Alkahest wrote:

Again, could you explain to me exactly what you're trying to prove and what relevance it has to this thread?

That radical feminism is bigoted and seeks to secure unreasonable privileges for women over men. That more or less sums it up.

Anarchitect wrote:

OH FOR FUCKS SAKE We're not even talking about gender roles or sexism IN ECLIPSE PHASE anymore. This thread has jumped the goddamn shark. Mods, please either lock this down, or move it out of the Eclipse Phase discussion area. This may be a useful discussion for all involved to have, but this is not the place to have it.

Seconded, this thread has become really fucking bizarre.

Seekerofshadowlight wrote:

Seconded, this thread has become really fucking bizarre.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing but couldn't find the right words to write. It is amazing what a picture can stir up... reminds me a bit about "the manga case" in Sweden. (OK, to be fair, here is a link about that craziness: http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=5111006) I still love the scum chemist neo-pig... she has personality. :)

Smokeskin wrote:

Whatever women were paid in the past, today the wage gap is myth. There is no wage gap, and feminists want higher pay for women - that means that feminists wants women to be paid more than men for the same work. It follows directly from what they want. Women are in many cases have extra protections from being fired relating to pregnancy for example. Then there's the whole sexual harassment issue. Minimum quotas for women also means that women are more likely to hired and gives extra protection to women already there against discharge, since dropping below the quota gives problems.

You won't find any arguments from me for affirmative action, but that doesn't mean I'm under the delusion that society is all equal today. The wage gap exists, even if it is a shrinking concept. That said, I find it funny that we are discussing how feminists want all these rights for them and them alone, yet it was the feminists who fought for paternity leave for men. Why is that?

Smokeskin wrote:

I don't know why you keep calling it a "conspiracy". It is a group of people pushing their agenda. And about the matriarchy, no they don't call it that themselves, just like the feminist idea of a patriarchy has never been uttered by the people the feminists believe to be responsible for it. It is a description of the system that they want, even if they don't use the word themselves - they prefer to dress their ideas up as "equality".

Which either means the matriarchy is a secret, or that it is a myth. You can guess which one I'm more inclined to believe.

Smokeskin wrote:

Well, it seemed like you defended it. If you didn't, great. So you agree that this part of the feminist agenda is horribly oppressive and something anyone with even a hint of civil rights understanding should condemn in the harshest terms possible? I myself completely fail to see why other oppressive and bigoted movements like say religious fundamentalists (which I also speak out against when the issue comes up) somehow means feminists get off the hook. I'm going to speak up against all injustices. Are you?

Sure. I speak up vocally against religious bigots like Pat Robertson in the same way I speak against liberal a-holes like Dianne Feinstein. But the difference between you and I is that I attack the individual or the group, not the movement as a whole. "Feminism" is a concept that encompasses a multitude of views, of which the only thing it really unifies is the view that women should not be below men in a social aspect. All other elements of feminism are defined by individual organizations, people, specific social groups and whatnot. The meme of feminism itself is not the problem, anymore than the meme of religion is the problem with religious bigots.

Smokeskin wrote:

And this estimated figure is a) totally out of whack with real statistics and b) totally out of whack with what any normal person would infer from the questions answers and c) totally out of whack with what the questioned women themselves considered rape. And I'll say it again - you chose to dive into a single statistical comparison to the overall violence frequency, at totally ignore the solid debunking of the questionaires that led to the 1 in 4 rape statistic. But let me ask you directly: Do you consider it rape when a woman says "I would never have slept with the guy if I wasn't drunk"? Because that's how they reach the 1 in 4 statistic, even though the asked women themselves didn't feel it was rape. Focus on that, not just the crime rate in Detroit.

While I'm not totally in disagreement with what you say, I'm not particularly fond of defining a crime based on how the victim perceives it. A good portion of molestation victims do not consider themselves victims, despite evidence to the contrary. This often has to do with justifications that the perpetrator makes to coax the victim. It can also be a result of the victim's complete lack of understanding with regards to the legal definition; I know that one of my former co-workers at a business had no clue that the sexual propositions she was receiving were illegal until they were brought to her attention at a sexual harassment seminar. That said, the 1-in-4 statistic isn't that far from the 1-in-5 statistic for the United States as a whole. And I don't see it as any more or less factual than the undocumented immigrant statistics I see all the time.

Smokeskin wrote:

The article clearly states that the wage gap is neglible or non-existant.

I don't particularly see 93.4 cents on the dollar as negligible OR non-existent. Just significantly smaller than the old statistic. It's all relative.

Smokeskin wrote:

I have no idea what you're saying here, so I'll just restate my position. The feminist agendas typically brought forward are generally bigoted, oppressive and exploitative and seeks unfair advantage for women over men. Individual feminists and feminist organizations have differences in their agenda, but this doesn't change the overall trends in feminism.

I hear the same thing about atheists all the time. About how we harangue religious groups under the guise of "separation of church and state", or how we're all bible-hating scare-mongers trying to destroy the fabric of US culture. So you have to understand where I'm coming from when I think it ridiculous to put all feminists under a giant umbrella and claim the meme as a whole is oppressive and evil. I've literally spent time living with a feminist. Not some moderate liberal with women's equality views, but a radical feminist woman who walked around in public without a top to show that she shouldn't be held down by the system. Yet I've never heard any of the sort of crap that you or Nick12000 are claiming that the feminist movement is all about. Though in a comedic slant on this whole thing, the one thing she did do was talk about people like you in broad generalizations... which is exactly what you are doing about people like her. So I sort of laugh about all this not because the debate is funny, but because I get to see the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory]existence of the political horseshoe[/url] in all its glory.

Smokeskin wrote:

And religious conservatives disagree on lots of things. There are still problems with religious conservatives regarding teaching evolution theory, abortion rights, atheist discrimination and stem cell research. Saying that we can't talk about problems with religious conservatism because there are differences among them would be nothing but a stupid diversion tactic. It is the same when you use it with feminism.

But the point is very valid. Not all religious conservative groups are equal. Some are worse than others. Some aren't all that bad at all (I only tend to disagree with the Mormons on their view regarding gays). But you do a disservice to yourself and your views when you use them in broad generalizations about a whole movement that disagrees with you. For example, Catholics aren't against teaching evolution in schools. They believe in evolution. They're also now in support of stem cell research, since it can now use adult stem cells. And while the Catholic church doctrine opposes the use of contraceptives, most surveys show that individual Catholics in 1st world countries carry the exact opposite stance. And mind you that we aren't talking about a small sample of the religious right: the Catholic church is the single largest portion of the worldwide religious right, encompassing the biggest population of Christians, period. Does your broad generalization take that into account? You can discuss endemic issues in these movements, and we should. It's a very bad problem that there are feminists who believe that men can't be raped, or that an abuser or rapist be called guilty before innocent. But trying to solve the problem by discrediting the entire movement is ludicrous at best, and offensive at worst. I know a shit ton of atheists who truly believe that all churches should be dismantled; the best solution for eliminating such a ridiculous view isn't to eliminate atheism.

Alkahest wrote:

I've never been more anti-feminist than when I went to journalism school. I've never been more pro-feminist than when I read this thread. I guess familiarity really does breed contempt.

After reading all of this, a part of me wanted to call up my ex, give her a link, and ask her what she thought about it. But then I remember one time that a guy heckled her while she handed out fliers, and I remember the 45-minute shit-storm of rage I had to sit through while she debated a guy who apparently used menarebetterthanwomen.com as a source of gospel. Which is like watching two religious fanatics thump each other with their respective holy books, in some sort of lame game of two-player whack-a-mole, with only two holes. And I realize that I don't want to sit through that again....

