#metoo

[CeeCee72]

The ability to kill Children at will? You think that is a goal of modern feminism?

I mean, it's just not - unless you are equating abortion with murder.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

The ability to kill Children at will? You think that is a goal of modern feminism?

I mean, it's just not - unless you are equating abortion with murder.

You may be more naive that you think.

As I said, there are many well-intentioned members of the movement who sincerely believe the stated "equality" goal.

But that has nothing to do with who runs the movement or their dystopian goals. It has always been sick.

 

[Angela Channing]

My state does allow abortion up to 12 weeks for a "normal" pregnancy and up to 24 weeks for a pregnancy where the mother's long term health is at risk or a fetus is diagnosed with a condition that indicates it will die before or shortly after birth.

BUT

In many cases doctors are hesitant to make an official diagnosis, especially when an amino can't be performed. My neighbor was told at about 21 weeks that the fetus had what looked like cysts or tumors, that she wasn't producing enough amniotic fluid, that the fetus was very unlikely to survive. Her doctors could not give a specific diagnosis. Once she passed 24 weeks, she just had to wait for it to die.

So yes - I support laws that allow for termination after 24 weeks under the strict supervision of a physician and under very specific circumstances.

That doesn't make me a crazy leftist feminist.

Your post reminded of this interview with Debbie Reynolds in which she tells the story of how she had to carry her dead baby in her womb for a long time because the law didn't allow for the pregnancy to be terminated prematurely. It is truly harrowing stuff.

 

[Angela Channing]

You may be more naive that you think.

As I said, there are many well-intentioned members of the movement who sincerely believe the stated "equality" goal.

But that has nothing to do with who runs the movement or their dystopian goals. It has always been sick.

I think using the reaction of one individual woman to a single case of infanticide as evidence that feminism or women’s equality has “gone too far” (which seems to be the trust of what you have been saying on this thread) is a huge leap. One woman’s opinion does not represent the views of women generally, just as the actions or opinions of one man cannot reasonably be used to represent all men.

I don’t know the details of the particular case you’re referring to, so I don’t think it would be fair for me to comment specifically on it. However, there is an important distinction between defending or excusing someone’s actions and trying to understand the circumstances that led to them. Research into women who kill their babies has repeatedly identified serious mental health problems as an important factor in some cases, including postpartum depression and, in the most severe cases, postpartum psychosis. Understanding the causes of such tragedies is not the same as saying that what happened was acceptable or that the mother should not be held accountable.

More broadly, I’m not sure how this individual case demonstrates that feminism, #MeToo or the pursuit of gender equality has gone too far. These are much bigger issues concerning discrimination, sexual harassment, abuse of power and equality between men and women. It is perfectly possible to condemn the killing of a child while also recognising that maternal mental health deserves greater attention, research and support.

Sadly, we still live in a society where women can face discrimination, harassment and abuse and where some men use their position, power or sense of entitlement to take advantage of women. The rolling back of DEI initiatives in some areas is also a legitimate cause for concern because addressing inequality requires sustained effort rather than assuming the problem has already been solved.

If anything, the lesson I would take from a tragic case like this is that we should be careful about turning an individual tragedy into an argument against an entire movement for equality. Feminism is not about defending everything a woman does simply because she is a woman. It is about equality and challenging discrimination and unequal power structures. Those are two very different things.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

It has nothing to do with equality. That's the scam. And repeating all the standard talking points don't make those talking points true.

 

[Frank Underwood]

DEI was more about quotas than qualifications. An equitable and diverse workforce is great, so long as the people that are put in those positions are capable of doing the job.

As for feminism, the original stated goals of gender equality and accountability for abusive men are what society should strive for. Unfortunately, most movements either have ulterior motives from the start, or they devolve into something darker. That's not to say there aren't well-intentioned, self-described feminists out there, but the movement at large has come to represent a more misandrist mindset. The toxic feminists tried to silence male victims during the #MeToo movement and used it as an excuse to strip all men of due process. There was pushback because accusations were treated as gospel, with phrases like "believe all women" used to justify innocent men getting caught in the net.

Some people referred to it as an "overcorrection," yet they still seemed to justify it. And all because the modern feminist view became about female superiority.

