It's fair to say the eventually feminists will try to change the law so that anything less then an "enthusiastic consent" is rape, of course allowing the "victim" to define what that is.
Ladyluck-You like to talk about Binobos but what about Chimps. In the grand scheme of things they are just as close to us as Binobos and they have alpha males.
joande that is a colourful interpretation of women's suffrage if ever I heard one. Assuming we are limiting our selves to the US women's right to vote before universal suffrage change from state to state it was not a binary switch over but the idea women would gain the right to vote just if they owned enough land is wrong.
My point was that discrimination against men is often reframed that way.
Those are government programs funded by ALL taxpayers.
AND how the hell are those MEN interferring in WOMENS spheres of power when statistically speaking men and women hold almost identical views on the subject?
Do pro-life women simply not exist?
You do understand women are 55% of voters and even the most bible thumpingist republican needs the support of conservative women. Or do conservative women also not exist?
Women who owned a certain amount of land could vote actually long before women's suffrage, from what I understand voting was viewed in terms of one vote per household (wealthy household). Universal male suffrage occured due to men having to give their lives for society and understandably stating they had a claim in how it was run.
As feminist try to reframe conscription as a rich vs poor issue I could reframe women's suffrage the same way.
Ultimately it's just more of the same in your face agitator propaganda. Just like "feminism is just the belief that men and women are equal" crap earlier in this thread, which is as intellectually dishonest as "Marxism is just the belief that all people are equal."
You're absolutely right. But again, who is the empowered party? Men are socially empowered, ergo men write the rules, so the women who were taught to play by a different set of rules get left out in the cold. But its ****ty behavior in both cases. Instead of letting one gender write the rules for status posturing, why can't we agree that its ALL ****ty behavior and call out ALL of it when it happens? Because we don't.
This is based on a flawed Marxist way of looking at society. In reality it's more like men police men, women police women, and sometimes they police each other. Leaders power came form their status and that was largely shaped by their relationship to women. Genghis Kahn once said he only had two people in the world he feared, his mother and his wife. Men usually (about 99.999%) of the time have no interest in shaping womens spheres of power.
It's more like society needed women and men to complete certain functions to survive and the ways that best accomplished this irregardless of how well they worked in terms of empowerment is how societies evolved.
I would argue that if they had made an agreement before hand that they were going to have rough sex then I could understand this ruling but since there is no evidence of that I disagree with the judges ruling.
There has been a case of a women who advertised on craigslist that she wanted a sexual partner to fufill a rape fantasy (yes they exist-I declined such a request not to long ago due to the request involving erotic asphyxiation). She (the woman in the story) went to the police afterwards and claimed to have been raped even going so far as to want charges brought. It was only after the police found the craigslist ad that she admited she was lying.
And no the young woman who had the fetish in my experience was not a nut. She is an extremely normal looking/behaving individual, if she had gone to the police after I fufilled her request I have no doubt I'd be in prison right now.
Now that I think about it an accusation would have meant the end of my career, even my family would probably have to move. To pretend false accusations are no big deal really is crazy.
STEM is being pushed on girls hardcore these days. Your children's world will hopefully be a bit more equal than ours.
Focusing on the small number of areas where males clearly are doing better then females (STEM) and ignoring the areas where females are doing much better then males (Everywhere else in academia) will only create a radiculously unbalanced society.
The world this kind of thinking is creating is one where women have zero accountability and men are discriminated against unapologetically. Now that I think about it we already have that in most aspects of life.
Tuss-30% of families headed by single mothers live in poverty, compared to 16% of families headed by single fathers. The median incomes are $34K compared to $48K.
The US census is quite clear.
That you think that US social services at present are enough to overcome a systemic inequality is both hilarious and worrying due to how poorly it matches up with reality.
Your analysis of male/female wealth ignores the homeless population that is between 80-90% male. It ignores that women are privileged in regards to child custody. Your analysis ignores that single fathers as a group are on average much older then single mothers and are on average very well established in their communities. Your analysis ignores that having a child ensures a safety net for mothers that keeps them from ending up homeless but does come at a price. You also ignore that I am a US citizen who has worked with single mothers and they often have enough left over in food stamps to feed their friends, they get rent controlled apartments that cost them $9 a month if they fall below a certain level of income, and that it is IMMEASURABLY easier to recover from that state then homelessness.
is likely due to discrimination, because they cannot explain it.
Ya, discrimination is simply accepted as the go to explanation with the only necessary proof required being different outcomes.
Tuss-I discussed this before the myth of women as a socioeconomically disadvantaged class is just that A MYTH. Women get far more because they live longer due to their healthcare needs being privileged over mens, kids as mentioned above, and special entitlements such as student aid being reserved exclusively for women. You didn't pause for a second to think about that did you.
