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

[Xantippe]

It’s unfortunately not unusual in the conservative religious world for people to be so scrupulous about avoiding near occasions of sin that they marry someone who is practically a stranger in terms of what the two know about each other.

 

[PetraG]

The dress argument seems so odd to me.

Everyone realizes that it is not very wise to go flashing money around where thieves might see what you have. We get the idea that more attractive women, particularly those who took some trouble to look attractive, are going to attract more inappropriate comments than a woman who seems less attractive.

What I don’t get is how anyone thinks that this has a single thing to do with whether or not the comments or actions that a more-attractive woman is more likely to attract are ever excusable or whether the person making this kind of comments is less culpable. Nobody says to the thief, “Well, it is understandable that you mugged the guy, because you know, I saw him flashing money around, too. You are weak–what did he expect? What jury would convict you?” No. A theft is a theft. It is wrong to steal what does not belong to you, and no one is standing around ready to let you off when you steal things you don’t need to stay alive.

It is wrong to treat a daughter of God like an object put onto this earth for your gratification. Period. Is anyone here denying that? I would hope not!

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away.s It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body thrown into Gehenna. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body go into Gehenna.” Matt 5:27-30

How Christian men can argue over whether other men ought to be given a mulligan on behavior that could rate them literal hellfire and damnation, I have no idea. I can see why they’d ask women to dress in ways that would lower the tempation, but that is only in order to lessen the likelihood that someone will fall. If the women fail to do that, the sin is still on the one who commits the sin. That is why Our Lord said it would be better to tear your eye out than to give in to lust. He said “everyone” and he said “a woman,” not “a modest woman.” He was saying very bluntly that he, the one who would judge, would not be handing out mulligans.

So…what is this with defending men who do things that put their souls in such peril? It is annoying to the women, it is upsetting to the women, but in the end it is much worse for the offender than the offended against, is it not?

What am I missing, here?

 

[PetraG]

Women dressing provocatively in the workplace may be more about exploiting the vulnerabilities of men or enhancing their own power than merely about “looking nice,” whatever that entails.

Women will often say it “gives them confidence,” but they never specify confidence to do what, precisely. Is it confidence over feelings of vulnerability or confidence to exploit others?

If you don’t know what women mean by “it gives them confidence,” then maybe you should ask, instead of automatically putting the most manipulative meaning on it that is possible.

I’m not arguing that women ought to be free to dress immodestly no matter how much innocent pleasure it gives them. I’m saying that it is possible that their pleasure and confidence is innocent even if there are negative repercussions to their choices that they are failing to appreciate.

 

[Xantippe]

Contraception, abortion, and emphasis on women’s careers would naturally ensure that feminism dies out.

Going back to this, I’d like to ask a question:

Would you be willing to live the life that you want women to live?

Edited to add: Come to think of it, I’d like to ask ChunkMonk the same thing. Would you be willing to live the life that you expect women to live?

 

[Theo520]

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’m not clear on what point you are trying to make by this example.

Teaching your children to show good judgement improves their odds, which is really all we can hope for.
Good instruction will help them avoid a bad situation or respond in a way that reduces their harm, but obviously there is no certainty. Life is about playing the odds in your favor.

 

[PetraG]

I am not worried about that. Contraception, abortion, and emphasis on women’s careers would naturally ensure that feminism dies out. The American left is dependent on mass immigration from the 3rd World. They need those votes to make up for the children they are not having.

Of course replacing Western whites with the 3rd World will ensure that we turn into the 3rd World, but that is a small price to pay for utopia.

Let us do a thought problem:
If those who self-identify as feminists were to advocate for the same thing that Christianity says that divine law requires, in the political arena would you feel a need to:
a) advocate for that thing
b) oppose that thing
c) stay away from that political issue

Why?

 

[PetraG]

Teaching your children to show good judgement improves their odds, which is really all we can hope for.

