Sexual violence and the law - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Crime and prevention thereof. Loopholes, grey areas and the letter of the law.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14718429
Syph wrote:The burden of proof in a trial should rest on the perpetrator to prove enthusiastic consent before and during a sexual encounter if the following criteria are met:
  • The victim filed a contemporaneous police report.
  • A rape kit was taken.
  • There is evidence of violence to the victim's genital area consistent with rape.

The following arguments should be unnacceptable defence against a charge of sexual violence:
  • Commentary of victim's clothing, reputation or behaviour prior to the initiation of the sexual act.
  • The perpetrator and/or victim was intoxicated with drugs or alcohol.
  • The victim didn't verbalise a "no" at any point.

Great idea Syph!

I think we should use this new system for Muslim immigrants and asylum seekers. What went in Germany at new year clearly showed can't just carry on as before. We should also look at applying it to Hindu men and other particularly nasty patriarchal cultures. However the rest of our male citizens should keep their rights as before.
#14718483
How does that even make sense? Who gave a thumbs up to that? What do rape kits and vaginal damage have to do with immigration?

It's like nobody is actually reading what @Syph said and just think that they are asking for a free pass to throw everybody in jail. No, they are saying that if there is overwhelming evidence beyond a reasonable doubt then we should treat rape like every other crime.
#14718490
Syph wrote:Thank you for your contribution to the thread, Wellsy. I've learned a lot from your posts.

Hope it's not too verbose and fairly comprehensible though, so as not to be a painful read.

You are right. Alcohol is a factor is a lot of consensual sex but it is also a factor in coerced sex as well. Imagine a situation where a person declines an offer of sex, is given alcohol by the proposer and then has sex with them. Such scenario is uncomfortable as it's in that grey area in normal circumstances but rape where the standard is affirmative consent.

Agreed, it is one of the most common means for coercive sex.
Though I imagine to ease peoples' minds would have to get into a messy area of discerning what may be wants true want of sex but merely uninhibited from someone whose mentally messed up and can't give valid consent. I think when it gets to these grey areas, the judgement would often be presumed about how predatory or coercive it was. To which I imagine the law would judge harshly those that ignore the drunkardness of their partner and attempt to use a liberal excuse of not knowing, or being drunk which would be a weak defense if the emphasis was that the onus is on the individual to know with reasonable belief that they could get and did have someones consent.
http://www.trinitinture.com/documents/wallerstein.pdf
However, protecting the positive dimension of the sexual autonomy of these women comes at the price of not protecting the negative dimension of other women who chose to get drunk without such intention—just because the wanted to Wertheimer argues that because the disinhibiting effects of alcohol are widely understood, a permissive approach should not be regarded as introducing predatory behaviour in which ‘A takes advantage of B’s ignorance’. 65 But this is a misrepresentation. The issue is not one of ignorance, but of vulnerability. Predatory behaviour is a behaviour of taking advantage of a person found in a vulnerable position. Women who get drunk become vulnerable even if they get into this position consciously. When men take advantage of such a situation, they act in a predatory manner, and, therefore, when the law is willing to legitimise such behaviour (by acknowledging a drunken consent as valid consent), the law legitimises predatory behaviour. This is a question of getting the balance between the positive and negative aspect of sexual autonomy right. As a sole public policy consideration, it is not weighty enough to tilt the balance and overcome the problem of lack of capacity to consent, especially when accepting a less restrictive approach (which does not require pre-intoxication consent) comes at the expense of women who are being harmed and view themselves as victims of rape (and are recognised as such as a matter of normative fact).

Don't actually have to show great detail here, because I think this is getting into the sort of debates one would have with law. Personally I don't think I'm familiar enough to draw the finer details that reckon would make for the best legal policy. But I do side with the sense that people in a lot of cases wouldn't be victims of the justice system being over bearing necessarily as much as the justice sytem changes to punish those that acted on those who arguably were in a vulnerable state. To which a lack of knowledge, true or not, is no defense and I would think quite a dubious defense that I wonder what one might argue to give it some weight.

I agree that the problem is systemic, but change in such institutions is painfully slow and the scale of sexual crimes is huge. There is no easy answer and in an ideal world, rapid change could be enacted to cultural and justice attitudes to make our society one that victims feel comfortable to come forward.

