Feminism out of control?

[Beskar]

I think the alt-right would call it being "cucked".

They would be alternatively-correct(right) as always, better known as being wrong.

Being a male in that field is rather invaluable and the fact they are a minority and the stereotype of the role is a female means there are missed opportunities. In the same vein, there are many male dominated careers which are stereotyped as such which should have a greater number of females for similar reasons.

An example is female police officers helping to handle rape cases as many female feel vulnerable and victimised, and having a big muscled bloke questioning them and towering over them can be intimidating. The female officer in that circumstance is more uniquely positioned to act like a bridge to ensure the law is done. At the same exact time, having a male officer there too provides a positive male role model for the victimised rolemodel who might be scared of men, but having a safe male presence means they can adapt better to that situation and recognise that there some bad people but also good people too.

[a completely inoffensive name]

...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I think the alt-right would call it being "cucked".

I believe you meant ot suggest "*****-whipped." "Cucked" suggests the spouse is stepping out with others, which is not a necessary prerequisite to Beskar's having been 'topped' by females.


I am 'whipped' as well. Though I would point at that the quality of the whipping is rather enjoyable. Perhaps Beskie enjoys the same? I know not.

[Greyblades]

Feminism is out of control because they ruined the career of my favorite actors and comedians.

Roy Moore is innocent by the way, that one is fake news.

Speaking of which.

'Mary was a teenager and Joseph was an adult.' Ally's extraordinary defense for senate candidate Roy Moore

[Husar]

Somehow my head confused Roy Moore in ACIN's post with Roger Moore, but now that I realize that the alabama senate candidate is meant, it makes perfect sense.

Also, Mary and Joseph isn't biblical pedophilia because she got the baby without sexual intercourse. Get your facts straight!

[Montmorency]

Feminism is out of control because they ruined the career of my favorite actors and comedians.

Roy Moore is innocent by the way, that one is fake news.

@Hooahguy

"I guess that's why they call him Baby Driver" joke.

[Beskar]

George Takei got accused too.

[Greyblades]

I'm sorry I just had to.

[Hooahguy]

@Hooahguy

"I guess that's why they call him Baby Driver" joke.

Spacey used to be one of my all time favorite actors. Hearing about all the accusations hurt.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Spacey used to be one of my all time favorite actors. Hearing about all the accusations hurt.

And Sinatra was a hitter, Mozart was spendthrift drunk, more musicians of fame were addicts than you can shake that proverbial stick at...

Being good at your craft is not the same as being a good person.

I thought Jimmy Carter was a lousy POTUS. He is, demonstrably, a good and decent human being.

Martin Luther King Jr. was a powerful and effective civil rights leader who advanced the cause of Blacks in America further through non violence in a shorter period of time than any of the other US civil rights leaders before or since. He was also a womanizer.


Life does not present itself in neat little packages -- that only happens if a PR rep is involved and nobody has caught on to the spin yet.

[rory_20_uk]

I know it sounds very old fashioned, but might we await due process on these charges (although in many cases they stop at accusations).

It is all getting rather Salem-y.

[Montmorency]

I know it sounds very old fashioned, but might we await due process on these charges (although in many cases they stop at accusations).

It is all getting rather Salem-y.

In most cases, the (criminal) legal process is of no help due to lack of evidence or expiry of limitations. Not that it would apply to the rich and famous anyway, if they refuse to abide.

So you either take the accusers at their word, or at the merit of their word - and many of the claims have merit. You can't live agnosia*.

*Doesn't apply to cases of neurological damage

[rory_20_uk]

So we just have justice of the mob - in fact why report things and get into the whole "evidence" and just make accusations along with everyone else...

We have these people doing it for decades. And microphones / cameras that can be extremely small. And no one appears to have recorded anything. Ever. not even to blackmail the people to get ahead.

Sorry - sort out the system. And start with getting men / women to report the cases and for there to be a National Database of charges.

[Beskar]

So you either take the accusers at their word, or at the merit of their word - and many of the claims have merit. You can't live agnosia*.
*Doesn't apply to cases of neurological damage

Well, Kevin Spacey didn't deny it and instead use it as covering out as gay as a cover. Harvey Weinstein is well known 'open-secret'. A few of the others such as MPs patting female aides on the ass, most likely true too. Trump? Didn't touch him other than galvanise his opposition whilst those who support him have less than moral scruples anyway. One which surprised me was George Takei, mostly as he has been supporting and eliciting victims to speak out, so having one call him out... well.. "Oh my!"