Since you brought it up, the average jail sentence for a female rapist is measured in days,. Somehow I doubt your to torn up about that.
bocephus-Like has been explained, there is a difference between poor and poverty. What percentage of the population in in poverty? What percentage of people are homeless? If you can honestly look at those numbers and say it isnt that bad, then you are right, you and I have a very different definition of 'working'.
The problem I see with this argument is it lacks context. I know at least one of the posters on this thread has identified as anti-capitalist. The only existing anti-capitalist country I can think of now is North Korea and well it's a joke where the (very small number of) connected eat well and the rest eat bark (no joke).
D: Men that are doing bad economically die: Look at the suicide statistics. Men are much more likely to kill themselves, and considering that people that do tend to be employed in jobs that pay like crap.. Well. Men that are doing badly economically are also much more likely to get into bar fights and get themselves killed, or end up drunk driving and dying, or any of the million things that reduce their life expectancy.
Poor women have children at a high rate and thus a wide array of safety nets become available that are unavailable for men. A big part of the reason feminists fight so hard for the mothers to get custody by default is best illustrated by a comment by a feminist in 2013..."With the children goes the money".
On a societal level men pay the vast majority into safety nets and women get the vast majority out of them. It would be interesting to see what the "pay gap" would be if we took that into account.
Senori-So you would rather have no successful criminal prosecution at all than have one single person wrongly convicted?
The difference you fail to realize is a system that locks up some people by accident and a system that locks up people without a fair trial are two entirely different things. As different as a car accident caused by ice and mowing people down with your car on purpose. Feminists have created on college campuses a system that raises the conviction rate by denying the accused basic due process (essentially one of our most basic rights). You cannot compare that to a system that makes honest mistakes. They wish to do the same in our criminal court systems, neither is acceptable.
Rape is hard to prove and frankly it should be. It is also really easy to lie about to, and even if it is as rare for someone to lie about rape as murder we would not make that exception for murder, we literally have been put to that test with organized crime.
Ladyluck-Having thought some more about your argument it really is sick on so many levels to argue that violating men's civil rights will produce benefits for both men and women. It is a moral hazard to say the least especially from a women as rape definitions (at least non-statutory rape ones) are gendered. Some about 99% (new FBI) and others 100% (Britain's) for women to demand those accused of rape lose their right to a fair trial is morally identical to the white population argueing that blacks should be denied a fair trial. You will never face the consequences of that decision now will you?
When we have gender neutral definitions of rape and women face the same punishments then you can talk about acceptable risks. You'll still be wrong though.
Again... I realize that this means if say... Susie has Jimmy over for a study date and he rapes her without her fighting back much and she's too ashamed to do anything about it immediately that Jimmy's probably walking free... But to me that's better than the alternative.
I've read about cases with less where they got a conviction, no system is perfect and rape is especially challenging.
Since it's no longer about feminism I'll wade back in.
The overall attack on FLuffbunnys argument is one hell of a false equivication...Because some engines fail it's ethical to install faulty engines. hmm no. Sure the system isn't perfect but the alternative of a system where the accused is guilty solely on the basis of an accusation is tyranny.
I'm curious among all these people who feel Blackstone got it wrong what burden of proof do you believe is appropriate? The claim of the accuser and proof that sex took place seems to be generous since as one poster commented condoms.
It's precisely that sort of thing that causes women to perceive all men as potential threats, and just isn't healthy, for men nor for women.
But a system where any women could have any man imprisoned on a whim is supposed to build a healthy relationship between the sexes, umm no.
Those aren't beliefs, those are theoretical models explaining the current state of society. Yes, you can be of the conviction that people should be equal while also rejecting the models used to analyse inequality but that doesn't mean you are correct in doing so. Someone who believes in economic equality but rejects everything but a liberal framework of analysis would be making a very big mistake.
Seriously this argument is just nah-ah there facts, seriously WTF? Theoretical models have useful and defined parameters and the beliefs of patriarchy and rapeculture have intentionally vague definitions and parameters. Theoretical models can be falsified and rely on facts those beliefs were designed to be unfalsifiable by relying on well belief.
My point was that discrimination against men is often reframed that way.
AND how the hell are those MEN interferring in WOMENS spheres of power when statistically speaking men and women hold almost identical views on the subject?
Do pro-life women simply not exist?
You do understand women are 55% of voters and even the most bible thumpingist republican needs the support of conservative women. Or do conservative women also not exist?
As feminist try to reframe conscription as a rich vs poor issue I could reframe women's suffrage the same way.
Ultimately it's just more of the same in your face agitator propaganda. Just like "feminism is just the belief that men and women are equal" crap earlier in this thread, which is as intellectually dishonest as "Marxism is just the belief that all people are equal."
This is based on a flawed Marxist way of looking at society. In reality it's more like men police men, women police women, and sometimes they police each other. Leaders power came form their status and that was largely shaped by their relationship to women. Genghis Kahn once said he only had two people in the world he feared, his mother and his wife. Men usually (about 99.999%) of the time have no interest in shaping womens spheres of power.
