As is true with most feminist-driven hashtags, it was only a matter of time before the #Metoo hashtag became an attack on men. The hashtag gained prominence after actress Alyssa Milano tweeted using it. The hashtag went viral, although given how political Twitter has become, it is possible that those running Twitter simply boosted the hashtag to the top of the list.
Regardless of that, the hashtag prompted numerous women to write about their experiences of harassment and sexual violence. There is nothing inherently wrong with this. What makes it peculiar is that this comes in the wake of the Harvey Weinstein fall-out. One would think the focus would center on the people Weinstein and other powerful Hollywood moguls abused. Instead, the focus shifted to talking about random instances of butt-grabbing and cat-calling.
As the hashtag became more popular, the feminists moved in and quickly shifted the focus to men. According to those feminists, men need to listen and believe and change their ways because of the “proof” the #MeToo provided of how much sexual violence women face.
Men were told to they needed to challenge their own sexist, abusive behavior, regardless of whether they have ever acted in such a way. They were encouraged to tweet #IDidThat and #HimThough in solidarity to women — and only women — who faced sexual violence.
Men were reminded that “It Was You” and told, after so many articles encouraging men to use solidarity hashtags, that hashtags were not good enough.
All the usual personalities showed up to lambast men as a group for something only a fraction of men have or ever will do. The pure sexism of the #MeToo hashtag did not take long to reveal itself. The hashtag effectively reduces the seriousness of sexual violence by lumping things like bra-twanging in with rape.
The hashtag also created an ironic “me too” effect. It is probable that many of the women using the hashtag are not victims of any assault or abuse. These women used the hashtag because they did not want to feel left out or because they wanted the free attention. This is always the trouble with social media campaigns like this. One has no way of discerning true accounts from exaggerated or false accounts, and as a result the campaign, regardless of its intentions, trivializes the very issue it intended to highlight.
The other issue is that of male victims. Many men responding to and using #MeToo shared accounts of their own experiences. This did not go over well with some feminists and progressives, prompting reminders from some of them, including Marvel Editor Heather Antos, that men essentially need to check their privilege, shut up, and “be better.”
It is a not so subtle way of reminding men that #MeToo means “not you.”
In fairness, there were people pointing out that men are victims and women are perpetrators. Yet as is true in most of the viral campaigns, this got glossed over in favor of the feminist narrative than only women are victims and only men are abusers.
More disturbing is that the hashtag completely buried the point of Alyssa Milano’s tweet: that the number of men and women victimized by Hollywood’s power players is absurdly high, and there is a code of silence that keeps it hidden. This does not just apply to sexual violence against adults, either. Corey Feldman has pointed out numerous times over the years that pedophilia is rampant within the Hollywood community.
Those are discussions worth having, yet thanks to people using the hashtag to air their personal grievances, that story has been lost.
None of this is to say that women should not come forward. However, there is a disturbing trend of women, particularly progressive women and feminists, using these scandals as a means of making the story about them rather than the actual problem. When added to our media’s tendency to drop stories after a week or so (made worse by their obsession with scandalizing Donald Trump), the entire conversation gets sidetracked.
It is shameful that we cannot discuss the sexual violence within Hollywood without everyone going “it happened to me, too.” We are aware of that, however, that is not the topic of discussion. We are talking about people like Weinstein abusing their power to manipulate and abuse other people. That is a conversation we need to have as people like Weinstein far too often get a pass.
Likewise, it is shameful that we cannot discuss the topic without alienating male victims. There is no reason to ignore the men who are also targeted. People were shocked to hear actor Terry Crews state that he too was sexually harassed. Game of Thrones actor Kit Harrington implied he experienced something like this couple of years ago. His comment about the sexual objectification of men was met with mockery and scorn.
If you are not willing to hear the accounts of some of the victims, then you are only perpetuating the problem you claim you want to end.
