[RD] Why Men Need to be Involved in the #MeToo Movement

[Cutlass]

Why? I don't accept that humans should be treated as 'free actors' (although I don't think the state or anything else should dictate to them how to live their lives). That's a liberal idea, and I reject liberalism's claims about human nature.

You can reject it all you want. It's not your choice to make. You don't get a say in other people's sexual choices. You don't have the right.

Um.. you do know what the word taboo means? The whole fricking #MeToo movement is about making certain sexual behavior taboo.

Do you think this is new? People have always had sex outside of wedlock.

 

[red_elk]

Well, in a sense I do want them (along with men) to be forced* into sex/intimacy with someone else. I just want it to be within the bounds of institutions rather than as atomized individuals.

*Really just socially pressured.

If I like a woman, I don't want her to be socially pressured to have sex with me, if she doesn't want it. It will make her miserable.

 

[metatron]

Couldn't resist throwing some craven Islamophobia in, eh? I'm sure you have paragraphs of special pleading backing this silly idea up.

Women and minorities are especially oppressed under Sharia Law. Judaism and Christianity (more so Christianity) gave rise to western feminism.

Sources desperately needed.

I am not going to argue the whole case here. Me. Lazy. You remember.

But as a personal sidenote:
Next time i rant about "something, something, Islamism", you may as well respond "But meta, Christianity has given the world Anglosphere 'feminism'!".
And i would concede "Fair point, that's almost as dumb and dangerous."
Point being, the respective value judgements underlying your disagreement here are equally lovable and fluffy if one shares neither of them.

Needless to say the yuge overlap between small-p puritanism and the dubious ooze you people accept as "feminism" should largely be deemed... obvious.
North America basically is a 300 year long sarkeesianite tent revival.
Like, it's not even subtle.

 

[Azem.Ocram]

“Western Feminism has its roots in the Christian church because for a long time, women had more rights in the chuch than they did in secular society. A medieval nun had far more rights, privileges and power than maid, cook, or other peasant/serf woman. Even Judaism respected women more than most contemporary cultures before Christ. There were oppressive rules but also protective/liberating rules that helped faithful housewives and virtuous women. Islam was a step backwards when it came to equality and progress.” —Me

Puritanical (not sex-positive) feminism is perfectly compatible with Christianity.

I can easily find many horrific accounts of barbaric punishments under Sharia Law for things considered legal (or protected) in civilized society but this is a family-friendly fansite/forum.

 

[Lexicus]

In the 7th century Islam was often a step forward for women.

 

[inthesomeday]

They actually got a lot of the practices white people think are repressive from the Eastern Roman Empire, including veiling.

 

[Lexicus]

I mean, it's not only white people who think compulsory veiling is repressive.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/06/middleeast/iran-women-protest-hijab-online-asequals-intl/index.html

The Eastern Roman Empire got veiling from the Greeks, who seem to have got it from the Assyrians somehow.

 

[inthesomeday]

I mean, it's not only white people who think compulsory veiling is repressive.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/06/middleeast/iran-women-protest-hijab-online-asequals-intl/index.html

I know, I know. I was mostly joking.

Did you know tankies are disavowing these protests for some reason? Because they defy Khomeini I guess?

 

[Farm Boy]

@TheMeInTeam

While that there is no reason to think that marriage should weaken anyone's legal protections against violence, marriage is no joke. Monogamy is no joke. Social pressures to be promiscuous, if anything, are more sinister than ones that encourage valuing one's own company and offering intimacy with due care.

 

[Lexicus]

Because they defy Khomeini I guess?

Undoubtedly. Also they're probably a CIA trojan horse operation.

 

[inthesomeday]

Undoubtedly. Also they're probably a CIA trojan horse operation.

Just like the YPG. And Trotsky himself.

 

[Ajidica]

“Western Feminism has its roots in the Christian church because for a long time, women had more rights in the chuch than they did in secular society. A medieval nun had far more rights, privileges and power than maid, cook, or other peasant/serf woman.

Again, sources needed. There are multiple accounts of women in medieval Europe running their own businesses and being co-equal members of the household. The idea of medieval women doing nothing but embroidery in a tower has more to do with the aristocracy than any on-the-ground reality. Put simply, come harvest time a woman's hands are just as good at bailing hay as anyone else's.

