#MeToo Hysteria Is A Pretext For Women To Take Power And Money Away From Men - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14874597
Disagree with you sentiments but I appreciate your well wishes.

My mother loves both her children very much, was never really violent but did grab our hair from time to time if we were running like nutters. Nearly went broke sending us to a posh private school(and Gambling issues because Crown opened in 1994), went from 5 houses to 1, then back up to 2. There is occassionally some cultural issues because my mother is technically Cantonese from Hong Kong. Her English is great for a second language (come first language because living in Aus for nearly 40 years). All her family moved here roughly the same time and the surviving ones(Gong Gong died in 1998 and Paw Paw not long later in 2000, eldest sister died in 2008/9 from memory) all still live here in Melbourne(one in Sydney) though and one Brother lives in Canada. Saw them at Christmas Lunch in Ocean Grove(where my grandparents had lived). Me and my brother naturally took after our Dad culturally. Pure Baby Boomer WW2(Oct '44) Melbourne boy loved Collingwood Football Club like mad, passed that love onto us. We went to Chinese language classes at early preschool but it didn't stick. Learnt French as my second language instead.

I am technically married still, and yes she was an abusive individual. I can't go into it though. Complicated situation. Nasty stuff.

Only bright side is she's 3000km away on the west coast and thank God for that.
#14874710
skinster wrote:This is true, but, men (mainly) make laws, not women.


Actually it is a bit more complicated then that. The alt-right is obviously incorrect at thinking this is a power grab from Feminazis (What does this even mean? Bunch of Reis are trying to swindle some money?)

Since it is pointless to explain it to the alt-right, I will explain it to you a bit and rest can just comment if they want.

First of all, you are correct at saying that men mainly make laws. But it goes deeper then that. The laws that are created are basically based on the morals of the given time period. The foundation of ANY law is moral, tradition, custom etc. (In its core) So although man mainly make laws, it does not necessarily mean that they make bad laws or laws that do not answer the reality of the time. The issue appears when those morals, customs, traditions change as the rise of feminism for example. Which means the laws will probably be remade to a degree.

Also a good example of this, is that the child usually goes to the female. Because it has been traditional in most western societies to be so for many centuries. This is not a feminist bias, it is just how the tradition was and is to a degree. Nowadays, the difference is that it is codified in law. Along with that, a portion of the money also goes to the female because she needs money to look over the kids. This has been the case since the late mid 18th century, early 19th century when first codified laws appeared (Napoleon, Germany etc). It is also the time when marriage became more of a contract then a sacred binding spiritual ritual.
(Note by law, i mean modern versions of law. Codification is an important process regarding this. Laws obviously existed before that time, but codification for the western world usually happened in the 17th,18th,19th centuries if you exclude the Roman empire)

Now having said that, you should have a better understanding of the modern situation. Morals, traditions, customer shifted. So laws need to be re-written. There is no denying this. The issue is that the alt-right are considering this some kind of "Female" bias while ignoring the fact that their traditionalist/conservative norms are the basis of the current norms-laws that they do not fully like.

Bottom line is, we should be proud that our society finally moved on and actually started doing something about rapists, even though, it has been the law for quite some time. This shows that the morals etc have shifted fully to support the law itself.
#14874721
As a mature gay man, the #metoo media meme appears to ne yet another Strategy for castrating working class males.

The rich can hide their unmet sexual needs by screwing ten- dollar whores in poor countries they travel to.

Working class males, stripped of their communities and social participation, are now being criminalized-shamed for possessing a penis and attempting to use it on non-poor, unpaid partners..

Perhaps #metoo is being funded by the Thai Tourist bureau.
#14874736
Alas, there is something quite intriguing about the cover. Nowhere does it bring up the terms “sexual abuse,” “sexual harassment,” “sexual misconduct” or any of its permutations. There are no references to “rape,” “justice,” “corruption,” or even “equality.” Indeed, if you had no idea what #MeToo was referring to, you’d be plumb perplexed as to why a major news magazine was seemingly advocating the wholesale puncturing of latex ding-dongs.

