#metoo

[Angela Channing]

Violent attacks on an individual is wrong, whether it be by a man or a woman against a man or a woman. However, because men are generally bigger and stronger than women, a male hitting a female is far worse. In most cases the 2 things are not equivalent.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Violent attacks on an individual is wrong, whether it be by a man or a woman against a man or a woman. However, because men are generally bigger and stronger than women, a male hitting a female is far worse. In most cases the 2 things are not equivalent.

Even when he's not hitting back?

 

[Angela Channing]

Even when he's not hitting back?

It depends on the circumstances but in general most men is physically stronger than most women and should be able to defend himself without resorting to excessive violence. If a man uses excessive violence against a woman then in most cases he would have gone too far.

If a child hits an adult, it wouldn't be permissible for the adult to beat up the child because the adult would be stronger and more powerful and it wouldn't be an equal fight, regardless of who instigated the violence. The same would be true for an altercation between a man and a woman.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

It depends on the circumstances but in general most men is physically stronger than most women and should be able to defend himself without resorting to excessive violence. If a man uses excessive violence against a woman then in most cases he would have gone too far.

If a child hits an adult, it wouldn't be permissible for the adult to beat up the child because the adult would be stronger and more powerful and it wouldn't be an equal fight, regardless of who instigated the violence. The same would be true for an altercation between a man and a woman.

Women are not children. And some of them are pretty damned tough -- especially when they suspect they won't be hit back.

You seem to have little understanding about how human relationships actually unfold.

 

[Angela Channing]

Women are not children. And some of them are pretty damned tough -- especially when they suspect they won't be hit back.

You seem to have little understanding about how human relationships actually unfold.

It's a fair comparison because the majority of both women and children are significantly weaker physically than men. If it's wrong for a men to beat children in retaliation then it's also wrong to beat women in the same circumstances.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

It's a fair comparison because the majority of both women and children are significantly weaker physically than men. If it's wrong for a men to beat children in retaliation then it's also wrong to beat women in the same circumstances.

Many women are quite strong, and the guy's strength doesn't even matter if he's not hitting her back.

And women kill their offspring far more often than men do -- even when fathers are in the home.

 

[Angela Channing]

Many women are quite strong, and the guy's strength doesn't even matter if he's not hitting her back.

But most aren't so advocating beating women on the justification that some are strong is just wrong.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

But most aren't so advocating beating women on the justification that some are strong is just wrong.

Was someone advocating beating women? I'm advocating for not beating either gender, and for not minimizing the violence that comes from women just because they're women.

 

[Frank Underwood]

Unlike children, women are grown adults who understand the consequences of their actions (including when those actions are likely to be consequence free.)

As long as women are infantilized, they can get away with anything (and they know it.)

There is a tendency to view women by the best of female behavior and to view men by the worst of male behavior -- as if we're all Mother Teresa and Ted Bundy with privilege.

Exactly. I recently saw a woman on YouTube say it's just as sexist to be overly precious about women as it is to treat them as inferior, but some people don't seem to grasp that.

 

[Angela Channing]

I'm advocating for not beating either gender, and for not minimizing the violence that comes from women just because they're women.

I completely agree with this.

I would also add, we shouldn't minimise violence against women by men by focusing disproportionately on the far less common occurrence of violence by women towards men.

 

[Frank Underwood]

When has violence against women ever been minimized? Concern for the well being of women has always trumped concern for the well being of men in the public sphere.

In the rare instance where violence against men is brought up, it always comes back to "well what about the women?"

 

[Angela Channing]

When has violence against women ever be minimized?

Electing a President that thinks it ok to grab women "by the p*ssy" and the FBI's failure to fully investigate sexual misconduct allegations against supreme court Justice Brett Kavanaugh are just 2 examples showing that many people don't take violence against women as seriously as they should.

 

[Frank Underwood]

Electing a President that thinks it ok to grab women "by the p*ssy" and the FBI's failure to fully investigate sexual misconduct allegations against supreme court Justice Brett Kavanaugh are just 2 examples showing that many people don't take violence against women as seriously as they should.

I don't recall the sexual assault allegations against Joe Biden being investigated or taken seriously for that matter, and he handily won the popular vote.

Bill Clinton served two terms, despite a string of allegations against him.

I think the problem with American politics has to do with George Carlin's theory that selfish, ignorant citizens leads to selfish, ignorant leaders. There's also a great deal of tribalism at play when it comes to politics. Right wingers tend to only believe accusations against liberals, and liberals tend to only believe accusations against right wingers.

Outside of politics, it's generally open season on any guy accused of harming a woman.

 

[Angela Channing]

I don't recall the sexual assault allegations against Joe Biden being investigated or taken seriously for that matter, and he handily won the popular vote.

