Are Women Oppressed in the West?

[Lexten]

5) So somebody is so frozen up and terrified (after giving consent) that they are completely incapable of physically pushing the other person away or audibly asking them to stop but can somehow inaudibly withdraw their consent. Seriously?

Or alternatively, someone in a bondage scenario who is tied up says the safeword, but the other person doesn't hear it.

If you were in a bondage scenario and the pain got too much wouldn't you scream the safe word rather than saying inaudibly?

]quote="Jello Biafra";p="29482902"]It is possible for someone to have consensual and nonconsensual sex on the same night.
Also, there could be massive prosecutorial misconduct.

Yes, but I assume that someone who has been raped can tell the difference between their rapist and somebody who they had consensual see with. [/quote]
Sometimes people get intoxicated and pass out, or are otherwise too intoxicated to consent and remember what happened.[/quote]

Well if they have sex with multiple people on the same night and can't remember anything, then yes it does become difficult to prove. But how would they know they had been raped and feel the need to press charges if they can't remember anything?

[Chessmistress]

What I'd like from feminists is that they admit that they do not have a model for ethical interaction with men. because they don't. Until they do and indicate they are willing to discuss it fairly, I entirely oppose any furthering of the feminist socio-political agenda.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_ethics
Is any of these specific enough for you?

He asked about how women should interact with men.
Feminist ethics is about how women can and should more freely express ourselves and about how society should give the right value to our free expression and recognise the inherent value of women's way of thinking ("the women's knowledge" is the most common expression) - Feminist ethics isn't about how women should behave with men.
He asked for a fair conversation, not for deception.

[New Edom]

You make a concerning amount of threads on this sort of topic, New Edom.

That said, Western society is still patriarchal. Women are still subject to a degree of misogyny and discrimination here, and the need for feminist activism should not be downplayed because females aren't legally considered property anymore.

What I'm doing is breaking down the issues as presented by feminists. It's not enough to say "i am dubious about feminist practices and ideas". I think that with philosophy, history, psychology, biology and other ideas that go into who we are and why we are that way that you have to break down the separate issues. So this is a key one: are women oppressed? Because oppression is a kind of igniting word that suggests immediate action is needed to many people. It's also very controversial. You say the things you said above as though they're just common knowledge and obviously true. But are they?

I would argue that women have ready access to all of the following:
- public communications
- public transportation
- education up to the highest degrees available
- running for political office up to the highest offices available
- holding military and paramilitary organizational ranks up to the highest office
- holding judicial rank up to the highest
- able to initiate a private suit of law
- able to have a fair trial
- can take measures to prevent pregnancy
- can marry whomever they please or divorce if they please in nearly every Western country as far as I know
- can own property in their own right
- can legally defend themselves where laws permit a citizen to do so
- can hold any job they demonstrate qualification for
- where there is a straight wage (ie this job pays 14.50 an hour) they get he same wage as men (the only differences really are in general demographic wages and in salary negotiations which is an entirely different subject)
- are entitled to medical treatment fairly according to the laws of their countries

So looking at this list, this doesn't look like oppression. I would argue that women wer far less oppressed generally as a demographic than chattel slaves in the US for instance during the 19th Century and were able in some Anglosphere countries at the end of the 19th to hold assemblies that disagreed with the status quo and were able to challenge them. The responses varied and were I suspect more based on the social responses to dissent generally. (in Canada for instance there was little violence or even arrest or prevention of women's activism for equal rights in the public and private sphere)

I generally agree that men and women should be equal. However the popular presentation of how people should go about this by modern mainstream feminism is something I have a lot of doubts about in some areas and utter disagreement about in others.

[New Edom]

What I'd like from feminists is that they admit that they do not have a model for ethical interaction with men. because they don't. Until they do and indicate they are willing to discuss it fairly, I entirely oppose any furthering of the feminist socio-political agenda.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_ethics
Is any of these specific enough for you?

Well let's take a look at what we have here. (I have studied this. There's virtually no area of feminism I have not at least taken a look at.)

