|
Everyone's favorite neoliberal egg sucker Jonathan Chait took issue this week with the naming of the Women's March on Washington, which is planned for next week to protest the inauguration. He has provided a textbook example of... well lots of things. Concern trolling, men demanding access to women's spaces, "allies" who are more interested in getting cookies for their opinions than actually helping, etc.  in other words The Onion posted:Man Finally Put in Charge of Struggling Feminist Movement
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 19:15 |
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I'm not a rape apologist. You have never been respectful in the slightest.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
I Killed GBS posted:You have never been respectful in the slightest. Not sure how I feel about being called disrespectful by the dude(tte?) who killed GBS. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I'm not a rape apologist. You aren't actually being respectful in any meaningful sense, though. E; f,b But you coming in for one last parting shot is a pretty good example of what I mean.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Not sure how I feel about being called disrespectful by the dude(tte?) who killed GBS. Too bad it didn't stay dead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:Y'all took Austin's Police Chief and I'm sad about it. Acevedo did a good job of busting up the racist cops that Austin has been infested with, and he did it while getting heat internally because of it. If we're looking for someone that's interested in making sure that the cops aren't abusing victims, Acevedo is probably a better than average shot. This in tandem with him trying to get better mental health care for police officers really makes me think he just wants cops to not be lovely people. How much active help and outreach they do for the victims though? I have no idea how that will pan out. I'd love to be wrong. But short of some detailed information about how they're actually helping victims I'm going to have to stick with my initial impression. And it's great that he's done things to help his department, but in and of itself that doesn't fill me with any confidence that he'll be particularly great with either sex trafficking victims or women who voluntarily do sex work. Also wateroverfire came into a thread about feminism to make excuses for a rapist. gently caress off forever you goddamned rape apologist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:You aren't actually being respectful in any meaningful sense, though. PM me if you want to talk about me? This doesn't need to be in the thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:Everyone's favorite neoliberal egg sucker Jonathan Chait took issue this week with the naming of the Women's March on Washington, which is planned for next week to protest the inauguration. Oh so he's implying that men are incapable of understanding anything that isn't explicitly inclusive of them. I doubt the men who would be put off by something as normal as calling it a Women's March would be going out to support women anyway
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
If you're dismissing or flat-out denying the impact of patriarchy on the system then you're not really having a feminist discussion. There is no point where you tried or even asked what might motivate people to want to throw the book at this guy, instead immediately categorizing it as a irrational lust for vengeance. If a light sentence and a little reeducation are all it takes to reform most sex offenders, then there is no reason why anti-rape advocates would be against that. But we are reasonably suspicious of claims that a slap on the wrist and a commitment to the straight and narrow are all it takes to stop a rapist, because that is literally the kind of justice rapists have been getting for centuries. And yet rape is somehow still a problem.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
there wolf posted:If you're dismissing or flat-out denying the impact of patriarchy on the system then you're not really having a feminist discussion. There is no point where you tried or even asked what might motivate people to want to throw the book at this guy, instead immediately categorizing it as a irrational lust for vengeance. What you're saying is that it is important that the consequences for rape act as a suitable deterrent in addition to any concerns about recidivism or rehabilitation. Which I think is a very fair concern.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I'm not a rape apologist. I don't want to call you a rape apologist but your counterarguments thus far have been really flimsy and your response to explanations and arguments continues to be some BS handwaving. A lot of times you ask for clarification, get an explanation and respond to it with another "well why do you think that is?" I dunno if you're trying to promote discussion, but at some point you're going to have to defend your own arguments without deflecting and asking other people to further explain theirs. So far your main 2 arguments have been "here is a male public defender who had nothing to do with the case talking about how the sentence was apt while making a point about racism in sentencing" and "according to Wikipedia he has to do sex offender rehab" You haven't responded to any arguments with anything substantial beyond asking for more clarification, like that's some sort of defense. I'd be eager to hear your response to my last post, since as it stands your most recent arguments were - "here are some excuses rapists make, but they're not excuses for Turner, but I wouldn't call what he did