The NationStates Feminist Thread III

[The Blaatschapen]

Can someone tell me what rights women don’t have that men have?

There are almost no dresses with pockets

[Cekoviu]

Can someone tell me what rights women don’t have that men have?

There are almost no dresses with pockets

Also applies for many pants and leggings.

[Donut section]

Can someone tell me what rights women don’t have that men have?

There are almost no dresses with pockets

That matches up with there is no way for a handbag to appear manly.

[Galloism]

I'm not sure I can quantify it. I've read quite a lot of these stories since this started (first with campus rape hysteria and then with the #metoo things), and if you read, really read, a lot of it comes out really gray. I'm not saying all of it mind you, not even making a quantification statement regarding majority/minority, just a lot of it is really gray, UNLESS you start with the sexist assumption that women are objects and men are actors.

And that's if you take the accuser's statement at face value. If you try to reconcile accuser and accused, it just gets flat out confusing.

And that is why I tend to be contentious when people bring up these things and dress it up to be a common theme. If you can't quantify it, the only thing you can say with certainty is that it is a thing that happens, not that it is common. Doesn't mean we should focus on it, but people will make these statements in an attempt to remove importance from other problems.

It's common enough that I could find it in literally 30 seconds searching. If I had to estimate, I'd say at least 50% are gray situations.

I'd say the older they are the more skeptical you should be. I don't know what percentage mind you, but memory just isn't accurate over long periods of time. The science is against you.

That being said, the accused has the same problem.

So you can have two people telling the story, both being honest cross-my-heart-hope-to-die, and be telling completely contradictory stories.

Which makes me wonder about if false accusations could possibly themselves be false, leading to a cycle of false-false-false(how many cases there are)-accusations, without any party being 100% sure what the hell the situation even is anymore.

Some could be, sure - just as some false accusations are in fact false (despite the speaker believing in their truth). Our memory really does suck - we're just not aware of it because we have nothing to compare it to except itself.

I have heard of SWERFs. They're very influential in Europe. They also have an unholy alliance with traditional conservatives.

Yep. Don't like sex, or else... you are brainwashed or something, I don't even know. Apparently liking the job is bad, because having a sex drive as a woman is... you know, you can already tell how sexist it sounds and they themselves can't pick that up.

Not just that - they reduce women to infants, unable to work and make choices in the modern capitalist society, without doing the same with men. I mean, if you want to argue capitalism causes all kinds of coercion and that choice is more elusive than you would think, be my guest - you're just arguing against the system. We can talk about it.

However, when you say it ONLY such to women but not men, then you're saying women are inferior to men. I'm against that.

I question whether it's even the majority or minority. I'll remind you of the "male tears" phenomenon - which is a way to gender shame men for speaking about their problems.

I am pretty sure it is more often used to shame men who happen to try and shut down feminist discussion, for better or worse.

Being fair, usually this occurs when "feminist discussion" makes a sexist wrong claim and someone comes along to correct it (because hey, it's the internet, and there's always someone wrong on the internet) like that "women are overwhelmingly the victims of rape" or "men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of rape" or "women only commit DV in self defense" or other such nonsense. When someone comes along to correct it, sure, that's interrupting a feminist a discussion - but it's because that discussion was involved in blatant lying.

Once again, it's assigning him full agency of everything. If he committed suicide, it's because he couldn't face the music of HIS actions, not that he was facing a tsunami of abuse, threats, violence, and other such things, and decided to take the way out.

Ah. Yeah, pretty damn shitty.

Yeah. Not uncommon, though.

On that post I made on facebook, it was noted the reporting definition of rape was in fact updated in 2012:
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/bl ... ition-rape

First, that's the department of justice. The CDC does not use that definition, so it's irrelevant to our discussion here. The CDC uses their own definition which is at odds with the DoJ definition (it also was before, when the DoJ definition was "the carnal knowledge of a woman forcibly and against her will").

Second, while if you squint at it and focus on the verbiage you'll realize "victim" is not defined as penetrator or penetratee, this is not obvious at first glance. The definition may include men made to penetrate. It could certainly be argued that way.

Third, and this brings us to the problem with the second, the FBI (part of the DoJ) relies on local police to report those crimes for statistical purposes, but the FBI technical document for reporting under the new definition does not include a single example of a person made to penetrate. The definition may include made to penetrate, but they made sure not to tell anybody.

