The Ideological Bubble of the
#MeToo Movement
Part 3 of 3:
The Feminist Victim Mentality,
Consent & Power Dynamics
Part 1 of 3: The Standard of Evidence & Statute of Limitations
Part 2 of 3: The Liberal Media, Boycotts, Defamation & Comebacks
Part 3 of 3: The Feminist Victim Mentality, Consent & Power Dynamics
By: Shawn Alli
Posted: October 22, 2018
Image copyright belongs to Getty Images/Johannes Spahn/EyeEm
Feminism is the annoying gadfly for conservatives and some liberals. The reason why some women go back in forth in their support for feminism is because it's changed to a significant degree. I won't bore you with a history lesson on feminism (see Wikipedia or YouTube). But feminism in the past operated under the ideology of empowerment. In the past, the fight was for women's right to vote and achieve positions of power. And they succeeded (especially with the election of Margaret Thatcher in the UK). Sadly, that ideology is long gone.
Of course, American feminists don't feel that their job is done because there's never been a female president. Don't worry, it’ll come in the next 2-3 election cycles. But even that won't be the big thing. sh*t will hit the fan when a homosexual or transgender candidate wins the presidency in the UK, Canada, or the US. This will definitely strain or empower the progressive (formerly neo-liberal) movement around the world.
While the methods of today's feminists are the same as in the past (boycotts and protests), the dominant ideology has moved to disempowering women and adopt a victim mentality.
All women are victims of male patriarchy (in the eyes of feminists).
And to be fair, it's a debatable issue. I can understand why women see themselves as victims of patriarchy. A patriarchy has definitely existed for thousands of years for almost all major societies.
But then again, that's life. Not being able to control everything is part of life. As you read these words you have no control over anything else except yourself. You can influence other things/people, but you don't control them. And that's a fact that all people accept/have to accept. And not being able to control the patriarchy around you is another thing that all people have to accept.
The question lies in how you see yourself when you can't control everything around you. You don't control the electricity running in your house. If the electricity company shut it off right now, you have no control over that. You don't have control over the actions/thoughts of your children. You have no control over the cars/people next to you as you pass them on the way to work. You have no control over the price of goods in the grocery store.
These are all facts that we all know. But do we see ourselves as victims because we can’t control such things? For most people, no. Even for feminists, if they were being honest with themselves, would say no. So why do they claim that they're a victim of male patriarchy when they wouldn't claim they're a victim of life in general? Because that’s what being in a cult/religion is about.
Contrary to what you may think, a cult isn't about forcing a person to do X. It’s about conditioning a person to do X for an ideological reason that has no basis in reality. Today's feminists are conditioning all women to be victims of any action by a man. While feminists claim that any gender can be in power, many feminists don't complain about the character issues of women in power. Why not? Because that would hurt the feminist movement.
Women shouldn't criticize other women. They should deal with it quietly out of the public domain.
And that's how the feminist movement projects a perception of unity. While they judge all men harshly, they hold back in their criticism of women who they may despise just as much. Why? Because that's the why ideological conditioning works. Of course, from time to time, exceptions are made (Asia Argento).
Unfalsifiable Ideologies are not bound to the confines of right or wrong, good or evil, rational or irrational (see the Philosophy Reborn series). Whether it's conditioning to show men as being superior to women, or conditioning for women to hate men, or conditioning for women to see themselves as victims of patriarchy...in the end, only genuine human expression is the loser.
But getting back to the issue, feminists see themselves as victims of male patriarchy when in reality, there’s no reason to do such a thing. Just because you can't control everything or even most things in your life doesn't mean that you’re a helpless unempowered victim to it. You can choose to be a victim if you want to. Your reaction is always a choice. You can claim that your reaction is influenced by your genetics, upbringing, culture, religion, or politics...but it's still you that has the final say in whether such influences have any credibility in your mind.
But my genes and brain made me do it.
Sigh.
Contrary to what you may believe, genetic determinism and neurological determinism are false ideologies (see Philosophy of Mind and Philosophy of Science in Part I: Purpose).
There's no such thing as the obese gene or obese brain cells telling you to eat that full plate of McDonalds in front of you. You are choosing to do that. You may be pressured to do so, but as an adult, you are the legal author of your own mind and body, and can choose to negate that pressure.