That's why the Lindsay Clancy situation isn't about "one individual case." What it represents is toxic women coming to the aid of another woman solely because of her gender. Sadly, most of her supporters are excusing her actions. Even the people who say we should consider her mental state and the circumstances that led to her snapping appear to be treating her different because she's a woman. When it's a man, people usually want to execute him first and ask questions later. Female predators are getting more attention these days, and their treatment is noticeably different too. Not only do they tend to receive lighter sentences, but people in general often take their crimes much less seriously.

I'm not a big label person these days, but as someone who supports true equality and accountability for both men and women, I'd prefer to think of myself as a humanist.

 

[Angela Channing]

DEI was more about quotas than qualifications. An equitable and diverse workforce is great, so long as the people that are put in those positions are capable of doing the job.

As for feminism, the original stated goals of gender equality and accountability for abusive men are what society should strive for. Unfortunately, most movements either have ulterior motives from the start, or they devolve into something darker. That's not to say there aren't well-intentioned, self-described feminists out there, but the movement at large has come to represent a more misandrist mindset. The toxic feminists tried to silence male victims during the #MeToo movement and used it as an excuse to strip all men of due process. There was pushback because accusations were treated as gospel, with phrases like "believe all women" used to justify innocent men getting caught in the net.

Some people referred to it as an "overcorrection," yet they still seemed to justify it. And all because the modern feminist view became about female superiority.

That's why the Lindsay Clancy situation isn't about "one individual case." What it represents is toxic women coming to the aid of another woman solely because of her gender. Sadly, most of her supporters are excusing her actions. Even the people who say we should consider her mental state and the circumstances that led to her snapping appear to be treating her different because she's a woman. When it's a man, people usually want to execute him first and ask questions later. Female predators are getting more attention these days, and their treatment is noticeably different too. Not only do they tend to receive lighter sentences, but people in general often take their crimes much less seriously.

I'm not a big label person these days, but as someone who supports true equality and accountability for both men and women, I'd prefer to think of myself as a humanist.

Overcorrection? Are you having a laugh? In the USA there are twice as many men in the senate than women, twice as many men in the House or Representatives than women, in the general workplace there are twice as many men in senior management and leadership positions than there are women and 10 times as many male CEOs of Fortune 500 companies than female ones. Overall, women earn about 80 cents for every dollar that men earn. Violence against women and girls continues to increase. So let's not try and fool ourselves that there has been an "overcorrection" when the evidence shows otherwise.

I have no idea who Lindsay Clancy is, and I don't care. The action of one individual, 10 individuals or even a 1000 individuals, doesn't change the evidence that we still have a lot more work to do achieve gender equality. We shouldn't be rolling back DEI on initiatives, we need be going further and faster with them.

 

[Willie Oleson]

So let's not try and fool ourselves that there has been an "overcorrection" when the evidence shows otherwise.

What the evidence shows doesn't necessarily indicate what the intentions and sensibilities of these extreme feminists are. Contradictions can co-exist otherwise there wouldn't be any use for the word "contradiction".

Anyone who abuses his/her power is a bad person imo, but that doesn't automatically make every person who suffers abuse a good person. For example, bad stuff also happens to serial killers (we just don't know how truly evil they really are).

we still have a lot more work to do achieve gender equality.

But what does equality actually mean, and does it always serve exactly the same purpose?

So, let's say, from today on, all top CEOs are men and women in a perfect 50/50 ratio. How does that make the world a better place? Why should that achievement make us feel happier? Why is imbalance per definition considered a bad thing? We keep saying it but I'm not sure if we know why we're saying it.

To me, equality means that both genders deserve the chance to become a successful this or that. However, the vibe in overcorrection is to put the cart before the horse just to show "we've done it!" - and then maybe justify that achievement in a backwards way.
I think what I mean to say is that equality for the sake of equality seems a bit meaningless to me, a fake victory.
It's like when a painter paints a painting and he wants the theme to be "red". And then someone else says "that's great, but make sure there's enough blue in it".
Come to think of it, a tiny blue dot would make it a perfect artistic statement, but I digress.