callous/intentional/malicious" -Literally "You seem very angry about lenient sentencing in rape cases, but I don't think that anger belongs in a discussion about lenient sentencing in a rape case" If you want to take those stances that's fine but you have to actually defend them with some evidence and not keep questioning others about their well-defended beliefs, because taken at face value, yes, those arguments signify a massive lack of respect for rape victims, and can easily be viewed as making excuses and apologies for the rapist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:PM me if you want to talk about me? This doesn't need to be in the thread. Neither did a quote from a male public defender unrelated to the case, making a statement about racism in sentencing, used as a defense for misogyny in rape sentencing, with the justification "here is a guy who is familiar with the judge" Actually I didn't even notice it before but the fact that you literally tell us he's "familiar with the judge" and then question why I would think they're both part of a larger patriarchal system is pretty  too
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:What you're saying is that it is important that the consequences for rape act as a suitable deterrent in addition to any concerns about recidivism or rehabilitation. Yes, especially if you're going to cite culture as a motivation for rape that takes some responsibility out of the rapist's hands. Part of changing the culture is establishing consequences for the crime, which are at this point incredibly inconsistent. there wolf fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Jan 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:It's uh, probably a bit off topic for this thread, but I'll be brief. It's through members of the Governor's Council, the local group responsible for voting on appointments made to the department, especially the board itself. Maybe not 100% relevant outside MA, but at least locally it has historically been made up of white male prosecutors that were personally acquainted with the governor and were willing to make significant "financial contributions" to the members of the Council to get their seat at an "easy, cushy job". Racism and sexism and classism were rampant among those who didn't simply recommend the maximum possible everything and deny parole 100% of the time - whether or not they liked and sympathized with the individual in question seems to be the beginning and end of it for many of them. This is an awesome write-up. Also, a detailed explanation of the need for gender (and class/racial/etc) inclusivity on parole boards seems like exactly the topic of this thread, and in no way a tangent. E: Although, per the post below, I'm also not the one to decide that. Lead out in cuffs fucked around with this message at 22:45 on Jan 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:PM me if you want to talk about me? This doesn't need to be in the thread. It's weird that you feel qualified to decide what does and doesn't belong in the thread
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:IDK man. There are societal pressures, and a culture of alcohol use, hooking up, and a general lack of accountability that goes along with being 20 and being in college that contributed to what he did. That doesn't excuse it at all, but that does make calling it callous harm sort of questionable. Ultimately IMO it is better to err towards rehab then towards punishment and to not give in to vengeful impulses. What interest is served by putting a kid in prison for 6 years? The general lack of accountability is what makes it callous harm. Just because he doesn't regard someone else as a full person doesn't mean that she isn't a full person. Punitive measures aren't only about acting vengefully to satisfy a public or personal desire for retribution: they can be restorative in the way they acknowledge that another has been harmed and that transgressors do not and should not get away without serious consequence. In this case it is acknowledgement of the seriousness of the transgression against the victim that works to disrupt the cultural conditions that you credit with causing the crime. Light sentencing contributes to the refusal to see the perpetrators as having done anything wrong. There's a weird kind of presumption in your posting on this subject that light sentences are restorative or rehabilitative, and that any serious consequences follow from an emotional drive for revenge. This seems like something you should either address explicitly or drop. This thread isn't about imagining alternative means of restorative justice or a thought experiment where we redesign the justice system from the ground up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:
wateroverfire posted:That's a facile explanation. Why is it a patriarchal injustice and not an application of progressive sentencing practices aimed at rehabilitation over punishment? I would, however, be curious what the DA's offer was going into the trial. Some judges (not many though) hate the "trial tax" (the idea that you get punished more for going to trial) and if he was offered probation before trial, that may have motivated the judge. Note that punishing someone for going to trial is unconstitutional -- though it happens all the time -- so if the DA made such an offer and then asked for 6 years, I can see the judge just ignoring the rest of their arguments. On the other hand, the scramble to impose mandatory prison for these offenses seem misguided. Some cases are weak, and the only way you're going to get the conviction in those cases is a plea. DA's aren't stupid -- they'll find something else to plea the guy to