Henry Cavill forced to apologize for #metoo comments

LLMMLL · 19-07-2018 02:34AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I would take B and wonder why they moved to a bad part of Guatemala.

But this back and forth shows why men get defensive about this topic. While some see it as "defending the rapists", the fact is that our sex isn't a country.. We don't see ourselves as part of a cohesive unit. I don't have anything in common with a male rapist just because we both are male.

Basically, normal men don't like that men are more and more being branded as pests when individually, we ourselves aren't.

I’ve no problem with that.

The whole point of my analogies was to point out how ridiculous it is to think that the credibility of a million similar experiences is the same as the credibility of one experience.

Whether the experiences in metoo are credible or not is a completely separate issue to how many men are the aggressors in these experiences.

One eyed Jack · 19-07-2018 02:41AM

LLMMLL wrote: »

Wow you genuinely don’t understand confirmation bias do you?

It doesn’t matter if you think the evidence was faulty. It was not confirming a preexisting belief. It was changing his preexisting belief. It’s the very opposite of confirmation bias.

It certainly does matter that the evidence was clearly faulty, because it was based on unverifiable accounts and the word of his girlfriend. How you imagine he isn't biased is quite extraordinary given the circumstances as you presented them.

What are you talking about?

You asked for my opinion as to whether a Court case would be more or less successful depending upon the number of witnesses and I explained to you why the number of witnesses is not the determining factor in any Court case. I was referring to the research in the article I posted earlier which showed that in Court cases of this type with female dominated juries, the number of successful convictions is zero.

Well I assume if you had a decent rebuttal you’d make it.

Feel free to jump in at any time and tell me who these women involved in metoo who disbelieve women are. You said there were many.

And also feel free to tell me how you know that metoo does not represent the vast majority of rape and assault victims. I’m dying to know.

And please do tell what evidence RCNI or RAINN have provided to you that indicates that the experiences of metoo are not common amongst women.

When your own rebuttal of what I posted is "What do you mean 'working with'?", and "What are you talking about?", it's obvious you've run out of anything to contribute to the discussion.

I've given you examples of women who were involved in metoo who disbelieve women, and when you say you have no evidence of Hillarys involvement with metoo, there's plenty of evidence documenting how she tried to take credit for the movement and tried to say it was her involvement with the movement that caused her to lose the Presidential election -

Hillary Clinton Attempts to Steal Credit for #MeToo Movement

I've already stated that in my opinion the metoo movement does not represent the vast majority of rape and assault victims because the vast majority of rape and assault victims are not accounted for by the metoo movement. I've already stated that the vast majority of people who have been raped and sexually assaulted don't even have access to social media, and celebrities who are driving the metoo movement do not speak for them. The small number of women represented by the metoo movement is just that - women who have the privilege of having access to social media to tell their stories and present a particular narrative of their choosing. Many more women who do not have access to social media who have experienced rape and sexual assault, are not represented by the small number of women in the metoo movement. The movement doesn't even account for the numbers of men and children who experience rape and sexual assault.

You're talking what I said when you asked for my research and twisting it to suggest something I never even suggested. You've done it throughout this thread. I have provided you with answers to your questions and the best you appear to have come up with is "What do you mean 'working with'?", and "What are you talking about?" You're being wilfully obtuse and for no good reason.

LLMMLL · 19-07-2018 03:02AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It certainly does matter that the evidence was clearly faulty, because it was based on unverifiable accounts and the word of his girlfriend. How you imagine he isn't biased is quite extraordinary given the circumstances as you presented them.

Well I disagree that the evidence is faulty but the main point is whether it’s confirmation bias or not.

I see you’ve dropped the confirmation part now and are just calling it bias.

Is that so you can propose your own vague definition of bias as my friend changing his mind was clearly the OPPOSITE of the definition of confirmation bias given in your Wikipedia article.

You asked for my opinion as to whether a Court case would be more or less successful depending upon the number of witnesses and I explained to you why the number of witnesses is not the determining factor in any Court case. I was referring to the research in the article I posted earlier which showed that in Court cases of this type with female dominated juries, the number of successful convictions is zero.

