we can address them with skin care.

www.dermalogica.com

Men have thicker skin (literally) and more collagen–hence (all things being equal) men’s skin ages better than women’s skin. So, women have to work harder on their skin than men do to get the same results.

What, then, is the “confidence-raising” mechanism at play in the wearing of makeup or high heels?

Well, being taller can give automatic confidence and authority.

We have a long history of electing tall men to the presidency and a female relative who is 6 feet tall has had a brilliant career. Of course, she is very bright and hard-working, but she’s also physically imposing.

For Every Inch Taller You Are, You Make $800 More Per Year

Being tall comes with a host of financial and professional perks.

www.theatlantic.com

" In Western countries, a jump from the 25th percentile of height to the 75th—about four or five inches—is associated with an increase in salary between 9 and 15 percent. Another analysis suggests that an extra inch is worth almost $800 a year in elevated earnings. “If you take this over the course of a 30-year career and compound it,” one researcher told Malcolm Gladwell for his book Blink, “we’re talking about a tall person enjoying literally hundreds of thousands of dollars of earnings advantage.” (The research suggests that height makes only slightly more a difference for men than women.)"

Or a corollary question could be, "How does someone gain confidence in themselves by making themselves out to be something they are not – I.e, by “putting on” an artificial face or scaffolding their bodily structural integrity by artificial means?

Because they are fully dressed and following their societal rules for how professional women ought to look.

Of course that gives confidence.

 

[starshiptrooper]

How long until someone starts a movement to complain about “height privilege”?

 

[HarryStotle]

Germans have a stable, economically advanced democracy. They can figure out their own path without any (name removed by moderator)ut from me. (Although if any Germans want to talk, I’m here.)

You know how we feel about it when Europeans lecture us about our issues.

So #MeToo is only a national phenomenon, involving only Americans?

I thought it was a women’s issue in all modern western nations, including Germany?

It seems to me that you have just deflected and left some women, in Germany, completely out of your sphere of concern by appealing to nationality.

And I thought your concern was for the plight of women. Apparently, it isn’t.

 

[Xantippe]

So #MeToo is only a national phenomenon, involving only Americans?

I thought it was a women’s issue in all modern western nations, including Germany?

It seems to me that you have just deflected and left some women, in Germany, completely out of your sphere of concern by appealing to nationality.

And I thought your concern was for the plight of women. Apparently, it isn’t.

If any German women (and we have at least one) wants to pop in and talk about, I’d be thrilled to talk. (We have at least one 20-something female German resident on CAF.)

Also, what exactly do you want us to do other than what we’re doing? We’re just talking about general principles about consent–anybody who wants to can take the ideas and apply them to their area and particular situation.

Being blessed with a German brother-in-law and a lot of family connections with Germany, I think you greatly overestimate the enthusiasm that Germans have for Americans telling them how to do things. Germans tend to be pretty self-confident that however they are doing something is The One True Way.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Peterson’s question about why women wear makeup (Cf. the Vice interview) is a perfect example.

I didn’t watch the video, and I don’t typically wear makeup, but here are some reasons:

–cover up acne
–cover up scars
–cover up dark circles under eyes
–keep skin from looking blotchy
–look good for photographs
–look good if going on TV
–some makeup is expected for women in many professional settings

…

Men have thicker skin (literally) and more collagen–hence (all things being equal) men’s skin ages better than women’s skin. So, women have to work harder on their skin than men do to get the same results.

What, then, is the “confidence-raising” mechanism at play in the wearing of makeup or high heels?

Well, being taller can give automatic confidence and authority.

So not “confidence and authority” in the reality of who and what the woman is, but placing “confidence and authority” in an illusion, a chimera and unreality.

Nothing like attempting to found a real social order on lies and deceptions, I suppose.

We have a long history of electing tall men to the presidency and a female relative who is 6 feet tall has had a brilliant career. Of course, she is very bright and hard-working, but she’s also physically imposing.

Or a corollary question could be, "How does someone gain confidence in themselves by making themselves out to be something they are not – I.e, by “putting on” an artificial face or scaffolding their bodily structural integrity by artificial means?

Because they are fully dressed and following their societal rules for how professional women ought to look.

Of course that gives confidence.

So, what you are saying is that it is okay for women to sell themselves out, as they are, and betray who and what they are in reality, for the sake of making more money and enhancing their social status, I.e., to be “professional and make more money?”

Being a woman is a mercenary pursuit, then?

Confidence for what?

To gain power and prestige?

What were Christ’s words about least shall be first, and the kingdom not being like earthly kingdoms, based as they are on power and prestige?

Seems anti-Christian, no?

In Roman times it was offer incense at the market in order to participate in economic advancement, so today it is lipstick, rouge and high heels.

You really should watch the Peterson videos. My guess is that you won’t and will deflect as to why you won’t.

 

[Xantippe]

So, what you are saying is that it is okay for women to sell themselves out, as they are, and betray who and what they are in reality, for the sake of making more money and enhancing their social status, I.e., to be “professional and make more money?”

It’s just the female version of suit and tie for a lot of office workers–uncomfortable, but when it’s the norm for your particular profession, you do it.

Bear in mind that historically, feminists have not been super friendly to heels and makeup, and many women avoid them both. I don’t want to/can’t wear heels (bad feet) and mostly just dab on some coverup for special occasions/when I know I’m going to be photographed, but I understand why some women wear a lot more. If/when I go back to work in an office setting, I’ll probably wear more.

