Effort. One puts in effort to allow the abusers to continue and one put in no effort and the abusers just end up continuing. The result is the same but with nuance comes the understanding of the existence of "various degrees".
The definition of enabling is making something possible, practice, or easier to do. They men in that chat made it all easier to do because not only did no one stop it or say anything. But it was sent there because it was know they wouldn’t. They made it easier by being part of that chat. They made it possible by being part of that chat. Yes they are the enablers.
They get mad at the idea that there is pussy that they feel entitled to, that they won’t get. So they are mad with us for withholding, it’s better for them so they can keep all the trappings and benefits of living in a society that enables the Cornell 7.
You don't care about a woman getting gang raped if she was, what, annoying? That says a lot about you and your values. Notice the person you responded to specifically said "these men" in reference to a specific subset of men, not all of them. There was no sexism.
My husband showed the news story to our son, including the group chat and asked hm what he'd do if he was in that group chat. We are making sure that our son 1. doesn't get butthurt when he hears 'all men' and 2. to take action when he witnesses misogyny.
These people are legitimately living in their own universe. They have their own language, their own laws. Your rational brain does not fit here, this place cannot compute it.
The amount of comments that I see here that say "This is why it's all men" is fucking beyond insane. If you cannot parse what the word ALL means in this context, maybe you shouldn't be sharing your opinion. Legitimately half this thread looking for reasons to further entrench themselves in their biases, and put a blanket judgment over legitimately an entire sex 😂 It is really not funny it is so beyond sad and depressing the way people treat each other and use shit like this to continue their spiral, I am just so exhausted by this endless circus of bullshit.
I think the internet needs an audit and then a reset, desperately. There is no way this many people wait this long and are this fucking cooked when it comes to every news story that comes out. I wish we knew how many bad actors there are out there. I don't know how, but I still have a little bit of hope that people aren't actually this brain dead. I know reddit isn't real life or anything close to a majority, which is part of it. It is like every week a new fucked up news story comes out and people use it to justify their trash behavior, or use it to single out people, label people, whatever. The internet is like a petri dish for ignorance at this point, don't know how we got here, it used to seem pretty cool but this shit is pathetic, and now it is daily. The rational and logical people left a long fuckin time ago and now it is just animals fighting over scraps. Shit is embarassing.
It's just a poor choice of words that in the past helped Trump win Gen Z. This all or nothing language in gender discourse does absolutely nothing to help and always drives people away or makes them disconnect to avoid the bullshit gender war drama.
Not a single person who needs to see this will ever see it and of them half wouldn't care.
I feel sorry for you that you can’t recognize the rationality of the message in the video. You throw around words like rational and logical, but you can’t see outside your own bubble
So a few dozen guys who congregated in a rape chat room in order to rape are representatives of an entire gender? You're literally applying the rape filter before making that sweeping generalisation. If instead you sort by men who don't hang out in rape spaces (which yields the overwhelming majority of men), then that correlation disappears and along with it your claim.
So your position is “sure, men are responsible for 95 out of 100 sexual assaults but the real issue is those 5 women. Why aren’t we talking about that?” YOU ARE WHY ITS ALL MEN.
I mean... The fraternity I was in wouldn't stand for that. We caught a guy jerking himself watching someone who had passed out, he was expelled from the fraternity within the week. We couldn't legally evict him from the premises for a month, but he wasn't allowed anywhere in the house other than his room, the laundry room, and the kitchen.
We also banned a 26 year old alumnus who kept showing up at parties to pick up Freshmen women, especially in the fall. He was restricted to only coming to our weekly chapter meeting and if it was a brothers only alumni event.
When I was in chapter leadership I made it my responsibility to make sure anyone (male or female) walked home with someone they trusted. I'm sure I missed a few during that year, but we tried to do our best.
I mean, I don't think they we're trying to say all frats are a problem, just that they can be. That problematic people can and will begin to self select and form a group.
It's good to hear about fraternities that are filled with well-meaning people. I know I don't need to say those are a minority, at least in terms of cultural visibility anyway.
