The NationStates Feminist Thread II

[Minzerland II]

Eh. Isn't rape a forced action of penetration against the anus, vagina or otherwise without the consent of the victim, being initiated by the perpetrator?

I mean, I'm having trouble grasping this...

As we know a child is unable to consent, so I'm not sure this would happen if it was two adults.

So child molestation?

[Alvecia]

That's why I clarified that I'm unsure as to exact legal definitions involved here. But functionally, doing it personally or forcing them to do it to themselves don't seem much, if at all, different, so I find it reasonable to assume that they'd have the same or similar legal status.

Terminology, I believe, is very important. tbh, I don't care about their legal definition, I care about the standardised definition a tad bit more. Couldn't the same be said for manslaughter and murder?

Eh...don't think they're quite analogous. Difference between manslaughter and murder is the difference between accidental and intentional.
In this case either done personally or forced to do themselves, it's still sexual activity forced upon them, the only difference being the amount of actual physical contact.

[Minzerland II]

Terminology, I believe, is very important. tbh, I don't care about their legal definition, I care about the standardised definition a tad bit more. Couldn't the same be said for manslaughter and murder?

Eh...don't think they're quite analogous. Difference between manslaughter and murder is the difference between accidental and intentional.
In this case either done personally or forced to do themselves, it's still sexual activity forced upon them, the only difference being the amount of actual physical contact.

Fair enough.

[Gravlen]

You actually can rape someone over the internet.

No you cannot. A rape involves forced physical intercourse. What you linked is clearly abuse of some sort, but it's not rape.

Of course, "rape" is a vaue term with differet definitons (legal or otherwise), but you're wrong. It's rape in Minnesota, and it ould be rape in many othe jurisdictions as well.

[The Grene Knyght]

What do y'all other feminists think about revolutionary feminism - the idea that the full realisation of feminist ideals cannot be realised until the destruction of capitalism - or alternately, feminism is intrinsically tied to the liberation of the working class.

Personally, I'm for this idea (in case my flag doesn't give it away lol). I mean its simple enough in my eyes - capitalism is a system of oppression, wielded against women (and men), so its destruction is integral to the liberation of women.

I don't see how capitalism's "destruction" can liberate women, unless we're making the assumption that somehow women do not benefit from capitalism, which isn't so much an ideology but a loose definition of a free market (or roughly semi-free) economic system, or that somehow it can be wielded against a specific gender group.

Women are oppressed by society. Capitalism is a huge part of modern society. As far as I can tell from your past posts on this forum, you don't agree with the first, so I don't imagine you care about the second's relationship with the first.

Not only this, but gender roles are more influenced by society rather than by the economic system. Women in the Soviet Union are no more "liberated" than they were beforehand or afterwards and the same goes for other socialist or communist states. Romania for example banned abortion, although that wasn't specifically something related to communism or socialism but rather than an example of absolute power corrupting absolutely. The fact is that unless society changes, progress cannot be made. Society changed to the extent that women at the turn of the 20th century had few, if any rights, and by the end of the century, they had a large number of rights through changes in society and a transition away from what many call "traditional values". And this being the capitalist West, for the most part, made these changes without the need for violent revolution or an abandonment of the system from which women could benefit from too.

Sure, its possible for a tiny fraction of women to benefit from this system - as well as a significantly larger proportion of men - that doesn't mean they can't be oppressed by it too. Different people experience different levels of oppression. You said progress cannot be made without a change to society, which is exactly what I want. In some ways, women were less oppressed under the USSR (of course, in some ways they were more oppressed, too, but not because of the economic system). For example, they had I believe the first sitting female MP in Europe (Not the first one in Europe overall though, but thats a different story).
Also, you specify a violent revolution, which isn't something I ever mentioned.

The problem with this is that you also stated that you were approaching this from a Marxist perspective. What makes this perspective more viable than the perspectives of a Trotksyist or a Leninist or a Maoist or any other variant of communism/socialism? More importantly, how do you tie social views stemming from religious texts and economic systems together?

Marxism is a system for analyzing a society. Communism, socialism and their various offshoots are economic systems.

