Me Too

I don't read what idiots post to derail a useful thread.

Useful thread We are feeling self-congratulatory today, aren't we?

This thread has been a political fracas from the very first page.

Do you really think a thread where a narrow ideological clique sit in their bubble and throw **** at any man or woman who dare to disagree with them is useful?

A narrow group of self-righteous White liberals have hijacked "MeToo". It is no longer a discussion, it has become nasty and insular.

Huh? He's refering to Biden... What's the connection with Seydoux?

I’ll only talk to those with ape like intelligence or higher. Those two just managed to scrape home.

Thank you Izzy. Since you follow me around from thread to thread to talk to me... I will take that as a compliment!

The reason this thread failed is that it was a fraud from the very start.

It was presented as an open space for people to have their own voice.

Edgar (who started this thread) had the opportunity to take the thread from the political to the personal, and from an ideological prayer meeting to an actual discussion. At every opportunity Edgar (and his associates) choose nastiness, insults and political purity over inclusion and dialogue.

I don't know if a real open thread on this topic that is open to diverse perspectives is possible on this forum. I do know that that this thread with its petty political partisanship was never going to be that.

The thread hasn't failed. You have failed to reduce it into a misogynist rant about your own views. Since you refuse to publicly acknowledge your own abuse, you try to disrupt others from telling their story.

Every response you make ensures the #MeToo movement is still very much alive and needed. So, thank you for that.

And every response you make ensures the #MeToo movement is nasty and insular.
\

You’re right, the only thing failure is Max, not only has he shown himself to be a misogynist, he’s shown he has problems with basic English.

Nasty? LOL! As if posting relevant articles, graphs, and quotes that can be verified is something "highly unpleasant, especially to the senses; physically nauseating."

Insular? Adjective: "ignorant of or uninterested in cultures, ideas, or peoples outside one's own experience." That would be you.

If you choose to not want to post your own experience about your past abuse, why are you on this thread?

*Merriam-Webster

Pick any 3 pages, and count the number of threads that contain person insults and nasty attacks from people in your political bubble (you can exclude any posts from me and Olivier and anyone else you think don't belong).

I bet that over 70% of the posts on any 3 contiguous pages on the thread will contain direct personal attacks from people who agree with Edgar and Neptune. The rest of the posts are self-congratulatory back-patting inside people with the same political ideology.

Nasty and Insular are the correct adjectives to describe the MeToo movement, at least on this thread.

There are more than 60 pages of nastiness on this thread. Show me a single post where a point of view outside of the narrow liberal partisan bubble is accepted or even discussed respectfully.

Always the way,you can dish it out, but you can’t take it. Most “nasty personal attacks,” merely expose your own duplicity and hypocrisy.

You can’t debate honestly and when you’re caught out you start whining and playing the “poor Max” refrain.

Change the ******* record.

This thread is a partisan political **** show. I am here for the same reason you are. To throw **** at each other.

Ok, I looked at pages 42-44.

Most dialog was exactly that, dialog.

Except for yours.

I saw what you did.

Hmmmm... Neptune....

On pages 42-44 (I just counted) 42 out of the 60 posts were from Olivier and me. Maybe that's why there wasn't any nastiness. There are some comments from EhBeth (who doesn't throw ****) and Izzy and Edgar interjected some memes, but weren't nasty.

The discussion is over the depiction of masculinity and what boys should be taught relative to what girls are taught. You are correct, for these 3 pages, the discussion is pretty respectful.

Maybe there is hope for us yet.

Maybe that could be a clue to listen more and post less.

That would be nice. You could start now.

Forceful and dominant: men with sexist ideas of masculinity are more likely to abuse women
November 6, 2019 2.04pm EST
Author
Michael Flood
Associate Professor, Queensland University of Technology

Disclosure statement
The report Men in Focus is produced by the national violence prevention organisation Our Watch. Dr Michael Flood has received funding from the Australia Research Council, Australian Primary Health Care Research Institute Foundation, and Victorian Government. However, no funding was received for the material featured in this article.

