I had no idea what a waifus is till now. Is it really a thing in Japan?
Al Franken is Gone, Sexual Harassment Allegations are Harming Democrats
- Thread starter ElectricFetus
- Start date
- Status
Bells
Staff member
Then your party never had the moral high ground, nor are you in a position to complain when Republicans run candidates like Trump and Moore because of the manner in which they sexually harassed and assaulted women and girls.
As I have repeatedly said to you, if you think sexual harassment does not belong in society, if you think it is harmful to women, then a senator accused of groping multiple women, has no place being in a position to govern society or his community. Trying to grade it, trying to suggest that his is somehow less offensive when compared to the Trump's and Moore's of the GOP as a reason as to why he should remain and tacking on what he has done for women as justification, that doesn't place you or your party on the moral high ground. Which is the exact point I have been trying to make all along.
If you or the Democrats feel that his offenses do not or should not warrant resignation, if you think that his victims should be made to testify in a public hearing conducted by his fellow senators in what is going to end up being a partisan shit for all, if you think it is acceptable to put his accusers through that, then really, there is little to differentiate your party to the GOP who happily put women through that.
In a normal situation, by any definition, if a company has an employee that has sexually groped 8 women, some of whom while representing the company, that individual would be fired, regardless of what he has done for the good of women while working for said company.
Sexual harassment is insidious. It is pervasive and women are continuously expected to overlook it, to ignore it, to play it down, much like his victims were expected to play it down. At first it was comedy, then it was denials because she and the next accuser were Republicans, one of whom had appalling views of Obama, for example. Then other women came forward, Democrats, who relayed how he did this to them at Democratic and women's functions. One was groped at an Obama function after he won his second term. One was a Democratic staff member. And there was this pervasive expectation that he did not do anything that was that wrong. That he wasn't as bad as Trump or Moore. That he should not be placed in the same sentence or discussion as Trump and Moore. That he did so much for women, etc.
So he should have had his "due process", which does not apply, since he wasn't on trial. I wonder what would have happened to all who defended him if some of these women pressed charges. I wonder if that would have been easier for his supporters to understand the gravity of what he and they were expecting these women to accept. Because ultimately, that is what it came down to. This expectation that women, even his victims, simply accept that he acted badly and allow him to carry on, because ya know, he's going to do more for them in the long run. It's an expectation that women have had to put up with for a long time.
You saw it as a political attack, driven by the Republican controlled media. You posited that discussions about Franken was taking attention away from Moore and Trump. It wasn't. At all. I was still reading more about Moore and his sexual assaults, than I was about Franken. As I noted a few times, you would not have demanded he not resign, you would have scoffed at the Ethics Committee hearings if Franken had been a Republican, for the same reason I scoffed and am disgusted by it. Reason being that that hearing would have seen him as the victim and his accusers as the perpetrators. And that is the current discussion surrounding Franken. He had become the victim of women (and the various other ways in which liberal media were calling them), and for what? Sexual harassment.
Your "yes" response shows why sexual harassment is such a problem in society. You and others expect women to water it down, to excuse it depending on the circumstance. Each time I have read someone declare how he was a good guy, who did so much good for women in the Senate, I roll my eyes. Because a "good guy" would not sexually harass women. His resignation statement showed what kind of guy he is.
People think he should never have resigned? Okay. They think it should have gone to the ethics committee and had his accusers dragged out in public for hearings? Okay! That was never my issue. But don't try and do it while claiming to be the party for women's rights. Don't do it while extolling his virtues on women and women's issues and rights. And that is exactly what many have demanded women do. That expectation that women and society focus on the good he did for them, while overlooking what he did to them. That losing his voice in the Senate will harm women, while ignoring the harm he actually did to women when he sexually harassed them. Sorry, that's just a dead stone that no one should be trying to swallow.
Edit #2: This is directed towards EF. Shoulda made that clear at the beginning, with several separate discussion going on here.
About twenty years ago, I threw down and declared to myself: I am ssooo done with this shit. "This shit" was philosophy, both in formal contexts and informal. My decision was prompted not so much by the fact that they simply weren't hiring down at the philosophy plant, but rather more by my simply having no desire to work down at the philosophy plant. I had two degrees, both from highly reputable unis, and really could have made something of it (epileptic disruptions, aside), but such would leave me little time to pursue my desperate need for hands-on work: music production and performance; design and development (in music and elsewhere); working extensively with dogs; spur-of-the-moment shoestring travel for indeterminate periods--and, preferably, cut off from the rest of the world; and living way out in the middle of nowhere, chopping wood and suchlike, and, also, cut off from the rest of the world. These things weren't really conducive to the academic "career" path.
And yet, a look at my library and my work and writings over the ensuing years reveal that I failed spectacularly. You can't really escape what you love, and when it's not really hurting you or anyone else, there's really not much point. So, I continued to read, incessantly, and I continued to write--though not for academic publications (I've only ever published in an academic journal once: Anthropology, of all things.). Rather, I wrote philosophical essays (and blurbs) for boxed sets, retrospectives, niche journals, and other decidely non-academic venues. It was fun, fulfilling, and it paid--and it kept me out of the philosophy factory and the stifling university politics.
Don't know if it's apparent where I'm going with this, but total denial of a passion--which is pretty much harmless in and of itself--is generally a bad idea (TM) (too lazy) and tends to breed contempt, resentment, and a host of unhealthy responses.
Consciously and deliberately avoiding relations with women, out of fear of being accused of harassment, assault and rape, is both ridiculous and dangerous. And it's a cop-out: I'm no longer going to do this because of the remote possibility that I might be accused of something. Of course, such accusations are easily avoided: don't harass women, don't assault women, and don't rape women. Is this really all that difficult? (No, it is not: NOT harassing women, NOT assaulting women, and NOT raping women is about as difficult as NOT shooting someone in the head.)
This MRA shit is deeply misogynistic and this is more than apparent to any and all sane observers: these folks truly believe that women have all the power, that the "system" is increasingly set up to fuck over heterosexual (white) men, and that the answer lay in avoiding any and all contact with these female "oppressors."
How can you--EF--honestly expect us to take you seriously when you propose such lunacy?