[The Grene Knyght]

That's why I clarified that I'm unsure as to exact legal definitions involved here. But functionally, doing it personally or forcing them to do it to themselves don't seem much, if at all, different, so I find it reasonable to assume that they'd have the same or similar legal status.

Terminology, I believe, is very important. tbh, I don't care about their legal definition, I care about the standardised definition a tad bit more. Couldn't the same be said for manslaughter and murder?

I think the usage of the term "rape" here was more for clickbait than anything else. The article only implies, but never expressly states, that this person was sentenced for the crime of rape.

[Gravlen]

How does one rape someone through a computer monitor?

Presumably through coercion.

I mean, I don't know the legality of it, but if I forced you to fuck yourself at gunpoint, I'd consider that rape.
Similarly if you force someone to fuck themselves through a computer monitor, I'd consider that rape as well.

[/quote]
You are on the correct path here.

Eh. Isn't rape a forced action of penetration against the anus, vagina or otherwise without the consent of the victim, being initiated by the perpetrator?

I mean, I'm having trouble grasping this...

You don't need a penis to rape someone. Well, you do in some jurisdictions, but by a more common definition, you don't.

That means that you don't need to penetrate someone with a penis. You can penetrate someone using your fingers, for example. For an example, think Brock Turner and what he intended to do.

However, there's no requirement that it's a part of your body being used to penetrate someone else either. You may use a sex toy, a candle, a broom, or whatever object you find suitable for the crime.

Does this mean that you go free if you force someone to penetrate themselves using an object? No. If they're doing it because of your threats, for example, it's clearly still done because of you. (Same goes if you threaten someone to have sex with a third person. You are still responsible).

How then does the internet figure into this? Can you do it "through a computer monitor"? You can do it by talking, shouting, over the phone, and also over the internet. The method you choose to communicate via doesn't matter.

In the case I linked to, he met the requirement for rape, or 'first-degree criminal sexual conduct', which doesn't have any limits on the methods used or distance the message is sent over. She was under 13 years old, and she was "sexually penetrated" as defined by Minnesota statutes when she penetrated herself with a hair brush for his sexual gratification. (Meaning "any intrusion however slight into the genital or anal openings of the complainant's body ... by any object used by the complainant ... by inducement if the child is under 13 years of age "). (Of course, the laundry list of what Foster did was long, but this is the most obvious example)

[Gravlen]

Terminology, I believe, is very important. tbh, I don't care about their legal definition, I care about the standardised definition a tad bit more. Couldn't the same be said for manslaughter and murder?

I think the usage of the term "rape" here was more for clickbait than anything else. The article only implies, but never expressly states, that this person was sentenced for the crime of rape.

A man convicted of raping a 13-year-old girl — whom he never met in person — got a prison sentence of nearly 30 years Thursday in Washington County District Court.

http://www.twincities.com/2016/06/09/lake-elmo-teenager-online-sex-slave/

Ali pursued a rape conviction against Foster, even though he and his victim had never met. Foster was sentenced in June to nearly 30 years in prison.

http://www.swcbulletin.com/news/crime-and-courts/4129753-prosecutor-urges-parents-talk-kids-about-dangers-sex-trafficking

[Philjia]

I don't see how capitalism's "destruction" can liberate women, unless we're making the assumption that somehow women do not benefit from capitalism, which isn't so much an ideology but a loose definition of a free market (or roughly semi-free) economic system, or that somehow it can be wielded against a specific gender group.

Women are oppressed by society. Capitalism is a huge part of modern society. As far as I can tell from your past posts on this forum, you don't agree with the first, so I don't imagine you care about the second's relationship with the first.

Everyone is oppressed by society. Everybody's idea of society involves legal, social, or economic oppression. That includes you. The only way to be free from oppression is to be dead.

[Gravlen]

Eh. Isn't rape a forced action of penetration against the anus, vagina or otherwise without the consent of the victim, being initiated by the perpetrator?

I mean, I'm having trouble grasping this...

As we know a child is unable to consent, so I'm not sure this would happen if it was two adults.

In Minnesota, the case could be made for two adults if the perpetrator was either in a position of authority, or if the perpetrator was coercing the victim.

