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

[Rozellelily]

So are you saying that the reason women dress in a manner that mimics ripe fruit is because their male bosses prefer that they do?

Huh?What sort of dress type are you referring to as ripe fruit please?
I wear maxi dresses,shorter dresses,and jeans and no ones ever thought I looked like fruit.

Regarding makeup,noones being deceived as most men usually know that women don’t look totally the same with makeup as they do without.
If the rare man doesn’t know, then that’s really more an issue regarding their socialisation and not regarding make up itself.

Many many people change their looks in some form or another-women and men.Both dye their hair,men might grow a beard or shave it,and so many women and men these days even get nose jobs (rhinoplasty) etc…
If makeup was deceptive then technically all other forms of appearance changes are too.
For example a man might wear a suit on a first date.A suit can make a man look very sharp and in many cases quite different than when he’s wearing casual clothes like a tee shirt.
If he being deceptive? No,because most women know that how he looks in a suit is likely not how he will look in casual wear.

 

[ChunkMonk]

Yet they still screech and cry about how oppressed they are. If I had 2 wishes, my second wish would be to deport every single one who believes they are under an oppressive patriarchy here to ISIS controlled territory.

If they were faced with actual oppression they wouldn’t be complaining nearly as much as they are now. I wonder gow many of them ever think about how many boys died to give them the right to complain and that it was and always has been and always will be the men who do the dying. Probably not. To them it’s just what they deserve merely for existing. Male lives are absolutely valueless to them except insofar as they grease the wheels for the feminist machine.

That probably has some connection to the popularity of 50 Shades of Gray.

I think it’s the contract. Gray is a billionaire, freak who does whatever he wants, but ultimately she is in control because she has the contract. It’s the ‘safe’ hookup. She gets all the thrills of bad-boy Gray and the illusion of danger, but ultimately she is safe because the contract keeps her from any real danger.

Also the herd mentality. It’s not an accident that even men’s products usually target their advertisments to women.

What we need to do is introduce some competition for the American woman. That would go a long way towards solving our problems.

I’ve said it before. I’ll take in all the foreign immigrants they want, as long as it is exclusively single, childless women between the ages of 16-25.

Of course the women are way ahead of us on this one. Which tells you quite a bit about the mental and spiritual damage that has been done to the modern woman. She sacrifices her own children at the altar of social approval, importing foreign warriors into our shores en masse.

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

Too bad Roy Moore wasn’t a Muslim. Then his (alleged) dalliances with 14-year olds would have just been a ‘cultural quirk’ for the feminists of CAF

 

[ChunkMonk]

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,

1. That’s nonsense.
2. Maybe we all need to stop thinking about marriage as finding a soul-mate who checks our boxes and more as a temporary union (no marriage in heaven) with the exclusive purpose of procreation and mutual spiritual fulfillment.

 

[DarkLight]

To them it’s just what they deserve merely for existing.

Human beings deserve basic respect. I shouldn’t be expected to prove I’m the “right” sort of woman in order to be able to be treated decently.

As far as the rest - we don’t refuse to take advil for a toothache because someone else somewhere needs morphine and can’t get it.

Maybe we all need to stop thinking about marriage as finding a soul-mate who checks our boxes and more as a temporary union (no marriage in heaven) with the exclusive purpose of procreation and mutual spiritual fulfillment.

It’s not about the “soulmate” or whatever, it’s about not being stuck living with someone who will behave poorly. Plenty of people in the world put on a nice face when in front of others and turn around to be mean or cruel when no one else is looking, especially if they believe their victim can’t leave. Like the example I used a few posts up - if I have to have a c-section or a tear stitched, I don’t want a guy who’s going to insist on having sex right away.

Lots of religious people do that too, put on a good face in front of others.

And of course none of this applies just to women - although I think it’s more common in a lot of our society for certain men to confuse the respect they’re owed as a human being, with the ability to disrespect others (especially women). And there’s an unfortunate human tendency that when we lose something we never had a right to in the first place, we still tend to see it as someone taking away our rights. If you’ve always gotten 2/3 of the pie and I’ve always gotten 1/3, the natural human reaction isn’t “I’m glad you’re getting your fair share now” but “why are you trying to take my pie?”

