A response to Tim Pool's video "Why Men Are Refusing To Work With Women".
Question: "Why would I not want to be in a situation where there are no witnesses and is no evidence to my innocence yet an accusation, which is absent of evidence of my guilt, could end my entire career, have my friends and family targeted for hatred, abuse, protests or even violence?"
I think the answer - is found within the question.... This one isn't all that hard to figure out....
Also, Mr Pool, this isn't a recent phenomena of #MeToo as much as leftists and particularly feminists like to claim.
Here's an article from Jezebel, for example which was published in 2015, long before the "Pence Rule" became a known thing. However, it was in observation of the exact same phenomena, men refusing to be around women in any situation which did not have witnesses who could attest to the fact that they did nothing wrong. Well before the MeToo movement cropped up on anyone's radar.
"Men in Congress Are Trying to Avoid Being Alone with Female Staffers" Published: 5/15/15
Yet here's another article I remember seeing, also published in 2015 from the Telegraph. Examining the release of a book ( Sex and the Office: Women, Men, and the Sex Partition That's Dividing the Workplace ) which details the strict H.R. department guidelines which consider things as inconsequential as smiling at a woman, or opening the door for her to be possible grounds for sexual harassment complaints. Thus, causing men to shy away from being alone with women, talking to women without witnesses near by and refusing to mentor younger colleagues in any environs which didn't provide adequate protection against allegations.
"Well done, feminism. Now men are afraid to help women at work" Published: 01 Oct 2015
"Men ‘frightened’ to help women at work in case of harassment claims" Published: October 1 2015
"Why powerful men now hide behind open doors" Published: May 26, 2015
The phenomena, Mr Pool, is not new and not the result of hashtag MeToo. It's not simply or only a backlash against MeToo or in the wake of MeToo: as leftists and feminists would claim. The Phenomena you're witnessing was commonplace enough that an entire book on the topic, "Sex and the Office: Women, Men, and the Sex Partition That's Dividing the Workplace", was published in 2015. Two years before the kick off of the hashtag MeToo movement, which entered the collective consciousness in 2017.
I give you credit, Mr Pool, for mentioning that Feminists will stick up for women who are accused and found to be guilty of sexual harassment by stipulating an obscure case where there was no criminal investigation, only the title IX investigation. However, I'll do you one better. After a tape of Donald Trump joking with other men about if you're famous enough you can walk up and grab a woman by the vagina: he was all but burned in effigy and sent woman parading through the streets with ridiculous vagina costumes. Vagina dentata parade floats and battle slogans like "this vagina grabs back" or "small hands can't touch my vagina".
Meanwhile: a feminist once gave a speech, at a female empowerment symposium, where she, in her own words, testified that she was in fact a rapist. Only to be greeted by cheers and applause by the feminists in attendance. Think I'm making that up? Think that's hyperbole? Oh well, allow me to introduce you to Amy Schumer. In 2014 Amy Shumer gave a speech for the "Ms. Foundation for Women’s Gloria Awards and Gala" about Confidence.
Where in she describes an encounter she had where she was propositioned by a guy she thought was attractive and later that day phoned him up. According to own account, she could in fact determine from the phone call itself that he was extremely intoxicated. Again, according to her account, she decided to go to his place anyway and upon arriving saw that he was so intoxicated that he was slurring his words heavily, smelled of booze and couldn't walk straight for even a short distance. Unperturbed by this, she, who was completely sober and cognizant of the fact that the man in question was intoxicated to the point of incapacitation, attempted to engage in sex with him. Also according to her own speech, he actually did pass out during the attempt at copulation, which didn't stop her from waking him back up and attempting again.
So here we have a Feminist, at a Feminist event, telling her story about how she, who was sober, made the premeditated decision to engage in sexual relations with a man who she knew was intoxicated, which feminists claim is rape. Going to his place and witnessing that he was intoxicated to the point of passing out: nonetheless attempted to engage in sexual relations with him, which feminists claim is rape. Then after he literally, non-figuratively, passes out she wakes him up in order to try again, which feminists claim is rape. What do we see as the result of this self confessed rapist guilty of multiple acts of sexual assault for which a man would be boo'd off stage, protested and burned in effigy in the streets? Cheers and roaring applause from the feminist audience in attendance.
What's worse than a feminist being cheered for her story about committing multiple rapes? That very same feminist later telling a story about date rape where she was drunk enough to pass out and woke up with someone sexually assaulting her: but complaining about it, as she did on Oprah earlier this year (2018). When she's the rapist giving a speech about her committing multiple acts of sexual assault and rape the result is roaring applause from feminists attending a feminist event: when she's the one who's subject to the exact same behavior she confessed to committing - that's a tragedy for which all men should be shamed and denigrated as potential rapists.
There's what feminists say and then there's what feminists do: feminists do not support equality, actions speak louder than words.
You need another example? Say no more! I gotcha covered. As reported in my article on HBB "Rape Culture":
We have Mary P. Koss—you know, from the fake “1 in 4” statistic, same woman—to thank for having “made to penetrate” be added to the roster of classifications in the above CDC report. She lobbied the CDC to exclude male victims of female predators as being classified as “rape.” Now, if you ask the common person: if you are made to have sex with someone by being physically forced, or forced at gunpoint/knifepoint, coerced with threats of violence, you are unconscious, roofied, comatose, or any other form of incapacitation whereby you are incapable of providing consent or the sexual activity is committed directly against your will, is that rape? The vast majority of people would say yes, that is rape. Anytime someone conducts sex with you either against your consent or while you are incapable of providing consent, it is rape.
