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

[Xantippe]

You realize you are deflecting?

Nah, I just think it’s funny that this guy is exhuming 1970s feminism and selling it to conservative young men.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

You realize you are deflecting?

Nah, I just think it’s funny that this guy is exhuming 1970s feminism and selling it to conservative young men.

I find it even funnier that you can offer as a retort to a world-class clinical psychologist who has studied all facets of human psychology – in particular, the sources and nature of ideological perspectives, including feminism – for almost forty years, your analysis that he is “exhuming” and reselling “1970s feminism.”

I am reasonably sure that he has analyzed the origin and rise of 1970s feminism from a psychological perspective and could provide an in-depth explanation for it.

I will provide that when I find it, but not for your sake – for others who are interested in the topic and want to get a handle on why you are so gravely mistaken.

 

[Xantippe]

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

We’ve just had a long discussion about how going for a drive to a National Park with a college boyfriend from a small, very conservative Catholic college is imprudent and likely to lead to being raped. I’ve also gotten to hear how being alone with a guy I’d been seeing for over 5 months was imprudent. So I’m really confused by what approach you are recommending. Women are apparently supposed to be always operating on the assumption that any guy that they are dating may be a rapist (and taking appropriate precautions), but you also apparently don’t like me to spell out the idea that women need to act as though any guy that they are dating is a rapist–which is essentially the view that you and ChunkMonk have been endorsing.

This is very confusing, and as you and I both agree, it doesn’t make sense to get engaged to and marry a likely rapist.

More in a bit.

 

[Xantippe]

Continued!

Theo520 is right that first dates tend to be in very public locations, but what then? Is one supposed to stick to dates in public places throughout courtship and engagement, and only be alone with the guy after marriage? That is theoretically possible and probably safer during dating and engagement, but the problem is that this solution means that the woman has no idea what the guy is really like if she’s only seen him around other people, hasn’t seen what he’s like when home alone, hasn’t seen him in her home, and has only seen him in a relatively narrow range of activities. Taken to the logical conclusion, couples won’t even ever drive anywhere together alone or so much as go for a nature walk alone. This isn’t at all theoretical–the Duggars and conservative Protestants with similar theology do this for courtship (and also do chaperones for public dates).

Never alone is low risk during dating/engagement and very high risk for marriage, because of the risk of discovering that the other person is profoundly different in private than in public and that you’ve only been seeing a fraction of who they are. And now you’re married to them…

If we’re rejecting the “never alone” model, that means that at some point between the first date and marriage, the couple is going to need to spend some time alone. So, when should that happen? And can we agree not to automatically blame women for being raped if they spend time alone with a serious boyfriend?

I think a lot of these discussions about personal safety ignore the fact that the end game for Catholic dating is marriage, and that the kind of dating that is done needs to serve the purpose of helping young people find out who they are dating, find a good match, and figure out how to build a life together. This is a risky process, but as they say, fortune favors the bold.

(For simplicity, I wrote this as if a couple that starts dating will get married–I realize that there are usually more false starts than that.)

 

[HarryStotle]

A good talk on the differences between men and women. Not particularly addressing feminism but addressing the underlying psychological differences.

 

[Xantippe]

A good talk on the differences between men and women. Not particularly addressing feminism but addressing the underlying psychological differences.

It might be a nice service to the CAF community to summarize the main points of the video, which is over 13 minutes long.

 

[HarryStotle]

Something always gets lost in the summarization.

 

[Lea101]

Umm no bro.

If you have dipped your toes into psychology, you would know that it’s impossible for him to have studied all facets of psychology. Like they’re so vastly different from each other that he wouldn’t be a good psychologist if he actually did that. (just in case you think psychology is all about personality and evolution and all that jazz: it’s reeeaaaallly not)

I also wouldn’t put so much faith into one person. Not everything he teaches are facts, you know that. He is known for exaggerating and focusing on details without the big picture at times (e.g. What you are discussing). People with theories tend to do that. I see he’s very into evolutionary psychology, more so than any psychologist I’ve seen. He definitely adds something new to the table but again, theories. Something to consider, not to add as fact.