Edit: Kinda weird how Genesis's "Duke's Travels Suite" proved so prescient. Props to Mr. Collins, Mr. Banks, and Mr. Rutherford!
About twenty years ago, I threw down and declared to myself: I am ssooo done with this shit. "This shit" was philosophy, both in formal contexts and informal. My decision was prompted not so much by the fact that they simply weren't hiring down at the philosophy plant, but rather more by my simply having no desire to work down at the philosophy plant. I had two degrees, both from highly reputable unis, and really could have made something of it (epileptic disruptions, aside), but such would leave me little time to pursue my desperate need for hands-on work: music production and performance; design and development (in music and elsewhere); working extensively with dogs; spur-of-the-moment shoestring travel for indeterminate periods--and, preferably, cut off from the rest of the world; and living way out in the middle of nowhere, chopping wood and suchlike, and, also, cut off from the rest of the world. These things weren't really conducive to the academic "career" path.
And yet, a look at my library and my work and writings over the ensuing years reveal that I failed spectacularly. You can't really escape what you love, and when it's not really hurting you or anyone else, there's really not much point. So, I continued to read, incessantly, and I continued to write--though not for academic publications (I've only ever published in an academic journal once: Anthropology, of all things.). Rather, I wrote philosophical essays (and blurbs) for boxed sets, retrospectives, niche journals, and other decidely non-academic venues. It was fun, fulfilling, and it paid--and it kept me out of the philosophy factory and the stifling university politics.
Don't know if it's apparent where I'm going with this, but total denial of a passion--which is pretty much harmless in and of itself--is generally a bad idea (TM) (too lazy) and tends to breed contempt, resentment, and a host of unhealthy responses.
Consciously and deliberately avoiding relations with women, out of fear of being accused of harassment, assault and rape, is both ridiculous and dangerous. And it's a cop-out: I'm no longer going to do this because of the remote possibility that I might be accused of something. Of course, such accusations are easily avoided: don't harass women, don't assault women, and don't rape women. Is this really all that difficult? (No, it is not: NOT harassing women, NOT assaulting women, and NOT raping women is about as difficult as NOT shooting someone in the head.)
This MRA shit is deeply misogynistic and this is more than apparent to any and all sane observers: these folks truly believe that women have all the power, that the "system" is increasingly set up to fuck over heterosexual (white) men, and that the answer lay in avoiding any and all contact with these female "oppressors."
How can you--EF--honestly expect us to take you seriously when you propose such lunacy?
Edit: Kinda weird how Genesis's "Duke's Travels Suite" proved so prescient. Props to Mr. Collins, Mr. Banks, and Mr. Rutherford!
Last edited:
eeeeh, sort of, yeah that is more of a joke, there are lots of names for those things, waifu is just the most humors one.
Well glade you ask, first of all do you know the difference between a logical argument and and emotional one? When I make a logical argument and everyone can only reply with an emotional argument is generally where it is at. The argument I made is logically consistent, now can anyone put it down without resorting to emotion?
MGTOW, not MRA. MGTOW is a mirror image of the radical feminist that declare all men "oppressors" and forgoes men under the slogan "I need a man like a fish needs bicycle", there is though fundamental truth to the latter: if one is emotionally self-sufficient then one needs a romantic partner as much as a fish needs a bicycle.
Oh that easy enough, so what is defined as harassing women again? For example if I accidentally bump into a women and she interprets it as intentionally touching her, I have just harassed her, she could come out at anytime, years later even, and say I did such and destroy my reputation and livelihood. This is in fact far far far easier then shooting someone in the head: it is only a matter of interpretation on her part if any action of mine is sexual harassment.
I don't understand the denial of passion part, how is it a denial of passion? We can passionately make love to our sex dolls, we can have other passions, is romance with women the only source of passion? When a couple of months ago a graduate student was shaking her ass in my face while she looked through the microscope, I knew what she was doing, but hey maybe I was misinterpreting, doesn't matter because I did nothing about it, not out of fear that if I acknowledge her advances I would be called the harasser, but because I need a women like a fish needs a bicycle. And don't go calling that misogynist, next you would need to say gays are misogynist!
Now you and others call it lunacy and yet thousands, perhaps millions, of young men are going MGTOW and MGHOW, countries like japan where much of the younger male population have gone herbivore, this is clearly a lunacy that is catching and growing.
So back to the argument: define harassment, define how we determine it from a misunderstanding, define how we prosecute it. Define how a man can proposition a women for a relationship and it not be interpreted as harassment at her whim?
Because it seems to be harassment is what ever an individual women claims, what ever she feels, and that a court of public opinion is used to determine guilt rather then a court of law as should be for something that is equivalent to shooting someone in the head. Imagine if Trump was running around shooting people in the head but nothing could be done about it because his followers are screaming "fake news!" and then elect him president, because that is what happens when you let the court of public opinion decide guilt. Meanwhile who comes to defend Franken? Not many, Well Tina Liebling at least, because she understands the NEED for due process.
Meanwhile if you don't like the idea of due process for a crime like sexual harassment (like we usually do for shooting someone in the head), I gave you another solution, but you clearly don't like it, I will give you a hint: it involves how a fish does not need a bicycle.
And here we go - Republicans are already abusing the fact that that Democrats are being held to standards they ignore:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/son-late-detroit-mayor-young-run-conyers-seat-51670025
Michigan's Republican governor announced Friday that Democrat John Conyers' congressional seat will not be filled until the regularly scheduled November election, leaving it vacant for nearly a year.
One less Democrat to try and stand in the way of the Republican Agenda... One more, essentially, stolen seat. One more area being marginalized and, effectively, silenced, at least for the next year.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/son-late-detroit-mayor-young-run-conyers-seat-51670025
Michigan's Republican governor announced Friday that Democrat John Conyers' congressional seat will not be filled until the regularly scheduled November election, leaving it vacant for nearly a year.
One less Democrat to try and stand in the way of the Republican Agenda... One more, essentially, stolen seat. One more area being marginalized and, effectively, silenced, at least for the next year.
#rapeculture | #wombenvy
It's not worth clicking.
The mirror image according to the perception of an ignorant man tells us more about the ignorant man than anything or anyone else.