Even Judaism respected women more than most contemporary cultures before Christ.

You saying something doesn't make it so. Unless you are a reputable author on ancient Jewish and early Christian social customs, I'm going to have to ask you for sources.

There were oppressive rules but also protective/liberating rules that helped faithful housewives and virtuous women. Islam was a step backwards when it came to equality and progress.” —Me

The Saudi's say that their peculiar interpretation of Islam is protective and liberating that helps faithful housewives and virtuous women. Not sure I agree with them any more than I agree with your blanket statement.

I can easily find many horrific accounts of barbaric punishments under Sharia Law for things considered legal (or protected) in civilized society but this is a family-friendly fansite/forum.

Whose interpretation of Sharia Law? All that "Sharia Law" means is religiously inspired legal systems. As I have no problems with Jewish people electing to use Jewish arbitration courts for civil matters, I likewise have no objection to Muslims electing to settle civil disputes through religious arbitration courts.
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129731015
A secular judge reviews the ruling to make sure it is not completely out of line with secular law, and then abides by it.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

TIL that anecdotes are historical evidence.

In my case, I can produce other people who can back up what I said. We try not to talk about it now, because it's STILL an unsettling thing. The site owners on that gaming forum created a set of circumstances in which an innocent person was railroaded off staff (and he was a good moderator), other people were harassed, and I was afraid to open my email, afraid of being stalked - because that doxxing crap on there boiled down to "here is all her information I could dig up - go forth and stalk." He (the game producer, who was also one of the site owners) was giving people carte blanche to do this, and did any of them care that part of the information posted wasn't actually mine, but that of a high school kid with my name, who wouldn't have known anything about this if someone had tracked down her RL address or started posting obscene crap on her blog? I doubt it.

That forum also had it very clearly outlined in the rules that doxxing was prohibited. One law for the site owners and another for those not the site owners' friends, I guess. They'd have thrown the book at anyone else doing that. I recall reminding one of the mods there about the rules, and his response was "I don't need no stinkin' rules."

My point is not to consider what would happen in the real world. My point is what would happen vis á vis the emotions and beliefs of fellow forum measures, and how it would predispose their evaluation of Mr. X. Nothing more than that. Now of course in the real world I suspect that the moderators would shut that down immediately and the admins would get involved. Any more discussion of that aspect, however, could possibly be PDMA on my part so I will refrain from discussing it.

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. I was hoping you would concede that this hypothetical would have serious consequences if it really did happen. As I said, I can't separate this kind of hypothetical from RL because I've already experienced it in RL, both as a witness to others being falsely accused and as a target myself.

A good example of what I am looking for is what you personally felt emotionally and intellectually about the circumstances of the gay moderator story you just told. My question to you would still be: "How did that make you feel?"

Toward the moderator? He was (and still is) a friend, and I consider him a good person. I felt angry that he was being attacked and I went into "defend my friend against unjust attacks" mode. That, of course, is what put a target on me, and it caused a lot of trouble that as you can see is still triggering a lot of anger. It's not the only time I've defended people against unjust attacks. There have been other instances over the years on various sites. But this first one was the only one where it got so viciously personal that people's RL information was being handed around in public.

Do I regret defending him? No. In my view, it's immoral not to defend someone in circumstances such as this, when you know the forum owners/staff are violating their own rules and being abusive. I'm not the only one who was targeted for defending this guy. There was a lot of fallout over this situation that will never be mended.

How do I feel about the perpetrators? Seriously, if they were to disappear off the face of the planet tomorrow, I wouldn't spend a nanosecond grieving. What they did is unforgivable.

It is a reasonable question and one that I can't answer as I don't make policy. It's best to ask that question in Site Feedback, or directly PM a Supermod or Admin.

Okay.

The point is that they are being disrespected in similar ways to romanceless men of liberal societies, whose misery is considered by the privileged to be their own fault (how many times have you seen feminists mocking their opponents as 'lonely virgins?')

I have never mocked a non-feminist in that way. I've been on the receiving end of it from non-feminists, though. They seem to think that feminists are feminists because they "can't get a man of their own." They are completely incapable of understanding that some women don't want a "man of their own."

