Support NeoGAF

[spandexmonkey]

Nonsense. You don't need a criminal conviction against your name for your reputation or life to be ruined. The the prevalence of slander/libel laws. It could be as simple as someone making a false rape claim on Facebook - once made, the damage can be next to impossible to undo.

If charges aren't filed then there is no damage (that means it never reaches trial and you never get hand cuffed). As you point out, if a public accusation of rape is made the accuser runs risk of libel/slander. only made worse if no formal charges are brought to bear. In fact, it's more likely in US culture for a woman to be shamed for a baseless accusation than for the world to take her claim at face value.
I am open to seeing some data on how the opposite is true, but I've never seen anything remotely like what you are describing.

 

[CLEEK]

Anti-feminists don't like those ideas period. If those are not end goals for feminism, then what do anti-feminists/misogynists believe?

Look at someone like Camille Paglia - a person usually labelled as an anti-feminist by both herself and other feminists. She has some pretty out-there views on some things, but she is not a misogynists, and as far as I am away, is in support of the views you stated around abortion, contraption and so on.

 

[timetokill]

Just wanted to chime in and say I agree completely with Shouta's posts. Great post, Shouta.

 

[CLEEK]

In fact, it's more likely in US culture for a woman to be shamed for a baseless accusation than for the world to take her claim at face value.
I am open to seeing some data on how the opposite is true, but I've never seen anything remotely like what you are describing.

Likewise, I would like to see data on your view, that woman making false rape claims come out of it worse. It is entirely counter-intuitive and I don't think I've ever heard anyone make that claim before.

 

[Devolution]

Look at someone like Camille Paglia - a person usually labelled as an anti-feminist by both herself and other feminists. She has some pretty out-there views on some things, but she is not a misogynists, and as far as I am away, is in support of the views you stated around abortion, contraption and so on.

Dismantling the patriarchy in favor of gender equity is feminism. If you are averse to those ideas, you are not a feminist and are either asserting yourself falsely as one or an anti-feminist. Many people just want to dodge the label thanks to the vilification of said label. But anyone who basically agrees with more equality for women is a feminist. Like I said, where people butt heads is how to go about the change.

 

[CLEEK]

Dismantling the patriarchy and gender equity is feminism. If you are averse to those ideas, you are not a feminist and are either asserting yourself falsely as one or an anti-feminist. Many people just want to dodge the label thanks to the vilification of said label. But anyone who basically agrees with more equality for women is a feminist. Like I said, where people butt heads is how to go about the change.

You're missing the point. Labels and ideologies are important. The differences between ideologies are just as important as the common ground.

Egalitarianisms and Feminism overlap hugely in the middle. For the bulk of feminists, the point should be that they are Egalitarians. If you have woman that don't identify with this, but to the broader views of Feminism, then they are implicitly supporting the radical aspects of the movement that, as you say, are vilified.

You comment should be "anyone who basically agrees with more equality for all people is a Egalitarian" and "dismantling the patriarchy and gender equity is egalitarianism".

 

[A.E Suggs]

Yes. Feminists fight against all forms of rape. They aren't somehow paradoxically in favor of prison rape or male rape and yet it comes up every time.




The other irony is in fighting for women/the feminine to be on par with the masculine a lot of issues men face in terms of "not being masculine enough" will also be improved because it all centers around women/feminine being inferior and weak. All men who want to see the standards men are measured by change should be feminists really.

After being on gaf awhile,seeing post in other gender threads and looking at everyday life its clear that people don't want equality. People want their own version of equality which borders on how much control they have over situations. In reality it seems the majority of people want the double standard to exist, they just don't like it when it becomes a problem for them.

 

[Femmeworth]

You can be an egalitarian and a feminist. They are not mutually exclusive.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

You can be an egalitarian and a feminist. They are not mutually exclusive.