Fourth, even if you overcame the third, men are very frequently threatened with filing a false report or wasting police time if they try to report (which I why I encourage men to report WITH a lawyer in tow), so using police statistics to define rape rate is very suspect with that backdrop.

And in Australia:
https://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/25 ... al-offence

I don't know too much about Australia's system you understand, but this paragraph jumped out at me.

For example, there is some inconsistency between jurisdictions with respect to penetration of vagina/female genitalia or anus by a body part or object as well as penetration of the mouth by a penis. Western Australia is the only state in which the penetrative sexual offence includes the use of a victim’s body for penetration of the offender in the definition of penetration/sexual intercourse: Criminal Code (WA) s 319(1).

So western Australia is the only part of australia where made to penetrate is the same as rape, but they don't have a rape statute - just a penetrative sexual offense statute.

Also, this one, one down, jumped out at me:

In some jurisdictions it is specified as penetration of the vagina or anus: eg, Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 50. Penetration of a surgically constructed vagina is not included in legislative definitions in Western Australia or the ACT, nor is it included with respect to penetration of a surgically constructed vagina by an object in Tasmania (Criminal Code (Tas) s 1). For other jurisdictions, see Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 61H(1); Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 35; Criminal Code (Qld) s 1; Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 5(3); Criminal Code (NT) s 1.

Wat.

[New Edom]

Warren Farrell says women's greatest strength is the facade of weakness, and men's greatest weakness is the facade of strength. He's 100% right - that facade of weakness is used to hide all kinds of horribleness and make us dismiss it. That facade of strength is turned against men to make sure any problems they have are dismissed.

I would think feminism is aiming to challenge this. I am sure you will find cases where it is not, but that is the issue with a mixed, mushy movement that still hasn't bred itself out of its earlier movements and ideas.

I haven't seen any evidence that the movement in general is doing anything about this. On the contrary, the popular mainstream movement continues to capitalize on it. This is why #MeToo, the Women's March and the urge to re-educate men keeps coming up, why the campus rape crisis was such a big deal. Modern feminism enormously relies on chivalry to make its case.

This is why the oppression model should be dropped though. I read in a Canadian history text that "women were oppressed in Canadian society in the 19th Century. They were essentially regarded as household support for men and a means of having and raising children." This is presented as a stark fact, and it is left out of the chapter which refers to the start of the suffragist movement how influential the ladies' societies were. See response to your comment below for more.

Like most sociological concepts, oppression is not ahistorical. They should have presented that later on there was more influence that led to strong support for the movement, but the idea they were not oppressed is one I cannot support.

Since in so much of modern sociological discussions I see that this leads to "everything in the past was bad" I don't see what useful purpose it serves. After all this is leading to the stupid idea of tearing down monuments and renaming streets and so on, because people who were heroes of the past were not pure in the minds of modern activists.

I think that those are partially true, although I suspect the point here is that they don't actually attempt to ask the people who question it why they have trouble with the movement, which COULD lead to more civil discussion, and rather they simply respond with "you don't understand". Don't worry, I had that response in a group I was in, because they suspected I was a MRA. Took some convincing to suggest I wasn't. I do sympathize with WHY they are protective - they are generally led into a conversation with what they think might be civil, well thought out, etc., but it turns out it is just someone trying to make the wymenz angry and claim they are irrational and therefore they are right, and that clearly feminists are just emotional wankers that have nothing to say while he is purely "rational" and stands for "equality". That is to say, the defense mechanism on both sides comes from those that don't want a civil discussion, and as such cause people to be on guard for wasted discourse.

There's nothing wrong with being an MRA. MRAs have come to see feminists as their enemies because MRAs were treated as enemies no matter what they said. They so often were faced with feminists who felt that they had the right to simply lecture them and tell them what to do. They had events shut down, were screamed at, insulted, and ridiculed so often that they eventually just went on the attack. I don't blame them at all. When i consider how utterly defensive and arrogant leading feminist activists and academics have been, I think that using MRA as an insult is the height of their stupidity.

[Hirota]

I would think feminism is aiming to challenge this. I am sure you will find cases where it is not, but that is the issue with a mixed, mushy movement that still hasn't bred itself out of its earlier movements and ideas.

I haven't seen any evidence that the movement in general is doing anything about this. On the contrary, the popular mainstream movement continues to capitalize on it. This is why #MeToo, the Women's March and the urge to re-educate men keeps coming up, why the campus rape crisis was such a big deal. Modern feminism enormously relies on chivalry to make its case.