 

[Frank Underwood]

Overcorrection? Are you having a laugh? In the USA there are twice as many men in the senate than women, twice as many men in the House or Representatives than women, in the general workplace there are twice as many men in senior management and leadership positions than there are women and 10 times as many male CEOs of Fortune 500 companies than female ones. Overall, women earn about 80 cents for every dollar that men earn. Violence against women and girls continues to increase. So let's not try and fool ourselves that there has been an "overcorrection" when the evidence shows otherwise.

That wasn't what my argument was about, but then you often misconstrue my posts.

As per my post you quoted, the term "overcorrection" was actually used to describe the impact of #MeToo going beyond its intended targets. Suddenly, awkward dates and clumsy social interactions were being conflated with predatory abuse. The phrase "believe all women" was meant to shut down concerns about any possible false allegations. As a result, innocent men also got swept up with the predators and abusers. There was a rush to judgement that caused people to lose their jobs or even end up jail before the facts were fully established. Naturally, this raised concerns about fairness and due process. That so-called "overcorrection" is ultimately what hurt the #MeToo movement.

As for there being more men in government and managerial positions, men were typically seen as assertive leaders for many years. In contrast, women were often thought of as housewives and caregivers. That's been changing over time as the culture and gender views shift. The fact that there are 129 women in the House of Representatives and 27 in the Senate is actually pretty respectable to me, especially since the US has been tailored towards traditional gender norms. Again, it's all about perspective. There was a time when women couldn't vote, and now two of the last three Dem nominees for president have been women (one was even Secretary of State, and the other was the VP). The fact that women lead 11% of fortune 500 companies should be viewed with a similar perspective. Change happens gradually over time because it's a continuous, evolving process.

Lastly, the widely cited "wage gap" statistic that women earn 80 cents for every dollar men earn is an aggregate measure of all full-time working men and women. It's not a comparison of pay for the same job. In fact, it is illegal to pay women less than men for performing the exact same job with the same qualifications under the Equal Pay Act.

I have no idea who Lindsay Clancy is, and I don't care. The action of one individual, 10 individuals or even a 1000 individuals, doesn't change the evidence that we still have a lot more work to do achieve gender equality. We shouldn't be rolling back DEI on initiatives, we need be going further and faster with them.

Nobody said there isn't still work to be done. What's been said is that the toxic supporters Lindsay Clancy has attracted are precisely the type of women who've perverted what the feminist movement was supposed to represent. It went from equality and accountability for men to female entitlement and no accountability for women. Whenever people bring this up, there's always resistance from some people who want to shift the conversation back to predatory and abusive men. And yet I don't hear anybody saying that men like that shouldn't be held accountable. However, do we really need a movement and a hashtag that have been hijacked by toxic women to do so? I would say no.

And speaking of DEI (again), it should be illegal for employers to discriminate when hiring employees. However, filling quotas for the sake of it can be counterproductive as well. For example, I've seen female police and corrections officers in dangerous situations because they were physically outmatched. That shouldn't be allowed to happen.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Nobody said there isn't still work to be done.

Actually, there's much to be undone (and good luck with that).

So many of the stats and talking points are lies, systemic lies.

This is a calm discussion that I saw this morning addressing the differences between the reactions to male accusations and female (I rather like Janice Fiamengo, though balding blusterer Tom GoldenIn is kind of silly). The conversation isn't hyperbolic and will bore some people (and it goes on for an hour) but most of the other videos on Clancy, or Clancy's clan, obviously, are much crazier:

 

[Frank Underwood]

Actually, there's much to be undone (and good luck with that).

Yes, there's plenty of that too.

So many of the stats and talking points are lies, systemic lies.

Some go back decades too (like the wage gap statistics), which make them easier to refute.

The irony is I've seen quite a few women picking apart these arguments over the last decade or so. Of course, they're labeled a "pick me," while the men are labeled "incels."

 

[Seaviewer]

The Clancy case has been in the news here but I have not followed it closely.
I do know that my mother suffered psychotic delusions and hallucinations toward the end of her life and the voices in her head could have made her capable of just about anything including violent acts.
I don't know the truth of the Clancy case, but the issue is mental competency, not gender bias.

