Feminism out of control?

I know it sounds very old fashioned, but might we await due process on these charges (although in many cases they stop at accusations).

It is all getting rather Salem-y.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

I know it sounds very old fashioned, but might we await due process on these charges (although in many cases they stop at accusations).

It is all getting rather Salem-y.

~:smoking:

---

In most cases, the (criminal) legal process is of no help due to lack of evidence or expiry of limitations. Not that it would apply to the rich and famous anyway, if they refuse to abide.

So you either take the accusers at their word, or at the merit of their word - and many of the claims have merit. You can't live agnosia*.

*Doesn't apply to cases of neurological damage

So we just have justice of the mob - in fact why report things and get into the whole "evidence" and just make accusations along with everyone else...

We have these people doing it for decades. And microphones / cameras that can be extremely small. And no one appears to have recorded anything. Ever. not even to blackmail the people to get ahead.

Sorry - sort out the system. And start with getting men / women to report the cases and for there to be a National Database of charges.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

So you either take the accusers at their word, or at the merit of their word - and many of the claims have merit. You can't live agnosia*.
*Doesn't apply to cases of neurological damage

---

Well, Kevin Spacey didn't deny it and instead use it as covering out as gay as a cover. Harvey Weinstein is well known 'open-secret'. A few of the others such as MPs patting female aides on the ass, most likely true too. Trump? Didn't touch him other than galvanise his opposition whilst those who support him have less than moral scruples anyway. One which surprised me was George Takei, mostly as he has been supporting and eliciting victims to speak out, so having one call him out... well.. "Oh my!"

On one hand, victim blaming is a serious thing which many guilty people try to do, because they feel the intimidation will get them to back off, but there cases where there are 'false victims' and these unfortunately do exist. On the other, there is a clear demonstration that there needs to be more transparency in a great many of these cases and there are real victims who need their voices to be heard. There is clear there are no absolutes on the matter.

If Kenvin Spacy had denied it, people would be rightly asking how the hell he has crystal clear memory of one party about 30 years ago where he was probably on at least alcohol and a few other narcotics.

When people spuriously claim to have seen a UFO, other people will call in to say they saw a similar UFO. Knowing that, I'm not prepared to convict with evidence being accusations.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

So we just have justice of the mob - in fact why report things and get into the whole "evidence" and just make accusations along with everyone else...

We have these people doing it for decades. And microphones / cameras that can be extremely small. And no one appears to have recorded anything. Ever. not even to blackmail the people to get ahead.

Sorry - sort out the system. And start with getting men / women to report the cases and for there to be a National Database of charges.

~:smoking:

---

Ehm, isn't that to a large extent what we have in politics as well? Were Putin or Kim Jong Un ever proven guilty in a court of law? Should we treat them as flawless democrats until they are?

Of course improving the system is a good idea regardless. It's just that the whole proof thing cannot always be applied unfortunately.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Ehm, isn't that to a large extent what we have in politics as well? Were Putin or Kim Jong Un ever proven guilty in a court of law? Should we treat them as flawless democrats until they are?

Of course improving the system is a good idea regardless. It's just that the whole proof thing cannot always be applied unfortunately.

---

No one ever has thought of North Korea or Russia as countries where the rule of Law applies. Both are Dictatorships / Plutocracies / Kleptocracies.

When we start suspending Habeus Corpus because it is convenient, who makes this call?

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

If Kenvin Spacy had denied it, people would be rightly asking how the hell he has crystal clear memory of one party about 30 years ago where he was probably on at least alcohol and a few other narcotics.

When people spuriously claim to have seen a UFO, other people will call in to say they saw a similar UFO. Knowing that, I'm not prepared to convict with evidence being accusations.

~:smoking:

---

No one is being convicted of anything, as I pointed out, though some individuals have more potential liability than others.

As always, multiple and mutually-corroborating accusations are inherently more credible.

UFOs qua extraterrestrials can be categorically rejected. On the other hand, sex and abuse are an immediate and well-known part of human life.

This the the court of public opinion and nothing more. The unfortunate dichotomy is, for any given case you either believe at least some of the accusations, or you functionally disbelieve them. Either the accused is some kind of predator, or a bunch of people have all come out to spread lies. You have to pick one of these, in your own mind.

If you believe someone is a predator, it is still up to you how you want to consume their work or their legacy. But remember that the alternative is always to malign the alleged victims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

No one is being convicted of anything, as I pointed out, though some individuals have more potential liability than others.

As always, multiple and mutually-corroborating accusations are inherently more credible.

UFOs qua extraterrestrials can be categorically rejected. On the other hand, sex and abuse are an immediate and well-known part of human life.

This the the court of public opinion and nothing more. The unfortunate dichotomy is, for any given case you either believe at least some of the accusations, or you functionally disbelieve them. Either the accused is some kind of predator, or a bunch of people have all come out to spread lies. You have to pick one of these, in your own mind.

If you believe someone is a predator, it is still up to you how you want to consume their work or their legacy. But remember that the alternative is always to malign the alleged victims.

---

I do not think that this is a digital situation - some or indeed most might well be true. But that does not instantly mean all are. The courts are supposed to be there for exactly this purpose. And no, a verdict of not guilty is not the same as innocent. Mud sticks irregardless of the outcomes, irregardless whether they was guilt or not.