I never mentioned rape cases though. My point is that multiple similar testimonies are more convincing than single testimonies. Whether it’s a rape case or not makes zero difference. It’s a pretty weak attempt at muddying the waters.

When your own rebuttal of what I posted is "What do you mean 'working with'?", and "What are you talking about?", it's obvious you've run out of anything to contribute to the discussion.

I was simply asking you to clarify what you meant by people who work with victims. Which you did. We had moved on from that to me asking you to provide the evidence from them that supported you. Tellingly, it was at this point that you decided it wasn’t worth replying to.

I've given you examples of women who were involved in metoo who disbelieve women, and when you say you have no evidence of Hillarys involvement with metoo, there's plenty of evidence documenting how she tried to take credit for the movement and tried to say it was her involvement with the movement that caused her to lose the Presidential election -

Hillary Clinton Attempts to Steal Credit for #MeToo Movement

Yes the important words there being TRIED TO. She tried to take credit. Seems she was unsuccessful. At no point is it suggested by anyone other than herself that she’s a core representative of the movement. It’s the same with your other examples.

I've already stated that in my opinion the metoo movement does not represent the vast majority of rape and assault victims because the vast majority of rape and assault victims are not accounted for by the metoo movement. I've already stated that the vast majority of people who have been raped and sexually assaulted don't even have access to social media, and celebrities who are driving the metoo movement do not speak for them. The small number of women represented by the metoo movement is just that - women who have the privilege of having access to social media to tell their stories and present a particular narrative of their choosing. Many more women who do not have access to social media who have experienced rape and sexual assault, are not represented by the small number of women in the metoo movement. The movement doesn't even account for the numbers of men and children who experience rape and sexual assault.

Well I’d agree that metoo does not represent Male and child victims of rape and sexual assault. But you don’t have to post your own experience to be represented.

I did zero campaigning on the abortion referendum. I don’t think I even posted here about it. I certainly felt represented by many of the groups and campaigners who were campaigning though.

You're talking what I said when you asked for my research and twisting it to suggest something I never even suggested. You've done it throughout this thread. I have provided you with answers to your questions and the best you appear to have come up with is "What do you mean 'working with'?", and "What are you talking about?" You're being wilfully obtuse and for no good reason.

What do you mean working with? Was a genuine question.

What are you talking about? Well you brought up female jurors in a debate about validity of multiple testimonies versus single testimonies. It was very slightly dismissive I guess but it’s all part of the rough and tumble of debate. You don’t seem to mind doing it yourself as the below quote of yours shows:

I'm not particularly interested in entertaining your nonsense any more than I've already done

One eyed Jack · 19-07-2018 03:06AM

LLMMLL wrote: »

Ok I take on board your criticism of my analogy. I’ll try again, again with plenty of unrealisticness:

There is a huge country to which many many Irish people have moved to.

You are thinking of moving there and as part of your research you do an internet search on personal safety of Irish immigrants in the country.

A. Your search returns one result where an Irish person recounts a negative safety experience in the country. Perhaps being mugged.

B. Your search returns one million results where Irish people recount individual negative safety experiences in the country. They range from muggings to physical assaults to to threats from neighbours, etc etc

Would you view A and B in the same way?

BTW I don’t think most people share oneeyedjacks quite extreme view.

Your analogy is actually very realistic, but it's essentially flawed, and I'm surprised you cannot see why. If you search for something, anything, you're likely to find what you're looking for, especially online.

Depending upon the type of person you are, and previous experiences which will have shaped your world view, you're going to lend more credibility to opinions which support your already held belief, whether that's one persons opinion, or the opinion of millions.

Take for example some of the countries in the EMEA region, that's a pretty big sample right there which is culturally very different to our own Western culture. You could tend to believe some of the utter shyte that gets published online about these countries, or you could broaden your research criteria to give you a more informed perspective and realise that actually the countries in EMEA really aren't at all as bad as is made out by Western media and people who have never even set foot in any of these countries.

That's not an extreme point of view at all, it's quite the opposite of viewing the world through your own subjective lens. It's the more objective view that isn't simply based upon narratives and anecdotes which you are attuned to because they back up your already held beliefs.

