The Law MeToo Movement

Remove this Banner Ad

Malifice

Moderator
Oct 2, 2007
38,650
35,760
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
On the contrary, I've said I hope they are prepared to condemn sexual assault/harrassment perpetrated by women
Why would they? It has literally nothing to do with Metoo.

Explain to me how [sexual assaults perpetrated by women] has anything to do with [systemic issues of men abusing the patriarchy and positions of power to commit sexual assaults].

Metoo is a loose coalition of survivors of sexual abuse from men who have used and abused positions of power and the patriarchy to abuse those survivors.

Does a Breast cancer survivor organization (say, the Jane McGrath organization) somehow 'condone' testicular cancer by not speaking up about it? Is there an expectation that the Jane McGrath organization should publicly comment on other forms of cancer?

You're not covering yourself in glory here mate.
 

Sweet Jesus

The Lord of the Dance
Dec 20, 2014
26,316
21,423
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
Why would they? It has literally nothing to do with Metoo.
There are allegations of women being sexually assaulted/harassed.

That's got nothing to do with #metoo?

It's only relevant if a man did it?

Explain to me how [sexual assaults perpetrated by women] has anything to do with [systemic issues of men abusing the patriarchy and positions of power to commit sexual assaults].

Metoo is a loose coalition of survivors of sexual abuse from men who have used and abused positions of power and the patriarchy to abuse those survivors.
Your argument rests on the premise that this group would/should only condemn sexual assault/harassment if it's perpetrated by men.

Why is the gender of the perpetrator more important than the fact women have claimed to be sexually assaulted/harassed? Surely that is the issue, not whether the perpetrator was male or female.

The intent of this activism is to call attention to sexual assault/harassment, thereby discouraging it and creating safer spaces for women. Why does that apply only in cases where the perpetrator is male?

Why is gender the most important factor, as opposed to stamping out the abuse and producing safer, more just outcomes?

Does a Breast cancer survivor organization (say, the Jane McGrath organization) somehow 'condone' testicular cancer by not speaking up about it? Is there an expectation that the Jane McGrath organization should publicly comment on other forms of cancer?
Can you make an argument that doesn't rely on ludicrous analogies?

Where does "condoning" come into it? Where have I suggested anyone "condones" sexual assault/harassment? I have simply said that I hope avatars of the #metoo movement take the allegations about the Matildas seriously and condemn any sexual assault/harassment just as strongly as if it were perpetrated by a man.

Where do you get the idea that I'm suggesting they "condone" sexual assault/harassment? What have I said that has given you this impression?

You're not covering yourself in glory here mate.
Let's not pretend you're the arbiter of that. You didn't know what a strawman was until five minutes ago.
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

Malifice

Moderator
Oct 2, 2007
38,650
35,760
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
There are allegations of women being sexually assaulted/harassed.

That's got nothing to do with #metoo?

It's only relevant if a man did it?
Yes that has literally nothing to do with #metoo.

#metoo is a loose coalition of survivors of sexual abuse from men who have used and abused positions of power and the patriarchy to abuse those survivors.

Think Weinstein/ Spacey/ Cosby/ Rolf Harris using his position of power and authority to literally rape and sexually abuse dozens of women and children, and use the same power and authority bestowed on him by the patriarchy to literally get away with it for decades, despite literally everyone in Hollywood knowing he was doing it.

They're pointing the finger at the patriarchy (the entrenched social structures that favor men and allow this sort of sh*t to happen), as much as they are the actual rapists themselves.

That said, Im sure they have solidarity towards the victims in this case (just like the McGrath foundation have solidarity with testicular and prostate cancer survivors, despite being a breast cancer focused group), but it's not exactly what they're about.

Movember is not about Breast cancer. McGrath foundation is not about testicular cancer. They have a focus on one particular context or type of cancer, just like #metoo is primarily focused on Male perpetrators using and abusing the patriarchy to literally rape women and get away with it, despite everyone knowing they're doing it.
 

