Why creationists can laugh at atheist feminists?

[pErvinalia]

Whose turned it into a "controversy?"

People like you and DD etc who get butthurt out of all proportion.

Voicing opposition to an authoritarian pack of hypocrites is not butthurt. It's no different than my opposition to religions and such.

Except that your opposition to religion isn't ranty and grossly hyperbolic like your's and Dodo's responses in this thread have been.

Then you haven't read my rants on religion. But, the worst thing is, I'm not being hyperbolic. Just being accurate about what feminists are up to SEEMS hyperbolic to someone who isn't following their activities. They are really THAT nutty. Like the feminist calling for Milo to be jailed for what he wrote on the Twitter, because women are so scared -- although they are 75% of Twitter users - they are so scared to say anything on Twitter because guy's like Milo are posting anti-feminist rhetoric.

I'm sorry, but both you and Dodo are grossly hyperbolic about a fringe movement in our societies. You guys have blown this WAY out of proportion.

[JimC]

He was making the point that many political analysts prefer to label what you are calling liberalism as authoritarian progressivism.

Actually, I was making the point that many extremely illiberal people try to identify themselves as liberal, when in fact they are authoritarian and "Progressive" (i.e., not liberal).

I'm liberal. rEvolutionist is Progressive.

Progressive maybe, authoritarian no. You can be left and anti-authoritarian...

Or, in my case, mildly left of centre, and a bit anti-authoritarian...

[Brian Peacock]

No true liberal...

[JimC]

And anyway, creationists don't laugh at atheist feminists. They shriek at them, reminding them that they will roast in hell for an eternity, but in the meantime, make me a sammich and show me your tits...

[Forty Two]

I'm sorry, but both you and Dodo are grossly hyperbolic about a fringe movement in our societies. You guys have blown this WAY out of proportion.

Feminism is a "fringe" movement?

[pErvinalia]

The radical element you and Dave rant about is.

[laklak]

make me a sammich and show me your tits...

Are all you big city boys such smooth talkers?

[Forty Two]

The radical element you and Dave rant about is.

Well, we just have a fundamental difference of view on that. One, I don't rant. I am just pointing out facts.

It is a fact that the notion of reducing the burden of proof in sexual assault cases, and even eliminating it altogether, is not just a "radical element." http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2555513 People are demonstrating and protesting to achieve these results, and they are in many cases winning the day. People support them. Here's an article about feminists at Stanford University (one of the top universities in the world) calling for no proof whatsoever to be required in cases of sexual assault. Students at Stanford University -- fringe?

Amanda Childress, Sexual Assault Awareness Program coordinator at Dartmouth College, declared that campus policies aren’t going far enough to protect students. She asked: “Why could we not expel a student based on an allegation?" http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014 ... ELFCF.dpbs Sexual Assault Awareness Program coordinator at Dartmouth College (Ivy League) -- fringe?

Ms. Magazine quoted Caroline Heldman, a professor at Occidental College on suits filed by men for alleged violations of their due process rights in connection with sexual assault claims: “These lawsuits are an incredible display of entitlement, the same entitlement that drove them to rape.” http://msmagazine.com/blog/2014/06/18/m ... ult-cases/ College professor at one of Obama's Alma Maters.... fringe?

California’s new “affirmative consent” law would require consent at every step of a sexual encounter. The co-author of the bill in the Assembly, Assemblywoman Bonnie Lowenthal, D-Long Beach, was asked how an innocent person is supposed to prove consent. She said: “Your guess is as good as mine.” http://www.cotwa.info/2014/06/how-can-s ... exual.html This is the law in California.... a state that would be one of the most populace and economically powerful countries in the world, if it were its own country.... fringe?

Sen. Claire McCaskill circulated an extensive survey about sexual assault to 350 college and university presidents. The survey classifies persons who make accusations of sexual misconduct as “victims,” and in one place calls persons merely accused of sexual misconduct “offenders.” Then on page 14, it contains this query: “Below is a list of policies and procedures that may discourage victims from disclosing and reporting assaults at some schools . . . . 1. Disclosure of offender’s rights in the adjudication process . . . .” The implication: it is somehow improper to insure that students accused of serious sexual offenses are aware of their rights. http://www.cotwa.info/2014/04/sen-clare ... urvey.html Yes, indeed, a US Senator believes that informing an accused person of their rights in the adjudication process is something that ought not be done because it discourages victims from disclosing and reporting assaults...... fringe?

Duke University Dean of Students Sue Wasiolek was asked what would happen if two students got drunk to the point of incapacity, and then had sex. “Assuming it is a male and female, it is the responsibility in the case of the male to gain consent before proceeding with sex,” http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/a-duke ... id=4171302 -- Dean of Students of Duke University -- fringe?

Jessica Valenti published in The Nation? "We know" Woody Allen is guilty, because he's been accused, and other women have been abused by other men, so.... we know he's guilty too... http://www.thenation.com/article/choosi ... ody-allen/ Fringe?