Modern, vocal feminism is almost entirely devoted to making victimhood a currency. It's applying 19th century elizabethan values to make women out to be wallflowers to grant a degree of victimhood to women as a collective. It renders women immune to the responsibility of their own actions.

Also, as for "(breeding) itself out of its earlier movements and ideas" it has done an exceptionally good job of purging large aspects of the empowerment found in things like "girl power" and a reversion back to painting women out as incapable victims.

[New Edom]

I haven't seen any evidence that the movement in general is doing anything about this. On the contrary, the popular mainstream movement continues to capitalize on it. This is why #MeToo, the Women's March and the urge to re-educate men keeps coming up, why the campus rape crisis was such a big deal. Modern feminism enormously relies on chivalry to make its case.

Modern, vocal feminism is almost entirely devoted to making victimhood a currency. It's applying 19th century elizabethan values to make women out to be wallflowers to grant a degree of victimhood to women as a collective. It renders women immune to the responsibility of their own actions.

Also, as for "(breeding) itself out of its earlier movements and ideas" it has done an exceptionally good job of purging large aspects of the empowerment found in things like "girl power" and a reversion back to painting women out as incapable victims.

I'm not so sure they're doing ONLY that. The empowerment thing is still a goal. There is an element of doublethink. Essentially, what I see is that empowerment is encouraged but in such a way as to suggest that it is combatting a patriarchal desire for women NOT to succeed. Oddly enough this is really something that remains popular in some circles. There are still, as far as I can tell, enough women who for some reason really want to see women doing things in leadership and other forms of achievement. I have talked to women who feel a curious lack of confidence about achievement, which is weird because most of the women I have talked to on this subject ARE achievers.

[Mattopilos II]

It's common enough that I could find it in literally 30 seconds searching. If I had to estimate, I'd say at least 50% are gray situations.

Still depends how much people like to report things, and also having to take the spotlight effect into account (i.e. not falling into the idea just because the news reports it often, that it actually occurs that often).

Some could be, sure - just as some false accusations are in fact false (despite the speaker believing in their truth). Our memory really does suck - we're just not aware of it because we have nothing to compare it to except itself.

We have to basically bring long-term memory into short-term to use it, then place it back into long-term... without knowing any changes that might have occurred to what you think might actually be true.

Not just that - they reduce women to infants, unable to work and make choices in the modern capitalist society, without doing the same with men. I mean, if you want to argue capitalism causes all kinds of coercion and that choice is more elusive than you would think, be my guest - you're just arguing against the system. We can talk about it.

However, when you say it ONLY such to women but not men, then you're saying women are inferior to men. I'm against that.

I don't see how doing so to women means saying they are inferior, but I can see how the idea it is purely affecting women can lead to actions that can be perceived as "women simply can't do that".

Being fair, usually this occurs when "feminist discussion" makes a sexist wrong claim and someone comes along to correct it (because hey, it's the internet, and there's always someone wrong on the internet) like that "women are overwhelmingly the victims of rape" or "men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of rape" or "women only commit DV in self defense" or other such nonsense. When someone comes along to correct it, sure, that's interrupting a feminist a discussion - but it's because that discussion was involved in blatant lying.

They are the main perpetrators of rape though. I think you mean to say that when they say that, they tend to brush the other problems away and make it a women-only issue, when the issue is affecting EVERYONE.

Yeah. Not uncommon, though.

I don't think you can claim it is overly common either.

First, that's the department of justice. The CDC does not use that definition, so it's irrelevant to our discussion here. The CDC uses their own definition which is at odds with the DoJ definition (it also was before, when the DoJ definition was "the carnal knowledge of a woman forcibly and against her will").

Other sources would note that the DoJ and the CDC, etc. in America aiming to move away from the term "rape" in place of sexual violence, assault, etc.

Second, while if you squint at it and focus on the verbiage you'll realize "victim" is not defined as penetrator or penetratee, this is not obvious at first glance. The definition may include men made to penetrate. It could certainly be argued that way.

I also made that point, but that's the thing - the victim could be either-or. "Not obvious" isn't really an excuse when it is right there. It is not downright claiming victim = penetrated, so the argument would be pretty moot.

Third, and this brings us to the problem with the second, the FBI (part of the DoJ) relies on local police to report those crimes for statistical purposes, but the FBI technical document for reporting under the new definition does not include a single example of a person made to penetrate. The definition may include made to penetrate, but they made sure not to tell anybody.

