A male backlash against #MeToo is brewing

Kal'Stang said:

Who says that there isn't? You used celebrities in your example in regards to the paparazzi. Deaths, marriages etc etc. None of those causes harm of the sort that being accused of a crime does. As such the bar would be MUCH higher.

Click to expand...

You havent provided one. And no, not just the paparrazzi, inaccurate assumption. And yes, investigations into all sorts of their business can and does ruin their lives...or those connected. Dont be dishonest.

And they have had lots of $$ and high powered lawyers to do something about it.

If there are legitimate Constitutional grounds for the courts to consider...what are they? Dont just keep saying, 'but here has to be!' Because I've seen no evidence of that and if that's the case, men should stop whining about it. And if there is...let's see it.

Also, I have asked for examples (perhaps not of you) of women who have come forward with *chargeable offenses* such as rape or assault that have NOT also brought legal charges? (Many of these women now coming forward, as part of the MeToo movement, have passed the statute of limitations, so can no longer do so...but can still come forward to protect other women.)

I havent see ANY that are just naming names for actionable offenses that arent going to the authorities for justice. Which ones have you seen?

Kal'Stang said:

It's only hypocritical if men advocated against protection for women. Has that been done in the last 20 years? 30? 40? Have I done it? Anyone on this forum done it?

And the protection I'm trying to get here is applied equally. For both men and women. And its a protection that may actually encourage both men and women to come forward with any crimes that they experience. So why are you trying to frame it as if I'm only asking for this just to protect men?

I've also not said that my solution in regards to sexual assault claims/charges, which is a prosecutable crime, is perfect or able to be applied to anything and everything. If its not prosecutable then the law wouldn't be applied. But it IS a start. Surely its better than what we have currently.

Click to expand...

It's hypocritical because there was no such outrage then. But now! Heavens to betsy! How can women just ruin our lives like that? :doh

And fine, but again you're back on crimes. And again...I asked you how to do so Constitutionally.

And where in this reply ^^^ did you address the abuses that are not at the level of crimes? Or prosecutable offenses? Again you avoid it. (But of course I'm fine if this is applied equally)

Lursa said:

And I mentioned it more clearly in my initial post: when men harass women, touch them, expose them to lewd conduct, women often just leave, escape, get away. And of course there's no way to prove those things in court, even if they were chargeable offenses.

But why shouldnt women call men out for that, name names? Other women will be exposed to those men, those men are predators or at the very least pigs. Those men are men that women may well want to avoid being alone with. It's about protecting each other.

How would you prevent that? And why would you?

Click to expand...

Lursa said:

You havent provided one. And no, not just the paparrazzi, inaccurate assumption. And yes, investigations into all sorts of their business can and does ruin their lives...or those connected. Dont be dishonest.

And they have had lots of $$ and high powered lawyers to do something about it.

If there are legitimate Constitutional grounds for the courts to consider...what are they? Dont just keep saying, 'but here has to be!' Because I've seen no evidence of that and if that's the case, men should stop whining about it. And if there is...let's see it.

Click to expand...

Lursa, I'm trying very hard to be polite here but frankly its getting rather hard when you say things like the bolded part. Here I am trying to be inclusive, trying to represent ALL sides and you're absolutely obsessed with targeting men in a negative light with broad brush strokes. I've given a Constitutional reasoning that may work for my suggestion and as far as I know it hasn't been tried yet. (Mainly because my suggestion hasn't been suggested until now.) The very same reasoning that AA laws are based on. To add to that I could include hate crime laws and laws protecting children from the media.

Lursa said:

Also, I have asked for examples (perhaps not of you) of women who have come forward with *chargeable offenses* such as rape or assault that have NOT also brought legal charges? (Many of these women now coming forward, as part of the MeToo movement, have passed the statute of limitations, so can no longer do so...but can still come forward to protect other women.)

I havent see ANY that are just naming names for actionable offenses that arent going to the authorities for justice. Which ones have you seen?

Click to expand...

Not sure as to your question here. Are you asking for instances where women have accused men of rape/sexual assault where it turned out that those women were lying? That the man was actually innocent? If so I've provided evidence of that before. If you wish I will do so again.