Indeed it's quite slow, I think the affirmative consent thing can play a positive role in protecting persons like in the quote above, so exceptionally drunk persons. Though when I say a change in law isn't needed, it's because I think we can readily interpret that the drunk woman from the Wallersteinpaper was raped under current laws, rather it was faulty logic stemming from fear that biased the case. Affirmative consent could indeed play a role in challenging the normative sense of sexual relations.

It is my understanding that the initiator of the sexual encounter would be held culpable in sex-positive circles. I agree that no-one should be punished in this case if there was no evidence of predatory behaviour.

Indeed, if a person was drunk and acted upon another drunk person, it could still be rape. But that is assuming that it's not playing out in the asserted ideal of affirmative consent, with mutual agency to have sex. It just happens both of their consents are invalid due to intoxication, there's no one to charge with rape in that, unless one wants to charge both which seems problematic.

Affirmative consent is merely a mechanism by which two potential sexual partners express enthusiasm for a sexual act but respect the other when they show signs of discomfort. Such consent can be non-verbal (i.e. mutual touching) or verbal in the form of asking for consent etc.

I do think we should encourage sexual verbal communication to avoid mishaps. I'm not suggesting asking every stage of the encounter but being playful with it such as stating intent and appreciating the response. This makes everything so much clearer rather than winging it.

Agreed, should be encouraged, if a person can't communicate for sex, then I don't think they're ready for sex. Because they're missing out on all the best bits of saying "FUCK ME" and things like that and really getting at the other physically. Which I say to stand in contrast to the hyberbolic characterization of affirmative consent being one of signed contracts and monotone statements and questions for each proceeding sexual act.
Because another example that I think isn't currently protected under law without changing it to affirmative consent, is I've seen someone get off where it was actually impossible by the legal standards to convict them. When they were having consensual sex with their girlfriend but they forced her to do anal, by doing it without her consent.
I personally think the affirmative consent standard is most logical on account that it actually presents persons as not having an enduring state of consent until revoked. But puts focus on consent not being presumed until reasonably believed to be acquired.
Which makes perfect sense until persons get uneasy about their sex lives and identify with the possiblity of being convicted more so than protected. It follows teh same logic in that it's not okay for a doctor to do certain things without your expressed consent, nor is it okay to take someone elses property under the premise that it was simply okay and you'd get their consent for it later. Because without consent, it would be stealing in that scenario.

This is really convincing, thanks. How would this change be enacted? Education of law enforcement personnel?

Geez, that's a hard questino off the top of me head.
Questionable if there is effective education, I also think that for special divisions that work on sex crimes, they're generally on point. It's just a lot of the average police are nuffies, I suppose an effective means would be including women in the police force. Though we find that's hard because police like the army are all about machismo and sexually harassing their own officers.
Suppose for long term when peopel bring up sex ed they should emphasize sex ed with gender and power dynamics in th eeducation since that's what's lacking in peoples understanding which undermines their capacity to nvagite and negotiate things effectively nor acknowledge how things play out.
Already know kids who have such a sex education perform better in reduce rates of STDs and such. But it's an important means of consiousness on gender relations that kids may not be informed about, which is why it's a struggle against wowsers and traditionalists who'll cry cultural marxism for informing their kids.
It's hard for me to be discrete because there's always thing that can change and paly a part. Like working mothers who enjoy working tend to raise daughters who feel like they can pursue a career and boys who more likely to participate in doing household chores. Which may seem distantn but could eb part of diminishing the tradtional gender role identification which ma ymake them better able to question social relations and step away from some of the stereotypes around sex.

Perhaps I was unclear in my analogy, the driver (drunk or otherwise) initiating sex and the potential passenger answering the offer affirmatively or negatively.

To the part you quoted, it wasn't a characterization of your analogies. Other sections were, but that was more a reference to what I've seen people written in the past, where I argued that a vicitm can't be culpable of a crime and that they're confused about what responsbility they thought the victim had.

Within the BDSM community, one partner is often a sexual object for the other to use as they please. However, this has two caveats:
  1. Two active participants discuss their kinks and draw up limits to the sexual activity before any sex has taken place.
  2. The "top" is responsible for the "bottom" and must check in to see if they are okay if they are worried and stop play immediately if the "safe word" is utter by the "bottom"
The explicit consent is present in these sexual encounters and a mutual respect and trust is required before engaging in these acts.

Good example of someone being passive but consenting.
This is where I think the Wallerstein paper in discussing intoxication makes a point about agreement to sex prior to being drunk. Which wouldn't be a magic bullet, but it does help support the sense that sex was wanted, though would have to explore whether was still wanted at that moment.