 

[ChunkMonk]

Human beings deserve basic respect. I shouldn’t be expected to prove I’m the “right” sort of woman in order to be able to be treated decently.

What obligations do women owe men for maintaining their rights? Since the minute we decided to stop maintaining your rights, they’d be gone.

For a long time, men and women have answered that question as: ‘Nothing. Women owe men nothing for maintaining their rights.’ The majority still give that answer. But it’s changing. More and more men are checking out. We’ll see how long your ‘basic human dignity’ lasts when a large enough percentage of men decide to stop providing it to you for free.

 

[Rozellelily]

To the men that have an issue with the MeToo movement-what is it exactly that you have an issue with?

Eg:
1.Do you perceive it’s a tone of guilty until proven innocent/no due process?
2.Do you believe that in some cases the men are innocent and the woman (accuser) is complicit through her behaviour?
3.Do you feel the movement is “attention seeking”?
4.Do you believe that some of the women (accusers) have misinterpreted innocent or “just” sleazy events as being sexual harassment?
5.Do you feel it paints you/all men as being molesters and harassers?
6.Do you believe it makes you (as a man) afraid of naturally man-woman interactions and friendly or sexual banter in case you are falsely accused?
7.Do you feel some of the women (accusers) are just too uptight?
8.Do you think that the woman/accuser is always being blindly believed without question over the mans version due to the “traction” that the movement has received?

Forgive me as I haven’t read all the thread,so what is the actual issue as you see it?

Coming from a woman,and also one who has received sexual assault when I was a teenager,it might help to be aware that I don’t blindly believe every story just because I hear it and just because of the popularity of a movement.
However,there are certain cases that are just undeniable such as the Harvey Weinstein accusations as they have sold evidence such as tapes recordings etc.

 

[DarkLight]

What obligations do women owe men for maintaining their rights? Since the minute we decided to stop maintaining your rights, they’d be gone.

People owe others their basic rights - nothing about men and women. The problem comes when one side decides their sex means they can lord it over others. Like, say, that their romantic desires means that they can justify mistreating women, because they think being respectful and having a relationship aren’t possible together.

For a long time, men and women have answered that question as: ‘Nothing. Women owe men nothing for maintaining their rights.’

I’m curious what this long time is, since for a long time women didn’t get those rights. Women owed work and availability to men as rights, but men didn’t owe rights to women more than what they considered themselves to owe to children.

That’s fundamentally what we’re saying - that the answer is “you owe it to men to be compliant and available and to behave how they approve of, and that is what you owe to men to have your rights. But they owe you nothing at all in exchange for having their rights - they get them just for being men.” We’re not trying to flip that, we’re trying to say that the traditional idea of “femininity” contains a lot of obligations to men that men who are used to it take for granted instead of recognizing them as something women do for them.

Hence the pie example. For example, one in conservative environments is that women are expected to be conciliatory and not push their own welfare, while men are expected to stand up for themselves. But when a woman stands up for herself, the reaction is “what a selfish woman, acting like she’s more important than everyone else” - even if she’s just doing the exact same thing the men are, it’s perceived that she wants something unreasonable because people don’t expect her to act that way.

We’ll see how long your ‘basic human dignity’ lasts when a large enough percentage of men decide to stop providing it to you for free.

I think we have learned long ago that the ability to take something by force is no great claim of moral right.

 

[starshiptrooper]

they were faced with actual oppression they wouldn’t be complaining nearly as much as they are now. I wonder gow many of them ever think about how many boys died to give them the right to complain and that it was and always has been and always will be the men who do the dying. Probably not. To them it’s just what they deserve merely for existing. Male lives are absolutely valueless to them except insofar as they grease the wheels for the feminist machine.

Not to worry though, thanks to lowered standards, we will soon have women in the infantry, which will get even more good men killed, especially if we go up against a serious opponent and not just a bunch of natives with outdated equipment, no armor, air support, or cyberwarfare capabilities.

