Now you’re conflating a shitload of things together. And here we have the overall problem. Thank you.

Ditto

I would never want to be accused of posting arbitrary and generalized statements (see your original post.)

I’m talking about a specific instance involving the person in question.

I didn’t assume your gender. I hear we’re not supposed to really do that, and in all honesty it shouldn’t really matter in addressing this issue contrary to what the title, language and style of the article might have you believe. That’s the kind of divisiveness I’m talking about.

I find it interesting that you claim…

That’s not enough evidence to hold up your point. If you could point to a specific instance, we’d have something and I would gladly call him a hypocrite right alongside you. But we are going on assumptions.

I definitely have the capacity to notice pretension, which is why I could give two shits about being construed as some made-up term (ally) and not being privvy to what ModernFeminist magazine defines as the end-all-be-all definition of what a good man is.

Maybe this should’ve been your first comment and not the oversimplifying kitten gif.

I am not complicit in such behavior. Is there proof that he was privvy to such? I’m fine with calling out hypocrisy if there’s evidence for it, but it needs to be real evidence rather than “he’s a man in the film business.”

Right he launched the hashtag in response to Weinstein and a group of women who denounced #MeToo as a witch hunt. He was responding to women who disagreed with the movement and against Weinstein. I’m failing to grasp the point you’re trying to make about how this isn’t standing with #MeToo.

I mean you can try to have discussions where you grossly oversimplify the other person’s point to try and “win” but it won’t do very much in terms of productivity.

No. Me too

I would add that this article is not much conversation either other than a snarky refutation of something with good intentions, that is by and large going to turn a lot more people off than on. You can say that doesn’t matter, but it does to people who actually want progress.

Where does he say he’s doing it for them and not alongside them. I missed that.

And looping two identity movements in with each other does a disservice to the points each individual movement is trying to make, so don’t generalize.

Then how the hell are we ever going to have a conversation? So you’re basically admitting a conversation isn’t what you want? It’s a two-way street.

I would argue actual discussion with other human beings is about 100 times more productive and impactful than any Google search could ever be. But everyone’s afraid to say…

Throwing one-word accusations and adjectives at people is not a discussion and decrying someones thoughts about it on the basis of the mere fact they’re a “dude” is never going to accomplish a damn thing. That’s the whole point I’m trying to make and you’re just proving it.

If you want to grow up and have a real…

Can you elaborate on what you mean? It just sounds like being vague for the purpose of avoiding discussion.

I mean judging by your replies and the original post in response to the quotes it sounds like you’re actively trying to avoid conversation.

Just curious. It’s worth finding out the reasoning behind cynical sarcasm attempting to dismiss conversation.

It looks to me (full disclosure I’m a man) like he’s saying that the movement is necessary and expressing the opinion that most men believe that sexual misconduct against women is wrong, taking advantage of women is wrong, and the testimonies of victims in the past have not been listened to which is true.

The problem…