[img]A few ideas:
  • An explicit "yes" in the absence of coercion.
  • An implicit yes in terms of mutual touching after one partner initiates.
  • Respecting "no" or discomfort through body language and checking in.
[/img]
I can agree with that in as general and vague as we can be without trying to debate like lawyers since they want specific lines drawn up where things are okay or not, not liking ambiguity.
I think last one is a good point, since it points to the ability to revoke consent. That one may reasonably believe to have gotten consent, but if something changes and a person wants to stop and one keeps going, then they are assaulting them. Though in this case, the onus is on the person who wants it to stop to effectively communicate this verbally or non-verbally. To which would then have to debate to what extent was it effectively communciated and thus consent clearly revoked and was it reasonable for the other to have been aware of what was communciated.

The burden of proof in a trial should rest on the perpetrator to prove enthusiastic consent before and during a sexual encounter if the following criteria are met:
The victim filed a contemporaneous police report.
A rape kit was taken.
There is evidence of violence to the victim's genital area consistent with rape.

Not sure if there should be a burden of proof for just this, in that these things aren't enough to conclusively deduce rape occured. Quite often such things can only deduce sexual acts, so if someone said they didn't have sex and then there was evidence of their sperm or what ever, then their story takes a blow. But even when there is signs of violence such as bruising and stuff, people just rely on stereotypes of BDSM and say it was particularly violent but consensual. This has sometimes resulted in BDSM stuff being criminalized so it can't be used as an excuse in sexual crimes. So this isn't firm grounds on deducing rape.

I think to be more specific the person is required, regardless of affirmative consent or not to defend themselves from the idea that they raped someone. So if sexual encounter can be proved, they might then go well it was consensual. Then the prosecution has to show convincingly why this not likely the case to which the defense might just try and attack that evidence, but it may also take the route of proving that it was consensual.
This I think would be similar to an affirmative defense in which it seems unlawful until they show otherwise that they infact did have lawful consensual sexual encounter. The problem though is that the prosecution needs to first convincingly argue that rape did occur, without that, there's no need for them to prove anything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense

Might have to come back tot his since don't have an explicit sense of burden of rpoof but am concern might be taking the concept to a dangerous level or it needs to be cleared up to what extent it is expected to perform. Since I think people would interpret this that there's a presumption that they're guilty and they need to prove that they're innocent. But I think more accurately, they need to prove it wasn't rape occurs the moment that a strong case is shown that it might've been rape as opposed to the points above being all that's needed to be convinced a rape occurred.
Last edited by Wellsy on 15 Sep 2016 04:53, edited 1 time in total.
#14718523
Syph wrote:I'm talking about sexual violence outside prisons not just on campus. I really don't want to take this topic in a racial direction aside from an intersectional feminist direction.


That's precisely what I'm doing: I'm taking it in an intersectional feminist direction. You made a thread about sexual violence and the law, I am simply pointing you to where the problem of sexual violence is. Instead you seem more interested in pushing your own brand of tribal politics.

The issue is our prison-industrial complex, not Brock Turner.


Rubbish, I've been condemning prison rape. It's lower on my agenda because sexual violence as a whole dis-proportionally affects women. It's not as important to me because men are not a historically oppressed group. It also seems a bizarrely American phenomenon but I could be corrected.


First of all, "condemning rape" is the most superfluous thing that someone can do. Even patriarchal ideology condemns rape. If you have to remind someone that you condemn rape, you are not communicating your argument very well.

You are of course wrong. Sexual violence disproportionally affects men more than women, especially in Anglo countries that have a racial underclass. The notion that women are somehow more vulnerable to sexual violence is actually an attitude rooted in patriarchy.

You are also wrong about men not being a historically oppressed group. It is because of patriarchy that men are more likely to die in an industrial accident, in wars or armed conflicts, or by suicide.

Again, feminism isn't about "women's issues" as you've stated. You are confusing bourgeois identity politics with feminism. Feminism is anti-patriarchy and universal human emancipation.
#14718598
Wellsy wrote:http://www.trinitinture.com/documents/wallerstein.pdf

The document mentioned "positive and negative sexual autonomy" is this analogous to Isaiah Berlin's "positive and negative liberty"?