I'd say that feminism is just a particular flavour of egalitarianism, born out of the gender imbalances caused by a primarily patriarchial culture and society.
If feminists were fighting against a matriarchial culture and society, then they'd probably have been called masculists.

 

[Devolution]

You're missing the point. Labels and ideologies are important. The differences between ideologies are just as important as the common ground.

Egalitarianisms and Feminism overlap hugely in the middle. For the bulk of feminists, the point should be that they are Egalitarians. If you have woman that don't identify with this, but to the broader views of Feminism, then they are implicitly supporting the radical aspects of the movement that, as you say, are vilified.

You comment should be "anyone who basically agrees with more equality for all people is a Egalitarian" and "dismantling the patriarchy and gender equity is egalitarianism".

I come across this shit every time. I've heard it from "humanists" too. This is basically the gendered version of "I'm color blind, everyone has problems." Feminism has a history and a specific ideology. Egalitarianism tells people nothing explicitly.

 

[pigeon]

Egalitarianisms and Feminism overlap hugely in the middle. For the bulk of feminists, the point should be that they are Egalitarians. If you have woman that don't identify with this, but to the broader views of Feminism, then they are implicitly supporting the radical aspects of the movement that, as you say, are vilified.

The problem is that radical misogynists and racists like to call themselves egalitarians.

 

[CLEEK]

The problem is that radical misogynists and racists like to call themselves egalitarians.

By its very definition, you can't be a political egalitarian and pro-race supremacist or anti-woman.

What you can be is a feminist, but not a political egalitarian. If you draw a Venn diagram of the two ideologies, you would have a small egalitarian circle within the much larger feminist circle.

 

[Femmeworth]

I'd say that feminism is just a particular flavour of egalitarianism, born out of the gender imbalances caused by a primarily patriarchial culture and society.
If feminists were fighting against a matriarchial culture and society, then they'd probably have been called masculists.

I don't know if I would call it a "flavour," but feminism is much more specialized. Not to mention that feminism has the movement aspect to it in addition to the ideological.

 

[pigeon]

By its very definition, you can't be a political egalitarian and pro-race supremacist or anti-woman.

By definition, you can't be a feminist and radically misandric either. That's literally what we're talking about, definitions. People can definitely be misogynists and claim to be egalitarians, and them doing so tarnishes the term just as you're suggesting feminism is tarnished.

 

[CLEEK]

Feminism has a history and a specific ideology. Egalitarianism tells people nothing explicitly.

WTF is this shit? Political egalitarianism pre-dates the feminist movement and has a clear goal and ideology.

 

[Devolution]

WTF is this shit? Political egalitarianism pre-dates the feminist movement and has a clear goal and ideology.

Go out on the street and protest about egalitarianism.

 

[CLEEK]

By definition, you can't be a feminist and radically misandric either. That's literally what we're talking about, definitions. People can definitely be misogynists and claim to be egalitarians, and them doing so tarnishes the term just as you're suggesting feminism is tarnished.

Gah, yes you can. The core belief of radical/second wave feminists is that males oppress females. At the heart of this is the vilification of men as oppressors. And that pornography leads to rape, so men who use pornography are implicitly or explicitly rapists. Have you honestly never encountered feminists that hold this world view?

Please show me definitions of egalitarianism that is also sexist/racist? And a dictionary entry from Bizzaro World doesn't count.

Go out on the street and protest about egalitarianism.

"What do we want?"
"Equal rights!"
"Who do we want them for?"
"Everyone!"

OK, now what? What did that prove?

 

[TUROK]

By definition, you can't be a feminist and radically misandric either. That's literally what we're talking about, definitions. People can definitely be misogynists and claim to be egalitarians, and them doing so tarnishes the term just as you're suggesting feminism is tarnished.

Can you be moderately or slightly misandric and a feminist?

"What do we want?"
"Equal rights!"
"Who do we want them for?"
"Everyone!"

OK, now what. What did that prove?