Had those feminists and ranges of ideas the power you presuppose in order to frame your ego defense, the world would be a vastly different, and likely better, place. And, y'know°, who knows what those feminists would see if they were assessing society from such perspective and circumstance? But that's also the thing: If we go your stupid way, we never find out, and those so-called "radical" feminists remain correct in their icthyovelocipedist assessment.
You are right about one thing; women virtually have no need left for men. In fact, it was about seven years ago a European team achieved mammalian offspring from the genetic material of two ova. So, remember Darwinian evolution: Y exists solely for the preservation and perpetuation of X. So go your own way. Homo sapiens sapiens will survive, and perhaps evolve: Homo sapiens soliux°°, perhaps.
Truth told, though, we might sincerely doubt you or any other wannabe can take it so far. After all, the mirror image of mgtow stupidity and self-investiture is still stupidity and self-investiture.
In the end, the question is whether mgtow can take a hint, or if the identity movement will actually come together and try to assert immediate and proximate danger.
The present danger, which others create by taking mgtow seriously, is a bit more complex than the scant, inconsistent, and, ultimately, unreliable literary and historical record of the inchoate identity assertion has shown demonstrated the wannabe cult capable of countenancing.
____________________
Notes:
° Oh, right, you don't. Whoops. Sorry 'bout that.
°° soliux: solum (alone, only) as genitive, solius, combined with the X chromosome as portwomynteaux: sapiens soliux = "wise person X alone".
All I hear are emotional slanders and no argument. If we go my "stupid way" what way would that be exactly and what would we "never find out" exactly? You make allusions to a conclusion but present no conclusion, thus you have no argument.
If men treated women like men (and I mean like heterosexuals treat each other: with no sexual animus between them) what is the problem? Why would this not radically reduce the rate of sexual harassment on women?
Yeah and? So? Why should I care if men die off? We are all going to die, if there are no men after me, why should I care? Personally as a transhumanist I put good bets that ALL humans will be obsolete by the end of the century, and if I live to see that day I will say "good riddance!" and upload my mind into the machine and free myself of this weak disgusting flesh and mortality. Female-Female reproductions of talking apes is still reproduction of talking apes, complete synthetic lifeforms devoid of any Darwinian vestigials will be the next step, the final step.
Again no argument, just slander. Look when you say your a homosexual, do you think it rude if people say they doubt your sincerity? but when I say I get off better and happier jerking it to hentai of furry dickgirls then dating human women, suddenly that is now questionable!
What hint? What danger will MGTOW cause? Be specific, allusions to a conclusion is not a conclusion. Once again I will present my argument as a counter to what ever it is your alluding towards: Why does Japan have 1/27 the rate of rape as the USA, because most of their young men are at home masturbation to anime figures instead of interacting with women in any sexual manner. So once again the most obvious way to reduce sexual assaults on women is if men stop interacting with women in a sexual manner! If these leads to the extinction of men, why should I care? That is half the problem gone in my opinion!
And that danger is? Yes yes I do not know, enlighten me.
And again for those all that do not think I'm serious: I'm presenting a logical argument, regardless if it is emotional disgusting, if it is valid, it's valid. For example: if two people love each other sexually, and make sure not to have mutant freak babies, why can't they have a sexual relationship even if they are brother and sister? Well sure incest is gross, but that is a emotional argument, unless you have a logical counter argument my questions stands un-countered.
Likewise why should men not forgo sexual interactions with women if it can be perceived as harassment at her whim? What other solution to the problem of sexual harassment is there? You say men should stop sexual harassing women, I say yes men should stop sexually harassing women and here is how and suddenly your get all emotional and start slandering me. Ok present your solution, and be specific, do not allude to an answer.
Here look, I disagree with nothing said here: https://www.inc.com/jt-odonnell/sim...ent-at-work-aside-from-just-not-doing-it.html
Last edited:
1) It's not my Party, and I won't answer for it. You are being dishonest in this insistence on framing, as always. That is your primary characteristic here - the bulk of your posting in this thread is falsehood, intended to slander.
2) It never held the moral high ground. It's always been an ordinary political Party, with all that implies. It held, and still does, the moral higher ground. You never pay attention.
3) There is no position from which one cannot "complain" - revealing term - when Republicans do bad and even evil things. When the doing of such things has become the entire agenda of the Party itself, the "complaints" become a moral duty. In these circumstances acting to obscure the nature of the Republican agenda, or hitch one's cause to the condemnation and opposition due it, is a moral transgression and failing.
And so you have been repeatedly full of shit - beginning with the deception of the "if", continuing with the lie (and slander) of "grading" by comparison with Trump and Moore (who are not being "graded" by comparison with Franken, notice, but instead obscured), wrapping with the deception of "your Party" and "the moral high ground" (now simply assumed).
Of course it was. Partly. You denied that aspect of it, because that would have required judgment and consideration and you regard that as a moral failing in this matter. Now you require that everyone have lived in your cartoon world, where it was either a political attack or a legitimate accusation, and answer for their cartoon status within it.
Not necessarily. Remember your definition of "groping".
If you are still replying to me here, and have not conveniently "forgotten" the beginning and context of your post in order to slander without accountability, the following: It was never "comedy". It was never "denial" and even less "denial because Republican accuser". There was never any contention, express or implied, that he had nothing wrong. And there was no attempt to justify or excuse his behavior on the grounds that he had done anything for women. None of that appeared in my posting.
And in context my objections to your lumping him with Trump and Moore imply the opposite of what your contrived rhetorical approach is designed to suggest they imply.
And so forth, throughout your entire response. Again as before. Repetitively.
The question becomes: why? Why does your cause involve dishonesty and slander and misrepresentation?
Is making an honest case against my actual posting impossible?
Because here's one example of what's missing, in the real world: The Democrats are not organizing, in a loud and insistent and media-dominating bloc, to demand over and over and over in perpetuity that Trump resign as Franken did. My bet is they won't, or anything like that, because (partially) purging their own ranks does not actually gain them anything in conflict with the current Republican Party, and very little in appeal to larger citizenry. Franken's ill-timed resignation probably bestows no extra moral leverage at all - certainly no significant amount.