Toy Soldiers 
My first reaction to the Weinstein scandal was disgust, but unsurprising since I’d seen Corey Feldman’s comments on the documentary ‘An Open Secret’ and started to realise how bad Hollywood REALLY is. I was at first delighted that this was being blown open, and that other self-righteous men who we all know about (the ones who have claimed that men are bad people before being accused of sexual harassment or even rape), were being exposed.
Unfortunately, the ring-fencing of the hashtag has made this a stressful week, what with too many feminist idiots making it about ‘men-are-bad-people-and-should-collectively-say-sorry-and-be-curfewed’, and when objections pointing out that sexual abuse covers male abuse victims and female abusers, they get into a steaming, boiling rage. e.g. Heather Jo Flores in the independent as seen here:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/harvey-weinstein-facebook-me-too-sexual-assault-abuse-men-should-post-too-a8004631.html
Or this one from Skylar Baker-Jordan:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/harvey-weinstein-metoo-sexual-assault-male-victims-oppression-patriarchy-a8006976.html
Read them if you dare, but their decision to imply ‘if you’re a male victim of a woman, you provoked her and probably deserved it’ or ‘you’re privileged, women have it worse because patriarchy, shut up or ‘you’re not fearing your life when sexually assaulted so shut up mr privilege’ is the same feminist garbage we’ve heard ad nauseam.
Being a male victim or survivor, I had a number of female friends of mine using the hashtag on facebook and I really wanted to connect with them, but the idiots saying ‘bringing female abusers sounds like “all lives matter” to me’, and the talentless hacks in the above articles made that much more difficult. Even though many female survivors were saying supportive things about men who are abused, the feminist mob didn’t have the empathy or emotional intelligence to be supportive, so they did what they do best, and drove us back out into the cold. (Of course, they said ‘get your own hashtag’ but we know that if that happened, they’d cry wolf – or as they say it ‘misogyny’ and spuriously accuse us of taking resources from women, in other words, accusing us male survivors of thievery.)
To hear them saying ‘it is the problem of ALL men’ as a victim of female-on-male abuse made this a horrendously stressful, exhausting and lonely week, tacitly endorsing the sort of abuse that ripped my life to shreds – and others like me. At some points, even near to considering suicide.
And in addition, we all know that this is a cultural impression, and the feminist mob has latched onto it like lampreys, violently discouraging research into male abuse that doesn’t fit into their own rhetoric. (Granted, we see them feigning sympathy these days by saying ‘it’s about you not being allowed to feel vulnerable’ then turning on the flames if one of us mentions that we were abused by a girl rather than a boy, which shows their true colours I’m afraid.)
It is just typical of these selfish fools shunting us male abuse victims under the table because their pathetic egos cannot accept any reality other than us being a tiny minority, because we’re living proof that ‘sexual-abuse-and-DV-is-men-oppressing-women’ rhetoric is absurd. I guess it’s like losing your family in a suicide bombing and being told ‘you’re-a-muslim-you’re-part-of-the-problem’ because it’s just insult to injury. But at the end of the day, we are dealing with feminists, the godawful pathological liars and useless donkeys that they are at the end of the day.
I applaud the one male survivor twitter user who called them out as ‘sexist pigs’ (judging by the ‘I’don’t-care-what-you-think’ responses, I think he stung them a bit).
Also TS I do remember the article you pertain to when you say “[Kit Harrington’s] comment about the sexual objectification of men was met with mockery and scorn.”
By a feminist article no less. Again, showing us all who they really are.
Anyone who calls himself or herself a feminist, I now have no respect for them whatsoever. None. Not a bit. They cannot expect to smack abuse victims in the face with their banner because they’re the ‘wrong shape’, and be shocked when we snatch the banner from their hands
(cont)…and snap it over our knee.
I was on Reddit the other day and it occurred to me that feminists are ready to go to war with men over the Harvey Weinstein thing. Not just abusers, but all men. They are outing themselves as haters and it will be undeniable. In the meanwhile, the last thing caring men want to do is get into a war. They will withdraw. So much for hope for social or economic improvement.
Not mentioned in the fake news, the 3 mo. old and the 5 yr. old were being trafficked by “family members” with no gender identified. Usually that means female perpetrators.