Wellsy wrote:Agreed, should be encouraged, if a person can't communicate for sex, then I don't think they're ready for sex. Because they're missing out on all the best bits of saying "FUCK ME" and things like that and really getting at the other physically. Which I say to stand in contrast to the hyberbolic characterization of affirmative consent being one of signed contracts and monotone statements and questions for each proceeding sexual act.

I couldn't have put it more eloquently myself. This is the culture I want to live in, where bodily autonomy is respected by default rather than taken for granted.

Wellsy wrote:Which makes perfect sense until persons get uneasy about their sex lives and identify with the possiblity of being convicted more so than protected.

This is so key because raising the standard to affirmative consent may make many people question how consensual their past sex was. They may feel guilty in retrospect.

Wellsy wrote:That one may reasonably believe to have gotten consent, but if something changes and a person wants to stop and one keeps going, then they are assaulting them. Though in this case, the onus is on the person who wants it to stop to effectively communicate this verbally or non-verbally. To which would then have to debate to what extent was it effectively communciated and thus consent clearly revoked and was it reasonable for the other to have been aware of what was communciated.

The water is really muddy because there is a complex interaction between the proposed law and gender roles. Women being socialised to be agreeable and meet other's standards could make them reluctant to communicate verbally. For non-verbal communication to be recognised by most men, they need sensitive to it or actively looking for it which is disruptive to the task at hand.

Wellsy wrote:Since I think people would interpret this that there's a presumption that they're guilty and they need to prove that they're innocent. But I think more accurately, they need to prove it wasn't rape occurs the moment that a strong case is shown that it might've been rape as opposed to the points above being all that's needed to be convinced a rape occurred.

It was an extreme measure, I don't think shifting the burden of proof is ideal by any stretch and tackling the cultural issues at the heart of rape investigations is a better direction to take.

Donald wrote:I'm taking it in an intersectional feminist direction. You made a thread about sexual violence and the law, I am simply pointing you to where the problem of sexual violence is. Instead you seem more interested in pushing your own brand of tribal politics.

I know what you are trying to do and I won't take the bait to derail this thread wildly off topic. If you want to discuss prison rape and/or the impact of patriarchy on men, I suggest you make another thread(s).
#14718605
The topic is sexual violence and the law. Donald's concerns are within the bounds of this discussion and not off-topic.

Most of Syph's measures are extreme, and contrary, to the rule of law(in most civilized countries) that states people are innocent until proven guilty. That should never change.

I see a lot of misandry from Syph. Is there a reason for this?
#14718609
Syph wrote:I know what you are trying to do and I won't take the bait to derail this thread wildly off topic. If you want to discuss prison rape and/or the impact of patriarchy on men, I suggest you make another thread(s).


It's a thread about sexual violence and the law. You are being arrogant.
#14718611
Syph wrote:The document mentioned "positive and negative sexual autonomy" is this analogous to Isaiah Berlin's "positive and negative liberty"?

I don't believe it translates 1:1 in terms of positive to positive and negative to negative. Instead, it appears that could use both positive and negative liberty to characterize aspects of positive autonomy. In that positive autonomy would require there be no obstacles/obstructions, but the person themselves has the capacity to pursue sex.
http://www.trinitinture.com/documents/wallerstein.pdf p. 330
The concept of sexual autonomy is a complex one, and there is inherent tension between its negative and positive dimensions. The positive dimension entails respecting the freedom to make choices concerning intimate sexual relations, whereas the negative dimension entails recognition and protection of the right to refuse such relations. This is the basis for the offence of rape and other sexual offences. These offences are necessary in order to allow each woman to make her own choice as to the people with whom she would like to have sexual intercourse, and it is closely related to the protection of the woman’s absolute domain of sexual intimacy.44

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/
Negative liberty is the absence of obstacles, barriers or constraints. One has negative liberty to the extent that actions are available to one in this negative sense. Positive liberty is the possibility of acting — or the fact of acting — in such a way as to take control of one's life and realize one's fundamental purposes. While negative liberty is usually attributed to individual agents, positive liberty is sometimes attributed to collectivities, or to individuals considered primarily as members of given collectivities.

In a famous essay first published in 1958, Isaiah Berlin called these two concepts of liberty negative and positive respectively (Berlin 1969).[1] The reason for using these labels is that in the first case liberty seems to be a mere absence of something (i.e. of obstacles, barriers, constraints or interference from others), whereas in the second case it seems to require the presence of something (i.e. of control, self-mastery, self-determination or self-realization). In Berlin's words, we use the negative concept of liberty in attempting to answer the question “What is the area within which the subject — a person or group of persons — is or should be left to do or be what he is able to do or be, without interference by other persons?”, whereas we use the positive concept in attempting to answer the question “What, or who, is the source of control or interference that can determine someone to do, or be, this rather than that?” (1969, pp. 121–22).


