Who are we not allowed to criticize?

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

If men find it uncomfortable, that's good. The prevalence of sexual assault and what constitutes it are things that many men don't know about or are in active denial of. Learning that many women are uneasy with your presence because they understand you could be a threat to without even realising it probably is going to be uncomfortable, but imagine how it feels to those of us who have to live with that uneasiness.

If you really are a "decent person", you'll react to learning about this uncomfortable fact by trying to understand how those affected feel and what you can do to make it better. If, however, you're one of those "I'm not actively malicious, so I'm good and deserve things" people, then you'll react to this uncomfortable truth by denying that it is truth or that it should be an issue at all, since you're putting your discomfort over being seen as a threat over the feelings of those whom your presence threatens.

[Spekio]

[

Have you even tried to understand why many women can feel threatened when men proposition them in a confined area with no escape and no witnesses, or have you tried and scoff at it because, well, it doesn't matter to your perspective so anyone to whom it matters is "batshit insane".

Watson was upset that this man is sexualizing her just after she gave a talk relating to feminism, when she entered the elevator and was joined by a man. While in the elevator, the man expressed interest in talking to Rebecca some more and invited her to his hotel room for coffee. She declined, but felt that she had been sexualised in the process.

Honest question: Since when are respecting women as equals and showing sexual interest mutually exclusive? Is it not possible to take interest in a woman AND see her as an intelligent person?

And while I can undestand that women can feel threatened when men proposition them in a confined area with no escape and no witnesses, as you put it, considering the context of the situation, In my opinion, seems like an overreaction.

...
Unless what you meant is "I'm not allowed to criticise this movement fighting against institutionalised bigotry without risking being called out on bigotry", but when it's worded that way I should hope it makes you think?

I'm a lawyer in Brazil. Back in 2006 or so, a new law (nicknamed "Maria da Penha") dealing with violence towards women, more specifically spousal abuse.

The problem is the text refer only to women - following the text of the law, men would not be protected by the new legal determinations. Only, since our constituion forbides such distinction, some judges decided to apply the law when the victmin is a man.In portuguese.

They were criticized by feminists(Example), who insist that it only should protect women. If you really want social equality for women, which is what feminism is, why not apply the same standards to men and women, I wonder.

Am I a biggot for saying these feminists are batshit insane? Because I find I sometimes am perceived as such.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

Honest question: Since when are respecting women as equals and showing sexual interest mutually exclusive? Is it not possible to view to take interest in a woman AND see her as an intelligent person?

And while I can undestand that women can feel threatened when men proposition them in a confined area with no escape and no witnesses, as you put it, considering the context of the situation, In my opinion, seems like an overreaction.

The issue is that "come back to my hotel room for coffee" has come to almost not even be a hint for asking for sex but saying it outright anymore. Yes, this can be troublesome if you actually just want to talk, but it can be avoided by asking to talk in a public place or something.

But the real issue is that this had all the signs of a sexual proposition, and many men do not take rejection of those well. And by not well I mean threaten or harm the woman who turns them down, especially in a situation like here with no witnesses or escape. Sure, nowhere near every man will be like that, but you can't tell with a stranger which kind of guy he'll be, or even if you know him well there could be a side you don't know. That period where you aren't sure whether you are under threat is very unnerving and I can easily understand her venting about this publicly, especially since she was just giving a speech on feminism.

I'm a lawyer in Brazil. Back in 2006 or so, a new law (nicknamed "Maria da Penha") dealing with violence towards women, more specifically spousal abuse.

The problem is the text refer only to women - following the text of the law, men would not be protected by the new legal determinations. Only, since our constituion forbides such distinction, some judges decided to apply the law when the victmin is a man.In portuguese.

They were criticized by feminists(Example), who insist that it only should protect women. If you really want social equality for women, which is what feminism is, why not apply the same standards to men and women, I wonder.

I do not know how things go down in Brazil, so I can't say much on this. In the US, though, the issue is that it's not a matter of the playing field being level. Women who defend themselves from abuse get harsher sentencing than men who abuse women. Up here, you can't just make the law gender-blind due to societal biases in sentencing and conviction, or even what constitutes abuse. So while I can't say anything definitive about that ruling, there's probably something like that going on down where you are.

Am I a biggot for saying these feminists are batshit insane? Because I find I sometimes am perceived as such.

