Me Too

A question for Neptune:

Should #MeToo be seen as a movement against masculinity? The founder of MeToo says that wasn't her intent. Yet, much of the political propaganda coming from the #MeToo left seems to be based on the idea that masculinity is bad.

In that case, you are not paying attention enough. Yes, there are pockets of people who tilt the conversation and focus into an "all men are beasts! all men are slime:. And men who have no respect for other men who have been sexually assaulted and harassed. Look beyond that. MeToo i is meant to be all inclusive.

#MeToo is a movement allowing people to speak about their experience with sexual harassment and abuse.

You keep referring to "political propaganda" as if these people's experiences are up for debate rather than shed light on the magnitude of the problem. Masculinity isn't the problem, forcing people to have unwanted, unwarranted or illegal things happen to them, is.

The last article you posted was political propaganda. It was a political activist group that compiled a push "study" in which the result was never in doubt.

Their finding.... masculinity causes violence against women. This is an extremist political message that has now been linked with the #MeToo movement.

"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."



Political propaganda? No.

By the way maxdancona, when you allege that you "respect" Tarana Burke, it is clear from the majority of your post here (and in many other threads), that you do not truly respect her.

Because I disagree with you you say I don't "truly" respect Tarana Burke. You are hiding behind Tara Burke. I respect Tarana Burke... you are not Tarana Burke. Hopefully you can understand this.

I am amused when political ideologues pretend to be mind readers...

This is a fairly extreme political view. Many men and women who oppose violence against women disagree with you. That is the basic question.


Should #MeToo belong exclusively to people who subscribe to a certain set of partisan political beliefs?

Or should #MeToo belong to all victims and their supporters?

Why shouldn't people who sexually harass and assault people not face consequences for their actions?

They should? Who said they shouldn't?

They should? Who said they shouldn't?

Neptune,

Part of the problem with political bubbles is that it is all or nothing. Either a person agrees with you completely, or they are then enemy.


- I agree with you that sexual harassment and assault should be taken seriously.

- I agree with you that abuse of power in employment or organization is wrong and should result in severe consequences.

- I agree with you about processing rape kits and providing resources for victims

- I agree with about a whole bunch of other things.

- I disagree with you about "masculinity" (however defined) being the problem. If a man is "masculine" but doesn't commit rape, then he is not a rapist. When you start ascribing attributes to crime, whether it is "masculine", of "black" or "immigrant" you start running into problems.

- I disagree with you that flirting, even annoying unwanted flirting, constitutes harassment or even leads to harassment.

Here is the question

We agree on some things. We disagree on others. Most people aren't in your bubble and will disagree with you about some things.

Am I an ally, or am I a misogynist troll? If you kick everyone who disagrees about anything into the misogynist troll category, your movement will become nasty and insular.

Equality is fundamental in the statement, "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." It's irrelevant that the word, 'men,' is used as it refers to all humans.

This modern idea that equality refers to income equality is a perversion of egalitarianism designed to justify governmental manipulation of economics and finance, which may or may be good or bad in different situations, but it has nothing to do with equality.

Fundamental human equality (the self-evident truth that all men are created equal) is a response to the monarchist belief that people are born kings, aristocrats, serfs/slaves, etc.

From a republican (i.e. non-monarchist) POV, everyone (e.g. kings, aristocrats, serfs/slaves) are all fundamentally equal as children of God despite any differences in status, economic power, etc.

It is an idea that resonates with that of the protestant reformation in which Martin Luther decided that people could and should all read Holy Scripture for themselves and didn't need to rely on priests to interpret it for them.

Hence we have freedom of religion and freedom to live and pursue happiness according to our own beliefs, with the assumption that in doing so we won't defy God's fundamental law that we honor His creation, the greater good, future sustainability, etc.

All our freedoms and rights claimed as self-governing people of a republic are with the assumption that we can make decisions as responsibly as any king presumed to be directly responsible to God. If we can't be responsible to God, we aren't honoring our fundamental existence as children of God, created in His image, to take dominion and thus responsibly steward His creation.

Women are not excluded from the responsibility for liberty that God expects of everyone that's human. I.e. they have no more right to behave as egotistical animals than does any man. Aren't they judged for their sins as much as any man in the crucible of this vicious creation?

And that's what #MeToo changes, the dynamic of allowing victims to be heard and perpetrators be punished.

That part I applaud.

That doesn't mean I agree with the demonization of masculinity. Someone who isn't a perpetrator shouldn't be punished for being masculine.

As I said, I agree with you on many things.

The "all or nothing thing" is funny. It really pisses Izzy off when I agree with him on anything. He went on for pages and pages saying that I didn't support Elizabeth Warren even though I was one of the first to express support for her here. Sometimes I agree with him just for fun.

I am curious Neptune.

Do you see me as an enemy or an ally? In any practical sense (i.e. voting for Biden over Trump or supporting the ERA) you and I are probably more alike than different.

Oy vey iz mir.

I am not hiding behind Tarana Burke.
I know I am not her.
Once more (try, oh please try) to remember this time, I am not a member of any political ideologue (at least none which I am aware of)

Est felt mir vi a lokh in kop!

It is the "all or nothing" thing with you, Sturgis.

1) Max disagrees with some parts of my political ideology.
2) Therefore Max disagrees with all parts of my political ideology.
3) My political ideology is to love and respect women.
4) Therefore Max hates and disrespects women.
5) Therefore Max can't respect Tarana Burke.

As far as you not being a political ideologue, let me just say this. I don't remember you ever taking a position that surprised me. You are pretty much a liberal politically correct cliche (I am still not sure you aren't an Izzy sock puppet).

Neither liberal as such nor politically correct.
Again, I have voted Republican several times over the decades. My first registration for voting was as a Conservative!

So why are you taking such a politically pure position here?

(Is it Izzy? I promise I won't tell him if you ever disagree with him).