Shouldn't there be a thread on sexual harassment?

[mican333]

https://nypost.com/2018/02/03/a-male...oo-is-brewing/
[COLOR=#2A2A2A][FONT=proxima-nova]"Consider what’s happening in the capital of Florida. Female staffers and lobbyists have found “many male legislators will no longer meet with them privately,”

I am not going to respond point by point to your post. It is not productive and your first sentence is just twisting and spinning where you take your position and then claim it was never your position. Furthermore, the point of the OP is that MeToo will end badly for women because of its amorphous nature and the above article demonstrates how this is actually occurring.

First off, I rebutted your argument that the movement is particularly amorphous or "diluted" in my last post. You can ignore my rebuttal for any reason you care to forward but until you do offer a challenge to my rebuttal, it stands. So at this point the notion that the MeToo movement is too amorphous has been rebutted. And the quotes from your article (which I should point out is an editorial, not a news article) in no way support the position that there is a backlash due to MeToo being too amorphous or going too far.

Just because people are engaging in some form of backlash does not support that they are engaging in it for any particular reason and therefore backlash, in and of itself, shows no flaw against a movement. There was a clear backlash against the Civil Rights movement in the 60s with some very extreme actions, including murder. And no one suggests that this backlash was due to legitimate flaws in the civil rights movement.

Likewise just pointing to a backlash against MeToo in no way supports that MeToo is flawed in any particular way. To me, it sounds like sheer paranoia to be afraid to be left alone in a room with a woman for fear of an accusation of sexual harassment despite doing absolutely nothing wrong. It's not reasonable to blame MeToo if certain men overreact to women reporting very legitimate instances of sexual harassment and assault. Since I'm not prone to overreaction and I don't sexually harass women, I'm not afraid to be alone with a women in a business setting.

And there is also this:
"Writing in The American Interest, Claire Berlinski calls the #MeToo movement “a frenzied extrajudicial warlock hunt that does not pause to parse the difference between rape and stupidity”

And so what? So you managed to find a quote from someone bad-mouthing MeToo?

And the criticism is clearly wrong about not parsing the difference. Charlie Rose was not accused of rape nor has suffered the consequences that a rapist would suffer. So obviously there is a clear, recognizable difference. So what someone, who has their own opinion, wants to blather on about doesn't support anything.

When someone shows an example of someone receiving a rapist's punishment for mere sexual harassment, then I will say that evidence has been forwarded that MeToo does not differentiate between the two.

This final point has been one of my key arguments and certainly rebuts your central premise that the MeToo movement has been guided by some sort of central principles or authority.

No it doesn't. It's just someone bad-mouthing MeToo without providing any evidence to back up her position. Going by that, I just need to find someone, anyone really, saying great things about MeToo to support that it's the best thing ever.

[Ibelsd]

First off, I rebutted your argument that the movement is particularly amorphous or "diluted" in my last post. You can ignore my rebuttal for any reason you care to forward but until you do offer a challenge to my rebuttal, it stands. So at this point the notion that the MeToo movement is too amorphous has been rebutted. And the quotes from your article (which I should point out is an editorial, not a news article) in no way support the position that there is a backlash due to MeToo being too amorphous or going too far.

Just because people are engaging in some form of backlash does not support that they are engaging in it for any particular reason and therefore backlash, in and of itself, shows no flaw against a movement. There was a clear backlash against the Civil Rights movement in the 60s with some very extreme actions, including murder. And no one suggests that this backlash was due to legitimate flaws in the civil rights movement.

Likewise just pointing to a backlash against MeToo in no way supports that MeToo is flawed in any particular way. To me, it sounds like sheer paranoia to be afraid to be left alone in a room with a woman for fear of an accusation of sexual harassment despite doing absolutely nothing wrong. It's not reasonable to blame MeToo if certain men overreact to women reporting very legitimate instances of sexual harassment and assault. Since I'm not prone to overreaction and I don't sexually harass women, I'm not afraid to be alone with a women in a business setting.




And so what? So you managed to find a quote from someone bad-mouthing MeToo?

And the criticism is clearly wrong about not parsing the difference. Charlie Rose was not accused of rape nor has suffered the consequences that a rapist would suffer. So obviously there is a clear, recognizable difference. So what someone, who has their own opinion, wants to blather on about doesn't support anything.

When someone shows an example of someone receiving a rapist's punishment for mere sexual harassment, then I will say that evidence has been forwarded that MeToo does not differentiate between the two.



No it doesn't. It's just someone bad-mouthing MeToo without providing any evidence to back up her position. Going by that, I just need to find someone, anyone really, saying great things about MeToo to support that it's the best thing ever.

1. You tried to rebut my argument, but I never accepted it and do not believe it was adequate. You defined a movement you claimed was directed, but admitted it had no central organization. You have laid out a contradiction. That does not stand.

2. You keep trolling Charlie Rose. He is not the only person who has been swept up by MeToo accusations. I have supported my claim that the accused covers the idiotic to the felonious. You have not refuted this other than to say it does not matter, followed by some odd analogy using Charlie Rose.

3. I offered another article last week. I offered an article today which cited multiple individuals about how metoo is harming women due to a push back by men. So, you characterization that I've simply found a quote from someone badmouthing metoo does not properly characterize my argument nor the source. What I am showing is, indeed, a backlash which is harming women in the work place. This backlash, as has been cited in the article, is due to the amorphous nature of the metoo accusations. It was not just a woman's quote, but quotes from others who acknowledged the effect metoo is having.

[mican333]

1. You tried to rebut my argument, but I never accepted it and do not believe it was adequate. You defined a movement you claimed was directed, but admitted it had no central organization. You have laid out a contradiction. That does not stand.

Considering that that is in no way the content of my rebuttal to your "dilution" argument, your rejection is based on some very faulty reasoning. Nor is it my position that the movement is directed and I very much doubt that you can find quote from me saying that. This is not only irrelevant to my rebuttal but a straw-man argument.

So you can say "I don't accept" all you want but until you provide a valid and relevant counter to my rebuttal, my rebuttal stands.

2. You keep trolling Charlie Rose. He is not the only person who has been swept up by MeToo accusations. I have supported my claim that the accused covers the idiotic to the felonious. You have not refuted this other than to say it does not matter, followed by some odd analogy using Charlie Rose.

Your quoted an article saying that all offenses are essentially treated the same and I used the example of Charlie Rose to show that that is not true. He received different treatment than other types of offenders so they don't all receive the same punishment.

3. I offered another article last week. I offered an article today which cited multiple individuals about how metoo is harming women due to a push back by men. So, you characterization that I've simply found a quote from someone badmouthing metoo does not properly characterize my argument nor the source.

But it characterizes one of your points in the last article which is all that it was meant to cover. To hold that my argument was intended as a response to anything other than the one point that it was directly responding to is a faulty assessment of my argument.

What I am showing is, indeed, a backlash which is harming women in the work place. This backlash, as has been cited in the article, is due to the amorphous nature of the metoo accusations. It was not just a woman's quote, but quotes from others who acknowledged the effect metoo is having.

While you have supported that there's some backlash (although the extent of the backlash is not known), you have not supported that it is due to the "amorphous nature of the metro movement" nor have you even supported that it's particularly amorphous.

That article you quoted certainly didn't give that as a reason for the backlash.