Honestly, yes. It's twofold, even. On the first, you're dismissing the experiences and perspectives of oppressed people without even really putting much effort into trying to understand them or acknowledging that your perspectives never match. You're calling them wrong because they come from a different kind of life from you.

Secondly, dismissing women as insane, irrational, or all that is a tricky thing in general due to the massive longstanding societal bias against women. We've been labeled insane and incapable of rational thought for centuries, even from simply having a sex drive. So it's always easier to fall into the trap of women being "insane" when they're passionate about something you don't understand, but it's extra important to ensure that you do not do that.

I'm not saying this bigotry is as bad as it gets or even approaching it. Bigotry's a sliding scale and everyone's just somewhere on it, which is why it's important to not get comfortable but to always be ready to reexamine yourself. I mean, even I myself probably have some internalised sexist feelings against women, just due to how society's set up. It's my responsibility to try to find them and improve myself so my impact on the world is a better one.

[Thanas]

The only thing he did wrong is not waiting for her to have an avenue of escape, like waiting for the elevator doors to open. And even then it is not like it is such a big deal. He asked her out, she declined. End of story.

I get the concerns but really, there are far worse things to blow up over.

[Spekio]

I do not know how things go down in Brazil, so I can't say much on this. In the US, though, the issue is that it's not a matter of the playing field being level. Women who defend themselves from abuse get harsher sentencing than men who abuse women. Up here, you can't just make the law gender-blind due to societal biases in sentencing and conviction, or even what constitutes abuse. So while I can't say anything definitive about that ruling, there's probably something like that going on down where you are.
.....
Honestly, yes. It's twofold, even. On the first, you're dismissing the experiences and perspectives of oppressed people without even really putting much effort into trying to understand them or acknowledging that your perspectives never match. You're calling them wrong because they come from a different kind of life from you.

Secondly, dismissing women as insane, irrational, or all that is a tricky thing in general due to the massive longstanding societal bias against women. We've been labeled insane and incapable of rational thought for centuries, even from simply having a sex drive. So it's always easier to fall into the trap of women being "insane" when they're passionate about something you don't understand, but it's extra important to ensure that you do not do that.

I'm not saying this bigotry is as bad as it gets or even approaching it. Bigotry's a sliding scale and everyone's just somewhere on it, which is why it's important to not get comfortable but to always be ready to reexamine yourself. I mean, even I myself probably have some internalised sexist feelings against women, just due to how society's set up. It's my responsibility to try to find them and improve myself so my impact on the world is a better one.

You outright accused me of dimsissing something by claiming I don't understand it. Look at what they are advocating: People being treated differently because of gender. Societal biases do not matter, not when applying the law helps the victim get away from the abuser.

My question about being a bigot was referencing your and Malivotti's previous posts. I was exagerating for the sake of argument. There are valid criticisms to the feminism movement(or parts of it), and people sometimes shy from them fearing being labeled as intolerant.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

People being treated differently is actually an important way to help address systemic inequality. Affirmative action for example treats people differently, but it's needed due to massive racist biases in hiring and promotion (in the US, it's easier for a convicted white man with only high school education to get a job than for a black man with a degree and no criminal record, and despite the massive pay imbalance between men and women, white women make more for the same work than black men). If you simply applied things race-blind, you'd end up reinforcing the currently unbalanced system.

There are parts of the feminist movement that need criticism, yes. The most blatantly obvious is the trans-exclusive branch of radical feminism. But for the most part, this criticism should come from within, not without. A lot of the so-called criticism of social justice movements come in the form of "you're making me uncomfortable by pointing out my privilege and exposing systemic bigotries" or "you're threatening to make my life worse by dismantling privileges given to me unfairly that oppress you".

I'm a white American. I will refuse to criticise advocacy for fixing racial discrimination and bigotry no matter how much I may not understand it or it makes me uncomfortable, because I have a lot of privilege, much of which I'm still likely not aware of, and no matter how much I talk or read I'll never truly be able to have the experiences to gain the same perspective as someone who faces racism so directly. Those who have been oppressed by society often have not had their experiences and perspectives taken seriously by society at large, too, so it's extra important to let their voices be heard without drowning it out in the traditional complaints by the privileged.

[Spekio]

People being treated differently is actually an important way to help address systemic inequality. Affirmative action for example treats people differently, but it's needed due to massive racist biases in hiring and promotion (in the US, it's easier for a convicted white man with only high school education to get a job than for a black man with a degree and no criminal record, and despite the massive pay imbalance between men and women, white women make more for the same work than black men). If you simply applied things race-blind, you'd end up reinforcing the currently unbalanced system.

