The Law MeToo Movement

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

Carringbush2010

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 6, 2016
13,348
8,141
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
Your sense of 21st century victimhood is writ large in every post you make.
Interesting, could you please link my supposed 'victimhood'? Is this post one of them? Coz y'know every post as you claim.

You must've met me, because you've claimed I'm a man who bitches about metoo - without knowing if I'm a man or not, even though I've never bitched about metoo. On top of my statements of disdain for men who abuse women and girls.
 

Ben The Donkey

Team Captain
Aug 18, 2019
355
438
AFL Club
Fremantle
So as a driving force is this what you mean?

View attachment 1263985

So that would be intent right?

I gather you see the metoo philosophy (or theory) as that intent, so in short you believe that metoo is some sort of evil feminazi group designed to tear down patriarchy, coz matriarchy better?

Is that your narrative?

If so that is offensive!

At worst metoo is mainly (wanting to be focused on) eradicating violence against women and girls. The problem is not their intent, it's their naivety. They're barking at the wrong clouds - willful bad intent is no the issue here, if that's your line of thinking. I would hope not.
I have a deep seated distrust of "movements" in general, due to their propensity to rely upon premises (hidden or otherwise) which become memes.
Generally speaking, movements, regardless of original intent, often morph into forces based more upon mob mentality, wielding power and influence based upon emotive rather than rational reasoning and using those memes as a unifying framework.

Faith is more powerful than reason as the primary force behind social change. Reason has always been faced with an uphill battle to supplant faith, but in the modern world, the ease with which information (factual or not) is disseminated, its reach, range, and sheer volume, has made that hill even steeper.

And faith is the abrogation of individual, intellectual responsibility.
"Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense and understanding" - Martin Luther

Movements like this one, BLM, and the like, have a marked tendency to shift that responsibility onto the amorphous, nebulous, insidious "other", to become soft beds upon which faith in the movement, and the subsequent abrogation of responsibility, can comfortably lay.
The Patriarchy. White people. Capitalism. Rape Culture. Men.
All memes.

Movements which gain significant traction become very similar in nature to governments creating an atmosphere of fear within which control is more easily established, goals more easily realised, and hypocrisy more easily concealed.
 
Last edited:

Carringbush2010

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 6, 2016
13,348
8,141
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
I have a deep seated distrust of "movements" in general, due to their propensity to rely upon premises (hidden or otherwise) which become memes.
Generally speaking, movements, regardless of original intent, often morph into forces based more upon mob mentality, wielding power and influence based upon emotive rather than rational reasoning and using those memes as a unifying framework.

Faith is more powerful than reason as the primary force behind social change. Reason has always been faced with an uphill battle to supplant faith, but in the modern world, the ease with which information (factual or not) is disseminated, its reach, range, and sheer volume, has made that hill even steeper.

And faith is the abrogation of individual, intellectual responsibility.
"Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense and understanding" - Martin Luther

Movements like this one, BLM, and the like, have a marked tendency to shift that responsibility onto the amorphous, nebulous, insidious "other", to become soft beds upon which faith in the movement, and the subsequent abrogation of responsibility, can comfortably lay.
The Patriarchy. White people. Capitalism. Rape Culture. Men.
All memes.

Movements which gain significant traction become very similar in nature to governments creating an atmosphere of fear within which control is more easily established, goals more easily realised, and hypocrisy more easily concealed.
While I don't disagree with what you've posted here, I'm certain this was not the intent of metoo from the inception.

Same with other movements like BLM, Terfs, any progressive ideology you can think of - all start out with noble intent and the sentiment will remain noble.

But as you've pointed out, the execution shifts and we end up with noble ideals surrounded by impractical execution. Tearing down hierarchy being one of those impracticals.

Apologies, your 'marxism' post led me to think that the metoo was in fact an inconspicuous 'enemy' in your observation.
 

Gethelred

Brownlow Medallist
May 1, 2016
19,195
39,984
AFL Club
Carlton
No, but effeminate men who shun their masculine responsibility are. It's not about muscles or facial hair, too. That's (I hope) obviously not what I was getting at.
I am reminded of Seeds' 'What makes a man a man?' thread.

Depict, as best you can, what a man who is demonstrating masculine responsibility. Try to do so without mentioning things that someone of any gender could accomplish or embody.
 