Decivre wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:

Whatever women were paid in the past, today the wage gap is myth. There is no wage gap, and feminists want higher pay for women - that means that feminists wants women to be paid more than men for the same work. It follows directly from what they want. Women are in many cases have extra protections from being fired relating to pregnancy for example. Then there's the whole sexual harassment issue. Minimum quotas for women also means that women are more likely to hired and gives extra protection to women already there against discharge, since dropping below the quota gives problems.

You won't find any arguments from me for affirmative action, but that doesn't mean I'm under the delusion that society is all equal today. The wage gap exists, even if it is a shrinking concept.

Look, it's a myth. If there was a wage gap, smart companies would be hiring women instead of men and get the same work done cheaper - and men would "drop" their salary requirements to compete with women.

Decivre wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:

I don't know why you keep calling it a "conspiracy". It is a group of people pushing their agenda. And about the matriarchy, no they don't call it that themselves, just like the feminist idea of a patriarchy has never been uttered by the people the feminists believe to be responsible for it. It is a description of the system that they want, even if they don't use the word themselves - they prefer to dress their ideas up as "equality".

Which either means the matriarchy is a secret, or that it is a myth. You can guess which one I'm more inclined to believe.

No. A matriarchy is a system where women enjoy priviliges over men. Feminists don't use the word matriarchy AFAIK, but it is an accurate description of most of their agenda.

Decivre wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:

Well, it seemed like you defended it. If you didn't, great. So you agree that this part of the feminist agenda is horribly oppressive and something anyone with even a hint of civil rights understanding should condemn in the harshest terms possible? I myself completely fail to see why other oppressive and bigoted movements like say religious fundamentalists (which I also speak out against when the issue comes up) somehow means feminists get off the hook. I'm going to speak up against all injustices. Are you?

Sure. I speak up vocally against religious bigots like Pat Robertson in the same way I speak against liberal a-holes like Dianne Feinstein. But the difference between you and I is that I attack the individual or the group, not the movement as a whole. "Feminism" is a concept that encompasses a multitude of views, of which the only thing it really unifies is the view that women should not be below men in a social aspect. All other elements of feminism are defined by individual organizations, people, specific social groups and whatnot. The meme of feminism itself is not the problem, anymore than the meme of religion is the problem with religious bigots.

I'd argue that religion itself is a problem, but that's another discussion. I think you can make meaningful statements about religious conservatism and the general problems with it. Of course once you delve into discussions of individuals and organizations, you'll have to get more specific. But the idea that we can't discuss issues on a general level only serves to make discussion harder, not easier.

Decivre wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:

And this estimated figure is a) totally out of whack with real statistics and b) totally out of whack with what any normal person would infer from the questions answers and c) totally out of whack with what the questioned women themselves considered rape. And I'll say it again - you chose to dive into a single statistical comparison to the overall violence frequency, at totally ignore the solid debunking of the questionaires that led to the 1 in 4 rape statistic. But let me ask you directly: Do you consider it rape when a woman says "I would never have slept with the guy if I wasn't drunk"? Because that's how they reach the 1 in 4 statistic, even though the asked women themselves didn't feel it was rape. Focus on that, not just the crime rate in Detroit.

While I'm not totally in disagreement with what you say, I'm not particularly fond of defining a crime based on how the victim perceives it. A good portion of molestation victims do not consider themselves victims, despite evidence to the contrary. This often has to do with justifications that the perpetrator makes to coax the victim. It can also be a result of the victim's complete lack of understanding with regards to the legal definition; I know that one of my former co-workers at a business had no clue that the sexual propositions she was receiving were illegal until they were brought to her attention at a sexual harassment seminar. That said, the 1-in-4 statistic isn't that far from the 1-in-5 statistic for the United States as a whole. And I don't see it as any more or less factual than the undocumented immigrant statistics I see all the time.

Those undocumented immigrant statistics might well be wildly inaccurate like this one. Another bad stat isn't a good excuse for using a bad stat. The real problem with the 1-in-4 rape statistic isn't the number in itself - it is the relabelling of consensual activity as rape that is the big problem here.

Decivre wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:

The article clearly states that the wage gap is neglible or non-existant.

I don't particularly see 93.4 cents on the dollar as negligible OR non-existent. Just significantly smaller than the old statistic. It's all relative.

That's not what the article says. It says that the 6.6 cent gap is after some adjustments but not all - and then it lists a large number of significant factors that are not adjusted for and that will certainly reduce the number even further, maybe even down to "zero" (and I quote the zero because a finding of zero would almost certainly indicate doctored numbers - it's extremely unlikely that any given methodology would find zero difference even when there was none).

Decivre wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:

I have no idea what you're saying here, so I'll just restate my position. The feminist agendas typically brought forward are generally bigoted, oppressive and exploitative and seeks unfair advantage for women over men. Individual feminists and feminist organizations have differences in their agenda, but this doesn't change the overall trends in feminism.

I hear the same thing about atheists all the time. About how we harangue religious groups under the guise of "separation of church and state", or how we're all bible-hating scare-mongers trying to destroy the fabric of US culture. So you have to understand where I'm coming from when I think it ridiculous to put all feminists under a giant umbrella and claim the meme as a whole is oppressive and evil.

If you scroll up, you'll find me saying for example that my gripe is mainly with radical feminism, and that a lot of reasonable people identify themselves as feminists, and that historically feminism was something quite different than the feminist agendas pushed today (which tend to be of the radical kind since valid feminist issues are mostly found outside of western culture and for some reason few prominent feminists seem to care about minorities and foreign issues).

Decivre wrote:

I've literally spent time living with a feminist. Not some moderate liberal with women's equality views, but a radical feminist woman who walked around in public without a top to show that she shouldn't be held down by the system. Yet I've never heard any of the sort of crap that you or Nick12000 are claiming that the feminist movement is all about.

I think it's great that she's doing her bit to provoke people who think they have any right to tell a woman how to dress. That's hardly radical feminism, it might even be more along the lines of sex-positive feminism. And I'm not sure you hear crap. If you think that the wage gap and glass ceiling are real and actual problems, you're bound to mistake claims for unjust privilege as claims for equality.

Decivre wrote:

Though in a comedic slant on this whole thing, the one thing she did do was talk about people like you in broad generalizations... which is exactly what you are doing about people like her. So I sort of laugh about all this not because the debate is funny, but because I get to see the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory]existence of the political horseshoe[/url] in all its glory.

Yeah, non-servile men are dicks. We know.

Decivre wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:

And religious conservatives disagree on lots of things. There are still problems with religious conservatives regarding teaching evolution theory, abortion rights, atheist discrimination and stem cell research. Saying that we can't talk about problems with religious conservatism because there are differences among them would be nothing but a stupid diversion tactic. It is the same when you use it with feminism.