On one hand, victim blaming is a serious thing which many guilty people try to do, because they feel the intimidation will get them to back off, but there cases where there are 'false victims' and these unfortunately do exist. On the other, there is a clear demonstration that there needs to be more transparency in a great many of these cases and there are real victims who need their voices to be heard. There is clear there are no absolutes on the matter.

[rory_20_uk]

If Kenvin Spacy had denied it, people would be rightly asking how the hell he has crystal clear memory of one party about 30 years ago where he was probably on at least alcohol and a few other narcotics.

When people spuriously claim to have seen a UFO, other people will call in to say they saw a similar UFO. Knowing that, I'm not prepared to convict with evidence being accusations.

[Husar]

So we just have justice of the mob - in fact why report things and get into the whole "evidence" and just make accusations along with everyone else...

We have these people doing it for decades. And microphones / cameras that can be extremely small. And no one appears to have recorded anything. Ever. not even to blackmail the people to get ahead.

Sorry - sort out the system. And start with getting men / women to report the cases and for there to be a National Database of charges.

Ehm, isn't that to a large extent what we have in politics as well? Were Putin or Kim Jong Un ever proven guilty in a court of law? Should we treat them as flawless democrats until they are?

Of course improving the system is a good idea regardless. It's just that the whole proof thing cannot always be applied unfortunately.

[rory_20_uk]

Ehm, isn't that to a large extent what we have in politics as well? Were Putin or Kim Jong Un ever proven guilty in a court of law? Should we treat them as flawless democrats until they are?

Of course improving the system is a good idea regardless. It's just that the whole proof thing cannot always be applied unfortunately.

No one ever has thought of North Korea or Russia as countries where the rule of Law applies. Both are Dictatorships / Plutocracies / Kleptocracies.

When we start suspending Habeus Corpus because it is convenient, who makes this call?

[Montmorency]

If Kenvin Spacy had denied it, people would be rightly asking how the hell he has crystal clear memory of one party about 30 years ago where he was probably on at least alcohol and a few other narcotics.

When people spuriously claim to have seen a UFO, other people will call in to say they saw a similar UFO. Knowing that, I'm not prepared to convict with evidence being accusations.

No one is being convicted of anything, as I pointed out, though some individuals have more potential liability than others.

As always, multiple and mutually-corroborating accusations are inherently more credible.

UFOs qua extraterrestrials can be categorically rejected. On the other hand, sex and abuse are an immediate and well-known part of human life.

This the the court of public opinion and nothing more. The unfortunate dichotomy is, for any given case you either believe at least some of the accusations, or you functionally disbelieve them. Either the accused is some kind of predator, or a bunch of people have all come out to spread lies. You have to pick one of these, in your own mind.

If you believe someone is a predator, it is still up to you how you want to consume their work or their legacy. But remember that the alternative is always to malign the alleged victims.

[rory_20_uk]

No one is being convicted of anything, as I pointed out, though some individuals have more potential liability than others.

As always, multiple and mutually-corroborating accusations are inherently more credible.

UFOs qua extraterrestrials can be categorically rejected. On the other hand, sex and abuse are an immediate and well-known part of human life.

This the the court of public opinion and nothing more. The unfortunate dichotomy is, for any given case you either believe at least some of the accusations, or you functionally disbelieve them. Either the accused is some kind of predator, or a bunch of people have all come out to spread lies. You have to pick one of these, in your own mind.

If you believe someone is a predator, it is still up to you how you want to consume their work or their legacy. But remember that the alternative is always to malign the alleged victims.

I do not think that this is a digital situation - some or indeed most might well be true. But that does not instantly mean all are. The courts are supposed to be there for exactly this purpose. And no, a verdict of not guilty is not the same as innocent. Mud sticks irregardless of the outcomes, irregardless whether they was guilt or not.

And it is also perfectly possible that the man sincerely believes he did nothing wrong and the woman sincerely believes he did - how exactly can one ensure that consent is absolutely without coercion when the person asking has vast amounts of power? Just like at work one can give an honest opinion when asked by one's boss for a warts and all feedback... but one might still not dare do so.

The Court of Public Opinion can and does wreck lives: The actress who plays Wonder Woman has demanded that one actor who is playing a role is removed due to the accusations. So we have had men abusing their power over other men and women. This was Bad. And yet no one has pointed out to her that her behavior is very similar.

