Edit: Argh, new page. Anyone confused, please see Namrok's post on the previous page
Namrok: The issue I'm continually running into, is this. Refusal to address the pragmatic decisions that Christianity has pursued, and how homophobia pervades the upper levels and lobbying efforts. There is a nasty sweet spot where self-righteousness and conservatism mesh and the result is a big ol' clusterfuck of awful legislature that systematically ruins (gay) men's and women's lives.
I'm perfectly willing to concede that these are things that Christianity in theory aught not be pursuing. But lots of things happen in theory. And Christians seem perfectly eager to turn a blind eye when the laws they lobby for end up hurting millions of people.
The latest is that Christian lobbying organizations got the US government to legitimize the "don't tell" policy for gay soldiers.
So here we are. I'm not sure what you want to prove that this is the fault of Christians. Do I need a chain of the exact prominent Christians that pushed this policy? Do I need to audit their lobbying efforts? Is there a single thing I could point out that wouldn't be handwaved away as "That's not true Christianity" or "Those people don't speak for Christianity"?
......
I'll admit it's not perfect, especially "the latest..." part, but do you see what I'm trying to do here? I don't know much about the specifics about the particular lobbying activities you are talking about, I can't say too much about that (but I'd like to read about what "lower the standard for evidence" means in more detail, it sounds interesting. please link to a good article about it if you know one!). What I mean is that you are generalizing in a way that's not really useful at all. What's wrong with just saying you dislike the particular lobbyers who pushed for those laws and being satisfied with that? What is the point in generalizing that dislike to the umbrella term "feminist/feminism"?
I loathe some of the things that have been and are done "in the name of Christianity" and so that negatively influences my (mostly subconscious) view on "Christianity" as a whole, but I still recognize that there is a lot of variation within Christianity and I also realize that talking about "Christianity" is oftentimes pointless and so I'd never say something like "I hate Christianity" even though I might have blurted out something like that when I was younger. It's just not a very useful way of talking and/or thinking about things mostly, it's way too simplifying.
(Calixfus - you managed to express many of the things I was trying to say in my earlier posts really well and in a much more concise way, nice posts!)
Well, here's the thing. Feminists can push for less racism and ableism within their feminist communities, for the sake of making those communities more inclusive. But anti-racism and anti-ableism are not, themselves, feminism. They are related, but separate.
The sorts of people who identify as feminist are likely the sorts of people who are interested in issues of power, oppression, and privilege in general, not only as they relate to women alone.
What do you think of what I wrote earlier?
If congress is ready to pass the "total and true equality for women for all time act" and part of the bill is like DOMA but for trams people and gender self identification, any rational movement for women's rights should support the bill.
Whether or not they support the bill is up to individuals. I would not support such a bill, because I feel it's discriminatory and sets a dangerous precedent of cementing something as fluid as gender identity into law.
Now I'm confused. It seems like feminism both is and is not about the broader issues faced by minorities like people of color and transgenders. It also seems like it both is and is not a movement and a philosophy, and does and does not have established views as a group. The thread is about defining feminism, but right now it seems like it is everything and nothing. . .
Naw. Feminism is a 200+ year long movement, and all the history, literature and ideas. At no point in time has it been monolithic.
A modern reading of early feminist literature is likely to find fault with how nearly every idea is offered. The newer point of view, the anachronism, and the very critique itself are all feminism. As America's history include slavery and the horrors of the civil war, feminist history includes the worst excesses of the second wave.
I believe many of those excesses can only exist in a feminism that seeks only the rights and equality of women.
Feminism really must be viewed as the whole thing. Liberal feminism, post structural feminism, what ever contemporary concensus exists, and what any particular feminist believe are just subsets of a greater whole.
That big old clusterfuck is what the word feminism is used to describe. I thin an attempt to change that will meet with little success.
Nothing about that effects the ability of people to form together to specifically defend women's rights alone, but that doesn't really change how the word has been used for many decades. And personally, I think it is a short sighted idea which in time only be harmful to the portions of feminism in which I most believe.
I think feminism in large swaths of the world has a pretty massive PR problem. When Namrok speaks of ignored "man-issues" - like domestic violence with male victims and female perpetrators, what he's referencing is an socially enforced gender stereotype - men cannot be emotionally or physically abused by women, because they're too emotionally or physically strong. This is obviously bullshit, and male abuse is ridicolously underreported as a result of this ridicolous perception on gender. However, here comes the PR problem:
Name a sociopolitical movement who argues that gender stereotypes prevents the individual from realizing his potential. Name a sociopolitical movement whose proponents stands to benefit from the abolishment of socially enforced gender roles.
We'll accept near-misses as well, so name the closest matching sociopolitical movement. To me, it is blatantly obvious that the answer is feminism. Namrok instead concludes that clearly, the decision to enforce a damaging stereotype of masculinity - emotional insensitivity and physical superiority - is feminism.
The idea the feminism "shut the door" on equality is bullshit, and it is even more obvious tripe when your go-to example is an obvious traditional gender stereotype - protect the women, they cannot harm the men. It really is bizzaro world, because the idea that feminism is the one enforcing this stereotype would mean that feminism, as a movement not as individual batshit crazy components, would be actively working against their own best interest.
Blaming the social enforcement of damaging gender stereotypes on feminism is like shooting the messenger, while accusing him of being the root of the treason he is there to report.
edit: Spelling and analogy.
I'm picking this post because its the closest to the current page.
The issue I'm continually running into, is this. Refusal to address the pragmatic decisions that Feminism has pursued, and how man hating pervades the upper levels and lobbying efforts. There is a nasty sweet spot where man hating feminist and patriarchal ideas mesh and the result is a big ol' clusterfuck of awful legislature that systematically ruins men's lives.
I'm perfectly willing to concede that these are things that feminism in theory aught not be pursuing. But lots of things happen in theory. And feminists seem perfectly eager to turn a blind eye when the laws they lobby for end up hurting millions of men.
The latest is that feminists lobbying organizations got Obama to pass an executive order lowering the standard of evidence for sexual assault cases that college campuses have. Not the criminal ones, but the ones a campus might have to decide whether to expell a student.
They lowered the standard of fucking evidence.
It's not uncommon for feminists to describe "due process" as a bad thing that men use to abuse women and get away with it. And apparently those feminists (who I'm guessing aren't "true" feminists to you) got to Obama and had him pass it into policy.
So here we are. I'm not sure what you want to prove that this is the fault of feminists. Do I need a chain of the exact prominent feminists that pushed this policy? Do I need to audit their lobbying efforts? Is there a single thing I could point out that wouldn't be handwaved away as "That's not true feminism" or "Those people don't speak for feminism"?
What the administration did was lower the standard from reasonable doubt (criminal) to preponderance of evidence (civil). College is not court and they don't have to prove reasonable doubt to kick you out for cheating why would they for rape?
Because its immoral to do so? Because it violates the concepts of due process we've established in this country?
I think you are mistaken about what due process means. Due process are the steps that the government is obligated to provide you with when moving you through some process. Altering the definition of a crime to lower the standard of evidence needed to uphold does not affect those steps. Furthermore, as others have pointed out, internal disciplinary boards that colleges have are not the same as the judicial system, and the due process there is much different.
See, and this is where I get frustrated with feminists, which I'm assuming many of you self identify with. Lower the standard of evidence so that more men can be kicked out of college? Hey, it's a private institution, they get to do what they want. Companies pay women less? Suddenly the fact that its a private institution ceases to matter.
Namork, you just need to learn the secret to navigating modern society:
Interact with as few people as possible for as little time as possible. This minimizes the chances that you can be accused of negative social behaviors.
To this day, I have a pathological fear of talking to women. Naturally, I have to interact with females in the course of my job, but interactions are kept curt and professional, and ended as quickly as possible. There is zero chance that I can be accused of any implied misconduct that would lead to disciplinary action and likely termination.
It's a fucking wonder that I'm married, honestly.
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
Namork, you just need to learn the secret to navigating modern society:
Interact with as few people as possible for as little time as possible. This minimizes the chances that you can be accused of negative social behaviors.
To this day, I have a pathological fear of talking to women. Naturally, I have to interact with females in the course of my job, but interactions are kept curt and professional, and ended as quickly as possible. There is zero chance that I can be accused of any implied misconduct that would lead to disciplinary action and likely termination.
