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

[HarryStotle]

Women usually wear makeup for one of two reasons:
1.They either feel more attractive and confident with it
2.They enjoy the fun and femininity of playing with makeup

Sure it might be a “fake confidence” but maybe we are given these things by God (cosmetics,suits etc) as a type of “mercy” lol because we live in such a shallow world where everyone places so much importance on looks?

Seems very frivolous of God to give so magnanimously as an act of merely simulated “mercy” to women living in this shallow world.

It also, then, seems ridiculously shallow and hypocritical of some to argue that we ought to vote for pro-abortion candidates (as against pro-life policies) because the former show a real concern for the poor and disadvantaged, despite the yearly collateral deaths of tens of millions of babies at the hands of these denizens of social utopian progress.

Given the continual accusations that pro-life people aren’t really as concerned with the survivors of birth as God would have us be, we are now to earnestly swallow the suggestion that perhaps God is only being “merciful” in giving to women abiding in this shallow world the generous means – to the tune of $62.46 billion U.S. dollars in 2016 alone – to bear these awful and burdensome frivolities just for the “fun and femininity” of it. Something seems, to put it mildly, just a little skewed.

Instead of indulging in plastic confidence, it might be observed that (just perhaps) God prefers to have women strive for and attain some genuine confidence arising from facing and overcoming real and challenging moral trials with courage and aplomb, rather than settling for “fake confidence” hollowed out of expensive tubes and plastic jars. Just sayin’.

I suppose if women want to financially promote and underwrite this “shallow world” to the tune of $62.5 billion every year, in the hope that such a world will provide them a modicum of make-believe but tractable confidence they are free to do so, but I wouldn’t suggest conscripting God as a willing participant in this little scheme. He just might object.

 

[Xantippe]

Instead of indulging in plastic confidence, it might be observed that (just perhaps) God prefers to have women strive for and attain some genuine confidence arising from facing and overcoming real and challenging moral trials with courage and aplomb, rather than settling for “fake confidence” hollowed out of expensive tubes and plastic jars. Just sayin’.

If you’d like to be the change that you want to see in the world, make sure and date low-maintenance women.

The thing is, you say this stuff, but I suspect that you probably think that women who wear makeup are prettier.

If you would actually be happy with a low-maintenance woman, I’m delighted, but I am rather familiar with the fact that men theoretically dislike makeup…but think girls who don’t wear it are plain and frumpy.

 

[DarkLight]

No, on the eminently reasonable grounds that I am not a woman.

How much do you think you really know about what it’s like to be a woman, then?

Maybe if a large number of women are saying that they don’t want to live under a certain system, and there’s all sorts of stuff out there on how to trick or manipulate them into putting up with it, it’s because it’s not actually a good system for women.

Not every woman is going to be happy with the same thing, either. I think a lot of guys make this mistake - a certain approach is likely to get a certain sort of woman, and it causes problems to generalize that to all women. (An easy example is a guy watching how women behave with guys in bars and clubs is really only going to learn about the sort of women who are interested in meeting men in bars and clubs.)

 

[HarryStotle]

If you are suggesting that a woman who dresses provocatively may hold some responsibility for a man sinning (excuse me to be frank,masturbation or whatever) then that might be an unpopular but not entirely unreasonable view …
…
If however you are suggesting that a woman who dresses provocatively and gets raped or molested holds some part responsibility for it then that is very wrong.

Actually, what I would suggest is that if you want to take the development of personal virtue and courage out of the hands of the individual and turn it entirely over to society and social norms, then don’t be surprised when those same social norms fashion men and women who have no moral or intellectual courage.

If a society treats sexuality as frivolous and as an entitled right of every human to indulge through every form of entertainment, information, social, and education media available to every growing child, then don’t be surprised when some young men grow up to take what society says about sex seriously.

@Xantippe was arguing, previously, that “Unless the social norm is clearly immoral, I think it’s worth making an effort to obey it.” The problem is that if a preponderance of social norms are “clearly immoral” and the underlying principles for morality have been completely eroded within a society then it is very difficult for maturing men and women to have any abiding moral sense to begin with. If morality is simply “what is right for you,” then how do children growing into manhood or womanhood know what is “clearly immoral?” They don’t.