I'm aware of the situation in the US, and I agree with you - only, going to extremes to address such inequality can be just as bad.

There are parts of the feminist movement that need criticism, yes. The most blatantly obvious is the trans-exclusive branch of radical feminism. But for the most part, this criticism should come from within, not without. A lot of the so-called criticism of social justice movements come in the form of "you're making me uncomfortable by pointing out my privilege and exposing systemic bigotries" or "you're threatening to make my life worse by dismantling privileges given to me unfairly that oppress you".....

That's another form of prejudice. Your opinion on feminism does not hold more water than mine because you are a woman. Informed criticism should always be voiced - otherwise, you don't get equality. There is even an old saying, pertaining to my profession, in that lawyer should never represent himself, lest him have a fool for a client - i.e. People tend to let emotion cloud their judgement when they are involved.

[Scrib]

All Rebecca Watson did was say "Guys, don't do that", there was no tirade. What followed was a regular shitstorm of death and rape threats by butthurt male troglodytes. Yeah, already tells me how reliable you are when it comes assessing the situation.

PZ Myers has become increasingly erratic, banning people from Free Thought Blogs for disagreeing with feminist members of said blog circle. He's also recently called a fellow professor a rapist because he was topping off a woman's wine glass at a party.

He didn't, several anonymous females who have been his victims did and Shermer, the guy in question, already has a reputation for being a misogynistic sleazebag who thinks that women are too stupid to be skeptics so the claims are believable.

And before you whine about them staying anonymous, I refer to what happened to Rebecca Watson above. You know, not everyone wants to paint a target on himself for vile abuse.

What did Shermer do to gain a reputation for being a misogynistic sleazebag (well, misogynistic enough to make rape claims more plausible)?

The only thing he did wrong is not waiting for her to have an avenue of escape, like waiting for the elevator doors to open. And even then it is not like it is such a big deal. He asked her out, she declined. End of story.

I get the concerns but really, there are far worse things to blow up over.

Which is why it took up a few minutes of an internet video. Others, rushing to defend the honor of this lone man, made it a big deal.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

FYI, rape claims are always pretty plausible. The rate of false reporting falls between .5 and 5% depending on the study and circumstances (the broader studies showing things closer to the lower bound) while unprosecuted rapes are something like 97%.

So yeah, if someone sincerely claims they were raped by someone, odds are it happened.

[Andrew_Fireborn]

Not quite what I expected to return to, but yes. Purple phrased it quite well. Infact, it's all been put much more eloquently than I would have.

FYI, rape claims are always pretty plausible. The rate of false reporting falls between .5 and 5% depending on the study and circumstances (the broader studies showing things closer to the lower bound) while unprosecuted rapes are something like 97%.

So yeah, if someone sincerely claims they were raped by someone, odds are it happened.

If you agree with the feminist definitions of rape, then I can see why you'd agree with that.

Those definitions including: "Were you ever talked into having sex?" and "Did you ever have a sexual encounter you later regretted?"

Meanwhile, you have things like this happening which SEVERELY damages that claim.

[Purple]

If men find it uncomfortable, that's good.

How is a sweeping generalization that describes half of the human population as inherently evil good?

The prevalence of sexual assault and what constitutes it are things that many men don't know about or are in active denial of.

The number of sex offenders compared to the number of males would say otherwise.

Learning that many women are uneasy with your presence because they understand you could be a threat to without even realising it probably is going to be uncomfortable, but imagine how it feels to those of us who have to live with that uneasiness.

I seriously have to ask you something. And I want a clear and honest answer from you. Do you honestly believe that every single male out there is a potential rapist? A potential threat? A potentially evil person? When you see a man on the street do you seriously feel that given the opportunity he would commit evil against you? A simple yes or now will do.


And if you answer yes. I have a second question. Can you not see how this sort of thinking can be seen by some as irrational? These some being the majority of humans who do not in fact encounter violent crime or fear encountering it on a daily basis. Or if not, can you at least see how holding such views can be seen as equally bigoted to say holding views that say all blacks are inherently criminals or that all women are inherently inferior etc?
At the very least it is no different than shying away from black people because you fear getting stabbed of from Arab looking people because you fear being blown up. Both things happen. And they happen often. No one is denying that they are. But such fear is still considered irrational.

