scar tissue
Banned
In what world are women a minority?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The Nation: Ending Rape Illiteracy
- Thread starter Mumei
- Start date
- Status
In what world are women a minority?
timetokill
Banned
scar tissue
Banned
doublespeak is definitely alive and well
TUROK
Member
You're operating from the perspective that there is an oppressor and an oppressed, when in reality it's a lot more muddled than that.
Agree with it or not, what you're doing here is advocating a stance of men vs women, because you're implying that there is one group that doesn't need any more favors since they're already on top, which is painfully ignorant.
cutmeamango
Banned
I think there's a unspoken definition of this problem that confuses both sides.
Rights should be non-specific (thus being all inclusive) as their application should to, safe events that only concern/affect some (rights that stem from biological points such as age and sexual dimorphisms). Otherwise, if to supress or alleviate any perception of "unearned advantage", proposing then separate applications or specific laws would be not an attempt of equality, but balance. Which is a completely different notion.
This is an amazing anecdote that I want to carry with me all the time on business cards.
TheFightingFish
Member
Honestly I'm not sure that I totally buy into all of the Yes Means Yes stuff that Mumei quoted above. I mean, the basic tenets of working hard to prevent rape and to make sure that the general public is aware of the correct broader definition of rape I totally agree with. As well as making sure that acquaintance rape is treated as seriously as any other rape. However the efficacy of using enthusiastic consent as the best means to combat this I'm not as sure about. In many of the cases of acquaintance rape (I believe the number are like 75%, but don't quote me on that) one or often both of the parties is intoxicated with either alcohol or drugs. I get how enthusiastic consent can work well sober, but in cases where parties are intoxicated men and women making the correct interpretation of consent is still going to be a really big issue. It's just like driving a car, it doesn't matter how good of a driver you are sober, if you are intoxicated your ability to reason and comprehend is impaired. And the way that drunk driving is combated is not with some rule to follow while you are driving, but with the fear of punishment that makes you avoid the situation before you even get into the car intoxicated and the knowledge that you can't use "but I was drunk" as an excuse. Enthusiastic consent seem to my understanding (which is totally limited I'll admit) to rely and heat of the moment interpretation to work and I just can't see that happening in the current culture at some place like a college frat party. Which is why I mentioned earlier in the thread that working on reducing the locations and circumstances that these assaults and acquaintance rapes happen would be the best way to combat it as well as education so that victims / witnesses have the correct outlet to report these crimes safely and with the least amount of invasive process.
Is my point coming across ok? As I said I'm only passingly familiar with some of these topics.
scar tissue
Banned
Good point. People getting drunk can lead to all sorts of unfortunate consequences.
Banning alcohol or places where alcohol can be bought & consumed is no going to happen, ever.
TheFightingFish
Member
Well the ban was not really what I was aiming for. My example earlier in the thread was that if say a college fraternity was continually having parties where women felt unsafe at, where people were continually passing out, where there was heavy peer pressure to drink I'd revoke the heck out of their fraternity charter. Don't wait for the rapes to happen, just nip the dangerous situations in the bud. Sure you have a right to drink, but you don't have a right to have a chartered fraternity or a dorm room that's creating a dangerous environment for women. If people / groups prove that they can't handle intoxication in a reasonable fashion then don't just turn a blind eye to what is happening.
Now obviously this will just push some of the behavior underground, but still knocking out how often and how easy these situations happen would be a pretty good start I would think. Don't give them the idea that this type of situation and behavior is expected of college kids and that nothing can be done about it.
So, one of my feminism pet peeves is feminists who make waaaaay too big a deal out of pronouns. And unfortunately for my delicate sensitivities a lot of the later essays started doing it. I can handle "hir"; I just pronounce it like "her" and pretend it really says "his or her." But when they start trotting out the "Ze", "womyn" and "womon", well then I started facepalming.
So consider this a fair warning to those with allergies to gender neutral pronouns and silly misspellings of women/woman.
Oh, you know what is meant by that.
Ignoring everything else you said for just a moment, yes, they acknowledge that enthusiastic consent is not a one-size-fits-all "cure" for what ails us, and that there are lots of rapes and sexual assaults that would not be affected. Personally I have my doubts on some of the essays. For instance, I didn't really buy the essay "Reclaiming Touch"; I feel like it is fine for her to practice it but I somehow doubt that what she's talking about is as important as she was making it out to be - and I say that as someone who is pretty firm about my personal boundaries.
I do like some of your ideas, particularly about making reporting less humiliating. In fact, what you mention about not being able to use "but I was drunk" for getting into the car intoxicated; one other thing that feminists want is a shift in focus from one that concerns itself with whether she was drunk (which places the responsibility for being raped on her and makes the conversation about her choices) to him taking responsibility for his own behavior while drinking, the same as you would be held responsible for any other criminal behavior were you drunk. I think the sense that you'll get if you do read the is that there are a lot of different ideas, some of which seem idealistic and dumb, some of which seem great, some of which have some good stuff and some stuff that seems like a stretch, and some stuff that you just don't buy into at all; but I didn't want to give the sense that enthusiastic consent model (or an affirmative consent model, for the more legalistic crowd) was the only thing being advocated. There is also stuff about changing the way we view sex (process oriented vs commodity oriented views of sex, deconstructing the male-predator/female-prey paradigm that contributes to other male problems (e.g. pedophile issues), dealing with the fact that actual nice guys actually do have problems and not just ignoring the fact that assholes are often rewarded, changing how and what we teach about sex, as well as more particular suggestions for issues that women of color or LGBT or immigrant women deal with).