Rather, the Newsweek cover seems to post a general “war of the sexes” message, with men—those vertical pissing neanderthals they are—depicted as the deserving victims of an upcoming penile purge. “Watch out boys,” the cover implies, “us women are here to take control, and we’re taking your peckers with us as war trophies.”

About as much as one should expect from media really, it ain't a bastion of rad fems or anything.

Long story short, a lot of these harassment accusers—be they real or phony victims—aren’t looking for justice. They don’t want their harassers tried in a court of law for their criminal misdeeds; they want free and easy money. They couldn’t give a shit about their dignity, all they’re seeing is dollar signs and quite possibly the ability to salvage their sagging careers under the auspices of a trendy hashtag.

Why else would anyone drudge up alleged sexual misadventures that took place in the late 1970s, or suddenly spill the beans about gross harassment incidents after 20 years of working with the alleged pervert? The statutes of limitation have long since passed, and the only three things that can come out of such accusations are public sympathy (itself a precious commodity for many a washed-up or never-was actress), the public shaming of their alleged abusers (which I suppose can also be considered a commodity of sorts), and out of court pocket change.

It seems like they're positing speculative motivations but don't really have any handle on what real motivations may be. But in the realm of speculation, a lot of things can be treated as on equal grounds without compelling reasons why one speculation should trump an another except for one's disposition to one answer or another.
It seems folks take issue with people sharing such experiences if it's not in the court of law. Regardless of a sensationalist media that isn't motivated by the issue itself, it doesn't negate that it is an issue of importance for many and one that is often pushed out of the spotlight.
It seems that many are so uncomfortable with it that they have nothing but to denigrate bring center stage that sexual hostility towards women is relatively normalized despite any attempts to create a binary in which it's only the poor or the coloured that do it.
Because it wasn't poor and coloured folk harassing women in these high profile cases it actually shot out as not as expected to the common narrative of sexual violence of strangers from bad background but well to do and powerful guys. Which should intuitively make sense that having power over others means others are vulnerable to them and vulnerability intuitively relates to one's ability to be subject to violence, harassment and other things against one's will.
Hell, even Terry Crews got a story in this shit of having his genitals touched unwarranted/nonconseusally.

Instead the author's function here is only to delegitmize and paint those who speak about such experiences as wash up money grubbing.
To which I don't even buy the negative connotation in regards to the idea of grubbing for money as all that compelling because it seems reasonable that people would seek some sort of compensation for such things. To which everyone's ideal answer is the justice system, but there are many reasons people don't report and go through the criminal courts. Something entirely ignored in this, the investment in resources, time and energy.
Reported allegation don't make something true and false allegations can be destructive in a social nature.
The Impact of Being Wrongly Accused of Abuse in Occupations of Trust: Victims’ Voices
But there's not necessarily evidence to disprove the allegations either, because in courts, the innocent until proven guilty also applies to the idea that something is false. So if one wishes to apply such a formal standard to the informal public setting of opinion, then ideally everyone leaves things in the realm of speculation and limited facts unable to meet a certain standard to conclude a confident probability of whether something did or did not happen.

And such people getting fired is associated with how companies often function which is the social space.
No matter if something is true or not, they often dispose of people based on a bad image 'justified' or not.
This is the fickleness of companies a lot of the time, bad PR is to be disposed of.
It's been this way for a long time now.
Spoiler: show
http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/bernprop.html#SECTION5
Even in a basic sense, business is becoming dependent on public opinion. With the increasing volume and wider diffusion of wealth in America, thousands of persons now invest in industrial stocks. New stock or bond flotations, upon which an expanding business must depend for its success, can be effected only if the concern has understood how to gain the confidence and good will of the general public. Business must express itself and its entire corporate existence so that the public will understand and accept it. It must dramatize its personality and interpret its objectives in every particular in which it comes into contact with the community (or the nation) of which it is a part.