There's no such thing as the addiction gene or brain cells telling you to keep drinking until you're drunk. You are choosing to do that. In most cases no one is pressuring you to be drunk. In cases where you are being pressured, as an adult, it's up to you to express your own ideologies. If you can't stand up for your own self interest/your own beliefs, that’s on you. You can't blame anyone else for your shortcomings.
If you choose to allow your influences/conditioning to make your choose for you, that's on you. If you choose to react as being a victim, that's on you and no one else is responsible for that. You can't say that your emotional, physical or mental abuse in the past made you drink. You're choosing to drink for reason XYZ. It's up to you if you want to deal with XYZ issues and better yourself.
The sad fact of feminism in 2018 is that feminists are choosing to be a victim of male patriarchy. And that victim status blends with people who are victims of the worst atrocities.
Are you a victim of human trafficking? Well, I'm a victim and survivor of male patriarchy. We're in the same boat.
What?
And that's how the feminist movement builds itself up today. If you're a victim of something, feminists want to commiserate with you.
While it's understandable and helpful for people to share their pain with others, you don't have to label yourself a helpless victim who is now damaged goods and can only recover with the help of a movement.
While I'm personally against the term "victim" it's understandable for people to call themselves a victim if they've experienced harsh trauma, especially trauma at an early age that has been molded into one's conditioning. But just because you're a victim now, doesn't mean that you have to be a victim for life. Just because you're a victim of rape doesn’t mean you have to carry that victim mentality forever. You won't lose the memory of the experience, but you can choose to go beyond the pain and better yourself. It’s difficult but not impossible. If you're not sure where to begin I recommend radical dualism in the Philosophy Reborn series.
The #MeToo movement even describes the wives of alleged accusers as victims. In reality Bill Cosby's wife, Les Moonves' wife, and Harvey Weinstein's wife turn a blind eye to their spouse's alleged sexual misconduct. Some wives even attack/vilify the female accusers (Hilary Clinton, Camille Cosby).
Remember, some wives enter into the agreement for love, others for power, and others to live a life of luxury. Whatever the case may be, one thing is sure. None of these women are victims of male patriarchy. They intentionally choose to turn a blind eye to their husband's alleged sexual misconduct. Thinking otherwise is delusional and ideological. But the #MeToo movement is lost in a sea of unfalsifiable ideologies. Adding one more junk ideology won't hurt.
And the same ideology applies to women who work for these powerful men (middle management Human Resources, and talent agents). The #MeToo movement wants you to believe that they're victims of powerful men in power.
In reality, these women turn a blind eye to the alleged sexual misconduct by their bosses. It's a touchy issue though. Some believe that they're complicit. Others believe that you can't hold them accountable for the alleged sexual misconduct of their bosses. I lean to the latter, but understand those who believe the former. Regardless, these women are guilty of turning a blind eye which enabled these men to continue their alleged sexual misconduct.
And now we get to the thorny issue of consent. As I mentioned in the first article, in theory, consent is black and white. In reality, it's very messy and grey.
In regards to allegations against Kavanaugh, liberals try to claim that a date rape culture existed back in the 1970s and '80s and women didn’t know what consent was. That's completely false. The Take Back the Night campaign and No Means No campaign all came about in the 1970s.
Sadly, liberals today (due to the influence of feminism) believe that women are not really capable of consenting under anything but obvious circumstances. Sorry, but most aspects of life doesn't happen under obvious circumstances. It moves into a grey area when a person consents to have sex, then changes their mind but doesn’t express that change to the partner either verbally or physically.
Liberals can't use the date rape culture of the 1970s and 80s to claim that the standard was so different from today. Consent was just the same then as it is today. Yes means yes and no means no in the '80s just as it does today. Rape laws/sexual assault laws existed then as it does today. If women were more promiscuous in the '80s, that's on them. If you’re consenting to have sex with the football team, don’t turn around and reinterpret the memory and call it rape 20 years later.
Women in the past and today at parties, who don't say "NO" explicitly to the person during sex and are not being forced, are consenting adults. Liberals reinterpreting them today as not consenting are deluding themselves about the ideology of consent. The reason why they didn’t report the alleged non-consensual sex (rape) to the police in the past was because it was consensual. Reinterpreting past memories as non-consensual because of the #MeToo movement today is not credible and is disingenuous.