that allows probation if that's what not taking a huge risk on a NG for trial is going to take. Whatever they plea to won't have the same impact on their record -- they might plea them to statutory rape or groping or something -- that gives the guy some lie he can use to justify his actions to himself or others ("yeah, I just accidentally ran into some woman in a bar and she thought I grabbed her rear end"). The end result of this change won't be more prison, it will be fewer rape convictions. I don't think the judge should be recalled because I think judges should be life tenure anyhow and elections are bad for the judiciary. For every Persky, there are 12 judges who won't give anyone a break ever for fear of being willy hortoned off the bench. You know a judge is up for election because about 1 year before the election all their sentences get higher. This will have a chilling effect on the SC judiciary and not just on sex cases. As for Turner not getting any punishment. While I agree he received too little, sex offender registration is hardly no punishment. If you gave me the choice between 6 years in prison and sex offender registration, I take the prison all day, twice on sunday. I can't speak for where he lives, but sex offender registration is crippling in California. It is lifetime, with essentially no way to get off the list. There are somewhat eased) restrictions on where you live -- and even if they existed, no one will rent to you. You can't go to most public parks. You have to notify everyone with children of your status. You have to register annually and every time you move. If you're homeless, you have to register every 30 days -- which is virtually impossible. When your plates are run, your status come up, so you get pulled over all the time. Fun fact: Before consensual M-M sex was legal, local PDs would do sweeping arrests of gay men for sodomy. So as to not "out" themselves on their rap sheet and avoid registration, many, if not, most of them plead to indecent exposure. Consensual sodomy was eventually legalized and made a non-registrable offense, and those who plead to sodomy got off the list. Those who plead to the other offense? Well, exposure became a sex offense and they all got put on the registry. There are a bunch of old, gay men who have to deal with this poo poo regularly -- and the one out they may have had just go eliminated by the Cal Supremes a while back. Had a client with this situation who got arrested because his house burnt down and his neighbor let him in. (This isn't really to defend him, I just think the sex offender registry in CA is way too onerous given who is actually on it and feel the need to mention it.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
Sex offender registration is likely to be less of a big deal for a young man from a "good" family with good contacts than the typical penniless ex-con.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
That probation is a prime example of why everyone hates D&D. Dude was making bad arguments, but they're still incredibly common arguments, and everyone else was still responding with good stuff that anyone lurking could read and understand.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
nm posted:LA county vandalism/trespass charges will get him a fine, maybe community service, probably not even a misdemeanor conviction. FWIW, a 6 month misdemeanor is the second lowest level crime infractions are not crimes) in California -- a few very minor offenses, like making loud noises have 90d sentences, but most misdos are either 6 mo or 1 year. Bicycling while intoxicated is a misdemeanor that is punishable by no jail time, but that barely counts. This is great information: thank you for posting it. How would someone who lives out of state on a permanent basis be affected by being on the California offender registry? Turner lives in Illinois and lived in California to attend Stanford, and he no longer attends Stanford or lives in California. Google JD seems to suggest that he'd have to register as a sex offender in Illinois and live under sex offender laws there if he was registered with another state, but I can't totally make sense of the results I'm getting from my search.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
e: nvm
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:That probation is a prime example of why everyone hates D&D. Dude was making bad arguments, but they're still incredibly common arguments, and everyone else was still responding with good stuff that anyone lurking could read and understand. The issue is that if you don't stamp down on it, then the feminism thread would end up being nothing but "explain why this really basic rape apologism is actually stupid to me" over and over again, stifling anything more in depth. Sometimes you want to keep really stupid arguments out of a thread so that there is room to talk about other things. You could always make a thread for arguing what is and isn't rape apologism. There doesn't need to only be one thread discussing all aspects of feminism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The issue is that if you don't stamp down on it, then the feminism thread would end up being nothing but "explain why this really basic rape apologism is actually stupid to me" over and over again, stifling anything more in depth. The feminists posting here are the ones who should decide what the space should be like. We can disagree on various things but I think we would all agree that we don't want it to be arguing about how lenient we should be to rapists.