An oil corporation which truly understands its many-sided relation to the public, will offer that public not only good oil but a sound labor policy. A bank will seek to show not only that its management is sound and conservative, but also that its officers are honorable both in their public and in their private life. A store specializing in fashionable men's clothing will express in its architecture the authenticity of the goods it offers. A bakery will seek to impress the public with the hygienic care observed in its manufacturing process, not only by wrapping its loaves in dust-proof paper and throwing its factory open to public inspection, but also by the cleanliness and attractiveness of its delivery wagons. A construction firm will take care that the public knows not only that its buildings are durable and safe, but also that its employees, when injured at work, are compensated. At whatever point a business enterprise impinges on the public consciousness, it must seek to give its public relations the particular character which will conform to the objectives which it is pursuing.

Just as the production manager must be familiar with every element and detail concerning the materials with which he is working, so the man in charge of a firm's public relations must be familiar with the structure, the prejudices, and the whims of the general public, and must handle his problems with the utmost care. The public has its own standards and demands and habits. You may modify them, but you dare not run counter to them. You cannot persuade a whole generation of women to wear long skirts, but you may, by working through leaders of fashion, persuade them to wear evening dresses which are long in back. The public is not an amorphous mass which can be molded at will, or dictated to. Both business and the public have their own personalities which must somehow be brought into friendly agreement. Conflict and suspicion are injurious to both.

Modern business must study on what terms the partnership can be made amicable and mutually beneficial. It must explain itself, its aims, its objectives, to the public in terms which the public can understand and is willing to accept.

Business does not willingly accept dictation from the public. It should not expect that it can dictate to the public. While the public should appreciate the great economic benefits which business offers, thanks to mass production and scientific marketing, business should also appreciate that the public is becoming increasingly discriminative in its standards and should seek to understand its demands and meet them. The relationship between business and the public can be healthy only if it is the relationship of give and take.

It is this condition and necessity which has created the need for a specialized field of public relations. Business now calls in the public relations counsel to advise it, to interpret its purpose to the public, and to suggest those modifications which may make it conform to the public demand.

...
Another instrument of propaganda is the personality. Has the device of the exploited personality been pushed too far? President Coolidge photographed on his vacation in full Indian regalia in company with full-blooded chiefs, was the climax of a greatly over-reported vacation. Obviously a public personality can be made absurd by misuse of the very mechanism which helped create it.

Yet the vivid dramatization of personality will always remain one of the functions of the public relations counsel. The public instinctively demands a personality to typify a conspicuous corporation or enterprise.
There is a story that a great financier discharged a partner because he had divorced his wife.
"But what," asked the partner, "have my private affairs to do with the banking business?"
"If you are not capable of managing your own wife," was the reply, "the people will certainly believe that you are not capable of managing their money."
The propagandist must treat personality as he would treat any other objective fact within his province.

A personality may create circumstances, as Lindbergh created good will between the United States and Mexico. Events may create a personality, as the Cuban War created the political figure of Roosevelt. It is often difficult to say which creates the other. Once a public figure has decided what ends he wishes to achieve, he must regard himself objectively and present an outward picture of himself which is consistent with his real character and his aims.

To which of course the idea is that it can become a witch hunt because this is the hot thing for the media, it extends itself beyond reasonable means.
Such as the example brought up with Tavis Smiley who asserts his relationships were consensual which is of course quite distinct from someone harassing their employees. He even summarizes work place relationships rather well, though they are not encouraged they are not forbidden either.
But then again, its not often that such things are criminal charges but of ethics of an industry or business that sets the standards. Teachers can have consensual sex with their students at college but the college may still fire them on ethical grounds.
Which points to standards in some settings where even when expressedly consensual among adults, the relation between people is set as an ethical barrier. If one has an issue then it should be with the fickle nature of businesses who will readily give up such personalities for fear of it's damage.
This applies to anyone and everyone when they do or say something that isn't in accordance with the image as idealized and cultivated by those who run such things. One shouldn't project moral integrity onto faceless entities whose motivations will be constituted by their role in an organization, unless they are of such strong character as to press against it. Like say someone at PBS for some reason had some power and standards to stand up for Tavis Smiley.