“All the usual personalities showed up to lambast men as a group for something only a fraction of men have or ever will do”
It’s worse than that- the hashtag explicitly stated they were looking for women who had ever been harassed or assaulted NOT actually raped.
Sexual harassment is the absolute lowest bar possible, and the timeframe was your whole entire life.
I’m not saying that harassment is okay- I’m saying it is like lieing, or forgetting to share. It is a something everyone does. All women and all men are sexually harassed from time to time, and all women and all men are guilty of sexual harassment from time to time.
By design, the hashtag encouraged every woman to consider herself a victim and every man a perpetrator.
The worst part is, it’s not just a hashtag, it’s the law of our society. Only men are penalized for something everyone does.
Whethe Harvey Weinstein is innocent or guilty of the rape and sex abuse (sexual harassment) accusations, here are reasons to not sympathize with him. If you know Harvey Weinstein’s movies, some of his movies such as Inglorious (Nazis and WW20, Django Unchained (slavery) and Hateful 8 (I did not see them) repeat the same themes of revenge where in these cases Whites who commit wrongdoing or who are even accused of wrong doing are killed with no trial.
If you were to ask Harvey Weinstein and QJ Tarantino about the Duke case, they’d likely say given their lectures about White Privileged men that the Duke players are guilty of raping the Black woman and they’d likely think the Duke players should be punished without a jury trial and it was later proven the woman lied and the men were innocent.
Harvey Weinstein should be allowed to have jury trial if he is arrested and prosecuted, though given the theme of his movies, he likely does not think White people accused of crimes against nonWhites should get a chance to plead case. Harvey Weinstein is an arrogant, haughty snob and he is acquaintances with Pres. DJ Trump-Pres. DJ Trump is also an arrogant, haughty snob.
Back to Harvey, there are many who do not sympathize with Harvey Weinstein losing contracts because of the sexual harassment accusations and given the attitude of some of Harvey Weinstein’s movies of revenge without a chance to plead case, it’s easy to not sympathize with him, regardless of whether he is innocent or guilty. Incidentally, 1 of the women who accused Harvey Weinstein of sexual harassment is Black.
“after so many articles encouraging men to use solidarity hashtags, that hashtags were not good enough. ”
The second law of SJWs – SJWs always double down. Winning is never enough.
Peter, I must respectfully disagree. I don’t think it would be okay to compare what happened to Terry Crews or James Van Der Beek to something as trivial as forgetting to share.
And I have known people who stoutly refuse to treat other human beings that way, so not everyone does it.
Some other things on the Harvey Weinstein accusations. Whether Harvey Weinstein committed sexual harassment (which incidentally is a Federal Crime-Civil Rights Violation though it almost always involves lawsuits and sometimes State/Federal prosecutions for sex abuse) depends on, what did he do?
Employers having sexual relations with employees is not per se illegal, though it is not recommended, because relationship goes bad, then the problems can come to the workplace, and in worst cases you get domestic violence (assault and battery), stalking and even murder.
But employers dating their employees per se is not illegal-people sometimes find their future mates in the workplace and college. And you have family businesses which are run by husband, wife and their kids.
With Harvey Weinstein, if he used criminal threats and or force to get sex from the actresses, then he would be guilty of rape and sex abuse. If Harvey Weinstein told the women that if they did not have sex with him, that he would then fire them, refuse to hire them (though they were qualified for job) and if he told the women that if they did not have sex with him, then he would refuse to promote them, then he would be guilty of sexual harassment. If Harvey Weinstein repeatedly asked his actresses out on dates after they refused, then that could be harassment as repeatedly asking a person for dates and stalking them is illegal.
With sexual harassment, they have to be judged individually because they are not always so easy and simple. If Harvey Weinstein had an affair with the actresses, then it would be legal. If the actresses had offered themselves sexually to Harvey Weinstein with the hope Harvey Weinstein would give them a raise or the job, then Harvey Weinstein did not commit sexual harassment though you can conclude he committed bribing and corruption crime as did the women by offering him a bribe. If Harvey Weinstein offered a woman a raise by saying that if she has sex with him, then he’d give them more money than what is in the contract, then Harvey Weinstein would be guilty of the business crimes bribing and corruption, but not sexual harassment.