Edit:
Imagine if I told you a story about riding in an elevator with a black/Arab person and being freaked out that he might stab me or something. You would immediately jump and call me a bigot. And with full right. And I am using the black person analogy because as far as I am aware blacks feature most prominently in American crime demographics. So it is an example you would feel close to.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

Yeah the Crown Prosecution Service must have been taken over by feminists to find that only .5% of rape prosecutions are from false allegations. Statistics filed from the FBI and US Justice Department that find almost every last rape ending with no punishment for the rapist? Totally tainted by feminist spies who cooked the books.

If you ever put scare quotes about the "feminist definition of rape" because women just like to make it up to hurt men men rarely ever rape it's all a myth, then people are entirely valid and, I would say, obligated to call you out as a bigot. You are one.

Hey Purple: check this. 43% of college men admit to using coercion on women to have sex. You know, rape. 35% of college men admit that if they could get away with it they'd rape. 1/12 men admit to doing actions that constitute legal rape, which is a massively smaller subset of actual rape, and 84% of those who did it didn't consider it rape.

But oh no if you ever worry about it happening to you you're being CRAAAAZY

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

Fuck you Purple for trying to compare your as a man being picked on by women to people of colour experiencing racism. Do you know the difference there? One group has privilege and the other's oppressed. I'll leave it to you to figure out which.

[Thanas]

First, calm down people. I am pretty tired right now and will come down hard on anyone turning this into a shitfest.

There are parts of the feminist movement that need criticism, yes. The most blatantly obvious is the trans-exclusive branch of radical feminism. But for the most part, this criticism should come from within, not without.

I am not sure if you are aware of the irony of you arguing for criticism to come from within for a group which is famous for opposing that principle.

Hey Purple: check this. 43% of college men admit to using coercion on women to have sex. You know, rape. 35% of college men admit that if they could get away with it they'd rape. 1/12 men admit to doing actions that constitute legal rape, which is a massively smaller subset of actual rape, and 84% of those who did it didn't consider it rape.

But oh no if you ever worry about it happening to you you're being CRAAAAZY

I don't think anybody is begrudging anyone from worrying here. But honestly, if the root cause of all of this was this guy asking if she would like to have sex and she refuses, I fail to see what the big deal was.

[Purple]

Hey Purple: check this. 43% of college men admit to using coercion on women to have sex. You know, rape. 35% of college men admit that if they could get away with it they'd rape. 1/12 men admit to doing actions that constitute legal rape, which is a massively smaller subset of actual rape, and 84% of those who did it didn't consider it rape.

But oh no if you ever worry about it happening to you you're being CRAAAAZY

Alright. I concede that you have a point. I had no idea that the American population was so prone to rape. And even if the survey seems only to have covered a limited subset of people and only the university going population the numbers are still insane. And they speak about a part of American mentality that I was not aware off.

So while I still hold on to the claim that is completely and utterly unjust to profile all males as evil and remain personally offended by you or anyone else doing so. I can see how someone from an American background might see it as a rational thing to do. So I concede.


PS. There is no need to get rude. You'd probably be offended too if someone called you a rapist in the making.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

I am not sure if you are aware of the irony of you arguing for criticism to come from within for a group which is famous for opposing that principle.

What irony, though? Feminism is notorious for internal criticism. There's a reason there's so many separate branches of it. Additionally, the most vocal opponents to TERFs tend to be other feminists and it's hard not to see it be the case.

I don't think anybody is begrudging anyone from worrying here. But honestly, if the root cause of all of this was this guy asking if she would like to have sex and she refuses, I fail to see what the big deal was.

The root cause is that people are attacking a woman and questioning her sanity because she vented about a situation that made her feel unsafe that dealt directly with the topic she just gave a speech on. They're denying her ability to ever even call the situation unsafe because it makes them feel uncomfortable about themselves.

[Thanas]

I am not sure if you are aware of the irony of you arguing for criticism to come from within for a group which is famous for opposing that principle.

What irony, though? Feminism is notorious for internal criticism. There's a reason there's so many separate branches of it. Additionally, the most vocal opponents to TERFs tend to be other feminists and it's hard not to see it be the case.

"criticsm should come from within" a group is the same line used by every group out there which has been criticized by feminists, including the church etc. I think on its own, when not talking about highly complex stuff like science, engineering etc. it is not a good argument at all. Feminists should handle criticism coming at them from outside.