[Husar]

No one ever has thought of North Korea or Russia as countries where the rule of Law applies. Both are Dictatorships / Plutocracies / Kleptocracies.

When we start suspending Habeus Corpus because it is convenient, who makes this call?

But who is suspending anything? I don't think anyone is getting jailed here, or did I miss something?
If someone does however make his money by being in the favor of the public, then you can't force the public to continue to like them until they're proven guilty. The public or industry may dislike them over anything, including the choice of partner, amount of money donated or children kissed in front of a camera. When politicians are caught lying you don't force people to continue to vote for them until they're proven guilty of lying in a court, do you?

I would even agree that this isn't always fair, but in some cases it is. Remember this American girl who was convicted/not convicted of murder in Italy? I think neither the courts nor the public were sure what to do there, so what would one do there? Of course saying she's guilty because he eyes are cold was a bit much...

[Montmorency]

I do not think that this is a digital situation - some or indeed most might well be true. But that does not instantly mean all are.

The point is that if you accept one claim, it is difficult to reject others without being arbitrary. If you accept no claims, then perhaps you are irrevocably biased.

The first option is therefore less fraught, but as you recognize it requires one to make a personal judgment as to how their relationship (whether consumer, professional, or friendly) with the accused must change.

The courts are supposed to be there for exactly this purpose.

The courts are there to apportion justice and interpret the laws. The courts do not tell you what or how to feel about anyone or anything. These are exclusive purposes.

And it is also perfectly possible that the man sincerely believes he did nothing wrong and the woman sincerely believes he did

It would then be better for the accused to show penitence, rather than offering sleazy 'if-then' non-apologies that try to shift the narrative or shrug off accountability.

Personally though, I do believe we should be more lenient to people who try to engage with accusations and don't demonstrate conscience of guilt.

how exactly can one ensure that consent is absolutely without coercion when the person asking has vast amounts of power?

Certainly a tough question, so the best practice (not a new thought here) is simply to avoid such entanglements in situations of power imbalance: clinician-client, teacher-student, parent-child, boss-employee, rich power broker-up and coming professional, etc.

Not that they are always wrong or abusive, but that the very nature of the relationship weighs down that end of the scale.

The Court of Public Opinion can and does wreck lives: The actress who plays Wonder Woman has demanded that one actor who is playing a role is removed due to the accusations. So we have had men abusing their power over other men and women. This was Bad. And yet no one has pointed out to her that her behavior is very similar.

If she feels that this man is a predator, and she doesn't want to work with a predator, then why shouldn't she use her power to change the situation?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...When we start suspending Habeus Corpus because it is convenient, who makes this call?

Abe Lincoln

[a completely inoffensive name]

Abe Lincoln

This is an odd meme. There was literally a rebellion happening, which the Constitution allows as a condition for suspending it.

Anti-war Democrats were acting more or less as saboteurs in Congress. It was necessary and I believe in the spirit of what the clause was written for. Simply pointing out that the words themselves are in Article I, not II is not convincing.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

This is an odd meme. There was literally a rebellion happening, which the Constitution allows as a condition for suspending it.

Anti-war Democrats were acting more or less as saboteurs in Congress. It was necessary and I believe in the spirit of what the clause was written for. Simply pointing out that the words themselves are in Article I, not II is not convincing.

Whyever not? It is not as though the framers weren't aware of which article was relevant to which branch of government.

Prompted by the problems in Maryland at the outset of the rebellion, Lincoln issues a sweeping suspension of habeas corpus -- which was NOT written exclusively to address any particular area -- in 1861. It was promptly struck down by the SCOTUS. Lincoln enforced it anyway, flipping off the court. Congress did not pass an act ordering the suspension of HC until 1863.

At no point was "copperhead" opposition in the Congress or elsewhere of numerical importance enough to have held up this legislation if it was deemed needful (very likely it was and it would certainly have passed with ease).

However good the intent and the ultimate outcome, Lincoln was operating outside the bounds of his legitimate power with that effort.

[a completely inoffensive name]

At no point was "copperhead" opposition in the Congress or elsewhere of numerical importance enough to have held up this legislation if it was deemed needful (very likely it was and it would certainly have passed with ease).

This is not true. At the time filibuster rules did not have what we now call closure. As long as the Democratic Senators kept filibustering, they could deny any legislation they wanted to kill.