Men who adhere to rigid, sexist stereotypes of how to be a man are more likely to use and tolerate violence against women.

On the other hand, men with more flexible, gender-equitable ideas about manhood are more likely to treat women with respect. And promoting healthy, more flexible models of masculinity is an important way to end domestic and sexual violence.

While they may be familiar, these ideas have been backed up by a new report from domestic violence not-for-profit Our Watch, which reviewed Australian and international research on masculinity, citing 374 sources.

Most men don’t ever use violence against a woman. But some men are far more likely to use violence than others. Consider this hypothetical scenario.

You’re a young heterosexual woman and you want a boyfriend. By happy coincidence, there are 100 men in the building next door, all single and heterosexual.

Which of those guys are most likely to treat you with respect and care and gender equity? And which, on the other hand, are more likely to abuse, control, and assault you?

Among those 100 men, a minority have used violence. Depending on the study, anywhere from 15 to 20 to 25 of those 100 men have raped or pressured a woman into sex.

What it means to be a man
Many factors can reliably predict the risk of perpetrating violence. One key set of factors is to do with masculinity, that is, the attitudes and behaviours stereotypically associated with being a man.

Longstanding ideals about manhood include ideas that men should be strong, forceful, and dominant in relationships and households. Men should be tough and in control, while women are lesser, or even malicious and dishonest.

Ending violence against women starts with gender equality.
Men who conform to these ideals are more likely to hit, abuse, coerce, and sexually harass women than men who see women as their equals.

And men who believe in sexual entitlement to women’s bodies or in rape myths are more likely than other men to rape women.

What’s more, men whose male peers tolerate or use violence are themselves more likely to do so.

A risk at the community level
But sexist models of manhood are also a risk at the community and societal levels. Societies characterised by male dominance and systemic gender inequality have higher levels of violence against women.

Domestic and sexual violence reflect surrounding social systems and structures, including gender inequalities at the levels of neighbourhoods and entire countries. For example, studies find gender-inequitable norms in communities in Tanzania and India go along with higher rates of partner violence against women.

And sexist masculinity not only causes the direct perpetration of violence against women, but also its perpetuation.

Most of those 100 men in the building next door have not used violence. But traditional ideals of masculinity make it more likely that some will blame a woman who has been raped, refrain from intervening in violence-supportive behaviours, turn a blind eye to other men’s sexual coercion, or laugh along with jokes which sustain social tolerance for rape.

Among those 100 men, many other factors, alongside gender, shape their likelihood of perpetrating violence. This includes their social circumstances, childhood experiences of violence, mental health, and so on.

Violence prevention advocates increasingly adopt an “intersectional” approach, recognising gender intersects with other forms of social disadvantage and privilege to shape involvements in violence perpetration and victimisation.

Masculinity is fundamentally social
There is widespread recognition that to prevent and reduce violence against women, we must engage men and boys in this work. We must redefine masculinity, promoting healthier, positive social expectations among men and boys. And men and boys themselves will benefit from such change.

Non-physical forms of abuse.
Masculinity, the attitudes and behaviours associated with being male, is fundamentally social, that is, produced in society. The meanings attached to manhood and the social shape of men’s lives vary radically across history and cultures.

This means masculinity’s role in violence against women is social too, and it can be changed through prevention efforts addressing the sexist norms, practices, and structures of masculinity.

The good news from a rapidly increasing body of research is that well-designed interventions can make positive change.

Face-to-face education programs can improve men’s and boys’ attitudes and behaviours. Community campaigns can shift social norms. And policy and law reform on discrimination, work, and parenting can contribute to societal-level change in gender roles.

Prevention work must be gender-transformative, actively challenging sexist and unhealthy aspects of masculinity and gender roles. It must be done in partnership with women’s rights efforts. And it must reach far beyond work with a few “bad” men, to making change in masculine social norms, systemic gender inequalities, and other social injustices.

I love these studies! That is ridiculous.

What do you think would have happened if their "review" had reached the opposite conclusion? (There was never any chance that was going to happen no matter what the fact say.)