Edit: I struck the first part because it's unlikely that any scenario exists where that could happen, given the definitions in the Minnesota penal code.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

As we know a child is unable to consent, so I'm not sure this would happen if it was two adults.

In Minnesota, the case could be made for two adults if the perpetrator was either in a position of authority, or if the perpetrator is coercing the victim.

When you say "position of authority" you mean a position of direct authority over the victim (say, boss-employee relations) or just any position of authority in general?

Just curious, by the way, it's a question that popped up in my head due to your phrasing.

[Gravlen]

In Minnesota, the case could be made for two adults if the perpetrator was either in a position of authority, or if the perpetrator is coercing the victim.

When you say "position of authority" you mean a position of direct authority over the victim (say, boss-employee relations) or just any position of authority in general?

Just curious, by the way, it's a question that popped up in my head due to your phrasing.

According to Minnesota statutes

"Position of authority" includes but is not limited to any person who is a parent or acting in the place of a parent and charged with any of a parent's rights, duties or responsibilities to a child, or a person who is charged with any duty or responsibility for the health, welfare, or supervision of a child, either independently or through another, no matter how brief, at the time of the act. For the purposes of subdivision 11 [sexual contact], "position of authority" includes a psychotherapist.

Employer-employee relationships is not included. In those cases I guess you'll have to make a case for coercion (or lack of consent).

[Mattopilos]

Women are oppressed by society. Capitalism is a huge part of modern society. As far as I can tell from your past posts on this forum, you don't agree with the first, so I don't imagine you care about the second's relationship with the first.

Everyone is oppressed by society. Everybody's idea of society involves legal, social, or economic oppression. That includes you. The only way to be free from oppression is to be dead.

You can always express the most individualism possible, which minimizes your oppression by definition.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Everyone is oppressed by society. Everybody's idea of society involves legal, social, or economic oppression. That includes you. The only way to be free from oppression is to be dead.

You can always express the most individualism possible, which minimizes your oppression by definition.

Finding the right balance between the individual and society is a little more complicated than that.

[The Grene Knyght]

What do y'all other feminists think about revolutionary feminism - the idea that the full realisation of feminist ideals cannot be realised until the destruction of capitalism - or alternately, feminism is intrinsically tied to the liberation of the working class.

Personally, I'm for this idea (in case my flag doesn't give it away lol). I mean its simple enough in my eyes - capitalism is a system of oppression, wielded against women (and men), so its destruction is integral to the liberation of women.

Given that radical feminism is a liability to not only the feminist umbrella but to society in general, and a Marxist take on feminism would be inherently radical, I would have to say that I would consider revolutionary/Marxist feminism just as dangerous and unhelpful, if not more so, as an ideology.

You're mistaking Radical Feminism with radical feminism. There's a difference.

What do y'all other feminists think about revolutionary feminism - the idea that the full realisation of feminist ideals cannot be realised until the destruction of capitalism - or alternately, feminism is intrinsically tied to the liberation of the working class.

Personally, I'm for this idea (in case my flag doesn't give it away lol). I mean its simple enough in my eyes - capitalism is a system of oppression, wielded against women (and men), so its destruction is integral to the liberation of women.

I don't get what's so inherently "oppressive" about a free market system and democracy, and the ideas under the umbrella of capitalism.
Like, I guess employers can be problematic if they abuse the workforce, by that's typically why we have some elements of government control and regulation in capitalistic societies.

It's inherently oppressive because it creates a class difference inside society, where some people are extremely wealthy and some people are extremely poor. Democracy isn't intrinsically linked to capitalism. In fact I'd argue the exact opposite. And furthermore there are and have in the past been numerous capitalist countries that were ruled by dictatorships or otherwise had there democracies compromised.
The government regulates capitalism, but rarely to the extent that it stops it from oppressing people, especially outside the first world (but not exclusively - e.g. the prison-industrial complex in the US).

What do y'all other feminists think about revolutionary feminism - the idea that the full realisation of feminist ideals cannot be realised until the destruction of capitalism - or alternately, feminism is intrinsically tied to the liberation of the working class.

Personally, I'm for this idea (in case my flag doesn't give it away lol). I mean its simple enough in my eyes - capitalism is a system of oppression, wielded against women (and men), so its destruction is integral to the liberation of women.