How far are you going to move the goalposts? This is a frequent occurrence in the military but you'll say "well, it's violent people in there so why be surprised?" "Sure that whole French village gangraped Gisele Pelicot but Americans would never do that?" "Well yes, the President is a convicted sexual harrasser but not everyone voted so a majority didn't technically vote for him!"
The point is that a frat that has a member who drugs and rapes a woman then messages to the 50-man frat group chat that there is "free pussy upstairs" (direct quote) is probably a frat with less than impressive attitudes toward women.
Sorry, but if you think the average man is getting weekly invitations explicitly to rape women, you genuinely need to go to a psychiatrist. That a level of delusion that is genuinely harming your ability to function.
You think this is the only frat in the world that has less than impressive attitudes toward women?
You trivialize women's experiences by arguing they are outliers. They are not. Sexual assault on women AND men are instigated BY men and you don't need to be in a frat for that to happen or for it to be so commonplace. Suggesting that this frat is the anomaly when majority of men will refuse to do anything when their friends assault makes YOU the delusional gibbon.
My point is that those kinds of men insulate themselves with enablers and fellow abusers so that they can continue to, at best, take advantage of women by getting them drunk and/or drugged and, at worst, provide plausible deniability for when they forcibly rape women.
The guy I replied to didn't have those problems because he wasn't in the rape frat. People who respect women don't go to the rape frat, and rapists don't go to the "respect women frat".
There's lots of rape frats, literal and metaphorical, I was just saying that that guy wasn't in one of them.
I don't know what part of that is "trivialising women's experiences" but I'm sure you've got another unhinged rant ready to go.
Why do you even have the upvotes you have with this comment? Dude wasn't moving goalposts or trivializing anything. Just pointing out Baron_Bearclaw was probably not in the same fraternity as Cornell's Chi Phi.
You are doing the thing the video is talking about. It doesn't matter that it's not all frats. Frat culture allows this shit to perpetuate. The Cornell frat is in the top bucket. Your frat is in the bottom one. We're not talking about your frat. The Cornell frat is clearly a shit one and the people participating in it are probably shit people who are too complicit or cowardly to break norms.
I'm actually not. I'm not trying to glorify my frat and I'm not offended when people say fraternity culture in the US is incredibly problematic. We made a point of aligning ourselves with other like-minded fraternities (there were two others on my campus who had good men and kicked out the shitty ones without question) and we warned our friends about the ones known to have problems.
I did what I could in my time there. We, as a fraternity, did what we could for the college.
But you coming after me like this is also a problem. Your comment serves no purpose other than to try to insult me. You're not educating. You're not explaining you're not adding an additional view point. Hell, you're not even adding some stupid gif or meme response.
I mean, you're kinda doing the thing in the video in these comments, except you're saying "not all frats" instead of "not all men." Even though you said you don't have an issue with people pointing out that frat culture is problematic. So like... what is the point of your comment. The person you replied to originally was saying that the 50 dudes in the chat were from the same frat, and because frat culture tends to be shitty to women and promote rape culture, that it's not surprising that 50 dudes from the frat said nothing. And that's a problem. You are taking it personally to mean that every single guy from every single frat is automatically shitty. Which is not what was said.
Nobody is coming after you personally for being an exception in your own frat. Obviously, making a positive difference in an otherwise typically problematic culture is a good thing. But you commenting about how it's not all frats because your specific one was different isn't at all productive to the conversation, and it comes across as dismissive of the root of the problem. Just like the guy in the video explained about the dudes who say "not all men."
I am trying to do the same thing that the man in the video is doing, which is pointing out that there are some men out there who are working to change this culture.
It could very easily be argued that his entire video is a "not all men response."
He even talks about the upstanders and how they are valuable. When the commenter I replied to suggested that frat culture needs to take responsibility; they are right and a lot of frat culture is toxic to the men involved and to the people they interact with.
The commenter I am replying to said that of course the Cornell 5's Brothers would have no issue with the conduct because fraternities are self-selecting groups. And what I am saying is that there are also some self-selecting groups who are trying to push back against this.