But the point is very valid. Not all religious conservative groups are equal. Some are worse than others. Some aren't all that bad at all (I only tend to disagree with the Mormons on their view regarding gays). But you do a disservice to yourself and your views when you use them in broad generalizations about a whole movement that disagrees with you. For example, Catholics aren't against teaching evolution in schools. They believe in evolution. They're also now in support of stem cell research, since it can now use adult stem cells. And while the Catholic church doctrine opposes the use of contraceptives, most surveys show that individual Catholics in 1st world countries carry the exact opposite stance. And mind you that we aren't talking about a small sample of the religious right: the Catholic church is the single largest portion of the worldwide religious right, encompassing the biggest population of Christians, period. Does your broad generalization take that into account? You can discuss endemic issues in these movements, and we should. It's a very bad problem that there are feminists who believe that men can't be raped, or that an abuser or rapist be called guilty before innocent. But trying to solve the problem by discrediting the entire movement is ludicrous at best, and offensive at worst. I know a shit ton of atheists who truly believe that all churches should be dismantled; the best solution for eliminating such a ridiculous view isn't to eliminate atheism.

My broad generalization is a generalization that of course doesn't apply fully to individual organizations. But even then to take your example, most of those catholics empower the catholic church which successfully has prevented condoms from becoming widespread in large parts of Africa, with untold numbers of extra HIV cases as the direct result. There are consequences to aligning yourself with extremists, even if you don't share their views fully. I'm very much with Sam Harris on this one - the power base of the extremists is often made up of moderates, and they can't shirk away from their responsibility. And what is wrong with wanting all the churches dismantled? That would certainly be a positive thing. Now I'm also a libertarian so I wouldn't see that happen by force, but if all the religious people would be deconverted, that'd be great. Look at how much ignorance, fear, hatred and misery they're spreading.

LatwPIAT wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:

Having sex with someone drunk may or may not be rape. [b]Drunkenness doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not it is rape.[/b] A no is a no, a yes is a yes.

Rape is defined rather clearly in most jurisdictions as "sexual intercourse, or other forms of sexual penetration, of one person by another person without the consent of the victim." or something to that effect. On the nature of consent, the following usually applies: "Lack of consent may result from either forcible compulsion by the perpetrator or an incapacity to consent on the part of the victim (such as persons who are asleep, [b]intoxicated[/b] or otherwise mentally helpless)." When it comes to what "incapacity to consent" caused by intoxication is, in San Diego, the San Diego Distric Attorney provides a clarification: " If she's wasted, intoxicated, asleep, or unconscious, she cannot give legal consent, even if she said "yes"" ([url=http://www.sdcda.org/helping/prevent-rape/]Link[/url]) So, at least with respect to San Diego, you are provably wrong. And I'm inclined to believe that you're wrong and hold somewhat reprehensible views with regards to other places, since you consider drunken people to be capable of consent when they're not.

I think we need to clarify terms here. Obviously you can be drunk/intoxicated enought that you can't give consent. But the idea that just because you're drunk, you can't consent, that's bullshit. If you can say the words "yeah let's fuck" and take part in the act, you're able to consent. And just to take a borderline case: if she drunkenly slurs "yeesh" but isn't obviously aware of what is going on and is too drunk to resist or care about what is going on, that is very different from drunken but active participation in sex - and that would be rape. I don't care what the legal definition is in San Diego - if they're seriously saying that just being drunk makes you unable to consent, that's bullshit. So a woman can go along with sex all the way, maybe even initiate it, and then the next day claim she was drunk and land a guy in prison for years? What about the guy? Could he say that "yeah I didn't want sex either but I was drunk - she raped me too"? Or is it only a woman's right to cry rape?

Smokeskin wrote:

If women have special privileges, that's a matriarchy. It's what the word means.

Oh no! That means that I'm now a victim of the handicaparchy! We are all doomed!

Smokeskin wrote:

And just so you're aware, you're using radical feminist newspeak when you say they're trying to "rebalance social order". You make it sound like there's some unbalance that needs to be fixed.

It doesn't matter whether there is an unbalance or their isn't. Feminists believe there is, and that's a core focus of the movement. We're talking politics, Smokeskin. In politics, facts matter far less than how the world is perceived.

Smokeskin wrote:

And I note that you didn't give any examples of someone trying to create or maintain this patriarchy, which you claimed existed.

Quote me and where I said the patriarchy existed, please. I will gladly refute my statement.

Decivre wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:

And just so you're aware, you're using radical feminist newspeak when you say they're trying to "rebalance social order". You make it sound like there's some unbalance that needs to be fixed.

It doesn't matter whether there is an unbalance or their isn't. Feminists believe there is, and that's a core focus of the movement. We're talking politics, Smokeskin. In politics, facts matter far less than how the world is perceived.

Sigh. Of course it is politics and morals, of course people go on opinions not facts, and of course people are still responsible for their statements and actions. Fundamentalists can talk about the words of the bible all day, they're still being oppressive when they want to ban abortion. And you can play into the propaganda of radical feminists, but you can't just say "it's just politics" and the expect to not get called out on it.

Quote:

Smokeskin wrote:

And I note that you didn't give any examples of someone trying to create or maintain this patriarchy, which you claimed existed.

Quote me and where I said the patriarchy existed, please. I will gladly refute my statement.

Well, you criticized me for saying it doesn't exist. So I take it you don't think the patriarchy exists. That's great. So women aren't treated unfairly. There is not a discriminating system that keeps them underpaid, there's not an old boys network that keeps them under the glass ceiling, there's not a culture that pressures them to serve men. And if we agree that there isn't a patriarchy now, how do you feel about some feminists seeking additional priviliges for women over men? Wouldn't that be discriminatory? And I take it that the complaints of some feminists over the widespread sexual objectification of women in culture and media is a farfetched claim? Doesn't the major part of the feminist movement rest on the supposed patriarchy? Isn't that their justification? If not, what is?

Smokeskin wrote:

But the markets do tend to find good solutions to especially this sort of thing when they're free, and attempts to regulate them won't work. Here in Denmark women enjoy really good maternity leave terms required by law, generally at the cost of the business, and that of course results in difficulties in getting jobs and less pay for women likely to have children. So the markets do indeed balance it out. Of course it is 100% equal that depends on the acuity of hiring managers, and some women manage to hustle employers when hiring and others get unfairly discriminated against because they really didn't want children. But that's legislation for you.

Depends on how you define "good". Markets are tools bereft of morality. The good or evil they do is fully dependent on the forces that manipulate them, not on any inherent goodness within them. A market is just as capable of creating disparity as they are at creating balance.

Smokeskin wrote:

So you're just going to keep on ignoring my opening statement in this discussion on how this mostly applies to radical feminism? And my many mentions of radical feminism? But the real problem is you clearly fail to understand what a generalization is. It is a discussion of general features even if they do not apply to every member of the group.

Except even when talking about radical feminism, you are either misinformed or completely misrepresenting their stances. Their primary goal is to tear down societal gender roles, even if it means completely changing society. And while some might do crazy things that, to you, look like they are trying to install a matriarchy, that's still not an accurate generalization to ascribe to radical feminism as a whole. It would be like saying that radical atheism is all about crapflooding Youtube with bitching and trying to get the Pledge of Allegiance thrown out of schools. It's a terrible misrepresentation that might not even include a majority of radical atheists.

Smokeskin wrote:

Of course blackmail doesn't make it consensual. And are you really tring to undermine the statement that consensual sex isn't rape? You give off some really bad radical feminist vibes when you say stuff like that. What's next? Prostitution is rape because the women need money? Girls trying to live up to media ideals of willing women are actually being raped when they have sex?

The problem is that consent is already a touchy topic. Some people have tried to justify acts of rape (and other acts of violence, sexual or otherwise) by saying that their victim consented at one point during the encounter, or that it was rape play and pretending to be non-consenting was part of the act. You also aren't taking into account the various narcotics that can manipulate your reasoning faculties (if I drug you with BZ and get you to sign over the rights to all your property, it's not stealing right?). Don't get me wrong, if two people both get drunk and both do something stupid, I think they are both at fault. But don't tell me that a person who stays sober so they can take advantage of someone in a drunken state is somehow morally in the clear.