Oh, and particularly regarding the issue of affirmative consent not working in the heat of the moment: One of the essays talks particularly about how the BDSM community deals with it ("The Fantasy of Acceptable "Non-Consent": Why the Female Sexual Submissive Scares Us (and Why She Shouldn't), where consent is always verbalized and agreed upon. I do have some doubts about this (I think that affirmative consent can be established just fine without explicit verbal consent, but she talks about reasons for why talking these things out is good), but it was interesting.
I have my doubts about doing this preemptively, and from what I have read I really have my doubts over how feasible this is, but it is an interesting idea. I sort of feel like an overly paternalistic reaction, particularly without teaching an alternative, will actually be more problematic. One college (Antioch) used the affirmative consent model, and for all the jokes it actually did work for them.
So consider this a fair warning to those with allergies to gender neutral pronouns and silly misspellings of women/woman.
Oh, you know what is meant by that.
Ignoring everything else you said for just a moment, yes, they acknowledge that enthusiastic consent is not a one-size-fits-all "cure" for what ails us, and that there are lots of rapes and sexual assaults that would not be affected. Personally I have my doubts on some of the essays. For instance, I didn't really buy the essay "Reclaiming Touch"; I feel like it is fine for her to practice it but I somehow doubt that what she's talking about is as important as she was making it out to be - and I say that as someone who is pretty firm about my personal boundaries.
I do like some of your ideas, particularly about making reporting less humiliating. In fact, what you mention about not being able to use "but I was drunk" for getting into the car intoxicated; one other thing that feminists want is a shift in focus from one that concerns itself with whether she was drunk (which places the responsibility for being raped on her and makes the conversation about her choices) to him taking responsibility for his own behavior while drinking, the same as you would be held responsible for any other criminal behavior were you drunk. I think the sense that you'll get if you do read the is that there are a lot of different ideas, some of which seem idealistic and dumb, some of which seem great, some of which have some good stuff and some stuff that seems like a stretch, and some stuff that you just don't buy into at all; but I didn't want to give the sense that enthusiastic consent model (or an affirmative consent model, for the more legalistic crowd) was the only thing being advocated. There is also stuff about changing the way we view sex (process oriented vs commodity oriented views of sex, deconstructing the male-predator/female-prey paradigm that contributes to other male problems (e.g. pedophile issues), dealing with the fact that actual nice guys actually do have problems and not just ignoring the fact that assholes are often rewarded, changing how and what we teach about sex, as well as more particular suggestions for issues that women of color or LGBT or immigrant women deal with).
Oh, and particularly regarding the issue of affirmative consent not working in the heat of the moment: One of the essays talks particularly about how the BDSM community deals with it ("The Fantasy of Acceptable "Non-Consent": Why the Female Sexual Submissive Scares Us (and Why She Shouldn't), where consent is always verbalized and agreed upon. I do have some doubts about this (I think that affirmative consent can be established just fine without explicit verbal consent, but she talks about reasons for why talking these things out is good), but it was interesting.
I have my doubts about doing this preemptively, and from what I have read I really have my doubts over how feasible this is, but it is an interesting idea. I sort of feel like an overly paternalistic reaction, particularly without teaching an alternative, will actually be more problematic. One college (Antioch) used the affirmative consent model, and for all the jokes it actually did work for them.
Femmeworth
Banned
SPE sympathizer!Damnit now SPE is banned, hope you guys are happy!
I will have to check that book out... eventually.
kame-sennin
Member
Why don't you relieve me of my ignorance?
way more
Member
Maybe you are a math major but majority has more meaning than the group with more than 50% value of a set. There are concepts of power, privilege, agency and money which mean that although there are more slaves in the field, the outnumbered plantation owner has more "sway."
Indrid Cold1
Member
I feel like the lone guy arguing a dissenting or contrarian viewpoint always ends up banned in these topics.
Perhaps it's because that type of poster has a tendency to argue themself into a corner, not know when to relent, refuse to listen to what anyone else is saying, and sometimes wind up getting themselves banned as a result.
Having a minority opinion on its own has never been a bannable offense, even less so after c-word-gate.
For what it's worth, SPE was not the lone guy arguing a dissenting viewpoint; there were plenty of people going against the grain and only two or three people were banned.
Oh now I feel bad for not noticing those guys were banned too.
I should be an equal opportunity ban noticer.
It happens.
Just needed to take a break from all the arguing I end up getting into here; couldn't resist making a quick comment though
- Status