One eyed Jack · 19-07-2018 03:14AM

LLMMLL wrote: »

It’s a pretty weak attempt at muddying the waters.

Ah mate, seriously! :pac:

LLMMLL · 19-07-2018 03:15AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Your analogy is actually very realistic, but it's essentially flawed, and I'm surprised you cannot see why. If you search for something, anything, you're likely to find what you're looking for, especially online.

Depending upon the type of person you are, and previous experiences which will have shaped your world view, you're going to lend more credibility to opinions which support your already held belief, whether that's one persons opinion, or the opinion of millions.

Take for example some of the countries in the EMEA region, that's a pretty big sample right there which is culturally very different to our own Western culture. You could tend to believe some of the utter shyte that gets published online about these countries, or you could broaden your research criteria to give you a more informed perspective and realise that actually the countries in EMEA really aren't at all as bad as is made out by Western media and people who have never even set foot in any of these countries.

That's not an extreme point of view at all, it's quite the opposite of viewing the world through your own subjective lens. It's the more objective view that isn't simply based upon narratives and anecdotes which you are attuned to because they back up your already held beliefs.

Not really. You generally wouldn’t find a million reports on any of the countries in the region you mentioned.

But I doubt we will convince each other on that. I’ll just leave it up to anyone who’s bothered reading this to decide for themselves what they’d believe about a country that had 1 million negative safety reports about it. Would they think it’s likely European prejudices?

Enjoy your trip to Somalia. I hear it’s lovely in July.

One eyed Jack · 19-07-2018 04:00AM

LLMMLL wrote: »

Not really. You generally wouldn’t find a million reports on any of the countries in the region you mentioned.

But I doubt we will convince each other on that. I’ll just leave it up to anyone who’s bothered reading this to decide for themselves what they’d believe about a country that had 1 million negative safety reports about it. Would they think it’s likely European prejudices?

Enjoy your trip to Somalia. I hear it’s lovely in July.

I was referring to the EMEA region as a whole, and you completely ignored the point I was making. The point I was making is that rather than simply focus on the negative reports, it would make more sense to at least try to be objective and more informed from a number of different sources with different opinions, to form a more objective perspective.

If you haven't been to Somalia for yourself, then you really are dependent upon what you hear of Somalia, and whether that's likely to influence your decision to go there or not is entirely dependent upon what you've been told or what you read about it from the perspective of other people who are either from there, or have either lived there at some point, or who have just gone for a visit. It's only when you've actually been there for yourself that you can determine for yourself how safe you are. There's no point in me telling you that nobody is particularly interested in you because I wouldn't expect you to take my word for it.

It's the same thing with online unverified accounts of people's stories which they claim to have experienced. I think the one thing we can agree on in spite of our differences is that it really is up to people as individuals to decide for themselves what or who they choose to believe. I'll leave it there.

LLMMLL · 19-07-2018 04:21AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I was referring to the EMEA region as a whole, and you completely ignored the point I was making. The point I was making is that rather than simply focus on the negative reports, it would make more sense to at least try to be objective and more informed from a number of different sources with different opinions, to form a more objective perspective.

To an extent I agree. As I’ve said from the start, the online reports that I’ve read match up with my own observations, and the experience of every single woman I’ve asked. So a variety of evidence is good.

If you haven't been to Somalia for yourself, then you really are dependent upon what you hear of Somalia, and whether that's likely to influence your decision to go there or not is entirely dependent upon what you've been told or what you read about it from the perspective of other people who are either from there, or have either lived there at some point, or who have just gone for a visit. It's only when you've actually been there for yourself that you can determine for yourself how safe you are. There's no point in me telling you that nobody is particularly interested in you because I wouldn't expect you to take my word for it.

That all sounds very reasonable until I remember that in my theoretical example which is based on your number, one million personal experiences are to be ignored.

Somalia may be safer than we are led to believe. But the info comes from state department warnings and media, not personal experiences.

If 1 million people posted about how they experienced it safely I’d think the state departments were wrong.

If 1 million people posted about how they were mugged I’d think the state departments were spot on and wouldn’t even think of going to get my own experience.