Good instruction will help them avoid a bad situation or respond in a way that reduces their harm, but obviously there is no certainty. Life is about playing the odds in your favor.

No, that is not really all we can hope for. We can also make our schools and church events very bad prospects for sexual predators by having policies that deny them opportunities to select or prey on victims.

This is, by the way, also denying the would-be offender a near occasion of ruinous sin. That is well worth working for, as well.

 

[Theo520]

No, that is not really all we can hope for. We can also make our schools and church events very bad prospects for sexual predators by having policies that deny them opportunities to select or prey on victims.

This is, by the way, also denying the would-be offender a near occasion of ruinous sin. That is well worth working for, as well.

All that you mentioned just further improves the odds, it doesn’t completely eliminate risk.

I never suggested it stop at training your children, but doing so is a critical element.

 

[ChunkMonk]

I will be happy to give you due respect and gratitude if you personally go fight in a war for freedom.

I never asked (and never would ask) for personal gratitude due to others.

Honor the fighters, but don’t expect some sort of generalized gratitude from all black people to all white people,

Good. We agree.

 

[ChunkMonk]

What is is that US men are not actually going to rise up and violently disenfranchise their mothers, grandmothers, sisters, aunts, daughters, granddaughters, girlfriends, wives, etc.

They might stop (or be incapable of) maintaining said rights.

 

[ChunkMonk]

If those who self-identify as feminists were to advocate for the same thing that Christianity says that divine law requires, in the political arena would you feel a need to:

They wouldn’t. What they would do is what they already do. Take the trappings of Christian morality and wrap them around Satanism.

 

[Xantippe]

No, that is not really all we can hope for. We can also make our schools and church events very bad prospects for sexual predators by having policies that deny them opportunities to select or prey on victims.

For example, that youth pastor’s church could have blocked his path to future pastoral opportunities instead of just moving him along to the next church.

 

[Xantippe]

They might stop (or be incapable of) maintaining said rights.

Well, at that point, it doesn’t sound like anybody will have the sort of civil rights that we have today. It would be very surprising if men’s voting and jury duty rights would survive that sort of Mad Max scenario.

Can you think of any modern historical example where women lost a lot of rights and it didn’t happen at the same time as men losing a lot of rights? (Revolutionary Iran comes to mind.)

Take the trappings of Christian morality and wrap them around Satanism.

OK!

Consent and respect for other’s personal autonomy is Satanism?

 

[ChunkMonk]

I already said the American man was being bred out of existence. I thought the implication that men would also suffer was pretty clear.

Consent and respect for other’s personal autonomy is Satanism?

Using a thin veneer of the truth to sell lies is Satanic.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Women dressing provocatively in the workplace may be more about exploiting the vulnerabilities of men or enhancing their own power than merely about “looking nice,” whatever that entails.

Women will often say it “gives them confidence,” but they never specify confidence to do what, precisely. Is it confidence over feelings of vulnerability or confidence to exploit others?

If you don’t know what women mean by “it gives them confidence,” then maybe you should ask, instead of automatically putting the most manipulative meaning on it that is possible.

I’m not arguing that women ought to be free to dress immodestly no matter how much innocent pleasure it gives them. I’m saying that it is possible that their pleasure and confidence is innocent even if there are negative repercussions to their choices that they are failing to appreciate.

I’m not clear what you mean by “innocent” confidence. If confidence was completely “innocent,” it seems to me, there would be no need to use artificial means to bolster that confidence, it would simply be active as an aspect of who or what the individual is. Using artificial means to do so implies something lacking in or about the person themself. Otherwise the person would straightforwardly and simply be themselves with no need for added accoutrements.

Now, I did not – if you read my post carefully – automatically put the “most manipulative meaning on it.” I listed TWO alternatives: 1) confidence over feelings of vulnerability or 2) confidence to exploit others.
Now if you have other reasons for why women use dress or cosmetics to add to their confidence, please do list those.