Just like the guy on whose video we are all commenting, there are some people out there working to try to push back against this culture whether it is within fraternities themselves, individuals standing up to groups, or groups standing up to society. That's all.
Edited to add: Being one of the few who are willing to face someone down and tell them that they are out of line is a lonely place to be. There are times when it is important to let people know that they're not alone.
I am trying to do the same thing that the man in the video is doing, which is pointing out that there are some men out there who are working to change this culture.
The man in the video is talking to OTHER MEN who get reactive when women are talking about the violence men commit by jumping into a conversation to to defend the men who aren't violent and assert themselves as allies. That's literally what he's criticizing. He's not making a point that some men are out here being allies. He's telling the "allies" that deflect the conversation away from what women are telling them about men's violence because they feel the need to defend and differentiate themselves from the men being talked about that it's a stupid thing to do. That is EXACTLY what you have done and are continuing to do with this conversation about fraternities.
The commenter I am replying to said that of course the Cornell 5's Brothers would have no issue with the conduct because fraternities are self-selecting groups. And what I am saying is that there are also some self-selecting groups who are trying to push back against this.
No they didn't. They said that it makes sense that THIS SELF SELECTING GROUP is made up of pieces of shit, so of course THIS SELF SELECTING GROUP likely has more pieces of shit. They didn't say that it's impossible for a self selecting group of not pieces of shit to collectively act like not pieces of shit. This is where you are missing the point and is exactly what the video is calling out. No one was talking about the good self selecting groups. No one needs the explanation that good self selecting groups exist. The problem is that bad ones do, and fraternity culture, which includes the major educational institutions that support them and all the money that is exchanged between them as a result of fraternity culture, allows them to exist.
Being one of the few who are willing to face someone down and tell them that they are out of line is a lonely place to be.
On the one hand, I agree. On the other, I cannot help but note the audacity it takes to make this lament in an entire thread about the struggles of women being taken seriously when they talk about sexual assault and how men derail conversations to make it about themselves.
So, can you explain what the point of your comment is then in the context of this conversation? Because even with your breakdown here, the message that's coming across is "it's not all fraternities" which... okay? We're not talking about YOUR fraternity. We're talking about the pattern. So were you just commenting looking for praise for your fraternity? You didn't frame your comment like, "Hey, other fraternities, this is what you do!" You responded to a comment calling out the other men in the Cornell fraternity who should also be held complicit. That reads like you're trying to deflect ire from fraternities in general. But like the point the point the video is making, if you understand it, there's no need to be butt hurt in the comments and try to defend your fraternity that no one is talking about.
I think it does matter because the implication that a frat is indicative of all men yet people are coming in with their stories of their frats not acting like this kinda implies this is a problem either with the culture of Cornell or this specific frat.
Exactly my point. I have heard stories about my fraternity on other campuses and they were... pretty terrible to say the least. Like, the closest thing I got to hazing was having beers available to drink if I wanted — then we got a gluten free guy and we started making sure there were hard seltzers and ciders available if he wanted them too. Oh, they asked us to stay overnight the day before initiation, provided cots or unused mattresses (with sheets), made us stay up until midnight, and cooked us breakfast in the morning.
Another chapter in our fraternity still paddled their pledges like in Animal House. When the international office found out, they put them on probation and assigned a local alumnus to work with them.
You literally said the thing and are still missing the point.
We know it's not all fraternities. Just because not all fraternities act this way doesn't mean there isn't a problem in fraternity culture in general when MANY MANY fraternities do act this way. No one complaining about fraternity culture is arguing every single man in every single fraternity is a piece of shit, and the entire point of the video is that men who jump in to make this argument can't wrap their brains around that nuance and end up doing more harm by derailing conversations for the sake of defending their own participation in something even though no one's actually blaming them.
Bearclaw: Other men should not protect this behavior. The frat I was in called out guys like this and kicked them out. I personally did my best to stop these guys.
You: You don't count! This isn't about you, this is about the cultures that do allow it!
So you want him to join the culture that allows it? You want him to stop being against rape?