It's the same thing with online unverified accounts of people's stories which they claim to have experienced. I think the one thing we can agree on in spite of our differences is that it really is up to people as individuals to decide for themselves what or who they choose to believe. I'll leave it there.

In the most bland sense of it yes. I’m not going to force or attempt to force anyone to hold the same standards of belief as I do.

But equally I’m not going to pretend that I find serious doubts about a million similar experiences a valid position. You are of course free to hold that position but it is honestly one of the most (if you discount the crazy people) extreme positions I’ve seen on boards.

The Bishop Basher · 19-07-2018 07:17AM

Deleted User wrote: »

But this back and forth shows why men get defensive about this topic. While some see it as "defending the rapists", the fact is that our sex isn't a country.. We don't see ourselves as part of a cohesive unit. I don't have anything in common with a male rapist just because we both are male.

Basically, normal men don't like that men are more and more being branded as pests when individually, we ourselves aren't.

That's the critical point of this entire thread. Some people want to hold ALL men responsible for the actions of a tiny minority same as it's a tiny minority of women that abuse men in the home..

LLMMLL wrote: »

The whole point of my analogies was to point out how ridiculous it is to think that the credibility of a million similar experiences is the same as the credibility of one experience.

Without any means to corroborate any of them, there is no difference. It's just a large collection of attention seeking nut jobs as far as i'm concerned. Singularly and collectively makes no difference at all. If something happened, report the crime. Twitter and Facebook are not appropriate places to do that.

py2006 · 19-07-2018 08:20AM

Interestingly, our two feminists friends here have yet to bring up the repulsive and spurious 'rape culture in Ireland' claim which the more extreme of the loonbags like to advocate in their attack on men.

professore · 19-07-2018 09:06AM

The vast majority of crime (or at least convicted criminals) in the US is by black people.

If there was a similar movement for say victims of crime by black people, and millions said they were a victim of a crime by a black person (the vast majority true) and then Michelle Obama was accused of theft by one of Donald Trumps aides, are we just supposed to believe them? Any time something is stolen you believe the non black person. Always... Unless the white person supports black rights or criticises the status quo.

Would it be OK to have a constant media barrage about how black people need to be educated at a young age not to be thieves? By white people of course.

And being told that the advantages black people have in basketball, athletics, music etc were due to discrimination and quotas were needed, whereas in areas whites dominate, none were needed? (actually this is happening in reverse right now in South Africa - that's why C J Stander is playing with Ireland)

I ****ing hate discrimination of any sort other than me discriminating against an individual of any background who is an asshole. Groping or rapist men disgust me, and I will call them out anywhere I see it. The fact I even have to say this shows how far things have gone.

MeToo has been turned into a tool from raising awareness to one of discrimination. I never thought in 2018 that the single biggest form of bigotry in the west was of the media and certain feminists against men. Its not helped by the amount of feminists that pour into mainstream media and are accelerating its decline.

19-07-2018 09:59AM

Found this interesting. This a thread on ''Female Role Models'' on After Hours now. One of the commenters said Kelly Brooke. I just said that she was filmed on daytime tv admitting to and laughing off abusing her ex partner. She found domestic abuse funny and acceptable. Some of the responses were very worrying and IMO are indicative of why a lot of men would be reluctant to ever report such behaviour.

Sal Butamol wrote: »

The lucky bastard

Hector Bellend wrote: »

she can abuse me anytime

19-07-2018 10:04AM

ginandtonicsky wrote: »

6.5 million people tweeted about #metoo actually, and that’s a figure from 3 months after it started trending so it’s probably more.

It spread more than 85 countries, as #yotambien in Spain, #balancetonporc in France,#quellatonvache in Italy and spreading as far as China and Israel.

Most men I know are bloody great and would call anyone on their sexist behaviour towards me, be it a wolf whistle or an actual sexual assault. I don’t live my life in fear of men and I love an aul admiring glance or a bit of sexual innuendo. The fact of #metoo, Westminster, presidents club and Michael Colgan is something else however, and most women will have experienced similar.

Sadly, most women I know reacted with “but of course” to these events. Sure of course you’ll be groped if you wear that, of course that kind of a power hungry prick will attempt to degrade you like that. Sure don’t we all know a lad like that. Yes we do, and while he’s not our mates or our husband or our brother or father, we know him and plenty of him and it’s no longer on us to accept it as “ah sure yeah of course”.

