|
Arivia posted:Why would we want bestiality off the books? Unless the judges have been spending too much time on furry websites or something. Like I didn't know there was an organized notable activism to make giving your dog cunnilingus legal. I think this makes a good deal of sense. VV jsoh posted:the thing is actually probably mostly judges and that guys lawyer coming to realize that theres not effectively a bestiality law on the books, except for one thats hundreds of years old and was trying to criminalize homosexuality In which case, it gives some impetus to the House to draft something new, especially since I've seen a couple of animal rights people sharing the buzzfeed story and encouraging letter-writing. I do admit that "buggery" is a funny word. Arivia posted:Edit: also Canada's head of state is 90 today. If you tweet #Queenat90 it puts a little crown next to the hashtag. 
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 12:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 07:55 |
|
|
Leofish posted:I would strongly assume that penetration for medical reasons is different from penetration for sexual reasons under the law. And I should hope forcing an animal to penetrate a person for sexual purposes would count as a crime. Seems to me that the SCC was just doing their job though? They looked at the crime this man was convicted of and the actual wording and intent of the law he was convicted under and found that they don't correspond to each other, and the law has never been updated, so they vacated his sentence. The alternative is a Supreme Court that sees the same situation and says "Well, we don't like this guy and he committed an act that should be illegal even if technically it isn't" and rewrites the law itself. Frankly, we don't really want a Supreme Court that rewrites laws, we want one that places pressure on Parliament to rewrite laws when they find that our laws as they are written are lacking. This ruling doesn't communicate a message of "Bestiality is cool and good you guys", it communicates a message of "Parliament please write a new bestiality law that is more comprehensive than trying to criminalize homosexuality, thanks."
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 14:38
|
|
|
The Blatchford column today about Stuckless was pretty good and gives a lot more context for that decision.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
Jordan7hm posted:The Blatchford column today no. bad. *hits you with paper*
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 15:02
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Seems to me that the SCC was just doing their job though? They looked at the crime this man was convicted of and the actual wording and intent of the law he was convicted under and found that they don't correspond to each other, and the law has never been updated, so they vacated his sentence. The alternative is a Supreme Court that sees the same situation and says "Well, we don't like this guy and he committed an act that should be illegal even if technically it isn't" and rewrites the law itself. Frankly, we don't really want a Supreme Court that rewrites laws, we want one that places pressure on Parliament to rewrite laws when they find that our laws as they are written are lacking. This ruling doesn't communicate a message of "Bestiality is cool and good you guys", it communicates a message of "Parliament please write a new bestiality law that is more comprehensive than trying to criminalize homosexuality, thanks." Interestingly, towards the end of the decision the Court declines to rule whether equinophilic necro-sadomasochism is legal, on the grounds that they had addressed a number of related contingencies, and it would be flogging a dead horse.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:Interestingly, towards the end of the decision the Court declines to rule whether equinophilic necro-sadomasochism is legal, on the grounds that they had addressed a number of related contingencies, and it would be flogging a dead horse. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
Speaking of the Court, it looks like the Toronto Police Board are appealing to the SCC to get the G20 class action suits treated individually rather than as a class. This'll definitely be a case to watch if they pick it up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
Helsing posted:This is a really reductive analysis so take it with a grain of salt, but in essence humans want to believe they have high social standing. In a society where your social standing is mostly determined by money the great mass of ordinary people who don't have all that much money will end up seeking out other ways to feel good about themselves. In some social venues that could be as innocent as wearing the right outfit, listening to the correct music or getting the high score in some online game. Historically, for very large groups of people, race and gender have been two axes upon which you can locate yourself and find some additional sense of dignity or even power. god drat those white males, cis scum if you ask me
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
AegisP posted:Speaking of the Court, it looks like the Toronto Police Board are appealing to the SCC to get the G20 class action suits treated individually rather than as a class. This'll definitely be a case to watch if they pick it up. Would that be meant to make it incredibly cost-prohibitive to pursue?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 17:27
|
|
|
White male hetero sexuality is overvalued and overly catered to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
THC posted:White male hetero sexuality is overvalued and overly catered to. quebecois aren't white
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:Would that be meant to make it incredibly cost-prohibitive to pursue? The Police Board's argument, according to the globe article seems to be that they're worried about a class action formulation as “creat[ing] unfairness, procedural prejudice and conflict in the jurisprudence.” Ontario's Appeal Court, meanwhile, that allowed the class action to go forward, suggests a class action is appropriate due to the behavioural modification nature that an awarding of damages would have on police action in future situations, compared to the non-binding recommendations from internal investigations into G20 actions. The Board's probably appealing so that they don't have to pay out damages or significantly change operations.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