Smokeskin wrote:

Now. You. Are. Just. Plain. Lying. From the article: "The AAUW notes that part of the new 6.6-cent wage-gap may be owed to women's supposedly inferior negotiating skills -- not unscrupulous employers. Furthermore, the AAUW's 6.6 cents includes some large legitimate wage differences masked by over-broad occupational categories. For example, its researchers count "social science" as one college major and report that, among such majors, women earned only 83 percent of what men earned. That may sound unfair... until you consider that "social science" includes both economics and sociology majors. Economics majors (66 percent male) have a median income of $70,000; for sociology majors (68 percent female) it is $40,000. Economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the Manhattan Institute has pointed to similar incongruities. The AAUW study classifies jobs as diverse as librarian, lawyer, professional athlete, and "media occupations" under a single rubric--"other white collar." Says Furchtgott-Roth: "So, the AAUW report compares the pay of male lawyers with that of female librarians; of male athletes with that of female communications assistants. That's not a comparison between people who do the same work." With more realistic categories and definitions, the remaining 6.6 gap would certainly narrow to just a few cents at most. Do you think I'm so stupid I didn't read the article we're discussing? Why would you lie about that?

Maybe you should [url=http://www.aauw.org/research/graduating-to-a-pay-gap/]read the actual damn research[/url] instead of basing your "facts" on an explicitly biased article trying to prove that the paygap is a myth. The 6.6% is unaccounted for, and the AAUW lists possible factors that might attribute to it, but while stipulating that there is no cohesive evidence to support these factors; they are entirely speculation. All other major non-gender factors, that can be explicitly accounted for, are already accounted for in that figure. Or do you also want to prove that evolution is a myth by showing me context-removed teardowns of biological research papers?

Smokeskin wrote:

So what? Your anecdotal experiences makes the statements of prominent feminists go away? And as I said before, you have demonstrated a clear inability to recognize feminist bigotry as such.

And you've demonstrated a clear inability to discuss the subject of feminism with a rational mind.

Smokeskin wrote:

Hah. Look, just because she walked around with her tits out, that doesn't make her the most extreme radical feminist out there. You're making it sound like no other feminists can have more radical opinions than her. I think we agree on how horrible reverse burden of proof for rape is. This has been proposed by several members of the Danish parliament. These people exist and there are enough people that accept the idea that you can say stuff like that and not get thrown out of mainstream political parties and get people to vote for you.

Rape as a criminal issue is a difficult topic all around. Even when the prosecution is expected to prove the defendant guilty, evidence for rape is some of the hardest criminal evidence to obtain. And character assassination as a defense is all too effective (likely just as effective as it would be offensively in the guilty-until-proven-innocent scenario). All you've got are people trying to come up with solutions, which heavy-handed or not, are not proof of malice on their part. But again, it's nice to know that you're sticking to your No True Scotsman fallacy, and enforcing it by attacking a single anecdote that I threw out as a casual reference to imply how much she was into the radical feminist movement, rather than focusing on the topic at hand.

Smokeskin wrote:

No, feminists consider non-servile men to be dicks ;)

I consider dicks to be dicks, servile or not. Personally, I hate yes-men. I wouldn't be on here arguing with you about feminism if I wanted an echo-box of people agreeing with me, now would I?

Smokeskin wrote:

Every American isn't responsible for every war, yet we can talk about American foreign policy. But if you say voted for Bush, knowing that he'll go to war in Iraq, you'd better be ready to defend it - at the very least on the balance of things. It is the same with catholics. If you support the Catholic Church directly, you can't just pretend you're not responsible for what they do.

I agree. But there's a difference between talking about the atrocious human rights record of the US military over the past decade and a half, and talking about it as though it is the fault of every American. We can talk about a few nut-jobs in the feminist movement that might want to install some sort of bizarre matriarchy (which I would still like to see proof of), but I'd rather talk about them as individuals, not as the crux of a movement. In fact, I actually really do want some citations of individual feminists who want a matriarchy. I would be much more amicable to having a reasonable discussion of their asshattery in specific, rather than debating the broader (radical) feminist movement as though it were guilty of their sins. And I still have a hard time with the view that every Catholic who is part of the church is guilty of its crimes. You're talking about people who think that they are serving god through an institution. To them, the crimes of the institution do not justify abandoning the side of god. You have to put yourself in their mindset to understand what they do.

Smokeskin wrote:

Sigh. Of course it is politics and morals, of course people go on opinions not facts, and of course people are still responsible for their statements and actions. Fundamentalists can talk about the words of the bible all day, they're still being oppressive when they want to ban abortion. And you can play into the propaganda of radical feminists, but you can't just say "it's just politics" and the expect to not get called out on it.

That's not what I'm saying, however. I'm saying that you can't dismiss the idea that they are fighting a perceived state of institutional oppression based on your own views of whether that oppression exists. For that same reason, if I think that free markets are evil (not that I do), I'm not going to presume you love evil because you are a proponent of free markets. You are presuming the motives of another person based on how you see things to work, assuming they see the world the same way as you. And this is a ludicrous way to look at the actions of others.

Smokeskin wrote:

Well, you criticized me for saying it doesn't exist. So I take it you don't think the patriarchy exists. That's great. So women aren't treated unfairly. There is not a discriminating system that keeps them underpaid, there's not an old boys network that keeps them under the glass ceiling, there's not a culture that pressures them to serve men. And if we agree that there isn't a patriarchy now, how do you feel about some feminists seeking additional priviliges for women over men? Wouldn't that be discriminatory? And I take it that the complaints of some feminists over the widespread sexual objectification of women in culture and media is a farfetched claim? Doesn't the major part of the feminist movement rest on the supposed patriarchy? Isn't that their justification? If not, what is?

Actually, I criticized Nick12000 for believing that an instituted Patriarchy is a myth, unlike the Matriarchy that feminists are trying to install. I saw it as an oddly dissonant form of hypocrisy, not unlike the racists I see on 4chan who claim "the Nazis weren't terrible people... unlike [i]those filthy Jews that wish to ruin the world[/i]!!!" It's like an adult version of the phrase "I know you are, but what am I?" But just because I don't believe in some conspiratorial patriarchy doesn't mean I believe that sexism is extinct and the world is a beautiful place with roses and peace for everyone. I'm not delusional or insane. Institutional sexism can and does exist... perhaps not as significant an issue as it was a century, or perhaps even a decade, ago. But if you can look at the Middle East, the significant sex abuse issues of the US military, or conservative Christians who try to dismantle reproductive rights and say "NOPE, NO PROBLEM EXISTS AROUND HERE!!!", then you're mental.

Decivre wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:

So you're just going to keep on ignoring my opening statement in this discussion on how this mostly applies to radical feminism? And my many mentions of radical feminism? But the real problem is you clearly fail to understand what a generalization is. It is a discussion of general features even if they do not apply to every member of the group.

Except even when talking about radical feminism, you are either misinformed or completely misrepresenting their stances. Their primary goal is to tear down societal gender roles, even if it means completely changing society. And while some might do crazy things that, to you, look like they are trying to install a matriarchy, that's still not an accurate generalization to ascribe to radical feminism as a whole.

So you are going to ignore my repeated statements that many feminists are reasonable people?