Also, it’s not unusual for men to appreciate it when their wives get dolled up.

What were Christ’s words about least shall be first, and the kingdom not being like earthly kingdoms, based as they are on power and prestige?

Believe it or not, most of what married people do in the work place is for the benefit of their families.

If/when I work an office job, it will because that’s what my family needs, and that’s what my husband wants me to do.

You really should watch the Peterson videos. My guess is that you won’t and will deflect as to why you won’t.

I’m not really a video person and I’ve never heard any insight of Peterson’s that impressed me.

But I am certainly happy to read–video is just more of a commitment, harder to skim, and more disruptive when kids are around.

 

[HarryStotle]

It’s just the female version of suit and tie for a lot of office workers–uncomfortable, but when it’s the norm for your particular profession, you do it.

Yeah, no. The equivalence isn’t there. Females could wear pants suits, necklaces and comfortable shoes – you know, more utilitarian and functional than aesthetic. So why do women focus on the aesthetic to the point that the functional is undermined?

I don’t see men wearing heels or undergarments to look taller or more “shapely” to the point of discomfort. Nor selecting makeup colours and fragrances that mimic ripened fruit.

It may be the norm, but the question still could be asked, “Why did those particular behaviours become the norm for women as distinct from the norms for men?”

Yeah, women and men are different, but the question still to be answered is why is it those particular differences that have manifested themselves in the workplace. “It’s just the norm,” doesn’t answer why it is the norm.

Peterson points out a couple of reasons from biological evolution in the second video in particular. He does make a strong case in his other videos for evolution as the reason behind much of the neurocircuitry in the brain; factors which we may slough-off today as inconsequential, but in reality are what ground many of the human behavioural traits manifesting themselves today.

 

[Theo520]

One of my kids got hit by a truck in a crosswalk by a teenage driver who made a left turn with the sun in his eyes and didn’t see three people in a crosswalk.

I learned to never trust traffic crossings. I look both ways and watch any oncoming/slowing traffic for confirmation they are stopping and have seen me. If I don’t see it, I’m ready to stop or retreat.

When people are being unusually foolish or immoral, it’s actually impossible to take enough steps to avoid being harmed by them, unless one becomes a total hermit.

Read what you wrote again, it’s an absurd comparison that doesn’t reflect real life.

It’s really easy to avoid friends and other people when they are being unusually foolish or immoral
If your friends are constantly this way, the answer should be obvious - find new friends. In truth very vew people fit that description.

And again, at what point is it safe for a woman to be alone with a man? Is she supposed to get engaged to a guy that she thinks is going to rape her, given half a chance? Also, does it make any sense to marry a guy, believing that it’s not safe to be alone with him? At some point between meeting a guy and marrying him, it’s prudent to check and see who he is when nobody is watching him.

Here you go again offering an absurd dichotomy of choices with no real world relevance.

Why are you even going on one date with a guy you think is going to rape you, let alone marrying him. This is why first dates tend to be in very public locations, especially if it’s a blind date.

Please stick to the real world in crafting your arguments, not reductio ad absurdum

 

[Xantippe]

Females could wear pants suits, necklaces and comfortable shoes – you know, more utilitarian and functional than aesthetic.

You realize you’re duplicating a lot of 1970s feminist arguments?

 

[Xantippe]

It’s really easy to avoid friends and other people when they are being unusually foolish or immoral

If your friends are constantly this way, the answer should be obvious - find new friends. In truth very vew people fit that description.

That was in response to me saying, “When people are being unusually foolish or immoral, it’s actually impossible to take enough steps to avoid being harmed by them, unless one becomes a total hermit.”

It’s not necessarily friends.

It could just be a careless driver that one isn’t in a position to avoid.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/West/07/16/farmers.market.crash/

For non-clickers, that’s a story of an 86-year-old man who plowed through a farmer’s market in a Buick, killing 9 and injuring dozens, because he mistook the accelerator for the brake.

That’s the sort of situation I have in mind–where the victims have taken reasonable precautions (they were pedestrians in a pedestrian zone), but the perpetrator is unusually foolish, careless or immoral.

Taking this back to the MeToo theme, here’s an example of a guy being unexpectedly unusually immoral:

Tennessee pastor resigns after “sexual incident” with minor

Andy Savage’s resignation is a sign the evangelical church may be changing in the wake of #Metoo.

www.vox.com

That’s the story of a megachurch pastor who. In his youth pastoring days, he was supposed to be driving home a 17-year-old girl from his youth group, but instead drove past her house out to a dark spot on a dirt road and demanded sexual favors.

It is unusually immoral for a youth pastor to do that sort of thing, and obviously neither the girl’s parents, the girl, or the church saw it coming–it’s a massive violation of everybody’s trust for a youth pastor to make sexual overtures to a kid from the group.

I believe that nowadays Catholic parishes are very strict about not allowing volunteers or staff to give rides, but that was back in 1998, and I don’t think people would have blinked at the time at a Protestant youth pastor giving rides home. Again, it’s one of those things that sounds bad in retrospect, but in practice, parents still depend on other people in their communities for rides for teens all the time. We have to trust at least a limited number of people with our kids just to get anything done or to allow our kids to have any sort of social or extracurricular life.

 

[HarryStotle]

You realize you’re duplicating a lot of 1970s feminist arguments?

You realize you are deflecting?

Or are you arguing that it’s 2018 so no need to actually address arguments because time by itself addresses them?