|
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? Maybe we're all just set against rehabilitation because the proponents of it are always obviously more worried about young men being locked up for "no reason" than they are for preventing rape.
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 11:49 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Unless it's a different article, yes... But the Daily Mail isn't obscene by any regular standard (unfortunately.) It's tempting to sympathize with private porn guy because, dirty videos or not, we all want/expect a measure of privacy when it comes to phones and stuff out in public. The catch is that privacy is almost entirely a social construct; it's people deliberately not seeing what is out in the open because it's not any of their business. Respecting that contract means not subjecting the public to broadly objectionable material when they're doing you the courtesy of pretending they can't see what you're doing. Private porn guy doesn't have to be tugging it to still be acting in an anti-social way.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2017 08:46
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:So is porn bad because its obscene/harassment/etc or because it is "anti-social?" Is watching the sportsball game instead of porn also anti-social? Or sending dirty text messages? Anti-social doesn't mean "I don't want to deal with people" in this context. It means doing something that upsets social order and niceties. The illusion of privacy you have for your phone on public transport is a social construct; it's people pretending not to see whatever you're doing, not actually not seeing it. Forcing people to look at obscene material in that kind of situation where they are discouraged from calling it out because of the illusion of privacy is anti-social and could be viewed harassment.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:To elaborate on primary vs secondary earners a bit, two earner households (in the US, which is what I studied, things may be different elsewhere) tend to have a primary earner and a secondary earner. The primary earner, in general, provides a fixed supply of market labor pretty much regardless of the returns to labor. In other words, primary earners work 40 (or 50 or whatever) hours per week almost regardless of their take home pay. Households fine tune their income through the secondary earner. Secondary earners are highly influenced by take home pay and competing demands for home production. In the US women stereotypically are secondary earners, or transition to being secondary earners once they accumulate enough wealth and/or their partner makes enough income. Nothing to add except you might still have access to JSTOR and other journal resources through a public library system.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:Yeah, sorry, I worded my question badly. I meant to ask how you approach, from a feminist position, women who do propagate emphasized femininity (without inferring it is women that propagate it). I.E, at what point is it harmful to the feminist movement in how any particular woman chooses to gender herself in her dress, mannerisms and behaviors? The point at which her individual choice becomes something imposed onto others, restricting their own choices. Patriarchy sets up a no-win scenario where it defines the feminine standard and denigrates women who veer from it, then it turns around and denigrates that standard in contrast to superior masculinity. If you're aware of that contradiction then whatever choices you make about your appearance can be a rebellion against it. High fems pushing against the the idea that the masculine is superior are engaging in feminism just as much as stone butches pushing against the idea a woman must be feminine.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:I don't have to kowtow to every statement you make to be an ally to your cause. Explain to me how suggesting he should go "plan his next rape" was even remotely constructive. You know, I really tried to put in effort and contribute with posts from within my area of expertise but it is apparent that even very slight differences in tone are not just unwelcome here but are considered literal accessories to sexual violence and such. You want to really be an ally? Don't confuse your ignorance for some objective wisdom. Le Jackel is a bad poster and TB is running him off before he shits up the thread. Anyone who's spent time in D&D knows this and that's why no one except you has a problem with it. If you think TB or anyone else with an otherwise good posting reputation seem to overreact, try asking why instead of just assuming it's unjustified because of the tiny portion of the interaction you've been exposed to.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2017 22:45
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:Only after they flipped their poo poo at me. You deserved it. You got on your loving high horse and acted like they were the assholes because you were ignorant to context of the situation.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:This machine kills fascists. An incredibly apt saying considering Guthrie spoke out against Trump Sr. in his day.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
I love how all the fools come in here to tell us this thing totally doesn't happen and screech about evidence as if they actually give a poo poo whether it does or not.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 09:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 11:49 |
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:I do think it's interesting that zero violence occurred from an event that is inclusive of pretty much everyone but Patriarchal men. Well as one article pointed out, cops aren't about to turn the fire hoses on a bunch of white women. The March for Women fit an image of peaceful protest that something like BLM is totally denied, regardless of the actual actions of the participants.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2017 07:00
|
|