Ezra Klein advocates that possibly innocent young men will be expelled for rapes they didn’t commit is a good way to make sure that other men are "pretty damn sure" when they are interacting with women.... yep, some innocent men need to get sacrificed for the greater good. http://www.vox.com/2014/10/13/6966847/y ... support-it .....fringe?

Free speech and feminism? Ask Professor Laura Kipnis of Northwestern University. http://laurakipnis.com/wp-content/uploa ... eview-.pdf fringe?

We've previously mentioned the Dalhousie University professor, and her colleagues, and the audience in her conference, that were all cheering the notion of a sexist and discriminatory policy at a college which would require women to be given podiums and opportunities to speak first, by virtue of their gender, over men and if a conference was to occur and no women were involved, then it would be canceled. LOL. Fringe?

Gloria Steinem argued that strength tests for firefighters were sexist.....fringe? And, she declared porn to be slavery of women, and stated to Hugh Hefner that "A woman reading Playboy is like a Jew reading a Nazi manual." -- Fringe? She supported a boycott of Bret Easton Ellis' book American Psycho. Feminists protested in some cases by barging into bookstores and pouring blood on copies of the book. Feminist Tara Baxter declared that Ellis should be killed, a rat shoved up his ass, and his genitals cut off and fried in a frying pan.

French feminist Luce Ingray declared Einstein's E=mc2 equation to be "sexist" because it privileges the speed of light. And, she declared all of physics sexist because it preferred solid mechanics over fluid mechanics (which she associated with the feminine). Since 1964, she has been employed as a researcher at the French National Centre for Scientific Research and is currently France’s director of research in philosophy. Fringe?

The feminist movement is amazing in the amount of bullshit it can peddle, and still have people defending it. Your suggestion that the bizarre ideas are just "fringe" is just not in accord with the facts. Read any of the leading writers on feminism over the years -- like Bell Hooks - Gloria Steinem - Catharine Mackinnon -- Naomi Wolf - Caitlin Moran, etc. and the online folks like Sarkeesian, Valenti, and the bevy of other feminists with presences on youtube and various blogs.

I'd have to ask you, who is a prominent "non-fringe" feminist that is espousing the real feminism?

[Animavore]

Ezra Klein advocates that possibly innocent young men will be expelled for rapes they didn’t commit is a good way to make sure that other men are "pretty damn sure" when they are interacting with women.... yep, some innocent men need to get sacrificed for the greater good. http://www.vox.com/2014/10/13/6966847/y ... support-it .....fringe?

I picked one at random just to see. The article makes perfect sense. No where does she say what you said she says. She says nothing about men being sacrificed for the greater good, but rather affirmative consent makes the rare event of false accusation have less legal ambiguity than the common crime of sexual assault does with negative consent

For shame.

[Forty Two]

Ezra Klein advocates that possibly innocent young men will be expelled for rapes they didn’t commit is a good way to make sure that other men are "pretty damn sure" when they are interacting with women.... yep, some innocent men need to get sacrificed for the greater good. http://www.vox.com/2014/10/13/6966847/y ... support-it .....fringe?

I picked one at random just to see. The article makes perfect sense. No where does she say what you said she says. She says nothing about men being sacrificed for the greater good, but rather affirmative consent makes the rare event of false accusation have less legal ambiguity than the common crime of sexual assault does with negative consent

For shame.

Well, if you don't agree with that one, then pick another one. The list was long, and I tried to be accurate.

Here is Ezra Klein, since you took issue with is -- "Yes Means Yes" is a terrible law, and I completely support it --- that's the title. Why is it a "terrible law?" As he says "two college seniors who've been in a loving relationship since they met during the first week of their freshman years, and who, with the ease of the committed, slip naturally from cuddling to sex, could fail its test." Yes, indeed, if that is the case, it sounds like a crappy law, doesn't it. Sounds like a law where an innocent person would be designated a rapist....isn't that what "fail its test" means? Two people have "slipped naturally from cuddling to sex" and the guy's a rapist.

Then he says ",...if the best that can be said about the law is that its definition of consent will rarely be enforced, then the definition should be rethought. It is dangerous for the government to set rules it doesn't expect will be followed." But, "Its overreach is precisely its value." He says. He then misstates a 2007 study which says 1 in 5 women are victims of sexual assault while in college -- first, the 1 in 5 statistic is false, and the rape and sexual assault stats on college campuses are LOWER than in the general population outside of colleges.

You say he didn't say anything like what I wrote, but he wrote exaclty: " THE YES MEANS YES LAW COULD ALSO BE CALLED THE YOU BETTER BE PRETTY DAMN SURE LAW" - just as I said above. He says "Critics worry that colleges will fill with cases in which campus boards convict young men (and, occasionally, young women) of sexual assault for genuinely ambiguous situations. Sadly, that's necessary for the law's success." See? He says that cases in which campus boards convict for GENUINELY AMBIGUOUS situations -- that's necessary for the law to work. Those ambiguous convictions are necessary, he says, to convince OTHER men to be "pretty darn sure" .... that's what he writes.