And it is also perfectly possible that the man sincerely believes he did nothing wrong and the woman sincerely believes he did - how exactly can one ensure that consent is absolutely without coercion when the person asking has vast amounts of power? Just like at work one can give an honest opinion when asked by one's boss for a warts and all feedback... but one might still not dare do so.

The Court of Public Opinion can and does wreck lives: The actress who plays Wonder Woman has demanded that one actor who is playing a role is removed due to the accusations. So we have had men abusing their power over other men and women. This was Bad. And yet no one has pointed out to her that her behavior is very similar.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

No one ever has thought of North Korea or Russia as countries where the rule of Law applies. Both are Dictatorships / Plutocracies / Kleptocracies.

When we start suspending Habeus Corpus because it is convenient, who makes this call?

~:smoking:

---

But who is suspending anything? I don't think anyone is getting jailed here, or did I miss something?
If someone does however make his money by being in the favor of the public, then you can't force the public to continue to like them until they're proven guilty. The public or industry may dislike them over anything, including the choice of partner, amount of money donated or children kissed in front of a camera. When politicians are caught lying you don't force people to continue to vote for them until they're proven guilty of lying in a court, do you?

I would even agree that this isn't always fair, but in some cases it is. Remember this American girl who was convicted/not convicted of murder in Italy? I think neither the courts nor the public were sure what to do there, so what would one do there? Of course saying she's guilty because he eyes are cold was a bit much... :shrug:

Quote:

---

I do not think that this is a digital situation - some or indeed most might well be true. But that does not instantly mean all are.

---

The point is that if you accept one claim, it is difficult to reject others without being arbitrary. If you accept no claims, then perhaps you are irrevocably biased.

The first option is therefore less fraught, but as you recognize it requires one to make a personal judgment as to how their relationship (whether consumer, professional, or friendly) with the accused must change.

Quote:

---

The courts are supposed to be there for exactly this purpose.

---

The courts are there to apportion justice and interpret the laws. The courts do not tell you what or how to feel about anyone or anything. These are exclusive purposes.

Quote:

---

And it is also perfectly possible that the man sincerely believes he did nothing wrong and the woman sincerely believes he did

---

It would then be better for the accused to show penitence, rather than offering sleazy 'if-then' non-apologies that try to shift the narrative or shrug off accountability.

Personally though, I do believe we should be more lenient to people who try to engage with accusations and don't demonstrate conscience of guilt.

Quote:

---

how exactly can one ensure that consent is absolutely without coercion when the person asking has vast amounts of power?

---

Certainly a tough question, so the best practice (not a new thought here) is simply to avoid such entanglements in situations of power imbalance: clinician-client, teacher-student, parent-child, boss-employee, rich power broker-up and coming professional, etc.

Not that they are always wrong or abusive, but that the very nature of the relationship weighs down that end of the scale.

Quote:

---

The Court of Public Opinion can and does wreck lives: The actress who plays Wonder Woman has demanded that one actor who is playing a role is removed due to the accusations. So we have had men abusing their power over other men and women. This was Bad. And yet no one has pointed out to her that her behavior is very similar.

---

If she feels that this man is a predator, and she doesn't want to work with a predator, then why shouldn't she use her power to change the situation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

...When we start suspending Habeus Corpus because it is convenient, who makes this call?

---

Abe Lincoln

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Abe Lincoln

---

This is an odd meme. There was literally a rebellion happening, which the Constitution allows as a condition for suspending it.

Anti-war Democrats were acting more or less as saboteurs in Congress. It was necessary and I believe in the spirit of what the clause was written for. Simply pointing out that the words themselves are in Article I, not II is not convincing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

This is an odd meme. There was literally a rebellion happening, which the Constitution allows as a condition for suspending it.

Anti-war Democrats were acting more or less as saboteurs in Congress. It was necessary and I believe in the spirit of what the clause was written for. Simply pointing out that the words themselves are in Article I, not II is not convincing.

---

Whyever not? It is not as though the framers weren't aware of which article was relevant to which branch of government.

Prompted by the problems in Maryland at the outset of the rebellion, Lincoln issues a sweeping suspension of habeas corpus -- which was NOT written exclusively to address any particular area -- in 1861. It was promptly struck down by the SCOTUS. Lincoln enforced it anyway, flipping off the court. Congress did not pass an act ordering the suspension of HC until 1863.

At no point was "copperhead" opposition in the Congress or elsewhere of numerical importance enough to have held up this legislation if it was deemed needful (very likely it was and it would certainly have passed with ease).

However good the intent and the ultimate outcome, Lincoln was operating outside the bounds of his legitimate power with that effort.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

At no point was "copperhead" opposition in the Congress or elsewhere of numerical importance enough to have held up this legislation if it was deemed needful (very likely it was and it would certainly have passed with ease).

---

This is not true. At the time filibuster rules did not have what we now call closure. As long as the Democratic Senators kept filibustering, they could deny any legislation they wanted to kill.

I looked up the 1863 bill you mentioned, and it seems that this is exactly what happened. Even though Dem's controlled 25% of the Senate (at the time) they had to be borderline cheated out of their time on the floor for the Republicans to pass the bill.
Also keep in mind that in 1861 at the war's outbreak, the Dems share of the Senate was much higher (40%+). So this bill only passed under sketchy means after 2 years of expulsions and vacancies which reduced the number of Democrats in the chamber by 45%.