This is not to say that everything he teaches are wrong, I will be the first to say that some of the things he say can easily match our textbooks. But I hope you are using some critical thinking here. He’s known for having mindless fans who follow him on what he say rather than logic or accuracy. He isn’t God and not everything he says are 100% facts.

 

[Rozellelily]

I haven’t heard his talk but if that’s what he says then his reasoning is wrong and poorly formed.
Women get raped in countries too like Saudi Arabia even when wearing a full abaya or whatever.
A lot of women in Egypt report they have been sexually harassed and not just women who dress modern but also those who dress “traditional”.

 

[ATraveller]

From BBC News on YouTube:

A number of women have taken to social media to say they’ve been sexually assaulted during the Hajj pilgrimage

 

[HarryStotle]

Umm no bro.

If you have dipped your toes into psychology, you would know that it’s impossible for him to have studied all facets of psychology. Like they’re so vastly different from each other that he wouldn’t be a good psychologist if he actually did that. (just in case you think psychology is all about personality and evolution and all that jazz: it’s reeeaaaallly not)

I didn’t say he specializes in all facets.

It wouldn’t be “impossible” to study to some extent all facets of any discipline, so your point is rather pointless.

I also wouldn’t put so much faith into one person. Not everything he teaches are facts, you know that. He is known for exaggerating and focusing on details without the big picture at times (e.g. What you are discussing). People with theories tend to do that. I see he’s very into evolutionary psychology, more so than any psychologist I’ve seen. He definitely adds something new to the table but again, theories. Something to consider, not to add as fact.

I don’t see any factual evidence from you for “… is known for exaggerating and focusing on details without the big picture at times…,” so, following your advice, I’ll refrain from trusting much else you have to say on the subject, absent that evidence.

This is not to say that everything he teaches are wrong, I will be the first to say that some of the things he say can easily match our textbooks. But I hope you are using some critical thinking here. He’s known for having mindless fans who follow him on what he say rather than logic or accuracy. He isn’t God and not everything he says are 100% facts.

Whether or not a tiny fraction of his fans are “mindless” is neither here nor there. (Are you claiming THAT as a “fact,” by the way?) Even Jesus is known to have mindless and even treacherous “fans” who have used or distorted his teachings. I tend to ignore such things – it takes all kinds, as they say.

Peterson is, in fact, a clinical psychologist, meaning that he has helped many in the past who have, colloquially speaking “lost their minds.” Are those the “mindless” you are referring to? You really ought to be kinder.

Not sure why you bring up that he isn’t God, as if that is at all a pertinent or a critical fact.

And, of course, not everything anyone says is “100% facts.” That is part of the human condition. We all have to make well-reasoned judgements on many things all of the time.

Until you have some significant and relevant points to make regarding Peterson’s position on some issue or other your general comments haven’t been very helpful, thoughtful, or involving much in the way of critical thinking. So, I guess <100% facts trumps the 0% facts you have presented.

 

[Lea101]

your general comments haven’t been very helpful, thoughtful, or involving much in the way of critical thinking. So, I guess <100% facts trumps the 0% facts you have presented

Are those the “mindless” you are referring to? You really ought to be kinder.

Your response was definitely predictable, to be quite honest. So were your other responses where you had to reach substantially. You could ignore the points made and rely on the semantics, repeat yours and mask your irrationality with cute buzz words to disguise it as logical thinking. And I could fall for it, but that’s barely a conversation, isn’t it? I said what I said. So has other people in this thread. I could reply with the actual flaws in your reasoning (and his) but someone has beat me to it. Just think for yourself, don’t become a fan.

It’s pretty ironic (that this came from you) but oh well. Have fun, this thread has lost its purpose. I can guess what would be your next response, too. Which would be unnecessarily smug, no doubt, but it’s silly of me to expect less!

 

[HarryStotle]

Your response was definitely predictable, to be quite honest.

Anything is “predictable,” …after the fact. The real challenge is “predicting” things before they occur.

If my responses are predictable, why bother answering them?

Why not cut to the chase and tell us how the entire “conversation” ends?

Even better, why not just do my thinking for me? That would save me a great deal of energy.

 

[HarryStotle]

I could reply with the actual flaws in your reasoning (and his) but someone has beat me to it.