Helsing posted:This is a really reductive analysis so take it with a grain of salt, but in essence humans want to believe they have high social standing. In a society where your social standing is mostly determined by money the great mass of ordinary people who don't have all that much money will end up seeking out other ways to feel good about themselves. In some social venues that could be as innocent as wearing the right outfit, listening to the correct music or getting the high score in some online game. Historically, for very large groups of people, race and gender have been two axes upon which you can locate yourself and find some additional sense of dignity or even power. How have straight white men been devalued in any sort of tangible way? They're still overrepresented in almost all facets of real or symbolic power.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
I remember asking this question a while back and someone posted a really helpful article that essentially said that straight white males often view other groups gaining rights as a zero sum game. So to them, if any other group gains rights it implies that they are losing rights. When of course the idea that freedoms are being restricted for straight white males is obviously ludicrous for any thinking person.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
peter banana posted:How have straight white men been devalued in any sort of tangible way? They're still overrepresented in almost all facets of real or symbolic power. Yes, but they're less over-represented; it's still awesome to be a white man in pretty much every way, but white men have definitely lost privileges they never deserved to have in the first place, and its the decline that bothers them, even though any sane person would recognize that a lot of things that constituted male privilege and white privilege were incredibly bad in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
peter banana posted:How have straight white men been devalued in any sort of tangible way? They're still overrepresented in almost all facets of real or symbolic power. The feminism movement is eroding all their power daily. Discussions of consent, calls for better representation of women in the workplace, pay disparity being made a very public issue. This is just an example of hetero white-male vs women.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
ARACHTION posted:I remember asking this question a while back and someone posted a really helpful article that essentially said that straight white males often view other groups gaining rights as a zero sum game. So to them, if any other group gains rights it implies that they are losing rights. When of course the idea that freedoms are being restricted for straight white males is obviously ludicrous for any thinking person. You can't casually sexually harass women any more, and don't even get me started about people react when you say the n-word in a public place  So, in a sense, white men are losing the rights they once had, but they are rights that no one should have in the first place, and if you're so fussed about losing them, you're probably a garbage human being to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
peter banana posted:How have straight white men been devalued in any sort of tangible way? They're still overrepresented in almost all facets of real or symbolic power. Human beings are wired to process things in relative context, not absolute. Like when people in Vancouver complain about the weather or Ontarians complain about high electricity rates.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
ARACHTION posted:I remember asking this question a while back and someone posted a really helpful article that essentially said that straight white males often view other groups gaining rights as a zero sum game. So to them, if any other group gains rights it implies that they are losing rights. When of course the idea that freedoms are being restricted for straight white males is obviously ludicrous for any thinking person. It's not always positive change for everyone involved.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
White men deserve to feel less valued by society, and to actually be less valued. It's not enough to just make them feel bad
Juul-Whip fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Jun 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
How is that a result of the erosion of male privilege? In some sense, I feel like people are getting pissed off at the fact that, when we stop discriminating against women and minorities, it turns out a lot of white men are actually pretty loving useless at everything. It's no great shame that white men can't simply coast through their lives and have poo poo handed to them on a platter any more.  What do you mean I have to compete on a level playing field???
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
But maybe these demographics shifts are what it's going to take to redefine toxic masculinity so that men can reinvest their self -worth outside of being "providers" or "powerful." As the article states, maybe young men shouldn't be rushed or pressured into higher education right away. If this was a more commonly held practice, we could start to widen the definition of what a man could be to be "of value."
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
You can't evaluate this in a vacuum because substantial portions of the American economy have been designed to provide employment for unskilled men (military, police, corrections, construction via FIRE etc). This doesn't exist for women and has never existed. That women are required to pursue debt-riddled higher education is a reflection of the fact that male workfare policies are still massive despite all the whining about feminism. It's also a reflection of what women are required to face in America when they lack an education (horribly precarious service sector employment/underemployment).