Bill Clinton served two terms, despite a string of allegations against him.

And that's because violence against women is often minimised.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

When has violence against women ever been minimized? Concern for the well being of women has always trumped concern for the well being of men in the public sphere.

In the rare instance where violence against men is brought up, it always comes back to "well what about the women?"

Exactly right.

Electing a President that thinks it ok to grab women "by the p*ssy" and the FBI's failure to fully investigate sexual misconduct allegations against supreme court Justice Brett Kavanaugh are just 2 examples showing that many people don't take violence against women as seriously as they should.

Trump is everything bad we say he is, but the electoral college elected him, and his fan base doesn't care what he does.

Kavanaugh is a different story entirely. He's way too conservative for my tastes, but the sex abuse scam thrown at him smelled to high heaven. Dr. Ford, the committee's key witnessed didn't even accuse him of sexual harassment or assault --- and when that failed, a barrage of women (and, yes, it's organized and all part of the Abuse Industrial Complex) came forward and perjured themselves by insisting he'd done the same to them --- some of whom are being prosecuted for their lies under oath.

Amber Heard's not the only female liar out there.

And that's because violence against women is often minimised.

No, it isn't. The Abuse Industrial Complex is only interested in allegations against Republicans -- and making it up against them is apparently just fine.

But they mostly ignore allegations about Democrats -- like Biden, whom they desperately wanted to replace Trump in the White House... even though the allegations against Biden were far more credible than those against Kavanaugh.

And I'm a liberal Democrat.

So sex abuse against women isn't minimized by any means -- they're just used politically by disingenuous actors whose outrage is totally subjective.

 

[Frank Underwood]

And that's because violence against women is often minimised.

As I said before, accusations in the political realm are handled differently. Partisans only seem to take accusations seriously when they're levied at the other side.

On the other hand, Hollywood had no problem offering up guys like Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby as sacrificial lambs (despite years of looking the other way.)

 

[Willie Oleson]

Outside of politics, it's generally open season on any guy accused of harming a woman

And you can thank the men who made the MeToo movement necessary - and possible. Unfortunately it was too late for the victims of Jimmy Savile.
Overcorrection is an unfortunate byproduct but that doesn't mean MeToo shouldn't have happened.
It's a problem we need to deal with but since this big change is still relatively new I guess it will take some time to straighten things out and to restore our sense of proportion.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

And you can thank the men who made the MeToo movement necessary - and possible. Unfortunately it was too late for the victims of Jimmy Savile.
Overcorrection is an unfortunate byproduct but that doesn't mean MeToo shouldn't have happened.
It's a problem we need to deal with but since this big change is still relatively new I guess it will take some time to straighten things out and to restore our sense of proportion.

False allegations against men is nothing new -- "metoo" is just the latest name for it. And false allegation has always been a key way that women control men and society.

Those false allegations tend to work because women are taken very seriously. But false allegations don't help women who've actually been abused nor curb the behaviors of men who actually commit those offenses --- nor is it intended to.

Punishing real offenders -- and protecting real victims -- is of little interest to the Abuse Industrial Complex. The intention is to destroy innocent men specifically because they are innocent.

 

[Frank Underwood]

And you can thank the men who made the MeToo movement necessary - and possible. Unfortunately it was too late for the victims of Jimmy Savile.
Overcorrection is an unfortunate byproduct but that doesn't mean MeToo shouldn't have happened.
It's a problem we need to deal with but since this big change is still relatively new I guess it will take some time to straighten things out and to restore our sense of proportion.

That overcorrection also helped make a mockery out of the movement. People began to see it was more interested in taking down men in general than it was in due process.

Similarly, calling people "sexist" or "racist" has also lost its power. It's become a form of identity politics used to shield women and people of color from valid criticism.

 

[Jock Ewing Fan]

That overcorrection also helped make a mockery out of the movement. People began to see it was more interested in taking down men in general than it was in due process.

Similarly, calling people "sexist" or "racist" has also lost its power. It's become a form of identity politics used to shield women and people of color from valid criticism.

You make an important point. Overcorrecting is not acceptable because innocent people have their lives thrown into upheaval, simply because of misunderstanding, words out of context, or even outright lies. A false accusation is wrong, no matter who makes it. Calling people racist or sexist merely indicates that the accuser can't make their point on actual facts and evidence, so they create the straw man and make outrageous, unproven allegations.
When special classes are created, it weakens the whole idea of equal treatment. Yes, I know that the wealthy elites will always manipulate the system and usually prevail, but the real victims are often working class/ lower middle class individuals who struggle to provide for their families (especially now), and lack the resources to fight meritless allegations.

It is wrong to mistreat anyone, but it is also true that there are those whose agendas and bank accounts thrive on these "overcorrections"