That's certainly an issue with the changing of definitions. This applies to the Australian example, where trying to apply it to state law, and federal law, has been a messy business. The changing of a definition turns out to be a big deal in the eyes of the law, and the sooner they catch up, the better.

Fourth, even if you overcame the third, men are very frequently threatened with filing a false report or wasting police time if they try to report (which I why I encourage men to report WITH a lawyer in tow), so using police statistics to define rape rate is very suspect with that backdrop.

That still happens quite often with women as well. rape as a whole is still stigmatised, which is a another reason it isn't catching on very quickly.

I don't know too much about Australia's system you understand, but this paragraph jumped out at me.

For example, there is some inconsistency between jurisdictions with respect to penetration of vagina/female genitalia or anus by a body part or object as well as penetration of the mouth by a penis. Western Australia is the only state in which the penetrative sexual offence includes the use of a victim’s body for penetration of the offender in the definition of penetration/sexual intercourse: Criminal Code (WA) s 319(1).

So western Australia is the only part of australia where made to penetrate is the same as rape, but they don't have a rape statute - just a penetrative sexual offense statute.

But they are attempting to make it nationwide, hence my point. It is suffering the same issues as in America - trying to pass down a specific, edited definition of rape that hasn't seem to caught on everywhere and every level of government.

Also, this one, one down, jumped out at me:

In some jurisdictions it is specified as penetration of the vagina or anus: eg, Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 50. Penetration of a surgically constructed vagina is not included in legislative definitions in Western Australia or the ACT, nor is it included with respect to penetration of a surgically constructed vagina by an object in Tasmania (Criminal Code (Tas) s 1). For other jurisdictions, see Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 61H(1); Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 35; Criminal Code (Qld) s 1; Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 5(3); Criminal Code (NT) s 1.

Wat.

Australia is socially conservative, if you couldn't tell. "Transgender people, in my country!?"
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I haven't seen any evidence that the movement in general is doing anything about this. On the contrary, the popular mainstream movement continues to capitalize on it. This is why #MeToo, the Women's March and the urge to re-educate men keeps coming up, why the campus rape crisis was such a big deal. Modern feminism enormously relies on chivalry to make its case.

One could argue that it is something to try and place power in women's hands. It is pretty semantic. you can claim it is damaging how they are doing it, but that's about it.

Since in so much of modern sociological discussions I see that this leads to "everything in the past was bad" I don't see what useful purpose it serves. After all this is leading to the stupid idea of tearing down monuments and renaming streets and so on, because people who were heroes of the past were not pure in the minds of modern activists.

The past was bad in comparison to now. What purpose it serves is how said ideas and institutions still affect us today, and also to learn from the past in general.
I have already discussed this with Ostro, but I think they ought to be kept, but criticized for what they were - people in the past who did good things with outdated ideas.

There's nothing wrong with being an MRA.

But you would say being a feminist has SOMETHING wrong with it, yes? Gotta disagree.

MRAs have come to see feminists as their enemies because MRAs were treated as enemies no matter what they said.

Goes both ways.

They so often were faced with feminists who felt that they had the right to simply lecture them and tell them what to do. They had events shut down, were screamed at, insulted, and ridiculed so often that they eventually just went on the attack. I don't blame them at all. When i consider how utterly defensive and arrogant leading feminist activists and academics have been, I think that using MRA as an insult is the height of their stupidity.

Yet there are plenty of men's rights groups and such outside the MRM, that don't want to associate with them. Are they less important for not being in the MRM? Are they an anomaly for happening to be able to operate without being attacked by feminists except by the most staunch separatists?

leading feminist activists and academics

Depends who, and who follows them. It is a very inconsistent group either way.

[USS Monitor]

What does DEAT mean? Sorry, I'm a noob.

The history behind the name is a bit meta, but the result is the offending nation is deleted.

The origin is from a typo.

you see we call ourselves egalitarians because we don't want such baggage as
Literally all of Buzzfeed
Big Red
Feminist Frequency
Tumblr
and much much more.

But people know that egalitarian is used to mean "I am not a feminist but too wimpy to say MRA". Its got even more baggage than the term feminist.

"Egalitarian" only has baggage if you make a big show of differentiating it from "feminist." If you just say, "I'm an egalitarian," without any further context, I wouldn't leap to the conclusion that it means MRA. Egalitarian can mean a lot of different things, often referring to non-gendered issues like race or class.