Quote:

Smokeskin wrote:

Of course blackmail doesn't make it consensual. And are you really tring to undermine the statement that consensual sex isn't rape? You give off some really bad radical feminist vibes when you say stuff like that. What's next? Prostitution is rape because the women need money? Girls trying to live up to media ideals of willing women are actually being raped when they have sex?

The problem is that consent is already a touchy topic. Some people have tried to justify acts of rape (and other acts of violence, sexual or otherwise) by saying that their victim consented at one point during the encounter, or that it was rape play and pretending to be non-consenting was part of the act. You also aren't taking into account the various narcotics that can manipulate your reasoning faculties (if I drug you with BZ and get you to sign over the rights to all your property, it's not stealing right?). Don't get me wrong, if two people both get drunk and both do something stupid, I think they are both at fault. But don't tell me that a person who stays sober so they can take advantage of someone in a drunken state is somehow morally in the clear.

If you said yes at one point but later says no, then it obviously stops being consensual and starts being rape. If you engage in rape play or BDSM and don't have safeword procedures and consent in writing, you're so stupid and care so little for the safety of those involved that you deserve something very close to if not the same the punishment for actual rape. I mean, even if she wants to try rape play how do you know that it won't actually be traumatic for her and she'll want it to stop? Setting yourself up in a situation where you can't tell if you're traumatizing someone is beyond irresponsible.

Quote:

Smokeskin wrote:

Now. You. Are. Just. Plain. Lying. From the article: "The AAUW notes that part of the new 6.6-cent wage-gap may be owed to women's supposedly inferior negotiating skills -- not unscrupulous employers. Furthermore, the AAUW's 6.6 cents includes some large legitimate wage differences masked by over-broad occupational categories. For example, its researchers count "social science" as one college major and report that, among such majors, women earned only 83 percent of what men earned. That may sound unfair... until you consider that "social science" includes both economics and sociology majors. Economics majors (66 percent male) have a median income of $70,000; for sociology majors (68 percent female) it is $40,000. Economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the Manhattan Institute has pointed to similar incongruities. The AAUW study classifies jobs as diverse as librarian, lawyer, professional athlete, and "media occupations" under a single rubric--"other white collar." Says Furchtgott-Roth: "So, the AAUW report compares the pay of male lawyers with that of female librarians; of male athletes with that of female communications assistants. That's not a comparison between people who do the same work." With more realistic categories and definitions, the remaining 6.6 gap would certainly narrow to just a few cents at most. Do you think I'm so stupid I didn't read the article we're discussing? Why would you lie about that?

Maybe you should [url=http://www.aauw.org/research/graduating-to-a-pay-gap/]read the actual damn research[/url] instead of basing your "facts" on an explicitly biased article trying to prove that the paygap is a myth. The 6.6% is unaccounted for, and the AAUW lists possible factors that might attribute to it, but while stipulating that there is no cohesive evidence to support these factors; they are entirely speculation. All other major non-gender factors, that can be explicitly accounted for, are already accounted for in that figure.

Which is very clearly the opposite of what you said. You said the article stated that the 6.6 cents was after adjustment for all factors.

Quote:

[

Smokeskin wrote:

Hah. Look, just because she walked around with her tits out, that doesn't make her the most extreme radical feminist out there. You're making it sound like no other feminists can have more radical opinions than her. I think we agree on how horrible reverse burden of proof for rape is. This has been proposed by several members of the Danish parliament. These people exist and there are enough people that accept the idea that you can say stuff like that and not get thrown out of mainstream political parties and get people to vote for you.

Rape as a criminal issue is a difficult topic all around. Even when the prosecution is expected to prove the defendant guilty, evidence for rape is some of the hardest criminal evidence to obtain. And character assassination as a defense is all too effective (likely just as effective as it would be offensively in the guilty-until-proven-innocent scenario). All you've got are people trying to come up with solutions, which heavy-handed or not, are not proof of malice on their part.

If you want malicious things to happen but you don't think you're malicious, you're still in the wrong. Your defense of these radical feminists would work for any sort of racist or bigot

Quote:

Smokeskin wrote:

No, feminists consider non-servile men to be dicks ;)

I consider dicks to be dicks, servile or not. Personally, I hate yes-men. I wouldn't be on here arguing with you about feminism if I wanted an echo-box of people agreeing with me, now would I?

Smokeskin wrote:

Every American isn't responsible for every war, yet we can talk about American foreign policy. But if you say voted for Bush, knowing that he'll go to war in Iraq, you'd better be ready to defend it - at the very least on the balance of things. It is the same with catholics. If you support the Catholic Church directly, you can't just pretend you're not responsible for what they do.

I agree. But there's a difference between talking about the atrocious human rights record of the US military over the past decade and a half, and talking about it as though it is the fault of every American. We can talk about a few nut-jobs in the feminist movement that might want to install some sort of bizarre matriarchy (which I would still like to see proof of), but I'd rather talk about them as individuals, not as the crux of a movement. In fact, I actually really do want some citations of individual feminists who want a matriarchy. I would be much more amicable to having a reasonable discussion of their asshattery in specific, rather than debating the broader (radical) feminist movement as though it were guilty of their sins.

I have repeatedly stated that many feminists are reasonable people. If you want to talk specifics, Danish politician Lone Dybkjær was a member of parliament and wanted reverse burden of proof for rape. Happy now?

Quote:

And I still have a hard time with the view that every Catholic who is part of the church is guilty of its crimes. You're talking about people who think that they are serving god through an institution. To them, the crimes of the institution do not justify abandoning the side of god. You have to put yourself in their mindset to understand what they do.

Well if they think god is on their side, that's ok then. Like any sort of religiously inspired oppression or terrorism I guess. You really don't like the idea that people are accountable for their actions rather than their intentions, do you?

Quote:

Smokeskin wrote:

Sigh. Of course it is politics and morals, of course people go on opinions not facts, and of course people are still responsible for their statements and actions. Fundamentalists can talk about the words of the bible all day, they're still being oppressive when they want to ban abortion. And you can play into the propaganda of radical feminists, but you can't just say "it's just politics" and the expect to not get called out on it.

That's not what I'm saying, however. I'm saying that you can't dismiss the idea that they are fighting a perceived state of institutional oppression based on your own views of whether that oppression exists. For that same reason, if I think that free markets are evil (not that I do), I'm not going to presume you love evil because you are a proponent of free markets. You are presuming the motives of another person based on how you see things to work, assuming they see the world the same way as you. And this is a ludicrous way to look at the actions of others.

Now you're just lying again. Look up where I wrote that one reason for holding radical feminist views could be that you believed feminist propaganda. That's clearly a case of being misinformed rather than malicious.

Quote:

Smokeskin wrote:

Well, you criticized me for saying it doesn't exist. So I take it you don't think the patriarchy exists. That's great. So women aren't treated unfairly. There is not a discriminating system that keeps them underpaid, there's not an old boys network that keeps them under the glass ceiling, there's not a culture that pressures them to serve men. And if we agree that there isn't a patriarchy now, how do you feel about some feminists seeking additional priviliges for women over men? Wouldn't that be discriminatory? And I take it that the complaints of some feminists over the widespread sexual objectification of women in culture and media is a farfetched claim? Doesn't the major part of the feminist movement rest on the supposed patriarchy? Isn't that their justification? If not, what is?