*Slow clap*

 

[Devolution]

"What do we want?"
"Equal rights!"
"Who do we want them for?"
"Everyone!"

OK, now what. What did that prove?

You don't really establish movements or lobby effectively being so generalized. Equality for whom? How do we get there? For example the struggles of women are different in terms of salary (child leave) than racial minorities. You don't just lump this shit together and call it a day. It's quite naive to assert so.

 

[pigeon]

Gah, yes you can. The core belief of radical/second wave feminists is that males oppress females. At the heart of this is the vilification of men as oppressors. Have you honestly never encountered feminists that hold this world view?

Please show me definitions of egalitarianism that is also sexist/racist? And a dictionary entry from Bizzaro World doesn't count.

This post really exemplifies the definitional game that's going on here.

We can talk about two things: what people who identify a certain way, including unrepresentative extremists, believe, or what the mainstream concept of something is.

If we're talking about the first one, then both feminism and egalitarianism include crazy extremists and it's just a question of which crazy extremists you prefer.

If we're talking about the second one, than neither feminism nor egalitarianism are fundamentally about crazy extremism and it's just a question of which label you prefer.

And no, I haven't encountered any feminists like that. I have encountered some feminists who are LABELED as believing that, but none that actually do.

 

[Atrus]

It's the end goals for feminism in general. Where it breaks down or gets more broad is in how these goals are met. Anti-feminists don't like those ideas period. If those are not end goals for feminism, then what do anti-feminists/misogynists believe?

It's silly to label anti-feminists or those that disagree as misogynists. There is a subtle trick here from those who would like to believe that feminism is akin to women's rights when it is not.

Feminism is a social philosophy, one whose range extends into the political and religious spheres. It is not innately correct and as I've pointed out to even you when it came to your statistic citation, it becomes dogmatic enough that it completely ignores fact and reality. Even actual scientists like Desmond Morris take issue with the unscientific manner in which carefully tailored explanations are used to conform to theories.

When we have terms like Islamic Feminism, Christian Feminism or RadFem, it's clear to see that the ideology is one that struggles to create an orthodoxy without empiricism as its main thrust.

Constantly dividing upon itself, as new denominations conform to new strains of philosophy or belief, some of which elevate themselves beyond reason toward cult like behavior, as some skeptics have noted with the Atheism + movement.

It's not much of an impressive philosophy and pales in comparison to the breadth of what exists that is used by men to find and define themselves.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

I don't know if I would call it a "flavour," but feminism is much more specialized. Not to mention that feminism has the movement aspect to it in addition to the ideological.

Yeah, it's a specialization of egalitarianism, that practically deals with a relatively large subset of the overall inequality-problem - gender inequality.

 

[CLEEK]

You don't really establish movements or lobby effectively being so generalized.

And now you're finally starting to understand. Feminism is a single issue ideology at heart, and part of that means there are aspects of the movement what view rights as a zero sum game.

Egalitarianism encompassed aspects of feminism, civil right, LGBT rights and so on. But the key point is 'aspects' as within the single issue ideologies, there are also views within those single issue politic that are contra to equality for all.

While they are both seeking the same thing, how many black civil rights supporters also support LGBT rights? There are plenty of instances where the one group does mental gymnastics to distance itself from the other group "being gay is choice, being black isn't" and so on.

Conversely, how many egalitarians support LGBT rights? All of them. And how many support civil rights? All of them.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

And now you're finally starting to understand. Feminism is a single issue ideology at heart, and part of that means there are aspects of the movement what view rights as a zero sum game.

Egalitarianism encompassed aspects of feminism, civil right, LGBT rights and so on. But the key point is 'aspects' as within the single issue ideologies, there are also views within those single issue politic that are contra to equality for all.

While they are both seeking the same thing, how many black civil rights supporters also support LGBT rights? There are plenty of instances where the one group does mental gymnastics to distance itself from the other group "being gay is choice, being black isn't" and so on.