Unfortunately, you only complained about me failing to ask women, but didn’t actually add any alternative reasons when there was a clear opportunity, for you as a woman, to do so.

Feel free to add other reasons at your leisure.

 

[HarryStotle]

Nobody says to the thief, “Well, it is understandable that you mugged the guy, because you know, I saw him flashing money around, too. You are weak–what did he expect? What jury would convict you?” No. A theft is a theft. It is wrong to steal what does not belong to you, and no one is standing around ready to let you off when you steal things you don’t need to stay alive.

…
What am I missing, here?

I suppose it would be the idea that any sensible person would caution others to not flash their money around because it will very likely attract unwanted attention. Someone would be rather foolish if they did so, contrary to those warnings

However, the same sensible person advising women to use caution when “flashing” their “assets” would be called a misogynist because men, it is claimed, should be able to control themselves.

Sure men should, but so should human beings not engage in thievery. Unfortunately we live in a fallen world. So feel free to flash your money if you choose and equally free to flash your physical assets if you choose.

But where the former is concerned many would say you were foolish to flash your money, but in the case of the latter, there appears to be an inconsistency. Not many would dare to say women dressing provocatively were “foolish” in the same sense as someone flashing their money in public. Men, in general, are blamed for “not controlling their urges,” instead of pointing at the cads only (i.e., the “thieves,”) and holding them alone accountable. Instead, all men get tarred with the same brush.

Cautioning money wavers is precisely parallel to cautioning provocatively dressed women, no?

Common sense and your own parallel example would advise against dressing provocatively, but if you think the fallen world should be different and the way it will be made different is by pretending it isn’t fallen, that could be a choice for you. However, as when only thieves are blamed and held accountable (in the case of theft), perhaps the move to blame all men for the existence of cads is not taking a consistent position with regard to the two parallel issues.

 

[Xantippe]

I’m not clear what you mean by “innocent” confidence. If confidence was completely “innocent,” it seems to me, there would be no need to use artificial means to bolster that confidence, it would simply be as an aspect of who or what the individual is.

…so we’d walk around stark naked.

Conforming to non-sinful social norms isn’t as morally significant as you’re making it. If we were in 18th century France and you wore a wig, powder, high heels and rouge, you wouldn’t be doing anything wrong–you’d just be wearing normal attire for French noblemen.

Why did men stop wearing high heels?

It was once a sign of virility and masculinity - whatever happened to the high heel?

www.bbc.com

MALE MAKE-UP IN EIGHTEENTH CENTURY ENGLAND

Unlike our modern society in which beauty and cosmetics seem to be clearly gendered and rather reserved to women, in the eighteenth century, men did wear make-up. Indeed, the eighteenth-century Eng…

18centurybodies.wordpress.com

And yes, obeying social norms will give one a stronger feeling of confidence than violating social norms.

 

[PetraG]

All that you mentioned just further improves the odds, it doesn’t completely eliminate risk.

I never suggested it stop at training your children, but doing so is a critical element.

Fair enough.

 

[Xantippe]

However, the same sensible person advising women to use caution when “flashing” their “assets” would be called a misogynist because men, it is claimed, should be able to control themselves.

It isn’t nearly as easy to hide a nice figure as it is to hide money, so there are a lot of problems with that analogy.

Also, I see a lot of women in tank tops, shorts and flip flops at the grocery store (the larger they are, the more likely to go for that ensemble) and I don’t see men falling all over them. It’s just normal hot weather attire and nobody looks twice at it that I can see.

Not many would dare to say women dressing provocatively were “foolish” in the same sense as someone flashing their money in public.

I think this is very dependent on social context. If the clothing is the social norm for a particular occasion, it’s not provocative–because provocative suggests the person is trying to stand out and attract attention to themselves.

 

[ATraveller]

I hope you’re not advocating cohabitation here. That’s contrary to Christian teachings.