BDSM and Consent
For those that don't know, BDSM stands for Bondage, Domination/Submission, Sadism & Masochism. The 50 Shades of Grey book/movie series is a light form of BDSM. And to be fair to BDSM participants, violence, sex, and submission have gone together like jam and butter on toast. It's not the norm for conservatives but liberals and progressives embrace it with open arms.
But can a person really consent when violence is being inflicted on them? That's a grey issue. That's getting pretty close to the issue of prostitutes that die from BDSM sex. And yes it's happened. In Canada Cindy Gladue (a prostitute) dies from BDSM trauma. Bradley Barton (the john) was acquitted in her death. [1] The Supreme Court of Canada will decide whether he should face a new trial. [1] Liberals and feminists argue that Gladue wouldn't have consented to something that would have led to death. In reality, it's quite possible to consent to death (suicide).
But in the Gladue case, the person consenting (like all people) doesn't know that the end result can/will lead to their death. Hence the question, can it really be called consent? In my view, yes, of course it can. No one can see the end result of their actions. We act based on not knowing how an event will actually end. We have an idea of how it should end, but that may be incorrect. Either way, it's still consent. But again, I'm surprised that Barton wasn't found guilty of involuntary manslaughter but given a lighter sentence.
Oddly enough, many liberal women like to be dominated/submissive during sex. And I'm not talking about poor women from broken homes. I'm talking about liberal women with no significant trauma, who make good money, and already have a house/car. Oddly enough, it's okay for feminists because feminism today is about sharing the victim mentality. Being submissive during sex is not empowering. It enables the illusion of the victim mentality. And though it's only an illusion, it can be just as real if the woman believes it's real. That's the power or gift or curse of consciousness.
But being dominated and/or submissive during sex is highly problematic for the #MeToo movement. Why? Because of consent. Can a woman really consent to be dominated? Is she in her right mind? What if she changes her mind during the domination, but doesn't express that change to her partner and then interprets the event as rape? And like the case above, what if the man accidentally goes too far and she either dies or sustains a serious injury. Is the man at fault?
Intimacy and Consent
Many women have shared stories of non-consensual intimacy/sex with liberal media outlets. But in many instances the person did NOT verbally say no. They said no in their head but didn't say it verbally. If you didn't say it verbally you can't allege that the person raped you. You can't say that you felt emotionally pressured to perform and wanted to get out as quickly as possible because you felt you were being raped. That’s disingenuous.
The john would interpret the act as consensual sex while the woman would interpret it as rape under emotional duress (such is the case for Aziz Ansari). A man cannot read your mind. A jury may or may not buy such reasons, but by doing so, you're negating responsibility for your own actions, and framing yourself as a victim due to the influence of today’s feminism and their victim mentality ideology.
Today's feminists now want men to verbally ask for consent for every sexual action. And it has to be verbal for them because implied consent isn't good enough. Even asking if the partner is "okay" during sex or whether they "like it" isn't enough for some feminists. Why not? Because implied consent or indirect consent is not the same as verbal consent.
Allow me to be clear. Constant verbal consent is not on the table for almost all men in the 21st century. I don't care if you're liberal or super progressive. Even those men will "assume" consent at some point, get told no, and then it's pretty much game over for their life.
Some feminists go to an even higher standard of consent where even verbal consent goes out the window if the woman feels that she's being emotionally pressured/unsafe but has not shared that feeling with the man.
I couldn't consent because I was being emotionally manipulated.
Sorry, but that's false. In reality, her ideology that she's unsafe and being pressured is most likely incorrect but that's the way she's "choosing" to interpret the situation. In reality, if she said no, the man may stop and allow her to leave without incident because in his mind, this is a consensual act.
When having sex, people don't verbally ask for consent for each sexual position. It's implied consent (rightly so). If the person doesn’t want to continue they have to say no or push away from the person. The act of clearly pushing away (which is not always black and white during sex) is an action that represents the person not wanting to continue/does not consent. If the person stops, then it's all good.