Conversely, how many egalitarians support LGBT rights? All of them. And how many support civil rights? All of them.

An egalitarian is then by definition a feminist in this regard, but a feminist isn't always an egalitarian (there are racist feminists for an example). As there is no egalitarian movement, an egalitarian need to participate in the feminist movement if they desire to actively support the egalitarian cause.

 

[Atrus]

You don't really establish movements or lobby effectively being so generalized. Equality for whom? How do we get there? For example the struggles of women are different in terms of salary (child leave) than racial minorities. You don't just lump this shit together and call it a day. It's quite naive to assert so.

Yet it's because of these type of lobbies that significant gaps in disenfranchisement in society exist as each group vies for a limited amount of capital available, and the largest groups lobby to the detriment of the rest. This is then used in political gamesmanship in pitting one group against the other in what SPE termed as a zero sum game.

How have the aboriginals fared in this equation?

It is only the organizations that focus on universal rights and issues that hear the voice of everyone. HumanRightsWatch or Amnesty International not NOW.

 

[Devolution]

It's silly to label anti-feminists or those that disagree as misogynists. There is a subtle trick here from those who would like to believe that feminism is akin to women's rights when it is not.

Feminism is a social philosophy, one whose range extends into the political and religious spheres. It is not innately correct and as I've pointed out to even you when it came to your statistic citation, it becomes dogmatic enough that it completely ignores fact and reality. Even actual scientists like Desmond Morris take issue with the unscientific manner in which carefully tailored explanations are used to conform to theories.

When we have terms like Islamic Feminism, Christian Feminism or RadFem, it's clear to see that the ideology is one that struggles to create an orthodoxy without empiricism as its main thrust.

Constantly dividing upon itself, as new denominations conform to new strains of philosophy or belief, some of which elevate themselves beyond reason toward cult like behavior, as some skeptics have noted with the Atheism + movement.

It's not much of an impressive philosophy and pales in comparison to the breadth of what exists that is used by men to find and define themselves.

And now you're finally starting to understand. Feminism is a single issue ideology at heart, and part of that means there are aspects of the movement what view rights as a zero sum game.

Egalitarianism encompassed aspects of feminism, civil right, LGBT rights and so on. But the key point is 'aspects' as within the single issue ideologies, there are also views within those single issue politic that are contra to equality for all.

While they are both seeking the same thing, how many black civil rights supporters also support LGBT rights? There are plenty of instances where the one group does mental gymnastics to distance itself from the other group "being gay is choice, being black isn't" and so on.

Conversely, how many egalitarians support LGBT rights? All of them. And how many support civil rights? All of them.

Yeah I'm done here. This is ridiculous.

 

[CLEEK]

An egalitarian is then by definition a feminist in this regard, but a feminist isn't always an egalitarian (there are racist feminists for an example).

Well, no.

A subset of feminists could be by definition egalitarian.

A 'feminist' isn't, as feminism without the prefix (moderate / third wave) relates to the whole movement, including the groups that aren't egalitarian.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

Well, no.

A subset of feminists could be by definition egalitarian.

A 'feminist' isn't, as feminism without the prefix (moderate / third wave) relates to the whole movement, including the groups that aren't egalitarian.

I... think we're saying the same thing.

 

[CLEEK]

Yeah I'm done here. This is ridiculous.

How so? Look at the civil rights movement and affirmative action. The goal of it was to bring the level of opportunity of minorities up to the level of the majority. But in doing so, they reduced the rights of the majority. That's a clear example of zero sum game when it comes to single issue politics.

In gender politics, similar views can be found - even affirmative action for women. They are not mainstream, but they exists.

I... think we're saying the same thing.

Not really. I'm an egalitarian but I'm not a feminist, as I don't associate with or relate to the entire feminist movement. I share many similar view with core feminist reasoning, but that is not the same thing.