It's the final form of co-opted feminism.

I don't think its co-opting if its used in conjunction with other forms of feminism.

[The Grene Knyght]

Women are oppressed by society. Capitalism is a huge part of modern society. As far as I can tell from your past posts on this forum, you don't agree with the first, so I don't imagine you care about the second's relationship with the first.

Everyone is oppressed by society. Everybody's idea of society involves legal, social, or economic oppression. That includes you. The only way to be free from oppression is to be dead.

So? Does that mean we shouldn't try to fight oppression?

[PaNTuXIa]

I don't see how capitalism's "destruction" can liberate women, unless we're making the assumption that somehow women do not benefit from capitalism, which isn't so much an ideology but a loose definition of a free market (or roughly semi-free) economic system, or that somehow it can be wielded against a specific gender group.

Women are oppressed by society. Capitalism is a huge part of modern society. As far as I can tell from your past posts on this forum, you don't agree with the first, so I don't imagine you care about the second's relationship with the first.

"women are oppressed by society"

In Saudi Arabia, sure. In the United States, no. Please take your PC horseshit somewhere else.

[The Grene Knyght]

Women are oppressed by society. Capitalism is a huge part of modern society. As far as I can tell from your past posts on this forum, you don't agree with the first, so I don't imagine you care about the second's relationship with the first.

"women are oppressed by society"

In Saudi Arabia, sure. In the United States, no. Please take your PC horseshit somewhere else.

Right, because we're all americans here. talking about america. If you're not talking about america, you have to specify that you're talking about the other 95% of the world, which might as well exist on another planet to us americans (which is what we all are)

[PaNTuXIa]

"women are oppressed by society"

In Saudi Arabia, sure. In the United States, no. Please take your PC horseshit somewhere else.

Right, because we're all americans here. talking about america. If you're not talking about america, you have to specify that you're talking about the other 95% of the world, which might as well exist on another planet to us americans (which is what we all are)

K sorry, the first world.

I assume you live in the first world?

[Alvecia]

Women are oppressed by society. Capitalism is a huge part of modern society. As far as I can tell from your past posts on this forum, you don't agree with the first, so I don't imagine you care about the second's relationship with the first.

"women are oppressed by society"

In Saudi Arabia, sure. In the United States, no. Please take your PC horseshit somewhere else.

While oppressed is certainly an extreme term, I think there are still some stereotypical views and expectations of women that linger. But the same is also true of men.
Acknowledging that these views exist and are an issue is important, but so is context, and the focus needs to shift to a more straight up egalitarian point of view.

[PaNTuXIa]

"women are oppressed by society"

In Saudi Arabia, sure. In the United States, no. Please take your PC horseshit somewhere else.

While oppressed is certainly an extreme term, I think there are still some stereotypical views and expectations of women that linger. But the same is also true of men.
Acknowledging that these views exist and are an issue is important, but so is context, and the focus needs to shift to a more straight up egalitarian point of view.

I agree. However, Grene is trying to argue that women are "oppressed" in first world nations. They're not.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Right, because we're all americans here. talking about america. If you're not talking about america, you have to specify that you're talking about the other 95% of the world, which might as well exist on another planet to us americans (which is what we all are)

K sorry, the first world.

I assume you live in the first world?

Ireland, apparently. So third world.

[The Grene Knyght]

While oppressed is certainly an extreme term, I think there are still some stereotypical views and expectations of women that linger. But the same is also true of men.
Acknowledging that these views exist and are an issue is important, but so is context, and the focus needs to shift to a more straight up egalitarian point of view.

I agree. However, Grene is trying to argue that women are "oppressed" in first world nations. They're not.

Nope. I'm arguing that women are oppressed by capitalism. If you read what I've argued, you'll see that I've actually specified the third world in one of my arguments. I don't think I ever specified my argument overall as being specific to the first world.

[The Grene Knyght]

K sorry, the first world.

I assume you live in the first world?

Ireland, apparently. So third world.

lol

[Alvecia]

I agree. However, Grene is trying to argue that women are "oppressed" in first world nations. They're not.

Nope. I'm arguing that women are oppressed by capitalism.

How? If I may be so blunt.