But...what happens after, if the woman talks it out and decides to continue having sex again? We have consensual behavior, non-consensual behavior, then consensual again. That's the messy reality of life. A person can change their mind to consent again after a non-consensual action (pushing away). That's the messy world of consent. If you don't say no and you let sex happen even if you don’t want it, you can't reinterpret the act later on as rape. Well you can, but no prosecutor/court/judge/jury will believe it.
Hence some of these "victims and survivors" will try the lower standard of the preponderance of the evidence in a civil lawsuit. While that won’t likely lead to a guilty verdict, it will take a toll on your life socially, personally, and professionally. Liberals and feminists will support the lawsuit out of principle in "believing women." It's honorable and understandable but entirely ideological.
In the old feminism days, a woman may say no to sex, but want the man to convince her and argue his case (which is what Aziz Ansari thought he was doing). Today's feminist would see that as monstrous. But it’s not monstrous. That's the way men have done it in the past and the present, and I argue that it's acceptable (within reason of course).
What? You're a horrible person. Burn in hell.
That would be the normal response by today's feminists, who are very different from feminists in the past where women were not always seen as victims of male patriarchy. They were seen as beings that were capable of agency/consent, that could make up their own mind, that could change their mind. They were women who (gasp) enjoyed being pursued by men and playing hard to get. Sadly, those times are slowly coming to an end.
Drinking/Marijuana and Consent
Feminists and the #MeToo movement believe that women are not able to consent when drinking alcohol. As soon as the first drink goes down their digestive system, they're automatically unable to consent in the eyes of feminists. Why? Because consent is for people who have agency. Feminists today don't see women as being capable of expressing agency under the slightest pressure. School dance? Too much pressure. House party? Way too much pressure. Corporate party? Don't even go there.
While feminists have been able to influence the laws in most countries about consent and drinking/drug use, in reality many strangers, couples, partners, and spouses are having consensual sex/intimacy right now being drunk or high.
Feminists, the #MeToo movement and the legal system can consider it rape or sexual assault all they want, but it’s consensual. Though it's helpful to agree on the consensual activity beforehand, people are capable of consenting to activities while in an altered states of consciousness. Feminists and the legal system want you to believe that consent disappears in an altered state of consciousness. It doesn't. Such people may be thinking differently, but they're still quite capable of consenting to activities.
You think women who are blacked out drunk can consent? You're a horrible person. Burn in hell.
Okay, blacked out drunk is too much. Falling down on the floor while drunk is too much. Not being able to form proper sentences is too much. But everything else is consensual, regardless of what feminists, the #MeToo movement, and the legal system says.
The Workplace and Consent
A woman has consensual sex with a man in power and in the future interprets that as sexual assault (such is the case for NBC's Matt Lauer). Sorry, but you can't consent to sex and then reinterpret it and call it sexual assault later on. Contrary to what you may believe, power dynamics does not negate consent. Power dynamics have existed for all of time. Women in lower positions of power have been having consensual sex with men in higher positions of power for thousands of years.
But liberals, feminists, liberal media outlets, and the #MeToo movement want you to believe that such women are incapable of consent. Why? Because they don't believe in the empowerment of women. They believe in the victim mentality and fragile glass state of women. Even the slightest pressure will break them and render them unable to consent.
Some female liberal journalists even chastise men for choosing younger women. [2] Of course older men want to screw younger women. That's how it's always been. Younger women are more attractive. Men in their 60s and 70s still want to screw 25 year old women. They may settle for 40 year old women but they still want to screw the super hot 25 year old woman.
And Hollywood loves it as well. And though some journalists criticize men in general for such things, they don't criticize Hollywood stars for marrying younger women. I'm talking about William Shatner, Michael Douglas, Steve Martin, Sylvester Stallone, Kelsey Grammer, Michael Fassbender, George Clooney, Harrison Ford, Jerry Seinfeld and Alec Baldwin. Why no criticism leveled directly at these male actors? Because Hollywood is supposed to be liberal.
We can't criticize our own. We need them to destroy Republicans.
As a side note, the leader of the NDP federal party (Jagmeet Singh) in Canada marries a woman 11 years younger. But again, I don't see any criticism there by female liberal journalists.