But it seems rather strong position to be so demonizing simply because its being in the public setting and not the criminal courts. But of course, true to the author, he's pandering to those who accept certain preconceptions about women into a narrative of how its all a means to a spectacular end.
To which it seems that such men losing money and power is at best simply an implication rather than a apparent motive. It seems to weak to confidently assert such strong intentionality and seems only to be acceptable if one already has 'evil money grubbing women' preconception. To which some women can be but not sure it's effort is all that compelling in regards to the specific women except to ignore other possibilities in order to rhetorically emphasize that which supports its point speculatively.
I mean, it seems quite hysterical itself when its speculative conclusion is...
We are on the verge of general society becoming an unconstitutional gynocracy where due process amidst sexual assault allegations


I'd be interesting in hearing what people's thoughts are on dealing with allegations that circulate in public and have social consequences as distinct from court cases. Because ideally it gives warning to others to be careful based on precedent of such individuals. At worse, it damages the public image of those whose public image is often important to their work and for others their social relations.

I don't know what is to be done in the public space because I don't see it as reasonable to bar media from reporting allegations of any time. It seems its just inherently a unpleasant thing and it would seem that any avenues to try and mitigate such conflict would be unreasonable relative to simply letting these things play out.
But then even in the legal realm, I don't much care for defamation laws which in practice seem only to function as a censor for those with wealth.

And I can't say I see how this is creating a problem for poorer/less powerful men being accused.
That stuff can have social repercussions as well on a smaller scale and this happens to varying degrees regardless of and prior to this. On the other hand, there is hostility towards those who allege such things in spite of the simplistic narrative that such allegations are always accepted, losing sight of any nuance in how there are tensions and different dominant factors as to whom is believed.
Because its a significant thing to allege as much and necessarily has social implications. It challenges people's preconceptions and mental constructions of individuals and makes them question to which many people don't like the question int he first place, they have allegiance to certain things or people.
The balance is of course that there is prevalent sexual hostility towards women in society which is largely unheard of and ignored and when brought to light in precedent has often been attacked by some.
Common efforts for example to emphasize false allegations as more prevalent than they are although its clear that law enforcement often files things as false without evidence when things are simply unproven or uninvestigated leading to inflated stats.
Or little effort to effectively distinguish someone who is fasley alleging something from someone who isn't. Which is often based in smearing the image of the accuser based on speculated possibilities, (ie she money grubbing, which isn't definitive proof of falsity but an hypothetical person that can in practice be treated as reality without further evidence).
#14874760
skinster wrote:ITT dudes not getting laid = womenz are taking ma powerzzzzz!!!

Also, Dudes Not Getting Laid = Dudes Ready to Go To War

Male sexuality is often culpablized in mass media as a way of further imiserating working class males so that they have very little to live for. Then, these sexless, guilt-ridden males can be sent off to kill other males (sexual competitors) in a war that is really for the financial community that controls the same media that culpablized male sexuality in the first place. This process demonstrates why the financial community should not be allowed to control mass media.

Gender identity politics is being used by finance-controlled-mass-media as a blunt instrument to knock human solidarity out unconscious (or to make us more false conscioused).
#14874765
Wellsy wrote:It seems folks take issue with people sharing such experiences if it's not in the court of law. Regardless of a sensationalist media that isn't motivated by the issue itself, it doesn't negate that it is an issue of importance for many and one that is often pushed out of the spotlight.


In the case of Roy Moore and Al Franken, the motivations were pretty clear; keep Roy Moore out of the senate and for Franken it was arguably to keep him from a presidential or vice presidential run and give his senate seat to a woman.

But is has been addressed, repeatedly, for about the past three years.

It's just that many of the cases of rape and sexual harassment that have been highlighted, have turned out to be hoaxes, or in some cases the men were cleared of the more serious charges.

Rolling Stone to Pay $1.65 Million to Fraternity Over Discredited Rape Story

The article, “A Rape on Campus,” was retracted in April 2015 after a Columbia Journalism School report that said the magazine failed to take basic journalistic steps to verify the account of a woman, identified only as Jackie, who said she was the victim of a gang rape. It was an embarrassing episode for a magazine that has long prided itself on its journalistic accomplishments.