The root cause is that people are attacking a woman and questioning her sanity because she vented about a situation that made her feel unsafe that dealt directly with the topic she just gave a speech on. They're denying her ability to ever even call the situation unsafe because it makes them feel uncomfortable about themselves.

These people should get over themselves. However, I am pretty sure going full panic mode whenever you see a male or are being propositioned by him is wrong as well. I think everyone - not just females - is making a threat assesment of strangers whenever they meet them and are uncomfortable.

But really, I fail to see how being propositioned for sex is supposed to make people uncomfortable per se. How are you supposed to ask somebody out at all then? In my opinion, as long as there is no pressure involved, asking someone out is the most natural and innocent thing in the world.

[Purple]

The root cause is that people are attacking a woman and questioning her sanity because she vented about a situation that made her feel unsafe that dealt directly with the topic she just gave a speech on. They're denying her ability to ever even call the situation unsafe because it makes them feel uncomfortable about themselves.

It's not that. It's not about feeling uncomfortable about my self. After all I know that I would newer do something like that. So what is there to be uncomfortable about?

It's something else. The logic, and I speak for most critics goes roughly like this:
1. I am a decent person who would newer do that.
2. I have access to the internet and enough free time and energy to bother with political issues and who said what on the internet. This implies that I am a low-middle to high-middle class individual who has a decent standard of living and does not expect to encounter crime aside from jaywalking and maybe driving drunk in his entire life.
3. All of the people I know are due to #2 also decent people who would newer do that. As the kind of people who would tend to end up as social dropouts that are left behind around high school. (The last is from my experience, so might be wrong.)

1 + 2 + 3 => my experiences and my environment tells me the opposite of what hers is telling her. Thus lacking any knowledge of her environment my conclusion about the validity of her judgment is going to be the opposite of her conclusion to the same. And thus my reaction to her behavior is going to be to feel insulted. It's basically what happens when you apply the same logic to two opposite sets of starting data.


On that note. I would actually like to see similar studies performed on the general society on both ends of the ocean. If for nothing else than to further educate my self to the problem.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

"criticsm should come from within" a group is the same line used by every group out there which has been criticized by feminists, including the church etc. I think on its own, when not talking about highly complex stuff like science, engineering etc. it is not a good argument at all. Feminists should handle criticism coming at them from outside.

Feminism can and in fact must handle outside criticism, or else it would've imploded long, long ago.

What I'm asking for is that movements to combat oppressions would get the most useful criticisms from within, since it's so hard for people who have privilege to truly know what it's like and so they're very prone to dismissing it outright. And it's something where yes, I'm asking for "special treatment" and not putting it on an even playing field. The narrative's always been in the hands, over here at least, of straight white men telling things from a straight white male perspective and ignoring or even outright covering up things that go against it. It's to the point where bigotry is so institutionalised that even people oppressed by it internalise a lot of it.

Our society lets everyone know what it's like to be a straight white guy and what they've done, but not the other way around. This makes outside criticism of movements against oppression not very helpful, or in some ways actively harmful by simply reinforcing the narrative we all have heard and most take as truth.

I mean, for the obvious example, look at how women fiction writers tend to do a pretty good job of writing men, but male writers can't boast the same success rate.

But really, I fail to see how being propositioned for sex is supposed to make people uncomfortable per se. How are you supposed to ask somebody out at all then? In my opinion, as long as there is no pressure involved, asking someone out is the most natural and innocent thing in the world.

It's the context. If you're a person who's at actually fairly high odds of being sexually assaulted in your life, and someone waits (deliberately or not) until you're in a situation where you are alone, no escape and no witnesses, to basically ask for sex, I find it very, very natural to begin to fear. Even if you know he didn't mean to wait until this moment to do it, he now has all the means to coerce you and since you don't know him, you have no idea how he's going to react.

3. All of the people I know are due to #2 also decent people who would newer do that. As the kind of people who would tend to end up as social dropouts that are left behind around high school. (The last is from my experience, so might be wrong.)

How do you know they'd never do that? Remember, 84% in that study didn't consider their actions rape despite them being outright legal rape, let along rape in a moral sense. And that doesn't even account for people who know what they're doing but don't let their friends know about it.

[Purple]

How do you know they'd never do that? Remember, 84% in that study didn't consider their actions rape despite them being outright legal rape, let along rape in a moral sense. And that doesn't even account for people who know what they're doing but don't let their friends know about it.