What does me recognizing irony have to do with my lack of interaction with the world? I would like to note that in your very first reply to me you made the accusation that I was only insulting you, even though I never once insulted you, and yet here you are making some low effort insult. I'd like to give you this opportunity to explain how I insulted you and why you feel like a substanceless comment like this doesn't make you a hypocrite, and also maybe to engage with the actual content of my comments.
And what is this rhetoric even supposed to accomplish? The couple of times in my life when I've been made aware of a guy wronging a woman in a sexual or other manner, I've confronted the guy for touching her and the other time I was just told about what the man did, cut him out of my life and told the woman I'd support efforts to involve authorities, what else can I realistically do when I'm not directly involved? Am I supposed to sacrifice my life to vigilantism and skulk around shady Tor pages to try and get invited to these sorts of groupchats to expose them? There's never anything actionable brought up, only vague allusions like "take action".
I find these sorts of clips to be completely unproductive, and moreso just attempts to drum up gender war fights to increase engagement.
This is my problem with this rhetoric. I’m all for pointing out ways that men can prevent other men braving poorly but saying “it’s all men till it’s no men” makes things worse.
What’s all men? Are all men rapists until no men are rapists? It’s such vague weasel language placed on top of a valid topic.
Am I supposed to sacrifice my life to vigilantism and skulk around shady Tor pages to try and get invited to these sorts of groupchats to expose them?
According to the women in this thread, this is exactly what you are supposed to do. Because you are a man. You should be their knight in shining armor coming to safe them.
If I was in a group chat with women talking about how they were gonna mug some guy I would... idk, call campus security? Let someone know? Asking 50+ men to maybe say or do anything about a gang rape isnt asking them to burst in and save her and carry her out damsel style.
That's what their initial comment was about, it's not a random selection of people, it's a bunch of gang rapists that selected people they felt would also be gang rapists or at least enablers or cowards.
Frats should unironically be banned, they don't exist in my country and I only ever hear about them being the source of some misery in other countries. You can do "networking" without that shit.
Yes, they should. I'm tired of the mountain of evidence that frats are toxic and do more harm than good being ignored. How many stories do we need about horrific rapes, gang raped, druggings, abuse, sadistic pledge rituals, sexual abuse of their own frat brothers, dangerous drinking behaviors, on and on.
Why is it that I have seen so many men say "it's not all men, it's a particular selection of men in a frat" and "what did you expect from frat bros" and "don't lump us all in with the frats, they are different, my social group doesn't do that" BUT when I say "so you'd support eliminating all frats?" most are silent.
They don't care that these frats are hurting people, they just want to personally distance themselves. If you believe frats are inherently dangerous for women and DONT want to ban them, you are ok with women being hurt.
I did a chunk of college without being in a fraternity and a large chunk in one. Someone already tried to chew me out for saying we were one of the good ones, and when I was there we were. But outside of us and our two most aligned houses on campus, much of the fraternity culture was horrible and could go away without a real loss to college life.
The biggest benefit a fraternity offers is in the economy of scale. We could afford to do things as a group that were harder to do individually. Bringing 30-40 guys to a basketball game can unlock group discounts that are hard to get on your own. Same thing for booking a large dinner at a decent restaurant.
But on the whole... there's much more toxicity than positivity. And even though our chapter was "one of the good ones" when I was there, I heard stories about the 80s in my chapter and I talked to guys at other universities... they were appalling.
A man's ability to take a woman's violent trauma as a way to explain that they don't specifically fit in the group with the "bad" men is a special level a delusion. THIS ISN'T ABOUT YOU! If you're offended by that, you need to work through it on your own.
Frat guys are not vastly different for other men. Nitpicking pieces of a scenario to try and make yourself feel better is gross.
Men, as a whole, need to do better. Not just with women, but in generally becoming fully functional, emotionally intelligent humans.
How were they making it about themselves? They said a group of criminals are going to be discreet about including others in their group of scumbags, because simply randomly including anyone from wider society will leave the door wide open to getting exposed. Ever been casually invited to partake in violent crime? I certainly haven't.
