MeToo Men Too

Sky News Newsdesk tweet
A Sky Data poll has revealed 55% of women and 22% of men say they have been sexually harrassed at least once.

A figure that high for men totally explodes the bigotry and misguidedness of the recent #MeToo campaign on social media, in being only for women to do, and a message that only women suffer and men are the villains. Instead of the common sense that there is good and bad in both genders.

How the hell do you think that felt to the 22%? simultaneously denied and treated as an irrational mob’s suspects? The following shocking exchange on Facebook shows MeToo dangerously stirring up bigotry against believing in false accusations –

  • While not dismissing any individual’s experiences, the evidence is that such malicious accusations are very rare. Implying that it is an issue of equal magnitude to harrassment or violence by men against women seems really irresponsible, given how widespread the latter is. So I disagree.
  • (a woman) X, thank you.
  • X, Read the comment by “Thought Criminal”, first in the Disqus comments list when sorted by Best, and the comment by “Riggah”: [shared link: Guilty until proven innocent: life after a false rape accusation. www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11912748/Guilty-until-proven-innocent-life-after-a-false-rape-accusation.html ]
  • Skim reading the summaries of reports in the wikipedia article (link below), the percentage of “unfounded” accusations reported by a police force never seems to break through 10%. And there are lots of discussions to be had around how the accusations get labelled “unfounded” (e.g. sometimes this is the outcome when they are just withdrawn, without anything having been proved either way). So I think the female criminologist cited by “Ribbah” sounds pretty credible. [Gave link to Wikipedia article “False accusation of rape” – now look up what Fairness Watch has to say about Wikipedia.]
  • 10% is high. It’s one in every 10 of a lot of reports, that’s high odds and a lot of real lives.
    It is more logical to take the term “unfounded” as being used when it is demonstrated, than to clutch reinterpretations of it that clearly are not on the side of the principle of innocent until proved guilty. After those reinterpretations, Thought Criminal’s list of 48 cases is still there, with the reinterpretations making life worse for the folks in those cases and their families.
  • No one needs to clutch at anything. It’s a genuine problem with how the data is recorded.
    Anyway, at no point have I said that false accusations never happen or that it isn’t a horrendous experience for those caught up in them. I simply said that it was irresponsible to make out that that happens on the same scale as harrassment/assaults against women. And this is borne out by all these figures. The number of unfounded accusations is always far smaller than the number taken seriously or successfully prosecuted.
  • So I find irresponsible to call rare any serious injustice that really exists, and needs real guarding against and conscientious alertness to its possibility in every situation.
  • But doesn’t doing that risk victims of harrassment/violence not being believed?
  • Support services who are not going to have any effect on the accused’s fate can base their private relationship with their client on accepting all their client tells them. That can happen while at the level of judiciality and anything that impacts the accused person, the oldest human rights principle for everyone’s safety is that accusations must never be believed on word, only on evidence.

It is caught as a totally offensive sexism for MeToo’s organisers to assume that no male victim incidence exists, the same as out-of-favour Germaine Greer did on domestic violence.

The men’s figure is likely to be conservative and an underrepresent, exactly because the toxic masculinity mates culture and this feminist PC prejudice against men both together make men feel not socially accepted in stating a harrassment experience. Straight men are likely not to feel socially safe or comfortable with peers to admit a gay harrassment experience. Or, The Big Bang Theory‘s many scenes of women thrusting unconsented kisses onto men they hardly know, are a barometer that unjustly this behaviour is still not getting perceived as sexual harrassment when it is woman to man. How does that sit with MeToo?

PC prejuduce against men has impacted on aspie men who struggle to connect socially.

#MeToo #skynews #everydaysexism #bigbangtheory

Advertisements

a clicktivist cult: Korean Dogs

the_artful_dodger_two_by_thebarefootedsasha

A warning against a high demand cult. This not an autism organisation, but it could certainly be a particular danger of entrapment for spectrumites whose literal mindedness includes feeling a tie of conscience to keep following a moral cause at its literal face value, and take literally seriously the campaigning actions asked of them.

