Has the #Metoo movement made men more unsure how to relate with women?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rozellelily
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PetraG said:
a) Many women DO see legalized abortion as an excuse to avoid charity towards unmarried mothers: as in, “why should we help you? If you don’t want the baby, get an abortion. Don’t ask us to ‘bail you out’ of your bad choices.” Never mind that the other party to the “bad choice” is long gone.

b) Sexual harrassment is all about UNWELCOME overtures and the right to require people to stop them. The right to decide for yourself what is and is not offensive to you does not make the issue an arbitrary matter any more than taking the Lord’s name in vain is OK just because you aren’t struck by lightning whenever you do it.
Click to expand...
To be fair, trying to connect point a.) and b.), my general understanding was that it made point a.) abortion a lighter matter than point b.) sexual harassment. And that made me conclude one being permitted (i.e. point a ) and the other not (i.e. point b ) And so thus drew where I came from on the argument. Because the two above led me to believe. If I misunderstood, not intended. But those two statements in a comparative made me to believe/think light on abortion, but heavier on sexual harassment. Which neither should get any lighter notion. For as I had commented on here, the Golden Rule (The Second of the Two Greatest Commandments) should be applied to both the woman and the unborn. Treated the same with equal dignity and respect to their life.
 
Xantippe said:
40.png
phil19034:
And it corrupts both sexes equally, even if that corruption appears to be different on the surface… deep down it’s all the same.
Click to expand...
I hope you’re not victim-blaming.

If you are pointing to female harassers or female helpers of male harassers, sure.
Click to expand...
no, I’m not victim blaming. I’m simply saying that both sexes can be harassers.
 
Last edited:
You inject abortion into the middle of a thread that has nothing to do with abortion and reply to my post with “you grant” and “you allow” and so on and tell me how outraged you are about abortion, I’m going to take it personally.

I didn’t legalize abortion. It is nonsensical for me to refuse to oppose some injustice because someone who favors abortion also opposes it. They oppose white slavery, human trafficking, torture and all sorts of other evils, too. Is that going to be your answer…that is, until abortion is illegal again, no other evil thing can outrage you, that you just don’t “buy that”?

Stick to the subject. Is it tolerable for women (or men, since they have their stories, too) to be treated with utter disrespect, felt up and spoken to as if they were sex objects? No. It is not. Is it OK to presume that it is ever OK to pressure someone into a mortal sin they might turn from at the last minute? I would hope not.

What, then, is there that you can’t “buy”?
 
That’s the issue that I’m trying to point out.
What is an innocent comment to me will not be taken as being innocent by another woman.
If a guy (not boss) said to me at work etc “that’s a nice dress”, I interpret that as a compliment but another woman might see it as harrasment/inappropriate and if she reported it the guy may even receive a warning.

#metoo movement is good in that we shouldn’t tolerate sexual harassment but have some areas of life now now gone too far and instead of just respect and commonsense actually became Political Correctness.

Is political correctness sometimes “stifling” natural interactions?
Is it potentially making men too hyper-aware/sensitive about what they should and shouldn’t say?
 
Last edited:
Side note:I wonder if the #metoo movement will cause a change in regard to the types of movie roles offered to women or whether Hollywood will keep sending mixed messages and the movie roles will stay the same?
For example I don’t think there’s that many lead movie roles for women over a certain age.
 
Well, I don’t think a sane company would think saying that constitutes as harassment unless it’s repeated behavior + the person knows it makes the other uncomfortable…

But I can totally see why that would come across as inappropriate. Most guys I know would not compliment a girl on her looks unless they were flirting so if I was in that situation, I would not view it as a friendly comment. But I would not expect him to get punished for it unless it starts getting worse (eg commenting on my body/anything sexual)
 
It’s an interesting question. Part of the problem as well is that men mean different things by the same behavior.

For example, I have also had men who would start with compliments like that, and I was nice to them. And it would end with me being accused of being a tease (usually using a ruder term), because the man intended to flirt, and in being polite he had presumed I was flirting back.
 
ConfusedLucy said:
Male entitlment has existed forever.
Click to expand...
A sense of entitlement has always been a temptation to any human being who could get it. Privileged women, privileged men: any of us can imagine we’re “all of that” when privileges come our way, that we deserve to be treated as more than others, rather than fortunate to have a position of status and trust.

As a for instance: How many women in higher social classes think–and teach their sons to think–that they and the women of their social status deserve to be treated like “ladies” but don’t see anything wrong with men treating “common” women with far less respect? That is also a sense of smug entitlement.

The Gospel teaches no such thing, as the story of the Woman at the Well so vividly illustrates.
 
Last edited:
PetraG said:
As a for instance: How many women in higher social classes think–and teach their sons to think–that they and the women of their social status deserve to be treated like “ladies” but don’t see anything wrong with men treating “common” women with far less respect? That is also a sense of smug entitlement.
Click to expand...
Or the special elevation of sexual sin. A virginal bride isn’t necessarily a virtuous one.
 
DarkLight said:
Or the special elevation of sexual sin. A virginal bride isn’t necessarily a virtuous one.
Click to expand...
Having said that, Christ specifically mentioned those who are “eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven.”

Our sexuality is a great gift. To reserve it for the Kingdom requires not just that we refrain from marriage but also that we not squander it on nothing at all. Those saints who do so are deserving of the honor they are given, even though all but Our Lady did sin in other ways. In her autobiography, St. Terese of Liseaux wrote that her confessor said he thought she had never committed a mortal sin. That cannot be said of any of us who have chosen to defile the actions that are holy only within the bonds of marriage.
 