Ah okay, so because I am a man I am also at fault for the violent gang shootings? Because those are also mostly men? Or am I also at fault for drug dealers because those are also mostly men? Am I also at fault for the child molesters in churches because those are also mostly men? Where is the line?
I don't associate with those kind of groups because I don't associate with those kind of behaviors. So I am at fault because I don't force myself into those groups and call out those behaviors?
I am not personally at fault for the state of the world or the behavior of other human beings in this world. I have a limited societal responsibility to make the world a better place, and I do, but that is, as I said limited.
Frat guys are not vastly different for other men.
Women killing their kids in a rage fit of hormones are not vastly different to other women.
Nitpicking pieces of a scenario to try and make yourself feel better is gross.
Men, as a whole, need to do better.
Are you calling out misandristic women? Beginning with yourself? Are you calling out emotionally abusive women towards their partner? Are you calling out women that weaponize their children in custody cases? No? Then start with yourself before calling out others.
Crazy how this comment, calling out the obvious misandry is being downvoted, right next to other comments also pointing out the obvious misandry here, getting upvoted.
The OP video is good at elucidating the problem, but it doesn't go at all into the realities of solving the problem.
The men who are rapists and the men who stand up to rapists do not associate with eachother. The ones in between are not as influencable as they might seem.
If I pull up a dude's off-color joke, he's going to take onboard that his joke is problematic or he's going to take onboard that he just shouldn't say problematic shit around me, sometimes he'll do both.
The most common outcome of having that conversation again is that the dude will start to distance himself from me, lessening my ability to impact his bahviour and views.
Not trying to minimize that awful situation in anyway but I do want to clarify, she wasn’t roofied, did state being conscious the entire time but very drunk, sobered up then given a lot of ketamine to get her more fucked up.
Very awful and atrocious regardless, but just wanted to clarify incase there were any “she wasn’t even unconscious??” Type comments. Please correct me if more information came out though
And for point 2, men like to say, “see! 11% of women are just as bad! “ fully ignoring that that most that 11% are also killed by men (a father killing his son, a son killing his father, etc)
This has been studied! 70% of women convicted of murdering their male intimate partner were victims of prior domestic violence by that partner.
Also: women who kill their intimate partners serve on average 15 years in prison. Men who kill their intimate partners serve on average 2-6 years in prison.
There are minor girls serving long terms in prison for killing the men who kidnapped, raped, and trafficked them.
Also: women who kill their intimate partners serve on average 15 years in prison. Men who kill their intimate partners serve on average 2-6 years in prison.
That said, an actual DoJ analysis in 1995 (PDF) of spouse murder in the 75 largest counties found pretty much the direct opposite effect in the 540 cases studied (318 murders committed by husbands; 222 by wives) in the 75 largest US urban counties.
For defendants who murdered their spouse, pled not guilty and were convicted in a trial, the average sentence for a husbands (excluding life sentences and death sentences) who murdered was 16.5 yrs and 6 years for wives who murdered. For those who pled guilty (usually to lesser charges) it was 14 years (husbands that murdered) and 4 years (wives that murdered). Husbands accused of spouse-murder were slightly less likely to not be prosecuted (11% to 16%), slightly more likely to plead guilty (46% to 39%), and significantly more likely to be convicted at trial (husbands: 41%/43% ~ 95% convicted at trial that ended to trial) vs (wives 31%/45% ~ 69% convicted at trial that ended in trial). Also these stats do not seem to be twisted by excluding life/death sentences as:
Among wives sentenced to prison,
15% received a sentence of 20 years
or more (including life imprisonment
and the death penalty); among husbands, it was 43%.
I am not presenting this as a potential crazy injustice and think these differences may be perfectly explainable (e.g., more wives that murdered demonstrated past history as victims of abuse and got more leniency or the wives that murdered had less of a violent criminal history than the husbands that murdered, etc.).
I would say there's an entire other tier in here for the work force regarding pay gaps, sexual harassment, women being less likely to receive promotions over less qualified men, attitudes towards female bosses, etc.
Your first link (I'm looking through the others but I have to mention this) is a pretty shit study. Did you even look through the data tables? Is having a wing woman really a type of coercion? "Got her away to somewhere private" yeah sorry for wanting to hear what she's saying at a loud party.