It may even reduce it - the "bothsides" narrative used to precipitously rid the Party of Franken, lumping his behavior and the Party's toleration of it with Trump's and Moore's and the Republican's, has an obvious corollary or implication: he then has admitted that he was guilty of the same behaviors and attitudes as Trump and Moore, and his Party would then be equivalently tarred, all along - while pretending to champion women's causes in the Senate, say, behavior now revealed to have been "merely" a cover for predation as bad as anyone else's. So the Democratic Party is merely more hypocritical, not more friendly toward women, than the Republican Party.
Which is the real women's Party - the Party of deviants, hypocrisy, and admitted sex offenders (guys who did stuff so bad it was impossible to deny), or the Party of family values and the unjustly accused - unjustly accused by admitted deviants and hypocrites and sex offenders?
If a Republican media guy can't sell that line, after having been handed the Democrat's own "bothsides" narrative (handed the media high ground, from which the moral one depends), he isn't earning his money.
Bells
Staff member
So now I am slandering you by saying you are a Democrat? Why would that be, I wonder?
It doesn't hold the "higher moral ground" either.
And when it comes to sexual harassment, you don't get to "complain". Nor does your "it's not my party".
*Yawn*
No, seriously, you keep avoiding the obvious point, you keep avoiding the actual subject, by launching into this ridiculous type of diatribe. As I asked you earlier, do you tweet at 3:00am too?
What? You're telling me that your constant protests and whining that Franken was being lumped in with Moore and Trump is not an attempt to grade sexual harassment?
I mean, shit dude, do you even consider groping and forcibly kissing women without their consent to even be sexual harassment?
I didn't deny it. I thought it was pure hypocritical bullshit. Just as Democrats whining about Franken and saying that he should not resign until Trump, Moore and the likes of Thomas resign is hypocritical. Reason being that the 'party that is not your party' was happy to take money from the Trump's and Weinstein's of this world, despite their predatory behaviour being well known and goddamn legendary, for political expediency. The 'party that is not your party' when it comes to Thomas, well, the writing is on the wall there, isn't it? And we all know how well that turned out for women.
Your ridiculous outrage when it comes to my comments about Franken is just that, political posturing. If Franken had been a Republican, you'd be frothing at the mouth tying him to the party that knowingly endorses sexual predators. But Franken is a Democrat. You think that party has the "higher moral ground"? Tell me that when the party that is not your party deals with the likes of Borris Miles in Texas or stops hand wringing when faced with the likes of Franken within its ranks, or when they stop offering pithy 'oops' apologies to Anita Hill and Thomas' accusers, or when they stop calling serial offenders "icons" or when they stop believing Bill Clinton's victims for political expediency. Otherwise you come across like those defending Moore, citing the exact same excuses you have demanded for Franken.
Franken sexually harassed 8 women. That is the reality. Trump sexually harassed multitudes of women. That is the reality. Franken sexually harassed and sexually molested teenage girls, that is the reality. Conyers sexually harassed his staff, that is the reality. Stop arguing as though one is better than the others. Stop arguing that one deserves to be treated as though he's just an impulsive jerk who caused insult instead of injury, when the reality is that he sexually harassed and groped 8 women that we know of thus far.
In short, stop with your hypocritical bullshit and abusive behaviour just because someone does not agree with you.
And what definition would that be? Or are you trying to insinuate that grabbing women by their backsides and at least one breast, is somehow or other not "groping" and is instead something else?
Bells
Staff member
No, that was your complaining when I noted how some commentary in liberal media were trying to play it. Remember? You pitched a fit when I said Democrats were making this excuse. As for your lack of contention in regards to whether he had done anything wrong..
Cut the bullshit.
And why does your cause involve watering down what he did:
Why does your cause imply whether these women were actually harmed and your attempts to redefine sexual harassment to fit around what Franken did.. Again, cut the bullshit. You might have sold it to men's rights activists like EF, or the Bowser's of this world who is known to have questioned whether street harassment of women is really sexual harassment, but you haven't sold it to me and I'm not buying it. I'm just tired of your partisan hack job because Franken is a Democrat. Sexual harassment is sexual harassment. It either is, or it is not. It is either acceptable in some cases, or not at all. You either believe the women, or you do not. Basing that on partisan politics is just hypocritical.
I'm sorry, what?
Democrats have been calling for his resignation since he won the election because he is unfit for office. And with Franken having now resigned, those calls are getting louder.
And in case you missed it, Republicans did not want him to resign and were blabbering about the need for an ethics committee. Perhaps it's time to ask yourself why.
Sexual harassment knows no political boundaries, iceaura.
What part of that aspect of my argument in this and the other thread, have you not grasped yet?
And Franken did not admit to anything, he was cagey, what he did admit to, he took back, just as he took back his apologies during his resignation speech in the Senate. That's the thing with sexual harassment and how the accused respond to them.
Earlier this week, sociologist David Karp explained to Vox his five-point checklist for helpful public apologies: Specifically acknowledge the harm done, admit your role in it, express remorse, explain which behaviors you’ll stop in the future, and share your plan for making amends. Franken’s statement on Thursday failed on the very first step.
[...]
Once Franken knew he would resign, he had a choice. He could do so in a way that helped a cause he claims to care about — protecting women from men’s abuses of power — or he could preserve some of his own reputation at the cost of harming that cause. He chose the latter. By going back on his earlier statements, he essentially took all of his accusers down with him.
Franken was right about one thing: It is unfair (though not, perhaps, “an irony,” as he put it) that he will leave the Senate and Roy Moore, who has been accused of sexually pursuing teenage girls, will probably enter it. It is unfair that he will resign and Donald Trump, who has been accused of harassment, assault, or other sexual misconduct by more than a dozen women, will remain the president. These are injustices that remain to be fought. But by sacrificing his accusers for the benefit of his own political legacy, Franken made it harder, not easier, to fight them.
[...]
Once Franken knew he would resign, he had a choice. He could do so in a way that helped a cause he claims to care about — protecting women from men’s abuses of power — or he could preserve some of his own reputation at the cost of harming that cause. He chose the latter. By going back on his earlier statements, he essentially took all of his accusers down with him.