If you perceive that as an attack on men or some sort of blatant misandry by the hairy pitted feminazis, it says more about you than anything else.

Great post. Balanced and fair.

19-07-2018 11:34AM

It's that old thing where if you can't replace what you're saying with "Jews", you shouldn't be saying it.

DONTMATTER · 19-07-2018 11:47AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not a scummy thing to say at all, which is why I stand by what I actually said as opposed to your characterisation that I tried to weasel out of anything.

I just haven't allowed to you to spin what I said in order to fit your narrative based upon your perception of anyone who disagrees with you is all.

Did you read this post?

ginandtonicsky wrote: »

6.5 million people tweeted about #metoo actually, and that’s a figure from 3 months after it started trending so it’s probably more.

It spread more than 85 countries, as #yotambien in Spain, #balancetonporc in France,#quellatonvache in Italy and spreading as far as China and Israel.

Most men I know are bloody great and would call anyone on their sexist behaviour towards me, be it a wolf whistle or an actual sexual assault. I don’t live my life in fear of men and I love an aul admiring glance or a bit of sexual innuendo. The fact of #metoo, Westminster, presidents club and Michael Colgan is something else however, and most women will have experienced similar.

Sadly, most women I know reacted with “but of course” to these events. Sure of course you’ll be groped if you wear that, of course that kind of a power hungry prick will attempt to degrade you like that. Sure don’t we all know a lad like that. Yes we do, and while he’s not our mates or our husband or our brother or father, we know him and plenty of him and it’s no longer on us to accept it as “ah sure yeah of course”.

If you perceive that as an attack on men or some sort of blatant misandry by the hairy pitted feminazis, it says more about you than anything else.

It's a great post and it shows that millions of women have bravely told their stories through the metoo campaign in many languages. You have said the metoo campaign is full of professional whingers, those that should be ridiculed and condemned.
You then stated that you don't include rape victims in this. Can you say who you do include in it? Out of the millions of women who have been harassed and abused, how many do you think are lying or deserve to be ridiculed? 5% of them? 10%? 50%?

DONTMATTER · 19-07-2018 11:52AM

professore wrote: »

The vast majority of crime (or at least convicted criminals) in the US is by black people.

If there was a similar movement for say victims of crime by black people, and millions said they were a victim of a crime by a black person (the vast majority true) and then Michelle Obama was accused of theft by one of Donald Trumps aides, are we just supposed to believe them? Any time something is stolen you believe the non black person. Always... Unless the white person supports black rights or criticises the status quo.

Would it be OK to have a constant media barrage about how black people need to be educated at a young age not to be thieves? By white people of course.

And being told that the advantages black people have in basketball, athletics, music etc were due to discrimination and quotas were needed, whereas in areas whites dominate, none were needed? (actually this is happening in reverse right now in South Africa - that's why C J Stander is playing with Ireland)

I ****ing hate discrimination of any sort other than me discriminating against an individual of any background who is an asshole. Groping or rapist men disgust me, and I will call them out anywhere I see it. The fact I even have to say this shows how far things have gone.

MeToo has been turned into a tool from raising awareness to one of discrimination. I never thought in 2018 that the single biggest form of bigotry in the west was of the media and certain feminists against men. Its not helped by the amount of feminists that pour into mainstream media and are accelerating its decline.

You are still getting really confused. Attacks on rapists and other scumbags does no equate with an attack on all men. You can only think that if you think all men are rapists and scumbags.

19-07-2018 02:32PM

DONTMATTER wrote: »

Did you read this post?

It's a great post and it shows that millions of women have bravely told their stories through the metoo campaign in many languages. You have said the metoo campaign is full of professional whingers, those that should be ridiculed and condemned.

Once more. No he didn't. You really should reread what he wrote since you keep making inaccurate objections.

You then stated that you don't include rape victims in this. Can you say who you do include in it? Out of the millions of women who have been harassed and abused, how many do you think are lying or deserve to be ridiculed? 5% of them? 10%? 50%?