Actually, I criticized Nick12000 for believing that an instituted Patriarchy is a myth, unlike the Matriarchy that feminists are trying to install. I saw it as an oddly dissonant form of hypocrisy, not unlike the racists I see on 4chan who claim "the Nazis weren't terrible people... unlike [i]those filthy Jews that wish to ruin the world[/i]!!!" It's like an adult version of the phrase "I know you are, but what am I?" But just because I don't believe in some conspiratorial patriarchy doesn't mean I believe that sexism is extinct and the world is a beautiful place with roses and peace for everyone. I'm not delusional or insane. Institutional sexism can and does exist... perhaps not as significant an issue as it was a century, or perhaps even a decade, ago. But if you can look at the Middle East, the significant sex abuse issues of the US military, or conservative Christians who try to dismantle reproductive rights and say "NOPE, NO PROBLEM EXISTS AROUND HERE!!!", then you're mental.

As I wrote earlier, there are very real problems among minorities and in foreign countries. There's certainly a job for feminists there. And I have repeatedly spoken out against the religious conservatives' ideas on abortion as oppressive towards women (though that is mostly a religious issue imo and the religious right seems to have no problem with women in leadership positions and such - they don't seem sexist as such). So please stop misrepresenting my position. But those things are not typical feminist issues. That tends to be about wage gaps, glass ceilings, rape culture, sexual objectification of women and such. And the sort of supposed patriarchy that would justify those issues - do you think that exists or not?

Smokeskin wrote:

So you are going to ignore my repeated statements that many feminists are reasonable people?

Don't remember saying that I would. But simply chanting it repeatedly is not an excuse to continue saying broad generalizations. In that same vein, if I were spewing hate speech against some random race, I don't get to avoid being called on it if I prefix every statement with "I don't mean to sound like a racist, but...".

Smokeskin wrote:

If you said yes at one point but later says no, then it obviously stops being consensual and starts being rape. If you engage in rape play or BDSM and don't have safeword procedures and consent in writing, you're so stupid and care so little for the safety of those involved that you deserve something very close to if not the same the punishment for actual rape. I mean, even if she wants to try rape play how do you know that it won't actually be traumatic for her and she'll want it to stop? Setting yourself up in a situation where you can't tell if you're traumatizing someone is beyond irresponsible.

That is assuming that there actually is any rape play involved. Edward and Marilyn Bagley [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/15/edward-bagley-sex-slave-guilty_... a woman trapped in their house for 7 years torturing her and broadcasting it over the internet[/url], then claimed that she was a completely consenting to her own torture... torture that led to her having a heart attack at age 23. This is the inherent problem with the issue. When you try to draw a clear and distinct line with regards to consent, people will try to exploit it.

Smokeskin wrote:

Which is very clearly the opposite of what you said. You said the article stated that the 6.6 cents was after adjustment for all factors.

My exact quote was "Actually, the 93.4 cent mark I mentioned was after all factors they cited as being explainable by gender-neutral factors. 6.6 percent is completely unaccountable, and is effectively the gender gap exclusive to all other factors." I apologize for not specifying that I turned to the research, rather than sticking to one specific article's interpretation of it.

Smokeskin wrote:

If you want malicious things to happen but you don't think you're malicious, you're still in the wrong. Your defense of these radical feminists would work for any sort of racist or bigot

And if you show me examples of radical feminists doing the sort of things that racists and bigots do (criminal actions up to and including the assassination of people that go against their views), then we have a discussable topic.

Smokeskin wrote:

I have repeatedly stated that many feminists are reasonable people. If you want to talk specifics, Danish politician Lone Dybkjær was a member of parliament and wanted reverse burden of proof for rape. Happy now?

And I absolutely disagree with her stance. Furthermore, I voted explicitly against Hilary Clinton because she backed the FEPA, a bill that would have worked to create exceptional censorship laws specifically targeting videogames because she found them degrading and excessively violent. I also am not fond of Senator Feinstein for her continued support of pointless gun control and the PATRIOT act, one of the worst legal snafus in American history. I'm also not fond of Barbara boxer because she's a self-entitled bitch who crapped on a brigadier general for calling her "ma'am". Also excessive gun control. See? When you discuss specific people and organizations, we can find common ground.

Smokeskin wrote:

Well if they think god is on their side, that's ok then. Like any sort of religiously inspired oppression or terrorism I guess. You really don't like the idea that people are accountable for their actions rather than their intentions, do you?

Actually, my point is that people are accountable for their actions exclusive to the actions of others. If I buy Joe a bicycle wheel for his bike, but he instead strips the spokes to make lockpicks so he can rob a house, am I guilty of robbery?

Smokeskin wrote:

Now you're just lying again. Look up where I wrote that one reason for holding radical feminist views could be that you believed feminist propaganda. That's clearly a case of being misinformed rather than malicious.

It's also a subtly libelous statement, though. You're proposing a false dichotomy where a person can only be feminist if they are evil or deluded. I'm pretty sure there are plenty of other motives.

Smokeskin wrote:

As I wrote earlier, there are very real problems among minorities and in foreign countries. There's certainly a job for feminists there. And I have repeatedly spoken out against the religious conservatives' ideas on abortion as oppressive towards women (though that is mostly a religious issue imo and the religious right seems to have no problem with women in leadership positions and such - they don't seem sexist as such). So please stop misrepresenting my position. But those things are not typical feminist issues. That tends to be about wage gaps, glass ceilings, rape culture, sexual objectification of women and such. And the sort of supposed patriarchy that would justify those issues - do you think that exists or not?

Actually, those are serious feminist issues. Here in the United States, feminists took center stage last election when Republicans began talking about removing reproductive rights. Perhaps they don't focus on those issues in your country, but reproductive rights are possibly one of the top three feminist issues on our side of the Atlantic (the other two being rape culture and employment bias issues). Which serves my point; feminism is a broad spectrum of views. Your feminists are different from ours.

Decivre wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:

So you are going to ignore my repeated statements that many feminists are reasonable people?

Don't remember saying that I would. But simply chanting it repeatedly is not an excuse to continue saying broad generalizations. In that same vein, if I were spewing hate speech against some random race, I don't get to avoid being called on it if I prefix every statement with "I don't mean to sound like a racist, but...".

I don't mean to sound racist, but black people tend to make less money than white. Factually true. And it doesn't mean that there aren't rich black people. Do you see what a generalization is and how it speaks of the general picture while allowing for individual differences?

Quote:

Smokeskin wrote:

If you said yes at one point but later says no, then it obviously stops being consensual and starts being rape. If you engage in rape play or BDSM and don't have safeword procedures and consent in writing, you're so stupid and care so little for the safety of those involved that you deserve something very close to if not the same the punishment for actual rape. I mean, even if she wants to try rape play how do you know that it won't actually be traumatic for her and she'll want it to stop? Setting yourself up in a situation where you can't tell if you're traumatizing someone is beyond irresponsible.

That is assuming that there actually is any rape play involved. Edward and Marilyn Bagley [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/15/edward-bagley-sex-slave-guilty_... a woman trapped in their house for 7 years torturing her and broadcasting it over the internet[/url], then claimed that she was a completely consenting to her own torture... torture that led to her having a heart attack at age 23. This is the inherent problem with the issue. When you try to draw a clear and distinct line with regards to consent, people will try to exploit it.

And at the other end of the spectrum, you have people engaging in consensual activity yet still ending up with one party getting charged with rape. I'll repeat what I said - if you want to engage in rape play or BDSM, you better make damn sure that everyone consents and has very clear and always available means of opting out, for the legal, physical and psychological safety of everyone involved.