See, and this is where I get frustrated with feminists, which I'm assuming many of you self identify with. Lower the standard of evidence so that more men can be kicked out of college? Hey, it's a private institution, they get to do what they want. Companies pay women less? Suddenly the fact that its a private institution ceases to matter.
So, tell us why they pushed to lower the standard of evidence needed to sustain a disciplinary charge of sexual assault? You've been skirting around that.
See, and this is where I get frustrated with feminists, which I'm assuming many of you self identify with. Lower the standard of evidence so that more men can be kicked out of college? Hey, it's a private institution, they get to do what they want. Companies pay women less? Suddenly the fact that its a private institution ceases to matter.
So, tell us why they pushed to lower the standard of evidence needed to sustain a disciplinary charge of sexual assault? You've been skirting around that.
I've skirted around nothing. The theory is that these crimes are harder to prove. But I do not think the conclusion that follows is to lower the standard of evidence. There are lots of crimes that are hard to prove. Insider trading for instance. In fact many financial crimes are hard to prove. Mafia crimes as well. And yet with no other crime do we advocate lowering the standard of evidence. None. And that's because feminists have pushed the feeling that its better for innocent men to be punished than for one potential rapist to go unpunished. It's been clear as day in many of your replies. Especially yours AngelHedgie.
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
See, and this is where I get frustrated with feminists, which I'm assuming many of you self identify with. Lower the standard of evidence so that more men can be kicked out of college? Hey, it's a private institution, they get to do what they want. Companies pay women less? Suddenly the fact that its a private institution ceases to matter.
Seriously? You misuse 'due process' and then when corrected you accuse everyone correcting you of being hypocrites?
I consider myself a feminist because the core definition is simply gender equality. All this other stuff is various feminists and feminist groups adding other stuff to their crusade, but feminism itself has only that as a definition.
Further, the notion that respecting the right of a private institution to refuse entry to any person requires you to also allow them to mistreat any employees they may have is strawmanning like I rarely ever see. It's breathtaking. Namrok, you have this curious habit in this thread of accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being a man hating monster, and it's pretty telling why you feel that way.
At some point you're going to have to realize that your motivations are not nearly as idealistic as you seem to want to believe and there is significant amount of misogyny in your words. Gender inequality exists in spades, but you're assertion that any progress on gaining equality for women also equals oppression for men is disingenuous at best. All women and those who support their equality do not bear equal responsibility for what happened to you.
See, and this is where I get frustrated with feminists, which I'm assuming many of you self identify with. Lower the standard of evidence so that more men can be kicked out of college? Hey, it's a private institution, they get to do what they want. Companies pay women less? Suddenly the fact that its a private institution ceases to matter.
Does it say that the standard of evidence is lowered only for men? If so that's wrong.
Otherwise, it applies evenly to people of both sexes (women can rape men) so its not really related to feminism other than the standard of evidence being abnormally high for a crime that men seem to commit more often (see also: racism and crack vs coke sentences)
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Edit: Argh, new page. Anyone confused, please see Namrok's post on the previous page
Namrok: The issue I'm continually running into, is this. Refusal to address the pragmatic decisions that Christianity has pursued, and how homophobia pervades the upper levels and lobbying efforts. There is a nasty sweet spot where self-righteousness and conservatism mesh and the result is a big ol' clusterfuck of awful legislature that systematically ruins (gay) men's and women's lives.
I'm perfectly willing to concede that these are things that Christianity in theory aught not be pursuing. But lots of things happen in theory. And Christians seem perfectly eager to turn a blind eye when the laws they lobby for end up hurting millions of people.
The latest is that Christian lobbying organizations got the US government to legitimize the "don't tell" policy for gay soldiers.
So here we are. I'm not sure what you want to prove that this is the fault of Christians. Do I need a chain of the exact prominent Christians that pushed this policy? Do I need to audit their lobbying efforts? Is there a single thing I could point out that wouldn't be handwaved away as "That's not true Christianity" or "Those people don't speak for Christianity"?
......
I'll admit it's not perfect, especially "the latest..." part, but do you see what I'm trying to do here?
I do. You've managed to convince me that Namrok has a point.
See, and this is where I get frustrated with feminists, which I'm assuming many of you self identify with. Lower the standard of evidence so that more men can be kicked out of college? Hey, it's a private institution, they get to do what they want. Companies pay women less? Suddenly the fact that its a private institution ceases to matter.
Does it say that the standard of evidence is lowered only for men? If so that's wrong.
Otherwise, it applies evenly to people of both sexes (women can rape men) so its not really related to feminism other than the standard of evidence being abnormally high for a crime that men seem to commit more often (see also: racism and crack vs coke sentences)
Since virtually all people prosecuted for rape are men; it might as well say "for men".
Which is the exact argument you'd hear any feminist make if they were making it harder to prosecute rape.
I think feminism in large swaths of the world has a pretty massive PR problem. When Namrok speaks of ignored "man-issues" - like domestic violence with male victims and female perpetrators, what he's referencing is an socially enforced gender stereotype - men cannot be emotionally or physically abused by women, because they're too emotionally or physically strong. This is obviously bullshit, and male abuse is ridicolously underreported as a result of this ridicolous perception on gender. However, here comes the PR problem:
Name a sociopolitical movement who argues that gender stereotypes prevents the individual from realizing his potential. Name a sociopolitical movement whose proponents stands to benefit from the abolishment of socially enforced gender roles.
We'll accept near-misses as well, so name the closest matching sociopolitical movement. To me, it is blatantly obvious that the answer is feminism. Namrok instead concludes that clearly, the decision to enforce a damaging stereotype of masculinity - emotional insensitivity and physical superiority - is feminism.
The idea the feminism "shut the door" on equality is bullshit, and it is even more obvious tripe when your go-to example is an obvious traditional gender stereotype - protect the women, they cannot harm the men. It really is bizzaro world, because the idea that feminism is the one enforcing this stereotype would mean that feminism, as a movement not as individual batshit crazy components, would be actively working against their own best interest.
Blaming the social enforcement of damaging gender stereotypes on feminism is like shooting the messenger, while accusing him of being the root of the treason he is there to report.
edit: Spelling and analogy.
I'm picking this post because its the closest to the current page.
The issue I'm continually running into, is this. Refusal to address the pragmatic decisions that Feminism has pursued, and how man hating pervades the upper levels and lobbying efforts. There is a nasty sweet spot where man hating feminist and patriarchal ideas mesh and the result is a big ol' clusterfuck of awful legislature that systematically ruins men's lives.
I'm perfectly willing to concede that these are things that feminism in theory aught not be pursuing. But lots of things happen in theory. And feminists seem perfectly eager to turn a blind eye when the laws they lobby for end up hurting millions of men.
The latest is that feminists lobbying organizations got Obama to pass an executive order lowering the standard of evidence for sexual assault cases that college campuses have. Not the criminal ones, but the ones a campus might have to decide whether to expell a student.
They lowered the standard of fucking evidence.
It's not uncommon for feminists to describe "due process" as a bad thing that men use to abuse women and get away with it. And apparently those feminists (who I'm guessing aren't "true" feminists to you) got to Obama and had him pass it into policy.
So here we are. I'm not sure what you want to prove that this is the fault of feminists. Do I need a chain of the exact prominent feminists that pushed this policy? Do I need to audit their lobbying efforts? Is there a single thing I could point out that wouldn't be handwaved away as "That's not true feminism" or "Those people don't speak for feminism"?
First of all, I would reiteriate that I live on a different continent, in a country where you could build a political majority out of parties that self-label as feminist, has cabinet members who self-identify as feminist, and had last I checked at least one member of parliament who participates in the Pride festival wearing drag. I live in a different cultural and political reality than you do, and because of this I remain cordially unimpressed by your that your opposition is just pursuing a No True Scotsman argumen. I am perfectly willing to entertain the notion that people who self-identify as feminist do stupid shit in your country - like unholy alliances with the proponents of patriarchy - but given the practical examples of people who self-identify as feminist in my more immediate surrondings, you will indeed have a pretty fucking hard time convincing me that feminism as an ideology is somehow superflawed and worth being against. These are not "theoreticals" I'm giving you, it's how it actually works where I live.