I think it’s the contract. Gray is a billionaire, freak who does whatever he wants, but ultimately she is in control because she has the contract. It’s the ‘safe’ hookup. She gets all the thrills of bad-boy Gray and the illusion of danger, but ultimately she is safe because the contract keeps her from any real danger.

Well that needs to be a reality and you and I are just a couple of sexists who need to shut up, get with the program, and make this possible for women.

Also the herd mentality. It’s not an accident that even men’s products usually target their advertisments to women.

That is because women make a huge majority of the consumer spending decisions in the US, 87% according to a few studies.

I’ve said it before. I’ll take in all the foreign immigrants they want, as long as it is exclusively single, childless women between the ages of 16-25.

Well, as the Islamic invasion of Europe continues, that may be a possibility in the future.

Of course the women are way ahead of us on this one. Which tells you quite a bit about the mental and spiritual damage that has been done to the modern woman. She sacrifices her own children at the altar of social approval, importing foreign warriors into our shores en masse.

Is it really damage or just a lack of social and legal constraints?

Too bad Roy Moore wasn’t a Muslim. Then his (alleged) dalliances with 14-year olds would have just been a ‘cultural quirk’ for the feminists of CAF

It would have been more likely to be dismissed as Islamophobia.

 

[ChunkMonk]

they get them just for being men.

Wrong. But I am not surprised you think this. Your rights were just handed to you, so you think that is how it always works.

Men took those rights. That’s why we have them. Because men bled for them. No one handed the average man his rights. He demnaded them and backed it up with the strength of his arm. Women did the same thing. Demanded rights and backed it up with the strength of his arm.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Another excellent point, take away the white knights and feminism completely collapses. Ayn Rand was on point. The only strength evil has is that which it leeches from good.

It was male stupidity/thirst that got us to this point and prevents us from effectively shutting it down once and for all.

 

[DarkLight]

Let me separate two things out here:

(1) What rights one ought to have, morally

(2) How those rights were obtained.

It should be fairly clear those don’t have much to do with each other. That I can take a man a slave by force is no proof of my right to his labor. Whether he frees himself by force or by deception or I willingly release him has no bearing on whether he has a right to his freedom.

To use another example, a disabled man does not give up his human rights simply because he requires assistance in everyday life due to his disability. He may at various times have been regarded as such. A man born lame can hardly fight in the army and shed blood for his rights, but that would be no reason to treat him as though he has none.

At various times societies have failed to safeguard those rights properly. But our rights come from the One who made us, even if they are disrespected and disregarded, even if we are not in a place where we can enforce them.

On the that note, the whole threat of the Day Without Women was laughable. Think about the consequences had it actually happened.

I work in an industry that provides a lot of support to getting business done. It’s very frequent that there’s all women in the office, or only one man. I assure you if everyone stopped answering the phones and coordinating logistics lots of business would grind to a halt.

 

[Xantippe]

I wonder gow many of them ever think about how many boys died to give them the right to complain and that it was and always has been and always will be the men who do the dying.

–The US has never had a female president and we’re currently at around 20% female Senators and Representatives in Congress (so around 80% male). The first female Representative was in 1916, and up until sometime in the 1990s (I’m having trouble reading the chart), there were only 30 female Representatives total (probably under 10%). Blaming women for male US war casualties is weird, especially since the relative growth in female representation has coincided with the US being more and more reluctant to shed American blood in war.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ss-but-until-recently-there-havent-been-many/

–In addition, the polling says that US women are historically much more wary of going to war than US men.

Gender Gap Varies on Support for War

Over the past four decades, Gallup polling has shown that men generally favor military action more than women do. In the case of a possible war with Iraq, this gender gap has varied considerably, and is now at a modest five percentage points. On a related question, whether the United States...

news.gallup.com

“In the early stages of military conflict, women have usually expressed less support for military action than men have. In a 1965 poll, for example, 73% of men, but only 59% of women, said the United States should continue its “present efforts” in Vietnam. A January 1991 poll found that 60% of men, but only 45% of women, favored U.S. military action to drive the Iraqis out of Kuwait. In February 1998, when Saddam Hussein was refusing to let U.N. weapons inspectors into his country, men were evenly divided as to whether the United States should continue diplomatic efforts to resolve the issue or take military action. Women, by contrast, opted for diplomatic over military action by a 25-point margin, 59% to 34%.”