So if society continually bombards growing citizens with the message that indulging the sexual appetite is the highest good and at the same time ingraining in those same growing citizens that there is no “clear morality,” why is it surprising that a “…rapist/molester can always try to find some justification…?”

Isn’t that what modern western society does with all moral responsibility – try to find some justification for excusing all misbehaviour and disordered appetites?

Isn’t that what women do when they resort to artificial means to feel more confident?

It still isn’t clear to me, by the way, why anyone needs to feel “confident” rather than develop the virtues of courage and confidence.

Aristotle’s definition of courage is that it is the habitual disposition to bear whatever pains may be involved in doing what we ought to do for the sake of the good, i.e., doing what we need to do however challenging or difficult. So building that disposition takes some work and a willingness to suffer even injustices for the sake of what is good and right.

Confidence is a character trait that develops as a result of one’s real strengths and past successes. It shouldn’t be a pretense dependent upon mere appearance.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Instead of indulging in plastic confidence, it might be observed that (just perhaps) God prefers to have women strive for and attain some genuine confidence arising from facing and overcoming real and challenging moral trials with courage and aplomb, rather than settling for “fake confidence” hollowed out of expensive tubes and plastic jars. Just sayin’.

If you’d like to be the change that you want to see in the world, make sure and date low-maintenance women.

The thing is, you say this stuff, but I suspect that you probably think that women who wear makeup are prettier.

If you would actually be happy with a low-maintenance woman, I’m delighted, but I am rather familiar with the fact that men theoretically dislike makeup…but think girls who don’t wear it are plain and frumpy.

Well you’d suspect wrong.

I don’t value “pretty.”

Beauty is another story, however. It is a feature of the soul, the whole being. It can’t be layered on, no matter how “pretty” the substrate.

 

[Rozellelily]

There’s a difference between joy and frivolousness.
The former good and the later bad (in my opinion).
Some women derive genuine joy from cosmetics.

It’s not so black and white.
Women (who choose to) can derive genuine joy/fun from cosmetics while at the same time not supporting a consumerism mentality and instead encouraging money to be spend rather on helping homeless people,sick children and adults and others in need.

Makeups not the issue,the issue becomes when someone has a self absorbed mindset or consumerism mentality where they then keep buying the latest newest products and give none of their focus or money to the real issues of helping people in need.

Many women can be happy with 5,10,20 lipsticks (or in some case none) but there are some women that have hundreds of lipsticks/other makeup and in many cases “excess” (ie:stuff they don’t even use).
They put it above helping others.That’s when it’s an issue.

While it’s better for women to overcome real challenges with courage and receive true confidence that way,at the same time confidence in one area might not lead to confidence in another area (about external appearances).
Many women will face greater challenges in life,but in the meantime they still have to earn a living and if the reality is that some work places won’t employ people who can’t reach the workplaces “expected level” of appearances without cosmetics,then how do you propose this can be changed?
In reality,the current options are to support this shallow world and “go along” with shallow expectations or refuse to “play” and then be jobless and potentially even homeless etc…

You mentioned courage but courage needs to be considered in the context of reality.
Eg:A very “plainer” woman,or one whose face has sagged or become washed out,or otherwise excessively aged etc might get up the courage to go for a job interview as an Office Manager,Hotel Desk Clerk or Flight Attendant etc wearing no makeup.
Reality says though that she likely won’t get the job-then what?
Perhaps she could say it was discrimination but she would have to prove they didn’t hire her for that reason-which is often hard to do.

Cosmetics are often just another hobby in a sense like fishing or soccer etc.
Some women’s hobby is to beautify things -their house,their gardens,themselves
Even most Muslims don’t have an issue with women using cosmetics (within reason).
Many things in life can be seen as “frivolousness” really-sailing,fishing,video games,fixing up cars,golf etc but I don’t think God /Catholic Church ever said not to do these things but rather shouldn’t make these our value (like care more about wealth than people etc)?

 

[Rozellelily]

I’m glad you don’t value prettiness.
A lot of men who have similar mindset as yourself regarding anti -makeup usually talk about how they value natural beauty while not understanding that only a minority of women are naturally beautiful.
It’s like the rest of the women in the world don’t even register with them or something or they expect everyone who’s not naturally beautiful to become a nun or something.