That study needless demonizes perfectly normal behavior and doesn't at all make a distinction between actual handle behavior or acts and regular normal things people have done for millenia
I did read it, including Table 2. You're leaving out the framing (maybe purposely?). Every single one of the 36 items was asked under this prompt:
"In the past four years, how many times have you used any of the following strategies to get (or try to get) a woman to have some type of sex when she did not want to have sex or acted like she did not want to have sex?"
So none of these items are measuring ordinary behavior. They're measuring what men did after a woman had shown she wasn't interested.
On the wing woman: no, having a female friend around isn't coercion. That's not what was measured. The item was "had a female friend around to make the woman feel safe and convince her." Convince her of what? To have sex she'd already signaled she didn't want. 43.8% of the men who used any strategy said they'd done this. The authors even note they can't tell whether those friends knew what they were part of. The coercive part is the man using her to get past a no.
On "got her somewhere private": the full item is "got her away from everyone to somewhere private and under your control." That's not stepping outside to hear her better at a loud party. It's isolating a woman you already knew didn't want sex.
Fair point that the 95% includes softer tactics like verbal pressure. So set those aside. The authors built a separate scale of only the overtly forceful tactics, and 37% of men reported at least one. About 10% said they physically overpowered her from the start, 9% used physical restraint, and 9% used drugs like roofies.
Those aren't "regular normal things people have done for millennia." And even where something has been done for millennia, how long a thing has been done says nothing about whether it's okay. Pushing past a no isstill coercion, however old the playbook is.
The point of the study is things men do to when they already know the woman DOESN'T want the sex/sexual activity men approached them for. The study isn't shitty. You dismissed crucial information about how it was done and framing it to suit your argument, using that dismissal.
Do you not see the problem with that? We cut out 66% of men from this data like that's not good if your argument is 96% of men coerced women into sex. Also it's not they had sex just attempted to coerce as well which is still very different.
Dude, actually thoroughly read the study. Don't scan it. Nobody got cut out. You're reading two different numbers as if one replaced the other.
95% = men who used any strategy to get sex from a woman who didn't want it. That number still stands.
37% = the subset of those men who went further and used overtly forceful tactics: overpowering her, restraint, causing pain, drugs, threats.
So it's not "95% or 37%." It's 95% pushed past a woman's unwillingness, and over a third of men used force to do it. The rest used things like repeated pressure, isolating her, or getting friends to wear her down. That's still coercion. It's just not violence. Again, the 37 is a subset.
On "attempted, not completed": the study measured that too. Men said their strategies worked about 65% of the time, meaning the woman ended up having sex she didn't want. And an attempt still means a man decided her no didn't matter. Attempted assault isn't some harmless category.
I'd really encourage reading the whole study, not scanning it. Table 2 and the "Strategy Effectiveness" section answer both of your points. I can't read it for you. I can't comprehend it for you. I can't increase your reading comprehension for you. Take the time, absorb, reflect, don't just scan.
Or do whatever you want because you're going to read it however you want anyway.
The online left is just filled sexless people I swear. Like I'll admit I'm gay so sexual relationships are very different, but I'm also a full grown adult with plenty of friends of both sexes and stuff like this is just so piss poorly done that it's no wonder everyone who touches grass thinks y'all are weirdos.
The data is just bad and you won't admit like there's nothing else to discuss. The online left is very well known to be extremely sexually conservative for some unknown reason
I am so tired of being labeled a misandrist because I'm scared for my safety and every single woman I have ever come to know has a horrific experience involving a man.
> 95% of men in an anonymous survey admitted to pressuring women they knew didn’t want see
For one, it was an online survey. And two, the “strategies” that most of the men selected can be just ordinary courtship.
Few women immediately want to have sex with a man on first sight, there’s typically some level of ordinary courtship that’s not comparable to violating consent.
Didn’t read the rest of the comment because first one was a lie so not bothering
Willfully manipulating someone who has asserted not wanting to have sex with you is a lack of integrity and should not be so casually dismissed as part of the courtship process. JFC anything but actually being self-reflective and holding other men accountable.