Franken was right about one thing: It is unfair (though not, perhaps, “an irony,” as he put it) that he will leave the Senate and Roy Moore, who has been accused of sexually pursuing teenage girls, will probably enter it. It is unfair that he will resign and Donald Trump, who has been accused of harassment, assault, or other sexual misconduct by more than a dozen women, will remain the president. These are injustices that remain to be fought. But by sacrificing his accusers for the benefit of his own political legacy, Franken made it harder, not easier, to fight them.
And no, the Democratic Party has shown itself to not be "friendly" towards women (what they actively participated in with Anita Hill is a prime example of that), particularly victims of sexual harassment and sexual assault when the accused is a Democrat.
Women and our bodies are now political tools and the Democrats need to decide how to proceed between what they preach and what they actively do. These last few weeks have shown that in detail. As for the Republicans, heh, they don't think women matter at all except to be incubators. Pointing to the other side and declaring they are worse, isn't going to cut it anymore.
Progressives have been intellectually aware, for years, that genuinely caring about women means allowing them to be comfortable in public and professional spaces — not feeling that they have to be on their guard against predation at all times, and not obliged to accede to coercion by powerful men. But the predation of powerful men and the presence of coercion in progressive circles, just like anywhere else, was an open secret anyway. And now the idea of the “open secret” — the sin that everyone knows about but that has no consequences for the sinner — is crumbling.
From my perspective. Neither.
Of course not. But your perspective is not involved. And "neither" isn't going to be on the ballot.
The litany:
No, I didn't.
No bullshit visible. Read your posts, for example.
It doesn't.
Now you're posting gibberish. Something about pitching a fit goes here.
Some have, disorganized and intermittent. So?
Ane my presumption that you represent others as you represent my posting here gets a bit of support.
More dishonesty, central and ineradicable - all of your posting here is based on that shit.
If so, they had no reason whatsoever to force Franken to resign - no upside.
Too bad for all that preaching - along with the Federal judges, abortion rights, health care, Title 9, military benefits, Social Security reforms, wage and working condition initiatives, and so forth. Buncha lip service from predators, just like the Republicans, except the Republicans are more honest about it - they say what regular people are thinking.
Last edited:
#mgtow | #flaccid
Click because … no, I'm not doing that line.
Right. Well and fine.
Such as it is, you're welcome to advocate that outcome.
Beside the point:
(1) Being gay, your argument about men abstaining from intimacy with women or pursuit thereof has nothing to do with me; thus, like I said↑: You're welcome to take all the time you want explaining to heterosexual men the part about not making sexual advances on women. And, yes, I'm already aware heterosexual men, by and large, are not hopping on your wankadelic bandwagon; thus, yeah, it's hard to take that approach to the subject seriously.
(2) Mgtow, furrydelic, whatever, it doesn't actually matter toward the question of your sincerity unless we construe these iterations as expressions demonstrating insincerity. People doubt your sincerity because you behave insincerely.
(3) The old saying, "Thanks for sharing", always was sarcastic. In the end, I don't want to know who you're tindering↑; nobody does. Your sex life is your business; nobody else is actually supposed to care what you're wanking to↑. Honestly, you don't need to be inflicting your sex life on other people, and if you can't figure that part out, well, frankly, what's new, dude, since people inflicting their sex lives on one another happens to be a theme at the heart of what this thread exploits.
(2) Mgtow, furrydelic, whatever, it doesn't actually matter toward the question of your sincerity unless we construe these iterations as expressions demonstrating insincerity. People doubt your sincerity because you behave insincerely.
(3) The old saying, "Thanks for sharing", always was sarcastic. In the end, I don't want to know who you're tindering↑; nobody does. Your sex life is your business; nobody else is actually supposed to care what you're wanking to↑. Honestly, you don't need to be inflicting your sex life on other people, and if you can't figure that part out, well, frankly, what's new, dude, since people inflicting their sex lives on one another happens to be a theme at the heart of what this thread exploits.
So, yeah, when the whole thing is just to include other people in your self-centered sex-life-as-identity-politic, I suppose we shouldn't be surprised that you're missing the point. Speaking of which—
—it might help to pay attention
What hint? Well—
You are right about one thing; women virtually have no need left for men. In fact, it was about seven years ago a European team achieved mammalian offspring from the genetic material of two ova. So, remember Darwinian evolution: Y exists solely for the preservation and perpetuation of X. So go your own way. Homo sapiens sapiens will survive, and perhaps evolve: Homo sapiens soliux, perhaps.
Truth told, though, we might sincerely doubt you or any other wannabe can take it so far. After all, the mirror image of mgtow stupidity and self-investiture is still stupidity and self-investiture.
In the end, the question is whether mgtow can take a hint, or if the identity movement will actually come together and try to assert immediate and proximate danger.
Truth told, though, we might sincerely doubt you or any other wannabe can take it so far. After all, the mirror image of mgtow stupidity and self-investiture is still stupidity and self-investiture.
In the end, the question is whether mgtow can take a hint, or if the identity movement will actually come together and try to assert immediate and proximate danger.
—as we revisit #86↑, what part of this is confusing? Mgtows are right that women do not, or, soon enough, will not need men. If men go their own way, Y can risk extinction without drving X to oblivion. Like I said, we might sincerely doubt you or any other wannabe can take it so far. That is to say, it's hard to imagine men driving themselves extinct in order to make some abstract point to women, but only because it is hard to project what it looks like. To listen to men blither and bawl, though, yeah, I suppose it's somehow possible. But it's true, if we wish to take the present in any context approaching seriousness, no, the men aren't going their own way to the point of extinction, or any other significant degree that might otherwise grant women such overdue relief.
And in the end, the question is whether mgtows can take the hint that such petulant wanker fantasy just ain't happening, or are they stupid enough to seek some manner of actually trying. You know, a childish, "Who says we can't? We'll show them!" kind of dumbasss thing, which, y'know, is kind of the whole point of mgtow in the first place.
You know, the part where you still need women to see you going your own way.
Supporting rape culture is dangerous. You know, like the example pictured in #67↑? And that's the thing; the poor guy is so angry he can't do anything to help himself, but merely seek empowerment blaming others for his own perception of his own failures. He's not going his own way; he's going out of his way to demand women see him and notice him pretending to go his own way.