You mentioned
"a society treats sexuality as frivolous and as an entitled right of every human to indulge through every form of entertainment, information, social, and education media available to every growing child, then don’t be surprised when some young men grow up to take what society says about sex seriously."

I don’t believe that suggestive music clips or even pornography etc cause men to sexually assault.
While they may be a problem in other ways they’re not the cause of that and there is something more going on with the guy then that.

Your right there’s no clear morality/mixed morality because society is usually comprised of different types of people-some believing in religion and some not etc but what all reasonable people can come to the consensus on regarding clear morality is consent.
All reasonable people ranging from the most religious to people that are in “open relationships” will agree that it’s never ok to enforce,coerce,or threaten someone to do something of a sexual nature.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Not every woman is going to be happy with the same thing, either. I think a lot of guys make this mistake - a certain approach is likely to get a certain sort of woman, and it causes problems to generalize that to all women. (An easy example is a guy watching how women behave with guys in bars and clubs is really only going to learn about the sort of women who are interested in meeting men in bars and clubs.)

The bottom line is guy needs to flirt with a girl and get her to be attracted to him. That applies to pretty much everyone, even the feminists.

 

[DarkLight]

The bottom line is guy needs to flirt with a girl and get her to be attracted to him. That applies to pretty much everyone, even the feminists.

Well yes, that pretty much applies everywhere.

What I was thinking is more like, for example - women who want casual sex are likely to want a guy who shows by his behavior that he’s going to be exciting and not get too attached. Women who want to marry and start a family are going to be turned off by that same guy. It’s like often comes up in the family life section; men who barely go to church and spend time in sexually charged environments complain that christian women these days don’t really care about their faith. The numbers are lower, but they’re also not going to places where you’d find a faithful woman.

 

[Xantippe]

Beauty is another story, however. It is a feature of the soul, the whole being. It can’t be layered on, no matter how “pretty” the substrate.

So, do you find yourself most attracted to women who wear no makeup at all and who have beautiful personalities?

And are you quite sure they’re not wearing makeup? Really well-done makeup isn’t at all visible to the novice.

8 Foolproof Tips for Barely-There Makeup That Looks Effortless

Give yourself the #wokeuplikethis treatment with these beginner-friendly steps and shop natural-looking products to get the look.

stylecaster.com

Seriously, makeup is most effective on an already pretty woman. It highlights what is actually there.

Edited to add: Also, a lot of husbands enjoy having their wives dress up, wear particular colors and wear makeup. When you’re telling women not to do so, you may be criticizing them for following their husbands’ preferences.

 

[Xantippe]

The problem is that if a preponderance of social norms are “clearly immoral” and the underlying principles for morality have been completely eroded within a society then it is very difficult for maturing men and women to have any abiding moral sense to begin with

I think you are greatly mistaken about how immoral society is. It’s true that I have lived in the US Bible Belt for the last 10 years, which makes a considerable difference, but I think you’re greatly overestimating the evilness of contemporary mores, especially among parents. If you pay attention to how people parent young children (which I realize is difficult for a young man to do nowadays), there’s a lot of focus on developing virtue (although people don’t necessarily think of it that way) and empathy. That’s what preschool teachers do, essentially, and you can see this done any day at a child’s birthday party or on a playground. Good parents are constantly shaping their children’s behavior and encouraging them to do and be better.

If morality is simply “what is right for you,” then how do children growing into manhood or womanhood know what is “clearly immoral?” They don’t.

I also think you underestimate how many “do nots” children get.

Isn’t that what modern western society does with all moral responsibility – try to find some justification for excusing all misbehaviour and disordered appetites?

There are lots of things you could do that will evoke enormous social disapproval.

 

[Xantippe]

Some more points for HarryStotle:

–The Ancient Greek women used a lot of cosmetics.

Cosmetics in Ancient Greece | Synonym

Caring for the body and striving to make it more attractive is as old as human civilization. The word ''cosmetic'' comes from the Greek word ''kosmetikos,'' meaning a sense of harmony, order and tranquility.

classroom.synonym.com

In fact, the word “cosmetic” is apparently based on the Greek word cosmos (!).