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
Do it ironically posted:quebecois aren't white Actually, you'll find that we're The White Niggers of America.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
ARACHTION posted:I remember asking this question a while back and someone posted a really helpful article that essentially said that straight white males often view other groups gaining rights as a zero sum game. So to them, if any other group gains rights it implies that they are losing rights. When of course the idea that freedoms are being restricted for straight white males is obviously ludicrous for any thinking person. Aha, can guarantee you that a very, very large majority of white males don't give a poo poo about this, sure there might be a small percentage of idiots but this is a straw man made up by who the gently caress knows, it's funny you believe this. Most people including "white males" live pay cheque to pay cheque or save a little bit of money and just hope they can retire before they die and don't give a poo poo about politics or whether or not to keep them non white people down
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
Do it ironically posted:Most people including "white males" live pay cheque to pay cheque or save a little bit of money and just hope they can retire before they die and don't give a poo poo about politics or whether or not to keep them non white people down And yet many of them fight against measures which help minorities or women achieve equality, despite the fact that women and minorities literally face all those same issues, plus additional issues. Cry me a river.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
PT6A posted:And yet many of them fight against measures which help minorities or women achieve equality, despite the fact that women and minorities literally face all those same issues, plus additional issues. Cry me a river. I'm pretty drat sure that blacks and Hispanics vote just as conservative if not more than whites. I remember the gay marriage bill in California and blacks and Hispanics voted very high against gay marriage. It's just trendy to hate white males right now, meanwhile our government continues to do business with the Middle East and China, you need something for the people to hate on though I guess
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
How does that old Louis CK bit go, 'if you can't admit being a white dude is awesome you're a loving rear end in a top hat,' something like that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
This thread is dangerously close to committing sociology.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
Do it ironically posted:Aha, can guarantee you that a very, very large majority of white males don't give a poo poo about this, sure there might be a small percentage of idiots but this is a straw man made up by who the gently caress knows, it's funny you believe this. PT6A posted:And yet many of them fight against measures which help minorities or women achieve equality, despite the fact that women and minorities literally face all those same issues, plus additional issues. Cry me a river. I think the Internet has really amplified a lot of lovely opinions to the point where they can seem ubiquitous, and there are probably a lot of people who hold lovely-rear end views, but the difference between thinking like a shithead and acting like a shithead is a pretty big one. While shitheads talk a big game, I'd have to agree that most of them are more concerned with getting food on the table than actively planning for the RaHoWa. Most of the poo poo of that nature on the Internet is just masturbation. Some people write fanfics about Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman being turned into animals who gently caress each other... and some people write fanfics about shooting black people and liberals and rebuilding America into some kind of libertarian utopia. None of this stuff is actually going to happen, and ticking the box next to whatever reprehensible shithead is actually motivated enough to run for office isn't going to make it happen, either. Now, if you get enough shitheads together, yeah, poo poo can happen, but you can't hold back the march of progress forever. Once people get a taste of not being treated like poo poo, they're usually not in a hurry to go back to the old status quo. vyelkin posted:Seems to me that the SCC was just doing their job though? They looked at the crime this man was convicted of and the actual wording and intent of the law he was convicted under and found that they don't correspond to each other, and the law has never been updated, so they vacated his sentence. The alternative is a Supreme Court that sees the same situation and says "Well, we don't like this guy and he committed an act that should be illegal even if technically it isn't" and rewrites the law itself. Frankly, we don't really want a Supreme Court that rewrites laws, we want one that places pressure on Parliament to rewrite laws when they find that our laws as they are written are lacking. This ruling doesn't communicate a message of "Bestiality is cool and good you guys", it communicates a message of "Parliament please write a new bestiality law that is more comprehensive than trying to criminalize homosexuality, thanks." I'm not disagreeing with you, and the House apparently is drafting something, but to me it was just a case of bizarre subject matter, and the fact that it was actually pursued up to the SCC. I certainly don't see the ruling as an endorsement of the act.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
Do it ironically posted:Aha, can guarantee you that a very, very large majority of white males don't give a poo poo about this, sure there might be a small percentage of idiots but this is a straw man made up by who the gently caress knows, it's funny you believe this. It's exactly this type of person that Helsing was talking about upthread. People with unfulfilling lives who take a large degree of pleasure from the idea that they are in some way superior to the other. This was a big part of why poor whites in the US South who owned no slaves, did not benefit from their labour and actually competed for jobs with slaves still supported slavery, which held no tangible benefit to them other than granting them a feeling a superiority. Read Helsing's post. He argues it better than I do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