"The goal of feminist ethics is the transformation of societies and situations where women are harmed through violence, subordination and exclusion. When such injustices are evident now and in the future, radical feminist activists will continue their work of protest and action following careful appraisal and reflection"
-- Betty McClellan

Hm. That doesn't sound like it's about how women ought to treat men. Taking a look briefly through her book, I find chapters on how women are silenced. There's a small homage to intersectionality there, but I'm dubious about how that covers the average man in the West. Let's take a further look.

The closest I can find to what you hint might be there is the 'Ethics of Care' concept Gilligan and others have proposed. It's a popular core philosophy within feminism which proposes essentially that women are more empathic, maternal and caring than men and that this approach is what will dismantle patriarchy. So really, this approach assumes that women will treat men well because they are at heart naturally caring.

So do you actually believe that or do you see something in that link I didn't see?

[Gravlen]

Yet it has happened again, as is illustrated in the book Inside the Cell: The Dark Side of Forensic DNA by Erin E. Murphy (Nation Books, 2015.)

I haven't read the book and I'm not going to for an Internet debate so I can't comment on the scenarios in it.

OK, I'll leave you with this quote instead:

Although generally quite reliable (particularly in comparison with other forms of evidence often used in criminal trials), DNA tests are not now and have never been infallible. Errors in DNA testing occur regularly. DNA evidence has caused false incriminations and false convictions, and will continue to do so. Although DNA tests incriminate the correct person in the great majority of cases, the risk of false incrimination is high enough to deserve serious consideration in debates about expansion of DNA databases.
- William C. Thompson, professor of criminology at the University of California, Irvine, and an expert in DNA evidence

A boss is having consensual sex with a subordinate. During the encounter they joke around, and the boss says "well you have to have sex with me, or I'd have to fire you". The next time the boss initiates an encounter, the subordinate feels coerced into having sex, and feels there's a real threat of being fired if s/he refuses. It was subjectively not a threat, but the power differential in their relationship makes it complicated.

That does count as consent and would count legally because:
1) You are under duress when violence is threatened against you or people you feel a responsibility for. Not a loss of material gain.

Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed.) defines duress as "any unlawful threat or coercion used... to induce another to act [or not act] in a manner [they] otherwise would not [or would]".

Alternatively, it is defined as Unlawful pressure exerted upon a person to coerce that person to perform an act that he or she ordinarily would not perform.

There is no requirement that violence has to be threatened. Any unlawful pressure would fall into this category, including non-violent threats.

2) A reasonable person would know that they can report a situation like that to the HR department of the company and/or sue the boss because what they thought the boss said is obviously illegal.

Irrelevant. We're not talking about what the company may or may not do.

Alternatively, there was a case where a man threatened to kill himself if his ex wife didn't have sex with him. She was afraid what could happen to their child, who was sleeping upstairs, and felt that this was a threat against both her and her child. Objectively, he only threatened to harm himself, but in that situation she subjectively felt threatened.

That wouldn't count as consent and the husband could also probably be charged with domestic abuse (or something similar) because the man is threatening violence towards somebody that she could be expected to feel responsible for (himself).

Indeed, and that's what the court ruled. But the point is, it's not a black or white answer. Reasonable minds might come to a different conclusion.

This is not about me, this is about what people in this situation experience. And there are indeed people who are consious yet not moving and not saying anything while having sex.

I'm sorry but it is completely ridiculous to continue having sex with somebody who is completely still, completely silent, breathing very shallowly, has their eyes glazed over/closed and isn't reacting to any of your movements without at least checking if they're awake.

You're adding extra factors now.

While there are some mute people who know sign language, that's mainly an thing for deaf individuals.

And if you agree that someone can give consent through nodding, then you agree in general that you don't need a verbal response in order to establish consent.

If the body language is completely unambiguous and they're actively engaging in the act, then yes that us consent, and is recognised as such by the law.

Hence, there is no absolute requirement that a person "consented verbally".

The eyewitnesses could not say what had happened before they came upon them, however. The eyewitnesses could not say whether or not she had consented previously, at a time when she wasn't unconscious.

