How does MeToo mesh with the legalise prostitution movement?

[Yukaphile]

The only way women have it worse is the way in which our society oversexualizes women to an insane degree, through ads, social conditioning, and cultural conditions, rather than the fact men are genetically predisposed that way. It's a very narrow perspective that's exclusionary to gay and bi people as well. Though in a country where women are way too oversexualized, they're going to bear more of the brunt of unwanted touching. Not that it isn't wrong no matter who it is. Men, women, or children. Those who do so should be flayed and then set on fire.

[Madner Kami]

Now, mind you, I am not argueing that "men have it worse", even though my ranting ramble probably leads into that direction. I am just argueing that feminism is the literal aproximation for everything that is wrong in our current societies, namely only trying to focus onto "women-issues". What we need is a new movement that aims at removing the issues that both sexes suffer from, because they are largely caused by the same societal prejudices and setups and, as far as I can tell, there's a large level of agreement about that in general society, even though implementation is still lacking.

At the end of the day the rules always just amount to a no-touch policy between people that aren't in the suitable type of relationship. I think it's safe to polarize the social demeanors that are at odds here. People that openly fraternize and people that enforce their boundaries. Of course the indictments get skewed by gender when you administer the policy, but what social demeanor listed before do you think that policy is going to cater to over the other?

I can't quite follow what you are aiming at. Can you elaborate on your question?

[CmdrKing]

The greatest trick conservatism ever pulled was convincing people feminism was over.

To be sure, many mistakes were made. The Second Wave built a firm foundation of sisterhood, healing, and solidarity and promptly squandered it, chasing rights and prestige, with too many collaborating with the executors of power for their slice of the pie, content to claim victory on nominal rights and precarious case law. And by and by society has turned those rights into laments, and conservatives eroded the victories in courts, and we stand now overlooking a cliff, still insisting feminism is over.

So to keep this marginally readable, I'll just link Madnar's post again for reference, since I'm less interested in refuting particular points within it (it is, afterall, his own experiences) and more examining the conclusions he's drawn.
I think his examination of his own response to sexual harassment is pretty sound; it happens, men are largely taught it doesn't happen to them and what are you doing talking about it, and the way HR departments and sexual harassment is handled in the western world is, functionally if not necessarily intentionally, slanted to trivialize men bringing up cases.
But these things are a result of failures in feminism, not feminism exerting power over men. None of us, likely not even Madnar, can say whether anyone who harassed him claims to be a Feminist, but it seems likely they do not. A Feminist of most schools would be very interested in any system that facilitates or covers up abuse; destroying these hierarchies and stamping out the abuse they create (ie Patriarchy) is the innermost heart of feminism. Ignoring such a system is a failure, whatever the gender of the abusers. But of course, many who call themselves feminists do indeed simply ignore such things, claiming that it's the lesser evil.
Perhaps. But in making this judgement you've also failed in your feminism. Legal structures are useful tools, to provide a level of stability and recourse against abuse, but that's all they are. In not going further, and attacking the source of these abuses, the flaw in society that says the best way to survive is to attack and weaken those you hold power over, you've staked a claim and accepted the abuse of others as a fair price for your own position and privilege.

But those of course are legal structures, and just as they can be created they can be amended or destroyed. Where modern feminism focuses, and meets head on the resistance created by the "feminism is over" lie, is in the social sphere. To go back to our example, it's complete bullshit that men are socially encouraged to let these things slide, and even without the structural hurdles to discourage them most would see admitting to being sexually harassed and filing formal complaints as a blow to their masculinity. That's nuts! And letting those beliefs, and so many men practicing a form of masculinity where admitting sexual attention was unwanted is unthinkable, continue is harmful to us all. Resentment, bitterness, and competition between people are poison, and accepting it in society because of a disdain or indifference toward men is also a failure of feminism. But equally, it's visible within the 40-ish posts in this thread that few men would accept that changing these things are a form of feminism because of the distorted image of the movement that's built up over the decades.

There's no easy fix of course. But I've met too many feminists that haven't been doing the work for themselves, let alone working towards equity. And yet, that's the word we've given for the movement we need.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Now, mind you, I am not argueing that "men have it worse", even though my ranting ramble probably leads into that direction. I am just argueing that feminism is the literal aproximation for everything that is wrong in our current societies, namely only trying to focus onto "women-issues". What we need is a new movement that aims at removing the issues that both sexes suffer from, because they are largely caused by the same societal prejudices and setups and, as far as I can tell, there's a large level of agreement about that in general society, even though implementation is still lacking.

