Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Frank Underwood" data-source="post: 443456" data-attributes="member: 35">That wasn&#039;t what my argument was about, but then you often misconstrue my posts.As per my post you quoted, the term &quot;overcorrection&quot; was actually used to describe the impact of #MeToo going beyond its intended targets.&nbsp; Suddenly, awkward dates and clumsy social interactions were being conflated with predatory abuse.&nbsp; The phrase &quot;believe all women&quot; was meant to shut down concerns about any possible false allegations.&nbsp; As a result, innocent men also got swept up with the predators and abusers.&nbsp; There was a rush to judgement that caused people to lose their jobs or even end up jail before the facts were fully established.&nbsp; Naturally, this raised concerns about fairness and due process.&nbsp; That so-called &quot;overcorrection&quot; 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.&nbsp; In contrast, women were often thought of as housewives and caregivers.&nbsp; That&#039;s been changing over time as the culture and gender views shift.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Again, it&#039;s all about perspective.&nbsp; There was a time when women couldn&#039;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).&nbsp; The fact that women lead 11% of fortune 500 companies should be viewed with a similar perspective.&nbsp; Change happens gradually over time because it&#039;s a continuous, evolving process.Lastly, the widely cited &quot;wage gap&quot; statistic that women earn 80 cents for every dollar men earn is an aggregate measure of all full-time working men and women.&nbsp; It&#039;s not a comparison of pay for the same job.&nbsp; 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&#039;t still work to be done.&nbsp; What&#039;s been said is that the toxic supporters Lindsay Clancy has attracted are precisely the type of women who&#039;ve perverted what the feminist movement was supposed to represent.&nbsp; It went from equality and accountability for men to female entitlement and no accountability for women.&nbsp; Whenever people bring this up, there&#039;s always resistance from some people who want to shift the conversation back to predatory and abusive men.&nbsp; And yet I don&#039;t hear anybody saying that men like that shouldn&#039;t be held accountable.&nbsp; However, do we really need a movement and a hashtag that have been hijacked by toxic women to do so?&nbsp; I would say no.And speaking of DEI (again), it should be illegal for employers to discriminate when hiring employees.&nbsp; However, filling quotas for the sake of it can be counterproductive as well.&nbsp; For example, I&#039;ve seen female police and corrections officers in dangerous situations because they were physically outmatched.&nbsp; That shouldn&#039;t be allowed to happen.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Frank Underwood, post: 443456, member: 35"] 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 [I]shouldn't[/I] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification

6 + 4 =