Are you saying that if one person consents to sex and then passes out, and the other person still has their consent?

I'm saying that the eyewitnesses could not say whether or not she had consented previously, at a time when she wasn't unconscious, rendering the statement "Either you didn't give consent and were raped or you gave consent and weren't" moot. She might have given consent, but she was still raped.

Inaudible - unable to be heard.
If the other person was not able to hear them then they are unable to be heard.

I never said "unable to hear", I said they didn't hear.

What I said about consent applies when two people have had sex. Obviously. In the article you linked they hadn't and there was another reasonable explanation.

It wasn't really a reasonable explanation, but that thread has been done.

The definition I used to establish whether somebody has been raped is also the definition most legal jurisdictions use. The only grey areas there are are to do with whether or not there was consent and the answer to that varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and person to person.

There are several grey areas. That's why there's so many lawyers.

[Frenline Delpha]

Definitely an interesting video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmL2Xna1VdE

[New Edom]

Definitely an interesting video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmL2Xna1VdE

Yes, this is a doctrine proposed by such persons as Michael Kimmel, a male feminist, when he dismisses any concerns men have and says that if we eliminate patriarchy then everything will be fine. But redefinition is a tool used by any group trying to shift things in their favour, which is what feminists are doing. Anyway Straughan as usual makes good points, thanks for posting this. I encourage others to watch this.

[Dameth]

Definitely an interesting video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmL2Xna1VdE

Yes, this is a doctrine proposed by such persons as Michael Kimmel, a male feminist, when he dismisses any concerns men have and says that if we eliminate patriarchy then everything will be fine. But redefinition is a tool used by any group trying to shift things in their favour, which is what feminists are doing. Anyway Straughan as usual makes good points, thanks for posting this. I encourage others to watch this.

Karen Straughan is a gold mine of good ideas. Altho I think she doesn't go far enough on her investigation and decided to stop her researches, which is a shame. She's the strong indep women every feminist wishes they were.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

So looking at this list, this doesn't look like oppression.

There are degrees, New Edom. In the nineteenth century, slaves had more rights, "opportunity" in life, and were treated much better in states like Virginia than they were down in Louisiana and Mississippi - but the black population was still very much oppressed.

I would argue that women wer far less oppressed generally as a demographic than chattel slaves in the US for instance during the 19th Century...

Talk about a low fucking bar.

Seriously, do you hear yourself? I think you're probably right, white women were much better off than chattel slaves; is the American treatment of slaves the standard for "oppression" all of a sudden?

I generally agree that men and women should be equal. However the popular presentation of how people should go about this by modern mainstream feminism is something I have a lot of doubts about in some areas and utter disagreement about in others.

Luckily - thanks to feminism - women today have the right to ignore these bullshit doubts.

[Charmera]

So looking at this list, this doesn't look like oppression.

There are degrees, New Edom. In the nineteenth century, slaves had more rights, "opportunity" in life, and were treated much better in states like Virginia than they were down in Louisiana and Mississippi - but the black population was still very much oppressed.

True. But black people couldn't vote back then and women can, so the situation is not completely the same.

Luckily - thanks to feminism - women today have the right to ignore these bullshit doubts.

What about these doubts makes them bullshit? What exactly is wrong with doubting something?
Skepticism is a useful process to engage in, and doesn't necessarily devalue the point of someone else so long as they can reasonably prove that their point is correct. It's good to discuss things and have different points of view, and though you may have the right to ignore doubts, silencing people not a very healthy way of dealing with opposing opinions. Getting pissy when someone has an opposing point of view doesn't help anyone and merely serves to annoy people.

[Arcipelago]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_ethics
Is any of these specific enough for you?

He asked about how women should interact with men.
Feminist ethics is about how women can and should more freely express ourselves and about how society should give the right value to our free expression and recognise the inherent value of women's way of thinking ("the women's knowledge" is the most common expression) - Feminist ethics isn't about how women should behave with men.
He asked for a fair conversation, not for deception.