[Costa Fierro]

I don't know too much about Australia's system you understand, but this paragraph jumped out at me.

Australia pretty much has the same broad system as the US does with regards to states being able to have individual legal definitions for certain crimes, but this fits within a common law system as opposed to civil law. This means there isn't any legal "precedent" and judges are able to essentially give sentencing that they feel fits the crime, although there are statutes that have limits for maximum sentences, etc.

Wat.

From what I understand, those states that have rape statutes don't include artificially constructed vaginas as part of them, potentially meaning it's legal to rape MtF transgender people.

Australia is socially conservative, if you couldn't tell. "Transgender people, in my country!?"

Eh, it's somewhat similar to the US in that there's a big division between urban areas which are very progressive and rural areas which aren't. I wouldn't call Australia overly socially conservative based on one instance of state government legislation. Australia is making progress. They've just legalised same sex marriage at a federal level and Victoria has become the first state to legalise euthanasia. Meanwhile across the ditch, we've managed to pass a euthanasia bill past it's first reading for the first time ever but will not likely legalise it until sometime after the new decade because some want to put it to a goddamn non-binding referendum.

For what it's worth, New Zealand's sexual crime laws considers rape to be the forced penetration of the vagina or anus by a penis. Everything else fits under the "sexual assault" definition which legally carries exactly the same maximum prison sentence but does not carry the same social stigma.

Most of that is off topic but I felt that some clarification was required.

[Mattopilos II]

The history behind the name is a bit meta, but the result is the offending nation is deleted.

The origin is from a typo.

But people know that egalitarian is used to mean "I am not a feminist but too wimpy to say MRA". Its got even more baggage than the term feminist.

"Egalitarian" only has baggage if you make a big show of differentiating it from "feminist." If you just say, "I'm an egalitarian," without any further context, I wouldn't leap to the conclusion that it means MRA. Egalitarian can mean a lot of different things, often referring to non-gendered issues like race or class.

But within the discussion here, i.e. feminism, it has that connotation. If it were to be in reference to another place within politics, sure.

[Mattopilos II]

Australia pretty much has the same broad system as the US does with regards to states being able to have individual legal definitions for certain crimes, but this fits within a common law system as opposed to civil law. This means there isn't any legal "precedent" and judges are able to essentially give sentencing that they feel fits the crime, although there are statutes that have limits for maximum sentences, etc.

That was the first thing to jump out at me when I was looking over the definitions - they were actually changed in the same year for both America and Australia under government legislation in 2012.

From what I understand, those states that have rape statutes don't include artificially constructed vaginas as part of them, potentially meaning it's legal to rape MtF transgender people.

Hence my jab below. I can certainly understand the reaction - that is very odd to focus upon. It also seems to ignore something that the American one did bring up, which was that they see penetration by objects to be just as damaging as by the genitals.

Eh, it's somewhat similar to the US in that there's a big division between urban areas which are very progressive and rural areas which aren't. I wouldn't call Australia overly socially conservative based on one instance of state government legislation. Australia is making progress. They've just legalised same sex marriage at a federal level and Victoria has become the first state to legalise euthanasia. Meanwhile across the ditch, we've managed to pass a euthanasia bill past it's first reading for the first time ever but will not likely legalise it until sometime after the new decade because some want to put it to a goddamn non-binding referendum.

Australia in my opinion is essentially wannabe America - we try to have its culture, its views, and its (good) reputation, without actually putting in fucking effort.

For what it's worth, New Zealand's sexual crime laws considers rape to be the forced penetration of the vagina or anus by a penis. Everything else fits under the "sexual assault" definition which legally carries exactly the same maximum prison sentence but does not carry the same social stigma.

Which is pretty much the old definition of rape, which was written in some legal olde English mumbo jumbo: "The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will". I would look up those words but I am lazy.

And as I said with Galloism, the social stigma is what needs to change most, and the rest will tend to follow.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Australia in my opinion is essentially wannabe America - we try to have its culture, its views, and its (good) reputation, without actually putting in fucking effort.

No no NO!

Matt cannot be a straight-talking Australian scientist. He needs to be a flamboyant French duke. I can't deal with this. I'm lowkey triggered right now.

[The Grene Knyght]

Can someone tell me what rights women don’t have that men have?

First one that comes to mind? Bodily autonomy.

[Costa Fierro]

Can someone tell me what rights women don’t have that men have?