–I suspect Aristotle would have been very surprised at the idea of his views being applied to women. (DarkLight, any thoughts?)

 

[HarryStotle]

I think you are greatly mistaken about how immoral society is. It’s true that I have lived in the US Bible Belt for the last 10 years, which makes a considerable difference, but I think you’re greatly overestimating the evilness of contemporary mores, especially among parents. If you pay attention to how people parent young children (which I realize is difficult for a young man to do nowadays), there’s a lot of focus on developing virtue (although people don’t necessarily think of it that way) and empathy.

To be clear, I taught in a public school system for more than thirty years, been married almost 34 years and raised three children, the eldest is 30. One is a physician, one a teacher and one doing postgraduate work in university.
I recognize the the difference between contemporary mores and virtues. I also recognize the difference between telling and doing, and how children respond to both. Empathy, by the way, isn’t the prime virtue – untempered by other, higher, virtues it has been a principal driver of abortion and euthanasia.

That’s what preschool teachers do, essentially, and you can see this done any day at a child’s birthday party or on a playground. Good parents are constantly shaping their children’s behavior and encouraging them to do and be better.

Yeah, thanks, I spent over thirty years observing “what preschool teachers [and assorted others] do,” and have seen the changes in schools over those years. You need to understand that teachers, through their unions and their educational faculties are some of the biggest drivers and supporters of “progressive” social change, especially in the area of gender and sexual orientation. Education has become mind-moulding in the worst sense of the word.

If morality is simply “what is right for you,” then how do children growing into manhood or womanhood know what is “clearly immoral?” They don’t.

I also think you underestimate how many “do nots” children get.

Uh huh. Do not let others offend your feelings. Do not have feelings that are NOT prescribed by the social narrative. Do not question current social mores until those mores “develop” and change tomorrow and the next day. Try to fit in and especially do not rock the boat or say or do things that put you on the wrong side of history.

Isn’t that what modern western society does with all moral responsibility – try to find some justification for excusing all misbehaviour and disordered appetites?

There are lots of things you could do that will evoke enormous social disapproval.

Yeah, I’ve noticed those “Do nots,” thanks. And the social unrest that follows anyone questioning “social approval.”

 

[Xantippe]

Empathy, by the way, isn’t the prime virtue – untempered by other, higher, virtues it has been a principal driver of abortion and euthanasia.

Empathy isn’t everything, but it’s an awfully good start.

Also, Christians who obviously lack empathy cause scandal. To quote 1 Corinthians 13: “If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned,[a] but have not love, I gain nothing.”

Obviously loveless Christians make Christianity look bad.

Education has become mind-moulding in the worst sense of the word.

Yeah, I’ve noticed those “Do nots,” thanks. And the social unrest that follows anyone questioning “social approval.”

So it’s not everything goes, is it?

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Empathy, by the way, isn’t the prime virtue – untempered by other, higher, virtues it has been a principal driver of abortion and euthanasia.

Empathy isn’t everything, but it’s an awfully good start.

Also, Christians who obviously lack empathy cause scandal. To quote 1 Corinthians 13: “If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned,[a] but have not love, I gain nothing.”

Obviously loveless Christians make Christianity look bad.

Paul doesn’t say,

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not empathy, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not empathy, I am nothing. 3 If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not empathy, I gain nothing."

Love is willing the highest good for the other, it isn’t merely putting oneself in their place or seeing things from their – often limited and sometimes even perverse – perspective. Love assumes some substantial apprehension of THE GOOD. Ergo, empathy without a proper orientation to the good is a hollowed-out substitute for what Paul was referring to as love.

 

[Xantippe]

Love assumes some substantial apprehension of THE GOOD.

Unfortunately, there are also a lot of cases of people doing evil things, supposedly for the good of their victims. Some examples:

–some child molesters (see NAMBLA)
–some rapists (“she wanted it”)
–communists engaged in re-educating backward classes (there was a lot of this in Red China)
–Andrea Yates (while suffering from postpartum psychosis, she believed that killing her 5 children was the only way to ensure their salvation)
–some wife beaters and abusers (women need a firm hand)
–some child abusers (children need strong discipline)

You can write an even longer list of all of the people who believe it’s worthwhile to harm some people for the greater good. In fact, that’s more or less the history of communism in the 20th century.