I would say the lack of closure gives Lincoln the justification to do what he did. As long as 1 Democratic senator was loyal to the rebel cause, Congress was at risk of sabotaging the war effort through delay and inaction.
Such is the nature of Civil War, that these situations give rise to bending the rules dramatically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

This is not true. At the time filibuster rules did not have what we now call closure. As long as the Democratic Senators kept filibustering, they could deny any legislation they wanted to kill.

I looked up the 1863 bill you mentioned, and it seems that this is exactly what happened. Even though Dem's controlled 25% of the Senate (at the time) they had to be borderline cheated out of their time on the floor for the Republicans to pass the bill.
Also keep in mind that in 1861 at the war's outbreak, the Dems share of the Senate was much higher (40%+). So this bill only passed under sketchy means after 2 years of expulsions and vacancies which reduced the number of Democrats in the chamber by 45%.

I would say the lack of closure gives Lincoln the justification to do what he did. As long as 1 Democratic senator was loyal to the rebel cause, Congress was at risk of sabotaging the war effort through delay and inaction.
Such is the nature of Civil War, that these situations give rise to bending the rules dramatically.

---

The peace democrats were a much bigger political problem in 1863 and 1864 -- up until "little Napoleon" was beaten by absentee balloting....passed by Congress without demur. There were Democrats on the roster in 1861 but they were not a real factor. Certainly there wasn't enough of an active effort by them to derail anything else Lincoln was doing for the war effort. I simply do not see why it took them (and it should have been them not Abe) to issue the suspension resolution.

You are absolutely correct that a lot of things get tossed on their ear in a civil war.

This is more than just feminism. It should be a basic human right to express and oppose what's being wrongly done to them.

There's something that I noticed, though. I'd like to know the opinions of the members in this forum. Do you think of chivalry towards women as one of the reasons for gender inequality? Some feminists are being unfair to the men who act in chivalric ways to a woman. Not every woman has the same taste. There are a lot of women out there who prefer a boyfriend to open the car door for them, pay for her meal, offer a hand, etc. These are some of the ways that a guy expresses care to his girlfriend. Many feminists accuse this type of guy of being sexist. I think people who include chivalry as an issue have no idea how men think and why gender inequality happens. They're distracting away the solutions to gender inequality.

I never gave it any thought it's just what I do, I wouldn't understand it if it isn't apreciated

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaka_Khan

This is more than just feminism. It should be a basic human right to express and oppose what's being wrongly done to them.

There's something that I noticed, though. I'd like to know the opinions of the members in this forum. Do you think of chivalry towards women as one of the reasons for gender inequality? Some feminists are being unfair to the men who act in chivalric ways to a woman. Not every woman has the same taste. There are a lot of women out there who prefer a boyfriend to open the car door for them, pay for her meal, offer a hand, etc. These are some of the ways that a guy expresses care to his girlfriend. Many feminists accuse this type of guy of being sexist. I think people who include chivalry as an issue have no idea how men think and why gender inequality happens. They're distracting away the solutions to gender inequality.

---

It's certainly a matter of sexism if you have a special class of behaviors just for 'female romantic interest'. But for now simply ask her what she wants, or how she feels about each issue.

With paying for meals, there's actually a huge variety of attitudes: man pays all the time, man pays most of it all of the time, men pays for most or all of it it some or most of the time (and the woman pays fully the rest of the time), the famous "Dutch" split down the middle, the split down the middle with the man paying the tip, etc. Each woman I've interacted with on this subject has expressed a different preference. Make a habit of asking - and do ask before the bill comes up, that's just gauche.

Another personal rule may be to always pay in full when you are the one who invited the other diner(s), man or woman.

Some complain that discussing these things makes them look bad in front of the woman, but here you should adjust your values. As the saying goes, if the girl looks down on you for seeking her opinion, she isn't the girl for you.

That famous Dutch split doesn't exist irl

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

It's certainly a matter of sexism if you have a special class of behaviors just for 'female romantic interest'. But for now simply ask her what she wants, or how she feels about each issue.

---

Just imagine this: every time when occasion comes asking her "Do you want me to hold a door open for you?", "Would you be offended if I helped you on with your coat?", "Should I give you a hand to help you out from the bus?", "Will you be mad if I carry heavy bags for you?". You will make a perfect picture of a very unconfident bore. Or, to avoid asking them every now and then, do you suggest giving her a list of such questions and having her tick the boxes so you should know beforehand what to do in every particular situation?

In Ukraine you don't ask about such things - you do them, otherwise the girl will consider you a boor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

That famous Dutch split doesn't exist irl

---

Oh, those Dutch uncles! :no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

Oh, those Dutch uncles! :no:

---

hey that's just me

That 'going Dutch' always kinda amuses me, reality is that the Dutch really don't go Dutch, you will have a miserable time here if you try. For hilarity, we call that stuff Americans call 'going Dutch' going American here

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

Just imagine this: every time when occasion comes asking her "Do you want me to hold a door open for you?", "Would you be offended if I helped you on with your coat?", "Should I give you a hand to help you out from the bus?", "Will you be mad if I carry heavy bags for you?". You will make a perfect picture of a very unconfident bore. Or, to avoid asking them every now and then, do you suggest giving her a list of such questions and having her tick the boxes so you should know beforehand what to do in every particular situation?

In Ukraine you don't ask about such things - you do them, otherwise the girl will consider you a boor.

---

Most of these you don't need to be doing as a general rule, so of course there's no need to ask.

If someone looks like they need help with bags, you should ask. At least notify them that you intend to help. But it can be relationship-dependent, if for example you share a destination or share the bags - so it would make sense for you to carry some.

