women's march

Discussion in 'Politics' started by sculptor, Jan 20, 2018.

  1. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Or you can just not be an asshole.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,644
    Well, that's pretty unreasonable! This is the Internet, after all.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,891

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    #nevermind: Click, but only after I wake up and tell you to.

    Can I just clear up something that has been bothering me for a few years, now? Can someone please explain to me a weird idea about men and feeling violated? Because I am all well and fine with the idea that heterosexual men now think someone going down on them is some manner of violation, but when did this happen? I mean, I get it, but what and when was the transition? Because I know it simply cannot be what it looks like, that we were all fine with the idea of a hot woman wanting us when we were young and studly and wanted to fuck the world, but then one day we heard a feminist say something and all we could think of in response was Mary Kay LeTourneau.

    So from that perspective: Once upon a time, it was true that I would not know someone who objected to waking up to a blowjob unless it was some dude suckstarting the day, and even then some would have tried the Waters-Pecker rule that it isn't really gay when someone is down on you.

    And I'm not going to tell any man how he needs to feel, but it's true, this is a different idea from when I was young, and part of what I'm wondering is when men decided that a chick waking us up with a blowjob was so violative. I completely missed this part of the discussion. You know, like, Tuesday studs, Wednesday weak tea.

    As a cultural phenomenon, I really do find strange this appearance that women giving us men what we supposedly wanted was some manner of offense against us.

    So if that's your lives, dudes, I'm sorry, because, yeah, the individual question is the part I get as much as I can. But women answer for this larger masculine cultural neurosis, and rather quite severely. Honestly, if it's ever your turn, gentlemen, no, that will not be the time for anyone else to make the point by treating you the same way.

    It's true, I can imagine a lot of men freaking out if they woke up to Franken between their legs, nose to crotch. To the other, in my time, plenty would have been just fine with waking up to Tweeden nose to crotch, and they wouldn't have complained about it until much later when they decided they weren't gonna let some woman get away with complaining about unwanted sexual contact because there was this one time, at band camp, a woman fulfilled his fantasy and how dare she!

    No, really. Help us out of this minefield, dudes.

    It would be one thing to say we hear you. People have been hearing you for years.

    It will be another thing when what people are hearing matches what they can see on the ground.

    But, yeah, okay, I now officially accept: A heterosexual man, by rule, disdains and rejects waking up to a woman preparing to orally gratify him.

    (It is true that as rules of thumb go, this one is new to me.)​

    And what's really great is that the women will, for the most part, be just fine with not having to decide whether or not to put her mouth on some dude's pho, because, you know what, fuck it, they don't want that shit, anymore.

    (Should we say liberation comes in fits and starts?)​

    †​

    The idea of laughing at a photo of Franken as a sexual subordinate to you has what to do with a photo of Franken groping a woman without consent?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    That false equivalence in an argument against some holding of men's behavior to account, predates the Kennedy administration (It was explicit, for example, in some of the public reaction around Clinton/Lewinsky).
    So does the flip take of the faux projection, that not holding men's behavior to account implies consent - more central, in that context.

    The general form - argument from an alternative or hypothetical reality projected unto the inside wall of one's bubble - is a basic conservative (and otherwise authoritarian) approach; a sort of Sicilian Defense of the status quo.
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2018
  8. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,891
    Dude, seriously—

    —#startmakingsense.

    Honestly, Iceaura, it's a twenty-first century thing, for me. I would actually think it just a Sciforums or, more generally, socmed phenomenon, except I've encountered it in nonvirtual settings. It's like age peers who have, in recent years, started selectively forgetting themselves. I mean, I get it. They have wives and daughters, now, or got religion, or think of themselves as bourgeoisie and thus proper, or some whatever such, and it pains them to even consider how they behaved or what they said. But it's not just Sciforums. I can literally do the bit about somebody not knowing what rape humor is, and then start trading rape jokes that they already know. And it's not just some dude from another country who posts at Sciforums. I can literally hear the selective whining about how a woman doing what we used to swap fantasies about is now suddenly a violation, and, hey, buddy, that's all well and fine with me because, as it was before, another's boundaries are not mine to define, but still, I really do wonder at the transition, because I can observe in living experience that it hasn't necessarily taken place.

    As a matter of individual experience, there is nothing in this for the men who have, unfortunately, found themselves obliged to learn that certain fantasies just ain't so cool when it comes true. Like I said, the bit about LeTourneau blows my mind; I get it, but not as a cultural assertion of masculinity.