Lursa said:

It's hypocritical because there was no such outrage then. But now! Heavens to betsy! How can women just ruin our lives like that? :doh

Click to expand...

If you wish to talk about hypocritical stances then how about the fact that there are only 2 centers for abused men in the entire US compared to over a thousand for women? A few more if you count the centers that allow both genders. Which isn't many. Woman have had far more support for protection against abuse and sexual assault than men. Perhaps men are just getting tired of being singled out as being nothing more than predators despite the fact that men are raped and abused also.

Lursa said:

And fine, but again you're back on crimes. And again...I asked you how to do so Constitutionally.

Click to expand...

Addressed already. Refer to post 128 for my latest attempt to show you how to do so Constitutionally.

Lursa said:

And where in this reply ^^^ did you address the abuses that are not at the level of crimes? Or prosecutable offenses? Again you avoid it. (But of course I'm fine if this is applied equally)

Click to expand...

When I said:

I've also not said that my solution in regards to sexual assault claims/charges, which is a prosecutable crime, is perfect or able to be applied to anything and everything. If its not prosecutable then the law wouldn't be applied. But it IS a start. Surely its better than what we have currently.

Click to expand...

Kal'Stang said:

Lursa, I'm trying very hard to be polite here but frankly its getting rather hard when you say things like the bolded part. Here I am trying to be inclusive, trying to represent ALL sides and you're absolutely obsessed with targeting men in a negative light with broad brush strokes. I've given a Constitutional reasoning that may work for my suggestion and as far as I know it hasn't been tried yet. (Mainly because my suggestion hasn't been suggested until now.) The very same reasoning that AA laws are based on. To add to that I could include hate crime laws and laws protecting children from the media.



Not sure as to your question here. Are you asking for instances where women have accused men of rape/sexual assault where it turned out that those women were lying? That the man was actually innocent? If so I've provided evidence of that before. If you wish I will do so again.

Click to expand...

And I've asked you repeatedly to bring an answer a solution, one workable under the Constitution. The fact that I pointed out that men didnt really care much before they themselves were no longer protected is just observation. However I have no problem with the 'solution' applying equally to both.

And no, I am asking this:

I have asked for examples (perhaps not of you) of women who have come forward with *chargeable offenses* [publicly and/or on social media] such as rape or assault that have NOT also brought legal charges? (Many of these women now coming forward, as part of the MeToo movement, have passed the statute of limitations, so can no longer do so...but can still come forward to protect other women.)

I havent see ANY that are just naming names for actionable offenses that arent going to the authorities for justice. Which ones have you seen?

Click to expand...

Meaning: which women have gone public with actionable legal offenses that have not also sought legal charges? (Within the statute of limitations)

Kal'Stang said:

If you wish to talk about hypocritical stances then how about the fact that there are only 2 centers for abused men in the entire US compared to over a thousand for women? A few more if you count the centers that allow both genders. Which isn't many. Woman have had far more support for protection against abuse and sexual assault than men. Perhaps men are just getting tired of being singled out as being nothing more than predators despite the fact that men are raped and abused also.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that there is public objection to more? That women are objecting to more? That anyone claims there is no need for more?

Where are the men rising to the same level as those objecting to the MeToo movement speaking up for more of those facilities?

Kal'Stang said:

Addressed already. Refer to post 128 for my latest attempt to show you how to do so Constitutionally.

Click to expand...

? No, you didnt give any Constitutional basis at all. If you did, I didnt understand it, please clarify.

And explain why the courts arent using it? Considering it?

Kal'Stang said:

When I said:

Click to expand...

OK, so then you have not addressed the social media/public claims and have no issue with those?

You are only addressing legal claims. That's fine, I can accept that. But still have seen no change that does not take into consideration that it's no different than now...investigations are not private and cannot be without illegal coercion to keep witnesses, authorities with medical and employee records, etc etc silent. But sure...I am fine with the same standards applied to both genders.

Lursa said:

And I've asked you repeatedly to bring an answer a solution, one workable under the Constitution. The fact that I pointed out that men didnt really care much before they themselves were no longer protected is just observation. However I have no problem with the 'solution' applying equally to both.