Blue1980

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 9, 2011
14,965
17,459
Melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
Well that's obvious, the 'equality of rights' line, no one is arguing against that.

Who's arguing that white males will suddenly be oppressed? Haven't seen that argument posted on here, only psycho disenfranchised mouth breathing bra burners would be in favour of oppressing anyone let alone the apparently evil 'patriarchy' white male.

So do tell us about this messy execution of method. In order to have order in society, do we go the anarchy path? Coz believe it or not there are morons who cannot see anarchy coming if they get their favoured patriarchal take down.

Do we go the matriarchy path? Well probably not because in order to have an immediate shift of hierarchy in human society that would take a meteoric shift in mammalian nature and would take the majority of the planet to agree to going against the grain of that nature.

Just won't happen coz of all those pesky males getting in the way of it. Not by wanton deliberance but by that pesky human nature again.

Or do we go the path of a 'nonbinaryarchy'? Well probably not because it represents a minuscule minority of human kind.

In short whichever way you boil it down and dissect it, society does and will continue to need a hierarchy and at the moment and since humans could be more than a non emotive organism it's largely been a patriarchy.

#metoo would be better served concentrating on incentivizing jurisdictions to apply appropriate deterrents to would be perpetrators.

Barking at patriarchy and mislabeling what it actually is, is futile.
I agree with some of your points that you will never get 100% equality of outcome and anyone thinking we need to get there or else we are doomed is an idiot.

There is the nature v nurture debate, but I’d wager that the current order of thing in society can’t be put down completely just to human nature and it being just the natural order or things.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Seeds

Hall of Famer
Sep 15, 2007
44,717
40,646
I don't know
AFL Club
Geelong
No, but effeminate men who shun their masculine responsibility are. It's not about muscles or facial hair, too. That's (I hope) obviously not what I was getting at.
Rolex watches.

Any man who likes to look pretty with shiny pointless expensive irrational watches is a effeminate man.

you can just smell the estrogen on them.
 

Carringbush2010

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 6, 2016
13,348
8,141
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
I agree with some of your points that you will never get 100% equality of outcome and anyone thinking we need to get there or else we are doomed is an idiot.

There is the nature v nurture debate, but I’d wager that the current order of thing in society can’t be put down completely just to human nature and it being just the natural order or things.
Oh I agree that the 'natural order' of things is not 100% absolute, but it is the rule rather than the exception.

So with that in view I think the mislabelling of 'patriarchy' needs to be tempered. Certainly an 'education' into what the purpose of patriarchy is will give a lot of angry people an 'epiphany' (any angry that is willing to listen to reason that is).
 

indoistriku

Debutant
Nov 29, 2020
137
158
AFL Club
Fremantle
I am reminded of Seeds' 'What makes a man a man?' thread.

Depict, as best you can, what a man who is demonstrating masculine responsibility. Try to do so without mentioning things that someone of any gender could accomplish or embody.
It’s not about inward content which isn’t diversified between the two genders. It’s the manner in which these contents manifest themselves in the innate and inevitable interactions between men, women and children.

- Sacrificial love -
Of course, both genders can love sacrificially. But that looks different in than in women because men and women are different. Men are stronger, on the whole, physically. For men to love sacrificially is to restrain their power-expression toward the betterment and defence of women, or those weaker then them. Effeminacy in men then, in this case, would be to do the opposite. Use their strength for the sake of their own pleasure, towards the harm of women, or to abnegate their representational role as protector and helper ‘when the going gets tough’. See Adam in Genesis 3 as a literary example of this effeminacy - blaming his wife for his fault to protect himself.
 

Gethelred

Brownlow Medallist
May 1, 2016
19,195
39,984
AFL Club
Carlton
It’s not about inward content which isn’t diversified between the two genders. It’s the manner in which these contents manifest themselves in the innate and inevitable interactions between men, women and children.

- Sacrificial love -
Of course, both genders can love sacrificially. But that looks different in than in women because men and women are different. Men are stronger, on the whole, physically. For men to love sacrificially is to restrain their power-expression toward the betterment and defence of women, or those weaker then them. Effeminacy in men then, in this case, would be to do the opposite. Use their strength for the sake of their own pleasure, towards the harm of women, or to abnegate their representational role as protector and helper ‘when the going gets tough’. See Adam in Genesis 3 as a literary example of this effeminacy - blaming his wife for his fault to protect himself.
Figures.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad