Justice and Rape Culture: The Women Are Speaking

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Tiassa, Nov 21, 2017.

  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,360
    Another implied insult. What makes you think that I cannot tell if someone is tactile or not?
    Not all men are sexual predators.

    Why do you stroke a cat or a dog? Is that sexual, or just affection and showing that you want to be friends?

    Listen to this ;
    and if you want to hear musical lovemaking, listen to the next instrumental by Pat Metheney and Toots Thielemans, this is true emotional intimacy, but not sexual. Its the B&W picture..
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2017
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Kittamaru Never cruel nor cowardly... Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,622
    I think one thing that Americans in general have forgotten is that being intimate doesn't necessarily require sexual overtones. I mean, the definition of the word is a good bit different from how many people use (or perhaps, abuse) it.

    *shrug*
     
    Write4U likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,544
    okay, as i thought. no common sense. i suggest you be careful of 'stroking' people as you do a dog or cat. i suggest you not touch them at all and keep your hands to yourself.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,380
    Yep..

    But when you follow that with:

    What the hell?

    Do you tend to walk up to strangers you want to be friends with and stroke them like you are stroking a cat or a dog? Because this is what normal people do?
    Does the word consent mean anything to you? So when your friends bring someone you don't know to your home and you go to hug them to make them feel included, and they back away and clearly indicate no, do you respect their boundaries?

    Or do you jump on them regardless and give their backside or breast, etc, a good grope without their consent? You do realise what constitutes sexual harassment, yes?

    I simply cannot understand how people, in this day and age, can come up with statements like this:

    And still not understand the fundamental part, which is called consent.
     
  8. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,544
    here we go again with another weirdly misplaced idea. yes, between CONSENTING adults. no one has a right to touch anyone without their consent whether you think there is no sexual overtone or feel affectionate. the other is not an object and the other is not obligated to accept your affection or touch based on only your justification.

    key concepts: CONSENT. MUTUAL

    it's pretty simple.
     
  9. Kittamaru Never cruel nor cowardly... Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,622
    Certainly - it was not my intent to diminish the importance of consent with that observation - if anything, I think the distinction makes consent even more important. Someone (male or female) may be comfortable with being intimate, but not with having sex or sexual contact. They may be perfectly fine with a kiss on the cheek (as some cultures use as a greeting), but not with a hug (in many ways, a hug is more intimate than a kiss on the cheek, in part because you are leaving yourself vulnerable to the other party). Heck you can be intimate without even having physical contact, though some would say that is being distant; for someone with severe anxiety, for example, just opening up to someone can be a deeply intimate act.

    Just as an example - my wife, for reasons that are not mine to disclose here, had requested early on in our relationship that we not have sex until we were married. She was comfortable being intimate, and even physically so in many ways; even so, that was a boundary she requested, and so I honored it.

    My point, with that, is simply that there are (or, maybe, should be) several "consents" requested / given during a sexual encounter - some implied, most not implied and should be specifically asked or given... and it should also be kept in mind that consent can be withdrawn at any time. That can be difficult in the throes of passion, and so should be a discussion that is had while both parties are clear minded.

    Of course, if one party has predatory intentions that discussion is likely to be moot.
     
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,670
    Unless it's Clinton/Lewinsky, in which the power relationship between two aware, consenting adults obviates consent - or even initiative.
    Unless it's Franken/Leedum, in which even bringing the matter of "consent" up as the framing context on a USO tour with a standard USO tour script, the boundaries to be established by "No", and the matter of whether actual touching occurred, is defending predatory sexual assault on the same level as Moore's and slut shaming on the same level as fraternity rape excusers.
    Unless it's Barton/whoever, where even anonymous revenge porn, if directed at a powerful man who was in control of the situation, has its defenders on "both sides".

    For that matter, unless it's your aunt Mildred, who hasn't seen you since you were a baby.
    How about your ex-girlfriend, at a party?

    In good faith, US normal, these are no problem - your aunt Mildred is an ok hug unless she's been seriously abusive, the ex-girlfriend's is an ok touch if conventional (the ex-boyfriend is likely to be trickier - not on any abstract principle, but because he's probably, physically, more of a threat)
    The events are often simple, if evaluated in good faith. The principle is simply phrased, if read in good faith. The public issue, the litigation ("justice") of personal encounters in a public arena, is not. It would be a mess, even in good faith -

    which is lacking. See above.
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2017
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,360
    I do just fine thank you. We have 5 cats a 2 dogs who live a life of luxury and affection. We have squirrels, birds, doves, quail, an occasional skunk and a few ferile cats who come to visit our yard, because there is always some food for them. In summer our yard is filled with happy bird songs. Inside the house there is always good music, the kind you just listened to above.

    We have several friends who are and always will be "dear" to us and will always be welcome in our house, and vice versa. We try never to offend anyone, in any way. So I will use my hands as is appropriate and without sexual intent.

    You are jumping from one extreme to another extreme and in the process lose all humanity.
    Stay balanced and do not be hasty to judge. There are civilized people around. We try to avoid uncivilized people. Consent may be asked for by opening your arms wide and invite the hug.
    If the invitation is declined, I'm not going to hug them. To a reasonable common sense person "consent" is easily recognized.

    And in your response to your ad hominem, we ARE using "common sense".
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2017
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,360
    And it is your impression that I would do anything without consent ?
    This may explain what I mean;

    I try to follow Carlin's advice.
     
  13. Bowser Life is Fatal. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,509
    Can I pitch a tent in your yard. It sounds pretty cool.
     
  14. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,360
    Your empathic response inspired further thought on the subject of Tulpas.

    And here I also mentally revisited Anil Seth's lecture about "controlled hallucination".
    In his presentation, he offered a little humor that if many people share your mental best guess, we call that reality. He identified our mental best guesses as controlled hallucinations.
    Roger Antonsen identified shared perspectives as having mutual Empathy.

    If we think this through, then shared hallucinations by many minds do indeed create an empathic experience of "real", but non-physical existence of Demons and Angels.

    Extending my train of thought, we have generally identified social behaviors in accordance to the 7 deadly sins and 7 existential virtues.

    Anyone who believes in the existence of Satan and practices one or all of the seven sins has mentally become a demon. Hence the words attributed to Satan, "I am legion". And it's true, there are a lot of bad people in this world.

    OTOH, anyone who believes in the existence of Angels and practices one or all of the seven virtues, mentally becomes an angel. Hence the expression "thank you, you're an Angel". And that is also true, because there are also many good people in this world.

    And it would explain beliefs in mystical mental representations (controlled hallucinations) of human behavior. We all have our mental angels and demons, our personal Tulpas.

    I am an atheist and I do not believe in mystical beings, but I can understand that many people do believe in the concepts of demons and angels, and by that fact have created our own Tulpas in the images of what we fear, such as death, the dark, and mental suffering, and what we treasure, such as life, the light, and mental celebration.

    Most of us fall somewhere in between and this why we have instituted secular laws, which basically address the 7 sins. Which leads us back to the OP, which is trying to define what behavior is acceptable and what is not.

    And a last thought about "non sexual but affectionate hugging". We teach that parents should often affectionally hug babies and young children. But from my experience in the medical world it is also clear that elderly persons (often widows), also crave to be affectionally hugged.

    And in times of great stress, strangers may offer comfort to a victim with an empathic hug.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2017
  15. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,681
    I never hug anyone and I try to show its not welcome if they move close but if they don't get it I hold arms by my side and tense my body.

    Family know better not to touch me.

    I hate someone thinking they can hug you and you have only just met them.

    Don't like girls trying to kiss hi either. They get near your ear and make a kissy sound. Its just BS.

    Alex
     
  16. Bowser Life is Fatal. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,509
    Hugs are a curious thing. Where does the impulse for physical contact derive? It's spontaneous, we just do it.
     
  17. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,360
    It is a bonding mechanism in many mammals, especially at birth.
     
  18. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,867
    #dueprocess | #TheWomenAreSpeaking

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    A dose of the obvious, to start; Washington Post columnist Christine Emba↱ explains a point about strange calls for process:

    When power dynamics shift as quickly as they have in the wake of #MeToo, individuals are thrown off kilter. The people most unnerved and eager to return to the past are those who suddenly realize they may no longer be on top.

    And so, many men have rushed to gather what protections they feel they have left, while breathlessly pointing out all the ways the new arrangements are flawed. Thus, the urgent invocations of due process and the importance of protections for the accused, and the lurid visions of innocent men felled by "huntresses" who will "believe all women" at the expense of rule of law.

    Except that last part is a fever dream.

    We aren't seeing an epidemic of men being railroaded for flirting. There is no wave of false accusations washing defenseless men from their rightful careers. The cases taking over the news weren't sparked by untouchable accusers whose pointed fingers have the power to ruin careers. Instead, we've uncovered systemic, ongoing patterns of abuse perpetrated by men with power against women with much less of it. The evidence isn't scanty, and the accusations aren't random. There is never just one victim. And due process, invoked indulgently, often allows the guilty to linger in power for far longer than they deserve ....

    .... Where sexual misconduct is concerned, arguments for due process are rarely about legal standards or constitutional ideals. More often, they're about to whom the process is due.

    Actually, in the elipsis, she mentions Ijeoma Oluo↱, who relates an exemplary tale of how it goes, or, as such, another dose of the obvious:

    "The Editorial Board plans to publish a piece arguing that the reckoning on sexual harassment is healthy and overdue, but every case is different and the accused deserve due process. If you are interested, we would love to have you write the opposing view," they said ....

    "No, I can't write a rebuttal to that because of course I believe in due process," I answered, deciding not to delve into the side discussion of how due process is a legal term that doesn't usually apply to private employment, "But I'd be happy to write a response."

    I told her that I'd be happy to write about how the fixation on "due process" for these men was an attempt to re-center the concerns of men. How the question itself was absurd, because if there's anything these stories show, it's that these men in their years of open abuse were given more than just due process — but the women, many of whom had tried bringing this abuse to those in authority years before, were given no process at all. I said I'd love to write about the countless women whose careers were ended by coming forward with the abuse they faced, about the countless women whose careers were never able to get off of the ground because of abuse and gender discrimination. Due process. Women would love ANY process. They would love to even be heard ....

    .... USA Today called me back about five minutes later.

    "I ran your idea past them," she said, "But what they really want is to write that they believe that it's great that these women are coming forward but that they believe in due process, and they want you to write that you don't. They want a piece that says that you don't believe in due process and that if a few innocent men lose their jobs it's worth it to protect women. Is that something you can do?" ....

    .... I was asked to write that I do not believe in due process. I was asked to write that I believe we should just immediately fire all men accused of sexual harassment. I was asked to write that if a few men are harmed to protect women, it's worth it. As if that's a real threat. As if that's a valid fear. As if, in this world, a power shift of that magnitude is even within the realm of possibility. As if a lack of due process wouldn't first come for women, trans people, and people of color. As if due process isn't the one thing so many men and their enablers in this society are working so hard to avoid.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Emba, Christine. "We're misunderstanding due process". The Washington Post. 1 December 2017. WashingtonPost.com. 21 December 2017. http://wapo.st/2kAUJQH

    Oluo, Ijeoma. "Due Process Is Needed For Sexual Harassment Accusations — But For Whom?" The Establishment. 30 November 2017. TheEstablishment.co. 21 December 2017. http://bit.ly/2BQoJza
     
  19. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,867
    #rapeculture | #TheWomenAreSpeaking

    What: "I Started the Media Men List: My name is Moira Donegan."↱

    Who: Moira Donegan (The Cut)

    When: 10 January 2018

    Moira Donegan↱ reflects on twelve hours that changed her life:

    None of this was what I thought was going to happen. In the beginning, I only wanted to create a place for women to share their stories of harassment and assault without being needlessly discredited or judged. The hope was to create an alternate avenue to report this kind of behavior and warn others without fear of retaliation. Too often, for someone looking to report an incident or to make habitual behavior stop, all the available options are bad ones. The police are notoriously inept at handling sexual-assault cases. Human-resources departments, in offices that have them, are tasked not with protecting employees but with shielding the company from liability—meaning that in the frequent occasion that the offender is a member of management and the victim is not, HR's priorities lie with the accused. When a reporting channel has enforcement power, like an HR department or the police, it also has an obligation to presume innocence. In contrast, the value of the spreadsheet was that it had no enforcement mechanisms: Without legal authority or professional power, it offered an impartial, rather than adversarial, tool to those who used it. It was intended specifically not to inflict consequences, not to be a weapon—and yet, once it became public, many people immediately saw it as exactly that.

    Recent months have made clear that no amount of power or money can shield a woman from sexual misconduct. But like me, many of the women who used the spreadsheet are particularly vulnerable: We are young, new to the industry, and not yet influential in our fields. As we have seen time after time, there can be great social and professional consequences for women who come forward. For us, the risks of using any of the established means of reporting were especially high and the chance for justice especially slim.

    When I began working in magazines as a new college graduate in 2013, I was furtively warned away from several of my industry's most well-known abusers. Over the intervening years, I've met these characters in various guises. There was the hard-drinking editor who had worked in all the most prestigious editorial departments, who would down whiskeys until he was drunk enough to mention that he could help your career if you slept with him. There was the editor who would lean too close but who was funny enough that he would often charm women into consensual encounters that were then rumored to turn abruptly, frighteningly violent. Last summer, I saw two of the most notorious of these men clutching beers and laughing together at a party for a magazine in Brooklyn. "Doesn't everyone know about them?" another woman whispered to me. "I can't believe they're still invited to these things." But of course we could believe it. By then, we'd become resigned to the knowledge that men like them were invited everywhere.

    †​

    I was incredibly naïve when I made the spreadsheet. I was naïve because I did not understand the forces that would make the document go viral. I was naïve because I thought that the document would not be made public, and when it became clear that it would be, I was naïve because I thought that the focus would be on the behavior described in the document, rather than on the document itself. It is hard to believe, in retrospect, that I really thought this. But I did.

    In some ways, though, I think the flaws in the spreadsheet were also a result of my own cynicism. At the time when I made it, I had become so accustomed to hearing about open secrets, to men whose bad behavior was universally known and perpetually immune from consequence, that it seemed like no one in power cared about the women who were most vulnerable to it. Sexual harassment and assault, even when it was violent, had been tolerated for so long that it seemed like much of the world found it acceptable. I thought that women could create a document with the aim of helping one another in part because I assumed that people with authority didn't care about what we had to say there. In this sense, at least, I am glad I was wrong.

    In the weeks after the spreadsheet was exposed, my life changed dramatically. I lost friends: some who thought I had been overzealous, others who thought I had not been zealous enough. I lost my job, too. The fear of being exposed, and of the harassment that will inevitably follow, has dominated my life since. I've learned that protecting women is a position that comes with few protections itself.

    And now you know.
     
    river likes this.

Share This Page