Under the circumstances, it seems very odd to blame US women for young American men dying in war, as we seem (on average) much more reluctant to go to war than US men. Come to think of it, maybe that’s the benefit of women’s suffrage that ChunkMonk was asking for!

–You’re making the assumption that war has no effect on civilians, whereas it’s common for 50% of war deaths to be civilian, with 60% of deaths during WWI and 60-67% of deaths during WWII being civilians.

Civilian casualty ratio - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

–You’re forgetting that up until the 20th century, childbearing was extremely dangerous to women. One of my kids was researching Queen Jadwiga of Poland for a confirmation paper, and we discovered that her husband Jagiello had 4 wives–not for Henry VIII type reasons, but because the first three died. The number I’ve heard from the obstetrician who blogs at the Skeptical OB is that historically, 1 woman died in childbirth for every 100 babies born. And of course married women weren’t just having one child, so the lifetime odds of dying in childbirth were much higher than 1 in 100.
–Also, death in early childhood has historically been very common. Take, for example, the family of St. Terese of Lisieux. Louis and Zelie Martin had 9 children, but from 1867-1870, they lost three infants and a 5-year-old.

 

[PetraG]

Another excellent point, take away the white knights and feminism completely collapses. Ayn Rand was on point. The only strength evil has is that which it leeches from good.

It was male stupidity/thirst that got us to this point and prevents us from effectively shutting it down once and for all.

God supplies true knights.

"He has mercy on those who fear him
in every generation.
He has shown the strength of his arm,
he has scattered the proud in their conceit.

He has cast down the mighty from their thrones,
and has lifted up the lowly.
He has filled the hungry with good things,
and the rich he has sent away empty."

Woe to anyone who is the enemy of what God deems to be just.
Woe to anyone who withholds justice to anyone because those they oppress cannot stop them.
Everything hidden will become known, and all injustices will be addressed.
Those who are wise love what is just, not simply whatever the mighty are dictating on their current whim.

Ayn Rand was an atheist and an arrogant fool even at that. Her philosophy was arrogant self-important nonsense. Heaven forbid that any follower of Christ have anything to do with her and her philosophy.

 

[Xantippe]

the woman has no idea what the guy is really like if she’s only seen him around other people,

That’s nonsense.
Maybe we all need to stop thinking about marriage as finding a soul-mate who checks our boxes and more as a temporary union (no marriage in heaven) with the exclusive purpose of procreation and mutual spiritual fulfillment.

People are different in public and with large groups than they are one-on-one. Sometimes they’re better, sometimes they’re worse–but they’re almost always different. The public version tends to be much more filtered and edited.

Also, if people are the same in public and private, why is it so obviously reckless and stupid for a woman to be alone with her boyfriend?

It’s not about the “soulmate” or whatever, it’s about not being stuck living with someone who will behave poorly. Plenty of people in the world put on a nice face when in front of others and turn around to be mean or cruel when no one else is looking, especially if they believe their victim can’t leave.

Exactly.

What obligations do women owe men for maintaining their rights? Since the minute we decided to stop maintaining your rights, they’d be gone.

I don’t see you militantly defending my rights. In fact, you’ve stated that you want to take away women’s right to vote and serve on juries.

More and more men are checking out.

Mr. Darwin can explain to you what happens next.

I’m curious what this long time is, since for a long time women didn’t get those rights. Women owed work and availability to men as rights, but men didn’t owe rights to women more than what they considered themselves to owe to children.

Exactly.

Your rights were just handed to you, so you think that is how it always works.

If our rights were just handed to us, why didn’t we get them in 1783?

On the that note, the whole threat of the Day Without Women was laughable.