Quote:

Smokeskin wrote:

If you want malicious things to happen but you don't think you're malicious, you're still in the wrong. Your defense of these radical feminists would work for any sort of racist or bigot

And if you show me examples of radical feminists doing the sort of things that racists and bigots do (criminal actions up to and including the assassination of people that go against their views), then we have a discussable topic.

Working within the law doesn't make it right in any way or form. Would you also argue that racism was fine back when it was legal? That women couldn't vote wasn't sexist, it was just the law?

Quote:

Smokeskin wrote:

I have repeatedly stated that many feminists are reasonable people. If you want to talk specifics, Danish politician Lone Dybkjær was a member of parliament and wanted reverse burden of proof for rape. Happy now?

And I absolutely disagree with her stance. Furthermore, I voted explicitly against Hilary Clinton because she backed the FEPA, a bill that would have worked to create exceptional censorship laws specifically targeting videogames because she found them degrading and excessively violent. I also am not fond of Senator Feinstein for her continued support of pointless gun control and the PATRIOT act, one of the worst legal snafus in American history. I'm also not fond of Barbara boxer because she's a self-entitled bitch who crapped on a brigadier general for calling her "ma'am". Also excessive gun control. See? When you discuss specific people and organizations, we can find common ground.

It's good that we agree that parts of the feminists agenda are horrible.

Quote:

Smokeskin wrote:

Now you're just lying again. Look up where I wrote that one reason for holding radical feminist views could be that you believed feminist propaganda. That's clearly a case of being misinformed rather than malicious.

It's also a subtly libelous statement, though. You're proposing a false dichotomy where a person can only be feminist if they are evil or deluded. I'm pretty sure there are plenty of other motives.

I listed 3 reasons actually, and for radical views, not for being a feminist.

Quote:

Smokeskin wrote:

As I wrote earlier, there are very real problems among minorities and in foreign countries. There's certainly a job for feminists there. And I have repeatedly spoken out against the religious conservatives' ideas on abortion as oppressive towards women (though that is mostly a religious issue imo and the religious right seems to have no problem with women in leadership positions and such - they don't seem sexist as such). So please stop misrepresenting my position. But those things are not typical feminist issues. That tends to be about wage gaps, glass ceilings, rape culture, sexual objectification of women and such. And the sort of supposed patriarchy that would justify those issues - do you think that exists or not?

Actually, those are serious feminist issues. Here in the United States, feminists took center stage last election when Republicans began talking about removing reproductive rights. Perhaps they don't focus on those issues in your country, but reproductive rights are possibly one of the top three feminist issues on our side of the Atlantic (the other two being rape culture and employment bias issues).

It's good that they are at least partly dealing with real issues. It still doesn't make the other parts ok in any way or form.

LatwPIAT wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:

It's good that they are at least partly dealing with real issues. It still doesn't make the other parts ok in any way or form.

Given the quote-tree leading up to this statement, are you saying that having an issue with wage gaps, glass ceilings, rape culture and sexual objectification is "not ok in any way or form"?

If you want to use imaginary problems as an excuse for misandric hate speech and discriminatory solutions, absolutely. That's not ok in any way or form.

Quote:

Smokeskin wrote:

I just really don't see that kind of disdain for women in modern western society.

Maybe you don't. Quite a lot of women do.

Since it isn't reflected in wages it probably isn't there. I don't think employers would be hiring women at equal pay if they sold less or got worse deals.

Smokeskin wrote:

Since it isn't reflected in wages it probably isn't there. I don't think employers would be hiring women at equal pay if they sold less or got worse deals.

You don't think. Well, good to know that the all-knowing Smokeskin doesn't [i]think[/i] it really happens, contrary to the opinions of women, because it doesn't fit his idealized model of market forces. Good thing we can all trust your judgement here; that because you've refused to acknowledge that the 6.6% pay gap might [i]not[/i] be caused by factors unrelated to sex, sexism from customers towards female workers can't possible exist.

Smokeskin wrote:

Having sex with someone drunk may or may not be rape. [b]Drunkenness doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not it is rape.[/b] A no is a no, a yes is a yes.

Smokeskin wrote:

I think we need to clarify terms here. Obviously you can be drunk/intoxicated enought that you can't give consent. But the idea that just because you're drunk, you can't consent, that's bullshit. If you can say the words "yeah let's fuck" and take part in the act, you're able to consent. And just to take a borderline case: [b]if she drunkenly slurs "yeesh"[/b] but isn't obviously aware of what is going on and is too drunk to resist or care about what is going on, that is very different from drunken but active participation in sex - and [b]that would be rape[/b].

Then why did you say that drunkenness didn't really affect whether it was rape, and that it was a simple yes-or-no situation? You're contradicting yourself.

Smokeskin wrote:

I don't care what the legal definition is in San Diego - if they're seriously saying that just being drunk makes you unable to consent, that's bullshit. So a woman can go along with sex all the way, maybe even initiate it, and then the next day claim she was drunk and land a guy in prison for years?

Well, that's San Diego, and you'd be wrong in San Diego. In the UK and Massachusets, meanwhile, the law requires that "the complainant's physical or mental condition was so impaired that she could not consent." before it's non-consensual, or words to that effect. Even though these jurisdictions have different laws, there's still common ground in that they all claim that intoxication affects whether or not you are capable of consent, [i]beyond the point of being able to say "yes"[/i]. Something you explicitly claimed was not a factor in rape; you said that "A no is a no, a yes is a yes", which is obviously not the case. To take your example, it's possible for a woman to ask for and initiate sex despite being stumbling drunk - a state that I hope you'll see as obviously precluding consent. And, really, why this fearful concern for women suddenly deciding they didn't want to have sex after and reporting their liaisons for rape? That's scaremongering, not a reasonable concern; if a person wanted to have sex with you, they're probably not going to suddenly decide to turn you in for rape afterwards. That's generally not how people treat their sexual partners. It's about as real a concern as the mythical women who poke holes in condoms to entrap men into relationships by forcing children upon them.

Smokeskin wrote:

What about the guy? Could he say that "yeah I didn't want sex either but I was drunk - she raped me too"? Or is it only a woman's right to cry rape?

I consider it insulting that you even ask.

LatwPIAT wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:

Since it isn't reflected in wages it probably isn't there. I don't think employers would be hiring women at equal pay if they sold less or got worse deals.

You don't think. Well, good to know that the all-knowing Smokeskin doesn't [i]think[/i] it really happens, contrary to the opinions of women, because it doesn't fit his idealized model of market forces. Good thing we can all trust your judgement here; that because you've refused to acknowledge that the 6.6% pay gap might [i]not[/i] be caused by factors unrelated to sex, sexism from customers towards female workers can't possible exist.

Since there are plenty of obvious factors to account for in that 6.6% gap that more than likely reduce it significantly, we're down at the level where I doubt that anyone could even tell that women sold less than men. But if you really want to insist that there is a few percent difference between males and females, fine. There's bound to be some difference between any two groups of people. I'm sure that there's a larger wage gap between people below and above average height, and AFAIK the discrimination against short people isn't something anyone consider a big deal.

LatwPIAT wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:

Having sex with someone drunk may or may not be rape. [b]Drunkenness doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not it is rape.[/b] A no is a no, a yes is a yes.

Smokeskin wrote:

I think we need to clarify terms here. Obviously you can be drunk/intoxicated enought that you can't give consent. But the idea that just because you're drunk, you can't consent, that's bullshit. If you can say the words "yeah let's fuck" and take part in the act, you're able to consent. And just to take a borderline case: [b]if she drunkenly slurs "yeesh"[/b] but isn't obviously aware of what is going on and is too drunk to resist or care about what is going on, that is very different from drunken but active participation in sex - and [b]that would be rape[/b].