There is also a fun undercurrent in your aknowledgement of the unholy alliance of manhating and patriarchal ideas. Between manhating feminism and patriarchial ideas, which of these two cultural ideas wield the most sociopolitical power? Unless you actually want to argue that this nefarious feminist lobby* is actually more powerful than those who would cheerfully maintain codified gender stereotypes, blaming feminism for the success of those who want to keep gender roles is a bit backwards. To reuse some of your previous rethoric; Feminism did not shut the door on equality. That door is being shut by the same fuckers that feminism set out to defeat, for the same reasons they always have, and blaming feminism for this is silly.
And yes, as a dirty foreigner, I would actually appreciate a breakdown of the exact chain of "feminist lobbyist", because so far all I'm seeing is a mounting stack of strawmen, where you attribute gender based oppression to feminism as if it was the greatest source of it rather than its biggest enemy.
I'd continue, but Craw! managed to, like, steal the comparison to generalizations about Christianity right out of my mind. Uncanny shit.
I understand the argument that lowering the burden of proof may encourage more victims to come forward, but on the other hand I tend to err on the side of "we need to be damn sure as a society that someone was in the wrong before we ruin their life." It also strikes me as interesting that this can lead to a system where students have more protections and recourse when defending themselves against a charge of cheating on a test than when defending against a charge of sexual violence. http://thefire.org/article/14433.html
*edit to fix the third link, wrong article the first time.
I get the impression that some people equate "Refusing to act [is] a choice which carries responsibility" with "Refusing to act means it's all your fault." I eat beef even though I know it's bad for the environment, i.e. I carry a larger responsibility for the amount of CO2 that's pumped out - but responsibility is 1) not binary and 2) not a zero-sum game. I accept the fact that I don't do everything that I believe to be ethical, and yes, that means I bear some responsibility. IMO anything else would be disingenuous and dishonest.
Edit: on spacekungfuman's arguments earlier in the thread: if feminism is a movement that strives to be about fairness, being blatantly exclusive for reasons of realpolitik renders the movement wholly hypocritical - which, in turn, will mean that people who used to support it may very well withdraw their support. Even when looking at it pragmatically, your version of "what feminism should strive to do" would end up shooting itself in the foot, most likely. (This has been said before, but it bears saying it again, as SKFM doesn't seem to accept it.)
It depends on what they are getting out of inclusion. If, on net, the people concerned about women's rights do more to advance the cause than they do harm or distraction from the cause by focusing on their issues or making other people who would support women's rights uncomfortable, then keeping them in the movement is good. If they are a bet negative, then feminists should not even want them in the movement. If congress is ready to pass the "total and true equality for women for all time act" and part of the bill is like DOMA but for trams people and gender self identification, any rational movement for women's rights should support the bill.
1. If she is really my loved one, why would she want to destroy my things? I put my wife ahead of myself, but it is because I love her, and she does the same for me because she loves me. If that broke down, then what is special about the relationship? If I invited a friend to my house and he runs at my tv with the express purpose of destroying it, should I let him because he is my friend? What kind of friend does that?
They're still a human being and so their right to not be harmed still presumably matters, beating your wife wouldn't be OK because you decided that you didn't love her anymore.
I mean, why is you hypothetical friend/spouse even running at the TV to begin with? Thats the thing about domestic violence, its not a random street crime, it stems from a history. He did this so she did this but he held his tongue that time, but then he broke her thing and she thought it was on purpose but it was an accident so she broke his thing in revenge so he broke her face.
Assigning blame isn't as simple as "she broke my stuff so violence was justified". And assigning blame is secondary to making sure no one gets hurt.
2. We just disagree on what the cause is, and I think this is the heart of why people like me can be pro women's rights and antifeminism. When I say I am in favor of women's rights, I understand what the boundaries are. I can't say I am in favor of feminism, as you are defining it, because I don't know the boundaries, and know I disagree with things like fighting ableist speech.
This is really strange because if you want to "know the boundaries" of feminism the best place to start would be reading and investigating yourself. Theres a whole lot of material out there. Not going "I don't fully understand what this thing is so I'm against it".
1. Beating your wife is really really different then restraining her from breaking your things. In the case we are discussing, she is the aggressor.
I have no idea why my wife or friend would charge at my tv to break it (this is unthinkable to me). But what matters is they are the one escalating the situation, and I am just defending my things. I think we may have to agree to disagree on ranking the safety of someone who wants to hurt you by ruining your things and your right to not have your things destroyed.
2. I have read a lot, and the more I read, the more it seems like there are no boundaries. I can't be for it if I don't know what that fully means. I am against it as a movement because I know I disagree with parts. I wish it was more granular, so that I could say "yes I'm a feminist because I beleive in women's rights."
Honestly I'm just gonna say if you don't want to call yourself a feminist don't and everyone's probably better off, its declaring yourself an "anti" feminist that seems more problematic to me.
Privilege and "entitlement" isn't the same thing. Its not a matter of who is playing nice, its a matter of minority/majority dynamics, those in the majority position get the privilege to dictate terms to the minority.
I never said they were the same thing. I said it's pretty severe entitlement. No one in the real world gets to be listened to and respected because they A: own a soap box and B: shout real loud. No one has that privilege, no one gets to be respected by virtue of having an opinion. Calling privilege here is part of the problem I've been talking about. What's the response when someone doesn't feel they need to listen to you simply because you have an opinion? Privilege. You're trying to take the responsibility off your shoulders and put it on someone else's. That's all it is.
In a sense, yes. I believe you have a responsibility as part of a privileged group to listen to people of different viewpoints and to not immediately turn off as soon as someone on "their side" says something you don't like. I do NOT believe that it is those peoples job to change your mind for you, they can't do that.
The people in the minority have to listen to the majority consensus. They don't have a choice because its the prevailing viewpoint, its everywhere. The people in the majority do not have to do that, they can ignore the minority if they so choose, they can dictate terms to the minority.
If you want to stop hearing women call you nasty names like misogynist, well that's fairly easy, stop visiting the comments section of a feminist blog because that's pretty much the only place where the word holds any real weight. You can just go "welp I don't care about this issue anymore" and walk away. If a woman wants to stop being called names like slut, whore, dyke, cunt, frigid bitch whatever that's a lot more difficult. Thats what privilege is, the freedom to not give a fuck. Not everyone has that freedom.
And the BEST part about majority/minority dynamics is that as a member of the minority, people will judge you by the actions of your worst member.
You don't get to call privilege because the majority disagrees with you.
You still don't get what the term means.
Well, I guess you could, but then the term would lose all its teeth. Yes, people have the option of agreeing or disagreeing with you. No, that is not a bad thing.
No its not a bad thing, its great that they have that option, that's wonderful for them. It would be REALLY GREAT though if the minority had the option of telling the majority to fuck off too. Except they can't. Do you see?
No, you do not get to call foul when they disagree. If someone does not like your message, that is not their fault. They have no responsibility, social or otherwise, to agree with you.
Being in a minority does not make you right. Calling everyone who disagrees with you privileged accomplishes nothing. The only possible response to that is, "Yes, we do not give a fuck. Your point is?"
I already talked about this exact issue earlier in the thread, I used the same wording for the example you did even.
This is something I brought up in the last thread but, the difficulty in pushing the feminist viewpoint is that it is essentially a moral argument, and its very difficult (impossible, depending on what theory of meta-ethics you subscribe to) to make a moral argument using purely empirical means.
If I want to argue, "eating meat is wrong" I can point to standards of animal welfare, scientific evidence that animals feel pain, and such.
Hopefully this will make the other person think a bit more about whats going on behind the scenes before they buy their next burger. But it is not in itself empirical evidence that it is "wrong". It can't force the other person to give a fuck about animals, only their own moral sensibilities can do that.
Similarly, if you point out how privilege affects people in ways you may not realize hopefully you're giving the other person something to think about, but there isn't any moral reality you can point to factually disprove them if they hear that and choose "...I still don't care"
So when making a moral argument you end up being stuck with appeals to empathy and morality "you should care because...its good to care?" "you should care because...imagine how they feel?" "you should care because...its bad not to care?"
Except if you use the latter the argument immediately shuts down "I'm sorry did you just hint or imply that I was a BAD PERSON?? that's outrageous, you're crazy. I don't have to listen to this tripe"
As the minority group looking to convince the dominant group tha things should change, I think it absolutely is your responsibility to convince them, because if you don't, you lose.