If you want to blame your problems on some figurehead make believe white male and by proxy every white male then hey man go ahead you're free to do that just know that people outside of the internet don't care and aren't "out to get you", at least any more than any other race or sex/gender
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
Time makes fools of us all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
Do it ironically posted:If you want to blame your problems on some figurehead make believe white male and by proxy every white male then hey man go ahead you're free to do that just know that people outside of the internet don't care and aren't "out to get you", at least any more than any other race or sex/gender You can believe that white males hold a privileged position in society without believing that every white male is complicit in loving over everyone who isn't a white male. Sometimes, the people who reinforce white privilege or male privilege aren't even white or male! You claim that most white people "don't care," but someone's phoning the London police to whine about the evil Muslim script on police cars.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
The squeaky wheel gets the grease and people like to whine, you don't hear about apathy, just the crazies making their voice heard
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
As a (disabled) white male of above-average height, good health, advanced education, and a strong network of support, and only a little of that I actually earned, my life is pretty great and if I'm being entirely frank I find it difficult to care much about the plight of other Western men. Thanks for listening! I am, however, interested in social health and stability and things like "the majority of men are increasingly not going to college" has me concerned about potential repercussions two or three decades down the line. peter banana posted:But maybe these demographics shifts are what it's going to take to redefine toxic masculinity so that men can reinvest their self -worth outside of being "providers" or "powerful." As the article states, maybe young men shouldn't be rushed or pressured into higher education right away. If this was a more commonly held practice, we could start to widen the definition of what a man could be to be "of value." In my experience, many women*, even educated and feminist women, hold little more than contempt for men who don't exhibit at least some traits of traditional masculinity, capability to provide and care for the family, emotional stability and security, all of the above. Sometimes this contempt is immediately apparent, other times it comes out a couple years into a friendship or a relationship. There are several news articles discussing the serious relationship difficulties that stay-at-home men face. Maybe this is a consequence of my age (late twenties), and I've not yet run into the newer generation yet who have fully moved on past that sort of thinking. *: Obviously there are many exceptions. I have a hard time believing that an explosively-growing cohort of men with high school educations and little more will do much to alleviate that problem. It seems to me that it'll lead to a whole lot of women being forced to "settle for less". Are less-educated men with fewer economic opportunities (especially "socially respectable" employment opportunities) in life more likely to tamp down on the toxic masculinity? I think it's going to be the other way around, really. PT6A posted:How is that a result of the erosion of male privilege? In some sense, I feel like people are getting pissed off at the fact that, when we stop discriminating against women and minorities, it turns out a lot of white men are actually pretty loving useless at everything. It's no great shame that white men can't simply coast through their lives and have poo poo handed to them on a platter any more. There are a lot of dangerous silent assumptions in your post here. Allow me the liberty to write a couple of them out, and feel free to let me know if you disagree. 1. That white male children are "actually pretty loving useless" 2. That the majority of boys eventually not attending college are white and affluent and would have otherwise benefited from their privilege 3. That the current education system is gender-egalitarian and it's simply that boys are failing it in large numbers because of inability and seven-year-old-brained rebellion against the fall of the cishet patriarchy For the first I invite you to replace "white male" with any other gender/ethnicity. For the second the article points out that it's the poorest who are doing the worst by far. For the third I offer a hearty chuckle Funkdreamer posted:You can't evaluate this in a vacuum because substantial portions of the American economy have been designed to provide employment for unskilled men (military, police, corrections, construction via FIRE etc). This doesn't exist for women and has never existed. That women are required to pursue debt-riddled higher education is a reflection of the fact that male workfare policies are still massive despite all the whining about feminism. It's also a reflection of what women are required to face in America when they lack an education (horribly precarious service sector employment/underemployment). You know, I'm impressed that you managed to spin "vastly more women go to college than men" into "this is actually bad for women". I don't intend for that to be read with any malice. Most people (and most academics) would not immediately interpret "male enrollment dropping through the floor" as "clearly, college is bad for women but they have no other choice." I agree (how could I not? It's a fact) with you that blue-collar jobs, the sort of work that otherwise doesn't "require" a college degree, are vastly more worked by men than by women. Shouldn't we work on opening these jobs up for women, though, especially if college is that bad of an economic proposition? It'd be great if it wasn't just men that had "backup plans" for employment if they weren't going to spend four years being pampered by universities. Not just the police, military, or construction, but the other less-glamorous-but-vital jobs like plumbing, welding, garbage collection, the like? I see very little agitation and activism for gender barriers in these jobs to be broken down, and a whole lot of activism to open up the gates to the cushy and comfortable white-collar tech-soaked jobs that require college degrees. Brannock fucked around with this message at 23:15 on Jun 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