 

[Kazerei]

Part of the issue I have is that I am aware that a) false rape reporting is extremely rare, b) parts of the men's rights movement argue that false rape reporting is endemic and do all they can do cast doubt on victim testimony, c) the doubts raised by b) have become a part of our cultural understanding of rape - that "false rape" is a significant part of it. I feel like the dismissiveness is a form of pushback against that sort of agenda that people who are probably unaware of the origins are pushing.

You're certainly right and clearing up those myths is part of proper education.

But being dismissive of the argument that lays beyond that misinformation only serves to put men in a more adversarial stance. A dismissive attitude and the focus of discussion being entirely on what men do to women makes it look like men are being attacked. Discussing it from the men committing it to women viewpoint is perfectly valid (as it makes up the majority of cases), it's the reality. But if the valid concerns are brushed off, no matter how tiny they may be compared to the bigger problem, then what's the point of actual discussion? Men feel like this issue isn't about them, just about women because of the way it's conveyed.

I feel like we're all on the same page. It's just that telling people false accusations of rape are rare, and about on par with false accusations of other crimes sounds dismissive, though it's really not. It's clarification, not trying to avoid discussion.

In the end, education is an important part of the solution. Unfortunately, alot of people seem to oppose talking about sex. And so we have someone like Akin completely misunderstanding female biology.

How so? Look at the civil rights movement and affirmative action. The goal of it was to bring the level of opportunity of minorities up to the level of the majority. But into doing so, they reduced the rights of the majority. That's a clear example of zero sum game when it comes to single issue politics.

In gender politics, similar views can be found - even affirmative action for women. They are not mainstream, but they exists.

How did the civil rights movement reduce the rights of the majority? As far as I can tell, white people have the same rights now than they did in 1950. Unless you mean slavery, which is not a right.

 

[Femmeworth]

Yeah, it's a specialization of egalitarianism, that practically deals with a relatively large subset of the overall inequality-problem - gender inequality.

Perhaps you are right, I'm not knowledgeable about the classification and grouping of ideologies. Rather, if you even can.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

I feel like we're all on the same page. It's just that telling people false accusations of rape are rare, and about on par with false accusations of other crimes sounds dismissive, though it's really not. It's clarification, not trying to avoid discussion.

In the end, education is an important part of the solution. Unfortunately, alot of people seem to oppose talking about sex. And so we have someone like Akin completely misunderstanding female biology.

In the meantime, don't publicly announce the identity of someone who hasn't even been found guilty. That would at the very least cut down the amount of innocent people who are affected by false accusations of rape or sexual assault.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

Not really. I'm an egalitarian but I'm not a feminist, as I don't associate with or relate to the entire feminist movement. I share many similar view with core feminist reasoning, but that is not the same thing.

Fair enough.
I think the mainstream feminist movement is good enough for me to want to associate with it.

At the same time, I am an egalitarian as I support LBGT and other minority rights, as well as being against other inequalities in society.

 

[CLEEK]

How did the civil rights movement reduce the rights of the majority? As far as I can tell, white people have the same rights now than they did in 1950. Unless you mean slavery, which is not a right.

Affirmative action, which by design makes it easier for minorities to gain entry to education / employment than the majority. The road to hell is paved with good intentions - the underling motivation for affirmation action was just, but the end result was an imbalance of rights for different groups, tipping the scales from one way to the other.

 

[Kazerei]

Affirmative action, which by design makes it easier for minorities to gain entry to education / employment than the ethnic majority. The road to hell is paved with good intentions - the underling motivation for affirmation action was just, but the end result was an imbalance of rights for different groups, tipping the scales from one way to the other.

No, there's no "imbalance of rights" here. Caucasians, Asians, etc. still have the same opportunities they did before.

 

[CLEEK]

No, there's no "imbalance of rights" here. Caucasians, Asians, etc. still have the same opportunities they did before.