A moral responsibility or a pragmatic responsibility? Theres a big difference.
I mean, if you were a slave, you would have a pragmatic responsibility to please your owner, lest he take it out on you and the other slaves.
1. I am strongly against the attempts to create a nerfball world in which no one is ever wrong and we must respect and abode by everyone's sensitivities. I have seen feminists say that it is wrong for people to say "I just want a healthy baby" because it is hurtful to the disabled. I don't even know how to respond to that, but as long as ideas like that are part of feminism, what can I say but that I am antifeminism? Give me discrete groups so I can be antiablism without being against part of feminism, and I will drop the self description.
"I am not a feminist" would be fine, I don't see why disagreeing with one aspect of it means you have to declare yourself in opposition to the whole though. Why must a position be boiled down to "pro/anti"?
Do you have a response on the "property destroyer as escalator" point?
Not... really, as I said I don't really have the heart to argue this one. "Peoples safety matters more than property" seems fairly self evident to me. The only thing Id want to re-emphesise is that the difference between a domestic crime and a regular crime is that a domestic crime has history. And in the context of that history the situation is not as as cut and dried as "my stuff was threatened without provocation".
I mean, what if you broke something of hers, but it was an accident and she didn't believe you? What if you didn't actually really care about the thing she broke, but you are unspokenly pissed about the guy she flirted with at the bar? What if you're a hoarder, and what she "broke" was throwing out things she assumed was useless junk? What if she just borrowed it and you're the kind of person who sees that as equivalent to stealing? The line of "my property was threatened" isn't as clear cut as someone breaking into your house and making off with your TV.
2. Pragmatic, but isn't that all that matters when you are a movement trying to win changes? The text following what you quoted is literally about the futility of winning the moral high ground but failing because you weren't peagmatic.
Yeah that's another point I'm prepared to just give up trying to convince you on. I will point out though that what would be most "pragmatic" for the hypothetical slave if you're abandoning the moral high ground would be to arm himself and his fellows and use force against his master.
In a sense, yes. I believe you have a responsibility as part of a privileged group to listen to people of different viewpoints and to not immediately turn off as soon as someone on "their side" says something you don't like. I do NOT believe that it is those peoples job to change your mind for you, they can't do that.
I disagree entirely. I have 0 responsibility to listen or agree with anyone. I don't know why I need to repeat this, but it seems to be necessary: Being in a minority does not make you right.
If you are talking to me about something I do not agree with, it is not my responsibility to agree with you. Not morally or otherwise. If you want me to agree with you, you need to convince me. I'm not going to magically change my mind out of nowhere.
I really want to know where you're coming from with this. I don't understand how you feel being in a minority means people have to listen and agree with you.
Agree with you about what? I mean, I'm not saying you should let a feminist take your car or something. I'm saying that its a moral good to listen to people with an open mind and try to understand where they're coming from. And "but some of them were mean to me so I wont" is a perspective that will only lead to reinforcing your own biases.
Other people can't reach in with a crowbar and change your mind for you, not unless you're sincerely open to having it changed.
And having someone exasperatedly say "well if you wont see this then...I guess you're just a misogynist!" is hardly the worst thing in the world. You're acting like the idea that "demands" are being made is somehow offensive in and of itself.
I'm pro-feminist and yet I'm fully aware that there are feminists out there who would take me to task for some opinions I hold. I recognize though that in the grand scheme of things that's not a big deal. Thats what happens when a discussion about a personal issue gets heated. there are much worse things to be called (Like: cunt, bitch, whore, slut, frigid, needs to be raped to sort her out etc).
Have you ever seen the Louis CK bit where he goes "You know whats great about being a white man? There is nothing you can say to hurt me. Cracker? Oh man, there you go reminding me of how we used to own property and people and shit" that's how I feel every time I see a dude act like he's the victim of injustice because an awful feminist told him its misogynist to use rape jokes or something.
No its not a bad thing, its great that they have that option, that's wonderful for them. It would be REALLY GREAT though if the minority had the option of telling the majority to fuck off too. Except they can't. Do you see?
This is complicated when the minority wants things from the majority. A vegan has no way to make me stop wearing leather shoes. He is in a minority, he has no power to make me change what I'm doing. I, being in the leather-wearing majority, can happily tell him to fuck off.
And I would be in the right to do so. Because there is no responsibility on my shoulders. There is no moral imperative that I must change to accommodate this person.
In the end, the only way anyone gets to dictate terms is by popular agreement. Majority consensus. And when it comes right down to it, it is not the majority's job to convince themselves that so-and-so is right and everything should change. It is so-and-so's job to convince the majority.
In essence, trying to transfer responsibility with privilege is nonsense. Primarily because the idea that other people are responsible to convince themselves to come around to your way of thinking without you supplying reasonable cause is nonsense.
So your argument here is that the tyranny of the majority is a good and just thing? Not even Ayn Rand believed that.
I already talked about this exact issue earlier in the thread, I used the same wording for the example you did even.
So you're undermining your own argument? On the one hand you state that I have, as a privileged person, a moral responsibility to listen to these people. On the other hand, you're telling me that, "I still don't care," is a valid argument. Because how else can you dismiss something you disagree with?
Which is it? Do I need to stop wearing my leather shoes because a vegan doesn't like it? Or can I just tell him to fuck off? Is it my responsibility to convince myself that wearing leather is wrong?
I'm "undermining" the idea that it makes sense to demand an empirical framework for a moral argument.
There is no effective empirical argument for why hurting animals is wrong other than a sense of empathy.
Similarly, there's no empirical argument for why murder, injustice, torture etc is "wrong". There are arguments that can be made after the fact, but the primary one is that all of them must account for is as human beings we feel that these things are bad, and choose to reinforce that "moral fact" into society.
Feminist arguments basically boil down to "you should try and understand the POV of people from a minority background". The "should" being in the sense that we generally take ideals like "being open to new perspectives as good", "injustice is bad" ect.
Do you need to stop wearing your leather shoes because a vegan tells you? There is no force on earth or heaven that can make an answer to that question other than your own moral code.
But I'd hope that your moral code elevates humans above people, and that you are willing to make an effort to understand the situation of disadvantaged minorities for no other reason than because some part of you thinks its right.
1. Because if they won, I would be less happy with the world that results than I am with the current world. I am pro womens rights, but I actively do not want feminism, with all it's intersectionality, to suceed. I dont want to live in a world where "dumb" "stupid" and "lame" become uncomfortable to use as general purpose insults. I think there needs to be a limit on what sensitivities we are willing to accept as a society, otherwise the most sensitive among us controls everyone's behavior.
Why is it imperative that you not be made "uncomfortable"? Is that a reasonable request to make? That you should be able to say whatever you want in society and no one is allowed to shake their head and mutter "wow what a dick"?
2. Your hypotheticals are just matters of what you can demonstrate in court. It may well be that defense of property as an affirmative defense to a domestic violence allegation is hard to prove, but that is different from saying we refuse to accept that you can defend your things.
Who is "we" in this example? I'm talking primarily about the law, but in at least one of the examples I gave (guy claims it was about his property being under threat, but really the object wasn't all that important and he was mad for other reasons) even the perpetrator and victim may be unclear as to what the real reason was.
3. Maybe, maybe not, with fugitive slave laws and the general inability for a black person to make his way in society.
Even if we cede your arguments that the privileged have an obligation to listen in good faith to the oppressed, that still means the oppressed must be compelling, since the listener is not required to change his mind or formulate arguments on his own for why things should change. Like anything else, the majority or privileged party will win here, so your goal needs to be convincing the majority to decide to respect the rights of the minority.
This isn't a real slave, its a thought experiment, by changing the premise ("well when the slave got out he'd be screwed regardless") you're evading the point. To reiterate:
IF you were a hypothetical slave, you would have a pragmatic obligation to please your owner, lest he beat you. But is this an "obligation" in the sense of it being a moral obligation? Or merely an "obligation" for what you must do to avoid being victimized further?
If the slave decides to do what is pragmatic, rather than what is the moral high ground, why should he not overpower his owner if possible?
The minority is just as free to ignore the priviliged as the privileged are to ignore the majority, incidentally. They just lose if they do so.
"You are free to to commit crimes, you just go to jail if you are caught" How is that free?