A similar eg. would be let’s say a woman needs her ac repaired which costs alot and when the ac repairman comes to her house, she asks the repairman if he can have sex with her instead of pay the fee and the repairman has sex with her. In this case sexual harassment did not happen but bribing crime did. If the repairman tells the woman that if she has sex with him, he’ll repair it for free, while it would not be sexual harassment, it could be a business crime such as bribing. Now if the repairman tells the woman that either she has sex with him or he won’t repair the ac, then it would be sexual harassment.
There are many eg. Harvey Weinstein could be innocent or he could be guilty of sexual harassment. It’s also possible that Harvey Weinstein did not commit sexual harassment, but he could have committed other business crimes such as bribing and corruption. Yes, as I said before, Harvey Weinstein should be allowed to have a jury trial if he is arrested and prosecuted for rape, sex abuse and sexual harassment. You can be sure that the police are trying to see if they can make a case against him.
But again, regardless of whether Harvey Weinstein is innocent or guilty of sexual harassment, it’s easy to not sympathize with him losing money and having others alienate him, given how he and QJ Tarantino said in their movies Inglorious Basterds, Django and Hateful 8 (I didn’t see any of them but know enough about them) and have said/implied in their discussions about privileged White men that if you’re White and commit a crime against an African American or are even accused of a crime against an African American (or other nonWhite), that it’s punishment (even execution) with no jury trial to decide case. As Harvey Weinstein likely does not care if a White person accused of a crime against a nonWhite person is innocent or guilty but just punish regardless, it’s easy to not sympathize with Harvey Weinstein.
Other observations that I have made about Harvey Weinstein is that when he has been discussed on Internet, what unsurprisingly has come up is his friendship with President DJ Trump and the fact that he supported Hillary Diane Clinton for President.
Now I did not vote for either candidate. People predictably bring up the fact that 15 women have accused President DJ Trump of rape, sex abuse and sexual harassment. Pres. DJ Trump’s defense is that he did not want the women because they’re too ugly. Like Harvey Weinstein, President DJ Trump is a haughty, arrogant, businessman and I did not like him before he was President or since. But President DJ Trump could be falsely accused because people like Pres. DJ Trump often have enemies. Harvey Weinstein is friend (or @least acquaintance) with Pres. DJ Trump though he did not support Trump’s Presidency.
The acquaintanceship with Pres. DJ Trump makes Harvey Weinstein’s lectures look like this-Harvey Weinstein lectures about White Privileged men, but Harvey Weinstein has no problem being acquaintances with White Privileged men such as President DJ Trump (before he was President), when it benefited Harvey Weinstein financially.
As we saw, Hillary Diane Clinton ended affiliation with the Weinstein brothers after the Harvey Weinstein sexual harassment accusations. People who are anti-Clinton then make accusations calling Hillary a hypocrite and a rapist enabler. Here’s my defense for Hillary Diane Clinton. As far as Sen. Hillary Diane Clinton defending a man who raped a 12 year old girl in the 1970s, she was doing her job as a defense lawyer. Defense lawyers clients are usually guilty & defense lawyers talk with forked tongue to try to get a guilty client acquitted. It’s a bad job but that’s how the legal system works.
Ex independent counsel Kenneth Winston Starr (KW Starr) who investigated Pres. Clinton for years eventually ending with failed impeachment attempt in 1999, was a defense lawyer after his job as independent counsel ended, where Kenneth W. Starr defended a man (billionaire) who committed statutory rape on teenage girls and got 18 months in jail, Kenneth W. Starr defended a man who molested girls (he ended up getting 43 years in prison) and KW Starr once represented a convicted murderer on death row-KW Starr succeeded in getting the death penalty case reduced to life without parole.