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:This is great information: thank you for posting it. How would someone who lives out of state on a permanent basis be affected by being on the California offender registry? Turner lives in Illinois and lived in California to attend Stanford, and he no longer attends Stanford or lives in California. Google JD seems to suggest that he'd have to register as a sex offender in Illinois and live under sex offender laws there if he was registered with another state, but I can't totally make sense of the results I'm getting from my search. There are a few states with no registry. The length of registration and restrictions will be based on the state of residence. If you come into California, and were required to register in another state, you will be required to register in CA unless you are required to register for: (1) Indecent exposure -- unless it meets the exact minimums of CA law (no registration for peeing in public) (2) Statutory rape (P-V only) (3) Incest -- unless it means exact CA law (I don't know why this exception exists, but I'd love to read the case) (4) Sodomy or oral cop among consenting adults (5) Pimping or pandering unless it meets the elements of a registrable offense (some type are, some types aren't) Based on googling, it would appear that IL has a similar setup, but he only has 10 years of registration. It does not appear nearly as onerious, but I'm not an IL attorney, so I'm not 100% comfortable representing that fully.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:Everyone's favorite neoliberal egg sucker Jonathan Chait took issue this week with the naming of the Women's March on Washington, which is planned for next week to protest the inauguration. Also, isnt the whole loving point of that march about standing up for the rights of women which are imperiled by the Trump regime? Jesus. Don't get the access point but whaevs Edit: read up on that dude jesus christ what a wanker BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:That probation is a prime example of why everyone hates D&D. Dude was making bad arguments, but they're still incredibly common arguments, and everyone else was still responding with good stuff that anyone lurking could read and understand. On the other hand, we encounter that poo poo every day and when I get on the feminism thread I maybe want to talk to other feminist about feminist poo poo and not go through feminism 101 for several pages Deceitful Penguin fucked around with this message at 22:58 on Jan 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:That probation is a prime example of why everyone hates D&D. Dude was making bad arguments, but they're still incredibly common arguments, and everyone else was still responding with good stuff that anyone lurking could read and understand. Look, WOF's posts don't belong here. There are literal sexual assault survivors in this thread. We don't need rape theorists and apologists in the Feminism thread. If you want to have a discussion of sex offender registration, rape sentencing, etc. start another thread. I want to add something regarding my modding style: Removing racists, misogynists, homo/transphobes from the conversation does not impede discussion. Believe it or not people who are not in any of those vile groups can still disagree, discuss and debate things. They can still argue and hate each other. Removing assholes doesn't necessarily make somewhere a "safe space". I'm removing elements from conversations that derail actual discussions or harm certain minority groups. And yeah, if you're a loving nazi I'm gonna ban you on sight. And if you're mad about that you need to think about why and deal with it. 
Koalas March fucked around with this message at 00:09 on Jan 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 00:01
|
|
|
doot dee doo, checkin my ok cupid messages   RED ALERT SHIELDS UP
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:doot dee doo, checkin my ok cupid messages gently caress that. You shouldn't have to deal with that on OK Cupid of all things. Reverse course, warp speed 9. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
Who mentions that before even going on a date with you at least once? I would like to present for the approval of the Midnight Society, Rhetoric Retold by known assertive woman, Cheryl Glenn. Dedicated to remapping the entire history of rhetorical argument, Rhetoric Retold explores the previously untold story of women and argument. First exposing the systemic suppression of historical female rhetoricians, Glenn goes on to explore both how ignoring women's contributions has colored modern perspectives on argument, and how masculine modern rhetoric continues to silence women's voices. Like many dissertations, it is dry, but when I started reading I could not put it down. I seriously recommend it. It opened for me the possibility that argument and debate, originating at first as a substitute for the glories of war when Greek men weren't out a-murdering, might very well be set up to benefit and favor those who ascribe to masculine ideals and demonstrate masculine qualities (aggression, win/lose mentality, etc.) This had never occured to me before. I would love to read an update on her research. If anyone knows any more books like this, that regender history, I would love to read them. Women of the Slave Holding South in the American Civil War is similarly good for exposing the systematic erasure of women's contributions in historical events.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:doot dee doo, checkin my ok cupid messages I've heard that a lot of women put that they identify as a feminist on their dating profiles just because it acts as a deterrents to MRAs / PUAs (I realize there's a lot of overlap here), but then you get the weird creepy messages like this once in awhile.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