This is an example of backwards thinking. You are saying that women don't express themselves "freely enough", why should that opinion be reflected on half of society. Do you know all women? Society does give value to women's free expression and way of thinking, but again you have decided that it doesn't give the right value. This opinions are subjective and you are saying that all women see, act, and are treated the same which isn't true. Feminist ethics in your view isn't how women should be have to men, but how you feel the world should give the right value to the vastness of different women. Can you see how this blanketing of all women's voices and thoughts should be treated as equal is not rational, not fair, and undermining all women to be victims of not being given the right value.

[Dameth]

Luckily - thanks to feminism - women today have the right to ignore these bullshit doubts.

What about these doubts makes them bullshit? What exactly is wrong with doubting something?

And more importantly, when did feminist enacted legislation for women to have the right to ignore anything ?

Women can ignore anything they want. The fact they don't ignore stuff and go to great lenght about what normal people consider menial stuff is actually the core of the problem.

I mean. Seriously.
>Thanks to feminism, women can do what they have been doing since the dawn of time ! Holy be andrea dworkins
Source pls.

[New Edom]

He asked about how women should interact with men.
Feminist ethics is about how women can and should more freely express ourselves and about how society should give the right value to our free expression and recognise the inherent value of women's way of thinking ("the women's knowledge" is the most common expression) - Feminist ethics isn't about how women should behave with men.
He asked for a fair conversation, not for deception.

This is an example of backwards thinking. You are saying that women don't express themselves "freely enough", why should that opinion be reflected on half of society. Do you know all women? Society does give value to women's free expression and way of thinking, but again you have decided that it doesn't give the right value. This opinions are subjective and you are saying that all women see, act, and are treated the same which isn't true. Feminist ethics in your view isn't how women should be have to men, but how you feel the world should give the right value to the vastness of different women. Can you see how this blanketing of all women's voices and thoughts should be treated as equal is not rational, not fair, and undermining all women to be victims of not being given the right value.

I think though to be fair that while she's defining feminism rather strictly--and she IS a radical feminist--she is also stating that Jello Biafra responded with a link about feminist ethics from wikipedia which doesn't really address my question, and she's right, it didn't. Feminist ethics as described focuses hugely on how WOMEN should be treated along with perhaps vulnerable emembers of society as defined by feminists. I can't think of any feminist philosophers, jurists or anything else who really address how men should be treated by women. Even bell hooks, who is like the standard bearer for intersectionality, barely touches on it and raises more questions than she provides answers.

[New Edom]

So looking at this list, this doesn't look like oppression.

There are degrees, New Edom. In the nineteenth century, slaves had more rights, "opportunity" in life, and were treated much better in states like Virginia than they were down in Louisiana and Mississippi - but the black population was still very much oppressed.

I would argue that women wer far less oppressed generally as a demographic than chattel slaves in the US for instance during the 19th Century...

Talk about a low fucking bar.

Seriously, do you hear yourself? I think you're probably right, white women were much better off than chattel slaves; is the American treatment of slaves the standard for "oppression" all of a sudden?

I generally agree that men and women should be equal. However the popular presentation of how people should go about this by modern mainstream feminism is something I have a lot of doubts about in some areas and utter disagreement about in others.

Luckily - thanks to feminism - women today have the right to ignore these bullshit doubts.

1. People talk about women being objectified and being treated as objects. But I'm dubious about that one. I think some women were, some women weren't. However certainly today that assertion is very dubious and I want to see solid objective proof with a comparative standard that isn't made up.

2. I gave a big lists of the rights women enjoy in our society. Are you saying that they don't have those rights? Are you saying there are other rights I left out that men do have that women don't?

3. Someone else pointed this out, but I will too: has feminism become the one true religion or something, where doubting it casts you into some kind of dungeon or whatever? Even if feminism were a scientific body of thought like biochemistry I would still have every right to say "I don't get it, why should I believe this works?" and then further question people who start explaining it. If it's important, then surely this is an important process.

