- Awards
- 21
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.
- Awards
- 52
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.
- Awards
- 52
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.
- Awards
- 21
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.
- Awards
- 9
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.
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.
Last edited:
- Awards
- 52
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.
- Awards
- 27
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.
- Awards
- 9
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.
Last edited:
- Awards
- 21
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:
- Awards
- 9
Yes, there's plenty of that too.
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."
- Awards
- 20
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.
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.