Fact is that Kenneth W. Starr also talked with forked tongue when he worked as a defense lawyer just as Hillary Diane Clinton did when she represented a man who raped a 12 year old girl (that case was plea bargained) but that is how the legal system worked. Breitbart, Lifesite News, WND and Free Republic have not condemned Kenneth W. Starr working as a defense lawyer as they have Hillary D. Clinton, because those sites are against Clintons.
The anti-Clinton people will talk of Harvey Weinstein’s affilation with the Clintons, yet will say little about Harvey Weinstein’s affiliation with Trump. They predictably bring up the Juanita Broaddrick accusations, but only Juanita Broaddrick and ex Pres. William J. Clinton know what happened. Kathleen Elizabeth Willey’s -I do not believe ex Pres. William Jefferson Clinton sexually abused Kathleen E. Willey. Pres. William J. Clinton’s defense is that he was not interested in Kathleen E. Willey because Kathleen E. Willey has small breasts and not his type. Kathleen E. Willey in 1993 was 47 years old & reaching womenopause or menopause. It was Kathleen E. Willey who wanted to have an affair with Pres. William J. Clinton (she pursued him according to witnesses), but Pres. William J. Clinton rejected her.
It’s possible that William J. Clinton sexually harassed Paula, only it depends what happened. If ex Pres. William J. Clinton sexually proposed to Paula R. Jones, Paula told him no after which William J. Clinton ended that, then ex Pres. William J. Clinton did not do anything illegal. Now if William J. Clinton repeatedly proposed to her after she told him no incl. expose himself to her, then it would be indecent exposure and sexual harassment. Only Paula and Bill know what happened.
Also, most rapists and sex abusers don’t tell others that they commit this because they don’t want to get caught. Regardless of what did or did not happen between ex Pres. Clinton and Juanita Broaddrick, it’s unlikely William J. Clinton told Hillary about it. It’s no surprise that anti-Clinton people would repeat unproven accusations that Hillary threatened Juanita, but it’s unlikely that Bill told Hillary about Juanita.
Juanita Broaddrick did not report the alleged rape until many years later and she 1st changed her story. She says that in 1978 William J. Clinton raped her, by biting her lip (assault & battery) and then raping her in a hotel bedroom. She didn’t report this to the cops. Only Juanita and Bill know what happened.If Juanita Broaddrick is telling the truth, then she should have reported this in 1978, where the police would have arrested William J. Clinton & if there’s enough proof, he would have been convicted of rape.
This gets to what possibly happened between Juanita Broaddrick and William J. Clinton if a rape did not happen. It’s possible that William J. Clinton and Juanita Broaddrick had an affair in 1978 before that hotel incident. Juanita Broaddrick could have wanted to continue affair, but William J. Clinton decided to end the affair. Possible that on that night in the hotel room, Juanita Broaddrick could have met William J. Clinton and started kissing him hoping that he would continue relationship. He could have told her no it’s over which resulted in her lip getting cut & then left. She then appeared in the fundraiser 3 weeks later with the hope that William J. Clinton would change his mind and go back to her, but he didn’t.
Another possible reason for Juanita Broaddrick’s lip cut (if it did happen) is that Juanita Broaddrick’s husband & or boyfriend could have found out about Juanita Broaddrick’s affair with William J. Clinton and hit her, causing the cut lip. Yes, it’s speculating & it’s only what possibly happened. It’s possible that nothing sexual happened between William J. Clinton and Juanita Broaddrick. Since Juanita Broaddrick did not report William J. Clinton to the police, we can only speculate. If she had reported the alleged rape and if there had been a conviction, then we can hopefully know what happened. As she didn’t, then the other things suggested are possible.
I know the Weinstein post goes into President DJ Trump and Hillary, but it’s relevant because people when discussing Weinstein have predictably talked of the other 2 and I thought comments should be made on that.
The EU parliament obviously added their own #metoo bit, because feminism is rampant in europe. The usual “1 in 3 women have faced sexual or physical violence” kind of “statistics” is used … as if only women are being assaulted … ever. No citation is given for that claim (as usual).