[Lexten]

I haven't read the book and I'm not going to for an Internet debate so I can't comment on the scenarios in it.

OK, I'll leave you with this quote instead:

Although generally quite reliable (particularly in comparison with other forms of evidence often used in criminal trials), DNA tests are not now and have never been infallible. Errors in DNA testing occur regularly. DNA evidence has caused false incriminations and false convictions, and will continue to do so. Although DNA tests incriminate the correct person in the great majority of cases, the risk of false incrimination is high enough to deserve serious consideration in debates about expansion of DNA databases.
- William C. Thompson, professor of criminology at the University of California, Irvine, and an expert in DNA evidence

Okay, maybe not foolproof, but as your source acknowledges, it's reliable. It's also probably the gold standard in forensic evidence if the evidence isn't mishandled. In addition to witnesses, statements from both the alleged victim and perpetrator both at the scene and in court, police reports and competent attorneys (who can inform the juries of the issues that you pointed out to the jury just by googling) there is more than enough checks to ensure that you have the right person.

That does count as consent and would count legally because:
1) You are under duress when violence is threatened against you or people you feel a responsibility for. Not a loss of material gain.

Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed.) defines duress as "any unlawful threat or coercion used... to induce another to act [or not act] in a manner [they] otherwise would not [or would]".

Alternatively, it is defined as Unlawful pressure exerted upon a person to coerce that person to perform an act that he or she ordinarily would not perform.

There is no requirement that violence has to be threatened. Any unlawful pressure would fall into this category, including non-violent threats.

If you read a little further under your link you will see that the page appears to be referring to contract law, where the standard for duress is lower.

Your own source says that 'forcible compulsion is (1) physical force that overcomes such earnest resistance as might reasonably be expected under the circumstances; (2) threat or intimidation, either express or implied, placing the victim or another person in fear of death, bodily injury, or Kidnapping'.

2) A reasonable person would know that they can report a situation like that to the HR department of the company and/or sue the boss because what they thought the boss said is obviously illegal.

Irrelevant. We're not talking about what the company may or may not do.

I assume the boss is a manager of some kind. If a manager fires an employee because they wouldn't have sex with them, any reasonable person would know that the company would stop it (or that they could sue the company if the company didn't).

That wouldn't count as consent and the husband could also probably be charged with domestic abuse (or something similar) because the man is threatening violence towards somebody that she could be expected to feel responsible for (himself).

Indeed, and that's what the court ruled. But the point is, it's not a black or white answer. Reasonable minds might come to a different conclusion.

I'm sorry but it is completely ridiculous to continue having sex with somebody who is completely still, completely silent, breathing very shallowly, has their eyes glazed over/closed and isn't reacting to any of your movements without at least checking if they're awake.

You're adding extra factors now.

No, that's what happens when you're unconscious.

If the body language is completely unambiguous and they're actively engaging in the act, then yes that us consent, and is recognised as such by the law.

Hence, there is no absolute requirement that a person "consented verbally".[/quote]

Okay.

Are you saying that if one person consents to sex and then passes out, and the other person still has their consent?

I'm saying that the eyewitnesses could not say whether or not she had consented previously, at a time when she wasn't unconscious, rendering the statement "Either you didn't give consent and were raped or you gave consent and weren't" moot. She might have given consent, but she was still raped.

Except you can take away consent at any time if you want to stop. I thought that was implied. I didn't mean to give a strict dictionary definition that applies in every concievable circumstance and my statement was simply to show that the status of being raped is binary. Either you were or you weren't.

Inaudible - unable to be heard.
If the other person was not able to hear them then they are unable to be heard.

I never said "unable to hear", I said they didn't hear.

Yes but they did not hear the other person because their ears were physically unable to hear the other person.

[Frenline Delpha]

Definitely an interesting video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmL2Xna1VdE

Yes, this is a doctrine proposed by such persons as Michael Kimmel, a male feminist, when he dismisses any concerns men have and says that if we eliminate patriarchy then everything will be fine. But redefinition is a tool used by any group trying to shift things in their favour, which is what feminists are doing. Anyway Straughan as usual makes good points, thanks for posting this. I encourage others to watch this.