    Except, okay. I've heard it long enough that I now accept it.

    And this is relevant, because the comparative, in this case, to a man molesting a woman in a predatory manner, is the proposition of a man molesting a man in a subordinate manner intended to gratify the alleged molested.

    No, really. As zgmc↑ put it, "They were comedians on tour overseas. It was supposed to be a joke. They are comedians." Or as I acknowledged months ago, "showbiz"↗—and reiterated↗—or Capracus↑ put it, "humor by a comedian"—and, oh, hey, what was that I acknowledged yet again↑ all of a week and a half ago, about "showbiz"?

    Now, get Franken's nose in Capracus' crotch and explain to me how that all works, again ... please.

    Y'know, since you want to bawl about false equivalence.

    Start making sense, dude. Find something to say.
     
  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Not for me. It's long familiar - as a reflex or reactionary take - when encountered, and a manifestation of a solid and well-established habit or pattern of reactionary response in several arenas.
    Go back to the noise around Clinton's impeachment, the arena that included the context of the feminist critiques of the larger culture that had almost mainstreamed (from the 70s, 80s) by then, and you'll find that thing in it - explicitly. The men who had come up against Mary Daly et al inspiration in their college surroundings, say, reacting in bafflement.
    I can't force you to read in good faith. Suggestion: when you find yourself typing the word "bawl", recheck your presumptions - odds are you're tripping over them, and face-planting again.
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2018
  10. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Or you could, ooohh I don't know... Stop being an idiot?
    Why are you so hung up on the myth of false accusations when they are exceedingly rare?

    You tout yourself as a man of science, of sorts, but you keep spouting conspiracies and myths that directly contradict what is scientifically known. Why do you do that?

    Who gets life imprisonment for rape?

    Considering how rare rape prosecutions are, given the number of reported rapes to the police, the larger portion spend a very small amount of time in prison (if that, first offenders are often released on probation), only to be released, reoffend, and the cycle repeats itself over and over again. Do you remember the rape and murder of Jill Meagher? Her murderer had raped a total of 8 women, before he raped and murdered her. Do you know how many years in prison, in total, he spent for all of those crimes? 11 years. He was out on parole when he raped and murdered Jill Meagher, and dumped her body in a shallow grave.

    He received a life imprisonment sentence with a non parole period of 35 years, for his crime against Jill Meagher because he murdered her. It doesn't end there.

    When he was found guilty and sentenced for Jill Meagher's murder, more victims came forward, for rape and sexual assault, while he was on parole for having raped 5 women over 6 months.

    By March 2015, Bayley had been found guilty of three more rapes, committed before he killed Meagher, in three separate trials held in 2014 and 2015. The victims, two sex workers and a Dutch backpacker, came forward due to the high level of publicity over Meagher's rape and murder. He had by then been convicted of sexual crimes against 12 people.[29] Later, in May 2015, Bayley was sentenced to another 18 years by County Court judge Sue Pullen,[30] and his non-parole period was extended from 35 to 43 years.[13]

    On 25 June 2015, Bayley lodged an appeal against two of the three convictions and the extended non-parole period received in May 2015.[31]

    In July 2016, Bayley lodged an appeal against one rape conviction and was a given three-year reduction to his sentence, making him eligible for parole in 2055, aged 83.
    [32]

    There was a case a couple of years ago, in the US, where a man who raped 2 women, saw one day in prison and one year probation.

    Do you want to know how rape victims are jailed, paddoboy?

    In Houston Texas, a young rape victim was imprisoned because she had a mental breakdown while testifying against her rapist. The reason behind imprisoning her was to ensure she would return to court to continue testifying. She was imprisoned for
    nearly a month. I mean, that must get your jollies in a twist, eh, paddoboy? Right up your alley, yes?

    In Somalia, a 19 year old rape victim was imprisoned for reporting her rape, she was convicted of defamation and lying, and was then given a suspended prison sentence. A journalist who reported on the rape (she was raped by two men) was also imprisoned, convicted to 6 months in prison and then released after he paid the fine. Another rape victim in Somalia and a reporter she had told her story to, was convicted and sentenced to 1 year in prison for "offending state institutions" for merely reporting her rape.

    In Louisiana, rape victims are threatened with prison if they do not testify. And then the DA commented that he could not understand why rape victims did not want to come forward... Let that one sink in for a second..

    Or how about Dubai, where women are imprisoned for reporting rape?

    Or Qatar?

    Now, you obsess about jail sentences for false accusations of rape?

    In the UK, a woman was jailed for 10 years for false rape accusations.

    The average sentence for rape in the UK is 8 years.

    To put it into perspective:

    Only 1,070 rapists are convicted every year despite up to 95,000 people – the vast majority of them women – suffering the trauma of rape – according to the new research by the Ministry of Justice, the Home Office and the Office for National Statistics.

    [...]

    Prosecutions are mounted against 2,910 individuals, resulting in the convictions of 1,070 rapists who committed an average of 2.3 offences each. The figures suggest that just one major sex crime in 38 leads to a conviction for the offence.

    Convicted rapists were released with cautions in 19 cases, 16 going to offenders aged 17 or younger.

    [...]

    The research also found an average of 473,000 men and women are victims of sexual offences, including flashing and groping, each year. But only 54,000 cases are reported to by police and 5,620 offenders are convicted.

    I could go on and on, but I doubt you'd bother to read or pay attention. So much for the scientific method. You are like a UFO conspiracy theorist, only in this instance, you support rape culture, to the detriment of victims. Which makes you not only worse, but also dangerous, because your ideology when it comes to women's bodies is so harmful.

    What the hell kind of person are you? Who the hell advocates for not allowing life saving treatment for women for any reason?

    To the one, who gropes or grabs women's boobs when performing CPR?

    To the other, mouth to mouth is hardly sexual assault or 'kissing' without consent.

    The fact that you advocate for allowing women to die rather than provide them with life saving care makes you like those people in countries like Saudi Arabia, who let girls die in a burning school because heaven forbid they be seen without proper clothing on. And why? Because of your avid support of rape culture. I guess it shows exactly how you view women, eh Paddoboy?
     
    birch likes this.
  11. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,324
    What you seem to be missing is that the context of the image does not put Franken in the role of sexual performer, but as comedic poser. If I or Tweeden would have awoke during the incident, it would’ve been to a scene of Franken striking up a pose of mock sexual intent, being witnessed by his fellow travelers on the plane and a photographer. It’s not as if a hidden camera caught Franken in the act of secretly obtaining sexual gratification at the expense of an unconscious victim. He was obviously playing to a live audience, and an extended one by virtue of the photo.

    Speaking of that live audience, are they complicit in allowing Franken to commit this heinous act with apparent impunity?

    Do you really think that Franken is stupid enough to intentionally commit a sexual assault and at the same time invite others present to visually and photographically document the offense? And provide the “victim” evidence to punish him?
     
  12. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    We are talking about a man who groped women's backsides during photo-op's, even when at least one's spouse was taking the photo..

    You think his using Tweeden's body and grabbing her boobs, without her consent while she slept, for a photo in front of others, is out of the realm of possibility?
     
  13. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,891
    And now it's an identity movement. I don't disagree that it exists in history; virtually all of it does. But this also seems a different context. The attitudes our conservative neighbors wanted us to believe weren't representative of anything significant, for instance, except then they went and elected it, so, yeah, we know it's not merely a few bad seeds and crazy uncles or whatever. And this is bigger than Republican beliefs about government dysfunction.

    Think back to the proverbial grumpy old men of the Eighties; thirty years ago they were scratching out letters to the editor about moral relativism, societal fabric, and the thin edge of the wedge. And much like their prudish fellows bawling about rock music influencing children, the grumpy old men were right. The difference, as we now recognize, is that they were describing their own. Train up a child in the way he should go, and he shall not depart.

    Imagine, please: Some day, some dude is going to do the Reservoir Dogs bit about "Like a Virgin", and the whole point will be to complain that Madonna makes men feel bad by treating them like rapists, and anyone who was alive through the period ought to be sitting there agape, trying to figure out what the hell that means, but before we all finish blinking, some significant portion of men in earshot will decide that's right, and what a goddamn bitch that Madonna is, and all those feminists who bought her records as part of a conspiracy against men. And imagine men born under Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon, trying to convince you they don't remember virginity being significant; you know, just like they don't remember telling dirty jokes, and while I'm aware some people really were brought up under such prudish pretenses, it would be impossible for someone to convince me that was the prevailing attitude.

    Stupid shit happens in quick bursts, but trying to sustain it as some manner of political argument?

    In truth, such circumstances, though tragic, fail to surprise.

    But the difference in implications about the behavior in contexts of symptom or baseline is tremendous.

    Like I said—

    —#startmakingsense.
     
  14. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,644
    Surely you are not saying "if I consent to it, all women should consent to it?" That fails immediately.
     
  15. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    How do you know?

    Also he allegedly groped and kissed 8 different women without their consent.
     
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Or alternatively you could start acting responsibly and not like some cheap fanatical feminazi?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    And as others have insinuated, a liar as well.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Certainly not when all you are spouting is emotional fucking garbage.
    Bye Bells, you take it easy OK?
     
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    And I'm claiming that the context of symptoms and baseline was more or less identical in its (pre-internet etc) arena, the context of that "argument" being the reaction to the feminist establishment of a reality of coerced silence hiding the mechanisms of oppression in plain sight (with un-requested blow jobs the specific example fairly frequently), and the "well then men are raped too if that's what you're trying to say" schtick in all its unreality was a reflex anyone surrounded by this discussion would have encountered.

    In the 90s

    As something they'd seen before - then.

    Not only in its specifics - sleeping, blow job, equivalent violation -

    but in its abstract form: the alternative reality based "logic", hypothetical equivalence of scene on some other planet justifying the status quo on this one.
    The only real difference in the context is the political arena - the big, shallow, noise. That aspect you treat with contempt and pejoratives in others? - it's what you're leaning on.
    Trump. Is. Not. New.
    Read, comprehend, grow up. Or at least get up. The mud on your face was not thrown.
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2018
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,644
    Because, as we all know, responsible people are far more expensive.
     
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Darn it! It really bugs me having to see the need to add to this current extremism being pushed as normality in this thread *gives self uppercut* As it happened, I was chatting with an 84 year old lady yesterday, one still maintaining all her faculities, the Mother of a good friend of my Son. So I raised the question that is being tossed around in this thread. She wisely compared the extremism of some feminazis within the good, necessary, and rightious cause that is the present day feminist movement, with the rise of Unionism in Australia during the fities and sixties, and how sections of the union movement became drunk with power, particularly with a rightly simpathetic Whitlam Labor government in power. While much was rightfully and deservedly achieved with such things as the 35hr week and wage increases, particularly with my own Union the AMWU, others started to use the strike weapon beyond all reasonable application...Unions such as the BLF for example...and even my own Union in certain aspects. What effect did this irresponsible abuse of power have? Well when finally Labour was ousted from Power, and the conservative Liberals were elected, they used the excuse of the abuse of power by a small section of the Union movement, to implement draconian, rules and regulations to reign in the renegade Unions involved, but also the vast majority of moderate Unions and members.

    This abuse of power by the reigning Liberal conservatives, continues today with efforts to dismantle one of the best health schemes in the world, and withdrawing of weekend penalty rates for certain workers.

    This old lady by the way, was in her day a Magistrate. She absolutely cringes at what some extremists in the women's movement is now trying to achieve, just as the many other women, to which I references early on in this debacle of a debate....Wise words and comparison by a wise women.
     
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Authoritarians will always be able to find - or invent - some bullshit excuse for their impositions. Whoever ostensibly provided the one they latch unto is not in the least to blame.
    You cannot negotiate in advance with incoming autocrats - they have rejected, in advance, any such social contract.

    Moderation in one's own demands or opinions or whatever has nothing to do with it. The women's rights movement in the US is working against self-justified and self-satisfied despotism of a kind, and has no reason to even consider such a social contract approach - coming in high and hard is standard tactics, best practice, in the kinds of negotiations involved.

    That said: High and hard, for liberals, is uncompromising reason and facts on the ground - insistence on reality, demonstration of superior perception and competence.
     
  21. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    So my citing rape statistics makes me a feminazi?

    Okay then. Next time you whine about the lack of the scientific method or the lack of others posting scientifically, I'll be referring to your trolling here to your embrace of myths, conspiracies and basic untruths for the sake of advocating for rape culture.

    I mean, you are the one who has been spouting utter rubbish during your entire time spent in this thread, from encouraging sexual violence against women, to excusing it, to demanding there's not really much wrong with sexually harassing random women in the street. Not to mention you just advocated for denying women essential life saving care for the sake of your advocacy of sexual violence against women.

    Is this you acting responsibly?

    I am curious, who the hell even suggests such a thing or even could? Do you think you were being clever? All you have done is exposed your repulsive ideology, because you want to reserve the right to sexually harass women as they go about their daily lives.

    Well we have all caught you out in some doozies of lies, paddoboy, such as when you threw your hissy fit, accused staff of random things that were provably false and then returned with some weird excuses that no one believed.

    What emotional garbage, paddoboy?

    This is what is happening to women everywhere. This is the reality that women face.

    What?

    Wait, are you attempting to suggest that the "35 hour work week" was implemented during the Whitlam Goverment? Because that did not start to happen here until the early 2000's on average.

    What was established during the Whitlam era of Government was the principle of equal pay, 4 weeks annual leave and wage indexation (after a disastrous period and the strikes, which I will cover below), paid parental leave, and leave loading. the "strikes" as a "weapon beyond all reasonable application" is so, well, kind of stupid and missing the entire bloody picture not to mention stomping on history.

    All of the policies Whitlam first implemented was because the economic boom at the start of Whitlam's and Labor's rise to power (which enabled him to implement those policies), which then started to decline in 1974. Growth stopped, inflation rose by fairly substantial margins. Profits fell from 14% or 15% of the GDP down to like 9% or so of the GDP in one year alone (pretty sure that was in 1974 from memory). There were more workers than work, factories closed or started cutting back workers and working hours. Instead of cutting back on Government spending, Labor (and the Liberal Party) endorsed policies that encouraged more Government spending which ended up edging inflation up even more. People's salary was not able to keep up with the rising inflation costs (ie cost of living). And the rise was insane in a very short period of time. Something something about Keynesianism applies here.

    The reason Unions and workers went on strike is because instead of helping workers, Whitlam tacked back to the right (let's not forget that Whitlam had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the centre to begin with since he was far to the right of the Labor Party). Instead of helping workers and boosting the working class, Whitlam helped businesses. The strikes happened during this period, because Whitlam literally rejected his previous reforms for worker's rights to help big business. Worker's salaries remained stagnant while inflation rose to like 20%. That is why there were massive strikes. Not because the Unions were drunk with power. They went on strike because they could no longer afford the cost of living due to Whitlam's reversal of policies that was exceptionally detrimental to the rising working class in Australia.

    Instead of helping the working class when they needed it the most, Whitlam's Keynesian politics (well, Australia had adopted Keynesian politics since the end of the Great Depression) harmed them terribly and instead of fighting for them, Whitlam's tack back to the right saw him help the wealthy and big business to increase their profit margins. So Unions and workers went on strike. It was then that Whitlam implemented wage indexation and all wage negotiations went directly to the Arbitration Commission.

    It was during this period that the Liberal Party saw an opportunity and dropped their previous adoption of Keynesianism and adopted slashing Government spending, including to social services (which harmed the working and lower class even more). Big business also turned on Whitlam, for what they saw as his capitulation to the workers and working class. Then Whitlam was dismissed, as we all know.

    So when you opine that unions "started to use strike weapon beyond all reasonable application", you completely ignore history and set a completely incorrect and misleading narrative.

    Please stop doing that. It is dishonest.

    Not to mention your attempts to badly equate this with the fight for women's rights is frankly obscene.
     
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    No, as you well know, what you site as sexual harrassment, makes you a feminazi! If the cap fits wear it.

    The majority of the rest of your rant is again what you seem to personally determine, and want the world and this forum to bow before your highness


    The emotional garbage that generally is filling all your posts and the suggestion that a wolf whistle is sexual harrassment.

    Wrong again. The Petro-Chemical industry was the first to achieve it and then the Chemical Industry next, both in the seventies. I was working in the Chemical Industry with ICI and was a delegate. Then the AMWU as a whole, and Australia wide, made it a general condition in working place agreements in 1980.
    The rest of your rant about Australia's greatest PM is just that...a rant.
    Again your reading comprehension skills seem faulty. I mentioned the BLF, remember? and said sections of the union movement, Even the most radical unions today recognise that fact.
    Please stop doing that. It is dishonest.[/QUOTE]
    Certainly dishonest on your part Bells, and again what others that dare disagree
    Wrong again...Are you having trouble reading? It was the elderly lady the former magestrate who equated it. Another women among the others I raised that differ from you and your feminazi views.
    Have fun Bells...And take a disprin and have a good lay down...you might have a coronary pushing such nonsense so fanatically.
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2018
  23. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    It's certainly a form of harassment that is undoubtedly sexual in nature. Not all forms of unethical behavior are or should be illegal. You have a right to express yourself. But, what do you expect to happen? That she should acknowledge your complete lack of effort to know her and be happy that you chose to, in effect, grunt with arousal in her presence?
     

Share This Page