It's sad, how some women feel that they're not true, whole persons unless they're "Mrs. _____." It's like they don't feel any self-esteem in just being themselves, no matter what their marital status might be. Even the ones who end up as victims of domestic abuse will sometimes say "Well, at least I'm married." That marriage license isn't much of a protection if the spouse decides to get violent, is it?

One of the things I'd do is reintroduce traditional sexual mores like courtship, marriage, etc. But I'm not a central planner dictating how society ought to be organized. If I'm trying to change the world, the only thing I can do is behave in ways I think are healthy and honorable. That means no sex before marriage, no alone time with other women at social gatherings, etc.

Don't people date, go steady, get engaged, and marry anymore?

What do you mean by "no alone time with other women at social gatherings"?

Which is not a view I've ever expressed. All I said was that rape within a marriage should be treated differently, which is not a euphemism for excused.

Treated differently in what way?

I think that a societal expectation to get married, with resulting societal disapproval if one does not, isn't equivalent to rape. But that's just my humble old opinion.

It may not be equivalent to rape, but it is certainly intolerant. Ever been on the receiving end of "You're not married? You don't have children? What's wrong with you?"?

I have. I've had this thrown at me by family, ex-classmates, and even total strangers. It makes me want to strongly avoid these people in future, because it's obvious that they don't respect me as I am.

In the 7th century Islam was often a step forward for women.

Children being forced into "marriage" is a step forward how?

Again, sources needed. There are multiple accounts of women in medieval Europe running their own businesses and being co-equal members of the household. The idea of medieval women doing nothing but embroidery in a tower has more to do with the aristocracy than any on-the-ground reality. Put simply, come harvest time a woman's hands are just as good at bailing hay as anyone else's.

This is true in some societies at some points in time. It's not a blanket condition for all women in all of medieval Europe. I kept this firmly in mind when I was developing my persona (someone who could have lived in Europe or regions that had documented contact with Europe between 600-1600 CE) for the Society for Creative Anachronism.

 

[inthesomeday]

It's sad, how some women feel that they're not true, whole persons unless they're "Mrs. _____." It's like they don't feel any self-esteem in just being themselves, no matter what their marital status might be. Even the ones who end up as victims of domestic abuse will sometimes say "Well, at least I'm married." That marriage license isn't much of a protection if the spouse decides to get violent, is it?

It’s so so sad but if it’s any consolation I think my generation’s women don’t generally think this way, or at least way fewer of them do than back in the day

Children being forced into "marriage" is a step forward how?

I think in the 7th century Islam and Islamic groups were comparatively progressive on this front, at least for the region of the world they existed in

 

[sophie]

It's worth noting that nunneries weren't generally open to peasants, farmers, maids, etc.

And by generally, I mean, like, ever.

 

[Lexicus]

Children being forced into "marriage" is a step forward how?

Do you think that children being forced into marriage originated with Islam? Childhood as we know it today is a very recent development. It was common all over the world for women to be married as soon as they were biologically capable of having children, something which happens well under the age of majority in most societies today.

 

[Ajidica]

Do you think that children being forced into marriage originated with Islam? Childhood as we know it today is a very recent development. It was common all over the world for women to be married as soon as they were biologically capable of having children, something which happens well under the age of majority in most societies today.

Why wait until biologically capable of having children? Roman aristocracy were big fans of marrying their young daughter to elderly generals because women weren't really people in elite Roman society.

 

[sophie]

Why wait until biologically capable of having children? Roman aristocracy were big fans of marrying their young daughter to elderly generals because women weren't really people in elite Roman society.

Also Roman women didn't get names.

 

[inthesomeday]

Do you think that children being forced into marriage originated with Islam? Childhood as we know it today is a very recent development. It was common all over the world for women to be married as soon as they were biologically capable of having children, something which happens well under the age of majority in most societies today.

Why wait until biologically capable of having children? Roman aristocracy were big fans of marrying their young daughter to elderly generals because women weren't really people in elite Roman society.

Also Roman women didn't get names.

Smh you guys are showing your ANTI WEST bias.

 

[Azem.Ocram]

Roman women didn’t get unique names. All the women in one family might be named Domitia.