Nope. It's reverse discrimination. Affirmative action is some countries (e.g. UK) has been ruled illegal, as it goes against established anti-discrimination laws.

Affirmative action is separate to equal opportunity, even if their end goals are the same.

 

[Kazerei]

Nope. It's reverse discrimination. Affirmative action is some countries has been ruled illegal, as it goes against established anti-discrimination laws.

Affirmative action is separate to equal opportunity, even if their end goals are the same.

The majority isn't being discriminated against, no. AA just makes the market a bit more competitive. There was a great thread about AA awhile ago. Lots of great insight there.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=494633

 

[LuffyZoro]

I'd just like to drop in and say that Shouta made a great post there, and I agree with it.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

 

[CLEEK]

The majority isn't being discriminated against, no. AA just makes the market a bit more competitive. There was a great thread about AA awhile ago. Lots of great insight there.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=494633

Your view that AA isn't discriminatory wasn't shared by most in that thread, nor in the wider world.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/14/us-supreme-court-fisher-idUSBRE87D10V20120814

The Supreme Court will decide on whether it is unconstitutional soon in its ruling in Abigail Fisher v. University of Texas. As I said, in the UK it has already been ruled anti-discriminatory and illegal.

 

[Devolution]

Nope. It's reverse discrimination. Affirmative action is some countries (e.g. UK) has been ruled illegal, as it goes against established anti-discrimination laws.

Affirmative action is separate to equal opportunity, even if their end goals are the same.

What rights have women been given that have stripped men of rights, not privileges, rights.

 

[Kazerei]

Your view that AA isn't discriminatory wasn't shared by most in that thread, nor in the wider world.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/14/us-supreme-court-fisher-idUSBRE87D10V20120814

The idea that AA is "reverse discrimination" is a pretty common misconception.

I don't really want to go further with this. The idea that equality of race/sex/whatever has to be "zero sum" game is ridiculous.

What rights have women been given that have stripped men of rights, not privileges, rights.

Yes, I think SPE is mistaking rights with privileges. White people have the same rights they did before the civil rights movement, though not the same privileges.

 

[NovemberMike]

By definition, you can't be a feminist and radically misandric either.

Nope. Feminism is simply an identity based political movement. Nothing more, nothing less. There's no guardian of the feminist club, there's no core principles that you have to work from, there's no way that you can kick anyone out.

Also, I'm not sure why anyone's surprised about the discussion turning to false rape accusations. Any law system is defined by its corner cases. Would you be surprised if a discussion on murder law turned to self defense, or a discussion on theft turned to squatters rights? The rape cases that are uncontroversial generally already work under current laws, if you're talking about updating anything you need to figure out where the corners are.

 

[CLEEK]

What rights have women been given that have stripped men of rights, not privileges, rights.

Historically, you have alimony, child support, child guardianship, affirmative action etc. Some of these still have legally defined gender bias.

 

[Reuenthal]

I agree with the article and that more no means no campaign is good.

As for false rape allegations, the no compromise views of some prominent feminists here that women who falsely accuse men of rape in court and when that is discovered by the legal system should not be punished with say a decade or two, that is the punishment should be relevant to the severity of the crime which falsely accusing someone of rape is a serious one is something I largely dislike. Both for what it is very unjust and against the rights of the accused, and for what it represents. No compromises no matter how much sense it makes and it means that feminists can say things that are useful to society usually but should not get all the power and fully trusted, a skeptical reaction towards them is warranted. Any movement, however much of a point they have about current oppression, they don't deserve blind trust about everything they believe in as that can go too much the other way. The incentives in behavior are just too much to assume that any person who support of most causes even positive ones to know exactly what is the right way to stop and how to compromise.

 

[FyreWulff]

Enthusiastic consent is easy.

Every time some guy says it isn't makes me think they believe in an adversarial relationship between the sexes: sex is something men want and women have, and we men have to seduce, con, trick, or force it out of them.