At the end of the day the rules always just amount to a no-touch policy between people that aren't in the suitable type of relationship. I think it's safe to polarize the social demeanors that are at odds here. People that openly fraternize and people that enforce their boundaries. Of course the indictments get skewed by gender when you administer the policy, but what social demeanor listed before do you think that policy is going to cater to over the other?

I can't quite follow what you are aiming at. Can you elaborate on your question?

Apologies. I wasn't sure if you were checking for instance workplace oriented policies, saying that feminism has gone too far in exlusivising women as sufferers of patriarchy.

[Yukaphile]

I think second wave's about the coldest fishes I've ever met, so... what does that say about me?

[Riedquat]

Besides, a well-trained woman could kick any man's ass. I love that.

Why do you love that? Sure, someone who acts in a way that gets them a wel-deserved arsekicking, fine, I'm not so 100% opposed to violence as society would like that there aren't times when I don't think someone got what they deserved, but if you want equality you shouldn't love any woman kicking a man more than a man kicking a woman.

(In any well-trained man could kick any woman's arse)

[CharlesPhipps]

Bruce Lee famously pointed out that martial arts had to be more than just for combat skills because, "guns beat fists." Which is, of course, why he was awesome as he approached everything from pure practicality and usefulness.

[Yukaphile]

Because it's equality. Because some men think women are so frail and weak men are as Schwarzenegger compares to a dwarf when you compare men and women.

Also, only people who think Feminism is dead are those men and women who say, "You girls got your equal rights, what are you bitching and complaining about now?" In other words, being uppity and not knowing their place, which is just as misogynistic as anything else women have had to endure throughout history. Especially so-called "egalitarian" women. Seriously, I know women who call themselves egalitarians who are THE most pro-male women possible. I don't even consider them females so much as honorary males given how they think in male terms and take men's side most of the time and think men are "the true victims" now.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

So to keep this marginally readable, I'll just link Madnar's post again for reference, since I'm less interested in refuting particular points within it (it is, afterall, his own experiences) and more examining the conclusions he's drawn.
I think his examination of his own response to sexual harassment is pretty sound; it happens, men are largely taught it doesn't happen to them and what are you doing talking about it, and the way HR departments and sexual harassment is handled in the western world is, functionally if not necessarily intentionally, slanted to trivialize men bringing up cases.

What I can gather from his points to his conclusions is along the lines of how Jordan Peterson examines progressivism on the feminist front. There's plenty of progressives that try to ground out Peterson's talking points, but I don't think he actually attacks the ideologies or the movements proper. He staunchly focuses on conservative values, but his subjects that he has contempt for is left-wing twitter and university programs. Nowhere does he really dismantle principal analytics on social conditions that do support Feminism, but the movements that gain traction and needless to say influence policy through what he feels is mob mentality.

I don't find third wave Feminism principals out of line, but a lot of the time I see anybody attacking the likes of that or white privilege theory, they are going so far as to make clear that the issues that are unearthed aren't exclusive to the predominant social identity being discussed. Like you're saying in your post, Feminism doesn't really say that.

[CmdrKing]

The trouble with Lobster Daddy is, like almost all commentators on the right, he's a grifter. He's here to sell his books and draw in a certain sort of mindset to the larger movement, and to that end he goes after soft targets: dumb kids who use the terminology and concepts of feminism, socialism, or other progressive movements in a limited, selfish way. Understanding the depth and complexity of systemic oppression is hard and seeing how your own life or your various identities help or hinder you within those systems is a lot to take in. But pointing out the daily ways other people don't measure up? Why that gives you a power to *judge* others. That's intoxicating, and if you're not starting from a place of high empathy turns toxic real fast. And thus if you've been passed an audience who haven't been introduced to this material and are instead on the receiving end?
"Oh, Dr. Peterson, you're so wise. Tell me more."
Buy my new book at a special introductory price of $22.95 ($24.99 CN)

(This of course is why I emphasize the personal need to learn and work at your own blocks when I do these posts, avoiding precisely these behaviors and leaning how to better find solidarity is key to building a lasting movement.)