I looked up the 1863 bill you mentioned, and it seems that this is exactly what happened. Even though Dem's controlled 25% of the Senate (at the time) they had to be borderline cheated out of their time on the floor for the Republicans to pass the bill.
Also keep in mind that in 1861 at the war's outbreak, the Dems share of the Senate was much higher (40%+). So this bill only passed under sketchy means after 2 years of expulsions and vacancies which reduced the number of Democrats in the chamber by 45%.

I would say the lack of closure gives Lincoln the justification to do what he did. As long as 1 Democratic senator was loyal to the rebel cause, Congress was at risk of sabotaging the war effort through delay and inaction.
Such is the nature of Civil War, that these situations give rise to bending the rules dramatically.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

This is not true. At the time filibuster rules did not have what we now call closure. As long as the Democratic Senators kept filibustering, they could deny any legislation they wanted to kill.

I looked up the 1863 bill you mentioned, and it seems that this is exactly what happened. Even though Dem's controlled 25% of the Senate (at the time) they had to be borderline cheated out of their time on the floor for the Republicans to pass the bill.
Also keep in mind that in 1861 at the war's outbreak, the Dems share of the Senate was much higher (40%+). So this bill only passed under sketchy means after 2 years of expulsions and vacancies which reduced the number of Democrats in the chamber by 45%.

I would say the lack of closure gives Lincoln the justification to do what he did. As long as 1 Democratic senator was loyal to the rebel cause, Congress was at risk of sabotaging the war effort through delay and inaction.
Such is the nature of Civil War, that these situations give rise to bending the rules dramatically.

The peace democrats were a much bigger political problem in 1863 and 1864 -- up until "little Napoleon" was beaten by absentee balloting....passed by Congress without demur. There were Democrats on the roster in 1861 but they were not a real factor. Certainly there wasn't enough of an active effort by them to derail anything else Lincoln was doing for the war effort. I simply do not see why it took them (and it should have been them not Abe) to issue the suspension resolution.

You are absolutely correct that a lot of things get tossed on their ear in a civil war.

[Shaka_Khan]

This is more than just feminism. It should be a basic human right to express and oppose what's being wrongly done to them.

There's something that I noticed, though. I'd like to know the opinions of the members in this forum. Do you think of chivalry towards women as one of the reasons for gender inequality? Some feminists are being unfair to the men who act in chivalric ways to a woman. Not every woman has the same taste. There are a lot of women out there who prefer a boyfriend to open the car door for them, pay for her meal, offer a hand, etc. These are some of the ways that a guy expresses care to his girlfriend. Many feminists accuse this type of guy of being sexist. I think people who include chivalry as an issue have no idea how men think and why gender inequality happens. They're distracting away the solutions to gender inequality.

[Fragony]

I never gave it any thought it's just what I do, I wouldn't understand it if it isn't apreciated

[Montmorency]

This is more than just feminism. It should be a basic human right to express and oppose what's being wrongly done to them.

There's something that I noticed, though. I'd like to know the opinions of the members in this forum. Do you think of chivalry towards women as one of the reasons for gender inequality? Some feminists are being unfair to the men who act in chivalric ways to a woman. Not every woman has the same taste. There are a lot of women out there who prefer a boyfriend to open the car door for them, pay for her meal, offer a hand, etc. These are some of the ways that a guy expresses care to his girlfriend. Many feminists accuse this type of guy of being sexist. I think people who include chivalry as an issue have no idea how men think and why gender inequality happens. They're distracting away the solutions to gender inequality.

It's certainly a matter of sexism if you have a special class of behaviors just for 'female romantic interest'. But for now simply ask her what she wants, or how she feels about each issue.

With paying for meals, there's actually a huge variety of attitudes: man pays all the time, man pays most of it all of the time, men pays for most or all of it it some or most of the time (and the woman pays fully the rest of the time), the famous "Dutch" split down the middle, the split down the middle with the man paying the tip, etc. Each woman I've interacted with on this subject has expressed a different preference. Make a habit of asking - and do ask before the bill comes up, that's just gauche.

Another personal rule may be to always pay in full when you are the one who invited the other diner(s), man or woman.

Some complain that discussing these things makes them look bad in front of the woman, but here you should adjust your values. As the saying goes, if the girl looks down on you for seeking her opinion, she isn't the girl for you.

[Fragony]

That famous Dutch split doesn't exist irl