Well to be perfectly honest I can't give you that answer. How can you say that the people whom you know as good and decent are in fact such? I will admit that this is not something that is neatly quantifiable. There is no such thing as a wont-rape-o-meter I can turn on them. Just like there is no would-not-cheat-you-o-meter or won't-betray-you-o-meter. So there is no way that I can ever give you a definitive or even vague proof of that. But at the same time I know them well enough that I would be willing to stand, even before a court of law and testify to that they wouldn't. At least not without being seriously drunk or high them self.

I know of people who would. There is no denying that. But such people tend to either be football hooligans or members of social groups that are generally seen as undesirable and to be avoided by my own. Like say religious extremists or ultranationalists. Or drug dealers. You know, the kind of scum of the earth that you would expect to do such things. And this will inevitably effect my perspective.


As for the second part. That is something that I find especially perplexing. I have been trying to figure it out but I can not. I know what that is supposed to mean on paper. As in that people supposedly don't consider having sex with someone who consents whilst drunk or high rape and stuff like that. Even when they have actually gotten that someone drunk or high on purpose for the explicit reason of gaining said consent. But I can't seem to get my self into the mindset to actually get it. I understand it intellectually. But it just does not seem cognitively valid to me. When ever I try and put 2 and 2 together in this case I always get 5.


I mean don't get me wrong. I can now see the point of view that provoked said reaction. But at the same time I want you to see that the average middle class white male. Especially one who has newer had experience within an university housing campus simply can not hold the same viewpoint. And that this is where the accusations come from. And not from some sort of inherent malice.

[Andrew_Fireborn]

My google-fu has been failing for years, so I have not been able to find this AMA report. The actual AMA website has nothing on their page's internal search either.

This is interesting, because the wording in those percentages is vague to the point of: "Women who don't consider themselves rape victims are actually rape victims." I'd like to see what answers they were given, and how they chose to interpret them.

[Scrib]

The root cause is that people are attacking a woman and questioning her sanity because she vented about a situation that made her feel unsafe that dealt directly with the topic she just gave a speech on. They're denying her ability to ever even call the situation unsafe because it makes them feel uncomfortable about themselves.

These people should get over themselves. However, I am pretty sure going full panic mode whenever you see a male or are being propositioned by him is wrong as well. I think everyone - not just females - is making a threat assesment of strangers whenever they meet them and are uncomfortable.

But really, I fail to see how being propositioned for sex is supposed to make people uncomfortable per se. How are you supposed to ask somebody out at all then? In my opinion, as long as there is no pressure involved, asking someone out is the most natural and innocent thing in the world.

Who went full panic mode? That's certainly how Watson's detractors have tried to paint it but I don't think that's how it happened. Watson, iirc correctly, made a statement in a video about a con she went to. It took a few minutes. It wasn't a rant. Her advice was basically "guys...don't do that.". Not basically actually, literally if my memory is not failing me. Then she moved on and the internet exploded.

As for where the pressure came from: I assume that it was a result of being in an enclosed space with a man that now knew your floor and potentially, your room, and you now had to say no to and stay in the lift awkwardly with.Not to mention that he apparently went to her panel and completely ignored her speech on this very matter. Now,I personally don't see it as that big a deal but I'm not a woman nor have I been in any traumatic situation where I felt unequal in such a manner.

It was a simple note: guys, this makes some women uncomfortable. It's like people telling you to never grab someone you're trying to flirt with from behind at a club or party or something (well, slightly heavier). It's just something you can choose to not do. Or do anyway betting that most women don't care.

I don't particularly like Watson or her whole Skepchick bunch, but the rage here was something else.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

I know of people who would. There is no denying that. But such people tend to either be football hooligans or members of social groups that are generally seen as undesirable and to be avoided by my own. And this will inevitably effect my perspective.

No. No they aren't. Rapists come from all social groups, not just the evil jocks or poor people or whatever groups you list as "undesirables". Nerds on web forums who spend their time watching ponies and anime and love video games? A not insignificant portion of them are rapists, or would do it if the chance came.

As for the second part. That is something that I find especially perplexing. I have been trying to figure it out but I can not. I know what that is supposed to mean on paper. As in that people supposedly don't consider having sex with someone who consents whilst drunk or high rape and stuff like that. Even when they have actually gotten that someone drunk or high on purpose for the explicit reason of gaining said consent. But I can't seem to get my self into the mindset to actually get it. I understand it intellectually. But it just does not seem cognitively valid to me. When ever I try and put 2 and 2 together in this case I always get 5.

