Is #MeToo worsening the divide between men and women?

313 posts / 0 new
Last post

Sorry for the misunderstanding Cody.

It did look like yet another example of women supposedly being unfair to men.


progressive17 progressive17's picture

I really think we have to break down a lot of shit which is put up in society to get to the root of this problem. This is going to appear ugly at times. Collectivist impulses may be damaging for the cause of women's rights, as you will have someone steeped in the traditions of bourgeois civility who will be your spokesperson, and deliberately prevent you from getting ahead. Through its bourgeois civility, the NDP prevents everyone from getting ahead.

It is easy for men to think FUCK YOU and FUCK EVERYBODY, and I think if more women did that, the world would be a better place. I would certainly grovel in praise!


Some of you will be pleased to note that Rev Pesky has been banned. He was given plenty of rope, but a disgustingly transphobic comment in another thread sealed the deal.


It was probably time. Thanks.



I certainly agree there was a problem with the way the discussion was going - I didn't appreciate or want to participate in a discussion on why we can't use "it" as an appropriate pronoun for transgendered people either.  

But is this a permanent ban or a suspension?   I had thought there was a commitment to progressive discipline made last year, a 3 strikes you're out kind of thing.   He wasn't warned before the hammer dropped that I saw.


His pattern of misogyny and transphobia means he doesn't belong here. Period.

Sean in Ottawa

Cody87 wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Thanks Cody for yet another example of men not getting it, and making the most important thing our sensitive feelings, not the actual point of the article, which is that women have good reason to be furious, and shouldn't have to be nice for our benefit.

... or what, is the response supposed to be wait a minute, why can't we question feminism if they are mean to us?

I didn't find the article mean...facts are facts, and I have no reason to question feminism. I just found that published article by an academic quite similar to the arguments Meg has made in this thread (similar arguments about men and what we put women through), and thought it was quite relevant to the discussion. I quoted Meg's reminder so the discussion around the article can remain positive.

Cody -- and others who do this: This is the problem I had with that post. You put two things together in a way that was extremely provocative. When you draw a connection like this, you have a responsibility, I think, to be clear about what that connection is and why you are posting it. It is not okay for people to post things without comment and thenleave it to others to guess if the obvious interpretation is the right one.

This is not a news site. This is a discussion board. Really, we would have fewer misunderstandings if people posted with their links and quotes what their motivation or intention is:

Is it support, an example of the problem, information??? If you choose to share and bring things together you are the connection. What do you mean by that connection? how are they related? Why are you posting them at all and why are you connecting them?

This is what a reasonable post would do. It does not have to be long. Not to do it traps people into guessing and leaves the poster the ability to skate around changing interpretations based on what is convenient. I hate this. It is needless and unfair in a conversation to just chuck stuff on the table and blame others for misinterpreting what you meant by doing that.

Sean in Ottawa

progressive17 wrote:

I've been hated all my life just for being alive. I am sure other men can get used to it as well. It's not such a bad life. I think everyone should hate as many groups and identities as possible. It will make them all feel so much better, and the hated will experience the joy of being hated. It will make you feel superior and morally ascendant to hate someone arbitrarily. I encourage this highly!

I don't have to trust anyone. I can give charity without being coerced into doing so, and not feeling guilty for not doing so. I do not have to sacrifice myself to others. I do not have to expect anyone to sacrifice themselves for me. I will not be sacrificed to others at the request of a person who thinks they can make me sacrifice myself to their cause. 

I can make sure only to work enough not to get into the next tax bracket. I can not bother to spend money I do not need to, and I can not bother to invest money I do not need to.

As you all have always hated me, I don't have to do anything for any of your benefit. If you try to coerce me, I will resist. If you kill me, it won't matter to me one iota. If you don't kill me, it will make no difference to you. If you abuse me, I have had it all before. If you imprison me, I get free food and accommodation, and a splendid opportunity for an early death.

Hate me all you want! It is just fuel for my fire.

Your comments about men being hated, about killing, imprisonment and death.

Your later comment about men being hated.

Seek help now. This is deeply disturbing.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

No help can cure me of my condition. I have been through countless sessions in and out of hospital. Nothing works. Pills, talk talk talk, etc. They have been trying for 20 years. Too many PTSD-causing events, they say. I cannot kill myself because murder is wrong, although I know death would be better than this. One said I was hostile, but I would not harm a fly. The only death I wish is my own. Maybe some disease will take me while I am crouched over my keyboard, and they will smell the putrifaction a few days later.

But I am completely harmless to others. I know that all violence should come to me for no reason, because that is why I was allowed to barely live. 

So, as I said, if you destroy the soul of a boy or a man, he will be emasculated and no threat to a woman. You have to start when they are very young. You have to blame him for being born, and for being born a boy. You must punish him for no reason, and especially if he did nothing wrong. This way, he will just freeze when you yell at him, and you can get him to do anything you want. He will be the ultimate people-pleaser, because all he wants is for the noise to stop. 

We have been doing similar behaviour to women, although I do not know what you would call the female equivalent of emasculation. If we emasculated more men, perhaps we could level the playing field. I have never raised a voice to a woman, let alone harmed one. I don't hit on women. When they are around, I always look down.

Torture was good enough for me, just for my existence. It should be good enough for the abusers for theirs. With enough torture, they will stop. And I am dead serious about this.


Maybe that is how you have experienced life but it doesn't mean everyone else experiences what you did. Lots of little boys are loved and cherished and that continues throughout their lives which doesn't mean they don't have any negative experiences but I don't think most people feel emasculated or the female equivalent. The very term exudes patriarchal thinking. 


"Louise Mensch is now calling the entire #metoo movement a Russian spy operation. If you're still following this kook, you need to consult a psychiatrist."



A former creative-writing student at the University of British Columbia who was the main complainant (MC) in the Steven Galloway case says it has been “devastating” to read media coverage about the findings of an investigation into a complaint she made against Mr. Galloway. It has been particularly difficult given what she had to go through to get a copy of the report – and the fact she has not seen an unredacted version.

The firing of Mr. Galloway as head of the program has generated a tremendous amount of attention and controversy, including media coverage of the report written by an independent investigator UBC appointed. MC’s copy of the findings is missing key information about her complaint, and she is calling on Mr. Galloway to let UBC give her the information – and for legislative changes.

But Mr. Galloway says that, after enduring nearly three years of the repercussions from the allegations against him, he has no intention of waiving any rights the law provides him – and says at no point did he “stand as an obstacle” to MC’s “exercising the access rights provided her at law, nor did he stand as an obstacle to her receiving and reading the Report,” according to a statement from his lawyer, Brent Olthuis.

Marsha Lederman, “Complainant urges Steven Galloway to grant access to unredacted probe report,” Globe and Mail, July 3, 2018