It is.

I more mean that there are those who inquire too much into whether the bride (it’s usually the woman here) is a virgin, and not enough into the rest of her character. A man would be better to marry a repentant woman who had been unchaste, than a woman in the grip of meanness or gossip that had no penitence for it.

Pointing at one’s chastity can be an easy way of proving how much better one is than someone else.
 
DarkLight said:
It is.

I more mean that there are those who inquire too much into whether the bride (it’s usually the woman here) is a virgin, and not enough into the rest of her character. A man would be better to marry a repentant woman who had been unchaste, than a woman in the grip of meanness or gossip that had no penitence for it.

Pointing at one’s chastity can be an easy way of proving how much better one is than someone else.
Click to expand...
Well, they probably presume that a woman (or a man) who is a virgin has something going on in the self-control department. While that assumption isn’t totally out of contact with reality when it comes to chalking up the cause for the effect, there is of course a problem with it, too. People who look for a virgin as a spouse–especially if they are virgins themselves only because of self-control and deliberate spiritual warfare!–do not always realize that sometimes people maintain their virginity through self-control but some others maintain it merely because they have a repugnance for the very idea of having sex. That repugnance can be very difficult to shed after marriage and is a real obstacle to the unreserved self-gift marriage requires.

Yes, I think it can be far easier for someone to amend from sex outside of marriage when they have always been at least faithful to their one sexual partner, although they were partners outside of marriage, or from a non-habitual lapse in self-control fallen into out of lack of maturity, vulnerability to pressure from their romantic partner or bad catechesis rather than lack of character than for someone to develop a fondness for physical contact when they have always found the idea of that contact repulsive or dirty. That means that sometimes it is easier for a non-virgin to become a faithful and giving spouse than for someone who maintained virginity only out of spiritual pride or out of repulsion for the marital act.

I just doubt that most people who are virgins when they marry are that way because they are prideful or hate the idea of sex, though, rather than that they exerted themselves to maintain self-control in spite of the prevailing custom. It is simply a pitfall for virgins looking for a spouse to be aware of…that is, they may be overlooking a very good spouse whose loss of virginity does not portend adultery and they may be presuming that virgin prospects are all good candidates for the marriage bed.
 
Last edited:
PetraG said:
I just doubt that most people who are virgins when they marry are that way because they are prideful or hate the idea of sex, rather than that they exerted themselves to maintain self-control in spite of the prevailing custom.
Click to expand...
…or just very, very shy.
PetraG said:
It is simply a pitfall for virgins looking for a spouse to be aware of…that is, they may be overlooking a very good spouse whose loss of virginity does not portend adultery and they may be presuming that virgin prospects are all good candidates for the marriage bed.
Click to expand...
Right.

It’s also weird to make this the end-all-be-all for wife choice when it’s not even something that can be easily verified.
 
Sure it has. In today’s day and age it’s better to be single than married because it’ll likely end in divorce. Also good luck trying to flirt because to some women it’ll be considered sexual harassment if you just ask them on a date

The whole aziz ansari thing now villifies men for misreading signals

There are legal consequences of romance. It’s better to be single.
 
PetraG said:
Well, they probably presume that a woman (or a man) who is a virgin has something going on in the self-control department.
Click to expand...
Or they just never got any offers. Not that I would know…😥
 
There does seem to be a tendency for us as humans to divide women into those who deserve sexual abuse and those who don’t depending on their perceived virtue, don’t they call it the Madonna/whore complex. Obviously some believe and live by this more strongly than others.
 
SacredHeartBassist said:
Sure it has. In today’s day and age it’s better to be single than married because it’ll likely end in divorce. Also good luck trying to flirt because to some women it’ll be considered sexual harassment if you just ask them on a date

The whole aziz ansari thing now villifies men for misreading signals

There are legal consequences of romance. It’s better to be single.
Click to expand...
The Aziz matter, regardless of whose version is closer to the truth, says nothing about the legal consequences of “romance” and have nothing to do with your chances of finding a marriage partner. Neither person was describing a way anyone with any sense looks for a spouse or acts if they want to be seen as marriage material!

There is nothing “romantic” or even flattering about trying to get someone into bed on a first date or welcoming overtures for sex on a first date. I would say the opposite! If you find your date is disappointed that you didn’t try to have sex with her on your first date, don’t ask her out on a second one! Let yourself get a “reputation” as someone a woman cannot expect to try to get her into bed!! That is what you want!! You do not want to marry someone who still thinks that it is flattering to have someone try to get her clothing off!! Stick with women who have at least outgrown such extremely foolish notions!

I don’t have a lot of sympathy for someone whose partner is dissatisfied because he or she “misread signals” about wanting to go all the way on a first date. If there is any time for someone unwise enough to commit these sins at all to proceed with caution, wouldn’t the first date be highest on the list?

That is why I would caution Catholic men not to judge the reception they are likely to get by the receptions reported by aggressive men who don’t respect women enough to establish something like real personal relationship before pursuing a sexual relationship. They are not operating anything like you do! You are not going to run into the same problems with women that they do!!

God’s laws are not arbitrary! If we follow them, most of us will wind up married without having violated the commmand to love God with one’s whole self and to love our neighbor as ourselves, even the opposite-sex neighbors.
 
Last edited:
I didn’t say Gods laws are arbitrary. But in today’s society it’ll harder to find a spouse by abiding by them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top