Uts a good chance to use "because im a woman" in the wild tho
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
There's enough of those. Believe me
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 01:35
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:doot dee doo, checkin my ok cupid messages "Why wouldn't I"
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 03:13
|
|
|
"Because while I am a feminist, publically calling myself one attracts a lot of unwanted attention and requires me to constantly defend myself to trolls and idiots" ? Also, wtf: Is it seriously legal to watch porn on public transport in Britain? Is this a thing in the US too? Aside from the fact that pornography is illegal in Iceland I can't imagine anyone putting up with that on the Buses here or bringing pornography to school like she mentioned in the article.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 03:30
|
|
|
failing forward posted:Who mentions that before even going on a date with you at least once? If you're interested in the history of the silencing of women I think you might enjoy Mary Beard's "Oh Do Shut Up Dear" http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2jw3xe She takes a look at how ancient Greek and Roman misogyny still influences us today in the way that public speech by women is perceived. It's a lot more accessible to the average person than a dissertation as well. If you're not up for the whole lecture you can check out the text of it here http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n06/mary-beard/the-public-voice-of-women
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 03:59
|
|
|
Deceitful Penguin posted:"Because while I am a feminist, publically calling myself one attracts a lot of unwanted attention and requires me to constantly defend myself to trolls and idiots" ? It's probably one of those things that's theoretically illegal but you would probably not get prosecuted for unless the police don't like you, we have a lot of those. Also that article made me laugh because if someone watching porn is the weirdest thing you've encountered on public transport you obviously don't use public transport much. The original article referenced by that one amounted basically to just "I saw a guy watching hentai on his phone because I was looking at his phone" and there was no mention of him being otherwise creepy so I would personally be more inclined to say don't go nosing at people's phones on the bus. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 04:57 on Jan 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 04:53
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:I've heard that a lot of women put that they identify as a feminist on their dating profiles just because it acts as a deterrents to MRAs / PUAs (I realize there's a lot of overlap here), but then you get the weird creepy messages like this once in awhile. I don't get a lot of gross messages. One time that guy that asked if I knew what a cuckold relationship was (as his first message). It's the form letters that piss me off the most. "Hi, ur pretty." Ok and? Could you read a single word I've written and react to me like a sentient human?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 05:08
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It's probably one of those things that's theoretically illegal but you would probably not get prosecuted for unless the police don't like you, we have a lot of those. Yikes. Women do experience much worse on public transit, and it gets laughed at just like this. Assault is the product of escalating boundary-crossing. We can do nothing to combat harassment at any level of we mock women for asserting those boundaries. Doing sexual activities in an environment where not everyone has consented to it is wrong no matter how much of a tough guy you'd like to think of yourself as. Men not caring if they make women uncomfortable in public is wrong and it is a feminist issue, and if you think feminist issues are laughable you are in the wrong thread. Edit: like did you miss the part where the guy alternated between looking at porn and ogling a 13 year old girl? Men do that poo poo all the time and men like you scold women for objecting to it. What do you get out of acting that way? Are you trying to preserve your own right to be a transit perv? Tiny Brontosaurus fucked around with this message at 06:40 on Jan 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 06:37
|
|
|
Unless it's a different article, yes... The one I read, which is linked in that article, the author said she saw a dude watching porn, not doing anything else, and then he got off the bus. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-38611265 Like, he's not trying to show it to other people and isn't being aggressive. He's sitting with his phone and his headphones in. You could make the same argument against someone reading like, a mills and boone novel or something. I don't really see an issue with it. Like, I don't like people reading the daily mail on the bus because it's a paper founded by a literal nazi that spends most of its time trying to incite racial hatred but it is legal to print, buy, and read that in the UK, however much I think it offends public decency. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 07:04 on Jan 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 06:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 19:15 |
|
|
I've written porn while on transit before I had a laptop and some excruciatingly long train commutes, and those bills didn't pay themselves
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 07:09
|
|