Brannock posted:You know, I'm impressed that you managed to spin "vastly more women go to college than men" into "this is actually bad for women". I don't intend for that to be read with any malice. Most people (and most academics) would not immediately interpret "male enrollment dropping through the floor" as "clearly, college is bad for women but they have no other choice."  None of this is what I said. And male enrollment isn't dropping. Brannock posted:I agree (how could I not? It's a fact) with you that blue-collar jobs, the sort of work that otherwise doesn't "require" a college degree, are vastly more worked by men than by women. Shouldn't we work on opening these jobs up for women, though, especially if college is that bad of an economic proposition? It'd be great if it wasn't just men that had "backup plans" for employment if they weren't going to spend four years being pampered by universities.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
Brannock posted:As a (disabled) white male of above-average height, good health, advanced education, and a strong network of support, and only a little of that I actually earned, my life is pretty great and if I'm being entirely frank I find it difficult to care much about the plight of other Western men. Thanks for listening! I am, however, interested in social health and stability and things like "the majority of men are increasingly not going to college" has me concerned about potential repercussions two or three decades down the line. 1. Perhaps I phrased it a little bit imprecisely, but I think that if men (and particularly white men) are struggling as gender equality is advanced, it's not because they have systemic prejudice working against them. Now, we can have a discussion about the ways in which the education system is failing boys at this point, but that's different from what women and people of colour have had to put up with. I'm sympathetic to some of the arguments, such as: girls mature faster, girls are less likely to display traits interpreted as "being disruptive", etc. but I don't think that's an issue of structural prejudice against men. 2. I don't assume that, but I do assume that all men have benefitted to some degree from male privilege. Some have benefitted far more than others (which is to say white men have probably benefitted more than black men, for example) but even those who have benefitted the least have still derived some benefit. 3. I think the school system as it exists right now is not terrible well-designed, and the flaws in its design are more likely to affect boys at this point. We should address those flaws by identifying them and addressing them, not by assuming there's some inbuilt prejudice against males and trying to counteract that. I agree with you that this is a worrying trend, and it does need to be addressed; I just don't think it comes from too much focus on gender or racial equality. These problems were always there, I think it's just now we notice them more because we've done something to deal with the systemic prejudice that was affecting girls. It's not a zero-sum game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
Brannock, let me spell this out clearly. This is what is bad: that if women don't receive a higher education, they are increasingly locked into taking multiple part-time jobs in the retail/service sector with few benefits, a reality which is far less true for white men. Edit: Brannock posted:things like "the majority of men are increasingly not going to college" has me concerned Funkdreamer fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Jun 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 07:55 |
|
|
PT6A posted:1. Perhaps I phrased it a little bit imprecisely, but I think that if men (and particularly white men) are struggling as gender equality is advanced, it's not because they have systemic prejudice working against them. Now, we can have a discussion about the ways in which the education system is failing boys at this point, but that's different from what women and people of colour have had to put up with. I'm sympathetic to some of the arguments, such as: girls mature faster, girls are less likely to display traits interpreted as "being disruptive", etc. but I don't think that's an issue of structural prejudice against men. Is there a real-world difference in impact between intentional structural prejudice and unintentional structural prejudice? For example, I'm sure that the businesses who discriminated against women who were likely to get pregnant (they didn't want to lose a worker for a given amount of time, or to invest in a worker who would eventually leave to take care of her family) weren't actively prejudiced against women, it "just made economic sense" to select for employees who were unlikely to need time off. We, of course, saw this for the problem it was and took measures to alleviate it. Is it any different when the current education system ends up advantaging girls to a large extent over boys? As for the benefit of privilege, I don't think children have had much opportunity to take advantage of it yet and that glorying in their failure, like THC is doing, is in poor taste. Funkdreamer posted:Brannock, let me spell this out clearly. I didn't disagree with this. I think it'd be great if blue collar jobs were more available to women, and I especially think that it'd be a lot more likely to help non-white women (at least until we can get all ethnicity on the same economic playing field). Have this though http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/81-004-x/2008001/article/10561-eng.htm http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/151130/dq151130d-eng.htm (Unrelated, but looking up stuff on StatCan reminded me that I'm looking forward to the new census data) The number of men going to college isn't dropping, it's staying steady / increasing slightly, but the population is growing and as a proportion of the total available male population, it is declining.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 23:53
|
|