Taking this idea seriously, that is, that a man should blame women for himself, brings no useful result or even potential.
Bells
Staff member
Sooo... nothing of actual substance. Just yet more defensive political posturing. How strange and unusual.
Being gay, isn’t abstaining from intimacy with women a cornerstone of your sexuality?
Conditioning men of all persuasions not to be obsessed with touching women for personal gratification is not going to reduce the incidence of women experiencing unwanted touching?
In a thread partially dedicated to examining the consequences of the sexual behaviors of men in positions of power, why would you condemn a fellow man for expressing an analysis of his own sexual behaviors as they pertain to the subject of unwanted advances towards women?
The extinction of the humanity do to sexual preference is often used as an argument against homosexuality as well, but it always ignores the fact that human beings do not have to enjoy an essential activity in order to practice it. If the survival of humanity depended on it, gay men and MGTOW's would find a way to get their seed where it's needed. As for independent procreation, the development of artificial wombs works equally as well for men.
You cannot post honestly in this thread - literally, incapable. You can't even post without dishonest slander. Don't you think that's a bit strange?
At any rate, one of the several points you just overlooked, thread relevant and response direct to its quoted prompt, is maybe a synopsis of the aspect of the consequences you guys seem to regard as the whole of them - the high moral ground gained by the Democratic Party via forcing Franken to resign immediately based on the accusations to date, and its promising influence on the election now ten months away:
If I'm a Republican tactician, that's one likely ploy.
Another would be to resurrect the lies and bs around Franken's narrow recount win in the first place, including the Democratic handling of Franken's alleged sexual improprieties.
There are several, none mutually exclusive, the main goal of which would be to invalidate whomever Dayton appoints - perhaps even delay their seating until after the budget bill passes, and Trump has fired Mueller.
With any luck, they can make a dent in Klobuchar at the same time - the national Dems are going to be spread a bit thin, and they are even more confidant in Klobuchar than they were in Clinton. If the right candidate can sneak up on her, this could be payday.
And meanwhile, Franken gone is a significantly more comfortable Senate - in votes, in committees, in publicity - for the Republicans.
Franken gone, and Conyers seat empty for at least a year. Two less voices to oppose the GOP.
Seems all is going according to plan.
Bells
Staff member
You implied I was like a woman who endorsed a paedophile. You have zero leg to stand on in regards to dishonest slander.
Which I addressed.
Neither.
Yes.
We’ve only just entered a world where being a champion of women means you’re not supposed to be a serial grabber of women’s butts
The alternative would have been to leave Franken and Conyers in place, while trying to pass the party as being the party that supports the #MeToo movement. Perhaps if Franken had responded differently, if he had addressed his accusers instead of the whole "I remember it differently" spiel he went on, if he showed some measure of contrition and was apologetic for what he did, instead of apologising for the women feeling harassed (blame shifting) and the whole thing coming off as a 'shrug' and the whole 'I didn't know what I did that was so wrong' look, things might have turned out a bit differently. Conyers flat out denied everything, despite having paid off one accuser..
Franken’s bafflement is something else again. He hasn’t admitted to any of the behavior he’s accused of — he says he doesn’t remember groping a woman in a photo line, and that he remembers a 2006 incident “differently” from the way Leeann Tweeden wrote about it in a November article. But at the same time, he’s apologized to Tweeden and other victims for making them feel uncomfortable. It’s something of an “I’m sorry if you were offended” level of apology, but it raises the discomfiting possibility that the incidents that have come out publicly are just run-of-the-mill for Franken.
On Monday night, he told a local TV station that he doesn’t know if more women will come forward with allegations, because he wasn’t expecting any women to come forward with allegations, period. That could mean that Franken is trying to defend himself against shoes he knows are going to drop in the future — or it could mean he simply never registered occasions when his behavior overstepped boundaries or made women uncomfortable.
On Monday night, he told a local TV station that he doesn’t know if more women will come forward with allegations, because he wasn’t expecting any women to come forward with allegations, period. That could mean that Franken is trying to defend himself against shoes he knows are going to drop in the future — or it could mean he simply never registered occasions when his behavior overstepped boundaries or made women uncomfortable.
Something something about personal responsibility applies here.
I mean, you get how and why what I just quoted above is problematic, right?
You get why victims are fed up with this kind of attitude, yes?
You get why his final speech was a disaster, yes? Casting doubt on women who speak out was the worst thing he could have done.
Will the Senate be a more comfortable place for the GOP? Probably yes.
But will the GOP itself be more comfortable with Roy Moore there and Trump in the White House now?
You tell me?
70% of Americans believe the U.S. Congress should investigate allegations of sexual harassment against President Trump, a new Quinnipiac University poll finds. 25% say Trump should not be investigated.
The party breakdown: Of registered voters surveyed, 86% of Democrats, 39% of Republicans and 66% of Independents want a congressional probe into Trump's alleged behavior. Asked if they think its hypocritical for Trump to criticize men accused of harassment, 73% responded yes — including 94% of Democrats, 46% of Republicans and 71% of Independents.
The party breakdown: Of registered voters surveyed, 86% of Democrats, 39% of Republicans and 66% of Independents want a congressional probe into Trump's alleged behavior. Asked if they think its hypocritical for Trump to criticize men accused of harassment, 73% responded yes — including 94% of Democrats, 46% of Republicans and 71% of Independents.
Oh are you sure, because it seems your are not sure.
1. Like I said, I have been. And considering the growing numbers of mgtow, considering over half japans younger generation of men you seem to be denying reality.
2. Oh and I care? Your the one that thinks questioning my sincerity is an argument tactic.
3. So how do we know your gay again? Are you saying stating your sexual persuasion is now equal to sexual assault?
Take what so far? what women do with their own bodies? How do I control that? Once again why should I care what happens to men after I die? Take what so far: Sit back. live life for myself, play some vidya, beat off, seriously you can't comprehend that?
OH ooh now I get what you got wrong: it is about themselves, not women. Do you think all those herbivore men in japan are furiously masturbating to anime figurines, watching their country in over 20 years of economic stagnation and population shrinkage saying to themselves "This will teach those women!"? The point is not abstract: they don't care about the women, they don't care about existential problems to their country or manhood itself, they are happy and content with their anime figurines. It is that their emotional self-sufficiency happens to have the side-effect that I thought you wanted of significantly reducing harassment and raping of women, isn't that what you want?
