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

[stinkubus]

Can you cite one of these "historical behavior" patterns?

 

[Farm Boy]

No one learns or remembers whether Mr. X actually did anything. He's just that guy who "committed sexual assault." And it follows him around ...

Well, yea. Of course that happens. I mentioned it earlier if we want to be hung up on real life examples. I thought the man who awarded me my state FFA degree raped his kids for almost 20 years. Which was an erroneous rumor milled memory of a different lie about him. No clue who the person who even started the whole thing is. That's anonymous, for better and worse.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Can you cite one of these "historical behavior" patterns?

Lemon Merchant, Farm Boy, Valka and Cutlass did so, to name a couple examples already here.

But you could go as far back as WW2 indoctrination or even 1692. The messages are different, but belief in something w/o evidence and ultimately innocent people being screwed over as a result of people acting on those beliefs is a common thread (excepting OJ Simpson, where there is still some decent evidence despite the debacle).

 

[Manfred Belheim]

belief in something w/o evidence and ultimately innocent people being screwed over as a result of people acting on those beliefs is a common thread

It's a real shame that standing by this as a general principle is enough to get you labelled a rape apologist (and worse) on this forum.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It's a real shame that standing by this as a general principle is enough to get you labelled a rape apologist (and worse) on this forum.

Not just this forum, generally so...and with situations outside of rape too. At least pointing out that evidence contradicts the narrative is less likely to get you killed today than for most of history though. I didn't mention inquisitions, or people being killed on a belief they left Islam, or historical examples before due process was even a consistent process in a given area of the world.

The worst part is that people believe this stuff even when allegations are constrained to areas where lying about what happened is unlikely to have consequences...all while said evidence is *still* lacking.

 

[stinkubus]

Lemon Merchant, Farm Boy, Valka and Cutlass did so, to name a couple examples already here.

But you could go as far back as WW2 indoctrination or even 1692. The messages are different, but belief in something w/o evidence and ultimately innocent people being screwed over as a result of people acting on those beliefs is a common thread (excepting OJ Simpson, where there is still some decent evidence despite the debacle).

TIL that anecdotes are historical evidence.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

I don't see how you can ask this and NOT consider what would happen in the "real world" if someone were to make such an accusation against a fellow forum member.

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.

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?"

I am also serious in asking if CFC actually has a policy about this kind of thing. Given the context of your hypothetical, it's a reasonable thing to ask about.

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.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

TIL that anecdotes are historical evidence.

To make this claim, you must assert human behavior in the buildup to and execution of world war 2 and religious inquisitions were/are anecdotes, same with what was done to USSR citizens during the cold war.

It would be better to avoid disingenuous one-liners though.

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.

Doxxing someone is a clear violation of the first paragraph of the essentials outlined in the forum rules. It is a direct violation of privacy. This same paragraph covers defamatory posts, and I don't know what standards one could possibly use to claim that your example wouldn't be "defamatory" without undoing that portion of the rule in its entirety. The forum admins wouldn't know if it's "knowably false" or a legitimate accusation, but it would be pretty difficult to make a case that it's not defamatory/invading privacy.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Doxxing someone is a clear violation of the first paragraph of the essentials outlined in the forum rules. It is a direct violation of privacy. This same paragraph covers defamatory posts, and I don't know what standards one could possibly use to claim that your example wouldn't be "defamatory" without undoing that portion of the rule in its entirety. The forum admins wouldn't know if it's "knowably false" or a legitimate accusation, but it would be pretty difficult to make a case that it's not defamatory/invading privacy.

Yes. I've reread the rules in the last few minutes. I would still pose the question in Site Feedback for an up to date and clear answer to the question.

 

[Mouthwash]

Not really. If women aren't to be forced into sex there are going to be some deprived men. That's unavoidable. It goes the other way, too.

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.

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

Seriously dude? It's not debatable that Islam permits polygamy while Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism do not. I'm not sure what Islam actually says about women, but in effect it denies them far more agency than the other two. It also denies the possibility of romance or marriage to underprivileged men (gender ratio is still fifty-fifty after all).

There are several reasons polygamy is corrosive to women's rights and dignity:

1. Multiple wives, along with all their children, have to compete for attention and assistance from the husband.

2. The extremely high demand for females commoditizes them. Bride prices are the result of this. It means that wealth directly translates to marriageability, and also results in elderly men marrying teenage girls.

3, Mutilation (FGM) as a means of controlling female sexuality becomes useful, since not only the honor but the financial livelihood of her family is at stake. It's similar to controlling slaves through castration. Islam did not invent it, but it has tolerated it.

Christian and Jewish marriages at their most unequal are comparable to a master/servant relationship. Islamic marriages at their most unequal are literal chattel slavery. Also, note that Islam permits marriage between a Jewish/Christian woman and a Muslim man, but not the reverse (so it isn't an endorsement of interfaith unions, it only means that the female status is unimportant. Plus, the lack of women was often ameliorated by stealing them from other communities - combined with the prohibition of owning a fellow Muslim as a slave, this could be seen as an endorsement of aggression against non-Muslims.)

The whole idea that the state should not intrude into the 'household' is based on the idea that a patriarch is who should control the household.

Perhaps historically, but I'm not seeing why that has to be the case. From what I've seen of Chassidic Jews, I think it's possible to combine traditional family units with female equality.

Also for the record, I think considering marital rape anything less than full-fledged rape is reprehensible.

I think marital rape is full-fledged rape. I don't think that all rapes are the same or deserve the same punishment. Like, y'know, literally every other crime.

The "private household", to which you appealed above in explaining why marital rape hasn't been criminalized, is constituted by stripping women (and males who are not heads of household) of their rights as individuals.

Women are more likely to hold to religious and traditional sexual mores. Your argument is that they enjoy slavery, then?

You misinterpret me. I mean that I believe in essentially the opposite of "casual sex outside of marriage = bad." The more options there are for people, the better, and people who want to only have sex in marriage or refrain from casual sex (that's me, I catch feelings too easily for casual sex to come easy) are perfectly free to do so.

All it takes to turn a Marxist into Milton Friedman is, apparently, discussing traditional family structures (he was also a fan of the idea of 'maximizing free choice').

Don't try to blame that on him. I interpreted your statements in just the same way. Whether you intended it or not that's how they read.

Perhaps you're overestimating your own objectivity.

I really don't know what you're trying to say here. Consent is the fundamental requirement. And there really is not, nor should there be, any other requirement, above the age of consent.

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.

Make it taboo all you want. You aren't going to change how much sex take place, no matter how taboo it is.

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

Bloody hell. This is literal rape apoligism.

That's one for the bucket list. Homophobe, sexist, racist, Islamophobe, anti-Semite, and now rape apologist!

For the record, intimate partners are one of the major perpetrator groups of sexual violence.

I don't care about how 'intimate' they were, I only care if they made a marital commitment to each other (with the implication that they will live together, have sex, possibly raise children, etc). For the same reason, a parent beating their child isn't treated the same way as a stranger attacking them on the street.

Whut?

I never accused you of being pro-women-as-chattel. I was pointing out that when women had to depend on the goodwill of their husbands or fathers to allow them to do the most ordinary things that modern women take for granted (vote, own property, control their own money and what they do with their property), that meant that these women were not really free.

I agree.

I see nothing in that article that relates to what I said. And yeah, I find the situations in the article utterly bizarre and repugnant - matchmakers telling young girls to "lose a few pounds" and the girls are so desperate to find a husband that they end up dying of anorexia. But as revolting as the situation is, those women are hardly being denied any rights as legal persons. They are being profoundly disrespected in other ways.

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?')

What about every opportunity possible to get a boyfriend/husband? And for everyone, not only heterosexuals?

I agree 100%. No one deserves to be alone, but #MeToo has a blind spot when it comes to men.

How would you go about doing that, in a way that's fair to everyone?

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.

Maybe I should take back the women-as-chattel comment. Marriage does not mean the husband acquires a sex slave that he can use any time he wants, regardless of whether or not she is also agreeable.

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.

ANY unwanted/forced sex is rape. It doesn't matter if the rapist and the victim are married or not.

Yes, this is something I concur with!

"My life is miserable, so I'll try to make everyone equally miserable."

Orthodox Jews have better sex lives than you.

Islam and Christianity, otherwise respectively known as Judaism v3.0 and v2.0.

A lot can change between development cycles.

 

[Lexicus]

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.

So basically, you do want people to be raped? Like, honest question, how can you think this is remotely okay?

Seriously dude?

Seriously. There is nothing inherently Islamic about anything you've mentioned. There is evidence of Christians and Jews (okay, maybe not Jews) practicing polygamy, FGM, and every other damn thing. For every quote from the Quran about how inferior women are, you can find one from the Bible.

I think marital rape is full-fledged rape. I don't think that all rapes are the same or deserve the same punishment. Like, y'know, literally every other crime.

But you're not talking about a case-by-case basis. You said that marital rape should not be treated as severely in law as plain old rape.

For the same reason, a parent beating their child isn't treated the same way as a stranger attacking them on the street.

It probably should be, though. And a parent raping their child would generally be considered a lot worse than a stranger doing it.

 

[Mouthwash]

So basically, you do want people to be raped? Like, honest question, how can you think this is remotely okay?

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.

Seriously. There is nothing inherently Islamic about anything you've mentioned.

I don't know enough about Islam to talk about what it endorses. But I do know how Muslim societies have behaved.

There is evidence of Christians and Jews practicing polygamy, FGM, and every other damn thing.

Of course. The ancestors of medieval Jews and Christians were tribal. But the thousand years that came after shows that Muslim and Christian/Jewish societies trended in opposite directions.

Christianity sparked the first sexual revolution, moving away from sex being treated as a matter of family honor (or mere pleasure when it came to slaves). Islam preserved that mentality. Ever wonder why the Wahhabi Saudis or Gulf Arabs have hardcore strip clubs while anything that could be labeled 'radical' Christianity or Judaism is always completely puritan?

For every quote from the Quran about how inferior women are, you can find one from the Bible.

Not relevant, as I've taken pains to explain.

But you're not talking about a case-by-case basis. You said that marital rape should not be treated as severely in law as plain old rape.

Case-by-case circumstances always matter. I think that a husband brutally abusing his wife ought to be punished more severely than a college kid who had too much to drink and didn't want to stop when his partner asked him to in the middle of sex. Marriage is just one of those circumstances.

And a parent raping their child would generally be considered a lot worse than a stranger doing it.

There is... quite a different reason why that is the case.

 

[Lexicus]

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.

You used the word "forced" to describe the social pressure you're talking about putting on people to have sex. "I was afraid to say no" is just as much rape as "he grabbed me and pinned me down."

Christianity sparked the first sexual revolution, moving away from sex being treated as a matter of family honor (or mere pleasure when it came to slaves). Islam preserved that mentality.

You are aware that honor killings have been common in the Islamic stronghold of Italy? The most recent instance I can find is a man stabbing his brother 19 times in 2011 because the brother was gay and this reflected poorly on the family honor. Until 1981 family honor was an extenuating circumstance for murder in Italian law (in that it would be treated more leniently than a "normal" murder, not that it wasn't a crime at all).

There is... quite a different reason why that is the case.

Yeah, and the reason is generally that being violated by someone you love and trust is a lot worse than being violated by a stranger.

 

[Mouthwash]

I assume your general concession on all but two fronts means I've gotten the better end of this argument.

You used the word "forced" to describe the social pressure you're talking about putting on people to have sex.

I just wanted to highlight how powerful it is, not just in terms of making people do something they don't want to, but in making them want those things.

Yeah, and the reason is generally that being violated by someone you love and trust is a lot worse than being violated by a stranger.

No. Try again.

 

[Lexicus]

I just wanted to highlight how powerful it is, not just in terms of making people do something they don't want to, but in making them want those things.

So rather like the Manson family women were made to want to have sex with Charles Manson? Or some different thing?

 

[Mouthwash]

So rather like the Manson family women were made to want to have sex with Charles Manson? Or some different thing?

Kinda of like that, yes, except my system will frown on murder and polygamy.

 

[Lexicus]

Kinda of like that, yes, except my system will frown on murder and polygamy.

Okay, good luck trying to get people to agree with that. Know that if you succeed I and many others will resist violently.

 

[inthesomeday]

Wait so your program is a heteronormative system of forced marriages in which marital rape is completely legalized and encouraged, and in which women are treated as property with a responsibility to provide sex to men?

 

[Lexicus]

Wait so your program is a heteronormative system of forced marriages in which marital rape is completely legalized and encouraged, and in which women are treated as property with a responsibility to provide sex to men?

But Islam is totally the only religion that disrespects women. Duh.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I agree 100%. No one deserves to be alone, but #MeToo has a blind spot when it comes to men.

Actually, it's reasonable to argue that there are actions that would merit someone deserving to be alone. I would also argue that there's no good reason to reject the choice of people who opt to be alone intentionally.

Like anything else, if you want it you work for it, and there's nothing fundamental to the nature of reality that requires it to be "fair".

The problem is inconsistent standards at both the social and legal levels.

If you're going to start talking about "honor" or "waiting for marriage" there's going to need to be evidence based reasoning for such policy that to my knowledge does not exist. You could make a case that a lot of premarital sex happens to be a "poor choice" in a given context, but it's not evident that such is *inherently* worse than alternative poor choices. Nobody who looks at the present state of marriages with a dose of reality should be assigning that any credibility though...marriage is a farce in today's world. An awkward, selectively legally binding contract held over from times when they really were more like arranged business contracts than purely "love". Religion co-opted them for a bit, but that only makes them as sacred as your beliefs without evidence can carry.

I don't see a reason to be more lenient toward rape between married people as a relevant consideration. More/less violence or bodily harm sure. At the same time, I would be dubious if such allegations appear in distant retrospect during divorce proceedings or as anything other than an immediate cause for filing.