Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

I'd kind of argue that that's a tautology. Power does weird things to people's worldview. Prison is no fundamentally different to other power structures. That's the point.

My main takeaway argument would be that if there's a structure where unfettered power creates a cabal of male abusers, because men dominate that space, then merely pushing more women up the hierarchy without actually dealing with the power imbalance doesn't necessarily help*. Any good that it would do is posited on the idea that women with power are going to be all warm and fuzzy to other women. This is not necessarily a proven fact. Other than "naming and shaming" individuals, I can't see any policy changes that are being put forward that are going to resolve this. We've tried naming and shaming individuals before, and it never amounts to change, because the fundamental power imbalances inherent in the system itself are never addressed: that's because we're too hung up on this idea that who has the power makes all the difference, and not that unchecked power itself necessarily creates a culture of abuse.

*:

A 2014 survey by the Workplace Bullying Institute found that female bullies targeted another woman worker 68 percent of the time.

[nenjin]

and not that unchecked power itself necessarily creates a culture of abuse.

Can we think of any instances of unchecked power not resulting in abuse? Because I can't off the top of my head. Surely not law enforcement.

[Gizogin]

I'd kind of argue that that's a tautology. Power does weird things to people's worldview. Prison is no fundamentally different to other power structures. That's the point.

I'd be more inclined to expect that power doesn't corrupt, but that people who are corrupt can just do more corrupt stuff the more power they have. Or even that positions of power attract people who are inclined to abuse it in the first place. Of course, I don't have anything to back it up, and I don't know how you'd actually go about testing that kind of thing.

[RedKing]

I'd also point out that neither the status quo nor the current wave of sexual assault allegations directly assist male victims of sexual assault.  So if we want to talk about female on male sexual assault in terms of how we're going to help the victims, great.  But using male victims to discuss the current wave of allegations is getting into whataboutism.

^^
This.

Usually the only time anyone gives a shit about men being sexually assaulted by women, it's as a prop to make some kind of MRA screed seem logical.
Want to prove me wrong? Go start a foundation to highlight the problem.

[smjjames]

This is the perfect example of how Roy Moore is going to be a 10 ton lead weight to the GOP. He thinks America was great in the 19th century when slavery was going.

Also, while the usual metaphor would be 'an albatross around the neck of x', except it's not an albatross, it's a frikking T-Rex

[Rolan7]

@RedKing
Lots of people give a shit, they just get insta-dismissed as MRA's by daring to discuss "sexual assault" instead of "sexual assault specifically against women".  A lot of MRAs are scum, but you know what's worse?  Sexual assault regardless of gender.

That's not "whataboutism" or "centrism", it's called caring about more than one demographic at once.  Trying to understand the problem as a whole instead of demanding tunnel-vision on one aspect of it.

[SalmonGod]

I think this illustrates exactly why that doesn't happen.  Attempts to talk about the problem as a whole, instead of a specific gender interaction, get painted as villains to that cause.  It sends a clear message to anyone who cares about the problem beyond that specific gender interaction that their attempts to talk about it are seen as competition.

I'm not nearly as critical of feminism as Reelya, but a great deal of my personal experience and perspective goes against their framing on issues of abuse.  I mostly keep it to myself and avoid feminism talk anymore.  Because I definitely don't get along with anti-progressive crowds, but I'll usually encounter some startling hostility if I express certain thoughts among progressives.

[RedKing]

@RedKing
Lots of people give a shit, they just get insta-dismissed as MRA's by daring to discuss "sexual assault" instead of "sexual assault specifically against women".  A lot of MRAs are scum, but you know what's worse?  Sexual assault regardless of gender.

That's not "whataboutism" or "centrism", it's called caring about more than one demographic at once.  Trying to understand the problem as a whole instead of demanding tunnel-vision on one aspect of it.

To me, it's the gender equivalent of #AllLivesMatter.

EDIT: And I think male-on-male assaults still get highlighted and treated pretty seriously (*cough* Kevin Spacey *cough*), though I question how much of that is driven by homophobia rather than genuine concern for the victims. And I agree that the rare instances of female-on-male assaults are bad and should be treated as such. But the original formulation of the post was "i'm tired of hearing about men who sexually assaulted X, what about all the horny women?" which is Grade A horseshit.

For one thing, it's rarely about libido. It's about POWER.

[Karnewarrior]

This is the perfect example of how Roy Moore is going to be a 10 ton lead weight to the GOP. He thinks America was great in the 19th century when slavery was going.

Also, while the usual metaphor would be 'an albatross around the neck of x', except it's not an albatross, it's a frikking T-Rex

Is this being reported on a more mainstream and less "Filthy Librul" outlet than vox? Because otherwise it won't reach the people who really need to hear it; Moore's constituency.

I think this illustrates exactly why that doesn't happen.  Attempts to talk about the problem as a whole, instead of a specific gender interaction, get painted as villains to that cause.  It sends a clear message to anyone who cares about the problem beyond that specific gender interaction that their attempts to talk about it are seen as competition.

I'm not nearly as critical of feminism as Reelya, but a great deal of my personal experience and perspective goes against their framing on issues of abuse.  I mostly keep it to myself and avoid feminism talk anymore.  Because I definitely don't get along with anti-progressive crowds, but I'll usually encounter some startling hostility if I express certain thoughts among progressives.

Well, I just stopped caring about what NPCs think about what I think. I hold a mix of political viewpoints that range from conservative to liberal to socialist, and I've expressed them all at some point. The important part is being willing to be friends with people you argue with, even if you're still arguing. I'm still trying to convince BFEL that pizzagate was hooey, and Sprin that a NAP is not a suitable replacement for government.

And yet, Sprin was over at my house not long ago and we played Persona 5 together. We're buds. That's the important bit, not the political viewpoints in question.

[nenjin]

Was having a milder version of this discussion with some friends not too long ago.

What, as a guy, is your reaction supposed to be when a woman, out of the blue, grabs your ass?

Because it's happened to me more than once. And my default reaction was what society has generally expected of guys: shocked but friendly surprise.

But that's sexual assault by the book. It's grabbing by the pussy by another body part. It's a lot of things, on principle, we're not supposed to approve of.

These days if and when it happens to me I still jokingly call it a lot of things. But I've never reacted to it the way I react to men doing these things to women, for a lot of reasons. Where is the line? Is it how creepy or lecherous you look? How receptive the recipient is? Is it only playful if you "didn't mean anything" by it? If you're drunk? You're all drunk? Is it never ok?

I mean, I obviously know what the smart policy is because I practice it: keep your damn hands to yourself unless someone is choosing to make contact with you. Hell I even had to have a stripper be like "It's ok, here *plop*" because that's how seriously I take it. (Also I thought strip clubs had rules about that shit but w/e.)
 
I've had several different female strangers in my life (ahem, not at a strip club...) get handsy with me, and I *still* don't know what I actually feel about the issue. Hell I had some late night grocer the other week quietly cat call me as I walked away. And my first reaction was kinda...ewwwww....and then for a moment I actually got a little indignant.

Because the truth is, sometimes you're flattered and sometimes you're creeped out. Sometimes you're interested and sometimes you're offended. I've been in both positions before. For guys, they're generally ok with it unless a) they don't find the woman attractive or b) they're scared for some reason (and there can be a lot of legitimate reasons to be scared when the woman is the aggressor.) It's not even like this is new, this discussion is already almost 2 decades old. It was the entire point of Disclosure by Micheal Crichton.

We can have a black and white answer to what's acceptable but in truth it's not a black and white situation sometimes, at the time, emotionally, whatever. Which is why I increasingly view it less as a gender thing and try to treat everyone by the same standard: hands to yourself. The only free touches you get are shoulder and lower arm, and you get one. Beyond that, you come to a mutually agreed moment of closeness. Then you get to be as handsy as you want. Romantic it is not but at least it's "proper." It's why this stuff with some of the guys below Cosby's level of creepiness and outright sexual assault kind of bother me. Like Louis C.K. At the time, whatever went on may even have been mutual and not a "get freaky with me for the sake of your career" moment. And then the perception changes years later and now it's, if not a crime, then wrong? I could easily reframe any of the moments I've experienced as "I've been used/shamed/humiliated/violated." And if that's how fragile things have gotten, if that's how easily anyone can land themselves in trouble, then to hell with it. Maybe I'll get back to dating in my 60s or 70s when this whole shit storm has settled down and I don't feel like I need signed statements of intent for anything from hand holding all the way up to being between the sheets.

For one thing, it's rarely about libido. It's about POWER.

Context is important. Even though I just mentioned Disclosure as an example which agrees with you...someone's drunk wife at a wedding party "mistaking" your ass for her husband's ass isn't really about power.

[smjjames]

I'm confused about this one, an Arizona Republican Rep. is resigning over what in summary is 'talking surrogacy with female staffers'. The part that I'm confused about is that it seems to amount to giving too much information and not recognizing when people are uncomfortable about a topic (IMO, a guy isn't a great choice to talk about surrogacy, but that's a different discussion) since he made the staffers uncomfortable.

However, it doesn't seem like giving too much information on a topic and making people uncomfortable is sexual harrassment. Maybe if he forced them to listen to him, yeah, but otherwise it looks like that guy is misidentifying the issue that is getting him into trouble.

[nenjin]

It seems pretty well explained.

In a lengthy statement, Franks said he wanted to take “full and personal responsibility for the ways I have broached a topic that, unbeknownst to me until very recently, made certain individuals uncomfortable.” He said he and his wife had “long struggled with infertility” and gone through three miscarriages. They tried to adopt children multiple times, only to have the birth mothers renege before giving birth.

He added: “A wonderful and loving lady, to whom we will be forever grateful, acted as a gestational surrogate for our twins and was able to carry them successfully to live birth. The process by which they were conceived was a pro-life approach that did not discard or throw away any embryos. My son and daughter are unspeakable gifts of God that have brought us our greatest earthly happiness in the 37 years we have been married.”

Also, "unspeakable gifts of god"? I can't decide whether that's insanely over the top or some premonition of DOOM.

"His children...."

"No, SSHHHHHH. We must not speak of them."

[MetalSlimeHunt]

So far as I've seen, both male and female sexuality can be fueled by a desire to express power over others. The woman who brags that she can get men to do whatever she wants, and such.

[RedKing]

I'm confused about this one, an Arizona Republican Rep. is resigning over what in summary is 'talking surrogacy with female staffers'. The part that I'm confused about is that it seems to amount to giving too much information and not recognizing when people are uncomfortable about a topic (IMO, a guy isn't a great choice to talk about surrogacy, but that's a different discussion) since he made the staffers uncomfortable.

However, it doesn't seem like giving too much information on a topic and making people uncomfortable is sexual harrassment. Maybe if he forced them to listen to him, yeah, but otherwise it looks like that guy is misidentifying the issue that is getting him into trouble.

Given that the House Ethics Commission was opening an investigation, I'm thinking there was a bit more going on that just talking about uncomfortable subjects.

Like, "Hey, my wife and I can't seem to get preggers. Would one you lovely ladies be willing to let me knock you up? We'll pay you!"
Which.....on its own merits, is not a terrible thing. But if the delivery was that blunt and tone-deaf, then yeah, it is.

EDIT: This is also the same guy that a few years back said that "incidents of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low" as a justification for not allowing exceptions to anti-abortion laws. There's an ironic joke to be had there, but every permutation I can find is kind of beyond the pale.

[smjjames]

It seems pretty well explained.

In a lengthy statement, Franks said he wanted to take “full and personal responsibility for the ways I have broached a topic that, unbeknownst to me until very recently, made certain individuals uncomfortable.” He said he and his wife had “long struggled with infertility” and gone through three miscarriages. They tried to adopt children multiple times, only to have the birth mothers renege before giving birth.

He added: “A wonderful and loving lady, to whom we will be forever grateful, acted as a gestational surrogate for our twins and was able to carry them successfully to live birth. The process by which they were conceived was a pro-life approach that did not discard or throw away any embryos. My son and daughter are unspeakable gifts of God that have brought us our greatest earthly happiness in the 37 years we have been married.”

Also, "unspeakable gifts of god"? I can't decide whether that's insanely over the top or some premonition of DOOM.

"His children...."

"No, SSHHHHHH. We must not speak of them."

The guy is also known for making controversial comments, particularily about abortion and female sexual reproduction, and this quote from here says a lot about him "Donald Trump's words degraded and insulted women in the most flagrant possible way, and yet Hillary Clinton's policy is to allow the murder of a half a million little tiny women every year,"

On the face of it, it seems innoccous, but he's probably leaving out what he said word for word to the staffers that made them so uncomfortable.

I'm confused about this one, an Arizona Republican Rep. is resigning over what in summary is 'talking surrogacy with female staffers'. The part that I'm confused about is that it seems to amount to giving too much information and not recognizing when people are uncomfortable about a topic (IMO, a guy isn't a great choice to talk about surrogacy, but that's a different discussion) since he made the staffers uncomfortable.

However, it doesn't seem like giving too much information on a topic and making people uncomfortable is sexual harrassment. Maybe if he forced them to listen to him, yeah, but otherwise it looks like that guy is misidentifying the issue that is getting him into trouble.

Given that the House Ethics Commission was opening an investigation, I'm thinking there was a bit more going on that just talking about uncomfortable subjects.

Like, "Hey, my wife and I can't seem to get preggers. Would one you lovely ladies be willing to let me knock you up? We'll pay you!"
Which.....on its own merits, is not a terrible thing. But if the delivery was that blunt and tone-deaf, then yeah, it is.

That's possible, plus the whole attitude of being an expert on the subject.