Jeedan on
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
Edit: Argh, new page. Anyone confused, please see Namrok's post on the previous page
Namrok: The issue I'm continually running into, is this. Refusal to address the pragmatic decisions that Christianity has pursued, and how homophobia pervades the upper levels and lobbying efforts. There is a nasty sweet spot where self-righteousness and conservatism mesh and the result is a big ol' clusterfuck of awful legislature that systematically ruins (gay) men's and women's lives.
I'm perfectly willing to concede that these are things that Christianity in theory aught not be pursuing. But lots of things happen in theory. And Christians seem perfectly eager to turn a blind eye when the laws they lobby for end up hurting millions of people.
The latest is that Christian lobbying organizations got the US government to legitimize the "don't tell" policy for gay soldiers.
So here we are. I'm not sure what you want to prove that this is the fault of Christians. Do I need a chain of the exact prominent Christians that pushed this policy? Do I need to audit their lobbying efforts? Is there a single thing I could point out that wouldn't be handwaved away as "That's not true Christianity" or "Those people don't speak for Christianity"?
......
I'll admit it's not perfect, especially "the latest..." part, but do you see what I'm trying to do here? I don't know much about the specifics about the particular lobbying activities you are talking about, I can't say too much about that (but I'd like to read about what "lower the standard for evidence" means in more detail, it sounds interesting. please link to a good article about it if you know one!). What I mean is that you are generalizing in a way that's not really useful at all. What's wrong with just saying you dislike the particular lobbyers who pushed for those laws and being satisfied with that? What is the point in generalizing that dislike to the umbrella term "feminist/feminism"?
I loathe some of the things that have been and are done "in the name of Christianity" and so that negatively influences my (mostly subconscious) view on "Christianity" as a whole, but I still recognize that there is a lot of variation within Christianity and I also realize that talking about "Christianity" is oftentimes pointless and so I'd never say something like "I hate Christianity" even though I might have blurted out something like that when I was younger. It's just not a very useful way of talking and/or thinking about things mostly, it's way too simplifying.
(Calixfus - you managed to express many of the things I was trying to say in my earlier posts really well and in a much more concise way, nice posts!)
You might have picked the worst possible group to use as an analogy to employ in the defense of feminism on multiple, multiple levels.
Well, here's the thing. Feminists can push for less racism and ableism within their feminist communities, for the sake of making those communities more inclusive. But anti-racism and anti-ableism are not, themselves, feminism. They are related, but separate.
The sorts of people who identify as feminist are likely the sorts of people who are interested in issues of power, oppression, and privilege in general, not only as they relate to women alone.
Intersectionality is a concept within contemporary mainstream feminism which says that issues of race and class negatively effect women (as well as men) as much as issues of gender. So like
I dunno
That's not what intersectionality means, though. Intersectionality is the concept that when it comes to issues stemming from belonging to specific social groups, someone who stands at the intersection of several not only has to deal with the issues of all those groups, but unique issues stemming from being at that intersection as well. For example, a black woman not only is affected by the issues stemming from being black and being a woman, but also has to deal with issues specific to being a black woman.
Why isn't this an argument for having women's groups, black groups and black women's groups? Why make all feminists spend a portion of their time, resources, and political capital for black women's rights, instead of just pushing on women's issues?
Because as people have pointed out that already happened in the form of second wave feminism. And it didn't work so good.
Edit: Argh, new page. Anyone confused, please see Namrok's post on the previous page
Namrok: The issue I'm continually running into, is this. Refusal to address the pragmatic decisions that Christianity has pursued, and how homophobia pervades the upper levels and lobbying efforts. There is a nasty sweet spot where self-righteousness and conservatism mesh and the result is a big ol' clusterfuck of awful legislature that systematically ruins (gay) men's and women's lives.
I'm perfectly willing to concede that these are things that Christianity in theory aught not be pursuing. But lots of things happen in theory. And Christians seem perfectly eager to turn a blind eye when the laws they lobby for end up hurting millions of people.
The latest is that Christian lobbying organizations got the US government to legitimize the "don't tell" policy for gay soldiers.
So here we are. I'm not sure what you want to prove that this is the fault of Christians. Do I need a chain of the exact prominent Christians that pushed this policy? Do I need to audit their lobbying efforts? Is there a single thing I could point out that wouldn't be handwaved away as "That's not true Christianity" or "Those people don't speak for Christianity"?
......
I'll admit it's not perfect, especially "the latest..." part, but do you see what I'm trying to do here?
I do. You've managed to convince me that Namrok has a point.
I gotta admit I looked at that and thought he was agreeing with me at first.
See, and this is where I get frustrated with feminists, which I'm assuming many of you self identify with. Lower the standard of evidence so that more men can be kicked out of college? Hey, it's a private institution, they get to do what they want. Companies pay women less? Suddenly the fact that its a private institution ceases to matter.
Does it say that the standard of evidence is lowered only for men? If so that's wrong.
Otherwise, it applies evenly to people of both sexes (women can rape men) so its not really related to feminism other than the standard of evidence being abnormally high for a crime that men seem to commit more often (see also: racism and crack vs coke sentences)
Since virtually all people prosecuted for rape are men; it might as well say "for men".
Which is the exact argument you'd hear any feminist make if they were making it harder to prosecute rape.
Well you could but that would be stupid.
The whole point is that because men are usually charged with rape people like namrok have made it abnormally hard to Acually be found guilty. So when we correct that it actually helps everyone, man and woman.
This is completely what anyone who cares about mens rights should fighting for But no, instead of building a shelter for battered men or fighting to get raped men the help and justice they deserve MRAs everywhere are just going to keep attacking rape victims.
See, and this is where I get frustrated with feminists, which I'm assuming many of you self identify with. Lower the standard of evidence so that more men can be kicked out of college? Hey, it's a private institution, they get to do what they want. Companies pay women less? Suddenly the fact that its a private institution ceases to matter.
Does it say that the standard of evidence is lowered only for men? If so that's wrong.
Otherwise, it applies evenly to people of both sexes (women can rape men) so its not really related to feminism other than the standard of evidence being abnormally high for a crime that men seem to commit more often (see also: racism and crack vs coke sentences)
Since virtually all people prosecuted for rape are men; it might as well say "for men".
Which is the exact argument you'd hear any feminist make if they were making it harder to prosecute rape.
Well you could but that would be stupid.
The whole point is that because men are usually charged with rape people like namrok have made it abnormally hard to Acually be found guilty. So when we correct that it actually helps everyone, man and woman.
This is completely what anyone who cares about mens rights should fighting for But no, instead of building a shelter for battered men or fighting to get raped men the help and justice they deserve MRAs everywhere are just going to keep attacking rape victims.
Yes, because trying to make sure prosecution for rape is held to the same standards as every other crime we have, without a single exception, means you are pro rape and attacking rape victims.
See, and this is where I get frustrated with feminists, which I'm assuming many of you self identify with. Lower the standard of evidence so that more men can be kicked out of college? Hey, it's a private institution, they get to do what they want. Companies pay women less? Suddenly the fact that its a private institution ceases to matter.
Does it say that the standard of evidence is lowered only for men? If so that's wrong.
Otherwise, it applies evenly to people of both sexes (women can rape men) so its not really related to feminism other than the standard of evidence being abnormally high for a crime that men seem to commit more often (see also: racism and crack vs coke sentences)
Since virtually all people prosecuted for rape are men; it might as well say "for men".
Which is the exact argument you'd hear any feminist make if they were making it harder to prosecute rape.
Well you could but that would be stupid.
The whole point is that because men are usually charged with rape people like namrok have made it abnormally hard to Acually be found guilty. So when we correct that it actually helps everyone, man and woman.
This is completely what anyone who cares about mens rights should fighting for But no, instead of building a shelter for battered men or fighting to get raped men the help and justice they deserve MRAs everywhere are just going to keep attacking rape victims.
Yes, because trying to make sure prosecution for rape is held to the same standards as every other crime we have, without a single exception, means you are pro rape and attacking rape victims.
Just awesome.
And if we were talking about the judicial system, you would have a point.