I'd also recommend her partner in crime, DrRandomercam.

[Khalisako]

Western women seem to have lost their way in the world. No longer good wife material. They're pointlessly indifferent from their male counterparts. Especially in government positions, they've no clear role or purpose that seperates them from men. Women can be in positions of power, but only if those positions of different from the positions of men. The two must keep eachother in check, not run wild like they are. Or, one have more power than the other.

The western woman doesn't want to grow up, she wants to be like child and "keep the party going" while shirking responsibilities. Feminism allows them to get away with this behavior, it's an excuse to be lazy, introducing chaos into the family structure. They'll often create abundant amounts of illigitimate children that'll grow up without proper guidance, become menaces to society in adulthood.

You do not need so much "freedom" to be happy. What you need is structure and purpose... which i currently see very little of in western women. I couldn't imagine being part of such a system, I don't think I could function.

[Charmera]

Western women seem to have lost their way in the world. No longer good wife material.

The many things wrong with this statement...
Do I even need to list them?

They're pointlessly indifferent from their male counterparts. Especially in government positions, they've no clear role or purpose that seperates them from men.

This makes no sense.

Women can be in positions of power, but only if those positions of different from the positions of men. The two must keep eachother in check, not run wild like they are. Or, one have more power than the other

As Intriguing as this statement is, I'm fairly sure the problem is not either gender "running wild" nessecarily.

The western woman doesn't want to grow up, she wants to be like child and "keep the party going" while shirking responsibilities. Feminism allows them to get away with this behavior, it's an excuse to be lazy, introducing chaos into the family structure.

Huge and perhaps insulting Genelization with little to no backing.

They'll often create abundant amounts of illigitimate children that'll grow up without proper guidance, become menaces to society in adulthood.

Again, generalization with no evidence.
I doubt very much women just run around producing babies when they're free. In fact it tends to be the less economically free families which produce the most children.

You do not need so much "freedom" to be happy.

Actially, there are studies to suggest economic freedom at the very least can lead to happier people.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/new-s ... le/2569070

What you need is structure and purpose... which i currently see very little of in western women. I couldn't imagine being part of such a system, I don't think I could function.

Another massive generlization. Though I do see what you mean about having a purpose to ones life, but what if someone decides that purpose is to hedonistically party, and feels unhappy doing anything else. Giving people the freedom to choose is always better than forcing them into shackles of even the most comfy variety. If they choose to be bound to something, that is their prerogative.

I'm not a feminist by any means, but I feel like people should be free to choose in most cases as long as they don't hurt themselves or others. I can see the appeal of secure structure myself, but we must remember that not everyone shares our mindset. You may not feel like you can live in their system, but they might also feel the same way about yours.

[Jamessonia]

Definitely. You only need to look at the gender makeup of politics and business leaders to see that. While most Western nations have fully equal rights for both men and women, women's voices are still silenced in modern culture and women are still often taken less seriously than men.

[Felrik]

Is this stupid thread still going.

[Felrik]

Honestly, let the bloody thread die.

[The balkens]

Definitely. You only need to look at the gender makeup of politics and business leaders to see that. While most Western nations have fully equal rights for both men and women, women's voices are still silenced in modern culture and women are still often taken less seriously than men.

Pretty sure thats just feminists.

[Novsvacro]

No. And anyways, women are supposed to fulfill certain duties and men are supposed to fulfill separate duties. We're different.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Definitely. You only need to look at the gender makeup of politics and business leaders to see that. While most Western nations have fully equal rights for both men and women, women's voices are still silenced in modern culture and women are still often taken less seriously than men.

That happens less and less now. Although it still happens and there are certain stupid ideas about ''women are too emotional for politics'' that need to die. But I think the women with the biggest problems are those in the Middle East and Asia, more than in the West. This is not to say that there are inequities at play.

[The United Republic of Prussia]

Women are no oppressed in the west, they actually receive more benefits than their male counterparts. Fe(male) Privilege