And that is not to say that there are no legitimate cases of rape or sexual harassment, but whey they turn into a cause célèbre, we should not be castigated for questioning the validity or motives of the claims.
Last edited by maz on 27 Dec 2017 18:08, edited 1 time in total.
#14874766
QatzelOk wrote:Also, Dudes Not Getting Laid = Dudes Ready to Go To War

And rape.

As a low-status male I don't mind if powerful sexual predators lose their status and wealth, and I don't really see how and why I should be solidar with them in case I don't get laid, unless I want to be a powerful sexual predator myself too. Or do you identify hetero male sexuality with that kind of thing completely? :eh:
#14874770
maz wrote:But is has been addressed, repeatedly, for about the past three years.

It's just that many of the cases of rape and sexual harassment that have been highlighted, have turned out to be hoaxes, or in some cases the men were cleared of the more serious charges.

Rolling Stone to Pay $1.65 Million to Fraternity Over Discredited Rape Story

What has been addressed specifically?
Add when saying addressed are you thinking of it in terms of there being some acknowledgement?
Because the media running with stories of sexual violence and harassment isn't my idea of having things being addressed as acknowledgement isn't addressing an issue except in just that, acknowledging it in some respect. Reporting a story doesn't change the state of sexual violence within society. One could keep reporting into the aeons and effectively result in nothing unless it stimulated action. But this doesn't seem to be the thread to posit as much as I take it your focus is jounralistic integrity and the media?
Such as that which lead to that fiascos at Rolling Stone?

I'm not sure that I'd agree with many cases turning out to be hoaxes, especially if one was to put it in relation to sexual assault in general. The majority of which isn't likely to amount to any legal repercussions for perpetrators.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/Recidivism%20of%20Sex%20Offenders%20Research%20Paper.pdf
Image.
But I'm guess you're focus is within the confines of high profile media reports of sexual violence?
To which I can't say I know much more than the Rolling Stone case to agree that there are many such cases.

And that is not to say that there are no legitimate cases of rape or sexual harassment, but whey they turn into a cause célèbre, we should not be castigated for questioning the validity or motives of the claims.

To which I can certainly agree, one can question motives all day.
As long as much like the speculations of guilt are maintained with an awareness and treatment as speculations as opposed to knowledge, people are doing fine in the realm of alleged crimes I think.
To which I thought the media had legal obligations to remain in certain confines with statements of things being alleged and so on. I guess what I'm wondering is what issue specifically applies in the case of the high profile Hollywood sexual harassment cases and that.
Is the point that by reporting it they have cost the men listed in the OP their jobs and its unclear whether this was justified. To which I'm curious to go further and go as terrible as that is what is one's thoughts on what should be done.
Are standards on media reporting such things too loose and problematic in some specific way?
My concern here is as I mentioned earlier that any possible solution would possibly be an unreasonable bar on media reporting things.

Because it seems the article in the OP is upset with things not going to the courts and that people have consequences due to allegations in themselves.
We are on the verge of general society becoming an unconstitutional gynocracy where due process amidst sexual assault allegations – much like it is in higher education—is suspended.

Where I just don't see an easy way around this.
Is your thought that companies shouldn't be firing these people? To which I would refer earlier to my quote of Edward Bernays on public relations where companies are fickle and readily let go people in concern for the company image regardless of it being in/correct, un/just in that their role isn't that of some moral integrity for justice. So I don't know how one seeks to oppose such a tendency of organizations to protect their image and shake off even slight associations with high profile personalities.

I guess this might be getting to a repeat in some other thread where people were wanting to apply the court standard of innocent until proven guilty in the court of public opinion which has no such standards or enforcement. People's beliefs do not have to adhere to a standard of proof even if ideally they should. And in some ways its positive that things don't function as they do in the courts in that many things can't get through a court system but knowing as much is helpful for others.
In the case of all the hollywood stars its that effect in which the rumors that linger around for those in the business validated more so than when they were just gossip. They're asserted more publically and are to be more directly confronted. To which many people defend certain people, Bill Burr defends the manager of Louis C from allegations of trying to shut up the women who Louis masturbated in front of and so on. It's not that there is no place for dissent.