It's more like society needed women and men to complete certain functions to survive and the ways that best accomplished this irregardless of how well they worked in terms of empowerment is how societies evolved.
I would argue that if they had made an agreement before hand that they were going to have rough sex then I could understand this ruling but since there is no evidence of that I disagree with the judges ruling.
There has been a case of a women who advertised on craigslist that she wanted a sexual partner to fufill a rape fantasy (yes they exist-I declined such a request not to long ago due to the request involving erotic asphyxiation). She (the woman in the story) went to the police afterwards and claimed to have been raped even going so far as to want charges brought. It was only after the police found the craigslist ad that she admited she was lying.
And no the young woman who had the fetish in my experience was not a nut. She is an extremely normal looking/behaving individual, if she had gone to the police after I fufilled her request I have no doubt I'd be in prison right now.
Now that I think about it an accusation would have meant the end of my career, even my family would probably have to move. To pretend false accusations are no big deal really is crazy.
Focusing on the small number of areas where males clearly are doing better then females (STEM) and ignoring the areas where females are doing much better then males (Everywhere else in academia) will only create a radiculously unbalanced society.
The world this kind of thinking is creating is one where women have zero accountability and men are discriminated against unapologetically. Now that I think about it we already have that in most aspects of life.
Your analysis of male/female wealth ignores the homeless population that is between 80-90% male. It ignores that women are privileged in regards to child custody. Your analysis ignores that single fathers as a group are on average much older then single mothers and are on average very well established in their communities. Your analysis ignores that having a child ensures a safety net for mothers that keeps them from ending up homeless but does come at a price. You also ignore that I am a US citizen who has worked with single mothers and they often have enough left over in food stamps to feed their friends, they get rent controlled apartments that cost them $9 a month if they fall below a certain level of income, and that it is IMMEASURABLY easier to recover from that state then homelessness.
Ya, discrimination is simply accepted as the go to explanation with the only necessary proof required being different outcomes.
Since you brought it up, the average jail sentence for a female rapist is measured in days,. Somehow I doubt your to torn up about that.
The problem I see with this argument is it lacks context. I know at least one of the posters on this thread has identified as anti-capitalist. The only existing anti-capitalist country I can think of now is North Korea and well it's a joke where the (very small number of) connected eat well and the rest eat bark (no joke).
Poor women have children at a high rate and thus a wide array of safety nets become available that are unavailable for men. A big part of the reason feminists fight so hard for the mothers to get custody by default is best illustrated by a comment by a feminist in 2013..."With the children goes the money".
On a societal level men pay the vast majority into safety nets and women get the vast majority out of them. It would be interesting to see what the "pay gap" would be if we took that into account.
The difference you fail to realize is a system that locks up some people by accident and a system that locks up people without a fair trial are two entirely different things. As different as a car accident caused by ice and mowing people down with your car on purpose. Feminists have created on college campuses a system that raises the conviction rate by denying the accused basic due process (essentially one of our most basic rights). You cannot compare that to a system that makes honest mistakes. They wish to do the same in our criminal court systems, neither is acceptable.
Rape is hard to prove and frankly it should be. It is also really easy to lie about to, and even if it is as rare for someone to lie about rape as murder we would not make that exception for murder, we literally have been put to that test with organized crime.
Ladyluck-Having thought some more about your argument it really is sick on so many levels to argue that violating men's civil rights will produce benefits for both men and women. It is a moral hazard to say the least especially from a women as rape definitions (at least non-statutory rape ones) are gendered. Some about 99% (new FBI) and others 100% (Britain's) for women to demand those accused of rape lose their right to a fair trial is morally identical to the white population argueing that blacks should be denied a fair trial. You will never face the consequences of that decision now will you?
Even when women do get caught violating these laws (statutory rape) they get incredibly lite sentences...http://www.avoiceformalestudents.com/
When we have gender neutral definitions of rape and women face the same punishments then you can talk about acceptable risks. You'll still be wrong though.
I've read about cases with less where they got a conviction, no system is perfect and rape is especially challenging.
The overall attack on FLuffbunnys argument is one hell of a false equivication...Because some engines fail it's ethical to install faulty engines. hmm no. Sure the system isn't perfect but the alternative of a system where the accused is guilty solely on the basis of an accusation is tyranny.
I'm curious among all these people who feel Blackstone got it wrong what burden of proof do you believe is appropriate? The claim of the accuser and proof that sex took place seems to be generous since as one poster commented condoms.
But a system where any women could have any man imprisoned on a whim is supposed to build a healthy relationship between the sexes, umm no.
Seriously this argument is just nah-ah there facts, seriously WTF? Theoretical models have useful and defined parameters and the beliefs of patriarchy and rapeculture have intentionally vague definitions and parameters. Theoretical models can be falsified and rely on facts those beliefs were designed to be unfalsifiable by relying on well belief.