But not according to the CDC. Due to the actions taken by Koss, “made to penetrate” was created so that male victims of female predators could be discluded, by definition, from being “raped.” Therefore she could tout feminist statistics on female rape victims while completely excluding figures of males having been raped by women.
According to the CDC, a man cannot be raped by a woman even if he is physically forced, forced at gunpoint/knifepoint, coerced with threats, comatose, intoxicated, passed out, roofied, or otherwise incapacitated by any other means. By legal definition, he cannot be raped by a woman—no matter what. It’s instead referred to as “made to penetrate” and is therefore constituted as a form of sexual assault but not rape.
Let’s use a recent example, Ciera Ross. Ross, 25, stopped and asked a 33-year-old man if he wanted a ride. The man took the offer, but Ross’s true intentions became evident when she pulled a gun on the man. She forced the man to go to the backseat and told him to have sex with her friend. The man pleaded for the women to stop after they made him fondle the woman’s breasts and butt.
Ross then ordered the man to take his clothes off, and her friend began to assault him sexually. The women also took $200 and credit cards from the man. When he spotted a taxi, he ran from the car naked and jumped in the taxi, and the taxi driver allowed him to use his cellphone to capture the plate number of Ross’s vehicle and alert the police.
According to the FBI, and anyone with two brain cells to rub together, this is rape. This is clearly and undeniably, unabashedly RAPE. You threaten someone at gunpoint and force them to perform sex. That is rape by any reasonable, rational, logical definition of the term, that is RAPE. According to the CDC, that is not rape—that is “made to penetrate,” a LESSER sexual assault than rape.
Detecting the Scope of Rape : A Review of Prevalence Research Methods. Author: Mary P. Koss.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence Volume: 8 Issue: 2 Dated: (June 1993) Page: 206
“Although consideration of male victims is within the scope of the legal statutes, it is important to restrict the term rape to instances where male victims were penetrated by offenders. It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman.”
Read that again a few times if you need to. Pay attention, “instances where male victims were penetrated by offenders”, so if a woman uses an object or her fingers to penetrate a man’s mouth or anus it is in fact still rape. However: if a woman uses force, threats/coercion (such gunpoint like the Ciera Ross case above) to force a man to put him penis in her or someone else , despite his protestations or forces it in herself such as if he is unconscious from alcohol or date rape drugs… It’s not rape. Why? Simple: “It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman.” I think most reasonable, rational, logical people would unanimously exclaim from the rooftops that “unwanted sexual intercourse”, when you have said no, is in fact Rape, wouldn’t they?
Thanks to feminist Mary P. Koss’s work with the CDC, “no means no” no longer applies to men. FEMINIST: Mary P. Koss isn’t just a “Rape Apologist”, she’s a full blown, verified, shameless “Victim Blamer“. She quite clearly in the same sentence, of her own written work, in an official document of the Department of Justice: National Criminal Justice Reference Service, absolves Women of raping men by exclaiming males raped by women are not victims of Rape. In the same sentence she, a feminist, exclaims that the victims “unwanted sexual intercourse” are NOT victims of Rape: provided the victim is male and the perpetrator is female. She does more than simply blame the VICTIM, she absolves the PERPETRATOR. I’ll say it again: If there is a rape culture, feminists are creating it.
This was done strictly so that Koss could publish intentionally tampered with and gender-biased research data on the rate at which female victims are raped. You see, having a number of males victimized equal to that of women doesn’t look good when you’re trying to talk about “patriarchy” and the inherent “rape culture” found in it, which has a narrative that all men are potential rapists and all women are potential victims.
As is so often the case, Mr Pool, I find your incessant need to honor leftist talking points insufferable and your ability to research topics profoundly lacking. You're a leftists who doesn't like what your own side of politics is doing and so you handle topics with kit gloves and no depth of inquiry, choosing instead to parrot leftist talking points while applying only the mildest of criticisms. This is why I'm not subscribed to you, your video cropped up in my suggested list and I decided I'd check in to see how you're doing. I got my answer: you're doing what you always do - shilling for the left by soft-balling.
Also, don't think I missed that bit (12:51) "I don't know if Jordan Peterson is right to question whether or not men and women can work together because I believe". See, you give away the game too easily here, Pool. Your beliefs mean absolutely nothing to me. I care about factual information, which need be tested and verified to be true through questioning and analysis. What you have just proposed is that your belief - may not be questioned. Do you know what we call beliefs which may not be questioned? Religion, Pool, we call beliefs which may not be questioned: religion. Would you like to see the difference between an Empiricist and a Fundamentalist? Peterson questions [Topic R] because the results have been disastrous, your response was "I don't know if it's right to question [Topic R] because I believe-". That's the difference, Pool. The Empiricist is interested in verifiable information and the Fundamentalist is interested in ensuring their beliefs are not questioned, the dogma must be unquestionable and others are wrong to question those beliefs.
You consider yourself an investigative journalist ... Pool.... Your function, as a career choice, is to question things: people, concepts, assertions, claims, stories, etc. etc. Questioning, Pool, is your job. Is it right to question whether or not the Earth is flat? Is it right to question whether or not the Earth is round? Is it right to question whether or not the Sun revolves around the Earth? Is it right to question whether or not the Earth revolves around the Sun? Of course it's right to question things, Pool, questions are how we obtain answers, which lead to more questions, which exponentially through iteration allow for the gathering of information which can be tested and verified in order to add to the accumulated knowledge of humanity. Questions are a good thing, Pool, of course it's right to question.
An investigative journalist uttering the phrase "I don't know if it's right to question [Topic R]" is an utter and absolute disgrace.