Sweet Jesus

The Lord of the Dance
Dec 20, 2014
26,316
21,423
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
Yes that has literally nothing to do with #metoo.

#metoo is a loose coalition of survivors of sexual abuse from men who have used and abused positions of power and the patriarchy to abuse those survivors.

Think Weinstein/ Spacey/ Cosby/ Rolf Harris using his position of power and authority to literally rape and sexually abuse dozens of women and children, and use the same power and authority bestowed on him by the patriarchy to literally get away with it for decades, despite literally everyone in Hollywood knowing he was doing it.

They're pointing the finger at the patriarchy (the entrenched social structures that favor men and allow this sort of sh*t to happen), as much as they are the actual rapists themselves.
I addressed this already. Using bold and underline doesn't make your argument any less arbitrary or nebulous.

Why is the gender of the perpetrator more important than the fact women have claimed to be sexually assaulted/harassed? Surely that is the issue, not whether the perpetrator was male or female.

The intent of this activism is to call attention to sexual assault/harassment, thereby discouraging it and creating safer spaces for women. Why does that apply only in cases where the perpetrator is male?

Why is gender the most important factor, as opposed to stamping out the abuse and producing safer, more just outcomes?

The behaviour is the issue, not the gender of the perpetrator.

That said, Im sure they have solidarity towards the victims in this case (just like the McGrath foundation have solidarity with testicular and prostate cancer survivors, despite being a breast cancer focused group), but it's not exactly what they're about.

Movember is not about Breast cancer. McGrath foundation is not about testicular cancer. They have a focus on one particular context or type of cancer, just like #metoo is primarily focused on Male perpetrators using and abusing the patriarchy to literally rape women and get away with it, despite everyone knowing they're doing it.
Back to the ludicrous analogies.

Why is the gender of the perpetrator the most important factor? If people are campaigning against sexual assault/harassment, they should condemn it regardless of whether the perpetrator is male or female.

The allegations involving the Matildas also involve senior players taking advantage of their position to assault/harass young women. Anyone who claims to be concerned about women facing such treatment should take these allegations seriously and condemn the behaviour regardless of the fact the perpetrators were female rather than male.
 
Last edited:

Malifice

Moderator
Oct 2, 2007
38,650
35,760
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
Why is the gender of the perpetrator more important than the fact women have claimed to be sexually assaulted/harassed?
No-one is saying it is more important. It's just #metoo are a group that focusses on calling out abuse by men, abusing positions of power and authority/ the Patriarchy to openly rape and abuse their victims.

The Cosbys, Weinsteins and Spaceys.

It's like how BLM focus on black deaths at the hands of the Police flowing from entrenched socioeconomic disadvantage caused by racism.

That doesnt mean that BLM somehow approve of white guys getting shot by cops; it's just not what they're about.

Do you actually understand what #metoo are about mate? Why they call out their abusers publicly?

I dont think you do. Explain it to me.
 

Sweet Jesus

The Lord of the Dance
Dec 20, 2014
26,316
21,423
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
No-one is saying it is more important. It's just #metoo are a group that focusses on calling out abuse by men, abusing positions of power and authority/ the Patriarchy to openly rape and abuse their victims.

The Cosbys, Weinsteins and Spaceys.
So #metoo is defined by the gender of the perpetrator?

The moment you start talking about "the patriarchy", you are casting the cause/grievance as explicitly gendered.

So gender is the definitive factor for #metoo i.e. the most important factor. Is it or isn't it? That's what you're saying above, despite insisting otherwise in the opening line.

It's like how BLM focus on black deaths at the hands of the Police flowing from entrenched socioeconomic disadvantage caused by racism.

That doesnt mean that BLM somehow approve of white guys getting shot by cops; it's just not what they're about.
This analogy doesn't help your argument.

For BLM, the race of the victim is absolutely the most important factor. That is indeed the definitive factor for that movement.

You say the gender of the perpetrator isn't the most important factor for #metoo but then liken it to BLM, for whom racial identity is absolutely the most important factor. How does that work? How exactly are they alike? The #metoo movement is defined by gender the way BLM is defined by race? Is that what you're saying?