 

[Angela Channing]

What the evidence shows doesn't necessarily indicate what the intentions and sensibilities of these extreme feminists are. Contradictions can co-exist otherwise there wouldn't be any use for the word "contradiction".

Anyone who abuses his/her power is a bad person imo, but that doesn't automatically make every person who suffers abuse a good person. For example, bad stuff also happens to serial killers (we just don't know how truly evil they really are).

But what does equality actually mean, and does it always serve exactly the same purpose?

So, let's say, from today on, all top CEOs are men and women in a perfect 50/50 ratio. How does that make the world a better place? Why should that achievement make us feel happier? Why is imbalance per definition considered a bad thing? We keep saying it but I'm not sure if we know why we're saying it.

To me, equality means that both genders deserve the chance to become a successful this or that. However, the vibe in overcorrection is to put the cart before the horse just to show "we've done it!" - and then maybe justify that achievement in a backwards way.
I think what I mean to say is that equality for the sake of equality seems a bit meaningless to me, a fake victory.
It's like when a painter paints a painting and he wants the theme to be "red". And then someone else says "that's great, but make sure there's enough blue in it".
Come to think of it, a tiny blue dot would make it a perfect artistic statement, but I digress.

I'm not interested in the extremists because they give people the opportunity to say "look at what they are doing" while ignoring the very real issues of gender inequality.

Yes, we all want men and women to have equal opportunities but in the real world it's not good enough to just hope it will happen, we have to take material steps to get there. If DEI initiatives are not the way forward, how do you think we will get to that point of equality?

You ask why is gender parity important. Because women generally understand issues that relate to them better than men do. If we want better and fairer outcomes for women, history shows it won't happen if it's left to men to make the necessary changes.

That wasn't what my argument was about, but then you often misconstrue my posts.

As per my post you quoted, the term "overcorrection" was actually used to describe the impact of #MeToo going beyond its intended targets. Suddenly, awkward dates and clumsy social interactions were being conflated with predatory abuse. The phrase "believe all women" was meant to shut down concerns about any possible false allegations. As a result, innocent men also got swept up with the predators and abusers. There was a rush to judgement that caused people to lose their jobs or even end up jail before the facts were fully established. Naturally, this raised concerns about fairness and due process. That so-called "overcorrection" is ultimately what hurt the #MeToo movement.

As for there being more men in government and managerial positions, men were typically seen as assertive leaders for many years. In contrast, women were often thought of as housewives and caregivers. That's been changing over time as the culture and gender views shift. The fact that there are 129 women in the House of Representatives and 27 in the Senate is actually pretty respectable to me, especially since the US has been tailored towards traditional gender norms. Again, it's all about perspective. There was a time when women couldn't vote, and now two of the last three Dem nominees for president have been women (one was even Secretary of State, and the other was the VP). The fact that women lead 11% of fortune 500 companies should be viewed with a similar perspective. Change happens gradually over time because it's a continuous, evolving process.

Lastly, the widely cited "wage gap" statistic that women earn 80 cents for every dollar men earn is an aggregate measure of all full-time working men and women. It's not a comparison of pay for the same job. In fact, it is illegal to pay women less than men for performing the exact same job with the same qualifications under the Equal Pay Act.


Nobody said there isn't still work to be done. What's been said is that the toxic supporters Lindsay Clancy has attracted are precisely the type of women who've perverted what the feminist movement was supposed to represent. It went from equality and accountability for men to female entitlement and no accountability for women. Whenever people bring this up, there's always resistance from some people who want to shift the conversation back to predatory and abusive men. And yet I don't hear anybody saying that men like that shouldn't be held accountable. However, do we really need a movement and a hashtag that have been hijacked by toxic women to do so? I would say no.

And speaking of DEI (again), it should be illegal for employers to discriminate when hiring employees. However, filling quotas for the sake of it can be counterproductive as well. For example, I've seen female police and corrections officers in dangerous situations because they were physically outmatched. That shouldn't be allowed to happen.

No, you have chosen to define #MeToo according to how it fits into your argument. #MeToo was never about clumsy interactions on dates but about men abusing their power and position to take advantage of women.