Really? Where was that?

Or are you “predicting” that will happen down thread?

 

[Lea101]

Why not cut to the chase and tell us how the entire “conversation” ends?

One of the predictable responses would be you calling me a feminist even though I have said that I don’t support the current wave of feminism, but it would not matter to you because it seems like people label each other that to get a rise out of someone? I mean it has already happened here, why not another person? (and basically whatever I just said in my previous response)

As for how it ends, the thread would probably be locked, lol. But predicting our conversation specifically, I am probably not going to bother after this reply. I have bigger worries in my life at the moment and someone is probably going to continue this conversation. Assuming yall are not exhausted as I am…which is extraordinary. I’m not cut out for meaningless conversations over a long period of time. No point when both are set in their ways.

 

[DarkLight]

The actual assault I experienced was from a boyfriend who I had reasons to believe was committed to Catholic moral teaching and had known for some time.

But regarding the original point - one example that comes to mind is, if you’re a renter, the landlord and anyone he’s hired to take care of the property have a key to your apartment. I have had a worker nearly walk in on me in a state of undress, because I wasn’t expecting anyone to come by and when I didn’t answer the door he let himself in (I was expecting a delivery where they leave it on your step if you don’t answer). If he’d had ill intentions I would have been completely vulnerable, and there’s very little I could do to protect myself that’s actually financially feasible, unless I have someone else safe to live with.

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?

There’s some pretty thorough studies that women who do that are seen as less professional by male bosses than women who dress in traditionally feminine ways. The pant suit is still seen as a stereotype of the ugly feminist. Unfortunately there’s an association that being feminine means prizing the aesthetic over the functional, to the point where a woman who does the other way around is either sloppy or uncomfortably masculine.

I’ve also mentioned another reason I wear makeup - it makes me look older. My natural looks tend to a decade younger than I actually am, and that can be a hindrance in certain jobs where you need people to accept that you know what you’re doing. Since I’m not actually fresh out of high school, I don’t see any deception in trying to look like I’m not fresh out of high school.

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.

One thing I’d point out is that stuff about the dangers of extramarital sexual activity combined with really terrible ideas of consent are where you get lots of problems. If you set up a situation where non-consensual sex is treated as consensual and there’s serious consequences for having consensual sex

 

[DarkLight]

With all those subtle cues you picked up, you seem to be omitting the lesson that any premarital sex was a sin for both man and women.

The way it was put, it was a sin for both man and woman. But it was a somewhat more forgivable sin for the man, while it was a major responsibility for the woman to not tempt the man to it. There was a lot of talk about how the male sex drive was almost irresistibly strong and men are constantly fighting their natural state of thinking about sex all the time, while women didn’t naturally desire sex except as a way to please men. Both men and women were supposed to refrain from premarital sex, but it was seen as an understandable sin for men (probably caused by an immodest woman).

 

[Rozellelily]

OP /others -In the context of the Metoo movement, what do you believe constitutes sexual harassment as opposed to “just” sleazy or unprofessional behaviour?
In other words,how would you define it?

 

[Xantippe]

what do you believe constitutes sexual harassment as opposed to “just” sleazy or unprofessional behaviour?

I think there’s a large overlap between those categories.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Why not cut to the chase and tell us how the entire “conversation” ends?

One of the predictable responses would be you calling me a feminist even though I have said that I don’t support the current wave of feminism, but it would not matter to you because it seems like people label each other that to get a rise out of someone? I mean it has already happened here, why not another person? (and basically whatever I just said in my previous response)

Could you point out where I called you a feminist? I honestly don’t recall doing that.

So either your powers of recall match your predictive powers, or your powers of recall match your predictive powers.

As for how it ends, the thread would probably be locked, lol. But predicting our conversation specifically, I am probably not going to bother after this reply. I have bigger worries in my life at the moment and someone is probably going to continue this conversation. Assuming yall are not exhausted as I am…which is extraordinary. I’m not cut out for meaningless conversations over a long period of time. No point when both are set in their ways.

You are admitting to being set in your ways?



As for me the only “way” I am “set” in is the unwavering desire to know and follow the truth. Everything else is up for grabs.