First one that comes to mind? Bodily autonomy.

In the words of Donald Trump: "wrong". Men (well boys) don't have bodily autonomy either.

[Galloism]

Mattopolis, I will answer your post in the morning. It will require more thought and time, but this other question needed to be asked.

Can someone tell me what rights women don’t have that men have?

First one that comes to mind? Bodily autonomy.

Men do not now have, nor have ever had, bodily autonomy. What in the Sam Hill are you talking about?

[Zottistan]

The history behind the name is a bit meta, but the result is the offending nation is deleted.

The origin is from a typo.

But people know that egalitarian is used to mean "I am not a feminist but too wimpy to say MRA". Its got even more baggage than the term feminist.

"Egalitarian" only has baggage if you make a big show of differentiating it from "feminist." If you just say, "I'm an egalitarian," without any further context, I wouldn't leap to the conclusion that it means MRA. Egalitarian can mean a lot of different things, often referring to non-gendered issues like race or class.

I mean if somebody wants to express support for women's rights while distancing themselves from feminism as a movement they could always just say "I support women's rights". That's what I do anyway. I think that's a pretty straightforward way of putting it.

[Pontous]

I have a bit of a dumb/weird question, that is kind of on topic?

When dogs hump each other to dominate, would you consider that sexual assault or rape? Obviously Humans and animals have different standards, but do you think such an action satisfies certain criteria to be a sort of rape?

[The Blaatschapen]

I have a bit of a dumb/weird question, that is kind of on topic?

When dogs hump each other to dominate, would you consider that sexual assault or rape? Obviously Humans and animals have different standards, but do you think such an action satisfies certain criteria to be a sort of rape?

I don't think we should apply our standards to dogs. "Anthropomorphy sucks" sayeth the talking sheep.

[Sovaal]

Can someone tell me what rights women don’t have that men have?

There are almost no dresses with pockets

And the pockets and women's jeans are practically useless. Like what the hell is the point of a pocket if the majority of whatever you shove in there sticks out?

[Sovaal]

I have a bit of a dumb/weird question, that is kind of on topic?

When dogs hump each other to dominate, would you consider that sexual assault or rape? Obviously Humans and animals have different standards, but do you think such an action satisfies certain criteria to be a sort of rape?

I don't think we should apply our standards to dogs. Anthropomorphy sucks.

So shit isn't a food group that I can eat then? I think I like being not a dog.

[Galloism]

It's common enough that I could find it in literally 30 seconds searching. If I had to estimate, I'd say at least 50% are gray situations.

Still depends how much people like to report things, and also having to take the spotlight effect into account (i.e. not falling into the idea just because the news reports it often, that it actually occurs that often).

Well, given the spotlight effect is also driving the "movement" at this point, focusing on those in the spotlight is relevant, as those are the ones doing the most good or damage.

Some could be, sure - just as some false accusations are in fact false (despite the speaker believing in their truth). Our memory really does suck - we're just not aware of it because we have nothing to compare it to except itself.

We have to basically bring long-term memory into short-term to use it, then place it back into long-term... without knowing any changes that might have occurred to what you think might actually be true.

Correct.

Not just that - they reduce women to infants, unable to work and make choices in the modern capitalist society, without doing the same with men. I mean, if you want to argue capitalism causes all kinds of coercion and that choice is more elusive than you would think, be my guest - you're just arguing against the system. We can talk about it.

However, when you say it ONLY such to women but not men, then you're saying women are inferior to men. I'm against that.

I don't see how doing so to women means saying they are inferior, but I can see how the idea it is purely affecting women can lead to actions that can be perceived as "women simply can't do that".

Well, let's say you have a captain of an airliner who pulls off an amazing feet of flying when... I dunno, he loses all hydraulic control or something (actually happened more than once).

And then people go around saying "women can't consent to be pilots because they can't handle that situation". I would consider that sexist against women. It would say that women are inferior pilots compared with men.

So when people say "women can't consent to being prostitutes because of economic coercion", but say nothing about "men can't consent to be coal miners because of economic coercion", you're saying women are inferior to men as economic actors.

Being fair, usually this occurs when "feminist discussion" makes a sexist wrong claim and someone comes along to correct it (because hey, it's the internet, and there's always someone wrong on the internet) like that "women are overwhelmingly the victims of rape" or "men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of rape" or "women only commit DV in self defense" or other such nonsense. When someone comes along to correct it, sure, that's interrupting a feminist a discussion - but it's because that discussion was involved in blatant lying.