And once again, who said anything about "approving"? Stop inventing things.

This is not a particularly useful tangent. Maybe you should give the analogies a rest? They've all been erroneous so far.

Do you actually understand what #metoo are about mate? Why they call out their abusers publicly?

I dont think you do. Explain it to me.
I've addressed this already.

The intent of this activism is to call attention to sexual assault/harassment, thereby discouraging it and creating safer spaces for women. But why should that apply only in cases where the perpetrator is male?

Why is gender the most important factor, as opposed to stamping out the abuse and producing safer, more just outcomes?

Surely the behaviour and the abuse of power is the issue, not the gender of the perpetrator.

It's generally the case that this kind of abuse is perpetrated by men but that should not preclude avatars of #metoo condemning the same behaviour when it's women victimising other women. Unless they are preoccupied by the gender of the perpetrator rather than the abusive behaviour itself? That strikes me as an abdication of principles if the broader aim is to protect women from abusive behaviour, because that objective should be the same regardless of whether it's a male or female abuser.

I think you are accusing me of making a category error. But it's only a cateory error if you make the gender of the perpetrator definitive, as opposed to the aim of stamping out abusive behaviour. Again, surely the abusive behaviour is the issue, over and above the gender of the perpetrator.
 
Last edited:

Sweet Jesus

The Lord of the Dance
Dec 20, 2014
26,316
21,423
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
Seeing as it's aimed at men who abuse the patriarchy to abuse victims and get away with it, yes.
So this is where we disagree.

You say it's defined by the gender of the perpetrator.

I think that abdicates the more important principle of condemning toxic, abusive behaviour where women are victimised. Why does the perpetrator need to be male? That seems secondary to broader aim of condemning and discouraging the problematic behaviour towards women.

Surely the aim is to protect women from abuse, whether the perpetrator is male or female.
 

Sweet Jesus

The Lord of the Dance
Dec 20, 2014
26,316
21,423
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
Surely the aim of reducing cancer deaths means that money raised for breast cancer research should be directed to research on prostate cancer. SURELY??!!??
Is this another case of you erroneously thinking you've made a coherent point?

Your analogy suggests I'm making a category error but you don't explain specifically why that's the case. You just offer a bogus analogy and hope that does the trick. It's inadequate.
 

indoistriku

Debutant
Nov 29, 2020
135
158
AFL Club
Fremantle
Yes that has literally nothing to do with #metoo.

#metoo is a loose coalition of survivors of sexual abuse from men who have used and abused positions of power and the patriarchy to abuse those survivors.

Think Weinstein/ Spacey/ Cosby/ Rolf Harris using his position of power and authority to literally rape and sexually abuse dozens of women and children, and use the same power and authority bestowed on him by the patriarchy to literally get away with it for decades, despite literally everyone in Hollywood knowing he was doing it.

They're pointing the finger at the patriarchy (the entrenched social structures that favor men and allow this sort of sh*t to happen), as much as they are the actual rapists themselves.

That said, Im sure they have solidarity towards the victims in this case (just like the McGrath foundation have solidarity with testicular and prostate cancer survivors, despite being a breast cancer focused group), but it's not exactly what they're about.

Movember is not about Breast cancer. McGrath foundation is not about testicular cancer. They have a focus on one particular context or type of cancer, just like #metoo is primarily focused on Male perpetrators using and abusing the patriarchy to literally rape women and get away with it, despite everyone knowing they're doing it.
That’s a horrendous definition of what patriarchal headship is all about, and the ‘patriarchal’ nature of social masculinity has done and continues to do much for the safety of women and the prevention of assault against them. Weinstein and co. are the antithesis of masculinity - they are effeminacy personified - and their problem, amongst so many things, is not their patriarchal scrupulosity but lack thereof.