Be happy you're like this, then. There's a lot of people who balk at the idea of avoiding having sex with someone who's too intoxicated to consent. And they're everywhere. I argued with dozens on Space Battles. There's probably a bunch here.

There are other things, too. A lot of people don't consider it rape if the victim doesn't actively resist and fight back, or if she doesn't say no, or if she's saying yes while obviously under duress, or sometimes even if she's ever had casual sex before, or any other things where consent is obviously not there but they're unable to fathom the importance of it outside of their own perspective.

I mean don't get me wrong. I can now see the point of view that provoked said reaction. But at the same time I want you to see that the average middle class white male. Especially one who has newer had experience within an university housing campus simply can not hold the same viewpoint. And that this is where the accusations come from. And not from some sort of inherent malice.

I know you can't hold the same viewpoint... or, well, in my case I'd say you can't come from the same perspective. We may be talking about different things. But what I'm saying is why deferring to those who can have the perspective of those affected by the issue should have a say.

I mean, we all scoff at the idea of a panel of men deciding women's rights, but it still happens. That's just one of the most extreme examples, but it's still seen so often that it's the cliché.

[Andrew_Fireborn]

See, that amuses me.

By saying intoxicated women can't consent, they're enshrining as law that women are too mentally infirm to be allowed to make poor choices. That they cannot take into account the fact that if they imbibe alcohol they might make choices they'll regret later.

And then, they state that this is the pro-women equality stance.

[Thanas]

Who went full panic mode? That's certainly how Watson's detractors have tried to paint it but I don't think that's how it happened. Watson, iirc correctly, made a statement in a video about a con she went to. It took a few minutes. It wasn't a rant. Her advice was basically "guys...don't do that.". Not basically actually, literally if my memory is not failing me. Then she moved on and the internet exploded.

I was talking about Jogurt, not Watson. I don't know her nor her comments, but really, the whole thing does not seem to be a big deal.

Feminism can and in fact must handle outside criticism, or else it would've imploded long, long ago.

What I'm asking for is that movements to combat oppressions would get the most useful criticisms from within

I really doubt that. Look to the most famous movement to combat oppression, the movement to abolish slavery. It needed a lot of criticisms from realists before it got political clout.

, since it's so hard for people who have privilege to truly know what it's like and so they're very prone to dismissing it outright. And it's something where yes, I'm asking for "special treatment" and not putting it on an even playing field. The narrative's always been in the hands, over here at least, of straight white men telling things from a straight white male perspective and ignoring or even outright covering up things that go against it. It's to the point where bigotry is so institutionalised that even people oppressed by it internalise a lot of it.

I think a lot of that depends on the people doing the criticism.

I mean, for the obvious example, look at how women fiction writers tend to do a pretty good job of writing men, but male writers can't boast the same success rate.

Who do you regard as a good female fiction writer? Because in my experience I have seen a lot of bad jobs, not necessarily limited to gender.

It's the context. If you're a person who's at actually fairly high odds of being sexually assaulted in your life, and someone waits (deliberately or not) until you're in a situation where you are alone, no escape and no witnesses, to basically ask for sex, I find it very, very natural to begin to fear. Even if you know he didn't mean to wait until this moment to do it, he now has all the means to coerce you and since you don't know him, you have no idea how he's going to react.

I get that but I think it is a bit problematic. How do you expect men to ask you out then? Now granted, I'm not Don Juan so my experiences may not be authoritative, but it seems to me the problem is that almost any situation where women are being asked out can turn ugly, or that anytime you ask someone you know out in private is such a situation. Does that make it fair to characterize everyone as a potential rapist? I think this is what purple was getting at (though maybe he expressed himself badly) when he used the parallel to black men.

Now, as to this, Is someone knowing your room number when asking you out a problem per se? I don't think so, because that would mean acquintances should never ever ask each other out.

As to the PZ Myers blog, I share his opinion about Shermer based on the things written there.

By saying intoxicated women can't consent, they're enshrining as law that women are too mentally infirm to be allowed to make poor choices. That they cannot take into account the fact that if they imbibe alcohol they might make choices they'll regret later.

Nobody is saying that at all. A person might go out on a date and drink with the assumption that she wants to have sex with the person she is on the date with. But a person cannot consent to sex in my opinion unless she already intended to give consent before getting drunk.

Or, to be blunt, do not stick your dick into drunk woman who have not made their intentions clear before.