And no, I am asking this:



Meaning: which women have gone public with actionable legal offenses that have not also sought legal charges? (Within the statute of limitations)

Click to expand...

Lursa said:

? No, you didnt give any Constitutional basis at all. If you did, I didnt understand it, please clarify.

And explain why the courts arent using it? Considering it?

Click to expand...

I've given a suggestion. That suggestion being first voiced in post 15 of this thread. The Constitutional basis is the same as is used in upholding the Constitutionality of AA laws, Hate Crime laws, and laws protecting the identity of children from the media. Do you know those arguments?

Lursa said:

Are you saying that there is public objection to more? That women are objecting to more? That anyone claims there is no need for more?

Where are the men rising to the same level as those objecting to the MeToo movement speaking up for more of those facilities?

Click to expand...

Start from here in the following article and read downwards:

The feminist movement has long resisted the idea that domestic violence against men is a significant social problem. In 1975, when sociologists at the University of New Hampshire published a study suggesting that women were just as likely as men to assault their partners, the researchers faced widespread criticism — including death threats and bomb scares.

Click to expand...

'It's hard for a guy to say, "I need help."' How shelters reach out to male victims of domestic violence

The article should also give you an answer to your last question there.

Lursa said:

OK, so then you have not addressed the social media/public claims and have no issue with those?

You are only addressing legal claims. That's fine, I can accept that. But still have seen no change that does not take into consideration that it's no different than now...investigations are not private and cannot be without illegal coercion to keep witnesses, authorities with medical and employee records, etc etc silent. But sure...I am fine with the same standards applied to both genders.

Click to expand...

Yes, I'm only addressing legal claims.

Kal'Stang said:

I've given a suggestion. That suggestion being first voiced in post 15 of this thread. The Constitutional basis is the same as is used in upholding the Constitutionality of AA laws, Hate Crime laws, and laws protecting the identity of children from the media. Do you know those arguments?

.

Click to expand...

You didnt explain how the law could be expanded to cover this. WHat is the legal basis for keeping investigations private in AA or Hate crimes? I've never seen that that was the case. So no, I dont know those arguments. I do for minors. Adults are not minors.

Lursa said:

You didnt explain how the law could be expanded to cover this. WHat is the legal basis for keeping investigations private in AA or Hate crimes? I've never seen that that was the case. So no, I dont know those arguments. I do for minors. Adults are not minors.

Click to expand...

Alright, lets drop the AA for a minute since you see the Constitutional argument for children. At least I'm assuming you do since you acknowledge it and accept it. Which leaves me with a question to you...in this case, where real substantial harm can be seen and felt, what difference does it make if adults are not minors? The harm is still there.

Kal'Stang said:

'It's hard for a guy to say, "I need help."' How shelters reach out to male victims of domestic violence

The article should also give you an answer to your last question there.

Click to expand...

Interestingly, those situations where men need protection arent all protection from women. They described a case where a man needed to escape from a violent brother. It also says that the type and frequency of the abuse is much different. It also wasnt about 'sexual abuse' which is much different than domestic abuse.

Sexual abuses are almost entirely outside of a relationship partner...they are mostly people in power over the other person, or someone who can use coercion or greater strength to intimidate.

It's not the same thing. And if feminists objected to men seeking protection for violence...they shouldnt.

But this is not remotely the same as sexual harassment and abuse. And we are discussing keeping the names of the accused private...that's also not possible in domestic abuse...the pool is pretty small. And the investigation cant be kept private without (currently) illegal coercion.

Kal'Stang said:

Alright, lets drop the AA for a minute since you see the Constitutional argument for children. At least I'm assuming you do since you acknowledge it and accept it. Which leaves me with a question to you...in this case, where real substantial harm can be seen and felt, what difference does it make if adults are not minors? The harm is still there.

Click to expand...

I asked you to describe the substance of the basis for private investigations for AA and Hate Crimes (something I am not aware of). Can you?

Lursa said:

Are you saying that there is public objection to more? That women are objecting to more? That anyone claims there is no need for more?

Where are the men rising to the same level as those objecting to the MeToo movement speaking up for more of those facilities?

Click to expand...

Good God this isn't a movement that they aren't doing anything. They are just virtue signaling on Twitter it's a Twitter Trend that is all.