So do you believe that people are silenced from not agreeing that some people are guilty?
Which I think I could agree that there will be such people, just as there will be people who don't believe they're guilty at all in the same controversial way a case like OJ Simpsons has everyone giving their opinion, though with no legal significance.
But I must say I don't know if I much care that there's a bit of tension and conflict between people's opinions. That people disagree and press at one another. If all there is, is social pressure and conflict then I must say I don't think there is anyway around such social dynamics other than to assert things in spite of them and to try and influence different dynamics. Different things reign supreme in different social groupings and settings.
#14874791
Possible reasons for not reporting and thus delays
http://www.evawintl.org/PAGEID12/Best-Practices/FAQs/Victim-Dynamics
Two large-scale national studies (the National Women’s Study and the National Violence Against Women Survey) converge on the finding that a very small minority (16-19%) of female victims report their sexual assault to law enforcement (National Victim Center, 1992; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2006). Of these, only one-quarter report the crime within 24 hours (National Victim Center, 1992). In other words, most victims do not report their sexual assault to the police, and when they do, it is usually after some delay. This is clearly in contrast with the stereotype that “real rape” is reported immediately, and it challenges the idea that non-reporting or delayed reporting are reasons for viewing the report with suspicion. However, crimes are more likely to be reported if they are committed by a stranger, as opposed to someone the victim knows (e.g., Koss et al., 1988; Ullman, 1999).

To find out more about why so many of the sexual assault victims in the NVAWS did not report to law enforcement, those who decided not to report were asked for their reasons why. Of these:

22% cited fear of the perpetrator as the reason for not reporting
18% stated that they were too ashamed or embarrassed
18% felt that the incident was minor, and not a crime or a police matter
13% believed that the law enforcement agency could not do anything
12% were concerned that officers would not believe or blame them
These responses are instructive for community professionals, because they provide a glimpse into the perceptions of the public about how they will be treated if they report a sexual assault – particularly whether the report will be taken seriously and investigated thoroughly.


https://ocrsm.umd.edu/files/Why-Is-Sexual-Assault-Under-Reported.pdf
A survivor’s relationship with the offender has a strong effect on the likelihood of reporting.
• When an offender is an intimate partner or former intimate partner, only 25 percent of sexual assaults are
reported to the police.
• When an offender is a friend or acquaintance, only 18 to 40 percent of sexual assaults are reported.
• When an offender is a stranger, between 46 and 66 percent of sexual assaults are reported.
U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, T. Hart and C. Rennison, “Reporting Crime to the Police, 1992-2000,” 2003

Survivors cite the following reasons for not reporting a sexual assault:
• Fear of reprisal
• Personal matter
• Reported to a different official
• Not important enough to respondent
• Belief that the police would not do anything to help
• Belief that the police could not do anything to help
• Did not want to get offender in trouble with law
• Did not want family to know
• Did not want others to know
• Not enough proof
• Fear of the justice system
• Did not know how
• Feel the crime was not “serious enough”
• Fear of lack of evidence
• Unsure about perpetrator’s intent
D. Kilpatrick et al., “Drug-facilitated, Incapacitated, and Forcible Rape: A National Study,” 2007; U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, M. Planty and L.
Langton, “Female Victims of Sexual Violence, 1994-2010,” 2013; Wolitzky-Taylor et al, “Is Reporting of Rape on the Rise? A Comparison of Women
with Reported Versus Unreported Rape Experiences in the National Women’s Study-Replication”, 2010
#14874818
As one of the reasons ticked-off post-coital women don't always sue their sex partners, an article that Wellsy posted wrote:Feel the crime was not “serious enough”

Wait. So you blew some old Hollywood producer to get the lead role, and yet this crime of receiving a blowjob from an aspirational starlet... doesn't seem serious enough to you to pursue well-publicized litigation?

I think you need to attend more National Violence Against Women seminars. It's a warzone out there with phallic ordnance exploding every few seconds, often into innocent civilian women who have never declared war or signed any sex treaties.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 91

They weren't trying to shut down Facebook and Twit[…]

What kind of dipshit loser plays mindcraft. Bro […]

There isn't going to be much of an incentive becau[…]

What is Fascism

Fascism is right-wing nationalism. All the peopl[…]