Here's the thing - colleges can set up their disciplinary systems however they wish. Some chose to set up their systems as miniature courts, as is their right. What is not their right, however, is to violate federal law. And as it turns out, federal laws regarding sexual harassment and assault and the responsibilities of corporations and educational entities state that a preponderance of the evidence is to be the standard. And there is no "but our disciplinary system isn't set up like that" get out of regulations card.
See, and this is where I get frustrated with feminists, which I'm assuming many of you self identify with. Lower the standard of evidence so that more men can be kicked out of college? Hey, it's a private institution, they get to do what they want. Companies pay women less? Suddenly the fact that its a private institution ceases to matter.
Does it say that the standard of evidence is lowered only for men? If so that's wrong.
Otherwise, it applies evenly to people of both sexes (women can rape men) so its not really related to feminism other than the standard of evidence being abnormally high for a crime that men seem to commit more often (see also: racism and crack vs coke sentences)
Since virtually all people prosecuted for rape are men; it might as well say "for men".
Which is the exact argument you'd hear any feminist make if they were making it harder to prosecute rape.
Well you could but that would be stupid.
The whole point is that because men are usually charged with rape people like namrok have made it abnormally hard to Acually be found guilty. So when we correct that it actually helps everyone, man and woman.
This is completely what anyone who cares about mens rights should fighting for But no, instead of building a shelter for battered men or fighting to get raped men the help and justice they deserve MRAs everywhere are just going to keep attacking rape victims.
Yes, because trying to make sure prosecution for rape is held to the same standards as every other crime we have, without a single exception, means you are pro rape and attacking rape victims.
Just awesome.
And if we were talking about the judicial system, you would have a point.
But we aren't, so you don't.
No we're talking about removing someone from an educational institution and destroying their opportunities for the rest of their life.
See, and this is where I get frustrated with feminists, which I'm assuming many of you self identify with. Lower the standard of evidence so that more men can be kicked out of college? Hey, it's a private institution, they get to do what they want. Companies pay women less? Suddenly the fact that its a private institution ceases to matter.
Does it say that the standard of evidence is lowered only for men? If so that's wrong.
Otherwise, it applies evenly to people of both sexes (women can rape men) so its not really related to feminism other than the standard of evidence being abnormally high for a crime that men seem to commit more often (see also: racism and crack vs coke sentences)
Since virtually all people prosecuted for rape are men; it might as well say "for men".
Which is the exact argument you'd hear any feminist make if they were making it harder to prosecute rape.
Well you could but that would be stupid.
The whole point is that because men are usually charged with rape people like namrok have made it abnormally hard to Acually be found guilty. So when we correct that it actually helps everyone, man and woman.
This is completely what anyone who cares about mens rights should fighting for But no, instead of building a shelter for battered men or fighting to get raped men the help and justice they deserve MRAs everywhere are just going to keep attacking rape victims.
Yes, because trying to make sure prosecution for rape is held to the same standards as every other crime we have, without a single exception, means you are pro rape and attacking rape victims.
Just awesome.
And if we were talking about the judicial system, you would have a point.
But we aren't, so you don't.
But I mean, its college! It's huge! We aren't talking about some small fringe organization with few members and few consequences for being exiled from. We're talking about the entire US college system, prosecuting and punishing people as though they were operating in a judicial system, but not to judicial standards! I mean, surely that is significant, right?
Being expelled from one college does not prevent you from going to other colleges, nor does it irrevocably ruin your life.
Melodramatically overstating the consequences of a disciplinary hearing does nothing to advance your case that using a lower standard of evidence is inherently immoral.
See, and this is where I get frustrated with feminists, which I'm assuming many of you self identify with. Lower the standard of evidence so that more men can be kicked out of college? Hey, it's a private institution, they get to do what they want. Companies pay women less? Suddenly the fact that its a private institution ceases to matter.
Does it say that the standard of evidence is lowered only for men? If so that's wrong.
Otherwise, it applies evenly to people of both sexes (women can rape men) so its not really related to feminism other than the standard of evidence being abnormally high for a crime that men seem to commit more often (see also: racism and crack vs coke sentences)
Since virtually all people prosecuted for rape are men; it might as well say "for men".
Which is the exact argument you'd hear any feminist make if they were making it harder to prosecute rape.
Well you could but that would be stupid.
The whole point is that because men are usually charged with rape people like namrok have made it abnormally hard to Acually be found guilty. So when we correct that it actually helps everyone, man and woman.
This is completely what anyone who cares about mens rights should fighting for But no, instead of building a shelter for battered men or fighting to get raped men the help and justice they deserve MRAs everywhere are just going to keep attacking rape victims.
Yes, because trying to make sure prosecution for rape is held to the same standards as every other crime we have, without a single exception, means you are pro rape and attacking rape victims.
Just awesome.
And if we were talking about the judicial system, you would have a point.
But we aren't, so you don't.
But I mean, its college! It's huge! We aren't talking about some small fringe organization with few members and few consequences for being exiled from. We're talking about the entire US college system, prosecuting and punishing people as though they were operating in a judicial system, but not to judicial standards! I mean, surely that is significant, right?
Not every college treats their disciplinary system as a judicial system in miniature.
Being expelled from one college does not prevent you from going to other colleges, nor does it irrevocably ruin your life.
Melodramatically overstating the consequences of a disciplinary hearing does nothing to advance your case that using a lower standard of evidence is inherently immoral.
Actually if you read the articles Houn posted, people who were expelled were also banned for 3 years from all the other state colleges. With a shit ton of debt, and no degree to show for it.
I really don't feel like I can argue with the people in this thread in good faith anymore. Some of you have been great, and admittedly, this is an issue I'm somewhat emotional about and it shows. But others of you handwave away issues that would be a shit storm were the genders reversed or any other group aside from men were effected. So, I'm done. Best of luck high fiving each other about how awesome Feminism is.
Being expelled from one college does not prevent you from going to other colleges, nor does it irrevocably ruin your life.
Melodramatically overstating the consequences of a disciplinary hearing does nothing to advance your case that using a lower standard of evidence is inherently immoral.
Actually if you read the articles Houn posted, people who were expelled were also banned for 3 years from all the other state colleges. With a shit ton of debt, and no degree to show for it.
So yeah. There is that.
So what should the appropriate punishment be for someone who's guilty of sexual assault on a college campus?
Because actual courts would send people to prison for a lot longer than 3 years, and probably put you on a sex offender registry for your entire life, so saying that being kicked out of state colleges for three years equates to having one's entire life ruined doesn't really hold up.
It's also a burden of proof that's equally applied to people of both genders, unlike your attempt to equate it to pay inequity.
Being expelled from one college does not prevent you from going to other colleges, nor does it irrevocably ruin your life.
Melodramatically overstating the consequences of a disciplinary hearing does nothing to advance your case that using a lower standard of evidence is inherently immoral.
What's the case for a lower standard of evidence? I mean, we require evidence for a reason. To make sure we don't fuck up innocent people. Why are we suddenly for making it easier for that to happen, on any level?
Being expelled from one college does not prevent you from going to other colleges, nor does it irrevocably ruin your life.
Melodramatically overstating the consequences of a disciplinary hearing does nothing to advance your case that using a lower standard of evidence is inherently immoral.
What's the case for a lower standard of evidence? I mean, we require evidence for a reason. To make sure we don't fuck up innocent people. Why are we suddenly for making it easier for that to happen, on any level?
Civil cases require a lower standard of evidence than criminal cases.
Does every single civil case inherently "fuck up innocent people"?
Also, a lower standard of evidence doesn't mean no evidence at all.
See, and this is where I get frustrated with feminists, which I'm assuming many of you self identify with. Lower the standard of evidence so that more men can be kicked out of college? Hey, it's a private institution, they get to do what they want. Companies pay women less? Suddenly the fact that its a private institution ceases to matter.
Does it say that the standard of evidence is lowered only for men? If so that's wrong.
Otherwise, it applies evenly to people of both sexes (women can rape men) so its not really related to feminism other than the standard of evidence being abnormally high for a crime that men seem to commit more often (see also: racism and crack vs coke sentences)
Since virtually all people prosecuted for rape are men; it might as well say "for men".
Which is the exact argument you'd hear any feminist make if they were making it harder to prosecute rape.
Well you could but that would be stupid.
The whole point is that because men are usually charged with rape people like namrok have made it abnormally hard to Acually be found guilty. So when we correct that it actually helps everyone, man and woman.