How you came to the conclusion that Klein said nothing like what I summarized, when he literally said EXACTLY what I summarized is beyond me.

[Animavore]

You're missing the point by a mile. Switching to affirmative consent reduces ambiguity. It puts the onus on the man to make sure rather than having the woman defend an ambiguous No.

It makes utter sense and less the playing field.

[Forty Two]

You're missing the point by a mile. Switching to affirmative consent reduces ambiguity. It puts the onus on the man to make sure rather than having the woman defend an ambiguous No.

It makes utter sense and less the playing field.

Then Ezra Klein misunderstands too, because he says the law is terrible, creates a situation where men will be accused and even convicted of rape in ambiguous situations, but that the injustice is necessary to make other men feel fear in dealing with women so they "make damn sure..."

Switching to affirmative consent means that people who, say, start making out, and have sex as people normally do, some foreplay, touching, clothes coming off, and eventually screwing, without actually exchanging objectively provable "affirmative consent" (verbal or written), then the guy is guilty of rape if she says he's guilty of rape.

I'm not sure why "affirmative consent" is better than an "all the facts and circumstances" analysis anyway. I'd actually trust people's objective conduct more than a signed consent form. If a guy said "here, look! she gave affirmative consent! i got her to sign this paper!" I'd be damn suspicious about that, because, I mean, who the fuck does that?

[Animavore]

You're missing the point by a mile. Switching to affirmative consent reduces ambiguity. It puts the onus on the man to make sure rather than having the woman defend an ambiguous No.

It makes utter sense and less the playing field.

Then Ezra Klein misunderstands too, because he says the law is terrible, creates a situation where men will be accused and even convicted of rape in ambiguous situations, but that the injustice is necessary to make other men feel fear in dealing with women so they "make damn sure..."

Switching to affirmative consent means that people who, say, start making out, and have sex as people normally do, some foreplay, touching, clothes coming off, and eventually screwing, without actually exchanging objectively provable "affirmative consent" (verbal or written), then the guy is guilty of rape if she says he's guilty of rape.

I'm not sure why "affirmative consent" is better than an "all the facts and circumstances" analysis anyway. I'd actually trust people's objective conduct more than a signed consent form. If a guy said "here, look! she gave affirmative consent! i got her to sign this paper!" I'd be damn suspicious about that, because, I mean, who the fuck does that?

Here never said injustice was necessary to "make damn sure". You're confusing to seperate parts.
And it says nothing about signed consent anywhere. Why do you keep adding your own parts in?

[Forty Two]

No, he said exactly that.
]

For that reason, the law is only worth the paper it's written on if some of the critics' fears come true. Critics worry that colleges will fill with cases in which campus boards convict young men (and, occasionally, young women) of sexual assault for genuinely ambiguous situations. Sadly, that's necessary for the law's success. It's those cases — particularly the ones that feel genuinely unclear and maybe even unfair, the ones that become lore in frats and cautionary tales that fathers e-mail to their sons — that will convince men that they better Be Pretty Damn Sure.

The law is only worth the paper it is written on if campus boards convict people of sexual assault for genuinely ambiguous situations -- that's necessary for the law's success -- it's those cases -- PARTICULARLY the ones that feel genuinely unclear and even unfair -- that will convince men that they better be pretty damn sure.

I.e., it's the injustice that this law works that is its benefit -- it will scare the shit out of men in general so they act Pretty Damn Sure.

You're the one not getting it, Animavore.

Klein's logic is bizarre, and fascistic. Let's broaden the net so we get more arguably innocent people so everyone gets the fucking message, right? Give women a wiiiiiiiide berth...

And, I didn't say "written consent ONLY" I said verbal or written consent -- there are only two ways to get "affirmative consent" dude - verbally, or in writing. If the law requires the accused to demonstrate affirmative consent, then he has to testify either "here's the written consent form" or "she told me 'yes' out loud." What else is he going to say? All other evidence becomes irrelevant -- she was all over him? She was screaming out loud how horny she was as they walked out the door together? She jumped his bones in front of a room full of people and they made out like rabid dogs, then went to another room -- irrelevant. The only thing that's relevant is affirmative consent. If he has to show that, then he better have it in writing or on audiotape/videotape, or he's going to have a hard time proving she said what he says she said, isn't she?

That's like the other blurb I noted above, where the legislator was asked how a man was supposed to prove affirmative consent, and she answered "your guess is as good as mine." Fringe?

[pErvinalia]

The radical element you and Dave rant about is.

Well, we just have a fundamental difference of view on that. One, I don't rant.

Bro...