Yes, it was laughable, because if your job really is essential, you can’t in good conscience not do it. 92% of RNs are female and the vast majority of pediatricians–if all the female healthcare workers stayed home, a lot of people would die.

Likewise with mothers (SAHM and not)–we can’t just do the Day Without Women thing, because our families need us too much. (I can’t help but notice that you take it for granted that women will keep on taking care of children, rather than bailing on that, too.)

 

[starshiptrooper]

I’ve said it before. I’ll take in all the foreign immigrants they want, as long as it is exclusively single, childless women between the ages of 16-25.

We could totally sell this on feminist principles too.

“As a male feminist, my heart aches for those women trapped in patriarchal, war-torn societies. In order to save those women, men from those oppressive societies should be prohibited from attaining refugee status. This frees more resources for female refugees enabling them to become truly empowered womyn in the West.”

I would pay to see the effects of that logic bomb.

 

[ChunkMonk]

Absolutely, all human beings have an inherent dignity and it is our duty as Christians to ensure that is respected, even to give our lives if necessary.

But I wasn’t talking about what is wrong or right. I was talking about what is.

Under the circumstances, it seems very odd to blame US women for young American men dying in war,

I don’t blame women. I don’t even expect gratitude. I just wish there was some gratitude.

People are different in public and with large groups than they are one-on-one. Sometimes they’re better, sometimes they’re worse–but they’re almost always different. The public version tends to be much more filtered and edited.

Of course. But the idea that you have to spend the night at your boyfriends house and make out with him in order to know he isn’t a rapist is kind of silly.

I don’t see you militantly defending my rights. In fact, you’ve stated that you want to take away women’s right to vote and serve on juries.

I meant basic human rights. Not add-ons.

Mr. Darwin can explain to you what happens next.

Indeed. The cruelty will grow and we will be bred nearly out of existence by polygamist feminists and their studs. And people wonder why I’m a pessimist.

 

[ChunkMonk]

It was male stupidity/thirst that got us to this point and prevents us from effectively shutting it down once and for all.

The Curse of Adam. Following his wife instead of leading her.

 

[DarkLight]

But I wasn’t talking about what is wrong or right. I was talking about what is.

Why does it matter how we got rights, so long as they are moral? I would be quite silly to expect black people to be grateful because white people fought for them to be free (from other white people).

Of course. But the idea that you have to spend the night at your boyfriends house and make out with him in order to know he isn’t a rapist is kind of silly.

You’ll notice none of us actually said that. There is a wide gulf between “having a sleepover where you make out with a guy” and “don’t be alone with a guy ever.”

 

[ChunkMonk]

“As a male feminist, my heart aches for those women trapped in patriarchal, war-torn societies. In order to save those women, men from those oppressive societies should be prohibited from attaining refugee status. This frees more resources for female refugees enabling them to become truly empowered womyn in the West.”

You forget, in the Hierarchy of Victimhood, the strong, upright, “venerates the Father” Muslim man with his three wives is the King. It doesn’t make sense, but there it is. It goes:

White men (at the bottom)
White women
Jews
Mexicans
Blacks
Gays
Minority gays.
Trannies.
Minority trannies.
Muslim women
Muslim men
Muslim suicide bomber (at the top)

 

[ChunkMonk]

You’ll notice none of us actually said that. There is a wide gulf between “having a sleepover where you make out with a guy” and “don’t be alone with a guy ever.”

Cool. Then we agree in principle. I don’t think women should sleep over at men’s houses, or go on overnight trips with them, or lay down beside them, or spend a lot of time alone with then. But I will say that there is nothing sinful about EVER being alone with them. Just probably not very often.

Why does it matter how we got rights, so long as they are moral?

Have you seen Dunkirk? Watch the scene where all the men (average age ~19) drown in the cold ocean. That’s why it matters. Their lives were worth more than you or I ever will be. But they gave them up and that deserves respect.

I would be quite silly to expect black people to be grateful because white people fought for them to be free (from other white people).

That’s such a horrible thing to say. Do you have any idea how brutal that war was?