If a woman thinks you're a boor for this, invite her to revise her expectations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

Just imagine this: every time when occasion comes asking her "Do you want me to hold a door open for you?", "Would you be offended if I helped you on with your coat?", "Should I give you a hand to help you out from the bus?", "Will you be mad if I carry heavy bags for you?". You will make a perfect picture of a very unconfident bore. Or, to avoid asking them every now and then, do you suggest giving her a list of such questions and having her tick the boxes so you should know beforehand what to do in every particular situation?

In Ukraine you don't ask about such things - you do them, otherwise the girl will consider you a boor.

---

And I vividly and painfully recall holding a door open for one lass in the early 80's...and having her step on my instep while asserting "I don't need YOUR help." Ah the joys of the old over-the-top feminist days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

And I vividly and painfully recall holding a door open for one lass in the early 80's...and having her step on my instep while asserting "I don't need YOUR help." Ah the joys of the old over-the-top feminist days.

---

I hold doors for men as well maybe that helps. I would force that chick into a marriage with a fat baron in France for diplomatical reasons geez bye princess bye. What is wrong with good manners I scream

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

That famous Dutch split doesn't exist irl

---

Or you just live on that side of the famous dutch split. ~;)

Inclusive Writing row in France
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42073148

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Inclusive Writing row in France
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42073148

---

If they're talking about neutralising all the genders in the French nouns, then that would really simplify my French studies if it gets done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Inclusive Writing row in France
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42073148

---

Talk about taking things too far. I am really not aprociable for those who insist they aren't radicalised but come up with things like that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Most of these you don't need to be doing as a general rule, so of course there's no need to ask.

---

Weren't it you who said

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

But for now simply ask her what she wants, or how she feels about each issue.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

If someone looks like they need help with bags, you should ask. At least notify them that you intend to help. But it can be relationship-dependent, if for example you share a destination or share the bags - so it would make sense for you to carry some.

---

Not someone - we are discussing helping women. The ones that your are building relationship with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

If a woman thinks you're a boor for this, invite her to revise her expectations.

---

... or move to a different country with different gender expectations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Inclusive Writing row in France
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42073148

---

Now it's about Bible and prayers as well - in different corners of the world.
http://www.prophecynewswatch.com/art...nt_news_id=973
https://www.catholic.org.nz/about-us...sive-language/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Inclusive Writing row in France
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42073148

---

Why do people siding with "conservative values" always look like the sleezeballs from 1990s era family movies?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...lay-james-bond

My name is Bond. Jessica Bond.

oh ffs why

I hope they don't make Bond a female. There's plenty of good action movies with female leads, why change one franchise just to placate women that aren't even the primary audience.

Milla Jovovich in the Resident Evil franchise is plenty good for my fix.

Things like this makes me take the people who accused May of being Cameron's diversity hire more seriously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spmetla

I hope they don't make Bond a female. There's plenty of good action movies with female leads, why change one franchise just to placate women that aren't even the primary audience.

Milla Jovovich in the Resident Evil franchise is plenty good for my fix.

---

Oh these lips, she's quite beautiful. Movies are terrible though

You wouldn't like it even if it were as good as No One Lives Forever?

Other than that it seems typically British, they already wanted to have a female Dr. Who.
Female Sherolina Holmes is next. It all started when they wanted to have a female king... ~;)

Oh you know how to talk to me I adore No one lives Forever and it's protagonist. They may be fishing from the same pool as Cate and Bond are both very Brittish superspies but James Bond is just a different character

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a8117471.html

I wonder how they will figure out if the consent was worded clearly enough. Will they invite linguistic expertise? Anyway, it will be her word against his word in most cases. Who will the judge believe?

It's Sweden, the judge will believe the immigrant that did it, and if it is a Swedish male the woman. Problems can't exist in Sweden they aren't allowed to exist

All Swedes secretly know that what I say is true

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

It's Sweden, the judge will believe the immigrant that did it, and if it is a Swedish male the woman. Problems can't exist in Sweden they aren't allowed to exist

All Swedes secretly know that what I say is true

---

The solution should be obvious: Give all immigrants citizenship upon entry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

The solution should be obvious: Give all immigrants citizenship upon entry.

---

Entry for all in what exactly, in Sweden or in Swedish women. Ah well they won't mind and shouldn't mind, they run the place after all they shouldn't mind unwanted kilometers on the counter in the first place as they won't recognise where they are comming from because they have leftiist, Leftist isn't something you are it's something you have, especially in Sweden you can see what leftist can do to essential organs, they fail. Ugly dystopia to me but suit yourself Sweden, hoping for some very consentual sex tommorow without saying anything, all fine by me

A point of view:
https://www.theguardian.com/film/201...nstein-scandal

kiss from me

These French are definitely out of fashion:
http://variety.com/2018/film/news/br...nt-1202667900/

The brutal reality is that 100 very attractive women go for the same "first in industry" job. 90 refuse initial advances, 9 refuse more than a drink. One screws the brains out of the producer.

Guess which gets the job?

Possibly the same for some male roles but less in power would be interested.

If all women had refused and immediately gone to the police their career(s) would be over of course. But ends for some justify the means.

~:smoking:

Two good articles on the case of Aziz Ansari. What he did may not have been criminal, but "bad sex" and aggressive disregard for women's participation is one of the most prominent symptoms of a culture of misogyny.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ed-opportunity

Quote:

---

This will only happen if we move beyond being reactively “sex positive” and recognize that human sexual interactions are not always clearcut: yes or no, good or bad, empowering or not, either assault and worth worrying about or technically consensual and therefore not at a problem.