This social media outpouring makes it clear that some men pose a real threat to the physical and psychic welfare of women and girls. But obscured in the public conversation about the violence against women is the fact that some other men are more likely to protect women, directly and indirectly, from the threat of male violence: married biological fathers. The bottom line is this: Married women are notably safer than their unmarried peers, and girls raised in a home with their married father are markedly less likely to be abused or assaulted than children living without their own father.
Article

it seems that, rather than focusing on the condemnation of what some men are doing in a manner that implies men need to be taught not to assault women, encouraging men to marry and commit to wives is healthy for society in a variety of ways.
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Carringbush2010

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 6, 2016
13,301
8,119
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
That’s a horrendous definition of what patriarchal headship is all about, and the ‘patriarchal’ nature of social masculinity has done and continues to do much for the safety of women and the prevention of assault against them. Weinstein and co. are the antithesis of masculinity - they are effeminacy personified - and their problem, amongst so many things, is not their patriarchal scrupulosity but lack thereof.



Article

it seems that, rather than focusing on the condemnation of what some men are doing in a manner that implies men need to be taught not to assault women, encouraging men to marry and commit to wives is healthy for society in a variety of ways.
Couldn't have put it better.

I have disdain for misuse of terms - 'patriarchy' has been hijacked by a misunderstanding few and fed this misuse of the term to an easily influenced (and impractical minded) minority audience.
 

Malifice

Moderator
Oct 2, 2007
38,650
35,760
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
That’s a horrendous definition of what patriarchal headship is all about
No, I'm talking about the patriarchy. Specifically the patriarchal society that we all live in:

The concept of patriarchy has been central to many feminist theories. It is an attempt to explain the stratification of power and privilege by gender that can be observed by many objective measures.

A patriarchy, from the ancient Greek patriarches, was a society where power was held by and passed down through the elder males. When modern historians and sociologists describe a "patriarchal society," they mean that men hold the positions of power and have more privilege: head of the family unit, leaders of social groups, boss in the workplace, and heads of government.
You know; a society where men hold the positions of power, have more privilege than women, run the show, and get away with sh*t on that basis (because of the existence of the patriarchy).

Feminists have been particularly critical of a system where men hold the power and social capital in society for obvious reasons.

Specifically:

Feminist theorists have expanded the definition of patriarchal society to describe a systemic bias against women. More significant, however, was the way society perceived women in power as an exception to a collectively held view of women's "role" in society. Rather than saying that individual men oppressed women, most feminists saw that oppression of women came from the underlying bias of a patriarchal society.
Patriarchal Society Defined According to Feminism (thoughtco.com)

Feminists aren't saying 'all men are sh*t' (barring the more militant types). What feminists are saying is that a society wide patriarchy exists that enables sh*t men to be sh*t and get away with it.

Weinstein, Spacey, Cosby, Harris etc.

That's the point of #metoo. It's literally [survivors of sexual abuse] from [men who have abused the patriarchy to get away with sexual abuse], speaking out about the abuse and naming and shaming the abusers, who were otherwise getting away with it, and often openly so as well.

Female perpetrators of sexual violence (and they exist) are not abusing the patriarchy to do so, so they're outside the scope of what #metoo are on about.

Something Sweet Jesus seems unable to comprehend.
 
Last edited:

Carringbush2010

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 6, 2016
13,301
8,119
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
No, I'm talking about the patriarchy. Specifically the patriarchal society that we all live in:



You know; a society where men hold the positions of power, have more privilege than women, run the show, and get away with sh*t on that basis (because of the existence of the patriarchy).

Feminists have been particularly critical of a system where men hold the power and social capital in society for obvious reasons.

Specifically:



Patriarchal Society Defined According to Feminism (thoughtco.com)

Feminists aren't saying 'all men are sh*t' (barring the more militant types). What feminists are saying is that a society wide patriarchy exists that enables sh*t men to be sh*t and get away with it.

Weinstein, Spacey, Cosby, Harris etc.

That's the point of #metoo. It's literally [survivors of sexual abuse] from [men who have abused the patriarchy to get away with sexual abuse], speaking out about the abuse and naming and shaming the abusers, who were otherwise getting away with it, and often openly so as well.