So you simply do not believe it is happening or can happen? That is your argument? No matter my evidence? Alright I will lay down more evidence: how about an animal model?:
Why do you think I need women to see me do that... are you a women now? Heck I don't even need you, I was merely saying "Your concerned about sexual harassment of women? Well Ok I got the solution for you..." and your reply is "that stupid, it will never happen, stupid, stupid!" and I show you evidence that it is happening and you repeat you stupidity chant.
How is advocating you don't have sexual relations with women lead to supporting (forced) sexual relations with women?
How is he pretending to go his own way, do you honestly think this guys is having sex with women secretly on the side?
Huh? I don't think you know enough about mgtow philosophy: it is all about self blame. We (heterosexual men) are fundamentally weak, it is our desire for women that makes us so, all the prostrating and violating a man does for sex with women is his own weakness, not women's.
Ok Tiassa I thought of another solution to reduce sexual harassment of women, since the MGTOW idea triggers you so: Have only women proposition men for relations and sex!
Now in my bachelor days I found a good drunken party was a great way to find women to ask me out, she would rub against me, grab my crotch and then sloppier into my ear about how she wants to fuck, and my response was always "... OK!" now I'm old and bald, sad. So I figure if we could outlaw men asking women out and start a "Ask him out" campaign, maybe these numbers above would switch around and thus with only women asking men out the rate of sexual harassment would go down.
Hum... well there is a problem, most men prefer to ask out, that has got to change. I'm sure when all those men stop asking women out the liberating women will become proactive and ask men out. Unless there is some kind of biological reason for why women usually prefer to be asked out rather then ask out.
One explanation for this sex difference may be what I call "female reputational defense theory." From an evolutionary perspective, males and females have faced different reproductive opportunities and constraints due to fundamental biological sex differences in reproductive rate ( M > F) and in confidence of genetic parentage ( F > M) (see Mealey, 2000). These differences have led to the evolution of sexual dimorphic psychological adaptations related to a variety of behaviors, including courtship (Symons, 1979).
Humans as a species have very high levels of obligate parental investment. Further, ancestral men could invest in their offspring by providing meat (a dense source of protein and calories). They could also offer protection and socialization of their children. Human male parental investment is thus generally highly prized by women, and it is a reproductive resource over which females, particularly in monogamous societies, will vigorously compete. To attract a high value reproductive partner, females demonstrate the qualities that males desire in a long term mate, in particular: fertility, health, and sexual fidelity (Buss, 2011).
It is the latter quality, sexual fidelity, that is of relevance here. Because males suffer from genetic paternity insecurity (they are uncertain of which children are genetically their own), males should pay particular attention to cues that may forecast the future sexual fidelity of a potential long term mate. Ancestral males that were unconcerned about monitoring cues that may have forecast future female infidelity were presumably more likely to misallocate time and resources investing in children to whom they were genetically unrelated.
Females can increase their mate value by giving cues that generally forecast future sexual fidelity to a long term mate. For example, adolescent females avoid friendships with females who have been identified by others as promiscuous (Lees, 1993), because, by association, such friendships may have a negative effect on their own sexual reputation. Physical assaults between women are often motivated by accusations of promiscuity (Campbell, 1986). Dosmukhambetova and Manstead (2011) found that, in the context of impressing potential long term mating partners, women were likely to try to distance themselves from promiscuous females, and they also expressed more negative emotional reactions (compared to men) toward a female who showed a tendency to be unfaithful. These studies lend support to "female reputational defense theory" -- females actively attempt to impress potential long term mating partners by offering evidence that they would be a sexually faithful partner.
The results of our study may also be interpreted as an effort by women to protect their sexual reputation. By refraining from making first time relationship initiatives, women may be providing evidence to potential long term mates that they would not make the first move with another man in the future, given their history of not doing so in the past. --- https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...01104/why-dont-women-ask-men-out-first-dates#
yeah well it almost 12018 (HE) and such instincts no longer make sense. Women don't need a man to stay with them to get meat: they can shop at a store, get a job and childcare, so the instinct to get a breed winner husband and keeping him via behaviors that que fidelity are completely obsolete and retarded. We have genetics tests: ques of fidelity are irrelevant. Being a slut should be celebrated!
Now in my bachelor days I found a good drunken party was a great way to find women to ask me out, she would rub against me, grab my crotch and then sloppier into my ear about how she wants to fuck, and my response was always "... OK!" now I'm old and bald, sad. So I figure if we could outlaw men asking women out and start a "Ask him out" campaign, maybe these numbers above would switch around and thus with only women asking men out the rate of sexual harassment would go down.
Hum... well there is a problem, most men prefer to ask out, that has got to change. I'm sure when all those men stop asking women out the liberating women will become proactive and ask men out. Unless there is some kind of biological reason for why women usually prefer to be asked out rather then ask out.
One explanation for this sex difference may be what I call "female reputational defense theory." From an evolutionary perspective, males and females have faced different reproductive opportunities and constraints due to fundamental biological sex differences in reproductive rate ( M > F) and in confidence of genetic parentage ( F > M) (see Mealey, 2000). These differences have led to the evolution of sexual dimorphic psychological adaptations related to a variety of behaviors, including courtship (Symons, 1979).
Humans as a species have very high levels of obligate parental investment. Further, ancestral men could invest in their offspring by providing meat (a dense source of protein and calories). They could also offer protection and socialization of their children. Human male parental investment is thus generally highly prized by women, and it is a reproductive resource over which females, particularly in monogamous societies, will vigorously compete. To attract a high value reproductive partner, females demonstrate the qualities that males desire in a long term mate, in particular: fertility, health, and sexual fidelity (Buss, 2011).
It is the latter quality, sexual fidelity, that is of relevance here. Because males suffer from genetic paternity insecurity (they are uncertain of which children are genetically their own), males should pay particular attention to cues that may forecast the future sexual fidelity of a potential long term mate. Ancestral males that were unconcerned about monitoring cues that may have forecast future female infidelity were presumably more likely to misallocate time and resources investing in children to whom they were genetically unrelated.