---

https://www.vox.com/first-person/201...or-aziz-ansari

Quote:

---

The need for affirmative consent education shouldn’t be taken to imply that perpetrators of sexual violence are just hopelessly confused. Studies show that most rapists are perfectly aware their victims aren’t into what’s happening. And social science has also clearly demonstrated that men (and women!) are perfectly capable of understanding social cues, even ones where someone is saying “no” without using that actual word.

It’s impossible to know for sure what Ansari was thinking on the night in question, but this is a seasoned performer who knows how to read a crowd, and a “relationship expert” to boot. It strains credulity to imagine he truly thought she was excited about what was happening between them. What’s much more likely is that he didn’t care how she felt one way or the other and treated her boundaries as a challenge. Either way, his alleged behavior was dehumanizing.

Teaching affirmative consent does something profound: It shifts the acceptable moral standard for sex, making it much clearer to everyone when someone is violating that standard.

---

...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Sorry Monty, I think your sources miss the mark.

My understanding of the Aziz Ansari night (I don't wish to read the babe article and give them the traffic they want) looks to be a story where the woman in question was consenting up to a point after which she did not make the necessary efforts to communicate the line with Aziz.

What we want out of the MeToo movement is a recognition of the instances where the line has been drawn and deliberately crossed by men and women against other men and women to constitute sexual assault and harassment.
Your quote sources put too much of the onus on Aziz to interpret the situation and "read the room" by himself. This is a common path left leaning 4th wave feminist authors seem to go towards.

We can't go down this path, mainly because putting all of the blame of Aziz who received a consenting blow job from the women for not reading non-verbal hints about escalation is a great way to return to patronizing male behavior under previous patriarchal societies. The unidentified woman quite frankly gave conflicting messages, and she did not act in good faith if she believed that "non-verbal clues" were sufficient to chill a sexual encounter at that stage.


Take for instance another quote from the guardian article:


This ignores the heavy socialization that men are subjected to as well. Men must be the hunters, we must make the first moves, we must test the waters and start the conversation. These are also symptoms of toxic masculinity that feminism aims to dismantle.

Quite frankly, this is the wrong message being attached to the wrong example. I think Margaret Atwood is onto something here ,when she received some feminist backlash about her comments on the treatment of an employee at the University of British Columbia.


This is extremist behavior being snuck into an outlet of feminist expression. If we do not call it out for what it is, we risk going backwards. We should make the effort to maintain the balance of respecting female agency while avoiding victim blaming.
[/FONT][/COLOR]

---

So, I don't think any of that is in discord with the perspectives I posted.

Men are taught to ignore clear female discomfort (taking the Grace account, if a hetero guy you wanted to ask out for beer or just talk to were responding the way Grace was, you would get the message as a non-autistic person; yet somehow this changes in sexual contact), because discomfort or hesitation is natural for women and men ought to be aggressive in overcoming it. Women are taught find the balance between being nice and accommodating, and setting clear boundaries to "defend their virtue", leaving little room for development or assertion of their own wants and needs.

This conditioning needs to change on both ends. And you need a rational, institutional path for sorting out those instances "where the line has been drawn and deliberately crossed", i.e. assault/harassment; intermittent episodes of Internet shaming are not adequate as an enduring solution.

In other words, from the Guardian article:

Quote:

---

This will only happen if we move beyond being reactively “sex positive” and recognize that human sexual interactions are not always clearcut: yes or no, good or bad, empowering or not, either assault and worth worrying about or technically consensual and therefore not at a problem.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ACIN

My understanding of the Aziz Ansari night (I don't wish to read the babe article and give them the traffic they want) looks to be a story where the woman in question was consenting up to a point after which she did not make the necessary efforts to communicate the line with Aziz.

---

I get a different impression, that Aziz correctly interpreted her behavior as anxious demurral, and worked to break it down - again, not because he's necessarily a predator, but because that's how he understands sex. Let me repost here the scene between their arrival at the apartment and Grace's departure:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

ey walked the two blocks back to his apartment building, an exclusive address on TriBeCa’s Franklin Street, where Taylor Swift has a place too. When they walked back in, she complimented his marble countertops. According to Grace, Ansari turned the compliment into an invitation.

“He said something along the lines of, ‘How about you hop up and take a seat?’” Within moments, he was kissing her. “In a second, his hand was on my breast.” Then he was undressing her, then he undressed himself. She remembers feeling uncomfortable at how quickly things escalated.

When Ansari told her he was going to grab a condom within minutes of their first kiss, Grace voiced her hesitation explicitly. “I said something like, ‘Whoa, let’s relax for a sec, let’s chill.’” She says he then resumed kissing her, briefly performed oral sex on her, and asked her to do the same thing to him. She did, but not for long. “It was really quick. Everything was pretty much touched and done within ten minutes of hooking up, except for actual sex.”

She says Ansari began making a move on her that he repeated during their encounter. “The move he kept doing was taking his two fingers in a V-shape and putting them in my mouth, in my throat to wet his fingers, because the moment he’d stick his fingers in my throat he’d go straight for my vagina and try to finger me.” Grace called the move “the claw.”

Ansari also physically pulled her hand towards his penis multiple times throughout the night, from the time he first kissed her on the countertop onward. “He probably moved my hand to his dick five to seven times,” she said. “He really kept doing it after I moved it away.”