Quotas are another side issue that allows people to avoid the central point. I don't care about quotas, we don't have gender quotas in the UK, and I'm not clear which specific quotas you are referring to. However, the gender breakdown of roles do give a useful indication of how much further we need to go to achieve greater equality. If senior positions are going to men at a rate of 2 to 1, then there is something systematically biased against women in that system.

Actually, there's much to be undone (and good luck with that).

So many of the stats and talking points are lies, systemic lies.

This is a calm discussion that I saw this morning addressing the differences between the reactions to male accusations and female (I rather like Janice Fiamengo, though balding blusterer Tom GoldenIn is kind of silly). The conversation isn't hyperbolic and will bore some people (and it goes on for an hour) but most of the other videos on Clancy, or Clancy's clan, obviously, are much crazier:

What specific laws or guidence do you think should be undone? Specifically, which are the stats and talking points that you think are lies and what do you think are the more accurate ones?

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

I don't know the truth of the Clancy case, but the issue is mental competency, not gender bias.

But the whacky support for he is gender bias.

 

[Frank Underwood]

You ask why is gender parity important. Because women generally understand issues that relate to them better than men do. If we want better and fairer outcomes for women, history shows it won't happen if it's left to men to make the necessary changes.

Men aren't even good enough to be allies, huh? It goes to show what many feminists (including the males) really think of men deep down; that we only care about ourselves.

And yet when men post about their mental health issues, feelings of isolation and loneliness, etc., they are routinely mocked for it by these deep, compassionate feminists.

No, you have chosen to define #MeToo according to how it fits into your argument. #MeToo was never about clumsy interactions on dates but about men abusing their power and position to take advantage of women.

If you believe that, then you haven't been paying attention for the last 9 years. It has nothing to do with my argument or my definition of the #MeToo movement. I'm stating exactly what happened. My argument from the start has been that well-intentioned movements are often hijacked by bad faith actors. A simple Google search will explain exactly what the #MeToo movement turned into and why there was pushback against it, but as per usual, you accuse me of creating my own narrative rather than stating a fact.

Quotas are another side issue that allows people to avoid the central point. I don't care about quotas, we don't have gender quotas in the UK, and I'm not clear which specific quotas you are referring to. However, the gender breakdown of roles do give a useful indication of how much further we need to go to achieve greater equality. If senior positions are going to men at a rate of 2 to 1, then there is something systematically biased against women in that system.

I didn't avoid the "central point." I said the US has a history of supporting traditional gender roles, and that progress is a continuous, evolving process. Cultural changes and views on gender roles have shifted over time and will continue to do so moving forward. That said, I think some people have a habit of undermining the progress that has taken place. I also think @Willie Oleson made a good point about equal opportunity being more important than a balanced career path. My main issue with a program like DEI is that some women were being hired for positions they weren't qualified for (hence my law enforcement example.) Should women be hired over men if they're the most qualified for the position? Of course. But if DEI measures are leading to women being put in positions they're not qualified for, or worse, that put them in danger, then that's a problem.

 

[Frank Underwood]

But the whacky support for he is gender bias.

Which, of course, was what the most recent discussion in this thread was about.

Of course, that can't stand. It just had to get twisted into men being the root of the world's problems, while women who commit heinous acts are having a mental health crisis.

 

[Angela Channing]

Men aren't even good enough to be allies, huh? It goes to show what many feminists (including the males) really think of men deep down; that we only care about ourselves.

And yet when men post about their mental health issues, feelings of isolation and loneliness, etc., they are routinely mocked for it by these deep, compassionate feminists.


If you believe that, then you haven't been paying attention for the last 9 years. It has nothing to do with my argument or my definition of the #MeToo movement. I'm stating exactly what happened. My argument from the start has been that well-intentioned movements are often hijacked by bad faith actors. A simple Google search will explain exactly what the #MeToo movement turned into and why there was pushback against it, but as per usual, you accuse me of creating my own narrative rather than stating a fact.


I didn't avoid the "central point." I said the US has a history of supporting traditional gender roles, and that progress is a continuous, evolving process. Cultural changes and views on gender roles have shifted over time and will continue to do so moving forward. That said, I think some people have a habit of undermining the progress that has taken place. I also think @Willie Oleson made a good point about equal opportunity being more important than a balanced career path. My main issue with a program like DEI is that some women were being hired for positions they weren't qualified for (hence my law enforcement example.) Should women be hired over men if they're the most qualified for the position? Of course. But if DEI measures are leading to women being put in positions they're not qualified for, or worse, that put them in danger, then that's a problem.