In any moral or political campaign, we need to apply critical thinking to actions asked of us by leaderships. Do we agree that the actions are sensible. e.g. if you do canvassing in a referendum, you will find it is not sensible, it annoys voters and can lose votes, to pester them with reminder gimmicks to get them to pledge to vote at a particular time so that your leaders can monitor turnout through the day. Baulk at that task if you don’t want to be a emotionally exploited volunteer.

It is tragic, but has an air of inevitability, to find that an online political campaign in the leaders-and-followers style, nicknamed “clicktivism”, can be a high demand burdener and exploiter of its followers, as many followers as whose loyalty is kept hooked by the morality of its cause. They are hooked to strive to follow a scale of demands that swamps their lives, swamps out the issues and causes in their own lives, reduces them to a resource serving this one cause’s leadership – THAT MEANS THEY ARE IN A CULT. It’s the cult style of life control.

Korean Dogs is a campaign on a particularly moral cause, rightly particularly able to get a hook on civilised consciences. It is about barbaric evil use of dogs and cats for meat, quite dietarily pointlessly, and with the scale of cruelty that proves humans an evil species on a meteoric course of self-destruction, and the dreamy space age optimism of Carl Sagan’s Cosmos an offensively unreal wishful delusion.

No wonder Korean Dogs has over time attracted enough willing supporters to slip into temptation to ask more of them, and to grow greedy.

Already on its contact page, at koreandogs.org/contact-us they have a FAQ answer to supporters who have felt unreasonably swamped. “The online petition platform we have chosen to use is change.org because, not only are they a free resource, but they are one of the largest and most successful. They provide functions that are useful for our campaign, but they do not offer the functionality of allowing you to sign multiple petitions at once. Each petition should be individually read and then signed and although we recognise that, as we have so many petitions, it is very time consuming for our supporters, we are not able to change this. However, your voice is very important ”

– And signing petitions is by far the easiest of their demands. They choose to make their answer only be about that. But they also ask for writings of letters and emails, to government departments, to Olympic teams all over the world because of the forthcoming Winter Olympics in South Korea, and to city officials and long lists of councillors and senators all over the US and Canada seeking to stop cities twinning with Korean ones. No normal person has time to send so many personally worked-on messages. Anyone who tries to do it all has had their life taken over.

As soon as you have signed one of their petitions, you get swamped by far more frequent updates from them announcing new campaigns, than you can even have time to read, let alone act on, and you need to create an email folder specially to park them all in. Their latest one has crossed a line. In a layer that you only reach when you are already acting on the third of the links they have sent you, you find them asking for personally written long messages to a vast list of 255 contacts that fills the screen ! It would take you a month, with a headache just contemplating its utter impossibility and absurdity.

It is supporter abuse to arrogantly write “we are not able to change” a life swamping pressure upon all who are mugs enough to take it on, that obviously, counterproductively publicly many of their cause’s supporters have found unacceptable. It clinchingly makes them a cult and a dangerous exploiter organisation, such that the animals actually need that folks reject and denounce Korean Dogs’s monstrous scale of demands. They are only making enemies for the animals by it. If you are a supporter, feeling oppressed but feeling trapped by conscience towards the animal atrocities, reflect on tbis: unless loss of supporters matters to them, they can’t really be a campaign following the right strategy at all, and worth supporting. Knowing that the animals’ cause is there, you can choose your own reasonable scale of actions among all the other equally morally important things you care about. The animals are not helped at all by an organisation thst makes enemies by oppressing its supporters with a greed that has gone to its head.

This is a case of an online campaign organisation the morality of whose cause has worked to grip some supporters into a weary drudge silent loyalty and has tempted it to keep upping its demands on them, until it has gone way too far, turned into a cult and out of control monster. It now needs denouncing for it and saying loud no to.

17 Oct 2017

Nov 21: Overworked supporters may be making an impact – Korean Dogs is doing some activity through change.org without using its name. If you get a message in the name of Angela Jeong, most likely asking for an action of writing to some politician or ambassador, following up a petition, that’s them.