But the main thing was that he wouldn’t let her move away from him. She compared the path they cut across his apartment to a football play. “It was 30 minutes of me getting up and moving and him following and sticking his fingers down my throat again. It was really repetitive. It felt like a fucking game.”

Throughout the course of her short time in the apartment, she says she used verbal and non-verbal cues to indicate how uncomfortable and distressed she was. “Most of my discomfort was expressed in me pulling away and mumbling. I know that my hand stopped moving at some points,” she said. “I stopped moving my lips and turned cold.”

Whether Ansari didn’t notice Grace’s reticence or knowingly ignored it is impossible for her to say. “I know I was physically giving off cues that I wasn’t interested. I don’t think that was noticed at all, or if it was, it was ignored.”

Ansari wanted to have sex. She said she remembers him asking again and again, “Where do you want me to fuck you?” while she was still seated on the countertop. She says she found the question tough to answer because she says she didn’t want to fuck him at all.

“I wasn’t really even thinking of that, I didn’t want to be engaged in that with him. But he kept asking, so I said, ‘Next time.’ And he goes, ‘Oh, you mean second date?’ and I go, ‘Oh, yeah, sure,’ and he goes, ‘Well, if I poured you another glass of wine now, would it count as our second date?’” He then poured her a glass and handed it to her. She excused herself to the bathroom soon after.

Grace says she spent around five minutes in the bathroom, collecting herself in the mirror and splashing herself with water. Then she went back to Ansari. He asked her if she was okay. “I said I don’t want to feel forced because then I’ll hate you, and I’d rather not hate you,” she said.




She told babe that at first, she was happy with how he reacted. “He said, ‘Oh, of course, it’s only fun if we’re both having fun.’ The response was technically very sweet and acknowledging the fact that I was very uncomfortable. Verbally, in that moment, he acknowledged that I needed to take it slow. Then he said, ‘Let’s just chill over here on the couch.’”

This moment is particularly significant for Grace, because she thought that would be the end of the sexual encounter — her remark about not wanting to feel “forced” had added a verbal component to the cues she was trying to give him about her discomfort. When she sat down on the floor next to Ansari, who sat on the couch, she thought he might rub her back, or play with her hair — something to calm her down.

Ansari instructed her to turn around. “He sat back and pointed to his penis and motioned for me to go down on him. And I did. I think I just felt really pressured. It was literally the most unexpected thing I thought would happen at that moment because I told him I was uncomfortable.”

Soon, he pulled her back up onto the couch. She would tell her friend via text later that night, “He [made out] with me again and says, ‘Doesn’t look like you hate me.’”

Halfway into the encounter, he led her from the couch to a different part of his apartment. He said he had to show her something. Then he brought her to a large mirror, bent her over and asked her again, “Where do you want me to fuck you? Do you want me to fuck you right here?” He rammed his penis against her ass while he said it, pantomiming intercourse.

“I just remember looking in the mirror and seeing him behind me. He was very much caught up in the moment and I obviously very much wasn’t,” Grace said. “After he bent me over is when I stood up and said no, I don’t think I’m ready to do this, I really don’t think I’m going to do this. And he said, ‘How about we just chill, but this time with our clothes on?’”

They got dressed, sat side by side on the couch they’d already “chilled” on, and he turned on an episode of Seinfeld. She’d never seen it before. She said that’s when the reality of what was going on sank in. “It really hit me that I was violated. I felt really emotional all at once when we sat down there. That that whole experience was actually horrible.”

While the TV played in the background, he kissed her again, stuck his fingers down her throat again, and moved to undo her pants. She turned away. She remembers “feeling in a different mindset at that point.”

“I remember saying, ‘You guys are all the same, you guys are all the fucking same.’” Ansari asked her what she meant. When she turned to answer, she says he met her with “gross, forceful kisses.”

After that last kiss, Grace stood up from the couch, moved back to the kitchen island where she left her phone, and said she would call herself a car. He hugged her and kissed her goodbye, another “aggressive” kiss. When she pulled away, Ansari finally relented and insisted he’d call her the car. “He said, ‘It’s coming, but just tell them your name is Essence,’” she said, a name he has joked about using as a pseudonym in his sitcom.

She teared up in the hallway, outside his place, pressing the down button on the elevator. The Uber was waiting when she left the building. He asked if she was Essence, she said yes, and then she rode back to her Brooklyn apartment. “I cried the whole ride home. At that point I felt violated. That last hour was so out of my hand.”

---

Hmmm, that scenario played out differently than accounts in the media would have you think.

I refused to read the source based on a prejudice stemming from videos like this:
https://youtu.be/y4bAULTwAJU

Maybe I'm reading too much reddit.

Half of the problem is the way the story is written. I understand why the author would try and conflate not choosing the wine with what later transpired, power imbalances being what they are. Unfortunately, every rebuttal seems to lead with that. It was a very poor framing choice. By the end of the story the author makes the inexplicable choice to insert herself into the story and comment that it was in fact a very cute dress. The whole thing was very poorly put together. Coupled with her tantrum on twitter a few days later, it made for some low hanging fruit.

How to move beyond the toxic masculinity that makes a man "press the advantage" when confronted with a less than enthusiastic woman is a problem that I do not have a solution for. The earliest media both boys and girls consume hammers a powerful narrative into our head. Men are to go out and impress while women are to be to discerning. There is also a disconnect between what people advocate for and roles within their own relationships. I have known many a feminist who wouldn't take the trash and many an ally who would end up eating a tide pod.

Something that can be done is helping men with emotional intelligence. The rallying cry for many men seems to be "just say something". Considering how much of human communication isn't verbalized, this is a poor excuse for bad behavior.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Half of the problem is the way the story is written. I understand why the author would try and conflate not choosing the wine with what later transpired, power imbalances being what they are. Unfortunately, every rebuttal seems to lead with that. It was a very poor framing choice. By the end of the story the author makes the inexplicable choice to insert herself into the story and comment that it was in fact a very cute dress. The whole thing was very poorly put together. Coupled with her tantrum on twitter a few days later, it made for some low hanging fruit.

---

It's arguable that the publication pursued this story as a feather in its cap. Apparently almost all the writing/editing staff of Babe are college-age; seems to be the new colloquial style. You can see the like in this CNN article, though it's authored by a middle-aged guy:

Quote:

---

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Why no one knows anything as the government nears a shutdown

Here's what we do know:
The Senate will come back into session at 11 a.m. ET
Sometime soon-ish(?) after that, the motion to end debate -- cloture in Senate slang -- and bring the House-passed bill to fund the government for another month will be brought up for a vote.
It will fail. (Republicans, based on current whip counts, need a dozen Democrats to cross over and vote for the so-called continuing resolution. That is, um, not happening.)
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

---

Quote:

---

Something that can be done is helping men with emotional intelligence. The rallying cry for many men seems to be "just say something". Considering how much of human communication isn't verbalized, this is a poor excuse for bad behavior.

---

Here's one take (the TLDR is in the title):

Quote:

---

Mythcommunication: It’s Not That They Don’t Understand, They Just Don’t Like The Answer

I just read a paper from the discipline of conversation analysis. It dovetails nicely with what I wrote in Talking Past Each Other, and I’m going to go through some of the findings (I can’t redistribute the paper itself), and talk about some conclusions. Long story short: in conversation, “no” is disfavored, and people try to say no in ways that soften the rejection, often avoiding the word at all. People issue rejections in softened language, and people hear rejections in softened language, and the notion that anything but a clear “no” can’t be understood is just nonsense. First, the notion that rape results from miscommunication is just wrong. Rape results from a refusal to heed, rather than an inability to understand, a rejection. Second, while the authors of the paper say that this makes all rape prevention advice about communicating a clear “no” pointless, I have a different take. Clear communication of “no” isn’t primarily going to avoid miscommunication — rather, it’s a meta-message. Clear communication against the undercurrent that “no” is rude and should be softened is a sign of the willingness to fight, to yell, to report.

---

@Seamus Fermanagh this is your discipline. Any thoughts?

Quote:

---

many an ally who would end up eating a tide pod.

---

?????

Is this the new "jenkem scare"?


EDIT: Here's a source for the Babe staff ages.

Quote:

---

"Most of our hires are recent grads, and I think having a team this young — our average age is 23 — and this talented and hardworking is what’s been the most important part of our growth," Mitzali said.

Indeed, the oldest editorial staffer at Babe is 25.

---

DO NOT search for "college age Babe".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

... @Seamus Fermanagh this is your discipline. Any thoughts?

---

Buddy of mine in grad school used conversation analysis as his prime methodology. I was also fortunate enough to have a class with Robert Hopper [RIP] who was probably it's foremost practitioner for a time. It is an incredibly intense focus on conversational exchanges and how sounds, gestures, utterances and very minute changes therein alter the course, tone, and content of a conversational exchange. What impact does a 1.3 second pause following a surprise revelation during a phone call have when compared to a 1.7 second pause? Very meticulous stuff, but the combinations of 'move/countermove' are endless and fascinating.

This can be used to emphasize the potential for people to end up "talking past each other," (hopefully Thomas, the author you quote above, referenced J.F. Lyotard's Le Differend in writing the piece he refers to. If not, he's stealing the idea on a nearly word for word basis) when there is no shared decision rule for how to interpret an exchange or when people do not clearly identify the decision rule they seek to evoke. Thomas references it positively, suggesting (correctly) that there are more ways to say no than a simple bald declarative. On the other hand, he is completely underplaying the role of context and culture in determining the decision rules we as listeners will use to interpret an utterance.

e.g. In Japan (a classic example of the high context/indirect communication style of culture), at least prior to the turn of the 20th, a businessman would say a mild/qualified/lukewarm in tone "Yes" in order to indicate "No" or "Hell No" while not causing the other party to lose face by being denied in a bald, outright fashion. This caused no end of problems with US (low context, direct communication culture) business people who took the intended no as an actual yes and tried to move forward contractually from there.

e.g. My wife (then fiancée) was propositioned at a party (At Hopper's house btw) by a woman grad student from English writing whom she'd met in an English Rhetoric class. My wife said thanks but no thanks, then pointed to me across the room and noted that she was here with her fiancée [subtext of message. No, and I don't go for same sex]. Response was along the lines of "congratulations, but it doesn't matter what you do with a male, I am interested in expressing REAL physical love with you [subtext of message being men and penetrative sex are irrelevant, are you interested/do you really mean no?]. There are whole layers of co-cultural and situational influences on the correct interpretation of these messages.

For Lyotard and the other Post-modernists, there was an essential emphasis on the pastiche -- that communicative meaning could be achieved but only in, of, and for that moment. Contrastingly, Habermas would suggest that the difference in message, and the effort to resolve and bring them together, are the source of communicative structure (and by extension all societal structure). I'm more on the Habermas side, as I don't view everything as fleeting and connected only haphazardly.

Either way, though, saying no is clearest when it is a bald declarative. Not all are comfortable being so blunt, however, as cultural mores and/or situational concerns may be driving their choice of message every bit as much or more than does the specific discrete message objective.

And that's not even focusing on the axiom that all messages have both a content [subject material of the exchange] and a relational [implied status of the nature of the relationship between conversants] that are going on, and which very much DO affect how we seek to communicate a specific message.

Enough to chew on for now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Enough to chew on for now?

---

It's useful, but somewhat tangential...

I was confused, but it looks like you were replying strictly to the quoted paragraph. I don't follow the linked blog or know anything about it's proprietor/contributors. To summarize the article and its relevance:

The author (Thomas) was expanding on Kitzinger & Frith. "Just Say No? The Use of Conversation Analysis In Developing A Feminist Perspective On Sexual Refusal", Discourse & Society 1999 10:293. Which paper basically:

Quote:

---

Drawing on the conversation analytic literature, and on our own data, we claim that both men and women have a sophisticated ability to convey and to comprehend refusals, including refusals which do not include the word ‘no’, and we suggest that male claims not to have ‘understood’ refusals which conform to culturally normative patterns can only be heard as self-interested justifications for coercive behaviour.

---

Quote:

---

In sum, these young women’s talk about the rudeness and arrogance which would be attributed to them, and the foolishness they would feel, in saying clear and direct ‘no’s, indicates their awareness that such behaviour violates culturally accepted norms according to which refusals are dispreferred actions.

---

Quote:

---

[Y]oung women responding to unwanted sexual pressure are using absolutely normal conversational patterns for refusals: that is, according to the research literature (and our own data) on young women and sexual communication, they are communicating their refusals indirectly; their refusals rarely refer to their own lack of desire for sex and more often to external circumstances which make sex impossible; their refusals are often qualified (‘maybe later’), and are accompanied by compliments (‘I really like you, but . . .’) or by appreciations of the invitation (‘it’s very flattering of you to ask, but . . .’); and sometimes they refuse sex with the kind of ‘yes’s which are normatively understood as communicating refusal. These features are all part of what are commonly understood to be refusals.

---

Quote:

---

The problem of sexual coercion cannot be fixed by changing the way women talk.

---

From his own work Thomas adds,

Quote:

---

Indeed it is evident that these young men share the understanding that explicit verbal refusals of sex per se are unnecessary to effectively communicate the withholding of consent to sex.

---

All of this is taken to demonstrate that "It’s Not That [Men] Don’t Understand, They Just Don’t Like The Answer." Being also that most rapes are committed by dedicated predators and serial rapists, men who rely on alcohol and try to isolate the most pliant and vulnerable women in a given space or environment, it has been suggested that teaching women to say "No" more forcefully is fruitless. Here Thomas disagrees, because

Quote:

---

I’m no communications theorist, but communications are layered things. As we’ve seen, the literal meaning of a message is only one aspect of the message, and the way it’s delivered can signal something entirely different. Rapists are not missing the literal meaning, I think it’s clear. What they’re doing is ignoring the literal message (refusal) and paying very close attention to the meta-message. I tell my niece, “if a guy offers to buy you a drink and you say no, and he pesters you until you say okay, what he wants for his money is to find out if you can be talked out of no.” The rapist doesn’t listen to refusals, he probes for signs of resistance in the meta-message, the difference between a target who doesn’t want to but can be pushed, and a target who doesn’t want to and will stand by that even if she has to be blunt. It follows that the purpose of setting clear boundaries is not to be understood — that’s not a problem — but to be understood to be too hard a target.

---

If rapists are "rational and opportunistic", forceful refusals may be an effective means of self-defense for a woman in a particular situation, even as "the only lasting answer is to change the culture".


Now we can see for ourselves the implications for the thread at-large. I mean, that's what I was getting at with the query.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

many an ally who would end up eating a tide pod.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

?????

Is this the new "jenkem scare"?

---

This gives me such joy.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pM6wanZOLtk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

This gives me such joy.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pM6wanZOLtk

---

Why? Because the social media frenzy has finally culminated in giving people who are so desperate for attention that they are willing to do something that will either kill them or leave them with lifelong medical problems just for views or likes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

Why? Because the social media frenzy has finally culminated in giving people who are so desperate for attention that they are willing to do something that will either kill them or leave them with lifelong medical problems just for views or likes?

---

The skit video is funny. People hurting themselves isn't funny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

e.g. My wife (then fiancée) was propositioned at a party (At Hopper's house btw) by a woman grad student from English writing whom she'd met in an English Rhetoric class. My wife said thanks but no thanks, then pointed to me across the room and noted that she was here with her fiancée [subtext of message. No, and I don't go for same sex]. Response was along the lines of "congratulations, but it doesn't matter what you do with a male, I am interested in expressing REAL physical love with you [subtext of message being men and penetrative sex are irrelevant, are you interested/do you really mean no?].

---

If you rendered your wife's response accurately, it is clear why that woman's advances at her were continued. Pointing at you she should have said "fiance" instead of "fiancee". ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

If you rendered your wife's response accurately, it is clear why that woman's advances at her were continued. Pointing at you she should have said "fiance" instead of "fiancee". ~;)

---

My typo I fear....verdamt froggie language