Well clearly male allyship is not enough, if it was we wouldn't have the vast disparity between opportunities and outcomes for men and women that currently exist.

As for male mental health, I have posted on here many times about my struggles with depression and I don't once recall being mocked about it.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be saying that we don't need to take any action to deal with men taking advantage or discriminating against women and we just need to be patient and it will sort itself. Sadly, life isn't like that, if it were, it would have happened already.

 

[Frank Underwood]

As for male mental health, I have posted on here many times about my struggles with depression and I don't once recall being mocked about it.

I didn't say it happened on this site, but I've seen it happen many times on social media. I don't use TikTok, but I see that kind of behavior get exposed a lot on YouTube.

Well clearly male allyship is not enough, if it was we wouldn't have the vast disparity between opportunities and outcomes for men and women that currently exist.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be saying that we don't need to take any action to deal with men taking advantage or discriminating against women and we just need to be patient and it will sort itself. Sadly, life isn't like that, if it were, it would have happened already.

Most of the changes that have happened already were due to shifting generational views. Unfortunately, some of that does take time. When it comes to the most pressing issues, what I'm saying is the action we take matters. Trying to solve a problem by going from one extreme to another only makes things worse and can hurt innocent people.

Who people align with should also matter because not everybody's motives are pure. When it comes to movements in particular, how they start isn't always how they end up.

I also don't think imbalances are automatically indicative of discrimination. They can be, but not always. I just know that I value equal opportunity more than equal outcomes.

Along with that comes equal accountability. If men should be exposed for their crimes and held accountable, so should women. However, some people want to make it all about men because they're more likely to be violent, more likely to be sexual predators, etc. My view is that if you commit these acts, it shouldn't matter what your gender is because justice should be blind. But while men are accused of protecting their own in a "good ol' boys club," the Lindsay Clancy case has shown there are women who do the same thing.

 

[CeeCee72]

A couple of points.

-"Always believe the women" is something that I have always despised. I would say "always LISTEN to the women." However, we should always listen to the men too. After all, at least 1 in 6 MEN are sexually assaulted in their lifetime and they have a hard time getting justice too.

- Equal opportunity versus equal outcomes - Unfortunately, women still do NOT have equal opportunities in the US workforce. The pay gap has been closing, but it still exists. Women are often passed over for promotions they have earned simply because they are women. That's a fact.

- Mental health - This country has refused to confront the mental health crisis for years now. Most of our mass shootings are a direct result of mental illness. Clancy's actions were a direct result of mental illness. YES, both men and women should be held accountable for the crimes they commit, mentally ill or not, but perhaps the best way to reduce these horrific crimes is to elect representatives who are willing to do something about the lack of access to mental health care for BOTH men AND women.

 

[Angela Channing]

I didn't say it happened on this site, but I've seen it happen many times on social media. I don't use TikTok, but I see that kind of behavior get exposed a lot on YouTube.


Most of the changes that have happened already were due to shifting generational views. Unfortunately, some of that does take time. When it comes to the most pressing issues, what I'm saying is the action we take matters. Trying to solve a problem by going from one extreme to another only makes things worse and can hurt innocent people.

Who people align with should also matter because not everybody's motives are pure. When it comes to movements in particular, how they start isn't always how they end up.

I also don't think imbalances are automatically indicative of discrimination. They can be, but not always. I just know that I value equal opportunity more than equal outcomes.

Along with that comes equal accountability. If men should be exposed for their crimes and held accountable, so should women. However, some people want to make it all about men because they're more likely to be violent, more likely to be sexual predators, etc. My view is that if you commit these acts, it shouldn't matter what your gender is because justice should be blind. But while men are accused of protecting their own in a "good ol' boys club," the Lindsay Clancy case has shown there are women who do the same thing.

So why do you think there are twice as many men in senior management positions than women? Outcomes matter! If DEI initiatives are not the solution to improving that ssituation, how do we achieve greater gender equality beyond crossing our fingers and hoping for the best?