There is no ridicule involved when they're being asked to come forward and, having their claims investigated by the Gardai to determine their validity. That's actually taking the claims seriously. Automatic belief of claims without actual investigation by the Police would be wrong on many levels, and should never be encouraged.

The point remains that using the internet or social media to raise awareness will also attract a lot of people who are lying, disturbed psychologically or just want to be associated with such a scene. (since there is no vetting filter process as part of the metoo campaign itself) That's just the nature of the Internet and associated cultures. We have no way of knowing what percentage of the contributions to the metoo campaign are legit or baseless because they're not being verified.

TBH I really don't understand this reluctance or resistance to acknowledge this point. That coming forward and officially submitting their claims would do far more to highlight any social/cultural/legal problem with harassment or abuse than simply leaving it to a social media campaign. (and no, don't give me that pdf again... it doesn't really answer anything related to the topic on hand)

DONTMATTER · 19-07-2018 02:46PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Once more. No he didn't. You really should reread what he wrote since you keep making inaccurate objections.

There is no ridicule involved when they're being asked to come forward and, having their claims investigated by the Gardai to determine their validity. That's actually taking the claims seriously. Automatic belief of claims without actual investigation by the Police would be wrong on many levels, and should never be encouraged.

The point remains that using the internet or social media to raise awareness will also attract a lot of people who are lying, disturbed psychologically or just want to be associated with such a scene. (since there is no vetting filter process as part of the metoo campaign itself) That's just the nature of the Internet and associated cultures. We have no way of knowing what percentage of the contributions to the metoo campaign are legit or baseless because they're not being verified.

TBH I really don't understand this reluctance or resistance to acknowledge this point. That coming forward and officially submitting their claims would do far more to highlight any social/cultural/legal problem with harassment or abuse than simply leaving it to a social media campaign. (and no, don't give me that pdf again... it doesn't really answer anything related to the topic on hand)

It's you who is ignoring what's been said. Not every case in the metoo campaign is a rape case, most don't name names and reporting it is not the point. It's highlighting the issue.
That other poster has said that their are professional whingers amongst the women who have posted their stories, they have said they should be ridiculed and condemned, I've asked what percent approximately of the millions of women who have shared their story are lying in their opinion.
Remember they have made the claim of professional whingers being amongst them. How can they make that claim without knowing that these women they accuse are lying?

19-07-2018 02:46PM

DONTMATTER wrote: »

You are still getting really confused. Attacks on rapists and other scumbags does no equate with an attack on all men. You can only think that if you think all men are rapists and scumbags.

It does when there is no effort made to separate the rapists/scumbags from the gender. The vast majority of articles/observations arising from the metoo campaign refer to the male gender as a whole. They're not trying to make any real distinction about the behavior of individuals, and instead, it's about aspects like "toxic masculinity" or a "rape culture" where the whole male gender is made responsible. It's the same with "consent classes" where calls are being made to bring them in for boys... regardless of the fact that most males do not force/break consent. The actions of the few are being attributed to the whole, and 'we' are being made responsible for that.

And the metoo campaign doesn't seek to establish a framework regarding the types of claims, where and when they happened, or frequency. If someone experienced something 50 years ago, it's being added to the claims about recent events. There is no effort being made to distinguish between the circumstances of the claims, and so everything is inflated.

It's really not that difficult to see it as an attack on our gender, since there is a lack of similar initiatives or declarations about "female" violence. In that case, the amount of female violence is low, but if we were to apply the same logic being used about male violence, it wouldn't matter. We should still be seeing claims about "toxic femininity", or consent classes for women. There is a ton of double standards being applied... and the use of logic is very selective.

professore · 19-07-2018 02:47PM

DONTMATTER wrote: »

You are still getting really confused. Attacks on rapists and other scumbags does no equate with an attack on all men. You can only think that if you think all men are rapists and scumbags.

Nope not confused at all. The agenda is very clear.

19-07-2018 02:51PM

DONTMATTER wrote: »

It's you who is ignoring what's been said.

Ok. I'm convinced you don't actually read the posts submitted.