It was an extreme measure, I don't think shifting the burden of proof is ideal by any stretch and tackling the cultural issues at the heart of rape investigations is a better direction to take.

It' not ideal in that it's quite problematic depending on what you meant (Edit though I now see that here you're expressing that I changed your mind in that cultural change is more significant in the post below.
Because I can see how this sounds like you're want things to move from a presumption of innocent until proven guilty to guilty until proven innocent. This is fundamentally unjust and incompatible to the ideals of any just justice system.
In the example I described before, one is innocent until proven guilty and when enough evidence is mounted to suspect one is guilty, one could, though is not compelled, counter the assertion of rape by affirming that consensual sex occured. When proving a lack of consent, one must prove it 'beyond a reasonable doubt', without having been achieved, then one's case isn't likely to put much pressure on the defense to counter it.
I think because of the difficulty in proving it, should think not then consider shifting the burden of proof. Instead should look at ways that improve the chances of proving a lack of consent beyond a reasonable doubt. This is where I suggested pre-text calls may be useful for effective police investigations in getting a confession from the accused before they suspect they're about to be possibly charged.

Even in thinking in terms of utility, it could be useful to improve the justice system to compensate persons who are raped and even support the provision of services so that they can get help should they experience truamatic symptoms. That has great utility and is easier to provide than to get some one sent to prison for years. Though there's problems in the narratives that look down upon women who pursue charges through civil caughts for compensation.
http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1360&context=dlj

I fear that this desire to shift the burden of proof has proven an effective material to smear against the idea of affirmative consent and has confused people into thinking affirmative consent = burden of proof for not having raped someone placed on the defendant. This is simply a wrong way of any justice system approaching any crime no matter how displeased we are with the current results within society.
https://blog.simplejustice.us/2014/10/31/proof-of-consent-in-rape-cannot-be-shifted-to-the-accused/

To ease the vengence we might feel, I think it can be useful to note that while rape is traumatic, many women can still pursue happy and meaningful lives. It's been quite shocking to me how many women I've come into contact with who've experience sexual violence, even to the degree of being raped. But in spite of such a traumatic experience, they do continue to live and enjoy life. It certainly fucked with them a great deal, but in those moments, it's an important time for support. The utility in improving the justice systems collection of evidenc and such to prove a rape goes as far as imprisoning someone has the utility of reducing the chance of future sex crimes. But this isn't as useful for a victim that's already been raped who needs support.
So I would think it might be useful to consider ideas on how to support victims but also means to change the conditions that give rise to prevalent sexual violence, so it's pre-emptively dealt with (ie crime reduction). Which is much better endeavor than the criminal justice's post hoc reaction to crimes that have already occurred. Though an effective justice system is important to maintaining a relatively stable society, when justice system sucks, people know they can get away with shit.
And beyond the very suggestion I made earlier about an expansive sexual education for all, there are probably larger means in challenging the sort of gender dynamics that create the sort of violent behaviour and the attitudes that defend it in practice and rhetoric.
Last edited by Wellsy on 15 Sep 2016 13:43, edited 2 times in total.
#14718612
Godstud wrote:The topic is sexual violence and the law. Donald's concerns are within the bounds of this discussion and not off-topic.

I'm not going to encourage him to present an argument that men are the real oppressed class. I've spent a long time disentangling myself from misogynistic bullshit I absorbed from the Manosphere.

Godstud wrote:Most of Syph's measures are extreme, and contrary, to the rule of law(in most civilized countries) that states people are innocent until proven guilty. That should never change.

Wellsy has given me a better insight into the flexibility of the current law. Cultural change is a better avenue for the changes I want.

Godstud wrote:I see a lot of misandry from Syph. Is there a reason for this?

Please. Nothing I've said is remotely misandrist. Are statistical realities misandrist? I hate people who are assholes regardless of their gender hence my disdain for toxic elements of male gender roles.
#14718616
Syph wrote:I've spent a long time disentangling myself from misogynistic bullshit I absorbed from the Manosphere.
Your Feminazi speak is excellent, I see.