Bear in mind that many people’s idea of “the Good” is radically incomplete. Aristotle’s, for example.

I would argue that just as empathy without a notion of the good is inadequate, it’s also true that a pursuit of the good uninformed by empathy is inadequate. It’s necessary to have both things. (See, for example, Jesus in the Gospels.)

Edited to add: Having empathy can be a brake that keeps people from committing particular heinous acts. For example, many recent mass shooters have been conspicuously lacking empathy.

 

[Xantippe]

Going back to the main thread, I’d like to talk about how important framing and phrasing is.

Compare and contrast:

–Steve and Jennifer were ALONE in Jennifer’s apartment

versus

–Steve and Jennifer have been dating for three months. Steve has been taking Jennifer out a lot, and Jennifer decided to reciprocate by making Steve a home-cooked dinner.

Or compare:

–Jules was ALONE with Andy in Andy’s car.

versus

–Andy the youth pastor offered Jules a ride home after youth group.

Or compare:

–Adele got into a car ALONE with a man and went for a drive into the wilderness.

verusus

–Adele and her college boyfriend drove to Shenandoah National Park.

or

–Beth was ALONE with a man in the woods.

versus

–Beth and Chris took a hike to the waterfall.

The first version in each case is the one used to imply that if something bad happened, it was the woman’s fault and she should have known better than to get into the situation, but the second version is the one you’d use in real life to describe the event if nothing bad happened.

 

[starshiptrooper]

How much do you think you really know about what it’s like to be a woman, then?

About as much as blacks know about being white or women know about being men.

Sorry, I do not buy into the allegedly superior wisdom and virtue of those who deem themselves oppressed by my white male privilege.

 

[DarkLight]

About as much as blacks know about being white or women know about being men.

Sorry, I do not buy into the allegedly superior wisdom and virtue of those who deem themselves oppressed by my white male privilege.

Wasn’t saying that. I was saying that if your being a man makes you sufficiently different that whether or not you’d be willing to live under the system designed for women has no bearing on whether it’s suitable for women, then you don’t know enough about women to be able to tell if a system is actually suitable for women.

It would be fairly obvious that women know what it’s like to be a woman much better than men know what it’s like to be a woman. If a large number of women are saying they’re unhappy under a specific system, that system doesn’t suddenly become good for women because men want it. (Or because men exaggerate what women are actually saying and then complain that women don’t desire an over-the-top pastiche of what they said they want.)

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Love assumes some substantial apprehension of THE GOOD.

Unfortunately, there are also a lot of cases of people doing evil things, supposedly for the good of their victims. Some examples:

–some child molesters (see NAMBLA)
–some rapists (“she wanted it”)
…

Yeah, no. Merely because the good is to some extent undetermined does not imply it is indistinguishable from evil.

I think you are getting desperate trying to defend your position.

I would argue that just as empathy without a notion of the good is inadequate, it’s also true that a pursuit of the good uninformed by empathy is inadequate. It’s necessary to have both things. (See, for example, Jesus in the Gospels.)

Edited to add: Having empathy can be a brake that keeps people from committing particular heinous acts. For example, many recent mass shooters have been conspicuously lacking empathy.

I would argue you are wrong on both counts.

A person merely needs a deep understanding of the truth of what it means to be, themselves, decently human in order to project that outwards onto others without malice. Absent that understanding, empathy becomes unmoored from reality.

People put down their pets from empathy because they don’t want their pets to suffer. Today, the same justification can be used to euthanize elderly parents or even children. It is empathy disconnected from a deep sense of what it means to be a human. People who are, themselves, so afraid of or averse to suffering will indulge in “mercy” killing and aborting their babies out of “empathy.”

They have no sense of the good besides pain avoidance. They see no good beyond merely living a pain free existence in this world.

You don’t need empathy to realize what the good is for a human being. Logic dictates treating like things alike. There is no need for empathic feelings, these can often cloud a clear sense of what is the definitive good.