DONTMATTER · 19-07-2018 02:52PM

Deleted User wrote: »

It does when there is no effort made to separate the rapists/scumbags from the gender. The vast majority of articles/observations arising from the metoo campaign refer to the male gender as a whole. They're not trying to make any real distinction about the behavior of individuals, and instead, it's about aspects like "toxic masculinity" or a "rape culture" where the whole male gender is made responsible. It's the same with "consent classes" where calls are being made to bring them in for boys... regardless of the fact that most males do not force/break consent. The actions of the few are being attributed to the whole, and 'we' are being made responsible for that.

And the metoo campaign doesn't seek to establish a framework regarding the types of claims, where and when they happened, or frequency. If someone experienced something 50 years ago, it's being added to the claims about recent events. There is no effort being made to distinguish between the circumstances of the claims, and so everything is inflated.

It's really not that difficult to see it as an attack on our gender, since there is a lack of similar initiatives or declarations about "female" violence. In that case, the amount of female violence is low, but if we were to apply the same logic being used about male violence, it wouldn't matter. We should still be seeing claims about "toxic femininity", or consent classes for women. There is a ton of double standards being applied... and the use of logic is very selective.

The majority of rapists are male, the huge majority. This is a fact and can't be disputed. That might be where you're getting confused. Toxic masculinity is talking about these rapists and scumbags at that level. They are toxic.

That's who you should be getting angry at. There would be no talk of consent classes etc without these toxic males. We stamp out them and then we stamp out all the stuff you're complaining about.

It really is that simple. If the overwhelming majority of rapists were female then we'd be talking about these toxic females. It's not.

DONTMATTER · 19-07-2018 02:53PM

professore wrote: »

Nope not confused at all. The agenda is very clear.

Yes it's very clear. It's an attack on rapists and other scumbags. If you don't participate in the type of behaviour these toxic males participate in, then you have nothing to worry about.

19-07-2018 02:53PM

Good God. The logic...

DONTMATTER · 19-07-2018 02:54PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Ok. I'm convinced you don't actually read the posts submitted.

Look in the mirror.

DONTMATTER · 19-07-2018 02:56PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Good God. The logic...

I don't know why you're getting offended! I can't make it clearer, the metoo movement is not an attack on all males, it's an attack on males who rape, harass and abuse women.

19-07-2018 02:57PM

DONTMATTER wrote: »

Look in the mirror.

This has gone beyond childish, and tedious. You are incapable of addressing individual points or supporting your "beliefs" (admittedly after all these pages I'm still not clear if you actually believe the sexist rubbish you're posting)

Still. I am finally done. Second time is a charm.

Cleopatra_ · 19-07-2018 03:07PM

I think it's ridiculous that Henry Cavill felt the need to apologise in this instance, he didn't say anything remotely offensive.

I used to roll my eyes about some of the #metoo stuff until I went on a night out a few months ago and I was raped. In the aftermath I wasn't sure how to feel about what happened and had many people on this site tell me that I had "buyer's remorse" or the equivalent. It opened my eyes a lot.

DONTMATTER · 19-07-2018 03:07PM

Deleted User wrote: »

This has gone beyond childish, and tedious. You are incapable of addressing individual points or supporting your "beliefs" (admittedly after all these pages I'm still not clear if you actually believe the sexist rubbish you're posting)

Still. I am finally done. Second time is a charm.

This is just crazy! I have not said one thing that can be considered as sexist. At this stage I think the male posters on here will get offended at everything.

DONTMATTER · 19-07-2018 03:12PM

Cleopatra_ wrote: »

I think it's ridiculous that Henry Cavill felt the need to apologise in this instance, he didn't say anything remotely offensive.

I used to roll my eyes about some of the #metoo stuff until I went on a night out a few months ago and I was raped. In the aftermath I wasn't sure how to feel about what happened and had many people on this site tell me that I had "buyer's remorse" or the equivalent. It opened my eyes a lot.

I'm really sorry to hear that. I hope you are recovering well and have all the support you need. It's a horrible thing to go through.
I'd consider deleting that post though, it's quite likely you'll have posts directed at you that will be unkind. I hope not but going by posts here it's quite likely.
Look after yourself and I wish you the best.

Henry Cavill forced to apologize for #metoo comments

Comments