This is completely what anyone who cares about mens rights should fighting for But no, instead of building a shelter for battered men or fighting to get raped men the help and justice they deserve MRAs everywhere are just going to keep attacking rape victims.
Yes, because trying to make sure prosecution for rape is held to the same standards as every other crime we have, without a single exception, means you are pro rape and attacking rape victims.
Just awesome.
And if we were talking about the judicial system, you would have a point.
But we aren't, so you don't.
But I mean, its college! It's huge! We aren't talking about some small fringe organization with few members and few consequences for being exiled from. We're talking about the entire US college system, prosecuting and punishing people as though they were operating in a judicial system, but not to judicial standards! I mean, surely that is significant, right?
Not every college treats their disciplinary system as a judicial system in miniature.
Considering that expulsion from college (with little to no chance of getting into another) means you're left with a pile of debt, no degree, and no job opportunities, it's a pretty damning punishment that WILL adversely affect the rest of the accused's life... maybe it should be treated more like a judicial system?
To bring it back around to feminism, is this an egalitarian and fair system of judgment to both the accused and accuser?
Being expelled from one college does not prevent you from going to other colleges, nor does it irrevocably ruin your life.
Melodramatically overstating the consequences of a disciplinary hearing does nothing to advance your case that using a lower standard of evidence is inherently immoral.
What's the case for a lower standard of evidence? I mean, we require evidence for a reason. To make sure we don't fuck up innocent people. Why are we suddenly for making it easier for that to happen, on any level?
Sexual assault is an incredibly difficult crime to prove. Most of the time it boils down to he said/she said. However, women who accuse someone of raping them catch a lot of shit, even from other women. They get accused of all sorts of things while the accused and/or their supporters scrambles to discredit the victim. A lot of sexual assaults go unreported.
So the idea is to make college a safer environment for women by making sexual assault easier to prove.
The only way we should not be making sexual assault easier to prove is if false accusations are rampant. And they're not.
Being expelled from one college does not prevent you from going to other colleges, nor does it irrevocably ruin your life.
Melodramatically overstating the consequences of a disciplinary hearing does nothing to advance your case that using a lower standard of evidence is inherently immoral.
What's the case for a lower standard of evidence? I mean, we require evidence for a reason. To make sure we don't fuck up innocent people. Why are we suddenly for making it easier for that to happen, on any level?
Sexual assault is an incredibly difficult crime to prove. Most of the time it boils down to he said/she said. However, women who accuse someone of raping them catch a lot of shit, even from other women. They get accused of all sorts of things while the accused and/or their supporters scrambles to discredit the victim. A lot of sexual assaults go unreported.
So the idea is to make college a safer environment for women by making sexual assault easier to prove.
The only way we should not be making sexual assault easier to prove is if false accusations are rampant. And they're not.
As someone who was falsely accused and nearly lost his job because of it, I feel rather strongly about not inherently giving the "she said" more value than "he said". The idea of making something easier to prove is a frightening prospect. They can't find you guilty... so they change what is needed to find you guilty and then find you guilty.
Fuck that shit.
I understand why it's hard to prove, and that sucks. But you can't go and change the way we view this sort of thing (innocent until proven guilty). Our system has never worked that way.
Frankiedarling on
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
As someone who was falsely accused and nearly lost his job because of it, I feel rather strongly about not inherently giving the "she said" more value than "he said". The idea of making something easier to prove is a frightening prospect. They can't find you guilty... so they change what is needed to find you guilty and then find you guilty.
Fuck that shit.
The alternative is for sexual assault to remain a crime that is easy to get away with, where women are afraid to get help and where anyone who does stand up as a victim is vilified. You'll have to forgive me if you having a close call is less significant to me than the thousands, if not millions, of victims who get no help whatsover, who are brutalized by people who are untouchable and who are treated like shit by everyone they know if they ever try to get out from their situation.
Posts
Namrok: The issue I'm continually running into, is this. Refusal to address the pragmatic decisions that Christianity has pursued, and how homophobia pervades the upper levels and lobbying efforts. There is a nasty sweet spot where self-righteousness and conservatism mesh and the result is a big ol' clusterfuck of awful legislature that systematically ruins (gay) men's and women's lives.
I'm perfectly willing to concede that these are things that Christianity in theory aught not be pursuing. But lots of things happen in theory. And Christians seem perfectly eager to turn a blind eye when the laws they lobby for end up hurting millions of people.
The latest is that Christian lobbying organizations got the US government to legitimize the "don't tell" policy for gay soldiers.
So here we are. I'm not sure what you want to prove that this is the fault of Christians. Do I need a chain of the exact prominent Christians that pushed this policy? Do I need to audit their lobbying efforts? Is there a single thing I could point out that wouldn't be handwaved away as "That's not true Christianity" or "Those people don't speak for Christianity"?
......
I'll admit it's not perfect, especially "the latest..." part, but do you see what I'm trying to do here? I don't know much about the specifics about the particular lobbying activities you are talking about, I can't say too much about that (but I'd like to read about what "lower the standard for evidence" means in more detail, it sounds interesting. please link to a good article about it if you know one!). What I mean is that you are generalizing in a way that's not really useful at all. What's wrong with just saying you dislike the particular lobbyers who pushed for those laws and being satisfied with that? What is the point in generalizing that dislike to the umbrella term "feminist/feminism"?
I loathe some of the things that have been and are done "in the name of Christianity" and so that negatively influences my (mostly subconscious) view on "Christianity" as a whole, but I still recognize that there is a lot of variation within Christianity and I also realize that talking about "Christianity" is oftentimes pointless and so I'd never say something like "I hate Christianity" even though I might have blurted out something like that when I was younger. It's just not a very useful way of talking and/or thinking about things mostly, it's way too simplifying.
(Calixfus - you managed to express many of the things I was trying to say in my earlier posts really well and in a much more concise way, nice posts!)
Naw. Feminism is a 200+ year long movement, and all the history, literature and ideas. At no point in time has it been monolithic.
A modern reading of early feminist literature is likely to find fault with how nearly every idea is offered. The newer point of view, the anachronism, and the very critique itself are all feminism. As America's history include slavery and the horrors of the civil war, feminist history includes the worst excesses of the second wave.
I believe many of those excesses can only exist in a feminism that seeks only the rights and equality of women.
Feminism really must be viewed as the whole thing. Liberal feminism, post structural feminism, what ever contemporary concensus exists, and what any particular feminist believe are just subsets of a greater whole.
That big old clusterfuck is what the word feminism is used to describe. I thin an attempt to change that will meet with little success.
Nothing about that effects the ability of people to form together to specifically defend women's rights alone, but that doesn't really change how the word has been used for many decades. And personally, I think it is a short sighted idea which in time only be harmful to the portions of feminism in which I most believe.
I don't know. It is all Scotland.
I think you are mistaken about what due process means. Due process are the steps that the government is obligated to provide you with when moving you through some process. Altering the definition of a crime to lower the standard of evidence needed to uphold does not affect those steps. Furthermore, as others have pointed out, internal disciplinary boards that colleges have are not the same as the judicial system, and the due process there is much different.
FFXIV: Tchel Fay
Nintendo ID: Tortalius
Steam: Tortalius
Stream: twitch.tv/tortalius
Interact with as few people as possible for as little time as possible. This minimizes the chances that you can be accused of negative social behaviors.
To this day, I have a pathological fear of talking to women. Naturally, I have to interact with females in the course of my job, but interactions are kept curt and professional, and ended as quickly as possible. There is zero chance that I can be accused of any implied misconduct that would lead to disciplinary action and likely termination.
It's a fucking wonder that I'm married, honestly.
So, tell us why they pushed to lower the standard of evidence needed to sustain a disciplinary charge of sexual assault? You've been skirting around that.
I've skirted around nothing. The theory is that these crimes are harder to prove. But I do not think the conclusion that follows is to lower the standard of evidence. There are lots of crimes that are hard to prove. Insider trading for instance. In fact many financial crimes are hard to prove. Mafia crimes as well. And yet with no other crime do we advocate lowering the standard of evidence. None. And that's because feminists have pushed the feeling that its better for innocent men to be punished than for one potential rapist to go unpunished. It's been clear as day in many of your replies. Especially yours AngelHedgie.
Seriously? You misuse 'due process' and then when corrected you accuse everyone correcting you of being hypocrites?