Hey, idk if you were serious or not but I wanna answer genuinely. NOTHING in this thread is about YOUR worth as a person. It's not completely ruined. Some men ruined a lot, and some men (see the comments) contribute and worsen it... But that's ONE good reason why you should bother staying alive. We need guys like you who don't point the finger back, who can look at what other men do, and reflect on it instead of getting defensive. We need men to call out their friends, or other commenters, and push back on the BS, because other men listen to men in ways they'll never listen to us. There aren't enough of you.
Seriously though, if you're feeling like life isn't worth it, please talk to someone. If you're in the US, there's a suicide prevention hotline you should really call... And if you want to talk, about anything, not necessarily this, my DMs are open to you.
It's an interesting, and very sad topic to dive into. The research actually shows the motives tend to differ by gender, not just the numbers:
Fathers are more often linked to revenge or retaliation, especially around separation or divorce, fatal abuse, and family annihilation (killing the partner too). In one Dutch study, 25% of fathers killed in reaction to a threatened separation or divorce.
Mothers are more often linked to severe mental illness, like psychosis or postpartum disorders, where the parent wrongly believes killing the child will spare them from suffering (researchers call this "altruistic" filicide, but it's obviously a delusion, not an actual kindness). Neglect is another common factor. Their victims also tend to be much younger, often infants. Theres a lot more to dive deeper into but, it's interesting nonetheless.
Mental illness shows up a lot in both groups, so it's not that one side is "crazy" and the other isn't. But the reasons behind it really do follow different patterns.
Not even close. Even the UK's own prosecution service found men among the false accusers, 13 of 159 suspects. "100%" is about as accurate as the claim it's trying to distract from.
Oh it gets worse. The rapists sent a message over a group chat of 57 men saying there was “free pussy” at their frat house. “Free pussy” meaning the unconscious woman getting raped over the course of 7 hours. Cornell’s punishment for the rapists? Writing an essay.
Rape culture is so thoroughly ingrained into the fabric of our world that I’m amazed women only want justice and not revenge.
Wouldn't them writing the essay be hard admission to guilt (besides all the fucking messages sent in the group chat) and be a slam shut case for the procecuters??
Yes, but you do realize that fraternities are exclusive organizations. They select for the type of guy that has no issue with something so horrible, then they get protection because some of their parents are legacy or donate tons of cash to the school. You think that fraternity was going to admit someone moral with no legacy ties?
Fraternities that will tolerate this behavior (and its at more than just Cornell) want pledges that are themselves compromised, who have skin in the game or were able to look past their own humiliation during hazing. These people are more likely to submit to pressure to keep things like this quiet
Waaaay over your head. You want to be mad - Fake mad. A million things to be mad about and you have chosen 1.
Or maybe you want some likes from internet strangers.
The truth that even you can’t argue: You weren’t there! You choose what you want to believe & who you want to believe. You have that right.
Last week it was a woman choking out her 3 kids. This week it’s an incident from 2024 where the incident details have changed. Looking forward to next week.
Okay from what I understand it's all men, but why is the guy in this video quoting the full phrase "It's all men until it's no men"? Does that have to do with anything at all besides the women saying "It's all men"?
I've only heard of this right now and don't know the whole situation.
I tried to stop a man beating a woman on the street even though I am half the size and almost got killed. Do you know who watched on and did absolutely nothing? Men.
So you're ignoring how there is evidence she consented to everything? How she wanted to go back to another Halloween party they were going to have and they disinvited her.
Strange how this supposed rape victim wanted to come back for a second round.
Care to explain all that evidence? Why is that being ignored?
Yes, a sample size of 50, similar in interests and personalities to each other, in a damn club together, sure does sufficiently map the behavior of all 4 and a half billion of us. You're right. We are all those 50 men.
1.5k
u/Cautious_Buy_8467 3d ago
50+ MEN SAW THE GROUPCHAT AND WERE AWARE OF WHAT WAS HAPPENING TO HER AND DID NOTHING