And as another side note, my future wife will most likely be young as well (she's young in my mind). I wouldn't look past 25-27 years of age for my future wife. And I'm 35. I want my future wife and daughters to be empowered women, not feminists who want them to be unempowerd victims. I want them to be strong mentally, physically, and emotionally. I want I want them to be strong like the tough female characters in the following movies/TV shows:
Halle Berry in Kidnap 2017
Jennifer Lopez in Enough 2002
Gina Carano in Haywire 2011
Milla Jovovcich in the Resident Evil movie series
Uma Thurman in the Kill Bill movies series
Sigourney Weaver in the Alien movies series
Charlize Theron in Mad Max Fury Road 2015
Angelina Jolie in the Tomb Raider movie series
Linda Hamilton and Emilia Clarke in the Terminator movie series
Kate Beckinsale in the Underworld movie series
Maisie Williams in Game of Thrones
Lucy Lawless in Xena Warrior Princess.
I want my future wife and daughters to be experts in all martial arts. I want them to know how to throw a knife at someone from a distance. I want them to know how to do joint manipulation on the strongest man. I want them to know how to use a hand gun. I want them to know how to tell when a man is attempting to manipulate them. I want them to know how to accurately assess the potential danger of a situation and react accordingly.
None of the characters above would adopt the feminist label as a victim for life and need help from the feminist movement. They would seek to empower themselves. And this is the only way women will defeat the current ruling patriarchy, by empowering themselves physically, mentally, and emotionally.
Many people forget that women can be horrible abusers just like men. They forget that women can kill men for money, power, or revenge. They forget that women pimp out other women for the benefit of men. They forget that women cover-up sexual harassment or assault by men.
Oh, but they're a victim, somewhere back in their past some man abused them and made them what they are. It's not their fault.
Wrong. These women are just as guilty as men performing these same actions.
There are many cases where women say men forced them to perform oral sex on them even though the man wasn’t physically forcing her. How did he force her? Emotional pressure. That's the level that feminists and the #MeToo movement will stoop to in conditioning women to be victims of male patriarchy.
And the effects of the MeToo movement's victim mentality is being seen in the workplace. Men are refusing to mentor young women and associate with them. [3] [4] [5] Do you know what happens to single men who don't associate with women in the workplace because they fear being reported for sexual harassment or assault? They go to strip clubs where they can buy women and touch them.
Believe it or not, the #MeToo movement is causing an increase in men going to strip clubs. Women can have their #MeToo boundaries/regulations at work. But it will be a cold and lonely boundary that very few men will cross. You’ll become unhappy, be less productive, more annoyed, and most likely on pharmaceutical drugs in a few months. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the women who support feminism and the #MeToo movement. Or better yet, unchain yourself to the ideological movement of feminism. Stop acting like a victim and change your character/ideologies. If you're unsure where to begin, I recommend radical dualism in the Philosophy Reborn series).
Because of the boycotts and public crucifixion of men by the MeToo movement, many men (even if they won't admit it) are shifting their ideology to see women as an evil temptress that can destroy their career. Hence, women have to be controlled. Women can maintain the illusion of equality on the surface, but such men will never consider them as equals.
And this ideology doesn't discriminate between conservative or liberal men. Both groups have demonized women for centuries (see Sexism in Part II: Social Humanities). Generally speaking, liberal and conservative men like their women weak, subservient, unempowered and submissive (even if they won’t admit it to themselves or to others).
Conservative men will see women as an evil temptress to be controlled. Liberal men will see them as a sexual object to be used for sex and reproduction and then discarded. The more the #MeToo movement punishes alleged accusers without due process, the deeper the chasm between men and women in the workplace and at home.
References:
[1] Harris, Kathleen. Advocates push for changes to sexual consent, prostitution laws as top court hears Gladue case. CBC News. October 10, 2018.
[2] Mahdawi, Arwa. Men's fixation on young women is another sign of masculinity in crisis. Guardian. August 18 2018.
[3] Roussy, Kas. A chilling effect of #MeToo in academic medicine. CBC News. October 8, 2018.
[4] Deschamps, Tara. #MeToo Backlash In Corporate Canada Sees Women Locked Out. Canadian Press. August 2, 2018.
[5] Kimmel, Lisa. Is #MeToo worsening the divide between men and women? Globe and Mail. May 27, 2018.