I consider myself a feminist because the core definition is simply gender equality. All this other stuff is various feminists and feminist groups adding other stuff to their crusade, but feminism itself has only that as a definition.
Further, the notion that respecting the right of a private institution to refuse entry to any person requires you to also allow them to mistreat any employees they may have is strawmanning like I rarely ever see. It's breathtaking. Namrok, you have this curious habit in this thread of accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being a man hating monster, and it's pretty telling why you feel that way.
At some point you're going to have to realize that your motivations are not nearly as idealistic as you seem to want to believe and there is significant amount of misogyny in your words. Gender inequality exists in spades, but you're assertion that any progress on gaining equality for women also equals oppression for men is disingenuous at best. All women and those who support their equality do not bear equal responsibility for what happened to you.
Does it say that the standard of evidence is lowered only for men? If so that's wrong.
Otherwise, it applies evenly to people of both sexes (women can rape men) so its not really related to feminism other than the standard of evidence being abnormally high for a crime that men seem to commit more often (see also: racism and crack vs coke sentences)
I do. You've managed to convince me that Namrok has a point.
Since virtually all people prosecuted for rape are men; it might as well say "for men".
Which is the exact argument you'd hear any feminist make if they were making it harder to prosecute rape.
There is also a fun undercurrent in your aknowledgement of the unholy alliance of manhating and patriarchal ideas. Between manhating feminism and patriarchial ideas, which of these two cultural ideas wield the most sociopolitical power? Unless you actually want to argue that this nefarious feminist lobby* is actually more powerful than those who would cheerfully maintain codified gender stereotypes, blaming feminism for the success of those who want to keep gender roles is a bit backwards. To reuse some of your previous rethoric; Feminism did not shut the door on equality. That door is being shut by the same fuckers that feminism set out to defeat, for the same reasons they always have, and blaming feminism for this is silly.
And yes, as a dirty foreigner, I would actually appreciate a breakdown of the exact chain of "feminist lobbyist", because so far all I'm seeing is a mounting stack of strawmen, where you attribute gender based oppression to feminism as if it was the greatest source of it rather than its biggest enemy.
I'd continue, but Craw! managed to, like, steal the comparison to generalizations about Christianity right out of my mind. Uncanny shit.
edit: Quote trees >_>
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201104.html
From what I'm reading, it basically urges college administration to lower the burden of proof from “clear and convincing evidence” to a “preponderance of the evidence”.
http://www.thedp.com/index.php/article/2012/04/office_of_student_conduct_lowers_sexual_violence_proof_standard
I understand the argument that lowering the burden of proof may encourage more victims to come forward, but on the other hand I tend to err on the side of "we need to be damn sure as a society that someone was in the wrong before we ruin their life." It also strikes me as interesting that this can lead to a system where students have more protections and recourse when defending themselves against a charge of cheating on a test than when defending against a charge of sexual violence.
http://thefire.org/article/14433.html
*edit to fix the third link, wrong article the first time.
Why is it imperative that you not be made "uncomfortable"? Is that a reasonable request to make? That you should be able to say whatever you want in society and no one is allowed to shake their head and mutter "wow what a dick"?
Who is "we" in this example? I'm talking primarily about the law, but in at least one of the examples I gave (guy claims it was about his property being under threat, but really the object wasn't all that important and he was mad for other reasons) even the perpetrator and victim may be unclear as to what the real reason was.
This isn't a real slave, its a thought experiment, by changing the premise ("well when the slave got out he'd be screwed regardless") you're evading the point. To reiterate:
IF you were a hypothetical slave, you would have a pragmatic obligation to please your owner, lest he beat you. But is this an "obligation" in the sense of it being a moral obligation? Or merely an "obligation" for what you must do to avoid being victimized further?
If the slave decides to do what is pragmatic, rather than what is the moral high ground, why should he not overpower his owner if possible?
"You are free to to commit crimes, you just go to jail if you are caught" How is that free?
You might have picked the worst possible group to use as an analogy to employ in the defense of feminism on multiple, multiple levels.
Because as people have pointed out that already happened in the form of second wave feminism. And it didn't work so good.
I gotta admit I looked at that and thought he was agreeing with me at first.
Well you could but that would be stupid.
The whole point is that because men are usually charged with rape people like namrok have made it abnormally hard to Acually be found guilty. So when we correct that it actually helps everyone, man and woman.
This is completely what anyone who cares about mens rights should fighting for But no, instead of building a shelter for battered men or fighting to get raped men the help and justice they deserve MRAs everywhere are just going to keep attacking rape victims.
Yes, because trying to make sure prosecution for rape is held to the same standards as every other crime we have, without a single exception, means you are pro rape and attacking rape victims.
Just awesome.
And if we were talking about the judicial system, you would have a point.
Here's the thing - colleges can set up their disciplinary systems however they wish. Some chose to set up their systems as miniature courts, as is their right. What is not their right, however, is to violate federal law. And as it turns out, federal laws regarding sexual harassment and assault and the responsibilities of corporations and educational entities state that a preponderance of the evidence is to be the standard. And there is no "but our disciplinary system isn't set up like that" get out of regulations card.
No we're talking about removing someone from an educational institution and destroying their opportunities for the rest of their life.
But I mean, its college! It's huge! We aren't talking about some small fringe organization with few members and few consequences for being exiled from. We're talking about the entire US college system, prosecuting and punishing people as though they were operating in a judicial system, but not to judicial standards! I mean, surely that is significant, right?
Melodramatically overstating the consequences of a disciplinary hearing does nothing to advance your case that using a lower standard of evidence is inherently immoral.
Not every college treats their disciplinary system as a judicial system in miniature.
Actually if you read the articles Houn posted, people who were expelled were also banned for 3 years from all the other state colleges. With a shit ton of debt, and no degree to show for it.
So yeah. There is that.
So what should the appropriate punishment be for someone who's guilty of sexual assault on a college campus?
Because actual courts would send people to prison for a lot longer than 3 years, and probably put you on a sex offender registry for your entire life, so saying that being kicked out of state colleges for three years equates to having one's entire life ruined doesn't really hold up.
It's also a burden of proof that's equally applied to people of both genders, unlike your attempt to equate it to pay inequity.
What's the case for a lower standard of evidence? I mean, we require evidence for a reason. To make sure we don't fuck up innocent people. Why are we suddenly for making it easier for that to happen, on any level?
Civil cases require a lower standard of evidence than criminal cases.
Does every single civil case inherently "fuck up innocent people"?
Also, a lower standard of evidence doesn't mean no evidence at all.
No one is against punishing the guilty. It's punishing the innocent we're worried about. "woman on man" rape isn't even considered rape by many legal definitions.
Considering that expulsion from college (with little to no chance of getting into another) means you're left with a pile of debt, no degree, and no job opportunities, it's a pretty damning punishment that WILL adversely affect the rest of the accused's life... maybe it should be treated more like a judicial system?
To bring it back around to feminism, is this an egalitarian and fair system of judgment to both the accused and accuser?
Citation needed.
Especially when it comes to how college disciplinary boards define sexual assault.
Sexual assault is an incredibly difficult crime to prove. Most of the time it boils down to he said/she said. However, women who accuse someone of raping them catch a lot of shit, even from other women. They get accused of all sorts of things while the accused and/or their supporters scrambles to discredit the victim. A lot of sexual assaults go unreported.
So the idea is to make college a safer environment for women by making sexual assault easier to prove.
The only way we should not be making sexual assault easier to prove is if false accusations are rampant. And they're not.
As someone who was falsely accused and nearly lost his job because of it, I feel rather strongly about not inherently giving the "she said" more value than "he said". The idea of making something easier to prove is a frightening prospect. They can't find you guilty... so they change what is needed to find you guilty and then find you guilty.
Fuck that shit.
I understand why it's hard to prove, and that sucks. But you can't go and change the way we view this sort of thing (innocent until proven guilty). Our system has never worked that way.
The alternative is for sexual assault to remain a crime that is easy to get away with, where women are afraid to get help and where anyone who does stand up as a victim is vilified. You'll have to forgive me if you having a close call is less significant to me than the thousands, if not millions, of victims who get no help whatsover, who are brutalized by people who are untouchable and who are treated like shit by everyone they know if they ever try to get out from their situation.