They are the main perpetrators of rape though. I think you mean to say that when they say that, they tend to brush the other problems away and make it a women-only issue, when the issue is affecting EVERYONE.

It is probably true that the majority of rape is committed by men. Probably. However, once you correct for all the sexism throughout, you get a margin of error larger than the estimated split. It would be most accurate to say "men are the main perpetrators of rape against women" and "women are the main perpetrators of rape against men". You could defend that thoroughly.

First, that's the department of justice. The CDC does not use that definition, so it's irrelevant to our discussion here. The CDC uses their own definition which is at odds with the DoJ definition (it also was before, when the DoJ definition was "the carnal knowledge of a woman forcibly and against her will").

Other sources would note that the DoJ and the CDC, etc. in America aiming to move away from the term "rape" in place of sexual violence, assault, etc.

CDC still uses rape. Just makes sure to tailor the definition sexistly so that it applies almost exclusively to women and leaves out men raped by women. DoJ still uses rape, will discuss that more below.

Second, while if you squint at it and focus on the verbiage you'll realize "victim" is not defined as penetrator or penetratee, this is not obvious at first glance. The definition may include men made to penetrate. It could certainly be argued that way.

I also made that point, but that's the thing - the victim could be either-or. "Not obvious" isn't really an excuse when it is right there. It is not downright claiming victim = penetrated, so the argument would be pretty moot.

It really isn't obvious. Look at the rape addendum they published:

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/20 ... ndum_final

611 men, 26,994 women. I guarantee you made to penetrate isn't being counted (on average). We know men and women are raped at approximately equivalent rates (at least among adults). Even the reporting suppression of men isn't THAT large.

Third, and this brings us to the problem with the second, the FBI (part of the DoJ) relies on local police to report those crimes for statistical purposes, but the FBI technical document for reporting under the new definition does not include a single example of a person made to penetrate. The definition may include made to penetrate, but they made sure not to tell anybody.

That's certainly an issue with the changing of definitions. This applies to the Australian example, where trying to apply it to state law, and federal law, has been a messy business. The changing of a definition turns out to be a big deal in the eyes of the law, and the sooner they catch up, the better.

Except I've contacted the FBI. Several times. They abjectly refuse to change the document.

Fourth, even if you overcame the third, men are very frequently threatened with filing a false report or wasting police time if they try to report (which I why I encourage men to report WITH a lawyer in tow), so using police statistics to define rape rate is very suspect with that backdrop.

That still happens quite often with women as well. rape as a whole is still stigmatised, which is a another reason it isn't catching on very quickly.

I have yet to hear once of a woman being threatened with filing a false report or wasting police time for reporting a rape. I'm not saying it's never happened, but you and I both know there would be a national outcry.

I don't know too much about Australia's system you understand, but this paragraph jumped out at me.

So western Australia is the only part of australia where made to penetrate is the same as rape, but they don't have a rape statute - just a penetrative sexual offense statute.

But they are attempting to make it nationwide, hence my point. It is suffering the same issues as in America - trying to pass down a specific, edited definition of rape that hasn't seem to caught on everywhere and every level of government.

Good luck with that. I'll just point out it's still not equal.

Also, this one, one down, jumped out at me:


Wat.

Australia is socially conservative, if you couldn't tell. "Transgender people, in my country!?"

Not just transgender people. Weird shit happens. Biology is weird.

[Proctopeo]

Mattopolis, I will answer your post in the morning. It will require more thought and time, but this other question needed to be asked.

First one that comes to mind? Bodily autonomy.

Men do not now have, nor have ever had, bodily autonomy. What in the Sam Hill are you talking about?

I'm curious, too. Grene, explain yourself. Please.

[-Ocelot-]

Mattopolis, I will answer your post in the morning. It will require more thought and time, but this other question needed to be asked.


Men do not now have, nor have ever had, bodily autonomy. What in the Sam Hill are you talking about?

I'm curious, too. Grene, explain yourself. Please.

Not him but in some countries (including the US), most male babies undergo circumcision without their consent. In some other countries (e.g: Greece), they get baptized without their consent. Women have less rights when it comes to what the can do with their bodies but men aren't completely free either.

[Galloism]

Women have less rights when it comes to what the can do with their bodies

I'm not convinced that this is the case in the general sense. Can you prove it?