Syph wrote:Cultural change is a better avenue for the changes I want.
Cultural law tends to favour men. I can't see why you think this is the answer.

Syph wrote:Nothing I've said is remotely misandrist.
Much of what you are proposing and said paints all men as rapist wannabes. Your first statement, in this post, that I quoted is very misandrist.

Syph wrote:I hate people who are assholes regardless of their gender hence my disdain for toxic elements of male gender roles.
What of the toxic females. I suppose they're OK, right?

All your talk is about how bad MEN are, from the very start of this thread, Syph. You claiming some neutral ground, at this point, is quite laughable, especially since you suggest numerous times that men should be charged and considered guilty in all rape cases. Would you make the same statements regarding women in rape cases, or are you not aware that female rape happens, as well?

No, I suppose you wouldn't. Men are the enemy, aren't they, Syph?
#14718622
Syph you're a typical Islamo-feminist down on men in general but lets not doing anything about the Muslims pushing their vile patriarchal ideology. In traditional Islamic societies rape is the norm, consensual sex is the acceptance. I wouldn't surprised if you have a similar soft spot in you heart for Black gangster rapists. Because lets not pretend Black gang / rap culture isn't rape culture. So I repeat what I said before your idea of presuming guilt rather innocence is a good idea when dealing with Muslim immigrants. but there are other backward inferior Patriarchal cultures where we should consider using this policy.
Last edited by Rich on 15 Sep 2016 17:01, edited 1 time in total.
#14718683
Wellsy wrote:This is simply a wrong way of any justice system approaching any crime no matter how displeased we are with the current results within society.

I proposed an extreme measure for an extreme problem. Thanks to you I can see other solutions while maintaining the burden of proof on the prosecution.

Wellsy wrote:So I would think it might be useful to consider ideas on how to support victims but also means to change the conditions that give rise to prevalent sexual violence, so it's pre-emptively dealt with (ie crime reduction). Which is much better endeavor than the criminal justice's post hoc reaction to crimes that have already occurred. Though an effective justice system is important to maintaining a relatively stable society, when justice system sucks, people know they can get away with shit.
And beyond the very suggestion I made earlier about an expansive sexual education for all, there are probably larger means in challenging the sort of gender dynamics that create the sort of violent behaviour and the attitudes that defend it in practice and rhetoric.

Well said. Sadly, law enforcement is largely reactive due to using metrics that require crime to be committed to assess police performance. Proactive policing is better for everyone.

Thompson_NCL wrote:You've failed to explain what is toxic about the elements of masculinity you've described.

It's quite self-evident why the behaviours I mentioned in my previous post are toxic. The majority of people who strongly express elements of dominance, aggression, competitveness and insatiable libido in a single package are at best unpleasant to be around, at worst highly dysfunctional.

This article by Harris O'Malley (Dr Nerdlove) explains this concept much better than me. Wellsy posted it earlier.

Godstud wrote:Much of what you are proposing and said paints all men as rapist wannabes.

That is your interpretation I have been very clear in claiming that 98% of rapists are men. About 1/60 men are rapists and commit and average of 10 rapes.

I've merely been trying to help the men in this thread understand that it's reasonable for an individual woman to be wary of men.

Godstud wrote:What of the toxic females. I suppose they're OK, right?

Extremes of gender roles are both toxic. I'm advocating a happy medium where people don't feel coerced into behaving a certain way because of their sex or gender identity. Ideally, a description of someone's personality or behaviour wouldn't have any correlation with their gender.

Godstud wrote:Would you make the same statements regarding women in rape cases, or are you not aware that female rape happens, as well?

Given that I've recognized more legal nuance and now see my own measures as largely unnecessary, I would still like to see female rapists brought to justice.

Rich wrote:Syph you're a typical Islamo-feminist down on men in general but lets not doing anything about the Muslims pushing their vile patriarchal ideology.

You see it's statements like this that show how poorly understood feminism is. Women in the West roundly condemn the patriarchical aspects of Islam. The nuance of Third Wave Feminism is that it recognises that white feminists telling muslims feminists what they should want is patronising. Such interventions often lead to regression and crush indigenous feminism.

Feminists know the costs of meddling and are leaving the feminists in the Muslim world to get on with their reform undisturbed.

https://twitter.com/SocialistFuture/status/1172795[…]

I could not believe when I saw that this morning […]

43% of my electricity is renewable. !00% of my e[…]

Election 2020

We are pretty late in the business cycle, so a re[…]