Female perpetrators of sexual violence (and they exist) are not abusing the patriarchy to do so, so they're outside the scope of what #metoo are on about.

Something Sweet Jesus seems unable to comprehend.
I think you're not going to find many that disagree with what you've stated here Malifice.

Yes patriarchy does allow a very minuscule number of mouthbreathing fkwits to do bad things to women - that's not a fault of patriarchy, it's a byproduct. If there is anywhere to lay fault it's your w**nkers doing the perpetrating not patriarchy 'coZ It uLLows UT"

So what do #metoo and more broadly society do about it? Do we now enforce a matriarchy? Nup, same problem different end of the stick.

Do away with hierarchy altogether? That's all good if you want anarchy, not for me, probably not many would want that.

While the sentiment behind the #metoo is noble, tearing down patriarchy hierarchy is not the way to go about it.

By and large, patriarchy is the protecting guidance - what it's meant to be. And is firmly rooted in mammalian nature, is what it is.

I don't see the point of wasting energy into demanding an abolition of patriarchy only to regret what one has wished for.
 

Malifice

Moderator
Oct 2, 2007
38,650
35,760
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
Yes patriarchy does allow a very minuscule number of mouthbreathing fkwits to do bad things to women - that's not a fault of patriarchy, it's a byproduct.
What's the difference?

The reality is these scumbags were able to openly and repeatedly rape and abuse their victims for literally decades.

I mean Hollywood was making jokes about Cosby, Weinstein and Spacey for years before they got caught. It wasnt even a secret FFS; literally everyone knew and nothing happened.

Old blokes taking advantage of their positions in the patriarchy to abuse others, and victims too scared to speak up about it.

That's what #metoo is on about.
 

Carringbush2010

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 6, 2016
13,301
8,119
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
What's the difference?

The reality is these scumbags were able to openly and repeatedly rape and abuse their victims for literally decades.

I mean Hollywood was making jokes about Cosby, Weinstein and Spacey for years before they got caught. It wasnt even a secret FFS; literally everyone knew and nothing happened.

Old blokes taking advantage of their positions in the patriarchy to abuse others, and victims too scared to speak up about it.

That's what #metoo is on about.
You didn't read my post did you.

Again, what you've stated here is NOT a fault of patriarchy or any hierarchy - it's the fkwits who do the wrong.

We all know what #metoo is about and it's end game - 'pull down patriarchy and that'll fix the problem'

If that is the end game then it is futile, if that what the movement is all about then it's a hiding to nothing.

The sentiment is noble but not practical - unless of course we have a meteoric shift in mammalian nature and matriarchy assumes the role of protecting guider. After all that is the role of hierarchy, guide an protect. Anarchy sure as hell would be worse than any 'patriarchy'

What else does #metoo propose to alleviate the problems?
 

CM86

Anindilyakwa
Sep 21, 2009
13,770
12,056
AFL Club
St Kilda
You didn't read my post did you.

Again, what you've stated here is NOT a fault of patriarchy or any hierarchy - it's the fkwits who do the wrong.

We all know what #metoo is about and it's end game - 'pull down patriarchy and that'll fix the problem'

If that is the end game then it is futile, if that what the movement is all about then it's a hiding to nothing.

The sentiment is noble but not practical - unless of course we have a meteoric shift in mammalian nature and matriarchy assumes the role of protecting guider. After all that is the role of hierarchy, guide an protect. Anarchy sure as hell would be worse than any 'patriarchy'

What else does #metoo propose to alleviate the problems?
Why do you keep framing it as 'pulling down the patriarchy'?
 

Malifice

Moderator
Oct 2, 2007
38,650
35,760
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
The sentiment is noble but not practical - unless of course we have a meteoric shift in mammalian nature and matriarchy assumes the role of protecting guider. After all that is the role of hierarchy, guide an protect. Anarchy sure as hell would be worse than any 'patriarchy'

What else does #metoo propose to alleviate the problems?
Why do we need a hierarchy, and even if we do, why do do we need one based on gender?

Feminists don't want to replace the patriarchy with a matriarchy, they want equality.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad