And to further elaborate on the topic of feminism and, in my opinion, how many feminists miss the mark in their message:
I was at a small summit yesterday and there was a gentleman who I've worked with in the past that spoke about functional and access needs populations. One of the big points he wanted to drive home was how they aren't "special" needs, which is how these populations were commonly referred to until just recently. His point about that was for them, it's a matter of equality and they can never be truly equal if people think of them as "special".
It's the same with women, and honestly with any minority. If you really want equality, then you want to play by the same rules as everyone else. That means I shouldn't get special treatment when it comes to hiring or promotions just because I'm a woman. It should be a level playing field.
It seems to me that a lot of feminists have gone beyond the "level field" into the realm of "we should get this because we're women, damn it!"
Another example of people not being willing to take responsibility for their failings. My sister is watching some show about gypsies. They had a baptism and celebrated it. Rented out a hall, and the men were outside drinking beer. They weren't supposed to be, the woman who runs the place came out to tell them that they were supposed to wait until 7pm before they started serving any alcohol, to prevent underage drinking. The father said he was unaware of this, but was informed it was in the lease he signed. He tried to excuse himself by way of ignorance again. After the police had a quick chat with him he stated that the reason they had come down on him was because he was a gypsy, "because they don't like us". Of course it had nothing to do with the fact that he broke the rules.
What does this have to do with gender equality you ask? Nothing, just venting really.
I think that principle can be applied pretty generically across identifiable groups. Most anybody can find some way to do the mental gymnastics to present themselves as the persecuted party, nobody likes thinking, "I'm being treated like I'm an asshole because I am in fact an asshole."
I sometimes sit and ask myself "Am I an asshole?". Because I am prone to mood swings, and if you catch me when I'm in a bad mood I can be unpleasant. But when you're in a bad mood everyone else is the asshole.
I admit it though, I can be a right prick at the worst of times.
The basic idea is shifting rape laws to an affirmative consent model, with a comprehensive background of what this means and the various ways of implementing the change.
1. That's a typical top law school law review article, well written, heavily edited and exquisitely footnoted, but about some pie in the sky social justice topic and of no use to people who actually practice law because the writer hasn't ever worked on a case in his life.
2. This is deliberately crude and really isn't my actual opinion, but it was my first reaction. I'd heartily endorse moving to an affirmative consent model the minute that society treats a rape allegation by a man against a woman with every bit the seriousness it treats a rape allegation by a woman against a man.
I'll start with one point. Rape is a serious criminal allegation. In most states it carries a prison sentence somewhere between manslaughter and first degree murder, moreover even when you're released from prison in most states it carries a lifetime of mandatory registration and restrictions that quite literally ever prevent the convicted individual from rejoining society in any even semi-meaningful way. (an example).
If you're charged with rape you have two options. You can plead guilty, admit it, or you can present a defense. Any criminal defense falls into two categories (A) It wasn't me, or (B) I was there, but the way it happened wasn't a crime.
Given that DNA evidence is probably most common in rape cases, the only defense most people might claim is consent. The prosecutor proves force or lack of consent by the testimony of the victim and sometimes physical evidence. The point is the prosecutor has to prove that you actually committed a crime.
The article just sweeps all this away as "victim blaming," and shifting the burden onto the victim to prove that they didn't invite rape.
The article suggests, in effect, shifting this burden. Under an "affirmative consent" model, think through how this works. The victim has gone to the police and complained of rape, charges have been filed and you assert the defense that the sex was "consensual." At trial the judge is apparently going to instruct the jury that unless there is proof of affirmative consent, you should convict."
The court has effectively just presumed you are guilty of rape unless you can come forward with proof of affirmative consent. Her testimony is going to be she didn't consent, and your testimony is going to be "she did." If the burden of proof is on you, you get convicted unless the jury affirmatively believes you.
it's all fine and good to suggest that's a positive social more and that's the way things should be in interactions between people, but until that actually matches society, we have no business presuming people guilty of crimes that literally ruin the rest of their lives.
I've never actually experienced any sort of harassment or rude comments, but I don't play in competitive games. I also tend to not use my headset when in a lot of matchmaking games just to avoid having a young boy screaming in my ear. Most older players aren't very douchey like that, so I much prefer playing with them.
I'm loving the guy who may have read that entire article, then started claiming she gets harassed because she works in porn. Then he starts reaffirming the stance that rape victims somehow invited their rape.
Arguably relevant to the conversation - more generally it's a discussion about how getting up in arms over things you don't like that would otherwise pass under the radar actually serves to draw attention to that thing you don't like, but it uses Anita Sarkeesian as its example. And also it's Jim Sterling.
To be honest, as much as they appear the champions of forward thinking, the field of science is still very much a boys' club. My PI wasn't so much, but I've had many professors over the years who were pretty gender biased. Some not as overtly and some were outright with it.
I started at an all-women's college before I transferred. As a freshman, we had all these "degree presentations" that my college did on the different degrees you could pursue. At the one for Biochemistry, the professor asked how many of us were interested in becoming MDs. A lot of us raised our hands and his reply "You should all become nurses instead."
I've heard of similar, but a lot of it these days seems to be kept behind the scenes, or at least not as obviously voiced attitudes. A recently public trend has been the person that women let other women know to avoid or be aware of, without making it public beyond the need-to-know circle because they can't afford the conflict with a guy who holds power within their field.
That reminds me vaguely of something that occured when I was a high school student doing the prospective student tour at Vanderbilt, although it wasn't quite sexist.
The speaker was hyping up the size of Vandy's pre-med program and and a girl asked something about becoming a chiropractor, and the speaker said something to the effect of "I think you just get an associate's degree for that."