That's pretty much the summary, then the same against enthuisiastic consent go on wailing about false accusations and 'what about male rape' when it's linked. Male victims cannot get help because of the overly machismo and patriarchial view of sex because nobody believes them. I have personal experience with that. Then the machismo view states to get sex in the shortest and fastest way possible. Which harms women.

People are simply asking for consent both ways in sex and it's not hard to do at all. But then you get the immediate jump to "guess i need a contract hur hur" because they think you're accusing them of rape because they didn't explicitly ask every time they had sex previously. And I'm not, and nobody else is. It's just asked that people take all of 3 seconds to consider the other person going forward, and to realize that if one would feel that asking would end up in no sex, you already know the other person doesn't actually want it.

It isn't zero sum. It helps women. It helps men. But you can't get a discussion about this part because every time women try to point out that this IS a heavily patriarchial society (because it is, even basic history and theology classes will make you realize it), then people whine that it.. well, complicates their benefits of the patriarchy. And as you point out, makes sex adversarial.

 

[Necromanti]

The idea that AA is "reverse discrimination" is a pretty common misconception.

Affirmative action is indeed a fairly misunderstood concept, which is unfortunate. It's only true end goal is to make sure that minorities aren't ruled out in selection processes, not to give them preferential treatment (over majority members) as some seem to think.

Nope. Feminism is simply an identity based political movement. Nothing more, nothing less. There's no guardian of the feminist club, there's no core principles that you have to work from, there's no way that you can kick anyone out.

While "equality" is something that can be hard to define, varying from culture to culture, I think being an advocate for women's rights and equality (to put them on the same level as men, benefiting everyone) is a pretty general and core value to start from.

 

[NovemberMike]

But you can't get a discussion about this part because every time women try to point out that this IS a heavily patriarchial society (because it is, even basic history and theology classes will make you realize it), then people whine that it.. well, complicates their benefits of the patriarchy. And as you point out, makes sex adversarial.

The problem is that it's not really patriarchal in the sense that I see a lot of feminists use. It seems like it's an adaptation of Critical Theory, defining men and women as separate classes so that it can apply Marxist class conflict theories. I don't have a problem with Marx, but this kind of an analysis tends to stretch his tools way beyond the point where they make sense, and most of the factual claims made from Patriarchy theory such as the patriarchal models of rape and domestic violence have been pretty thoroughly discredited, and the treatment methods based on them like the Duluth Model are completely useless as far as treatment goes.

I just really haven't seen a good explanation of it that isn't based on Critical Theory, which is something that I have absolutely zero respect for.

 

[Kazerei]

The Supreme Court will decide on whether it is unconstitutional soon in its ruling in Abigail Fisher v. University of Texas. As I said, in the UK it has already been ruled anti-discriminatory and illegal.

I didn't see this late edit, but I think you should know that specifically having quotas is illegal in both the U.S. and U.K. That's not what affirmative action is about though.

Nope. Feminism is simply an identity based political movement. Nothing more, nothing less. There's no guardian of the feminist club, there's no core principles that you have to work from, there's no way that you can kick anyone out.

Also, I'm not sure why anyone's surprised about the discussion turning to false rape accusations. Any law system is defined by its corner cases. Would you be surprised if a discussion on murder law turned to self defense, or a discussion on theft turned to squatters rights? The rape cases that are uncontroversial generally already work under current laws, if you're talking about updating anything you need to figure out where the corners are.

There isn't really much problem with the "meat" of our understanding of murder or theft though, so it becomes a discussion of the "corners". Our understanding of rape ... not so much.

 

[NovemberMike]

There isn't really much problem with the "meat" of our understanding of murder or theft though, so it becomes a discussion of the "corners". Our understanding of rape ... not so much.

Actually, rape is pretty well codified in law. A lot of the objections that people have (from either side) are already taken into account. The problem is not with the actual laws generally, rape tends to get a similar number of convictions as other, similar crimes like murder.