Females can increase their mate value by giving cues that generally forecast future sexual fidelity to a long term mate. For example, adolescent females avoid friendships with females who have been identified by others as promiscuous (Lees, 1993), because, by association, such friendships may have a negative effect on their own sexual reputation. Physical assaults between women are often motivated by accusations of promiscuity (Campbell, 1986). Dosmukhambetova and Manstead (2011) found that, in the context of impressing potential long term mating partners, women were likely to try to distance themselves from promiscuous females, and they also expressed more negative emotional reactions (compared to men) toward a female who showed a tendency to be unfaithful. These studies lend support to "female reputational defense theory" -- females actively attempt to impress potential long term mating partners by offering evidence that they would be a sexually faithful partner.
The results of our study may also be interpreted as an effort by women to protect their sexual reputation. By refraining from making first time relationship initiatives, women may be providing evidence to potential long term mates that they would not make the first move with another man in the future, given their history of not doing so in the past. --- https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...01104/why-dont-women-ask-men-out-first-dates#
yeah well it almost 12018 (HE) and such instincts no longer make sense. Women don't need a man to stay with them to get meat: they can shop at a store, get a job and childcare, so the instinct to get a breed winner husband and keeping him via behaviors that que fidelity are completely obsolete and retarded. We have genetics tests: ques of fidelity are irrelevant. Being a slut should be celebrated!
Last edited:
#rapeculture | #envy
Click for WTF.
In this context, sure; for some of us, it's not even a matter of abstention. There are certain aspects of being gay that women are specifically unsuited to accommodate without artifice.
In the first place, conditioning adults at such a level is a bit difficult.
To the other, that's a different issue than mgtow.
So let us be clear about your change of terminology:
"Conditioning men to not be obsessed with touching women for personal gratification", is not the same as complete abstinence from sexual context with women.
I don't disagree with your point, and might find the impracticality of the prospect one of those obvious challenges you're somehow managing to overlook, but it is also something of a bizarre change to present so randomly.
What part of "you don't need to be inflicting your sex life on other people" is unclear?
Honestly, sir, would it be so difficult to at least include occasional cues in your post that you're actually responding to something real, and not simply making it up as you go?
What part of "you don't need to be inflicting your sex life on other people" confuses you? Is it the predictable part when some men simply need any excuse to discuss their sexual behavior with an audience?
Furthermore, it really is hard to take this particular poster seriously when posting unrealistic bullshit is part of is point.
You, too, are perfectly welcome to try to explain to heterosexual men that abstinence from women is their salvation. Because I also find it quite hilarious that after years of showing two fingers to the churches, politicians, and feminists, to the point that men have even gone and invented what seems to be a fake academic discipline arguing the evolutionary roots of men's sexual appetites and belligerence, the idea of going their own way and only needing women to see them not needing women is going to compel men, en masse, to abstain from seeking contact and congress with women.
Seriously? Revenge abstinence? That's what will do it? Okay, then; this I gotta see. Will you be offended if women celebrate the idea and hope the heterosexual men can actually deliver on the promise?
No, gay men aren't going to rescue their heterosexual brothers on this one. And, sure, we can imagine mgtows would "find a way"; is "paleomasculinity" already taken?
There's an old joke about white Anglo-Saxon Protestants, playing on a stereotype of prudery that even the British attended at least to the end of the twentieth century, which is somehow significant since it is, fundamentally, the Anglican Church at the heart of the joke when Mark Steel or Monty Python gives it a go. The American version goes:
Q: What do WASPs say after sex?
A: Thank you; it will never happen again.
A: Thank you; it will never happen again.
Really? It's the twenty-first century and we're back to, "you don't need to enjoy it"? And this time for men who are pissed off at women? That would be funny except it is also predictable save for the fact that it really is rude to presume so poorly of people. That is to say, was a time when it would have been denounced as a misandrist joke, but here we are, considering the proposition that "human beings do not have to enjoy" sexual intercourse in order to have it.
Could this be any more predictable?
No, we're not taking this shit seriously in the context you want until heterosexual men absolutely force the issue.
And the sad thing is this: Imagine that heterosexual men really do manage to convince themselves to stop wanting to have sex with women.
Okay, really, yeah, we're apparently supposed to take that seriously.
At any rate, women might actually decide that's just fine with them. And then some men will break rank, and instead of returning to sanity they're going to blame women for making them crawl like dogs when nobody did but some echo of their own consciences.
What mgtow comes down to is that men can't rape women so, fine, they don't want anything to do with women. It's an ugly pathology.
Setting that part aside, though, perhaps according to your variation on the theme—"Conditioning men of all persuasions not to be obsessed with touching women for personal gratification"—we're right back to explaining that to the heterosexual men. Have fun stormin' that castle.
And the bit about how "human beings do not have to enjoy" sexual intercourse in order to have it just reminds me of the Comic Book Guy trying to institute a Pon Farr law, and noting while that means most people will have less sex, he at least, will be getting more.
Any excuse, like the one guy looking to tell people about his wanking.
And maybe the problem is that it's time we discuss the question ... I mean, seriously, am I really saying this?
There's a term nobody really understands because, quite frankly, nobody wants to touch it. But we're actually down to: Poor men, it's okay, you don't have to enjoy it; be strong, be heroic.
So, a question for the boys: Do we actually, really, truly need to sit down and have a talk about rape envy?
It is true I would not be surprised, but this is one of those things that sounds like an ugly stereotype to the point that one need not be a masculinist to find reason to object. But, hey, you know what else it reminds me of? It reminds me of the time that someone defended masculine sexual belligerence by comparing men to a hand grenade, because exploding is what the grenade does if you pull the pin. The thing is, when a male says these things in defense of masculine sexual belligerence, we don't hear a peep from masculinist quarters. And I recall that occasion because taking your argument seriously at present includes potential application of rape envy without clear pathology as a masculine characteristic, and the only people who can unpack that are the people who think there is some utility in arguing "the fact that human beings do not have to enjoy" sexual intercourse in order to have it as part of a discussion ostensibly considering sexual harassment, belligerence, and assault.
- Status