Then why did you say that drunkenness didn't really affect whether it was rape, and that it was a simple yes-or-no situation? You're contradicting yourself.

In case I was contradicting myself, I'll clarify my position: drunkenly slurring "yeesh" but not being aware what is going on isn't a "real" yes. That's the incoherent ramblings of someone that is not aware what is going on. As I wrote above, if you can talk affirmitively and take part in the act (like undressing, kissing back, smiling, guiding his dick in, caressing him, making pleasurable grunts), that's consent, and I don't care what you've been drinking or snorting (with the exception of drugging someone with ecstacy or something like that of course). Having sex with a girl that's just lying there and not taking part because she's practically passed out, that could very well be rape and at the very least it is a pretty low and uncharming thing to do. I'm sure most guys have had those "oh damn she's too drunk" moments, but seriously, when that happens you just go to bed or go take care of yourself in the bathroom if you have to. If she's your girlfriend and really wouldn't mind it is still demeaning and you'll surely get your chance again anyway, and if she's not then there's a very good chance climbing on top is rape.

LatwPIAT wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:

I don't care what the legal definition is in San Diego - if they're seriously saying that just being drunk makes you unable to consent, that's bullshit. So a woman can go along with sex all the way, maybe even initiate it, and then the next day claim she was drunk and land a guy in prison for years?

Well, that's San Diego, and you'd be wrong in San Diego. In the UK and Massachusets, meanwhile, the law requires that "the complainant's physical or mental condition was so impaired that she could not consent." before it's non-consensual, or words to that effect. Even though these jurisdictions have different laws, there's still common ground in that they all claim that intoxication affects whether or not you are capable of consent, [i]beyond the point of being able to say "yes"[/i]. Something you explicitly claimed was not a factor in rape; you said that "A no is a no, a yes is a yes", which is obviously not the case. To take your example, it's possible for a woman to ask for and initiate sex despite being stumbling drunk - a state that I hope you'll see as obviously precluding consent.

But just to be clear, you also think the San Diego case is far out?

LatwPIAT wrote:

And, really, why this fearful concern for women suddenly deciding they didn't want to have sex after and reporting their liaisons for rape? That's scaremongering, not a reasonable concern; if a person wanted to have sex with you, they're probably not going to suddenly decide to turn you in for rape afterwards. That's generally not how people treat their sexual partners. It's about as real a concern as the mythical women who poke holes in condoms to entrap men into relationships by forcing children upon them.

It is certainly not mythical. It certainly isn't common either, very few women (or men) are of so low moral integrity that they'd falsely accuse someone, even in a desperate situation. It is a horrible, horrible thing to do. But it certainly happens, and in the case of rape there is in practice no way for a man to prove that it was consensual sex and not rape if there's a reverse burden of proof, and no actual crime or harm has to be committed to claim rape (unlike most other crimes that result in damage or loss). From a civil rights perspective reverse burden of proof is a really bad idea, and the particulars of false rape accusations make it even worse.

LatwPIAT wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:

What about the guy? Could he say that "yeah I didn't want sex either but I was drunk - she raped me too"? Or is it only a woman's right to cry rape?

I consider it insulting that you even ask.

Sorry. I wrongly assumed you bought into the San Diego practice. I'd like to rephrase it as a rhetorical question aimed at how stupid the idea of "drunk sex is rape" is :)

Smokeskin wrote:

You can't really compare it any way or form. Those of us without these sorts of kinks always have a safe word - it's called "no". You might even be into some mild SM of the "oh yeah spank me harder daddy" variety and things are still simple. But if your kink involves one hurting the other and that other person pleading "oh god please stop please stop" then things are MUCH different. That's not something you can do safely in the heat of the moment. If that other person doesn't think it is hot anymore, it starts being traumatizing torture and that needs to be considered very carefully.

Dirty talk during normal sex can even involve the word "no". But a cohesive understanding of consent would definitely clear up the muddy issues of rape that are prevalent in western society. I mean hell, if people got explicit written permission regarding consent, would being drunk during the act even be a topic for debate?

Smokeskin wrote:

Reverse burden of proof for rape accusations. It pretty much makes it possible for women to throw sex partners in jail for many years at whim.

I find it kind of disgusting that you consider stupid legislation to be equally abhorrent to stringing a human being up from their neck to the branch of a tree and lynching them.

Smokeskin wrote:

I'm not saying it is a specifically feministic thing to do, to accuse of rape. I'm saying that some radical feminists are pushing for legislation that will make it a nearly sure thing that such an accusation would lead to conviction.

Sure, and those specific feminists are terrible people because of it. Their actions do not make all of feminism a terrible movement, though. But you also have to remember that this sort of legislation likely comes as a response to perceived inadequacies with the legal system in handling rape cases. The reason these feminists are pushing for such bills is probably because of a terrible conviction rate, or because the burden of proof for rape cases is too great in your country. These sorts of bills tend to be reactionary.

Smokeskin wrote:

It is certainly more than one, we're talking legislation that is already partially implemented in several places.

It isn't implemented here, so I don't see why I should hold American feminists guilty of negative actions by feminists elsewhere.

Smokeskin wrote:

What other options are there? Instead of just saying I'm wrong, tell me how and why, give an example. I wouldn't mind there were more options in any way, but I am curious.

I know that some feminists become so after being victims of institutional bias, or witnessing such bias affecting others. That was why my ex got involved, and I imagine that plenty of other people, men or women, do the same. Another major reason people get involved in radical feminism is because they are already part of radical egalitarian movements... feminism is just an extension to that. Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

Smokeskin wrote:

Where there is any sort of actual rape culture I am 100% against it, as there seem to be in for example India and South Africa. Maybe you even do have rape subcultures in your armed forces (as opposed to it just being their usual MO of covering everything up, which doesn't make it right at all but does make it not specific to rape). It is despiccable when it exists. But when I see feminists talk about rape culture, they tend to talk about pornography, sexual objectification in the media, macho culture and such things as rape culture. That's what I object to, the idea that mainstream culture is rape culture. In reality, rapists are considered scum even in prison. Only child molesters are worse.

Actually, feminists in the United States tend to have mixed views of pornography; some radical feminists oppose it solely for objectification and violence issues, but others tend to be accepting of it so long as they are consenting adults. The only feminists I see really complain about porn as a whole are the conservative feminists (another reason why I dislike your desire to clump feminists together, since conservative feminists tend to sit on the opposite side of other feminists on nearly every political topic). But to the point, feminists in the United States do fight some battles that I could see you supporting. Liberal and radical feminists are actually fighting to legalize prostitution. To them, the act of making it completely illegal lumps sex slaves together with women who actually wish to make money with their bodies, and victimizes them threefold; from the traffickers, from the pimps, and from the cops. Feminists also supported paternity leave programs, and worked with unions to get them passed here in California (because forcing the woman take care of the kids is a gender role assignment, so fathers should be allowed to do that too). It all really depends on the feminist, the organization, or the culture they operate within.

Actually, Smokeskin is pretty obviously a feminist....just not a radical one. As for nick012000...well he seems to think *all* feminists are radical feminists. Eh?

Thank you (all) for your commentary on this thread but we are well past the point of useful or persuasive conversation. If you wish to continue this conversation, please do so on other channels off-site.